Murie, 2013; McNaughton Nicholls et al. 2014) its impact and influence on the recognition of CSE amongst males.
Perpetration by females
Attention to the perpetration of young males by females is important as a phenomenon that exists but is rarely discussed. As same-sex abuse of males contravenes male constructs, as discussed earlier, so too does the female perpetration of males violate the social construction of the female. This refers to the stereotypical construct of the female as nurturer and caregiver, non-aggressive
49
and non-sexual, portrayed as the victim in abusive acts (Allen, 1991). As a result, any reference to females as perpetrators of sexual abuse on children demonstrates divergent attitudes of revulsion and disbelief to the issue (Denov, 2003, 2004). Female sexual offending challenges a prevailing sexual script and the significance of patriarchy (Koonin,1995). This results in
consequential denial. Where there is any acknowledgement of abuse or exploitation, there is usually minimisation of the impact of it, by others and often by victims themselves. Ironically there is an acceptance of the female’s capacity to physically abuse children (Elliot, 1997) which might suggest the concept of sexual abuse is a step too far in contravening this construct of the female stereotype.
The initial shock and denial, and subsequent acknowledgement, of CSE generally through the late 1990s was reminiscent of the response to CSA as a phenomenon in the 1970s (Olafson et al. 1993). However, CSA by females did not form part of this discourse until the mid-1980s. Rowan et al. (1990) suggested data regarding the sexual abuse of children by females was not available prior to 1986. One of the earliest figures in relation to this phenomenon was that of Finkelhor (1986) who concluded, of sexual offences committed by women, girls and boys made up 5% and 20% of the victims respectively. Evidence of this was later shown in the 2004/5 figures from Childline indicating that 35% of 2,099 boys calling about sexual abuse, identified a female as the abuser. Brayley et al. (2014) noted a higher proportion of males than females are victims of female abusers (36% as opposed to 6%). Similarly, the sexual exploitation of young males by females remains relatively unrecognised.
As noted previously, the original ‘boyfriend’ model of CSE failed to consider the role of adult females as perpetrators. However, as outlined in section one, McNaughton Nicholls et al. (2014) described cases where older women sexually exploited young males by offering them a place to live or encouraging them to leave their care home. This study revealed professionals did not always view sexual relationships between older females and young males as exploitative or indeed, damaging to the victim. There are two specific factors which appear to explain this: one is
50
the social construct of the male as the dominator and initiator of all things sexual, and his physical make-up as stronger than the female; the second is the prevailing concept of the female, as already defined. The physiological composition of the female and the absence of a penis tends to render perpetration by her as inconceivable while the physiological make-up of the male deems him to be in control of the sexual activity, rendering him blameworthy, or at least responsible. This is compounded by the stereotypical perception of masculinity which asserts that a male should be physically able to protect himself, as discussed earlier.
The physiological make-up of the male also supports the concept of the female as some form of ‘cougar’, and a sign of a male’s sexual attractiveness or manliness, when abused by a female (Fromuth and Burkhart, 1989; Holmes et al, 1997). Throughout history, via film and song, the ‘sexual activity’ between a young male and older female has been portrayed and been received with societal acceptance, or even a sense of accomplishment. The view of the young male as being ‘initiated’ by an older female may even be perceived with envy by his peers and viewed as a conquest. According to Fromuth and Burkhart, 1989; Dhaliwal et al. 1996; and Nelson and Oliver, 1998, heterosexual males largely reported a sexual experience with a female as consensual or even status-enhancing. If the young male holds this perception this may be
sufficient to hamper disclosure of sexual exploitation, however, where he does not hold this view, knowing this is the view of others is likely to be sufficient to impede disclosure.
These arguments illustrate the difficulties in persuading young males, professionals, and others of the existence of female perpetration, the harm caused by denial or minimisation of impact which all serve to compound non-recognition of the problem. The gender stereotypes of both males and females serve to negate any sense of victimhood in the eyes of the young male victim himself, or at least, confuse him as to whether the act was in fact abusive. The figures quoted regarding extent of female-on-male abuse show this to be a significant problem for young males, yet the question remains as to why it is so rarely part of the discourse on CSE.
51
2.9.3 Correlations between victim offending and inhibitors to recognition of
CSE
There are several reasons why it is important to examine the role of criminality in relation to the recognition of CSE in males. Positive correlations have been found, by several authors, between CSE victimisation and youth offending (Day et al. 2008; Cockbain and Brayley 2012; Rigby and Murie, 2013). In a study of children accessing CSE support services in one UK town 55% of boys and 35% of girls had youth offending histories (Cockbain and Brayley, 2012). In a later study by Cockbain et al. (2015) there was the same significant difference between male and female CSE service users known to have a criminal record (48% and 28% respectively). This study also noted young males were 1.7 times more likely than girls to be referred by criminal justice agencies to services for CSE issues, whereas referrals of males by social services were more than half as likely as those of females. Arguably, this can be viewed as a young males’ offending behaviour being given priority over support required as a victim of CSE, whilst their criminal behaviour could be a manifestation of their exploitation. Smeaton also noted how professionals identified boys and young men who ran away and experienced CSE as ‘often criminalised for engaging in anti-social behaviour rather than being recognised as being exploited and/or relying upon criminal survival strategies’ (Smeaton, 2013, p.48).
Cockbain and Brayley (2012) suggest that the interactions between CSE and criminal activity are complex and ambiguous and that it is, therefore, difficult to determine the impact of CSE on youth offending and vice versa, concluding that ‘for many children CSE and youth offending seem to coexist in a state of twisted symbiosis’ (Cockbain and Brayley, 2012, p.699). However, the literature does highlight a consistent message regarding the presence of inherent vulnerabilities for children and young people, male and female, within the criminal justice system. It is,
therefore, important, first and foremost, to set this part of the discourse in the context of social, health and educational problems already facing young people before they enter the criminal justice system; young lives ‘replete with examples of vulnerability’ (Bateman, 2017, p. 22).