The Invisible Boy:
Revisioning the Victimization of Male Children and Teens
Our mission is to help the people of Canada maintain and improve
their health. Health Canada
Prepared by: Frederick Mathews, Ph.D., C. Psych.
The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and
do not necessarily reflect the official views of Health Canada.
Également disponible en français sous le titre Le garçon invisible
Nouveau regard sur la victimologie au masculin: enfants et adolescents
For additional copies, contact:
National Clearinghouse on Family Violence
Public Health Agency of Canada
Health Canada Address Locator: #1909D1
Ottawa, Canada
K1A 1B4
(613) 957-2938
Fax: (613) 941-8930 or call toll-free: 1-800-267-1291
FaxLink: (613) 941-7285 or toll-free: 1-888-267-1233
TTY/TDD users, (613) 952-6396 or toll-free: 1-800-561-5643
Contents may not be reproduced for commercial purposes, but any
other reproduction, with acknowledgments, is encouraged.
This publication can be made available in/on computer diskette/large
print/audio-cassette/braille, upon request.
Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada 1996
Cat. No.: H72-21/143-1996E
ISBN: 0-662-24429-X
Table of Contents
Introduction: Opening the Door to Male Victims
Why the Need for a Male-Inclusive Perspective?
Why the Need to Re-Vision Male Victimization?
Purpose of The Invisible Boy
Chapter 1. Prevalence: A Many-Sided Story
Sexual Abuse of Boys and Teen Males
Sibling-on-Sibling Sexual Abuse
Sexual Harassment
Male Prison Rape and Sexual Assault
Physical Abuse, Neglect and Emotional Maltreatment
Sibling-on-Sibling Physical Abuse
Corporal Punishment
Community, School and Institution-based Violence
Suicide
Street Youth
Prostitution
Children with Disabilities
Professional Response to Male Victims as a Factor in Determining
Prevalence
Media Images of Violence Toward Boys and Young Men
Chapter 2. Perpetrators of Male Victimization
Sexual Abuse
Teen Perpetrators
Strangers vs. Acquaintances
Female Perpetrators
Dynamics of Female-Perpetrated Abuse
Physical Abuse and Neglect
Corporal Punishment
Chapter 3. Effects of Victimization on Males
Sexual Abuse
Physical Abuse, Corporal Punishment and Neglect
The Consequences of "Male Sexual Licence"
Chapter 4. Implications
Implications for Research
Implications for Assessment, Treatment and Program Development
A Repeating Cycle of Violence?
Implications for Staff Development and Program Supervision
The Search for a More Inclusive Framework for Analysis
The Messages We Give to Male Victims
How Would Things Be Different if We Acknowledged Male Victims?
.
Beginning with Ourselves as Adults
Resources and Bibliography
Acknowledgments
The Invisible Boy: Revisioning the Victimization of Male Children
and Teens was prepared by the Canadian Foster Family Association
(CPFA) on behalf of the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence
of Health Canada.
The CFFA would particularly like to thank those who assisted in
the preparation of the manuscript: Judy Urquhart, Len Kushnier,
Veronica Marsman, Philip Quigley; the Family Violence Prevention Unit and the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence of Health
Canada for their support to the project; and the project staff,
Dr. Fred Mathews and John Meston.
Linda Lelièvre President
Canadian Foster Family Association
Introduction
Opening the Door to Male Victims
"Since we are sometimes compelled against our will by persons
of high rank to perform the operation, by compression is thus performed:
children, still of a tender age, are placed in a vessel of hot water,
and then when the parts are softened in the bath, the testicles
are to be squeezed with the fingers until they disappear. "
Paulus Aegineta
1st Century A.D.
This opening quote from Sander Breiner's book, Slaughter of
the Innocents: Child Abuse Through the Ages and Today, is a
stark reminder that the story of male child abuse is an old one.
The passage is an instruction to those who wanted to get around
a law passed by the Roman emperor Domitian prohibiting the castration
of boys who were subsequently placed in brothels or sold for "buggering."
At the turn of the twentieth century, boys were routinely circumcised
without anesthetic as a "treatment" for things such as
hyperactivity and masturbating (De Mause, 1988). However, anyone
who believes that this- inexcusable treatment of male children or
youth is a thing of the past should consider the following:
- An episode of a comedy television program about summer camp
features the sexual abuse of a "canteen boy" by an adult
camp counsellor.
- A Canadian newspaper advertises a board game, "101 Uses
for a Severed Penis."
- Another television program portrays mother/son incest in a comedy
sketch about phone sex.
- A newspaper article about a mother who left her 11-year-old
son tied and gagged in a closet quotes a social worker at the
trial as saying, the boy had been "very prone to lying, stealing,
and manipulating, was disruptive in class, and was generally an
unpleasant kid."
What these few examples illustrate are some of the themes that
will be explored in the pages of this document; namely, the existence
of a double standard in the care and treatment of male victims,
and the invisibility and normalization of violence and abuse toward
boys and young men in our society.
Despite the fact that over 300 books and articles on male victims
have been published in the last 25 to 30 years, boys and teen males
remain on the periphery of the discourse on child abuse. Few workshops
about males can be found at most child abuse conferences and there
are no specialized training programs for clinicians. Male-centred
assessment is all but non-existent and treatment programs are rare.
If we are talking about adult males, the problem is even
greater. A sad example of this was witnessed recently in Toronto.
After a broadcast of The Boys of St. Vincent, a film about
the abuse of boys in a church-run orphanage, the Kids' Help Phone
received over 1 000 calls from distraught adult male survivors
of childhood sexual abuse. It is tragic in a way no words can capture
that these men had no place to turn to other than a children's
crisis line.
The language we use in the current discourse on violence and abuse
masks, minimizes or renders invisible certain realities for male
victims. Terms such as "family violence" have become co-terminus
with "violence toward women," particularly on the part
of husbands, fathers or other adult male figures. Male teens, boys,
male seniors, male victims of sibling-on-sibling violence and female
abusers disappear in this term.
Canada lags far behind other Western democracies in the study of
male victims and their male and female abusers. In fact, among the
large and growing number of research studies on male victims only
a small number are Canadian. Social policy development, public education,
treatment programs and research funding, and the evolution of a
more inclusive discourse on interpersonal violence that reflects
the male experience are all long overdue.
Why the Need for a Male-Inclusive Perspective?
A "male-inclusive" perspective on violence and victimization
must be, of necessity, dynamic and evolutionary, since male victims
are only just beginning to speak out about their experiences. As
they do, their stories will continue to challenge many of our long-held
and status quo assumptions about abuse victims and perpetrators.
It is important to keep in mind that male victims are not a homogeneous
group, and over time it is likely that a number of perspectives
will evolve. Heterosexual, gay and bisexual, Native/Aboriginal,
disabled/challenged, and visible and cultural minority males will
all add different aspects to the story of male victimization.
There are, however, four basic components to the concept of "male-inclusive."
First, the need to articulate a male-centred point, or points, of
view, which reflect the diversity of men and boys in the Canadian
population. Second, the need for male victims to search for balance
as they struggle to heal the emotional, physical, mental and spiritual
aspects of their lives. Third, the need to honour and protect female
victims' gains and acknowledge the contributions women have made
in breaking the silence about violence and abuse. Fourth, the need
to evolve a vision of combining both males' and females'
stories into a coherent and inclusive perspective that all of us
will be able to own and use in the struggle to reduce and eliminate
interpersonal violence and abuse in our society. Sadly, as male
victims' stories reveal, we are still a long way from realizing
any of these goals.
Male victims report great pain, frustration and some anger at not
seeing their stories reflected in the public discourse on violence
and abuse. Several large-scale Canadian studies about interpersonal
violence conducted in the past several years have reported the findings
pertaining to only female victims. Many academic papers written
about victims of violence purport to be "balanced," yet
typically bring only a faint male "voice" to the analysis.
From a conceptual standpoint, many also make the mistake of accepting
and using, uncritically, a woman-centred-only model of victimization.
Male victims also find much of this work dehumanizing and dismissive
of their experiences. They feel many writers and thinkers in the
field have delineated the boundaries of the discourse on violence
and abuse - boundaries that leave males out.
Male victims frequently find that therapists, counsellors or other
types of caregivers trained with female-centred models of victimization
are unable to help them. Consequently, they are likely to simply
abandon therapy, leaving unexplored many of the issues relating
to their victimization experience and to their deeper healing.
Male victims, like female victims before them, have encountered
their share of critics and detractors, people who refuse to believe
them, ignore prevalence statistics, minimize the impact of abuse,
appropriate and deny males a voice, or dismiss male victimization
as a "red herring." When prevalence statistics are given
for male victimization, it is common to hear the response that the
vast majority of abusers of males are other males, a belief which
is simply not true. This comment is usually intended to frame male
victimization as a "male problem." It is also insensitive
and perceived by male survivors as being victim-blaming. While challenges
and criticisms to concepts and theories are valid, and an important
part of the evolution and development of any field, denial, minimization
and silencing is harmful, abusive and damaging to any victim.
In many respects, male victims are where female victims were 25
years ago. Most of us forget the enormous opposition the women's
movement encountered as women began to organize and claim a voice
to speak against violence and name their abusers/offenders. The
services and supports that exist presently for women were hard won
and yet are still constantly at risk of losing their funding. By
comparison, there really is no organized male victims "movement"
per se. Males, generally, are not socialized to group together the
way women do, to be intimate in communication or to see themselves
as caregivers for other males. In short, much of what male victims
need to do to organize a "movement" requires them to overcome
many common elements of male socialization, all of which work against
such a reality ever happening.
Why the Need to Re-Vision Male Victimization?
The subtitle of this work, "Revisioning the Victimization
of Male Children and Teens, " extends an invitation to the
public and professionals alike, to "look again" and "re-vise"
their knowledge and understanding with respect to violence and abuse,
and to make it inclusive of a male perspective. On the face of the
evidence presented in the pages of this report, the invitation is
compelling.
Much of the current thinking and discourse, both public and professional,
about abuse and interpersonal violence is based on a woman-centred
point of view. This is neither right nor wrong, good nor bad, but
rather the result of who has been doing the advocacy. However, as
a result of this history, victims have a female face, perpetrators
a male face. Because of this image of perpetrators as having a male
face, violence in our society has become "masculinized"
and is blamed exclusively on "men" and "male socialization."
Although there is without question a male gender dimension to many
forms of violence, especially sexual violence, simple theories of
male socialization are inadequate to explain why the vast majority
of males are not violent.
Violence is even blamed on the male hormone testosterone. The irony
in this argument is not lost on male victims. While women have been
struggling to get out from under the stigma that they are at the
mercy of their hormones, males are being accused of being at the
mercy of testosterone.
Male victims walk a fine line between wanting to be heard and validated,
to be supportive of female victims and to be pro-woman, while challenging
assumptions they feel are biased stereotypes. Their challenges to
some of these stereotypes are often met with accusations that they
are misogynists, part of a "backlash" against feminism,
or have a hidden agenda to undermine women's gains. If any of these
accusations are true, they must be confronted by all of us. But
if they are based only on the fear that recognition of males as
victims will threaten women's gains, then that is the issue we should
be discussing right up front, not minimizing male victims' experiences
in a competition to prove who has been harmed the most. Nonetheless,
it is important for all of us to recognize that it may be difficult
for many women to listen to male victims' stories until they feel
safe in this regard.
Sadly, male victims and their advocates risk a lot to challenge
the status quo and experience much pressure to remain silent. It
is ironic that the pressure males feel to remain silent replicates,
at a social level, the same patterns of silencing, denial and minimization
they experienced at the hands of their offenders. If we do not face
the fact that we need to heal the "gendered wounds" of
both women and men, then we will compromise the search for gender
peace.
Finally, and perhaps the most important reason to re-vision our
understanding, is because men and teen males are not, in any substantial
way, joining women in the struggle to end all forms of interpersonal-violence.
Part of the reason for this may be because males do not see their
own stories reflected in public discussions about violence and abuse.
If one were to rely solely on the media to convey the male experience,
few stories would be known beyond the more sensational cases involving
several church-run orphanages or provincial training schools. It
is not uncommon to hear male students express resentment toward
high school anti-violence curricula that presumes them to be abusers,
harassers, rapists and sexual assaulters in waiting. Indeed, it
is difficult to feel part of a collective social movement against
violence when one's own experiences are dismissed, excluded or minimized.
It is evident from even a casual review of this material that much
of it contains biased stereotypes and unchallenged assumptions about
"male anger," "male aggression" and "male
sexuality." All too often, these writers take as a starting
point a caricature of the worst imaginable elements of "masculinity"
and assume it applies to all male persons.
As males begin to tread upon the path broken by women, they are
summoning the courage to bring their own voices to the public and
professional discourse about violence and abuse. If we want males
to engage in true dialogue, then we have to be open to hearing their
criticisms, their experiences, their pain.
Purpose of The Invisible Boy
The Invisible Boy is intended for a wide readership. Readers
may find some of the issues or research presented in the document
new or surprising, maybe even a little controversial. Others may
find no surprises at all, but instead a confirmation of what they
have experienced, observed themselves or believed all along. In
any case, it is perhaps most important to see the document, not
as a definitive statement of the male experience (we are too early
in the struggle for that), but rather as a "snapshot in time"
of some of the controversies, challenges, knowledge gaps and unexplored
issues pertaining to the male experience of victimization. If it
spurs the reader to further explore the literature, encourages the
therapeutic community to expand its knowledge base about victims
and perpetrators, or widens public debate on abuse to make it more
inclusive, then it will have achieved its purpose.
Readers would be well advised not to read into the pages of The
Invisible Boy any diminishment of women's experience with respect
to violence and abuse. Unimaginable numbers of women and girls are
harmed by violence every day in Canada. Women's stories need to
be heard, believed and respected without denial or minimization.
We must resist attempts to place male and female victims into a
competition for resources or credibility. We can no longer afford
the divisiveness along gender lines that permeates discussions about
male and female victims' experiences. If we are to advance the anti-violence
movement at all in Canada, we have to move more toward "gender
reconciliation" and away from the bullying of one another that
passes for advocacy in many public discussions.
Ideally, male and female victims' stories should be told side by
side so that we may be better able to observe and understand how
inextricably intertwined their experiences are. However, such a
task is beyond the scope of the present project. Because their experiences
are poorly understood, underreported, largely unacknowledged and
outside much of the public and professional discourse, The Invisible
Boy will focus primarily on males and bring together in one
place many of the strands of male victims' experiences.
Many questions remain unanswered. Why is it that Canada, a country
that prides itself on being a compassionate and just society, lags
behind other countries in advocacy for male victims? Why has the
media refused to give equal coverage to male victimization issues?
Why do we consistently fail to support adult male victims? Why do
we support a double standard when it comes to the care and treatment
of male victims? Perhaps the simplest answer to all the above is
the fact that much of what constitutes male victimization is invisible
to us all, especially male victims themselves. The Invisible
Boy will explore these and other issues in the following pages.
Chapter 1
Prevalence: A Many-Sided Story
How extensive is the abuse and victimization of males? The numbers
tell many different stories depending upon where you look, what
theoretical framework you use for analysis, what your definition
of abuse and victimization is, and what sources you consult. On
this basis, there are several different ways to answer the question.
If we use only the commonly reported categories of physical abuse,
sexual abuse or psychological maltreatment and neglect, then we
obtain one picture. However, if we add corporal punishment, suicide,
community and school-based violence, and violence in sports and
entertainment, the story becomes more complicated. Still other areas
could be added if we unpacked the term "family violence"
and explored in more clinical depth commonly used descriptors, such
as "hard-to-manage children and youth," "parent-child
conflict," "difficult children," "dysfunctional
families," "problem teen behaviour," "conduct
disorder," "oppositional-defiant disorder," or "attention
deficit disorder," to name a few. In general population health
surveys, when we use terms such as "sexual contact" or
"sexual touching" instead of "sexual assault"
or "sexual abuse," the prevalence numbers increase substantially.
This is because males often do not see their sexual experiences
in strict clinical and legal terms such as "abuse."
Other categories could be added if we more closely examined the
concept of "at-risk." For example, boys in the United
States are more likely than girls to be diagnosed with behavioural
and mental disorders, more likely to be admitted to psychiatric
hospitals, twice as likely to suffer from autism, eight times more
likely to be diagnosed with hyperactivity, more likely to become
addicted to drugs and alcohol, and more likely to drop out of high
school (Kimbrell, 1995).
The picture becomes complicated further when we add the everyday
lived experiences of male children and youth in care of the state,
living in foster homes, group homes, with legal guardians or in
young offender custodial facilities. We could also add male senior
abuse, male victimization in sibling-on-sibling violence, abuse
of male spouses or other intimate male partners, abuse of same-sex
male partners and violence toward males with disabilities, including
children, teens and adults. Finally, we would need to add the stories
of homeless young people, street kids and male adolescents using
prostitution as a means to survive.
It quickly becomes apparent that the stories of many types of male
victims have yet to be told. Although the field of child abuse has
gained much credibility in public and professional discourse, it
is easy to forget that it is still a new area of study. Definitions
of abuse, prevalence data, theories of victimization and offending,
and models for assessment and treatment continue to evolve. We are
still far from possessing an exhaustive or comprehensive knowledge
of the subject. We simply have not had enough time to test many
of our ideas empirically, nor do we even know all the questions
that need to be asked.
Although the abuse field in general has gained credibility, we
must never forget that it is an emotionally and politically charged
area of interest, a point victims and advocates forget at their
peril. Reasoned discussion can be difficult, research evidence is
frequently dismissed or ignored in the interest of politics, and
many people in the public and professions alike still do not believe
that something like child sexual abuse is a widespread and serious
social problem. For example, as recently as the mid 1970s, the predominant
view of incest in the psychiatry profession was that it was extraordinarily
rare (Freedman, Kaplan and Sadock, 1975).
For male victims, the situation is even more precarious. Many cultural
and other barriers must be crossed by boys, teen males, the professional
community and the public even to be able to acknowledge male victimization
experiences as abuse. For example, gay males have to "come
out" to disclose their abuse, and so typically remain silent.
Stated simply, if we do not go looking for male victims, we will
not find them. If we do not explore issues of abuse with males,
they will not tell us their stories. Consequently, and all too typically,
the first time a teen or adult male offender obtains any help with
his victimization is when he has come to the attention of the legal
system because of his offences (Sepler, 1990).
Sexual Abuse of Boys and Teen Males
Virtually all of the discussion about the prevalence of male victimization
in Canada and elsewhere is based on "official" statistics;
that is, numbers derived from case reports to some public authority
such as hospitals, police or child welfare agencies. However, it
is evident from an examination of general population health surveys
that male victimization is greatly underreported - far more than
it is for females.
In the Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect,
girls were the subject of 54% of investigations (25 016) andboys46%
(21426) (Trocme, 1994). Teenage males accounted for 14% of parental
and 18% of non-parental sexual abuse allegations. However, when
cases involving minor-aged children (8-11 years) were examined,
it was found that boys accounted for 42% to 44% of sexual abuse
allegations.
In 1984, the federal government published the now widely known
two-volume study, Sexual Offenses Against Children, also
known as the "Badgley Report." Many aspects of male victimization
detailed in this large-scale national study still have not made
it to public or even professional awareness. A look at some of the
prevalence data in this study reveals an astonishing fact about
the prevalence of male sexual abuse.
If we take as a starting point the findings of the study pertaining
to prevalence, we discover that 1 in 3 males (33%) and 1 in 2 females
(50%) reported being the victims of unwanted sexual touching in
their lifetimes. About 4 in 5 of these incidents happened while
the person was a child or youth. Assuming we have a population of
29 million people, divided equally by gender, these percentages
yield the following prevalence rates.
Table 1
Child Abuse Prevalence Rates in Canada by Gender
Males |
Females |
29 000 000 Canadians
|
14 500 000 @ 33% |
14 500 000 @ 50% |
= |
= |
4 785 000 |
7 250 000 |
From these simple arithmetic calculations we can see there are
close to five million male victims of some form of unwanted
sexual touching in Canada. Given that male victimization is more
underreported than it is for females, these numbers should be viewed
as a minimum estimate.
For the category of sexual assault, about 3 in 4 victims
in the study were female, 1 in 4 was a boy. The study also found
that the proportion of sexually assaulted males increased with age,
while the reporting dropped, dramatically so after puberty. In the
National Population Health Survey, 90% of males and 75% of
females did not report their abuse experience. Overall, female victims
were twice as likely to report their sexual abuse experiences.
The study also reported findings about female perpetrators who
have received absolutely no public or professional attention, specifically,
"exposure" to males and use of juveniles working in prostitution.
Both of these findings are ignored in discussions about prevalence
rates pertaining to males. In the sub-study of National Police
Force Survey findings (Badgley, 1984), the report reveals that
males account for 99.4% of charges laid for exposure, women .06%.
However, in the National Population Health Survey (Badgley,
1984),77.6% of victims of both sexes reported being exposed to by
males, while 22.4% of victims reported being exposed to by females.
In these incidents, 33% of males reported unwanted exposure of a
female's genitalia. One in thirteen exposures to females were by
females, 1 in 20 involved exposure of a female's genitalia. In spite
of the reported levels of female exposure in the National Population
Health Survey, only a small fraction of female exposers end
up being reported or charged.
In the National Juvenile Prostitution Survey, 50% of the
229 juveniles involved in prostitution reported that they were approached
for sexual services by an adult female, 62% of the males and 43.4%
of the females. In 75% of these incidents, the services were for
the woman herself, the remainder were for a male acquaintance. Twenty-two
percent of the male juveniles and 20% of the female juveniles had
been approached by women 3 times or more. However, in this and other
studies, males still represent more than 95% of the consumers of
sexual services provided by juvenile and adult males and females
working in prostitution.
In the United States, child victims of violent sex crimes were
more likely to be male (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, 1995). Evidence suggests that boys are more likely than
girls to be physically and sexually abused at the same time (Finkelhor,
1984). Research exploring differences in severity of sexual abuse
experienced by male versus female victims suggests that males experience
more invasive types of abuse, more types of sexual acts and abuse
at the hands of more perpetrators than females (Baker and Duncan,
1985; Bentovim, 1987; DeJong, 1982; Dube, 1988; Ellerstein, 1980;
Finkelhor et al., 1990; Gordon, 1990; Kaufman et al., 1980; Reinhart,
1987). However, it is likely that these findings fail to consider
that it is the seriousness of the abuse that brought the incident
involving a male victim to the attention of official agencies in
the first place. Male victims tend not to report less severe types
of sexual abuse, especially those involving female perpetrators.
Table 2 provides a picture of the sexual abuse prevalence rates
for different populations of males. The samples and the rates range
widely. It is interesting to note the high abuse rates in the background
of male sex offenders.
Table 2
Prevalence Rates for Sexual Abuse among Males
Authors |
Sample |
Prevalence % |
Canada
Badgley (1984) |
General Population Health Survey |
14.0 |
Violato & Genuis (1992) |
Canadian university students |
14.0 |
United States Finkelhor et al. (1990) |
American National Survey |
16.0 |
Condy et al.. (1987) |
American college men |
16.0 |
Fromoth and Burkhart (1987) |
American undergraduate students |
24.0 |
Stein et al. (1988) |
American Community Sample |
12.2 |
Urquiza (1988) |
American undergraduate students |
32.0 |
Cameron et al. (1986) |
American National Survey |
16.0 |
Risin et Koss (1987) |
Males under 14 years of age |
7.3 |
Condy et al. (1987) |
Male prisoners (abused by female perpetrators
only) |
46.0 |
Groth (1979) |
Adult male sex offenders |
33.0 |
Petrovich and Templer (1984) |
Adult male sex offenders (abused by female perpetrators
only) |
59.0 |
Johnson (1988) |
Boys (4-13) who sexually abused |
49.0 |
Britain Baker andDuncan (1985) |
British National Survey |
8.0 |
Prevalence rates for male victims as a total of the whole sexual
abuse victim population can be found in Table 3.
Table 3
Male Victims as a Percentage of All Sexual Abuse Victims
Authors |
Sample |
Prevalence % |
DeJong, et al. (1982) |
Hospital study |
17 |
Ellerstein and Canavan (1980) |
Hospital study |
11 |
Pinkelhor and Hotaling (1984) |
Review of sexual abuse literature |
10-33 |
Neilson (1983) |
Treatment program estimates |
25-35 |
Pierce and Pierce (1985) |
Child abuse hotline study |
12 |
Ramsay-Klawsnik (1990a) |
Child protection referrals
Confirmed cases of sexual abuse |
39
45 |
Rogers and Terry (1984) |
Hospital study |
25 |
Grayson (1989) |
Clinician interviews |
25-50 |
Sibling-on-Sibling Sexual Abuse
Sibling incest is another area that has only started to enter the
discourse and has been impeded because many persons fail to label
it as abuse. Obtaining a full picture of the prevalence of sexual
abuse at the hands of siblings is made difficult because many children,
teens and adults see the behaviour as "sexual curiosity"
or "experimentation." Some victims may view it as "mutual
exploration."
In strict legal and clinical terms, it is sometimes difficult to
label these sexual acts as "offending" behaviour unless
we look at the age of the children, age differences between victim
and perpetrator, power related to age, intellectual functioning,
size and strength, victim impact, or consider if the older sibling
was in a position of authority, i.e., baby-sitting. In other cases
the "offending" child may be "abuse reactive",
acting out against a smaller or weaker sibling, because they themselves
are being abused. Much sibling-on-sibling sexual abuse does not
show up in official statistics on crime or prevalence because the
perpetrators are under 12 years of age.
Some put the figure of sexual abuse of males by siblings at 6%
(Pierce and Pierce, 1985a), 13% (Finkelhor, 1980), and 33% (Thomas
and Rogers, 1983). Longo and Groth (1983) found that among the family
victims of juvenile offenders, 20% were either sisters, stepsisters,
or adopted sisters, 16% were foster brothers, and 5% were brothers.
Sexual Harassment
Women have struggled for years to bring their experiences, concerns,
and fears with respect to sexual harassment to public discussions
about violence and victimization. Their advocacy efforts have succeeded
in raising our consciousness about the subtleties and impact of
harassment on girls, teen females, and women in many working and
learning environments. Though more work still needs to be done,
sexual harassment is now recognized as a serious issue for women.
It is also an issue for males. However, as with any issue pertaining
to victimization, males struggle against biased stereotypes and
a double standard. Even raising the issue of sexual harassment of
males raises eyebrows and draws stares or looks of disbelief.
Unfortunately, when trying to determine the prevalence of sexual
harassment toward males, we are faced with the same problem of Canada
lagging behind other western democracies. The European Community
has produced a 93-page report on sexual harassment entitled, The
Guide to Implementing the European Code of Practice on the Dignity
of Women .and Men at Work. In this report, 19% of German males
and 21% of young- Frenchmen reported suffering unsolicited sexual
advances (Globe & Mail, 1993). Though females are more
likely to experience sexual harassment, virtually no research has
been undertaken in Canada that documents the prevalence of sexual
harassment of males. The issue of sexual harassment among gay males
has not even surfaced in the discourse.
One exception is a recently published study concerning high school
student-to-student sexual harassment. However, it quickly falls
into the trap of biased reporting and interpretation. A brochure
promoting the study contains the following paragraph:
"In a recent survey done in Ontario high schools, over
80 per cent of girls said they had been sexually harassed. Boys
said their harassment was often complimentary or teasing: few of
them said they felt unsafe or that the harassment interfered with
their lives, unless their harasser was another male." (Ontario
Second School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF), 1994)
Most would read this and not give it a second thought. However,
what makes this kind of statement worrisome is that it supports
biased and harmful stereotypes about males and reinforces a double
standard. And, there are other problems.
First, the overall percentage of males reporting being sexually
harassed is not given, so it is difficult to compare anything to
the 80% figure reported for girls.
Second, when asked, "Are you ever afraid of being sexually
harassed?", approximately 70% of the girls and 30% of the male
students said "Yes". Between one-quarter and one-third
of the males said "Yes," they were afraid of being sexually
harassed. This is hardly a small number. But perhaps more importantly,
it gives the authors no defensible position to diminish the seriousness
of the issue for boys simply because prevalence of harassment toward
girls may be higher.
Third, the authors also make qualitative judgments about the impact
on boys without recognizing that male students are less likely to
report harassment, more likely to diminish any negative impact,
more likely to withhold expressions of fear, and more likely to
normalize the experience since males are socialized to value, and
view as being positive, "sexual overtures" from females.
We need to ask ourselves if we would accept at face value comments
of the young women in the study saying that they took their harassment
as a compliment or teasing.
The above critique does not diminish the important contribution
of the work or the hard efforts of those who are trying to protect
students from harassment. It is also not a diminishment of the fact
that girls typically experience more fear, discomfort and emotional
consequences from being harassed. The problem is that the authors,
in their comments and interpretation of the findings, reinforce
harmful stereotypes that will only perpetuate the problem of student-to-student
sexual harassment, especially when it involves a male.
Because public awareness of sexual harassment is only just beginning
to emerge, it is not uncommon to encounter people who believe that
boys cannot be sexually harassed because, as males, they have "power."
While it is true that sexual harassment is about power, a definition
of "power" using only political or economic terms is too
narrow to apply to the lives of children and teens. It is also too
limited if we assume that only males have power by
virtue of their gender. Physical attractiveness, age, popularity
and even "personality" can be forms of "asocial power."
For example, how seriously is a school administrator or a youth's
peers likely to take the complaint of a pimply, skinny or "nerdy"
type male who is "rated" or sexually teased and taunted
by an attractive and popular female? What if the male in the above
example was younger or a visible minority student whose first language
was not English and the female student was Caucasian? What if the
male student was from a strict religious background that viewed
any form of "sexual talk or contact as inappropriate and offensive?
From this perspective, sexual harassment can also be an issue of
basic human dignity. It can also be about violation of another person's
religious beliefs or cultural norms and values.
Male Prison Rape and Sexual Assault
The most overlooked form of sexual assault in our society happens
to males in the form of prison rape. Studies concerning the prevalence
of sexual assault never mention this form of sexual violence. In
fact, there is no research available that documents the sexual assault
of teen and adult males in prisons or closed custody facilities,
though it is thought to be a common occurrence. It is easy to dismiss
the plight of these males because of their diminished status as
"offenders." It is all too easy to be without compassion
for these males until you consider that many are victims and survivors
of all forms of childhood abuse and maltreatment.
Physical Abuse, Neglect and Emotional Maltreatment
The sexual abuse of children and youth has dominated much of the
research activity, advocacy, and many of the media stories about
child abuse published in the past 10 years, despite the fact that
it accounts for only about 14% of all forms of indicated or substantiated
maltreatment (NCCAN, 1994). In the United States, neglect accounts
for 49% of maltreatment cases, physical abuse 23% and emotional
maltreatment 5%. Medical neglect 3%, other 9% and unknown 3% constitute
the rest. This is particularly significant when one realizes that
boys, especially in the younger age categories, tend to be the majority
of victims of physical abuse and emotional maltreatment.
In the Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect,
boys were found to be overrepresented in the area of physical
abuse. Boys accounted for 59% of investigated cases in the 0 to
3 years of age category, 56% in the 4 to 7 year category, 55% in
the 8 to 11 year category, and 44% in the 12 to 15 year category.
In the area of emotional maltreatment, boys accounted for 54% of
all investigations. The incidence rates were highest for boys 4
to 7 year of age (69% ) and lowest for those 8 to 11 (33%). In the
area of neglect the numbers are roughly equal, except for children
8-11 where boys represent 55% of cases. This study does not report
substantiation rates for males vs. females, which have been found
to be much lower for males, especially for cases involving sexual
abuse (Powers and Eckenrode, 1988). Rosenthal (1988) found that
boys in all age categories received significantly more serious physical
injuries than girls, with the most severe occurring in male children
under 12.
The Ontario study reports that physical abuse rates were slightly
higher for girls in the 12 to 15 year age group (56%) and makes
the claim that girls in this age category are generally at higher
risk of physical abuse than boys. Similar findings have been reported
elsewhere (Johnson and Showers, 1985; Russell and Trainor, 1984;
Walker et al., 1988). However, what this interpretation fails to
consider is boys are less likely to report, their abuse is less
likely to come to the attention of authorities, and boys are more
likely to fight back owing to their average greater physical size
at this age (Gelles, 1978; Russell and Trainor, 1984). However,
there is evidence to suggest that physical abuse of adolescents
of both sexes is underreported (Garbarino, Schellenbech and Sebes,
1986; Powers and Eckenrode, 1988; Farber and Joseph, 1985; Pelcovitz
et al., 1984; Libbey and Bybee, 1979).
Sibling-on-Sibling Physical Abuse
As in the case of sexual abuse, sibling-on-sibling violence is
a serious problem that is greatly underreported (Steinmetz, 1977).
This type of violence is overlooked by parents and rendered invisible
by expressions such as "rough-housing," "sibling
rivalry," or "squabbling." Boys are sometimes even
encouraged to fight to "toughen them up" and get them
ready for the "real world."
Almost all American children are violent toward their brothers
and sisters (Straus et al., 1980). In this research, 83% of boys
and 74% of girls attacked a brother or sister. Fifty-nine percent
of boys and 46% of girls attacked a brother or sister severely.
Although the most overlooked and ignored form of "family violence,"
sibling-on-sibling violence is of significant consequence to boys
and young men. According to Straus, sibling violence occurs more
frequently than parent-child or husband-wife violence, boys in every
age group are more violent toward their siblings than are sisters,
and the highest level of violence occurs when a boy has only brothers.
Corporal Punishment
The issue of corporal punishment has just begun to emerge in the
child abuse discourse. We are beginning to witness challenges to
the appropriateness of certain sections of the Criminal Code
that sanction the use of physical force in the discipline or
correction of children. The concern is that corporal punishment
is part of a continuum with spanking at one end and physical abuse
and homicide at the other. It can sometimes be very difficult to
assess when a parent or caregiver has crossed the line. However,
regardless of whether the force was intended as abuse or discipline
or correction, the effect on children is harmful (Yodanis, 1992;
Vissing et al., 1991).
Corporal punishment is of particular concern to males. In Canada,
70% of the victims of non-sexual assault under the age of 12 are
boys (Statistics Canada, 1991). It is evident that boys are physically
hit more often than girls (Bryan and Freed, 1982; Gilmartin, 1979;
Knutson and Selner, 1994; Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974; Newson and
Newson, 1989; Wauchope and Straus, 1990).
Studies published in the United States show that between 93% and
95% of young adults report being corporally punished during their
childhood or teen years (Bryan and Freed, 1982; Graziano and Namaste,
1990). Parent surveys report that approximately 90% of adults use
corporal punishment to discipline and correct the behaviour of their
children (Wauchope and Straus, 1990; Straus, 1983).
Community, School and Institution-based Violence
Community and school-based violence among children and adolescents
is a topic that has gained prominence in the media and education
circles. A recent newspaper story reported that researchers at the
University of New Hampshire, using a random sample of children 10
to 16 years of age, found that 1 in 10 boys (10%) in the United
States suffered a non-sexual genital assault, usually a kick by
someone their own age (Globe & mail, 1995). The rate
for girls was 2%. The researchers in this study also reported that
40% of the perpetrators were girls. Boys who wore glasses or had
other physical limitations were three times more likely to be kicked.
One year after the kicking, 1 in 4 boys still suffered depression
from the incident.
In 1990, Statistics Canada conducted a study of patterns of criminal
victimization. It found that the risk of personal victimization
was highest for persons who are male, young, single and residents
of urban areas. In a study of approximately 1 000 middle-level students
in Ontario, 29% of Grade 6 boys reported being beaten up and 22%
robbed while at school compared to 19% and 10% for Grade 6 girls.
In this same study, overall, boys and girls were found equally likely
to be victims or perpetrators of violent acts (Ryan, Mathews and
Banner, 1993). This is not surprising considering that boys and
girls up to the age of puberty are roughly the same size. In a Calgary
study involving 962 middle and high school students, 47.5% of the
males and 26.6% of the females reported being slapped, punched or
kicked while in school during the past year (Smith et al., 1995).
In Canada, violence toward young males in the form of gay-bashing
at school or in the community is another rarely discussed problem.
In the United States, 72% of juvenile homicide victims were male.
Forty percent of juvenile homicide victims were killed by family
members, mostly parents. Fifty-three percent of boys were killed
by their fathers and slightly more than half (51%) of the girls
were murdered by their mothers (OJJDP, 1995). Also reported in this
study was the fact that Caucasian males comprised 83% of suicides
of persons under the age of 20, and that for every two youth aged
0 to 19 who were murdered in the United States in 1991, one youth
committed suicide.
Suicide
Canada has one of the highest suicide rates in the Western world.
A little under 2% of all deaths in Canada are caused by suicide,
and almost four times as many males as females commit suicide annually.
Suicide rates for young people have increased remarkably since the
1950S, especially for young males in their late teens and early
twenties (Health Canada, 1994). Gay male teens and Native youth
are at especially high risk.
Street Youth
In various developing countries, the number of street children
is estimated to range between 10 and 100 million, and the vast majority
are boys (World Health Organization, 1995). In Canada, males and
females on the street appear to be equally at risk for physical
violence, with most perpetrators being someone the youth considered
a friend or someone else they knew on the street (Janus et al.,
1995). In this study, physical abuse was the most frequently given
reason why these youth left home. The physical abuse was most often
perpetrated by a biological parent, and most often by the mother.
In other studies of runaway youth, Powers and Eckenrode (1987) found
that 42.3% of males (57.7% of females) were the victims of physical
abuse, 37.9% of emotional abuse (62.1 % for females) and 47.7% of
neglect ( 52.3% for females). McCormack et al. ( 1986) found that
73% of female and 38% of male runaways were physically abused.
Prostitution
Sexual abuse is also high among teens involved in prostitution
(Mathews, 1989). Thirty percent of juvenile females and 27.4% of
juvenile males involved in prostitution reported an incestuous sexual
experience. By the age of 13,62.8% of the females and 77% of the
males reported being sexually experienced, compared to general population
samples of 1.7% and 5.4% respectively (Badgley, 1984). Of course,
these numbers do not reflect the fact that 100% of males and females
under the age of 16 who sell sex to adults are being sexually abused
by their customers.
Children with Disabilities
Sixty-one percent of children and teens with developmental disabilities,
including pervasive developmental disorders and mental retardation,
experience harsh forms of physical discipline (Ammerman, 1994).
Graham (1993) found that handicapped boys and girls are equally
at risk for sexual abuse. Handicapped male and female adults in
institutions are also physically abused in large numbers (Roeher
Institute, 1995; Sobsey and Varnhagen, 1988).
Professional Response to Male Victims as aFactor in Determining
Prevalence
One problem with trying to understand the true prevalence rate
of male victimization is how the present picture has been affected
by factors pertaining to professional practice. Here we have to
look at the low substantiation rates of all forms of maltreatment,
especially in younger children. Substantiation rates are always
higher for adolescent populations, typically because teens are easier
to interview and are better able to articulate to investigators
what happened to them.
This is even more of an issue for male victims. When boys are victimized,
they tend to be seen as less in need of care and support (Watkins
and Bentovim, 1992). They are also blamed more for their abuse (Burgess,
1985; Broussard and Wagner, 1988; Whatley and Riggio, 1993) and
their offenders are held less accountable (Burgess, 1985). In one
of the most troubling studies, Pierce and Pierce (1985) found that
male victims, despite being subjected to more invasive types
of abuse and more types of sexual acts than female victims,
were 5 times less likely to be removed from their homes.
Media Images of Violence Toward Boys and Young Men
Looking past the more conventional forms of research and other
types of information about violence and abuse, it is easy to find
media images supporting male victimization. Women have long argued
for greater accountability on the part of the media to refrain from
using harmful, sexist and objectifying images of females in advertising
and entertainment. Males are also now beginning to raise their own
concerns.
Violence toward males is so normalized in our society that it has
become invisible to the average person. So too have the images reinforcing
harmful stereotypes about males and masculinity. For example, we
expect males to be physically strong and capable or "rough
and tumble," thus we ridicule in comics and comedy films the
short, skinny or sensitive male. Unfortunately, young men who try
to live up to the impossible standards set by bodybuilders are starting
to kill themselves through the use of steroids.
Our insensitivity to male victims can be viewed in the depiction
of male abuse in popular media images, commercials, comedy films
and television programs, and the "funnies" or comic sections
in any Canadian newspaper (Mathews, 1994). Watch America's Funniest
Home Videos for a few weeks and you will inevitably see some
male being injured in the testicles through a sports activity, boisterous
animal, energetic child or some other mishap. A commercial for an
American fast food company shows one of the characters from the
sitcom Seinfeld, being hit in the testicles with a hockey
puck.
Widely syndicated comic strips, such as Fox Trot, For Better
or Worse and Nancy, portray girls or teen siblings punching,
hitting with an object or breaking the glasses of male siblings
or classmates. Other comic strips, such as Beetle Bailey and
Andy Capp, routinely feature violent acts toward adult males.
A recently released children's film, "Tom and Huck,"
portrays one of the boys being punched in the face by the female
character Becky, a scene played without violence in the original
movie and book. Another recent film, the "Beverly Hillbillies,"
features a young woman named Wily-Mae wrestling with a high
school male peer and stomping on his testicles. Prison rape, injury
to a man's testicles, sexual abuse of boys by women under the guise
of "initiation" and other behaviours, easily identifiable
as physical or sexual abuse and assault when they happen to girls
or women, are exploited for "humour" so regularly that
they have basically become a norm in comedy films and entertainment
(Mathews, 1994).
Chapter 2
Perpetrators of Male Victimization
Sexual Abuse
Most of the data that have shaped our view of sexual abuse perpetration
have been drawn from case report studies, official crime statistics,
police reports and the records of child welfare agencies. Using
case report studies, it is evident that the majority of sexual abusers
of girls, boys, women and teen girls are heterosexual males (DeJong
et al., 1982; Ellerstein and Canavan, 1980; Faller, 1987; Farber
et al., 1984; Reinhart, 1987; Showers et al., 1983; Spencer and
Dunklee, 1986). Ramsay-Klawsnik (1990a) found that boys were abused
by adult males 33% of the time and by adolescent males 12% of the
time. Rates of abuse of males by natural fathers have been reported
in 20% of cases by Pierce and Pierce (1985), 7% by Ellerstein and
Canavan (1980),29% by Paller (1989), 14% by Spencer and Dunklee
(1986) and 48% by Friedrich et al. (1988). Stepfathers were found
to be the abuser in 28 % of cases (Pierce and Pierce, 1985) . Although,
there are no studies of same-sex sexual assault or "date rape"
among teen gay males, evidence from a study of adult gay males suggests
that other gay or bisexual males may represent the majority of perpetrators
(Mezey and King, 1989; Waterman, Dawson and Bologna, 1989).
Teen Perpetrators
Abuse of males by adolescent perpetrators is well documented in
the literature. Rogers and Terry (1984) found that 56% of male victims
were abused by teen males compared to 28% for females. Longo and
Groth (1983) found that 19% of the sibling incest offenders were
female. Others have also documented high rates of abuse of males
by adolescents (Ellerstein and Canavan, 1980; Showers et al., l
983; Spencer and Dunklee, 1986). Longo and Groth (1983) found in
their study that adolescent sex offenders (81% of whom were male,
19% female) abused brothers in 16% of cases and 5% of cases respectively.
In most cases of sibling incest, the victim was younger than the
perpetrator (Pierce and Pierce, 1987). Sibling incest perpetrators
often have low self-esteem, deep-seated feelings of inadequacy and
emptiness, and are isolated, immature loners who prefer the company
of younger children (Groth and Laredo, 1981; Shoor et al., 1966).
Strangers vs. Acquaintances
Boys appear more likely than girls to be abused by multiple perpetrators
(Faller, 1989; Finkelhor and Hotaling, 1984; Rogers and Terry, 1984).
Some research reports that boys are more likely to be abused by
strangers (Finkelhor, 1979; Rogers and Terry, 1984). Faller
(1989) reports that teachers, day-care providers, boy scout leaders
and camp staff accounted for 24% of abuse of males. Risin and Koss
(1987) report that family members were abusers in 22% of cases,
strangers in 15% of cases, babysitters in 23% of cases, neighbours,
teachers or friends of the family in 25% of cases, friends of siblings
in 9% of cases, and peers in just under 6% of cases. However, overall,
it appears that boys, like girls, are more likely to be abused by
someone they know (Faller, 1989; Farber et al., 1984; Fromuth and
Burkhart, 1987, 1989; Risin and Koss, 1987; Rogers and Terry, 1984;
Showers et al., 1983; Spencer and Dunklee, 1986).
Findings from research on intrafamilial abuse of boys vary, with
rates ranging from 20% to a high of almost 90% (Pierce and Pierce,
1985; Finkelhor et al., 1990). Some report that the majority of
sexual abuse experiences for boys are extrafamilial (Farber et al.,
1984; Risin and Koss, 1987; Showers et al., 1983). However, overall,
it does appear that boys are more likely than girls to be abused
outside the family and by non-family members.
Female Perpetrators
As recently as 10 years ago, it was a common assumption that females
did not or could not sexually abuse children or youth. Even some
professionals working in the field believed that women represented
only about 1% to 3% of sexual abusers at most. However, mounting
research evidence about sexual abuse perpetration at the hands of
teen and adult females has begun to challenge our assumptions, though
these earlier and dated views still tend to predominate.
The percentage of women and teenage girl perpetrators recorded
in case report studies is small and ranges from 3% to 10% (Kendall-Tackett
and Simon, 1987; McCarty, 1986; Schultz and Jones, 1983; Wasserman
and Kappel, 1985). When the victim is male, female perpetrators
account for 1 % to 24% of abusers. When the victim is female, female
perpetrators account for 6% to 17% of abusers (American Humane Association,
1981; Finkelhor and Russell, 1984; Finkelhor et al., 1990). In the
Ontario Incidence Study, 10% of sexual abuse investigations involved
female perpetrators (Trocme, 1994). However, in six studies reviewed
by Russell and Finkelhor, female perpetrators accounted for 25%
or more of abusers. Ramsay-Klawsnik (1990) found that adult females
were abusers of males 37% of the time and female adolescents 19%
of the time. Both of these rates are higher than the same study
reported for adult and teen male abusers.
Dynamics of Female-Perpetrated Abuse
Some research has reported that female perpetrators commit fewer
and less intrusive acts of sexual abuse compared to males. While
male perpetrators are more likely to engage in anal intercourse
and to have the victim engage in oral-genital contact, females tend
to use more foreign objects as part of the abusive act (Kaufman
et al., 1995). This study also reported that differences were not
found in the- frequency of vaginal intercourse, fondling by the
victim or abuser, genital body contact without penetration or oral
contact by the abuser.
Females may be more likely to use verbal coercion than physical
force. The most commonly reported types of abuse by female perpetrators
include vaginal intercourse, oral sex, fondling and group sex (Faller,
1987; Hunter et al., 1993). However, women also engage in mutual
masturbation, oral, anal and genital sex acts, show children pornography
and play sex games (Johnson, 1989; Knopp and Lackey, 1987). The
research suggests that, overall, female and male perpetrators commit
many of the same acts and follow many of the same patterns of abuse
against their victims. They also do not tend to differ significantly
in terms of their relationship to the victim (most are relatives)
or the location of the abuse (Allen, 1990; Kaufman et al., 1995).
It is interesting to note in the study by Kaufman et al. (1995)
that 8% of the female perpetrators were teachers and 23% were babysitters,
compared to male perpetrators who were 0% and 8% respectively. Finkelhor
et al. (1988) also report significantly higher rates of sexual abuse
of children by females in day-care settings. Of course, Finkelhor's
findings should not surprise us given that women represent the majority
of day-care employees.
Research on teen and adult female sexual abuse perpetrators has
found that many suffer from low self-esteem, antisocial behaviour,
poor social and anger management skills, fear of rejection, passivity,
promiscuity, mental health problems, post-traumatic stress disorder
and mood disorders (Hunter et al., 1993; Mathews, Matthews and Speltz,
1989). However, as in the case of male perpetrators, research does
not substantiate that highly emotionally disturbed or psychotic
individuals predominate among the larger population of female sexual
abusers (Faller, 1987).
There is some evidence that females are more likely to be involved
with co-abusers, typically a male, though studies report a range
from 25% to 77% (Faller, 1987; Kaufman et al., 1995; McCarty, 1986).
However, Mayer (1992), in a review of data on 17 adolescent female
sex offenders, found that only 2 were involved with male co-perpetrators.
She also found that the young women in this study knew their victims
and that none experienced legal consequences for their actions.
Self-report studies provide a very different view of sexual abuse
perpetration and substantially increase the number of female perpetrators.
In a retrospective study of male victims, 60% reported being abused
by females (Johnson and Shrier, 1987). The same rate was found in
a sample of college students (Fritz et al., l 981). In other studies
of male university and college students, rates of female perpetration
were found at levels as high as 72% to 82% (Fromuth and Burkhart,
1987, 1989; Seidner and Calhoun, 1984). Bell et al. (1981) found
that 27% of males were abused by females. In some of these types
of studies, females represent as much as 50% of sexual abusers (Risin
and Koss, 1987). Knopp and Lackey (1987) found that 51% of victims
of female sexual abusers were male. It is evident that case report
and self-report studies yield very different types of data about
prevalence. These extraordinary differences tell us we need to start
questioning all of our assumptions about perpetrators and victims
of child maltreatment.
Finally, there is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females
in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive
men - 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80%
(Briere and Smiljanich, 1993). A strong case for the need to identify
female perpetrators can be found in Table 4, which presents the
findings from a study of adolescent sex offenders by O'Brien (1989).
Male adolescent sex offenders abused by "females only"
chose female victims almost exclusively.
Table 4
Victim Gender Based on Who Previously Abused the Perpetrator
Gender of Perpetrators' Own Victimizer |
Gender of Victim Male or Both |
Female Only |
Male only |
67.5 |
32.5 |
Female only |
6.7 |
93.3 |
Berkowitz (1993), in a Winnipeg-based study of sexually abused
males in treatment groups, found the following rates of perpetration.
Table 5
Gender of Abusers of Male Victims in Treatment Groups
N %
Gender of Abusers |
N |
% |
Intrafamilial Abuse (N=54) Male perpetrated |
54 |
100.0 |
Female perpetrated |
39 |
72.2 |
Extrafamilial Abuse (N=55) Male adult |
50 |
90.9 |
Female adult |
30 |
54.5 |
Male adolescent |
39 |
70.9 |
Female adolescent |
24 |
43.6 |
Physical Abuse and Neglect
In the Ontario Incidence Study, 41% of investigations of
child maltreatment were for physical abuse, compared to 24% for
sexual abuse, 30% for neglect, 10% for emotional maltreatment and
2% for other forms of maltreatment. There were two or more forms
of suspected maltreatment in 12% of investigations. In 27% of the
cases, maltreatment was substantiated, 30% suspected and 42% unsubstantiated.
Forty-nine percent of investigated children were male, and 35% of
children investigated because of suspected sexual abuse were male
(Trocme, 1994). In Ontario, 34% of investigated children lived with
both biological parents, 19% with a biological parent and a step
parent, 36% with a single mother and 6% with a single father. Social
assistance was the primary source of income for 38% of children
investigated. At least 17% lived in subsidized housing.
In the United States, figures provided by the American Association
for the Protection of Children (1985) reveal that most physical
abuse and most minor and major injuries of children are perpetrated
by women. Other research evidence indicates that mothers represent
the majority of physical abusers and neglecters of children (Johnson
and Showers, 1985; Rosenthal, 1988). Archambault et al, (1989) found
that mothers are the major perpetrators of physical abuse for both
male and female runaways.
It is evident that much of the physical abuse and neglect of children
occurs in single mother-led families living in high-stress environments.
Stressed to the limit, these mothers take out their frustrations
on their children. Some of these mothers are also victims of spousal
violence, child abuse or suffer from a number of current and chronic
life stressors. Because mothers typically are the primary caregivers
of children and spend more time with them, it makes sense that they
would show up in larger numbers in the statistics on child physical
abuse and neglect.
Although females account for more of the physical abuse and neglect
of children, there is some evidence that males inflict more serious
injuries on their victims, particularly male victims (Rosenthal,
1988). Fathers are also 2 times more likely than mothers to be the
perpetrator in cases involving child fatalities (Jason and Anderek,
1983). In other studies, no sex differences, in terms of severity
of abuse or child fatalities in two-parent families, were found
(Gelles, 1989; Greenland, 1987). However, because women still tend
to be the primary caregivers to children, the emotional impact of
mother-perpetrated abuse, regardless of the form, may be greater
on children than a father's abuse.
The greater physical harm caused to children by fathers is likely
attributable to the greater physical strength of males generally,
but also to the disinhibiting effects of alcohol and, to a lesser
extent drugs, which factor prominently in parental abuse of children
and youth (Cavaiola and Schiff, 1988). For all forms of child maltreatment,
parent risk factors, such as alcohol abuse, drug abuse, mental health
problems and inter-parental violence, show up as risk factors, but
especially for physical abuse and neglect (Trocme, 1995).
When the abuse starts is likely to have some impact on its course,
duration and consequences, though there is still insufficient research
to map a predictable developmental path and sequelae. In general,
abuse can follow one of three paths: abuse that begins in childhood
and ends when the child reaches adolescence-; begins in childhood
and continues through adolescence; or begins in adolescence (Lourie,
1979). The duration can range from 1 month to over 15 years. The
average duration is approximately 5 years (Farber and Joseph, 1985).
Corporal Punishment
Much of the use of corporal punishment by parents, teachers, day-care
providers or various institution-based professionals goes unnoticed,
or is not labelled as being abusive, because it is viewed as an
acceptable function for an adult in the role of parent, locus
parentis or caregiver. This is due, in part, to widespread cultural
norms in North American society sanctioning the use of force in
the correction and discipline of children and youth, and a "just
world" view that children who misbehave, are difficult to control
or anger adults deserve to get a spanking.
But it is also because much of this form of maltreatment does not
come to the attention of authorities unless it is severe. As in
the case of inter-spouse abuse, we have historically viewed incidents
of violence within families as a "domestic" concern or
a private family matter, though significant strides have been made
to improve this situation in Canada. However, we have not yet begun
to accord children the same type of compassion and concern we are
beginning to give female spouses.
Almost all American parents endorse the use of corporal punishment
and use it routinely on infants, older children and teens alike,
though usage tends to decrease the older the child gets. However,
more corporal punishment appears to be directed at boys than girls.
More males report being hit by parents and more parents report hitting
sons than daughters (Straus, 1994). In this same study, sons recall
being equally likely to be hit by both parents, whereas adolescent
daughters are a third more likely to be hit by their mothers. The
most chronic pattern of hitting, in terms of frequency, is mothers
hitting adolescent sons, the lowest is for fathers hitting daughters.
Two thirds of mothers with toddlers hit them three or more times
per week. Other studies have also found higher rates of mothers
hitting adolescent children (Wauchope and Straus, 1990).
When an adolescent is hit, both parents usually do it, especially
if the child is a boy. When a son is hit, fathers do it 23% of the
time, mothers 23%, and both parents 53%. When a daughter is hit,
fathers do it 20% of the time, mothers 39%, and both parents 41%.
The highest rate of hitting teens occurs in middle-class families
(Straus, 1994).
Several theories summarized by Straus (1994) offer some explanation
of why boys are hit and punished more often than girls: they misbehave
more; boys are encouraged to be more active which may subtly encourage
misbehaviour; it is part of training boys for anticipated adult
male roles of provider/protector; and it is used to toughen boys
up. The gender of the parent administering corporal punishment is
also likely to influence our perceptions. Because of our stereotypes
of women as nurturers or "natural" caregivers, we are
less likely to attribute malicious intent to mothers or other females.
Instead, we tend to view women's use of physical abuse or corporal
punishment as a sign of stress. We are also likely to overlook,
or give only passing concern to, cases where a female caregiver
uses physical force or corporal punishment toward an older male
child or teen. However, theories that explain mothers' use of violence
toward children and teens solely in terms of stress, fail to acknowledge
and factor in these gender-specific issues of particular consequence
to male victims.
It is generally believed that parental stress owing to conditions
of poverty or low socioeconomic status (SES) contributes to children
being "at risk." However, the research is inconclusive.
Erlanger's review of the literature on corporal punishment reported
no remarkable relationship between use of corporal punishment and
socioeconomic status. Others have found higher rates for lower-income
families (Bryan and Freed, 1982; Stark and McEvoy, 1970). One study
found that corporal punishment rates are highest for middle-class
families (Straus, 1994). This same study also found that while fewer
lower-SES adolescent parents may hit their children, those that
do hit do it more often.
Personal beliefs, life experience, attribution and social
learning all appear to play a role in predicting the use of corporal
punishment. Parents who believe hitting a child is not abuse and
that it works to correct misbehaviour, attribute the child's misbehaviour
to premeditation or provocation, attribute the behaviour to internal
characteristics of the child that are within their control, observe
their partner administer force, or who feel powerless in the face
of the misbehaviour are most likely to use corporal punishment or
physically abuse their children (Bugental, et al., 1989; Dibble
and Straus, 1990; Dietrich et al., 1990; Dix and Grusec, 1985; Fry,
1993; Institute for the Prevention of Child Abuse, 1990; Walters,
1991). The more parents believe in the use of corporal punishment,
the more likely they are to use it, and the more likely they are
to apply it harshly (Moore and Straus, 1987).
Chapter 3
Effects of Victimization on Males
Most of the literature on the impact of abuse has been written
about female victims and thus tends to reflect a female-centred
perspective. There has become, in Fran Sepler's words, a "feminization
of victimization" (1990). That is not to say that this literature
cannot be applied to male victims. There are likely more similarities
than differences between male and female victims.
Questions typically surface in discussions about victimization
concerning which gender suffers the greatest impact from abuse.
Watkins and Bentovim (1992) in a review of the literature were unable
to find clear evidence that either males or female victims are harmed
more by their victimization experiences. However, the question itself
is self-defeating given the wide range of peoples' resilience and
ability to cope, personal resources, the availability of social
supports and individual differences, to name only a few.
One problem that arises when trying to assess the impact of abuse
of either gender is separating out which consequences are immediate
or short-term reactions from those that are likely to be enduring.
Another problem is the difficulty of assessing impact for children
and youth who have experienced two or more types of maltreatment.
Individuals, family environments, developmental and cultural contexts
also differ widely, as do things such as previous levels of mental
and physical health or intellectual or cognitive functioning. Further
complicating the matter is that most of the recent research on impact
has been conducted on sexual abuse victims and survivors.
Consequently, it is difficult to make generalized statements about
impact that apply to all victims, even of similar types of abuse.
Sexual Abuse
Numerous factors have been cited as contributing to an enduring
or harmful outcome: duration and frequency of abuse, penetration,
use of force, abuse by family members or other closely related person,
lack of support following disclosure, pressure to recant, multiple
other problems in the family, and younger age (Browne and Finkelhor,
1986; Conte and Schuerman, 1987; Finkelhor, 1979; Friedrich et al.,
1986; Russell and Finkelhor, 1984; Tsai et al., 1979). For males,
the added dimension of not being able to disclose their abuse for
fear of being labelled "gay," a weakling or a liar may
amplify the effects of these other factors. Even when males do disclose,
few supports and services are available and few professionals possess
the skills and knowledge necessary to work effectively with male
victims.
It is widely assumed that males are more likely than females to
"act out" in response to their abuse. They develop social
problem behaviours such as sex offending, assault, conduct disorder
or delinquency, and appear to be more inclined to engage in health-damaging
behaviours such as smoking, drug abuse, running away or school problems
leading to suspension (Bolton, 1989; Friedrich et al., 1988; Kohan
et al., 1987; Rogers and Terry, 1984).
Females are thought, generally, to internalize their response and
"act in" or develop more emotional problems, mood and
somatic disorders, resort to self-harming behaviours and become
vulnerable to further victimization. Although there is some meat
to this perspective, it does apply gender role stereotypes, and
is not consistent with current research on the impact of abuse on
males. Males, generally, may be just as likely to experience depression
as females, they just are not given much permission to express it.
Males are expected to be stoic and to just "snap out of it."
Males generally do not discuss their feelings or go to therapists
for help so they are not likely to show up in the statistics on
depression. Because boys have little permission to discuss their
feelings, depression in males may be masked as bravado, aggression
or a need to "act out" in order to overcompensate for
feelings of powerlessness. Depressed male victims are also likely
to be hiding in the statistics on suicide, addictions and unexplained
motor vehicle fatalities. If males are indeed more likely to engage
in acting out behaviours, it may simply be the result of us not
allowing them to be vulnerable or to be victims.
However, the literature does provide overwhelming evidence of emotional
disturbance in male victims. Anxiety, low self-esteem, guilt and
shame, strong fear reactions, depression, post-traumatic stress
disorder, withdrawal and isolation, flashbacks, multiple personality
disorder, emotional numbing, anger and aggressiveness, hyper-vigilance,
passivity and an anxious need to please others have all been documented
(Adams-Tucker, 1981; Blanchard, 1986; Briere, 1989; Briere et al.,
1988; Burgess et al., 1981; Conte and Schuerman, 1987;RogersandTerry,1984;Sebold,1987;Summit,1983;VanderMey,
1988). Compared to non-abused men, adult male survivors of sexual
abuse experience a greater degree of psychiatric problems, such
as depression, anxiety, dissociation, suicidality and sleep disturbance
(Briere et al., 1988).
Childhood sexual abuse has been found in the backgrounds of large
numbers of men incarcerated in federal prisons (Diamond and Phelps,
1990; Spatz-Widom, 1989; Condy et al., 1987). Because males are
more likely to be physically and sexually abused concurrently, they
may be more conditioned to see sex, violence and aggression as inseparable.
This may provide us with clues to explain why male victims appear
to sexually abuse or assault others more often than females, why
their anger and frustration may be more other-directed than girls,
why boys appear to develop a stronger external locus of control,
and why they appear to possess a diminished sensitivity to the impact
of the abuse on their victims.
However, sexual offending is just one possible consequence for
male victims. Most do not become sex offenders (Becker, 1988; Condy
et al., 1987; Preeman-Longo, 1986; Friedrich et al., 1987; Friedrich
and Luecke, 1988; Groth, 1977; Kohan et al., 1987; Petrovich and
Templer, 1984). Some males become "sexualized" resulting
in increased masturbation or preoccupation with sexual thoughts
or use of sexual language. Others develop fetishes (Friedrich et
al., 1987; Kohan et al., 1987).
Male victims experience a number of physical symptoms similar to
females. Common problems are sleep disturbances, eating disorders,
self-mutilation, engaging in unsafe sexual practices, nightmares,
agoraphobia, enuresis and encopresis, elevated anxiety and phobias
(Adams-Tucker, 1981; Burgess et al., 1981; Dixon et al., 1978; Hunter,
1990; Langsley et al., 1968; Spencer and Dunklee, 1986). Male victims
also experience psychosomatic health problems normally associated
with experiencing high levels of chronic long-term stress, receive
sexually transmitted diseases, and become injured through rough
touching, penetration or object insertion or, in extreme cases,
are killed. In preschool boys and male infants, failure to thrive,
early and compulsive masturbation, hyperactivity, sexual behaviour
with pets, sexual touching of other children that re-enacts the
abuse and regression in speech or language skills have been found
(Hewitt, 1990).
Being sexually abused can leave a young male with an inability
to set personal boundaries, a sense of hopelessness and a proclivity
to engage in many types of careless or self-destructive behaviours,
such as unprotected sex with high-risk partners. It is thus no surprise
to find that sexual abuse was also found in 42% of persons with
HIV infection (Allers and Benjack, 1991; Allers et al., 1993).
Johnson and Shrier ( 1987) found that males molested by males were
more likely than those molested by females to view themselves as
being "gay," a devalued status in North American society.
In this same study, female-victimized males reported the impact
of the abuse to be more severe, possibly as a consequence of experiencing
a reversal of stereotyped gender roles which placed the female in
the more powerful role.
One of the reasons why a male might be more affected by sexual
abuse is that it calls into question his whole sexual and personal
identity "as a man." When a male is victimized, he is
more likely to experience confusion about sexual identity (Johnson
and Shrier, 1987; Rogers and Terry, 1984; Sebold, 1487). Male anatomy
may play a key role in forming this perception. Because male genitalia
is external, arousal to direct stimulation is more obvious. Obtaining
an erection, experiencing pleasurable sensations or having an orgasm
is, to the male victim, physical "evidence" that he is
homosexual. It also reinforces the male victim's mistaken belief
that he was responsible in some way because he "obviously"
enjoyed it. Contrary to popular belief, a male can have an erection
and achieve orgasm even when fearful.
Many male victims experience difficulties in intimate relationships
as a result of being abused. They have few, if any, close friends,
are promiscuous, have difficulty maintaining fidelity with partners,
form few secure attachments and often become involved in short-term,
abusive and dysfunctional relationships. Many experience few emotionally
or physically satisfying sexual relationships and sometimes avoid
sex altogether. Others become sexual compulsives, develop sexual
dysfunctions or engage in prostitution (Coombs, 1974; Dimock, 1988;
Promuth and Burkhart, 1989; Johnson and Shrier, 1987; Krug, 1989;
Lew, 1986; Sarrel and Masters, 1982; Steele and Alexander, 1981;
Urquiza, 1993).
Physical Abuse, Corporal Punishment and Neglect
There appears to be some truth to the notion that violence begets
violence. Children with a history of physical abuse and corporal
punishment are more aggressive, possess fewer internal controls
for their behaviour, have higher rates of involvement in came and
violence as adults, and are more likely to abuse siblings or attack
parents (Bandura and Walters, 1959; Bryan and Freed, 1982; Eron,
1982; Hirschi, 1969; Sears et al., 1957; Straus et al., 1980; Welsh,
1978; Widom, 1989). Men and women who were physically punished are
also more likely to abuse their partners or spouses (Straus, 1991).
The highest predictors of involvement in came and delinquency are:
being hit once per week or more at 11 years of age and having a
mother, at that age, with strong beliefs in, and a commitment to,
corporal punishment (Newson and Newson, 1990).
There is some evidence to suggest that adults hit as adolescents
are more likely to develop depression or engage in suicidal ideation
than those who are not hit, regardless of sex, socioeconomic status,
drinking problems, marital violence or whether children witnessed
violence between their parents. In fact, the more one is hit the
greater the likelihood that depression will be a consequence ( Straus,
1994).
Straus suggests four consequences of corporal punishment. At the
immediate level, it leads to escalation, where a resistant
child forces the parent to use increasing amounts of force which
could cause serious injury. At the developmental level, the
more corporal punishment is used, the more it will have to be used
because the child will be less likely to develop internalized controls
for behaviour. At the macro-cultural level, corporal punishment
creates a society that approves of violence to correct wrongdoing.
At the inter-generational level, it increases the chance
that when the child is an adult he or she will approve of interpersonal
violence, be in a violent marriage and be depressed.
Assessing the impact of neglect is difficult, since its effects
are likely to be inseparable from problems related to living in
a dangerous or high-stress home environment, living in an unsafe
neighbourhood or community, living in poverty, poor parental skills,
parental mental health problems, parental criminality or substance
abuse or addiction, and inter-parental violence. Here, the effects
are likely similar for male and female victims. Health problems
related to non-organic failure to thrive, dental cases, malnutrition,
anemia and low levels of immunity protection could also be expected.
The Consequences of "Male Sexual Licence"
Males, generally, have more permission to be sexual persons in
our society. A double standard of morality has been applied to males
and female for centuries. The fact that there are no "positive"
or flattering terms such as "sowing his wild oats," "boys
will be boys" or "ladies man" for females gives vivid
illustration to this point. It is generally assumed that having
"licence" to be a sexual person is an advantage. Males
are seen to get power from obtaining or taking sex, women from withholding
sex.
However, sexual licence has serious consequences for male victims.
It increases a boy's susceptibility to sexual abuse by promoting
or encouraging participation in sexual activities. It promotes secrecy
because boys are afraid to report sexual experiences that go wrong
for fear they are responsible and blameworthy. It affects our perceptions
as professional caregivers, encourages victim blaming and supports
minimization of the impact on victims of male-on-male sexual assault
or female-perpetrated sexual assault. It causes males to expect
female sexual contact. It promotes risk-taking sexual behaviour
and creates expectations for males that they must be the initiators
of sex and have sexual knowledge and experience.
Chapter 4
Implications
Implications for Research
As one might expect from any new field, the literature regarding
male victimization lacks cohesion, particularly in the area of sexual
abuse. Samples are wide ranging. Some studies provide no definition
of sexual abuse. Some include only hands-on offences. Some apply
a definition of abuse only when the age difference between the victim
and the perpetrator is five or more years. Some count perpetrators
only if they are adults or at least 16 years of age. This would
exclude, for example, the sexual abuse of a 10 or 11-year-old boy
by a 15-year-old male or female teen. Some subjects were excluded
if the male victim admitted to "wanting" or agreed to
the sexual activity.
There are still many definitional/conceptual problems in the discourse
with respect to what constitutes sexual abuse toward boys and young
men. Although definitions of abuse may be spelled out clearly in
the law, many of us struggle to see sexual abuse when there is pressured
sex between teen male peers; teen girls or adult females expose
themselves to boys; adult females use the services of teen males
working in prostitution; when women engage in sexualized talk with
boys or teen males; or when an adult male or female shows pornography
to a boy or teen male. Even if there is agreement about some of
these categories when young boys are involved, once a male reaches
his teen years, our perceptions readily begin to reflect a double
standard.
Imprecision and bias in the selection of research questions greatly
affects the findings of studies. For example, terms such as sexual
"contact" and sexual "abuse" mean very different
things to males who are socialized to expect and enjoy all sexual
interactions with females. That is why studies that broaden their
definition of sexual abuse and ask males about "sexual experiences"
with older teen and adult females yield higher prevalence rates
for female offenders. Lower-prevalence-yielding case-report types
of studies have shaped most of the professional discourse on child
abuse and created an impression of male victimization in the public
mind that is largely false and misleading.
Applying a double standard when interpreting findings has also
affected our perceptions about impact on male victims. It is not
uncommon in studies of males abused by females to find claims that
they did not see the sexual contact as "abuse" and viewed
it as a neutral or positive experience. Anyone reading these studies
who accepted these accounts at face value could be led to the erroneous
assumption that there was, in reality, no actual negative
or harmful impact. When making this assumption, we forget that males
are socialized to minimize the impact of being victimized, especially
if the abuser was a female, and often hide their fear or discomfort
behind "macho posturing."
Accepting these self-assessments at face value reinforces stereotypes
about males that have unintended consequences for males and females.
They maintain a harmful double standard prevalent in the child abuse
field. They give a message that male victims can "take it."
They suggest females are not sex offenders but instead "gentle
seducers." They encourage some female sex abusers to deny by
supporting a view of themselves as teachers/initiators of sex for
their male victims. They support the stereotype that boys are "seduced,"
while girls are "raped" or sexually assaulted. They can
affect the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of police officers,
physicians, hospital staff, child welfare authorities or anyone
else who examines victims for impact or conducts investigations
of incidents involving female abusers and male victims. They can
cause these same persons to look only at physical injuries to male
victims and overlook or minimize their emotional responses. They
suggest that, but for our socialization of males and females, girls
would be giving the same kinds of "positive" or "neutral"
responses. This is most definitely a message we do not want
to be sending to anyone about children or youth.
We owe it to ourselves and to male victims to ask more probing
research questions. For example, if we reframed the experience for
these male victims and invited them to consider the differences
in power between themselves as children and their adult or teen
abusers, to search for feelings of confusion or anxiety before,
during or after the sexual contact, and to examine in their adult
life the quality or quantity of their intimate and sexual relationships,
would they be more likely to respond differently? Would we accept
without question from a female victim her assessment that her "sexual
contact" with a teen or adult male was not sexual abuse or
was just part of her learning about sex? Unlikely. We have to ask
ourselves why we simply accept this response from males.
The double standard prevalent in the field of child abuse has created
a most unfortunate situation for boys and young men. Female abusers
must do something severe and obvious before they will be held accountable
as perpetrators. Males must be abused in more severe and obvious
ways before we will take them seriously as victims.
Serious gaps also exist in the literature. There has been an extraordinary
focus on sexual abuse that, relative to the prevalence of
other forms of abuse, is out of proportion. It is time for us to
focus more time, attention and resources on the study of physical
abuse, including corporal punishment, neglect and emotional maltreatment
of children. Male victims represent a majority of the victims in
these other types of abuse cases.
We also need to investigate the particular needs of visible, cultural
and sexual minority male victims. The impact of victimization on
a boy or young man, along with our response to his needs and issues,
can be greatly affected by his membership in one or more of these
categories.
Finally, we have to restore some equity in the allocation of resources
spent on research and public education in the area of child abuse
and interpersonal violence. Single-gender studies focusing on women's
concerns predominate. While this has been an important and worthwhile
investment of our resources, a single-gender focus on public education
and advocacy is impeding the development of a more inclusive and
comprehensive picture of interpersonal violence in Canada. Until
we possess a better understanding of male victims' issues, we will
continue to fall far behind other Western democracies and compromise
the vision of achieving real gender equality.
Implications For Assessment, Treatment, and Program Development
It is generally assumed that approaches to working with female
victims will also work with males. Although there is merit in this
belief, our current and predominantly female-centred models of victimization
fall short in several important areas and may actually be harmful
if carelessly applied to male victims.
The silence, denial and resistance that surrounds the issue of
child abuse is particularly problematic for males. Because knowledge
about male victimization is very limited in the public mind, featured
rarely in media stories and under-researched, victims need to know
from the outset that they are not the first or only male who has
been abused or harmed. Making sure a male victim understands the
prevalence of male victimization can be of significant help in ending
the sense of isolation and self-loathing that accompanies a common
perception that "I am the only one" or "I do not
measure up."
Learning to trust a therapist and even one's own thoughts, feelings
and perceptions after having been victimized is a major issue for
all survivors. Opening up to a therapist can be an extraordinary
challenge for male victims who must also cross a barrier with respect
to gender-role socialization that instructs males to be stoic and
silent, prevents them from wanting to appear vulnerable and encourages
them to be self-reliant. The skill and knowledge of the therapist,
and experience working with male victims, is of paramount importance
in facilitating the development of trust in male victims and getting
them past these obstacles. Being able to identify for male victims
our gender "blindspots" that end up causing or exacerbating
many of their problems will help them build confidence and ultimately
greater trust in us.
Therapists working with male victims need to have a thorough knowledge
of human development across the lifespan. For example, many of the
effects of being abused as a boy do not surface until later years.
Understanding how abuse can affect childhood development and what
the potential sequelae might be, therapists can be more effective
guides for a male victim and an important resource for his caregivers,
intimate partners or other persons who are supporting him in his
healing work.
Conducting a thorough and comprehensive assessment is imperative
when working with male victims. Older boys, and teen and young adult
males, often find recollections of sexual abuse experiences fragmented
or dream-like. Some of this may be related to the age at which the
abuse occurred, the fact that the abuse was well "disguised"
in otherwise typical child/adult interactions, or seamlessly blended
into everyday interactions in a home "environment" that
was sexualized. The permission given to males in their socialization
to be sexual persons can also confuse memories and distort interpretations
of the experience. Sexual abuse often leaves male victims with a
traumatized sexuality that can be internalized or interpreted as
being a normal "male" sexual response pattern.
Because males are socialized to take charge, be responsible and
take care of themselves, physical abuse and corporal punishment
can be interpreted as "deserved" and internalized in a
negative self-concept that supports self-blame. It can also support
the internalization of anger in the form of drug and alcohol abuse,
excessive risk taking, suicide and reckless attempts to reassert
a distorted sense of one's own masculinity. All these gender-role-related
issues need to be unpacked for male victims.
Another area of special significance to males is in the use of
language-intensive and insight-based types of interventions. Boys
tend to lag girls in the acquisition and use of language skills
(Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974). Some of this may be related to different
patterns of brain development or maturation in males and females.
The literature on high-risk violent and aggressive male youth, many
of whom are victims, is rich with documentation concerning the predominance
of language deficits and other learning difficulties. This lag in
language development may be one more reason why boys are less likely
than girls to disclose their abuse.
However, rarely discussed is the fact that a lag in language development,
or even language deficits, may also be based on differential socialization,
family and environmental factors, or abuse and neglect issues. Males,
generally, are not encouraged to talk about their feelings or personal
thoughts. Consequently, few boys and teen males have much experience
exploring or expressing inner states of mind and emotion. They are
generally more "action" oriented and thus inclined to
dismiss a long process of searching for insight in the interest
of just "getting on with life." Using exclusively language-intensive
and insight-based types of interventions can push a male victim
into a process of therapeutic or healing work that will make him
uncomfortable because he is neither able nor prepared to deal with
it.
The language of therapy is typically a language about feelings
which creates problems for some male victims. Male victims typically
struggle with expressions of feeling. This should not be interpreted
as a confirmation of biased stereotypes about males as having no
feelings or lower levels of "emotional literacy" than
females. Males experience the same emotions as females, they are
just less likely to be differentiated and articulated. For example,
feelings of shame, guilt, humiliation, anxiety, sadness and rage
can become bundled together in the form of anger. Since anger is
the only "legitimate" feeling they can express, they,
and we, often mistake what we are seeing when a male victim expresses
anger. Some males are afraid to express any anger at all because
of the potential tempest of uncontrollable and jumbled feelings
they fear will be unleashed. Some are afraid to express anger because
they associate it with violence. Therapists, unaware of these complexities,
may invite a male victim to express his anger and end up scaring
him off counselling. Conversely, suggestions to a male that he needs
to learn techniques to "control" or "manage"
his anger can convey a message that it is a "pathology"
in need of correction and that his underlying pain and confusion
are not legitimate.
That is why it is so important to identify toxic versus
righteous anger for male victims. Toxic anger is a maladaptive,
unacknowledged, repressed or misdirected rage reaction that can
harm male victims and their relationships with others. Righteous
anger has the potential to be empowering once it is understood as
a normal and healthy response to the harmful restrictions of male
gender roles, to being abused and to a biased, unwelcoming and silencing
social environment males face when they attempt to disclose their
victimization.
Some male victims become intensely "homophobic," their
anger emerging from self-perceptions and doubts about their "masculinity"
or about possibly being "gay." It is important to help
male victims understand that being abused does not "cause"
someone to become gay or bisexual. Helping males to understand that
this anger stems from a perceived threat to personal beliefs about
their "masculinity" and a cultural context that supports
anti-gay prejudice is also important. If we were a gay-positive
society, it would be less likely for these homophobic feelings and
perceptions to arise. We need to counsel boys and young men that
"masculinity" is a social construction that is malleable.
Many male victims suffer under the tyranny of a narrowly defined
sense of what it means to be a "man." They need help,
support, and encouragement to learn to be themselves, outside of
rigid gender-role proscriptions.
Some male victims express no emotions like anger at all but become
withdrawn, isolated and depressed. Many males hide their emotions
in work-a-holism, perfectionism and over-achieving. All these behaviours
can be highly resistant to change, considering that they have the
effect of deflecting painful feelings and bring monetary rewards,
prestige or social status.
Although abuse of power is the fundamental dynamic behind all forms
of victimization, many male victims do not report feeling powerless
and do not see themselves as "victims." While it is important
to respect these victims' points of view, we cannot appear to condone
the perpetrator's behaviour or fail to communicate the legal, moral
and ethical issues involved in the abuse of boys or young men by
older persons. Being older, larger in physical size, more attractive,
wealthier, popular, smarter or in a position of authority are all
forms of "social power" that can be used by offenders
to trap, seduce, harass, harm or abuse victims.
A Repeating Cycle of Violence?
Is there a repeating cycle of violence for male victims? Perspectives
vary, and the question defies a simple answer because there are
likely many factors that act together to influence a victim's subsequent
behaviour.
Many people believe that males who are victimized automatically
become offenders. Some critics argue that if a "repeating cycle"
model was true, there would be more female than male sex offenders,
since more females are sexually abused than males. However, this
argument neglects to consider several facts. First, female sex offending
is much higher than the case-based research reveals. Second,
far more male children are sexually abused than case-based
research documents show. In fact, male and female children may be
equally likely to be sexually abused, especially within the
family. Also forgotten is the fact that, though sexual abuse of
males continues into adolescence, reporting drops off dramatically
after puberty. Third, many forms of female sex offending are hard
to detect because they have the appearance of being "nurturing"
behaviour or do not resemble behaviours perpetrated by males. Compulsive
genital washing, inappropriate sleeping arrangements, walking in
on children when they are using the bathroom or undressing for bed,
sexualized talk, or teasing a child about his sexual organs or development
are some of the less obvious types of behaviours committed by female
sex offenders (Mathews, 1989). Fourth, because we socialize girls
to not be sexual persons, female offenders may be more likely to
express their anger and frustration in the form of passive neglect
of children, corporal punishment or physical abuse, or psychological
maltreatment.
Other critics worry about the message we send to male victims through
this repeating cycle model. Although some male victims, like abused
females, do hurt others, the majority do not. Carelessly asking
a male victim if he is offending can establish a self-fulfilling
prophecy in the young person. It can create or reinforce feelings
about being "no good" or "damaged goods." Critics
also worry that male victims exposed to political rhetoric about
men being "oppressors" of women may become convinced that
offending is their inevitable destiny. We also run the risk of fostering
low self-esteem or self-worth by giving a male victim the message
that his victimization is less important than the victimization
of others.
The arguments of still other critics are puzzling. For example,
when women or teen girls offend they consider their abuse background
or stressful life situations as the "cause" of the offending
behaviour, but not for males. These critics do not acknowledge that
trauma experienced by males as a result of previous victimization,
stress from being unemployed, gender role expectations that they
be the primary providers for their families, or mental or physical
health problems might also be part of why some fathers lash out
at their children or other family members. Basically, this latter
view is a representation of the essentialist position of women as
victims, males as perpetrators.
However, these above concerns aside, it is evident that many abused
persons, male and female, do harm others. And, while it may be possible
to speak in general terms about "gendered" responses to
previous victimization, violence and aggression, regardless of their
form, are not a single gender "problem." Patterns of intergenerational
transmission of violence and aggression from grandparents, to parents,
to children have been documented in the literature. Previous victimization
has been found in high numbers in the backgrounds of men and women
in prisons. A repeating cycle model, while being far from comprehensive,
is a valuable conceptual tool that can help us in the search to
better understand all forms of abuse and their personal, social
and developmental consequences.
Implications for Staff Development and Program Supervision
It is likely that a significant proportion of young offenders,
particularly those with a record of crimes involving physical and
sexual assault, are victims of abuse in one form or another. Perhaps
one of the reasons why we have had such poor success with many of
these young people is precisely because we have failed to recognize
the abuse and neglect issues that underlie their antisocial behaviour.
Specialized training for professionals in the area of male victimization
is woefully inadequate or non-existent. Front-line and supervisory
staff of child, youth and family-serving organizations need to become
more aware of the large and growing literature on male victimization.
Regular and routine staff training in this area must become a standard
of practice if we are to better serve male clients and their families.
Because abused boys and young men often struggle with self-concepts
about "being a man," all caregivers must be vigilant to
how their own behaviour and expectations of male victims reinforce
narrow or stereotyped notions of "masculinity." Male workers
especially need to understand that they are modelling "masculinity"
every moment they are with a male child or teen. And, because boys
spend so much of their early formative years in the care of mothers
and female teachers, women also need to be vigilant with respect
to how their behaviour or comments reinforce these narrow stereotypes.
Professionals and other support workers or caregivers to male victims
must have a clear understanding of the salient effects of homophobia
and one's own personal view of homosexuality. Personal beliefs of
caregivers can and do have a great impact on those whose abuse experiences
have left them hypervigilant to the facial cues, body language or
affect of others. We all too easily betray our discomfort with same-sex
sexual assault or abuse. For a male child or teen victim with a
fragile or damaged self-concept, any indication on our part of judgment,
revulsion or hypocrisy will only create more woundedness.
All of us, regardless of our professional role, must stop minimizing
the impact of abuse on male victims or assuming they can "take
it." The symptoms of abuse are often invisible for boys. By
continuing to apply a double standard to male victims, we are reinforcing
and supporting violence toward boys and young men in our schools,
communities, homes and institutions.
As provincial governments cut back on expenditures, pressure is
falling on child welfare agencies to rationalize their services.
Some are choosing to discontinue service in cases of extrafamilial
child sexual abuse and turn this responsibility over to the police.
One immediate problem with this move is that more of these types
of cases typically involve male victims. If police investigators
do not Possess the training needed to recognize male-specific symptomotology,
they may fail to make appropriate referrals or miss important evidence.
In intrafamilial cases, child welfare investigators must ask more
probing questions so that subtleties such as "sexualized environments"
or other less immediately visible factors that impact on a male
child's healthy development can be gathered in assessments. The
research evidence suggests cases of abuse involving boys are less
likely to be founded, male victims are more likely to be blamed
for their abuse and sexual abusers of boys are held less responsible
for their actions. All of this points to the need for more awareness
on the part of police, child welfare investigators and health care
professionals.
In cases of child abuse involving male and female co-perpetrators,
we can no longer continue making assumptions that it is the male
alone who is responsible or the initiator. Failing to hold the female
perpetrator fully accountable harms male victims by denying their
experience. It also infantilizes women or teen girls, and reinforces
stereotypes that only males abuse.
Teachers and education administrators need to become more vigilant
with respect to the level of violence toward male children and youth
in schools. Anti-violence curriculum in any form that excludes the
reality of violence and victimization for males, that minimizes
sexual harassment toward them or that singles them out as the perpetrators
will only push boys and young men away. Curriculum materials need
to apply an equal focus to teaching boys how to avoid becoming victims.
We need to teach girls how to avoid becoming perpetrators, given
that female students report being most at peril from other girls
in schools (Mathews, 1995). And, any curriculum that problematizes
only "male gender" without an equal consideration of how
female and male gender roles and expectations are interdependent
and mutually limiting is biased and alienating for male students.
We can no longer tolerate literature about child abuse and neglect
that details the stories of female victims and then parenthetically
dismisses the experience of males by simply adding that, "It
happens to males too." Violence and victimization from a male
perspective is not always the same as it is for females and needs
to be acknowledged separately.
Many violent and aggressive students bring extraordinary personal
and family problems to the school environment. Boisterousness, attention
deficits, hyperactivity and learning difficulties can mask underlying
abuse issues in male students. Education administrators should ensure
that all staff receive regular training in the recognition of signs
and symptoms of abuse and neglect as they pertain to males. In cases
where boys are exhibiting signs of oppositional defiant disorder,
conduct disorder or attention deficit disorder (with or without
hyperactivity), we should now be ruling in or out the possibility
of current and ongoing victimization or an abuse history.
School sports programs present a special challenge. Many "at-risk"
youth feel that organized community and school sports programs are
a good way to help them "blow off steam" and keep them
out of trouble. While it is important to recognize the beneficial
effects of sports, in terms of fitness, learning teamwork and building
self-discipline, it is essential for coaches or other supervising
personnel to convey in no uncertain terms that violence and unnecessary
roughness is unacceptable. School sports program staff also need
to understand that many male survivors skip gym class and avoid
sports altogether. Their fear is having to undress in locker rooms
where, by changing into athletic attire or showering, they have
to "expose" themselves.
The Search for a More Inclusive Framework for Analysis
It is important to remember that child abuse is a relatively new
field of study and cannot and should not remain static. If the field
is to maintain its integrity and develop as an increasingly more
disciplined area within the social sciences, it must remain open
to new ideas, challenges to status quo assumptions and new voices.
One of the traps we have fallen into in our study of violence and
abuse is that we tend to see things from an "essentialist"
perspective. When one takes an essentialist position, one assumes
all members of a group, gender, class, culture, etc., are alike;
what is characteristic of one individual is characteristic of the
whole group, regardless of how individual members may see themselves
or interpret their behaviour.
Essentialist ways of thinking lead us to use expressions such as
"male violence," in spite of the fact that most males
are not violent. If one used the expression "minority youth
crime," one would see immediately the racism inherent in the
statement, since all minority youth would be type cast as a result
of the actions of a few. We see the racism in this phrase but the
bias in the term "male violence" is invisible. The use
of the term "male violence" in the discourse is leading
us away from a more comprehensive understanding of interpersonal
violence and abuse. Males do appear to be the majority of sexual
abuse perpetrators, but women are the primary physical abusers
and neglecters of children. Mothers and fathers appear
to be equally likely to use corporal punishment. Mothers and
fathers can inflict serious and lethal harm on a child. Since
more neglect and physical types of violence are perpetrated against
children than sexual abuse, we need to take a serious look at how
our terms and concepts are blinding us to a large and neglected
part of the abuse problem.
What gets missed in an essentialist perspective is the complexity
of social problems and interpersonal relationships and dynamics.
Essentialist thinking eventually compromises the integrity of any
field because its narrow focus on group characteristics fails to
account for individual differences and the impact of situational
and other variables on behaviour. We are running into this problem
in the child abuse field.
Because women were the early advocates in the abuse field, much
of the writing in this area reflects a women's point of view and
a predominantly gender-based feminist framework for analysis known
in general terms as "patriarchy theory" typified in the
work of Herman ( 1981). In this theoretical view, abuse, particularly
sexual abuse, is the result of a "patriarchal culture of male
power, male prerogative and male inclination to sexualize all relationships"
(Hyde, 1990)
Patriarchy theory is compelling at a first glance because it is
based on women's lived experience and the very real political, social
and economic inequities women encounter every day. It also has the
potential to shed light on many aspects of women's lives, including
how social inequities can and do affect mental and emotional health.
As a general theory based on women's experience "as a group"
it has merit. But it also makes some assumptions about men as a
group that, upon close scrutiny, are biased. Male victims are beginning
to challenge a strictly gender-based view of violence, victimization,
and power relations, because their own lived experiences teach them
something very different.
For example, one area where this theory begins to weaken is in
its interaction with a class and race analysis. In economic and
political terms, a wealthy woman has more social power than a poor
or homeless man. A female professional person, such as a physician,
judge or lawyer, has more power than an unskilled male worker by
virtue of her education, earning power and social influence. A Caucasian
female has more social power than a visible minority male. The theory
also fails to acknowledge the power that women, as adults and in
the role of mother, teacher or child care provider, have over male
children.
And there are other problems. The embellishment of patriarchy theory
evident in the quotation from Hyde is biased in the way it generalizes
a negative stereotype of "male sexuality" to all men.
Most men are kind, decent, caring husbands, lovers, partners, colleagues,
fathers and friends of women. Men's sexuality varies as much as
women's.
It is evident from the research highlighted in this report that
interpersonal violence is a complex phenomenon that cannot be reduced
to any one single theory. Models based solely on a patriarchal model
of gender relations, though useful, are limited in their ability
to explain the many facets of the violence and abuse story. They
have also failed to bring males and females together in a common
purpose to end violence.
A strictly applied gender-based model also does not fully account
for female sex-offending, most notably the abuse of boys by mothers,
adult or older teen women, the seduction of minor-aged males by
older female teens and women, mother/daughter incest and the sexual
abuse of children by teachers, day care providers, institutional
caregivers and other women in positions of power or authority (Mathews,
1995). It is also heterosexist and does not account for sexual abuse,
sexual exploitation and battering in lesbian relationships (Renzetti,
1992) or male same-sex relationships. In addition, it does not fully
account for female use of corporal punishment, neglect and emotional
maltreatment of children. Its greatest weakness is that it is not
comprehensive. Its greatest strength lies in the fact that it identifies
a "power dynamic" that has wider application to all types
of social relations.
There are a number of considerations can be applied to a more comprehensive
framework to account for abuse. Most would fit under the categories
of behaviour, relationship and power. Crowder (1993) provides a
useful starting point, particularly in the area of sexual abuse.
She defines sexual abuse as "an overt or covert sexual behaviour
between two individuals when the following conditions exist: the
nature of the sexual act(s) is developmentally inappropriate for
at least one of the participants; the balance of power and authority
(meaning psychological power, economic power, role status power,
etc.) between the two individuals is unequal; and the two individuals
have an established emotional connection (such as between a child
and a caregiver, or a child and authority figure). "
A model of abuse that is predicated on power imbalances or the
misuse of power is a good starting point in our search for a more
comprehensive framework because it encourages us to: hold both male
and female abusers accountable for their behaviour; empower victims
to take control of their healing process and their lives; recognize
and validate the victim's experience; affirm that a victim's self-knowledge
is paramount; link the victim's individual struggle to a collective
one to transform power relations in our society; and focus on power
dynamics in the therapeutic relationship (Mathews, 1995).
What is emerging is that different types of abuse may require different
explanatory and theoretical models, alone or in combination. For
example, a feminist theory of patriarchal gender relations may provide
part of the explanation for father/daughter incest, step-father/step
daughter sexual abuse and a father's use of corporal punishment.
A power model may more fully explain women's use of physical violence
against boys and teen males, women's sexual use of male children
and teens, maternal use of corporal punishment, or sibling-on-sibling
violence.
A more inclusive theoretical framework is necessary not only for
understanding etiology so that better assessment and treatment programs
can be developed, but also to eliminate the double standard that
tends to be applied to cases involving male victims of abuse. An
"abuse of sexuality" model, a variation of the power abuse
perspective, applies to both genders, and gives us a more inclusive
conceptual framework to apply to cases such as female exposure to
males, and the sexual use of male children and teens by older females
(Bolton, 1989). Bolton, reflecting the opinion of Finkelhor (1986),
Russell (1983) and Brandt and Tisza ( 1977), advocates for applying
multiple levels of conceptualizing abuse to capture things such
as "sexualized environments" in families, sexual misuse
of a child or any abusive experience that interferes with a child's
healthy development. Bolton's "abuse of sexuality" model
describes a continuum of environments that range from the promotion
of normalized sexual development in males and females to those that
eliminate the possibility of normal development.
The evidence suggests that a comprehensive theoretical framework
based on an abuse of power model may be more promising. However,
we are still far from having all the answers nor have we even asked
all the necessary questions. A more complete and comprehensive understanding
of child maltreatment and interpersonal violence will likely be
found at the intersection points between a number of theoretical
or conceptual models. We will need to take a developmental perspective
on the impact of abuse. We will need to grapple with the effects
or influence of socioeconomic status, ethno-racial background, gender
relations, family systems, parenting skills and knowledge, parental
mental and physical health, attachment, cultural norms supporting
violence and abuse, drug and alcohol abuse and addictions, stress,
intellectual functioning, structural inequities, anti-gay/lesbian
prejudice and situational factors. We will also need to examine
carefully our schools, institutions, therapeutic practices and the
preparation and training of youth-serving professionals for the
contribution all make to the problem of encouraging or supporting
interpersonal violence and abuse.
The Messages We Give to Male Victims
Our minimization and denial of male victimization so permeates
our culture that it is in evidence everywhere from nursery rhymes,
comic strips, comedy films, television programs and newspaper stories
to academic research. We give male victims a message every day of
their lives that they risk much by complaining.
Stated succinctly, if a male is victimized he deserved it, asked
for it, or is lying. If he is injured, it is his own fault. If he
cries or complains, we will not take him seriously or condone his
"whining" because he is supposed to "take it like
a man." We will laugh at him. We will support him in the minimization
of its impact. We will encourage him to accept responsibility for
being victimized and teach him to ignore any feelings associated
with his abuse. We will guilt and shame him to keep a stiff upper
lip so he can "get on with it."
When we give a message to boys and young men in any shape or form
that their experience of violence and victimization is less important
than that of girls and young women, we are teaching them a lesson
about their value as persons. We also teach them that the use of
violence toward males is legitimate. When we dismiss their pain,
we do little to encourage boys and young men to listen to, and take
seriously, women's concerns about violence and victimization. When
we diminish their experience or fail to hold their male and female
abusers fully accountable, we support their continued victimization.
How Would Things Be Different if We Acknowledged Male Victims?
How would our society be different if we recognized and supported
male victims? We would have to acknowledge how gender role conditioning
denies boys a rich emotional life and cuts them off from whole parts
of their essential selves. We would begin to understand how child-rearing
practices in the form of emotional and physical withdrawal from
sons "to toughen them up" early in their lives compromises
their ability to form secure and nurturing attachments. We would
begin to see how male gender itself is a risk factor that can magnify
the effects of all forms of abuse and channel it in violent, aggressive
and reckless acts directed toward the self or others. We would finally
acknowledge the overwhelming research evidence concerning the amount
of physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological maltreatment, neglect
and corporal punishment of male children and teens by females, without
minimization.
We would have to recognize that if there is a male gender dimension
to many forms of overtly expressed violence, its causes need to
be linked to the routine and normalized violence toward males prevalent
in our society, violence in the form of child abuse and neglect,
psychological maltreatment, corporal punishment and male-gender
role socialization. We would finally realize that all the forms
of violence toward boys and teen males discussed in this document
are the common everyday lived experience of most males rather than
the exception. We would no longer tolerate humorous or entertaining
media images of males or females as victims of violence or biased
journalism that fails to report the whole picture of child abuse
and neglect and interpersonal, family and community violence.
We would recognize that regardless of our own theoretical starting
points, male victims have their own voice, their own meanings for
their experiences. If we remain ignorant of, overlook or fail to
explore their stories, we will miss much of what we need to engage
them in therapy and healing. We will construct for them the origins
and courses of their difficulties. We will shape and mold them to
the limitations of our own personal and professional world views.
We will, through the use of our professional practices, reproduce
the same dysfunctional and disempowering patterns of communication
and relationship many of these males found in their families of
origin or the environments in which they grew up.
We would recognize that solving the complex problem of violence
in our society will never be achieved until all the stories and
voices of victims of violence are heard, until men and women of
good will begin to work side by side, and until the means of our
collective struggle toward peace reflect respect, compassion and
inclusion as our minimum standard. We will recognize, finally, that
means are ends. It is in the selection of our means where
we are most conscious and able to make inclusive decisions about
our future direction. From a postmodernist perspective, in any inclusive
process of consensus building toward some goal, one cannot see the
end from the starting point. Thus, if the means we choose toward
the creation of a more just society are anything but, we can only
arrive back where we started.
Beginning with Ourselves as Adults
Perhaps, the greatest responsibility for the plight of boys and
young men lies with adults. We are the ones who conduct single-gender
and biased research. We are the ones who present to the media more
political opinions about male victimization than provide objective,
empirically-based information. We are the ones who help maintain
biased stereotypes about boys and young men that keep them trapped
in their silence. We are the ones who help reinforce in the public
mind an image of strong and resilient male victims who are, in truth,
human beings suffering in much pain, isolation and loneliness.
Adults, especially those who work in the child abuse field, are
the eyes of Canadian society in this area of human suffering. It
is up to us to speak against abuse and injustice, and for
compassion and inclusion. If we do not open ourselves to self-criticism,
conscientiously and continually reflect on our assumptions, methods
and standards of practice, or allow ourselves to become trapped
in rhetoric, then it is we who will become the ones who will pose
the greatest threat to the credibility of the field.
Resources and Bibliography
Adams-Tucker, C. A. (19810. Sociological overview of 28 abused
children, Child Abuse and Neglect, 5, 361-367.
Allen, C.M. (1990). Women as perpetrators of child sexual abuse:
Recognition barriers. In A. Horton. B. Johnson, L. Roundy and D.
Williams, (Eds.), The Incest Perpetrator: A Family Member No
One Wants to Treat. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allers, C.T. and Benjack, K.J. (1991). Connections between child
abuse and HIV infection. Journal of Counseling and Development,
70, 309-313.
Allers, C.T., Benjack, K.J., White, J. and Rousey, J.T. (1993).
HIV vulnerability and the adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 17(2) Mar.-Apr., 291-298.
American Association for Protecting Children. (1985). Highlights
of official child neglect and abuse reporting 1983. Denver,
CO: American Humane Association.
Ammerman, R.T., Hersen, M., Van Hasselt, V.B., Lubetsky, M.J. and
Sieck, W.R. (1994). Maltreatment in Psychiatrically Hospitalized
Children and Adolescents with Developmental Disabilities: Prevalence
and Correlates. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 33(4) May, 567-576.
Anderson, L.S. (1981). Notes on the linkage between the sexually
abused child and the suicidal adolescent. Journal of Adolescence,
4(2), 157-162.
Arroyo, Wm., Eth, S. and Pynoos, R. (1984). Sexual assault of a
mother by her pre-adolescent son. American Journal of Psychiatry,
141(9), 1107-1108.
Awad, G.A. (1976). Father-son incest: A case report. The Journal
of Nervous and Mental Disease, 162(2), 135-139.
Badgley, R. (1984). Sexual Offenses Against Children and Youth.
Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.
Bagley, C. (1969). Incest behavior and incest taboo. Social
Problems, 16(4), 505-579.
Baker, A.W. and Duncan, S.P. (1985). Child sexual abuse: A study
of prevalence in Great Britain. Child Abuse and Neglect, 9(4),
457-467.
Bandura, A. and Walters, R.H. (1959). Adolescent Aggression:
A Study of the Influence of Child Training Practices and Family
Interrelationships. New York: Ronald Press.
Banning, A. (1989). Mother-son incest: Confronting a prejudice.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 13, 563-570.
Barton, B.R. and Marshall, A.S. (1986). Pivotal partings: Forced
termination with a sexually abused boy. Clinical Social Work
Journal, 14(2), 139-149.
Becker, J.V. (1988). The effects of child abuse on adolescent sexual
offenders. In G.E. Wyatt and G.J. Powell (Eds.), Lasting effects
of child abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 193-207.
Bell, A.P., Weinburg, M.S. and Hammersmith, S.K. (1981). Sexual
preference: Its development in men and women. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Bender, L. and Blau, A. (1937). The reaction of children to sexual
relations with adults. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 7(Oct.),
500-518.
Bender, L. and Grugett, A.E. (1952). A follow-up report on children
who had atypical sexual experience. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
22 (Oc.), 825-837.
Bentovim, A. (1987). Physical and Sexual Abuse of Children: The
Role of the Family Therapist. Journal of Family Therapy, 9(4),
383-388.
Bixler, R.H. (1981). The incest controversy. Psychological Reports,
49(1), 267-283.
Blanchard, G. (1986). Male victims of child sexual abuse: A portent
of things to come. Journal of Independent Social Work, I(1),
19-27.
Blount, H.R. and Chandler, T.A. (1979). Relationship between childhood
abuse and assaultive behavior in adolescent male psychiatric patients.
Psychological Reports, 44(3), 1126.
Bolton, F.G. (1989). Males at Risk: The Other Side of Child
Sexual Abuse. London, England: Sage.
Brandt, R.S.T. and Tisza, V.B. (1977). The sexually misused child.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 47(l), 80-90.
Brassard, M.R., Germain, R., and Hart, S.N. (1987). Psychological
Maltreatment of Children and Youth. New York: Pergamon Press.
Breiner, S.J. (1990). Slaughter of the Innocents: Child Abuse
through the Ages and Today. New York: Plenum Press.
Brière, J. (1989). Therapy for Adults Molested as Children:
Beyond Survival. New York: Springer Publishing.
Brière, J. and Runtz, M. (1986). Suicidal thoughts and behaviours
in former sexual abuse victims. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Sciences, 18(4), 413-423.
Brière, J. and Smiljanich, K. (1993). Childhood Sexual Abuse
and Subsequent Sexual Aggression Against Adult Women. Paper
presented at the 101st annual convention of the American Psychological
Association, Toronto, Ontario.
Brière, J., Evans, D., Runtz, M. and Wall, T. (1988). Symptomatology
in men who were molested as children: A comparison study. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58, 457-461.
Broussard, S.D. and Wagner, W. G. (1988). Child sexual abuse: Who
is to blame? Child Abuse and Neglect, 12(4), 563-569.
Brown, A. and Finkelhor, D. (1986). Impact of child sexual abuse:
A review of the research. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 66-77.
Bruckner, D.F. and Johnson, P.E. (1987). Treatment for adult male
victims of childhood sexual abuse. Social Casework, 68(2),
81-87.
Bryan, J.W. and Freed, F.W. (1982). Corporal punishment: Normative
data and sociological and psychological correlates in a community
population. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 77-87.
Bugental, D.B., Mantyla, S.M. and Lewis, J. (1989). Parental attributions
as moderators of affective communication to children at risk for
physical abuse. In D. Cicchetti and V. Carlson (Eds.), Child
Maltreatment: Theory and Research on the Causes and Consequences
of Child Abuse and Neglect. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 254-279.
Burgess, A.W. (1985). Dangerous sexual offenders: Commentary. Medical
Aspects of Human Sexuality, 19, 119-123.
Burgess, A.W., Groth, A.N. and McCausland, M.P. (1981). Child sex
initiation rings. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51,
110-118.
Burgess, A.W., Hartman, C.R., McCausland, M.P. and Powers, P. (1984).
Response patterns in children and adolescents exploited through
sex rings and pornography. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141(5),
656-662.
Cameron, P., Proctor, K., Coburn, W.J., Forde, N., Larson, H. and
Cameron, K. (1986). Child molestation and homosexuality. Psychological
Reports, 58, 327-337.
Carmen, E.H., Rieker, P.P. and Mills, T. (1984). Victims of violence
and psychiatric illness. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141(3),
378-383.
Cavaiola, A. and Schiff, M. (1988). Behavioral sequelae of physical
and/or sexual abuse in adolescents. Child Abuse and Neglect,
12(2), 181-188.
Chasnoff, I.J., Burns, W.J., Schnoll, S.H., Burns, K., Chisum,
G. and Jyle-Spore, L. (1986). Maternal-neonatal incest. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56(4), 577-580.
Condy, S.R., Templer, D.I., Brown, R. and Veaco, L. (1987). Parameters
of sexual contact of boys with women. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
16(5), 379-394.
Conte, J.R. and Schuerman, J.R. (1987). Factors associated with
an increased impact of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect,
11, 201-211.
Coombs, N.R. (1974). Male prostitution: A psychosocial view of
behaviour. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 44, 782-789.
Cotton, D.J. and Groth, A.N. (1982). Inmate rape: Prevention and
intervention. Journal of Prison and Jail Health, 2 (1), 47
- 57.
Crowder, A. (1993). Opening the Door: A Treatment Model for
Therapy with Males Survivors of Sexual Abuse. Kitchener, ON:
Family and Children's Services of the Waterloo Region; Distributed
by National Clearinghouse on Family Violence, 9.
De Jong, A.R. (1985). Response to the article "The sexually
abused child: A comparison of male and female victims," by
Pierce, R. and Pierce, L. Child Abuse and Neglect, 9(4),
575-576.
De Jong, A.R., Emmett, G.A. and Hervada, A.R. (1982). Sexual abuse
of children: Sex-, race-, and age-dependent variations. American
Journal of Diseases of Children, 136(2), 129-134.
De Jong, A.R., Hervada, A.R. and Emmett, M.D. (1983). Epidemiologic
variations in childhood sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect,
7(2), 155-162.
De Mause, L. (1988). The History of Childhood: The Untold Story
of Child Abuse. New York: Peter Bedrick Books.
Deisher, R.W., Eisner,V. and Sulzbacher, S.I. (1969). The young
male prostitute. Pediatrics, 43 (6), 936-941.
Dibble, U. and Straus, M.A. (1990). Some social structure determinants
of inconsistency between attitudes and behaviour: The case of family
violence. In M. Straus and R.J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical Violence
in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in
8,145 Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. 167-180.,
Dietrich, D., Berkowitz, L., Kadushin, A. and McGloin, J. (1990).
Some factors influencing abusers' justification of their child abuse.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 14, 337-345.
Dietz, C.A. and Craft, J.L. (1980). Family dynamics of incest:
A new perspective. Social Casework. 61(10), 602-609.
Dimmock, P.T. (1988). Adult males sexually abused as children.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3,203-221.
Dix, T.H. and Grusec, J.E. (1985). Parent attribution processes
in the socialization of children. In I.E. Siegel (Ed.), Parental
Belief Systems: The Psychological Consequences for Children. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum. 201-233.
Dixon, K.E., Arnold, E. and Calestro, K. (1978). Father-son incest:
Underreported psychiatric problem? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
137(7), 835-838.
Drake, D., Gilroy-Nelson, A. and Roane, T. (1986). Working Together.
Gainesville, Florida: Child Care Publications. (Booklet for
Sexually Abused Boys).
Dube, R. and Hebert, M. (1988). Sexual Abuse of Children under
12 Years of Age: A Review of 511 Cases. Child Abuse and Neglect,
12(3), 321-330.
Egelund, B., Jacobitz, D. and Sroufe, L.A. (1988). Breaking the
cycle of abuse. Child Development, 59, 1080-1088.
Ellerstein, N. S. and Canavan, J.W. (1980). Sexual abuse of boys.
American Journal of Diseases of Children, 134 (March), 255-257.
Elliott, M. (Ed.) (1994). Female Sexual Abuse of Children. New
York: Guilford Press.
Eron, L. (1982). Parent-child interaction, television violence,
and aggression of children. American Psychologist, 37, 197-211.
Faller, K.C. (1989). Characteristics of a clinical sample of sexually
abused children: How boy and girl victims differ. Child Abuse
and Neglect, 13, 281-291.
Faller, K. (1987). Women who sexually abuse children. Violence
and Victims, 2, 263-276.
Farber, E.D. and Joseph, J.A. (1985). The maltreated adolescent:
Patterns of physical abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 9(2),
201-206.
Farber, E.D., Showers, J., Johnson, C.F., Joseph, J.A. and Oshins,
L. (1984). The sexual abuse of children: A comparison of male and
female victims. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 13(3),
294-297.
Finch, S.M. (1973). Sexual abuse by mothers. Medical Aspects
of Human Sexuality, 7(1), 191.
Finkelhor, D. (1990). Early and long-term effects of child sexual
abuse: An update. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
21(5), 325-330.
Finkelhor, D. (Ed.). (1984). Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory
and Research (pp. 150-170). New York: Frec Press.
Finkelhor, D. (1986). Designing new studies. A Sourcebook on
Child Sexual Abuse, edited by D. Finkelhor. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage, p. 199-223.
Finkelhor,D. (1980). Sex among siblings: A survey of the prevalence,
variety, and effects. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 9, 171-194.
Finkelhor, D. (1979). Sexually victimized children. New
York: Free Press.
Finkelhor, D. and Hotaling, G.T. (1984). Sexual abuse in the national
incidence study of child abuse and neglect: An appraisal. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 8(1), 23-33.
Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., Lewis, I.A. and Smith, C. (1990).
Sexual abuse in a national survey of adult men and women: Prevalence,
characteristics, and risk factors. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14(l),
19-28.
Finkelhor, D., Williams, L.M., Burns, N. and Kalinowski, M. (1988).
Sexual abuse in day care: A national study. Durham, NH: University
of New Hampshire, Family Research Laboratory.
Forman, B.D. (1982). Reported male rape. Victimology: An International
Journal, 7(1-4), 235-236.
Freedman, A.M., Kaplan, H.I. and Sodock, B. (Eds.). (1975). Comprehensive
textbook of psychiatry (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.
Freeman-Longo, R.E. (1986). Theimpact of sexual victimization on
males. Child Abuse and Neglect, 10, 411-414.
Friedrich, W.N. and Reams, R.A. (1987). Course of psychological
symptoms in sexually abused young children. Psychotherapy, 24(Summer),
160-170.
Friedrich, W.N., Beilke, R.L. and Urquiza, A.J. (1988). Behavior
Problems in Young Sexually Abused Boys. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 3(1), 21-28.
Friedrich, W.N., Beilke, R.L., and Urquiza, A.J. (1988). Behavior
problems in young sexually abused boys: A comparison study. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 3, 21-28.
Friedrich, W.N., Einbender, A.J. and Luecke, W.J. (1983). Cognitive
and behavioral characteristics of physically abused children. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(2), 313-314.
Friedrich, W.N., Urquiza, A.J. and Beilke, R.L. (1986). Behavior
problems in sexually abused young children. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 11(1), 47-57.
Fritz, G.S., Stoll, K. and Wagner, N.N. (1981). A comparison of
males and females who were sexually molested as children. Journal
of Sex and Marital Therapy, 7(1), 54-59.
Fromuth, M.E. and Burkhart, B.R. (1989). Long-term psychological
correlates of childhood sexual abuse in two samples of college men.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 13(4), 533-542.
Fromuth, M.E. and Burkhart, B.R. (1987). Childhood sexual victimization
among college men: Definitional and methodolgical issues. Violence
and Victims, 2, 241-253.
Fry, D.P. (1993). The intergenerational transmission of disciplinary
practices and approaches to conflict. Human Organization, 52,
176-735.
Galdston, R. (1965). Observations on children who have been physically
abused and their parents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 22
(4), 440 -443.
Garbarino, J., Guttman, E. and Seeley, J.W. (1986). The Psychologically
Battered Child. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Garbarino, J., Schellenbach, C.J. and Sebes, J.M. (1986). Troubled
Youths, Troubled Families. Hawthorne, NY: Adine de Gruyter.
Gelles, R.J. (1989). Child abuse and violence in single-parent
families: Parent absence and economic deprivation. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 492-501.
Gelles, R.J. (1978). Violence toward children in the United States.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 43, 611-621.
Gil, D.G. (1971). Violence against children. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 33(4), 637-648.
Gil, D.G. (1970). Violence against children: Physical child
abuse in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Gilmartin, B.G. (1979). The case against spanking. Human Behaviour,
February. 18-23.
Globe & Mail. (1995). 10 % of boys victims of genital
assault. December 6, 1995.
Globe & Mail. (1993). Social studies. October 4, 1993.
Gordon, M. (1990). Males and females as victims of childhood sexual
abuse: An examination of the gender effect. Journal of Family
Violence, 5(4), 321-333.
Graham, L. (1993). Sexual Abuse and Young People with Disabilities
Project: Results and Reccommendations. Vancouver, BC: The McCreary
Centre Society.
Grayson, J. (Ed.) (1989). Sexually victimized boys. Virginia
Child Protection Newsletter, (31) Fall. Harrisonburg, VA: James
Madison University.
Graziano, A.M. and Namaste, K.A. (1990). Parental use of physical
force in child discipline: A survey of 679 college students. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 5(4), 449-463.
Green, A. H. (1983). Child abuse: Dimension of psychological trauma
in abused children. Journal of the American Academy of Child
Psychiatry, 22(3), 231-237.
Greenland, C. (1987). Preventing child abuse and neglect deaths:
An international study of deaths due to child abuse and neglect.
London: Tavistock.
Groth, A.N. (1979). Sexual trauma in the life histories of rapists
and child molesters. Victimology: An International Journal, 4(1),
10-16.
Groth, A.N. and Burgess, A.W. (1980). Male rape: Offenders and
victims. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(7), 806-810.
Groth, A.N., and Loredo, C. (1981). Juvenile sex offenders: Guidelines
for assessment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 25, 265-272.
Grubman-Black, S.D. (1990). Broken Boys/Mending Men: Recovery
from Childhood Sexual Abuse. New York: Ivy Books.
Health Canada. (1994). Suicide in Canada: Update of the Report
of the Task Force on Suicide in Canada. Ottawa: Health Canada.
Herman, J.L. (1981). Father-Daughter Incest. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Herrenkohl, E.C., Herrenkohl, R.C. and Toedter, L.J. (1983). Perspectives
on the intergeneration transmisson of violence. In D. Finkelhor,
R.J. Gelles, G.T. Hotaling and M. Straus (Eds.), The Dark Side
of Families: Current Family Violence Research. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage. 305-316.
Hewitt, S. (1990). The treatment of sexually abused preschool boys.
In M. Hunter (Ed.), The Sexually Abused Male, Volume 2: Application
of Treatment Strategies. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Hirschi, T. (1969). The Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Howard, J.A. (1984). Societal influences on attribution: Blaming
some victims more than others. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47(3), 494-505.
Hunter, M. (1990). Abused Boys: The Neglected Victims of Sexual
Abuse. New York: Fawcett.
Hunter J.A., Lexier, L.J., Goodwin, D.W., Browne, P.A. and Dennis,
C. (1993). Psychosexual, attitudinal, and developmental characteristics
of juvenile female sexual perpetrators in a residential treatment
setting. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 2(4), 317-326.
Hunter R.S., Kilstrom, N. and Loda, F. (1985). Sexually abused
children: Identifying masked presentations in a medical setting.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 9(l), 17-25.
Hyde, C. A Feminist model for macro-practice: promises and problems.
Administration in Social Work, 13(3-4), 145-181.
Jaffee, P. G., Wolfe, D.A. and Wilson, S.K. (1990). Children
of Battered Women. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jameson, P.A. and Schellenbach, C.J. (1977). Sociological and psychological
factors in the backgrounds of male and female perpetrators of child
abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 1(1), 77-83.
Janus, M.D., Archambault, F.X. and Brown, S.W. (1995). Physical
abuse in Canadian runaway adolescents. Child Abuse and Neglect,
19(4), 433-447.
Janus, M.D., Burgess, A.W. and McCormack, A. (1987). Histories
of sexual abuse in adolescent male runaways. Adolescence, 22(86),
405-417.
Jason, J. and Andereck, N. (1983). Fatal child abuse in Georgia:
The epidemology of severe physical child abuse. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 7(1), 1 - 10.
Jayarante, S. (1977). Child abusers and children: A review. Social
Work, 22, 5-9.
Johnson, C. and Showers, J. (1985). Injury variables in child abuse.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 9(2), 207-216.
Johnson, R.L. and Shrier, D. (1987). Past sexual victimization
by females of male patients in an adolescent medicine clinic population.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(5), 650-652.
Johnson, R.L. and Shrier, D. (1985). Sexual victimization of boys:
Experience at an adolescent medicine clinic. Journal of Adolescent
Health Care, 6(5), 372-376.
Johnson, T.C. (1989). Female child perpetrators: Children who molestother
children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 13, 571-585.
Johnson, T.C. (1988). Child perpetrators - Children who molest
other children: Preliminary findings. Child Abuse and Neglect,
12, 219-229.
Kaufman, A., Divasto, P., Jackson, R., Voorhees, D. and Christy,
J. (1980). Male rape victims: Noninstitutional assault. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 137(2), 221-223.
Kaufman, K.L., Wallace, A.M., Johnson, C.F. and Reeder, M.L. (1995).
Comparing female and male perpetrators' modus operandi: Victims'
reports of sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(3),
322-333.
Kendall-Tackett, K.A. and Simon, A.F. (1987). Perpetrators and
their acts: Data from 365 adults molested as children. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 11 (2), 237-245.
Khan, M. and Sexton, M. (1983). Sexual abuse of young children.
Clinical Pediatrics, 22(5), 369-372.
Kimbrell, A. (1995). The Masculine Mystique: The Politics of
Masculinity. New York: Ballantine Books.
Knopp, F.F. and Lackey, L.B. (1987). Female sexual abusers: A
summary of data from 44 treatment providers. Orwell,
VT: Safer Society Press.
Knutson, J.F. and Selner, M.B. (1994). Punitive childhood experiences
reported by young adults over a 10 year period. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 18, 155-166.
Kohan, M.J., Pothier, P. and Norbeck, J.S. (1987). Hospitalized
children with history of sexual abuse: Incidence and care issues.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 2 58-264.
Krentz Johnston, M. S. (1979). The sexually mistreated child: Diagnostic
evaluation. Child Abuse and Neglect, 3(3/4), 943-951.
Krieger, M.J., Rosenfeld, A.A., Gordon, A. and Bennett, M. (1980).
Problems in the psychotherapy of children with histories of incest.
American Journal of Psychotherapy, 34(l), 81-88.
Krug, R.S. (1989). Adult male report of childhood sexual abuse
by mothers: Case descriptions, motivations and long-term consequences.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 13(l), 111-119.
Landis, J.T. (1956). Experiences of 500 children with adult sexual
deviation. Psychiatric Quarterly Supplement, 30(l), 90-109.
Langsley, D.G., Schwartz, M.N. and Fairbairn, R.H. (1968). Father-son
incest. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 9(3), 218-226.
Lew, M. (1986). Victims No Longer: Men Recovering from Incest
and Other Sexual Child Abuse. New York: Harper and Row.
Lewis, M. and Sarrel, P.M. (1969). Some psychological aspects of
seduction, incest, and rape in childhood. American Academy of
Child Psychiatry, 8, 606-619.
Libbey, P. and Bybee, R. (1979). The physical abuse of adolescents:
A case for a developmental specific model of child abuse. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 3, 967-974.
Longo, R.E. (1982). Sexual learning and experience among adolescent
sexual offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 26(3), 235-241.
Longo, R. and Groth, N. (1983). Juvenile sexual offenses in the
histories of adult rapists and child molesters. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 27,
155 -157.
Lourie, I. (1979). Family dynamics and the abuse of adolescents:
A case for a developmental specific model of child abuse. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 3, 967-974.
Lukianowicz, N. (1972). Incest I: Paternal incest; Incest II Other
types of incest. British Journal of Psychiatry, 120, 301-313.
Maccoby, E.E. and Jacklin, C.N. (1974). The psychology of sex
différences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Margolis, M. (1984). A case of mother- adolescent son incest: A
follow-up study. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 53(3), 355-385.
Martin, H.L. (1970). Antecedents of burns and scalds in children.
British Journal of Medical Psychology, 43, 39-47.
Mathews, F. (1995). Combining Voices: Supporting Paths of Healing
in Adult Female and Male Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse. Ottawa:
National Clearinghouse on Family Violence.
Mathews, F. (1995a). The Badge and the Book: Building More Effective
Police/School Partnerships to Combat Youth Violence. Ottawa:
Solicitor General Canada.
Mathews, F. (1994). What's So Funny about the Abuse of Boys and
Young Men? Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Problems. (3)1.
Spring.
Mathews, F. (1989). Familiar Strangers: A Study of Adolescent
Prostitution. Toronto: Central Toronto Youth Services.
Mathews, R., Matthews, J.K. and Speltz, K. (1989). Female sexual
offenders: An exploratory study. Orwell, VT: Safer Society Press.
Mayer, A. (1992). Women Sex Offenders: Treatment and Dynamics.
Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications, Inc.
McCarty, L.M. (1986). Mother-child incest: Characteristics of the
offender. Child Welfare, 65(5), 447-458.
McCreary Centre Society. (1993). Sexual Abuse and Young People
with Disabilities. Vancouver, BC: McCreary Centre Society.
McCormack, A., Janus, M.D. and Burgess, A.W. (1986). Runaway youths
and sexual victimization: Gender differences in an adolescent runaway
population. Child Abuse and Neglect, 10(3), 387-395.
Metcalfe, M., Oppenheimer, R., Dignon, A. and Palmer, R.L. (1990).
Childhood sexual experiences reported by male psychiatric patients.
Psychological Medicine, 20, 925-929.
Moore, D.W. and Straus, M.A. (1987). Violence of parents toward
their children: New Hampshire. Durham, NH: Family Research Laboratory,
University of New Hampshire.
Morgan, P.K. and Gaier, E.L. (1956). The direction of aggression
in the mother-child punishment situation. Child Development,
27(4), 447-457.
Napier-Hemy, J. (1991). When Teenage Boys Have Been Sexually
Abused. Vancouver, BC: Family Services of Greater Vancouver.
Napier-Hemy, J. (1990). When Boys Have Been Sexually Abused.
Vancouver, BC: Family Services of Greater Vancouver.
Nasjleti, M. (1980). Suffering in silence: The male incest victim.
Child Welfare, 59(5), 269-275.
NCCAN, National Centre on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1994). Child
Maltreatment 1992: Reports from the States to the National
Centre on Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services.
Neilsen, T. (1983). Sexual abuse of boys: Current perspectives.
The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 62, 139-142.
Newson, J. and Newson, E. (1990). The extent of physical punishment
in the U.K. London: Approach.
Newton, D.E. (1978). Homosexual behavior and child molestation:
A review of the evidence. Adolescence, 13(49), 29-43.
O'Brien, M.J. (1989). Characteristics of Male Adolescent Sibling
incest Offenders. Orwell, VT: Safer Society Press.
O'Connor, A.A. (1987). Female sex offenders. British Journal
of Psychiatry, 150, 615-620.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP (1995).
Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. Washington,
DC: U. S. Department of Justice.
Pelcovitz, D., Kaplan, S., Samit, C., Krieger, R. and Cornelius,
P. (1984). Adolescent abuse: Family structure and implications for
treatment. Journal of Child Psychiatry, 23, 85 -90.
Peters, J.J. (1976). Children who are victims of sexual assault
and the psychology of offenders. American Journal of Psychotherapy,
30(3), 398-42 1.
Petrovich, M. and Templer, D.I. (1984). Heterosexual molestation
of children who later become rapists. Psychological Reports,
54(3), 810.
Pettis, K.W. and Hughes, R.D. (1985). Sexual victimization of children:
A current perspective. Behavioral Disorders, 10(2), 136-143.
Pierce, R. and Pierce, L.H. (1985). The sexually abused child:
A comparison of male and female victims. Child Abuse and Neglect,
9(2), 191-199.
Pierce, R. and Pierce, L.H. (1985a). Analysis of sexual abuse hotline
reports. Child Abuse and Neglect, 9, 37-45.
Porter, E. (1986). Treating the Young Male Victim of Sexual
Assault. Syracuse, NY: Saler Society Press.
Powers, J. and Eckenrode, J. (1988). The maltreatment of adolescents.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 12(2), 189-200.
Powers, J. and Eckenrode, J. (1987). The Maltreatment of Runaway
and Homeless Youth. Paper presented at the Third National Family
Violence Research Conference, Durham, New Hampshire.
Ramsay-Klawsnik, H. (1990a). Sexually abused boys: Indicators,
abusers, and impact of trauma. Paper presented at the Third National
Conference on the Male Survivor, Tuscon, Arizona.
Raybin, J.B. (1969). Homosexual incest. The Journal of Nervous
and Mental Disease, 148(2), 105 -110.
Reinhart, M.A. (1987). Sexually abused boys. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 11 (2), 229-235.
Renzetti, C.M. (1992). Violent betrayal: partner abuse in lesbian
relationships, Newbury Park, California: Sage, 202.
Risin, L.I. and Koss, M.P. (1987). The sexual abuse of boys: Prevalence
and descriptive characteristics of childhood victimizations. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 2(3), 309-323.
Roeher Institute. (1995). Harm's way: The many faces of violence
and abuse against persons with disabilities. North York, ON:
Rocher Institute
Rogers, C.M. and Terry, T. (1984). Clinical interventions with
boy victims of sexual abuse. In I. Stewart and J. Greer (Eds.),
Victims of Sexual Aggression (pp. 91-104). New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Rosenthal, J.A. (1988). Patterns of reported child abuse and neglect.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 12(2), 263-271.
Russell, D.E.H. (Ed.) (1983). The incidence and prevalence of intrafamilial
and extrafamilial sexual abuse of female children. Child Abuse
and Neglect, 7, 133-146.
Russell, D.H. and Finkelhor, D. (1984). The gender gap among perpetrators
of sexual abuse. In D.H. Russell (Ed.), Sexual Exploitation:
Rape, Child Sexual Abuse, and Workplace Harassment. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage, 215-231.
Ryan, C.,Mathews, F. and Banner, J. (1993). Student Perceptions
of Violence: Summary of Preliminary Findings. Toronto: Central
Toronto Youth Services.
Sandfort, T.G.M. (1984). Sex in pedophiliac relationships: An empirical
investigation among a nonrepresentative group of boys. The Journal
of Sex Research, 20(2), 123-142.
Sarrel, P.M. and Masters, W.H. (1982). Sexual molestation of men
by women. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 11, 117-131.
Satullo, J., Russell, R. and Bradway, P. (l987). It Happens
to Boys Too. Pittsfield, MA: Rape Crisis Center of the Berkshires
Press.
Scherzer, L.N. and Lala, P. (1980). Sexual offenses committed against
children: Analysis of 73 cases of child sexual abuse. Clinical
Pediatrics, 19(10), 679-685.
Schiff, A.F. (1980). Examination and treatment of the male rape
victim. Southern Medical Journal, 73(11), 1498-1502.
Schultz, L.G. and Jones, P. (1983). Sexual Abuse of Children: Issues
for Social Service and Health Professionals. Child Welfare, 62(2),
99-108.
Sears, R.R., Maccoby, E.C. and Levin, H. (1957). Patterns of
Child Rearing. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson and Co.
Sebold, J. (1987). Indicators of child sexual abuse in males. Social
Casework, 68(2), 75-80.
Seidner, A.L. and Calhoun, K.S. (1984). Childhood sexual abuse:
Factors related to differentiel adult adjustment. Paper presented
at the Second National Conference for Family Violence Researchers,
Durham, New Hampshire.
Sepler, F. (1990). Victim advocacy and young male victims of sexual
abuse: An evolutionary model. In M. Hunter (Ed.), The Sexually
Abused Male: Vol. 1. Prevalence, Impact, and Treatment (pp.
73-85). Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Shengold, L. (1980). Some reflections on a case of mother/adolescent
son incest. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 61,
461-476.
Shoor, M., Speed, M. and Bartlet, C. (1966). Syndrome of the adolescent
child molester. American Journal of Psychiatry, 122, 783-789.
Showers, J., Farber, E.D., Joseph, J.A., Oshins, L. and Johnson,
C.F. (1983). The sexual victimization of boys: A three-year survey.
Health Values: Achieving High Level Wellness, 7(4), 15-18.
Simari, C.G. and Baskin, D. (1982). Incestuous experiences within
homosexual populations: A preliminary study. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 11 (4), 329-344.
Smith, R.B., Bertrand, L.D., Arnold, B.L. and Hornick, J.P. (1995).
A Study of the Level and Nature of Youth Crime and Violence in
Calgary. Calgary: Calgary Police Service.
Sobsey, D. and Varnhagen, C. (1988). Sexual Abuse and Exploitation
of People with Disabilities: A Study of Victims. Ottawa: Health
and Welfare Canada.
Spencer, M.J. and Dunklee, P. (1986). Sexual abuse of boys. Pediatrics,
78, 133-137.
Sroufe, L.A. and Ward, M.J. (1980). Seductive behavior of mothers
of toddlers: Occurrence, correlates, and family origins. Child
Development, 51, 1222-1229.
Stark, R. and McEvoy, J (1970). Middle Class Violence. Psychology
Today, 4 November, 52-54, 110-112.
Statistics Canada. (199 1). Children as Victims of Violent Crime.
Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada.
Steele, B. and Alexander, H. (1981). Long-term effects of sexual
abuse in childhood. In P.B. Mrazek and C.K. Kempe (Eds.), Sexually
Abused Children and Their Families. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
223-234.
Stein, S.M., De Miranda, S. and Stein A. (1988). Birth Order, Substance
Abuse and Criminality. Individual Psychology, 44(4) Dec.,
500-506.
Steinmetz, S.K. (1977-78). The battered husband syndrome. Victimology:
An International Journal, 2(3/4), 499-509.
Straus, M.A. (1994). Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal
Punishment in American Families, New York: Lexington Books.
Straus, M.A. (1983). Ordinary violence, child abuse, and wife-beating:
What do they have in common? In D. Finkelhor, R.J. Gelles, G.T.
Hotaling and M.A. Straus (Eds.), The Dark Side of Families. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Straus, M.A. (1991). Discipline and deviance: Physical punishment
of children and violence and other crime in adulthood. Social
Problems, 38, 133-154.
Straus, M.A., Gelles, R.J. and Steinmetz, S.K. (1980). Behind
Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family. Garden City,
NJ: Anchor Books.
Summit, R. (1983). The child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 7, 177-193.
Swift, C. (1979). The prevention of sexual child abuse: Focus on
the perpetrator. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 8(l),
133-136.
Thomas, J. and Rogers, C. (1983). A treatment program for intrafamily
juvenile sexual offenders. In J. Greer and I. Stuart (Eds.), The
Sexual Aggressor: Current Perspectives on Treatment, 127-143.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Trocme, N. (1994). Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child
Abuse and Neglect. Toronto: Institute for the Prevention of
Child Abuse.
Tong, L., Oates, K. and McDowell, M. (1987). Personality development
following sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 11(3), 371-383.
Tsai, M., Feldman-Summers, S. and Edgar, M. (1979). Childhood molestation:
Variables related to differential functioning in adult women. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 407-417.
Urquiza, A.J. (1993). Adult Male Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse:
Issues in Intimacy. Paper presented at the 101 st annual convention
of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, ON.
Urquiza, A.J. (1988). The Effects of Childhood Sexual Abuse
in an Adult Male Population. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Washington University, Seattle.
Vander Mey, B.J. (1988). The sexual victimization of male children:
A review of previous research. Child Abuse and Neglect, 12(l),
61-72.
Vissing, Y.M. Straus, M.A., Gelles, R.J. and Harrop, J.W. (1991).
Verbal aggression by parents and psychosocial problems of children.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 15, 223-238.
Wahl, C. W. (1960). The psychodynamics of consummated maternal
incest. Archives of General Psychiatry, 3 (August), 188-193.
Wald, E.R., Woodward, C.L., Marston, G. and Gilbert, L.M. (1980).
Gonorrheal disease among children in a university hospital. Sexually
Transmitted Diseases, 7(2), 41-43.
Walker, C.E., Bonner, B. and Kautman, K. (1988). The Physically
and Sexually Abused Child: Evaluation and Treatment. New York:
Pergamon Press.
Walters, G. (1991). Psychological Determinants of Corporal Punishment.
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Institute for
the Prevention of Child Abuse, Toronto, ON.
Wasserman, J. and Kappel, S. (1985). Adolescent Sex Offenders
in Vermont. Burlington, VT: Vermont Department of Health.
Waterman, C.K., Dawson, L.J. and Bologna, M.J. (1989). Sexual Coercion
in Gay Male and Lesbian Relationships: Predictors and Implications
for Support Services. Journal of Sex Research, 26(1), Feb.,
118-124.
Watkins, B. and Bentovim, A. (1992). The sexual abuse of male children
and adolescents: A review of current research. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 197-248.
Wauchope, B. and Straus, M.A. (1990). Physical punishment and physical
abuse of American children: Incidence rates by age, gender, and
occupational class. In M.A. Straus and R.J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical
Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence
in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Welsh, R. S. (1978). Delinquency, corporal punishment, and the
schools. Crime and Delinquency, 24, 336-354.
Whatley, M.A. and Riggio, R.E. (1993). Gender differences in attributions
of blame for male tape victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
8(4), 502-511.
Widom, C.S. (1989). Child abuse, neglect, and adult behavior: Research
design and findings on criminality, violence, and child abuse. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59(3), July, 363.
Widom, C.S. (1989). The cycle of violence. Science, 244, 160-166.
World Health Organization. (1995). Street Children, Substance
Abuse and Health: Training for Street Educators (draft curriculum).
Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
Yates, A. (1982). Children eroticized by incest. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 139(4), 482-485.
|