Uncovering Female Child Sexual Offenders

as well as the typology of female offenders, why females commit sexual offences, victimology, and how women are able to use societal norms and denial to mask the abuse.   Previous Research The lack of credence given to female sexual offenders is due in part to only two percent to five percent of incarcerated sexual offenders being female. In addition to the low incarceration rate, recidivism rates for female offenders are 1.5% than the compared male recidivism rate which is 13.5% (Cortoni, Hanson, Coache, 2010; Hanson & Morton-Bourgeon, 2005). Thus, females are less likely to be incarcerated for sexual abuse and are less likely to reoffend. Due to the lack of females implicated in sexual abuse cases more research has been devoted to male sexual offenders as they were believed to be more prevalent. However, the results of male sexual offender research cannot be generalized to encompass female sexual offenders. The lack of research into female sexual offenders perpetuates societies belief that female sex offenders cannot sexually abuse and therefore do not exist (Denov, 2003, 2004). However, recent research has shown that the rates of female sexual abuse is often unreported (Frei, 2008). In a study conducted by Fritz, Stoll, and Wagner (1981) with college students, 5% of the males involved in the study reported being molested as a child with nearly 60% of those molestations perpetrated by females, typically female adolescents. In another study conducted by Risin and Koss (1987), using university students again, reported 7.3% of their sampling pool was abused with 43% of the perpetrators being female. In multiple other research studies, many males reported they did not feel victimized by their female abusers as they participated voluntarily in the sexual acts (Frei, 2008). Why is there such a disparity between the rates seen in several studies to the incarceration rate of female offenders? Research is beginning to uncover that the rate of sexual abuse committed by female offenders is underreported due to the ability for women to hide their sexual abuse though caregiving activities making it more difficult to recognize, they are more likely to target their own children who are less likely to disclose, and they target boys more often that girls who are less likely to disclose the abuse or consider themselves voluntary participants in the abuse (Denov, 2003; Frei, 2008). Thus, the female offender is underreported, under prosecuted and a disparity between incarceration of female offenders is vastly different than incidence rates of female sexual abuse found in the research studies. Due to the lack of reporting and incarceration, the pool in which forensic psychologists can examine female sexual offenders is very small which limits research findings and may lead findings to be very specific to female sexual offenders who are caught. This makes research only apply to a subset of female offenders and does not encompass all female sexual abusers, limiting the ability for psychologists to determine typologies, victimology and treatment options for female sexual offenders. Definitions of Child Sexual Abuse To understand how female sexual offenders prevalence differs from male sexual offenders, an understanding of the definitions of sexual offenders in general for males and females must be explored.  A female sexual offender is any female who engages in criminal sexual penetration, and/or criminal sexual contact with a minor and is charged with a criminal offense within a court of law (Denov, 2003). Pedophilia means “love of children,” and has been used to define adults whose sexual orientation is primarily towards children. Pedophiles may have a sexual attraction to children but may not have committed any molestation of a child unlike child molesters. Child molesters are individuals who have sexually molested a child and can be classified as intra-familial or extrafamilial child molesters (Groth, Hobson, & Gary, 1982). Intra-familial child molesters are typically individuals who abuse his or her own biological children or children for whom he or she assumes a parental role, like step-father or live-in boyfriend (Groth et al., 1982). Extra-familial child molesters are individuals who sexually abuse children not related to him or her (Groth et al., 1982). Child molesters can be considered fixated or regressed based on Groth et al’s (1982) research of incarcerated child molesters. Fixated child molester’s primary sexual orientation is towards children that begins in adolescence and persists into adulthood (Groth et al., 1982).  They typically do not have sexual contact with adults (Groth et al., 1982). Fixated child molesters often plan their sexual abuse and target male children (Groth et al., 1982). They are usually lack social skills and are seen as emotionally immature in society (Groth et al., 1982). Fixated child molesters usually do not have history with substance abuse (Groth et al., 1982). As well, they often feel no remorse or distress over their sexual conduct and behaviour (Groth et al., 1982). Regressed child molesters are primarily sexually oriented to adults and their sexual interest in children begins in adulthood and is episodic (Groth et al., 1982). They typically target female children and are often married with marital issues (Groth et al., 1982). Their molestations are impulsive often precipitated by alcohol use, stress and feelings of inadequacy (Groth et al., 1982). Regressed child molesters are more likely than fixated child molesters to feel regret and remorse for their sexual conduct and behaviour (Groth et al., 1982; Johnston & Johnston, 1997). Regressed and fixated child molesters may use two types of coercion to have the child participate in the sexual acts. Sex-pressure child molesters use persuasion and entrapment techniques to make the child feel obligated to participate (Groth et al., 1982). Sex-force child molesters use threats or physical force to thwart resistance made by the child (Groth et al., 1982). In sex-force child molesters they can be considered exploitative where the threat of force is used to obtain compliance in participation to the sexual act or sadistic where the molester receives sexual gratification from hurting the child (Groth et al., 1982). When looking at the definitions for sexual offenses against children, even they are biased toward male offenders. Sex crimes are often considered as male-specific crimes. Female sexual offenders may be an accomplice to sexual abuse and considered a sexual offender that way (Johnston & Johnston, 1997).

Female offenders may be pressured by a male, or not seen as abusers if the victim does not consider themselves a victim of abuse. Male sexual offender definitions are concrete despite no true “profile” for the male sexual offenders, whereas female sexual offender definitions are ambiguous depending on victim involvement and society’s idea of what a child molester is (Sandler & Freeman, 2011). The lack of a true definition for female sexual offenders, and the fact that most of Groth et al’s research for his typology of child molesters was conducted with incarcerated individuals in 1982, very shortly after female sexual offenses began to be recognized and a lack of female representation in the sampling pool (Holmes & Slap, 1998). The definitions and typology Groth et al. (1982) defines cannot scientifically be externally valid or reliable when cross referencing the population to female sexual offenders in the population, incarcerated or not. The lack of definition for female offenders then in turn affects the way in which a law can indict a female for sexual acts with a child and the ability to incarcerate. Due to the ambiguity of laws and definitions surrounding female child molesters, their prevalence in terms of report of abuse and incarceration for sexual abuse could explain the disparity in prevalence from studies to incarceration rates of female offenders. Typology of Female Sexual Offenders Despite the lack of research into female sexual offenders, multiple types of female sexual offenders have been identified from small sample pools of incarcerated female offenders. However, there is ambiguity of when a female is a sexual abuser or not. If a female is complicit in her husband’s abuse of their child, should she be labeled a sexual abuser? What if the victim is fifteen years old and has had a relationship with his older female teacher and voluntarily participated in the abuse, should the female be considered an abuser if the victim does not consider themselves a victim? Though the idea of a female offender seems clear cut when they sexually abuse an infant, toddler, or young child. When a female sexual offender commits sexual acts with an adolescent boy who may have been a willing participant, they are not viewed the same as if a male sexual offender committed a sexual act with a female adolescent. This is what leads to ambiguity in defining what is a female sexual offender with the overarching theme that females cannot sexually abuse. Thus, the typology for female sexual offenders can be hard to define. Despite the ambiguity and the lack of substantial sample sizes in order to conduct empirically valid and generalized research on female sexual offenders Atkinson (1996) has defined four types of female sexual offenders. The first typology Atkinson defines is the teacher/lover sexual offender. The offender, typically in a position of power or authority, initiates sexual abuse of a male adolescent who they consider to be a peer to them (Atkinson, 1996). The offender will often report that the victim and them are in love (Atkinson, 1996). The prevalence and incidence of this type of offender is unknown due to the lack of victim disclosure to authorities (Atkinson, 1996). Victims do not see themselves as victims and participate voluntarily in the abuse, and if they do not consider the sexual acts as abuse, they will not report it as such. Women in this subtype often struggle with peer relationships and perceive themselves as having romantic and even sexually mentoring relationships with their adolescent victims (Atkinson, 1996). They typically do not find their sexual behaviour with the adolescent to be criminal in nature and view it as a real relationship (Atkinson, 1996). The second type is male-coerced. These female offenders are coerced or forced by an abusive male to engage in sexual abuse of usually the female offender’s own daughter (Atkinson, 1996). These offenders are unassertive, dependent on the abusive male, more likely to have history of sexual abuse themselves, relationship difficulties and are passive partners in the abuse (Atkinson, 1996). These female offenders usually participate in the abuse due to their fear of abandonment from their male partners (Atkinson, 1996). The third type Atkinson defines is male-accompanied where female offenders actively engage in the sexual abuse and are considered more willing participants than those who fit the male-coerced type (Atkinson, 1996). In this type of female offender, their victims may be intra-familial or extra-familial (Atkinson, 1996; Groth et al., 1982). The last type of female sexual offender Atkinson defines is predisposed. In the predisposed type, the offender initiates the sexual abuse without a male accomplice (Atkinson, 1996). This type of offender often has a history of incestuous sexual abuse, a victim themselves, associated with psychological difficulties and deviant sexual fantasies (Atkinson, 1996). These offenders typically engage in intra-familial child molestation either with their own children or other younger children within their families (Atkinson, 1996; Groth et al., 1982). Predisposed types often commit violent and bizarre sexual offences than other female offender types and have younger victims (Atkinson, 1996). There are issues with providing a dichotomy of female sexual offenders or just sexual offenders in general as many do not fit one exact definition. If a female does not fit the typologies of a female sexual offender, victims and the criminal justice system are likely not going to pursue a case as there is no precedent for the sexual abuse. A continuum of sexual offences for all types of offenders may change the way we as a society view female and male sexual offenders as well as reduce the stereotype that females cannot commit sexual offences. Rather than viewing distinct categories of offenders, perhaps looking at the underlying motivations of sexual offenders can bridge the gap of male and female offenders as well as societies attitudes towards offenders. By looking at sexual offenders on a continuum based on how motivated an individual is to have sex with a child and whether it is chronic or episodic then a possible explanation for why female sexual offenders abuse children (Ward & Keenan, 1999). Several trends and emerging patterns have come from a few studies into female sexual offenders. Mayer (1992) was the first to provide an explanation as to why women commit sexual offences. Firstly, women may commit sexual offences in order to re-enact earlier trauma (Mayer, 1992). They may see similarities in their own identity with their past abuser and become abusers themselves to rationalize the trauma (Mayer, 1992). They were once victims who may feel and become empowered to put themselves in a position of control by abusing others in the same manner in which they were abused (Mayer, 1992). The second reason Mayer (1992) identified is emotional disdain. This type of female offender will often use a co-offender such as a lover in order to carry out the sexual abuse (Mayer, 1992). This individual may be motivated by self-centered feelings involving jealousy, the need for power, and feelings of hate (Mayer, 1992). These types of female offenders are very rare as they tend to have psychotic disorders (Mayer, 1992). The third possible explanation Mayer (1992) stipulates why females offend is narcissism. They molest their own daughters because they see their female children as extensions of themselves and cannot determine where her existence ends and their own begins (Mayer, 1992). This type of female intra-familial offender has a poor sense of boundaries, has a tendency to be insecure and may struggle with gender identity (Mayer, 1992). Mayer provides one of the most thorough explanations as to why females may commit sexual offences but there is little theoretical or empirical support for her explanations. The issue with findings derived from the sampling pool for female sexual offenders is that the sample pool is extremely small, thus any findings can be disputed because research involving female offenders is only done with the known sexual abuse cases. As previously stated, it is agreed within the scientific community that there are a lot of unknown female committed sexual offences. In addition to the lack of data from small sample pools, female sexual offences and any sexual offences are of a sensitive nature and due to the stigma surrounding sexual abuse, the offender or the victim may not have fully or truthfully disclosed all of the information, further limiting the research data (Lewis & Stanley, 2000). However, the presence of some of the underlying motivations of female sexual offenders can bridge the gap between them and their male counterparts. The motivation of female sex offenders with the presence of thoughts, urges and fantasies are consistent with male sexual offenders (Ward & Keenan, 1999). Showing that female and male sexual offenders may be more similar than previously theorized, but this is not substantiated due to the small sample size of female offenders. However, conclusions can be drawn that female sexual offenders that are incarcerated may have a similar typology to male sexual offenders incarcerated (Ward, 2000). Inferences may be made that though female sexual offences are under reported and are less prevalent than males not due to the typology or motivations of the sexual offence but due to the gender of the abuser and stereotypes surrounding sexual abuse committed by females. Victimology The type of victim female sexual offenders choose may influence the reporting of sexual abuse. Female offenders tend to choose younger, smaller and weaker victims (Becker et al., 2001). Normally, they choose victims they have easy or unlimited access to (Becker et al., 2001). Most female sexual offenses have a pattern of incest and the sexual acts themselves can be masked as caregiving activities (Terry, 2006). Victims are usually under the age of eighteen but there is a disagreement in research in terms of gender or victim preference (Becker et al., 2001). There is a lack of empirical research on victim preference for female offenders. However, research has found that the presence of a co-offender with a female sexual offender increased the likelihood of having multiple young victims, have female victims or victims of both genders, and they were more likely to engage in incestuous sexual abuse (Vandiver, 2006). Teacher/lover types of offenders are unique to female offenders as their victims are more likely to be of adolescent age, to be willing participants in the sexual acts, and male (Vandiver & Kercher, 2004). These victims of teacher/lover are less likely to report the abuse as the believe it is consensual and do not see themselves as victims (Vandiver & Kercher, 2004). Similar to victims of teacher/lover type sexual offenders, intra-familial sexual abuse cases are rarely reported by children and is not dependent on the gender of the abuser (Christopher, Lutz-Zois, & Reinhardt, 2007). Seeing as most victims of female sexual offenders are either intra-familial or believe they are engaging in a consensual sexual relationship, the lack of reporting and prevalence of female sexual offenders incarcerated is low. If there is no disclosure of abuse, then it will not be investigated or prosecuted and there will be no incarceration for the abuser. Societal Norms The last and most overarching theme as to why female sexual offender prevalence is low in comparison to their male counterparts is due to the societal norms and views of women. These views influence the way in which the law perceives female sexual offenders as well as society believes that women cannot commit sexual offenses. It was not until the 1980’s that female sexual offenders began to emerge in research, it is only very recently that society as a whole has begun to acknowledge the fact that females can and do commit sex crimes (Denov, 2003). The female gender is associated as being a nurturer, someone that is a caregiver, not a sexually deviant or violent being (Kramer & Bowman, 2011). They are believed to care for children not hurt children and this belief is in contradiction to female committed sex crimes. Even if convicted of a sex crime, female sexual offenders are seen as low level offenders and not a danger to society (Gakhal & Brown, 2011). This is largely in part due to the sexualization and eroticization in the media of female sexual offenders, especially in the teacher/lover type (Bunting, 2007). Female sexual offenders are seen as attractive individuals that have willing victims which impacts how the legal system views and is able to prosecute the offender (Bunting, 2007; Angelides, 2010). There is also the misconception that sexual offences committed by women have less of an impact on the victim and are far less deviant or heinous than male committed sexual abuse (Frei, 2008). If the society denies that a woman is able to commit sexual offenses, then decision making by judges and jurors is influenced because they are ambivalent to the offense committed and are less likely to convict. When jurors and judges are less likely to give female sexual offenders guilty verdicts that affects the prevalence rates and perpetuates the idea that sexual offences can only committed by males. Patriarchal views of abuse perpetuates the idea that males are dominant over females, thus females are unable to dominate or abuse anyone as they are the one that are subordinate and lack the power to do so (Curry, Lee & Rodriguez, 2004). The patriarchal theory of abuse also causes issues for individuals involved in a teacher/lover type relationship with their abuser as there is a view of how could a female overtake a near grown male. Biases of women and societal norms have led to the misconception that female sexual offenders rarely commit sexual abuse or does not happen whatsoever (Cortney & Noelle, 2008). Though laws are beginning to encompass female offenders, it is not until society stops eroticizing female sexual offenders and understands that female can have deviant sexual predilections that the prevalence of female offenders incarcerated, and study’s findings will become more congruent.   Conclusion The prevalence of female sexual offenders is reported much lower than their male counterparts due to a complex dynamic of societal norms, the ambiguity that is seen in all sexual offender definitions, victimology, and the lack of research into female sexual offenders. There is very little information in terms of what a female sexual offender looks like, leaving society to determine their own idea of what that is which in the media is eroticized. This eroticized view of sexual offenders discredits any steps in the criminal justice system used to encompass female sexual offences in order to incarcerate and provide validity to the claims of female perpetuated sexual abuse (Curry, Lee & Rodriguez, 2004). Though individuals like Groth et al. (1982), Atkinson (1996), and Mayer (1992) have attempted to determine patterns and typologies of female sexual offenders, the sample is too small to be generalized and may be inaccurate due to lack of full disclosure from victims and perpetrators (Denov, 2004). Unfortunately, until more research is conducted into female offenders, and more willingness of the criminal justice system and media to denounce female sexual offenders, the difference in prevalence from female to male sexual offenders will remain vast. Bridging the gap will involve implementing a continuum of child sexual abuse, rather than a dichotomy, reducing stereotypes of who and who cannot sexually abuse children, and more research into what makes a female sexually abuse. However, due to the sensitive nature of sexual abuse and the lack of reporting of male victims and victims of incest by a female perpetrator it is a near impossible task to reform ideas on female sexual abuse. The known cases are the cases that have been tried in courts, however studies show there are unknown cases of female perpetrated sexual offences much like male perpetrated sexual offences (Vandiver & Teske Jr., 2006). Though males are disproportionately incarcerated for sex crimes, early research shows female perpetrated sex crimes are far more prevalent than reported (Denov, 2004). Forensic psychologists must call for more research into female sexual offenders, programs that support victims in disclosing female sexual abuse and advocacy for victims of female perpetrators. Until the criminal justice system changes it views on female perpetrators, the media stops eroticizing female offenders, the stereotypes surrounding female perpetrators of their ability commit sexual abuse, and more victim advocacy for victims of female perpetrators, then the rate of prevalence of female committed sexual abuse will continue to vary and be underreported.