Academic rigour, journalistic flair

Share article

Print article

Warning: this article contains distressing quotes from perpetrators of child sexual abuse.

Researchers have long tried to answer the question: why do some men sexually abuse children?

We recently set out to find an answer.

In the largest study of child sexual abuse perpetrators’ accounts ever conducted, we systematically analysed nearly 700 adult male perpetrators’ accounts from 39 studies to document the ways these men account for their actions.

Some startling revelations

The men were aged 18 years and over and came from across the globe – from Norway to New Zealand, Malawi to Brazil. We were interested in documenting what perpetrators’ accounts can tell us about preventing child sexual abuse.

The men’s accounts varied dramatically. Some blamed drugs and alcohol, or their own experiences of childhood maltreatment. Others claimed they were seeking exciting or risky new sexual experiences.

Our mission is to share knowledge and inform decisions.

About us

Others said they were “in love” with or trying to “educate” the child.

The most common way perpetrators explained their behaviour was to cast their victims as consenting participants in the sexual activity.

In especially egregious cases, perpetrators positioned themselves as the hapless casualties of their (mostly female) victims’ devious sexual scheming, describing their young victims as “flirtatious”.

One stated:

she was a little vixen in the whole thing […] I was truly lured in.

Or course, children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults. Importantly, even if the victim had been an adult, the evidence of a child’s “consent” offered by perpetrators was extremely tenuous, usually amounting only to the absence of forceful resistance.

Abuse as revenge

Revenge was another common reason offered to explain the offending. Overwhelmingly, perpetrators nominated their adult women partners as the target of their retaliatory behaviour.

In short, they abused a child to get back at the child’s mother.

Perpetrators sought revenge because their adult women partners failed to adhere to traditional femininity and to fulfil the role of romantic/sexual partner and/or mother/homemaker to the perpetrator’s standard and preferences.

As one perpetrator stated:

There was a few times that I molested [my stepdaughter] out of being mad […] at [my wife for] […] not cleaning the house. Letting the dog shit on the floor and nobody cleaning it up.

In perpetrators’ accounts, adult women partners were expected to provide sexual interaction exclusively to the perpetrator when, where and how the perpetrator desired.

In some instances, perpetrators claimed they were driven to perpetrate child sexual abuse due to their desire for specific sexual acts or forms of bodily presentation that their adult partners declined to enact.

Anger and so-called rights

Perpetrators sometimes framed the child victim as deserving the abuse, claiming their offending resulted from anger toward the child.

For instance, perpetrators felt angry because their victims failed to meet “feminine” norms or did not display sufficient submissiveness. For example, one perpetrator said:

She wasn’t being a nice little girl, that a perfect little girl is supposed to be.

Crucially, men’s reasons for feeling anger toward the child victim(s) echo the same tropes that underpin their anger toward adult women.

Perpetrators commonly invoked their “right” to sexual activity to explain their offending and bemoaned a lack of sexual access to adult partners.

Moreover, perpetrators framed children as sexually compliant and constantly sexually available, again highlighting their sense of entitlement to sex and lack of concern that children can’t consent.

Compared with prior studies, we found a more frequent and pronounced emphasis on patriarchal thinking in perpetrators’ accounts.

Research often suggests men sexually abuse children due to “marital conflict” or “domestic discord”.

However, this interpretation appears sanitised against perpetrators’ own accounts, which often vigorously emphasise their rage and retaliatory reasoning alongside an unwavering sense of male sexual entitlement.

Perpetrators’ focus on child victims’ supposed “consent” is instructive here. In sexual encounters with adult women, men position partners as “gatekeepers” – as responsible for resisting their advances if they do not consent.

While this relates to men’s beliefs about adult women, men in our study commonly viewed women and children as a combined category of subordinates.

Indeed, many of the perpetrators in our study collapsed the distinction between girls and adult women, stating for example:

I felt a need for […] sexual satisfaction and that required a female.

Better education and policy is crucial

Our findings therefore highlight the need for policymakers and practitioners to strengthen efforts to combat misogyny, male sexual entitlement and patriarchal privilege.

Challenging rape myths (false beliefs about sexual violence, those who perpetrate it, and those affected by it) and rape myth acceptance (the acceptance of these false beliefs) remains critical.

While such measures are typically targeted at preventing sexual violence against adult women, our analysis suggests they may also help prevent child sexual abuse.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

The National Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Line – 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) – is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault.

• Child sexual abuse
• Child safety
• Child sex abuse
• Child sexual exploitation

Authors

1. Kelly RichardsProfessor, School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology
2. Emma HusseySessional Academic, School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology

Disclosure statement

Kelly Richards is on the national board of the Bravehearts Foundation. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Emma Hussey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Partners

Queensland University of Technology provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

The Conversation UK receives funding from these organisations

View the full list

DOI

https://doi.org/10.64628/AA.44sr9esa6

We believe in the free flow of information

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence.Republish this article

Together we have influence

We know our work has influence with decision makers all around the world because we see it cited in policy papers and journals all the time. Thousands of people like you already back us by making a regular donation each month. In these uncertain times, they see the value of our unique media model. One that is driven by facts – not clicks. Together we can keep all the vital expert analysis we publish free for everyone to read and share. Will you back us too?

Yes! I’ll support you

Stephen Khan

Editor-in-Chief