Sexologies (2013) 22, e109e117

Disponible en ligne sur

www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Female sex offenders: A challenge to

certain paradigmes. Meta-analysis
M.-H. Colson (MD) a,, L. Boyer (MD, PhD) b,
K. Baumstarck (MD) c, A.D. Loundou (PhD) d

a
CRIR-AVS, Department of Psychiatry, hpital Sainte-Marguerite, APHM, 270, avenue Sainte-Marguerite,
13274 Marseille, France
b
Department of Neurology, Timone University Hospital, 27, boulevard Jean-Moulin, 13385 Marseille cedex
05, France
c
EA3279, Self-Perceived Health Assessment Research Unit, School of Medicine, Aix-Marseille University,
27, boulevard Jean-Moulin, 13385 Marseille cedex 05, France
d
Self-Perceived Health Assessment Research Unit, School of Medicine, Aix-Marseille University, 27,
boulevard Jean-Moulin, 13385 Marseille cedex 05, France

Available online 2 August 2013

KEYWORDS Summary
Female sexual Introduction. The subject of sex offenses committed by women has not received very much
offenders; attention until now. In the light of the much more signicant numbers of offenses committed
Violence; by men, female sexual criminality has always taken a back seat and is frequently overlooked
Female; altogether. The very idea of its existence came up against a lot of resistance for many years;
Childhood sexual it just seemed too absurd that a woman could be sexually dangerous for a child or a man. The
abuse; fact that female sex crime has been shrouded in silence for so long has concealed its grave
Female sexual consequences and implications, and yet the survivors of female sexual abuse have reported
perpetrators that sexual abuse by women was more harmful and detrimental than any sexual abuse they had
experienced from men.
Method. From a total 4,712 publications, identied using keywords searches on Medline,
EMBASE, and PsycInfo (1984 to December 2011), we selected 61 papers using methodological
criteria of evidence-based medicine. Our literature review studied 6,293 cases of female sex
offenders in these 611 publications.
Results. Our review, conducted on a large population covering 61 of the most recent accept-
able evidence-based studies, enables us to conrm three already-known suppositions: (1)
female sex offenders have themselves often been victims not only of sex abuse (49.1%), but
perhaps more importantly, of other types of family violence and instability (55.4%); (2) 51.2%
suffer from psychiatric disorders, depression and/or mental retardation; (3) they are more
likely to attack their own children or other close relatives before looking for victims outside
of their family unit (63.9%). However, there are other generally held beliefs that do not seem

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: marie.helene@colson.fr (M.-H. Colson), laurent.boyer@ap-hm.fr (L. Boyer), karine.baumstarck@univmed.fr
(K. Baumstarck), anderson.loundou@univ-amu.fr (A.D. Loundou).
1158-1360/$ see front matter 2013 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sexol.2013.05.002
e110 M.-H. Colson et al.

to be based on fact and should certainly be reviewed, in particular concerning the belief that
female sex offenders are not dangerous: 1) alcohol and drug abuse appeared in our series as
less signicant (29.1%) than previously described in older research, and seemed to conrm the
results found with more rigourous data and larger scope studies described in the more recent
literature; 2) female sex offenders are more likely to choose male victims (60%) over female
victims (40%); 13.3% of them do not have any sexual preference; 3) contrary to popular belief,
more female sex offenders commit their rst crime alone than with an accomplice (66.7% of
them act alone); 4) violence and coercion is far from absent when a female commits a sex
offense (45.8% of cases); 5) although repeat sex offenses are rare, in a large number of cases
(40.3%), female sex offenders have already been charged with other criminal offenses, or have
repeat offenses in non-sexual criminal acts.
2013 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

Introduction Exactly who these female sex offenders really are is

The subject of sex offenses committed by women has not
received very much attention until now. In the light of the
much more signicant numbers of offenses committed by
men, female sexual criminality has always taken a back seat
and is frequently overlooked altogether.
The very idea of its existence came up against a lot
of resistance for many years; it just seemed too absurd
that a woman could be sexually dangerous for a child or a
man. (Saradjian, 1996; Vandiver et al., 2008; Banning, 1989;
Denov, 2004; Finkelhor and Russell, 1984; Strickland, 2008).
The fact that female sex crime has been shrouded in
silence for so long has concealed its grave consequences
and implications (Allen 1991; Ford, 2006; Strickland, 2008;
Elliott et al., 2010), and yet the survivors of female sex-
ual abuse have reported that sexual abuse by women was
more harmful and detrimental than any sexual abuse they
had experienced from men (Denov, 2004; Dube, 2005).
Today it can no longer be denied that some sex offenses
are committed by women, but it is still difcult to make
any reasonable estimate of how many, or what percentage.
Some experts think that approximately 4% of sex offenders
are women (Finkelhor and Russell, 1984; Finkelghor et al.,
1990), but studies of victims show us that this gure is grossly
under-estimated. Some studies focusing on the male popu-
lation of junior high and high schools reveal that between
43 and 60% of the perpetrators of sex abuse are women
(Burgess et al., 1987). Most of these acts of sexual abuse
are disguised within a situation of care for young children
either in incestuous conditions, or by babysitters, and in a
majority of cases, they remain undiscovered (Denov, 2004;
Rosencrans and Bear, 1997). There are still huge discrep-
ancies today between the data held by the legal agencies
and disclosed by the social agencies collecting information
about charges pressed by victims, and the largely underes-
timated gures of sex abuse perpetrated by women (Bader
et al., 2008; Turton, 2010) and the extent to which the issue
is played down by health professionals and judicial ofcials
alike (Turton, 2008; Denov, 2004; Mendel, 1995).
However, in situations where the act of abuse has been
discovered and the female perpetrator charged, as shown
by Sandler in 2011 (Sandler and Freeman, 2011), based on
138,000 arrests that were made in New York between 1986
and 2005, the judicial system makes no distinction between
the sexes, and the retribution handed out is the same for
men and women.
still poorly understood, with high variability, and it is very
difcult today to assess their characteristics from one pub-
lication to another. A lot of the data is contradictory,
confused by controversial statements and attempts to dene
typologies, often based on an insufcient number of cases
sometimes less than ten and based more on personal or
even political conviction, than on fact (Becker et al., 2002;
Grayston & De Luca, 1999; Hunter et al., 2006; Johansson-
Love and Fremouw, 2006).
In the light of some recent publications including larger
cohorts of female sex offenders, it now seems clear that
some of our previously held beliefs about sex offenses com-
mitted by women need to be critically reviewed. To help
with this process, we have conducted a broad systematic
review and a meta-analysis of studies from recent litera-
ture on this subject which is still so poorly identied and so
controversial in many ways.
Methods
Search strategy and selection criteria
The research was based on results from the main databases
(MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycInfo) and search engines such
as Google for reviews and studies from January 1984 to
December 2011 concerning female sexual offenders. This
systematic computer-based literature search was conducted
using different keywords with the terms female or woman
or women, sex or sexual and offense or abuse
or offenders or abusers or perpetrators or child
abuse.
Medline, EMBASE, and PsycInfo (1984 to December 2011)
identied 4,712 relevant studies using these terms. These
results were again sorted by relevance in order to reduce
the number of publications to 61.
For inclusion into the systematic review, the studies had
to meet the following criteria:
studies reporting prevalence of female sex offen-
ders/victim, offender, and offense characteristics;
case-controls, cross-sectional studies and cohort studies.
Excluded studies were:
case reports;
Female sex offenders
qualitative studies exploring less than ten subjects;
studies with data presented only on convictions;
studies published in languages other than English.
Data collection
A standardized form was used to collect data from every
eligible study. Extracted information was: year of the study
publication, geographic location of the study, sample size,
method of sample selection, sampling strategy (medical or
incarceration), type of data collection (medical/prison form
or individual interviews), average age of the sample.
Prevalence of the following characteristics were rigor-
ously recorded rstly for their pertinence, but also because
they were generally well populated in a signicant number
of publications:
for the female sex offender: psychiatric disorders, sub-
stance abuse, personal history of sexual or physical
victimization, childhood trauma and violence, criminal
involvement:
for the victim: gender, extra- or intrafamilial abuse;
for the sex abuse: independent offender, co-offender, or
accomplice offender, use of force and coercion.
Statistical analysis
We calculated prevalence rates by extracting raw pro-
portions with 95% CIs calculated with the Wilson method
(Newcombe, 1998). We calculated pooled proportions with
a random effects model (DerSimonian and Laird, 1986) and
stabilised the variances of the raw proportions before pool-
ing of data (Stuart and Ord, 1994). We did analyses with
comprehensive meta-analysis (version 2.0, National Insti-
tute of Health, Borenstein et al., 2009). We used the I2
statistic to estimate heterogeneity in pooled studies. We
used the Egger and Begg-Mazumdar tests to estimate risk
of bias; however, we noted no evidence of publication
bias within included studies. Forest plots were gener-
ated to show prevalence proportions with corresponding
CIs for each study and the overall random effects pooled
estimate.
Results
The nal sample consisted of 61 studies published between
1984 and 2011: 42 of them were published after 2000.
The studies included a total of 6,293 female sex off-
enders (Supplementary data, Appendix 1) Our research
took three main directions. Firstly, the personal back-
ground of the women convicted of sex abuse (psychiatric
disorders, substance abuse, childhood trauma or abuse,
physical or sexual abuse, criminal involvement), sec-
ondly, certain characteristics of the victims (gender, extra
or intrafamilial abuse) and nally the nature of the
sex abuse committed (coercion, solo offender or co-
offender).
e111
Data concerning the characteristics of female
offenders (personal background)
Psychiatric disorders
The female sex offenders in 24 of our studies suffered from
psychiatric disorders and/or mental retardation, with a ran-
dom effects pooled prevalence of 49.2% (95% CI 40.2-58.3%)
(Supplementary data, Appendix 2: Table 1). The extremely
high heterogeneity of the items used in the various studies
makes it difcult to conduct a detailed differentiation of the
various psychiatric disorders listed.
History of substance and alcohol abuse
Twenty-seven studies examined history of substance abuse
(drug or alcohol) with a random effects pooled prevalence
of 32.7% (95% CI 25.3-41.1%) (Supplementary data, Appendix
2: Table 2). Most of the studies did not provide a detailed
differentiation between the various substances to which the
offender was addicted (alcohol or drug).
Personal history of childhood abuse and victimization
Twenty-two studies reported victimization experience with
a random effects pooled prevalence of 63.9% (95% CI
52.773.8%) (Supplementary data, Appendix 2: Table 3).
The types of violence experienced were variable; physical or
psychological violence, abuse within the birth family and/or
by the sexual partner, extreme family instability, or insecure
attachment, etc. The studies did not always differentiate
between these different types of personal abuse.
Personal history of experiencing sexual abuse
Thirty-four studies reported a background of sexual abuse
experienced by the offenders, with a random effects pooled
prevalence of 61.3% (95% CI 52.769.2%) (Supplementary
data, Appendix 2: Table 4). Most of the time the sex abuse
was intrafamilial, perpetrated by one of the parents, often
very early in childhood.
Criminal record
We identied 25 studies that reported previous involvement
in violent offenses or crime, with a random effects pooled
prevalence of 38.5% (95% CI 31.645.8%) (Supplementary
data, Appendix 2: Table 5).
Main characteristics of the victims
Victim gender
This was the most generally populated item, and which
appears clearly in a large number of studies (Supplementary
data, Appendix 2: Tables 6AC). The different publications
do however often tend to mix up the number of women
who have abused a male or female victim, with the sex of a
female sex offender.
We identied 39 studies with female sex victim with
a random effects pooled prevalence of 45.7% (95% CI
40.750.8%); 38 studies reported male sex victim with
a random effects pooled prevalence of 44.2% (95% CI
38.450.2%), and 21 studies reported that offenders abused
either gender, with a random effects pooled prevalence of
17.9% (95% CI 11.826.2%). Opportunity seems to be a more
e112
important factor here than the victims sex which often
seems to be indifferently male or female.
Act of sexual abuse committed by a family member or by
an outsider
Intrafamilial sexual abuse was reported in 33 studies with
a random effects pooled prevalence of 65.5% (95% CI
54.375.2%) (Supplementary data, Appendix 2: Table 7).
Care providers or mothers are frequently the perpetrators.
Some characteristics of the nature of the sex abuse
committed
Existence or not of an accomplice
Thirty-six studies provided information regarding the exist-
ence or not of an accomplice, or co-offender in sexual
offences committed by female offenders, male coerced
offender, or co-offender situation, which included a female
offender who acted with a male accomplice (Supplementary
data, Appendix 2: Table 8). Accomplice or co-offender is
indicated with a random effects pooled prevalence of 33.5%
(95% CI 26.641.3%).
Use of force and coercion
We identied 30 studies that reported physical violence dur-
ing the offense with a random effects pooled prevalence of
44.3% (95% CI 35.353.7%) (Supplementary data, Appendix
2: Table 9).
Discussion
Insecurity, family and emotional instability, a
history of intrafamilal child abuse
In a majority of cases, female sex offenders grew up in
underprivileged, unstructured and uncontrolled homes, with
parents demonstrating little affection and/or with aban-
donment issues, and a personal history of lack of affection
and instability. This is clearly illustrated in a recent study
(Roe-Sepowitz and Krysik, 2008) conducted on a cohort of
118 teenage female sex offenders. A large majority of these
female sex offenders far more than for male sex offen-
ders suffer from emotional instabilities that could well be
the result of a lack of care, of attention and from living in
a highly unstable home environment. This extreme psycho-
logical, emotional, socioeconomic and parental void is very
commonly reported in all the studies. As much as the female
sex offenders themselves, their parents are also in great dis-
tress, suffering from psychiatric problems, often borderline
type personality disorder, or victims of post-traumatic stress
disorder (Widom, 1999), depression (Brown et al., 1998),
or psychopathic personality disorders (Weiler and Widom,
1996). Intellectual impairment and learning difculties are
commonplace in the original family home (De Bellis et al.,
2009), as are alcoholism and drug abuse (McClellan et al.,
1997). Most of the time, the female sex offenders come from
families where incest is rife, and where physical, sexual and
psychological violence is the rule, often passed down from
one generation to the next for many years.
M.-H. Colson et al.
This criterion is clearly conrmed in our study and
applies to 63.9% of the female sex offenders of our review.
It is overall much less frequently the case for male sex
offenders.
History of sexual violence
A large proportion of female sex offenders were themselves
sexually abused in childhood, usually by a member of their
own family. Generally speaking, the sexual abuse suffered
by the women who were later themselves to become sexual
abusers was more serious, went on for longer and had more
serious consequences than for male sex offenders (Allen,
1991; Mathews et al., 1997; Miccio-Fonseca, 2000; Allen and
Pothast, 1994).
This is conrmed in our literature review; this criterion
is found in 61.3% of cases.
It would appear that the prevalence of history of sex
abuse is signicantly lower for male sex offenders (odds
ratio = 3.36, 95% condence intervals of 2.234.82, in a
recent study on 1,037 male sex offenders, versus 1,762 men
in prison for other types of violence (Jespersena et al.,
2009).
Mental retardation, psychiatric disorders
Most publications highlight the importance of psychiatric
disorders in female sex offenders. In OConnors series
(OConnor, 1987), 48% of 25 female sex offenders in Londons
Holloway prison between 1974 and 1985 were diagnosed
with a psychiatric disorder (depression, schizophrenia,
schizoaffective or psychotic disorder, or other personality
disorders). The best research, such as that conducted by
Lewis and Stanley, 2000, or Tardif et al., 2005, always con-
cludes that there are psychiatric disorders present in the
history of most female sex offenders, with a propensity
towards depression.
Unfortunately, most studies can only include a small
cohort of female sex offenders compared to the control
groups, and they are always in an incarcerated environment.
It is quite possible, as Hislop quite rightly suggested in 2001
(Hislop, 2001), that the women who do not suffer from men-
tal difculties nd it easier to escape the law enforcement
ofcers. For example, Fromuth and Conn (1997), discov-
ered some female sex offenders, totally unknown to the
authorities, amongst a group of university students. This was
conrmed in a very recent study (McCartan et al., 2011) who
conducted semi-directive interviews with female teenagers
of school age.
As suggested by Peter (2006), it is possible that health
professionals are more likely to conclude rather hastily that
female sex offenders are suffering from psychopathologies,
thereby reinforcing the stereotype that a woman cannot
commit sexual crimes without suffering from psychiatric
problems.
Fazels recent study in 2010 (Fazel et al., 2010) on the
prevalence of psychiatric disorders and substance abuse
(alcohol and drugs) amongst 93 female sex offenders, versus
a control group of 20,597 women in prison for other offenses,
did not nd a signicantly higher frequency of this type of
disorder in the female sex offender population.
Female sex offenders
In our literature review, 49.2% of female sex offenders
for whom we have this information at our disposal (from 24
publications), suffer from characterized psychiatric disor-
ders and/or proven mental retardation, whereas in a recent
meta-analysis studying the prevalence of depression and
psychotic disorders in the general population including 5,684
subjects from seven western countries, this gure is respec-
tively around 11.4% and 12.7% (Fazel et al., 2008).
Alcohol and substance abuse
Generally speaking, the literature on male sex crime is over-
owing with studies highlighting the importance of alcohol
and substance abuse and their role as a triggering factor
for acting out (Neidigh and Krop, 1992). For male sex offen-
ders, use of alcohol is currently estimated at 47.5% and drugs
at 38.3%, whereas in the general population for the two
sexes combined, the prevalence of alcohol-related disorders
is 37.9% and drug abuse 24.3% (Fazel et al., 2010).
This brings us onto a controversial subject in the liter-
ature on female sex offenders. According to Allen (1991),
50% of the 65 women examined were alcoholics. For Tardif
et al. (2005), 46.7% of the women in his sample were drug
addicts. Faller (1995) also found a strong contingent of
women addicted to psychoactive substances, and this was
also the case for Gannon et al., 2008; Lewis and Stanley,
2000. But Finkelhor et al., from 1988 onwards (Finkelhor
et al., 1988), then Kubiket al., 2002, were not able to con-
rm this factor in their own studies on female sex crime,
and neither did our own study, with only 32.7% of female
sex offenders affected by alcohol or substance addiction.
Other personal data
It has been impossible for us to draw clear conclusions
concerning the mean age of rst offense for female sex
offenders, despite the fact that this information is most
frequently provided, but it is given in formats that are too
different for us to draw conclusions and is rarely presented
in a way that enables it to be used statistically. According
to most studies, it would appear nevertheless that this age
is probably somewhere between 26 and 36 years, i.e. very
slightly younger than for the male population of sex offen-
ders. Faller, 1987, then again in 1995 (Faller, 1995) reports
an age difference in the mean age of rst acting out between
men (35.8 years) and women (26.1 years) as had already
been reported earlier (Jameson and Schellenbach, 1977).
The population of juvenile female sex offenders, or even
young children (4 years of age in Johnson, 1989) is far from
negligible, and in the ten publications of our series, repre-
sents 478 individuals from the total of our study population,
or nearly one quarter of the total (23.4%).
Most of the time, the current living conditions for the
female sex offenders are as difcult as in their original
home, combining family and emotional instability, social
exclusion and insecure attachment type (Lewis and Stanley,
2000; Mathews et al., 1989; Nathan and Ward, 2001; Travin
et al., 1990).
Marriage and pregnancy start early for female sex
offenders, who have multiple and frequent partners. Rela-
tionships as a couple tend not to last long (Nathan and Ward,
e113
2002; Wakeeld and Underwager, 1991). In most cases, their
personal histories from a young age are punctuated with
experiences of continuous sexual and/or physical violence
once they reach adult age (Tardif and Lamoureux, 1999;
Wakeeld and Underwager, 1991). Strickland (2008) also
reported that these females do not always have enough to
eat and that most of the time they suffer from an absence
or deciency in medical care.
We were not able to report back on these items, since
there was too much missing data in most of the existing
publications.
Going solo, victims or accomplices?
Several studies have given credit to the idea that female
sex offenses are almost always committed under duress or
threats from an accomplice. This is the suggestion made for
example by Kaufman et al. (1995); Green and Kaplan, 1994;
Hetherton and Beardsall, 1998; Matravers, 2008; Nathan and
Ward, 2001; Vandiver and Kercher, 2006; Finkelhor et al.,
1988; Solomon, 1992. According to Grayston and De Luca
(1999), as many as 50 to 70% of sex offenses committed
by females are committed under duress from a man. For
OConnor (1987), and Matthews (1993), the woman is no
more than a passive accomplice to the violence, accompa-
nying a man who is the instigator of the crime. For Mathews,
the women who act with an accomplice or under duress from
one, are not using coercion (Mathews, 1987).
As highlighted by Denov (2004) and before her by
Hetherton and Beardsall (1998), this belief has lead to pre-
conceived ideas on the part of police enforcement ofcials
that female sex offenders have often been forced to commit
sexual crimes, even before they are made aware of the pre-
cise circumstances of the misdemeanor and the conclusions
of the investigation.
This data should probably be re-examined today. Atkinson
showed in 1995, on the basis of extensive judicial statistics
from Canada, that the presence of an accomplice was not
the most frequent case (Atkinson, 1995). This is also sug-
gested in conclusions of studies by Denov, 2001; Finkelhor
and Russell (1984); Kaufman et al., 1995; Kubik et al., 2002;
Lewis and Stanley, 2000; Nathan and Ward, 2002, for whom
most female sex offenders act alone.
The ndings of our review conrmed the latter position,
with 66.5% of female sex offenders acting alone, and only
33.5% of them committing their sex offenses in tandem with
another individual, generally a man, but not always, since
some act in a group or a gang this is mainly the case for
juveniles or with another woman. Unfortunately most of
the studies available giving information on this item, gener-
ally retrospective studies based on the examination of case
les for convicts or ex-convicts, do not always specify if the
offense committed by these female sex offenders were com-
mitted as a victim, an accomplice, a joint perpetrator or
within a gang.
Complicity, violent behaviors and risk of danger to
society
The issue of complicity is very important since it has an
impact of course not only on sentencing, but also on the
e114
therapeutic program to be implemented, also on the risk of
repeat offense, which is probably lower for an act commit-
ted under duress or as an accomplice to an instigator.
In the typology developed in 1986 by McCarty (on
26 female sex offenders), a differentiation was made in
terms of seriousness and risk of repeat offense accord-
ing to whether the female sex offenders committed their
crimes under duress, with an accomplice, or alone. Their
responsibility was judged not to be the same in cases
of coercion and in cases of active participation (McCarty,
1986).
This item also certainly needs to be reassessed. Lewis and
Stanley, from 2000 onwards (Lewis and Stanley, 2000), estab-
lished that the presence of a partner does not necessarily
mean that the female sex offender did not play an active
part in the aggression, or was not the instigator. Rosencrans
study (n = 93) on incestuous mothers reported 65% of phys-
ical violence associated with sexual abuse (Rosencrans and
Bear, 1997).
Vandiver, in 2006, in his study of a large American series
(n = 227) quite unusual for publications concerning female
sex offenders reported that 123 women (54%) acted alone,
and 104, i.e. 46% acted with an accomplice (Vandiver, 2006).
In his opinion, the female sex offenders who acted as accom-
plices or as a gang are no less dangerous than those who
acted alone. As he was able to show that in reality they are
often multiple offenders for criminal and sexual offenses
alike and are more likely to aggress multiple victims than
female sex offenders who act alone (65% versus 26%).
Studies into female juveniles or young children who have
committed sex crimes systematically report that they act
alone. However, they also report that the absence of accom-
plice is replaced by the existence of an initiator a man or
a woman, a juvenile or an adult. Data for this type of pop-
ulation also reveals an almost systematic history of sexual
abuse suffered by the juvenile or child.
In our systematic review, violent behaviour at the same
time as the sexual offense is demonstrated in 44.3% of cases,
i.e. nearly half, which is far from negligible.
Criminal record
Dangerous or violent behaviour can indirectly be evidenced
in the female sex offenders criminal record.
Generally speaking, the rate of repeat sexual offenses by
females is low less than 3%, as reported in a recent meta-
analysis on 2,490 female sexual offenders (Cortoni et al.,
2010), which is slightly lower than the known rate of 5% for
men (Blanchette and Brown, 2006).
Nevertheless, individuals of both sexes who commit a rst
sex offense have, in a large majority of cases, already been
charged with other criminal offenses in the past. This rate is
41 to 44% for males and 23 to 30% for females (Bonta et al.,
2003). The gures are even more striking when a large quan-
tity of data is compiled: in the USA, the study of Langan and
Levin (2002) covering the same period with 272,111 sex off-
enders, including 23,674 females, reported 39.9% of repeat
offenses for the women and 47.6% for the men.
Our study conrms similar proportions, with 38.5% of
female sex offenders who already had a criminal record for
M.-H. Colson et al.
violent or criminal offenses before committing their sexual
offense.
Preferred victims from within the family
The choice of victim is an item that is quite well documented
in many studies, mainly those focusing on judicial data.
The victims of female sex offenders are most often chil-
dren (Lewis and Stanley, 2000). Even more so than for males,
as has been widely reported (Elliott et al., 1995; Smallbone
and Wortley, 2001), the victims of female sex offenders
are either close relatives or generally children known to
the aggressor (Wakeeld and Underwager, 1991; Knopp and
Lackey, 1987; Brown et al., 1984; Elliott and Peterson, 1993;
Faller, 1995; Fromuth and Conn, 1997; Hunter et al., 1993;
Kercher and McShane, 1984; Vandiver and Kercher, 2004;
Vandiver and Walker, 2002). For Faller, 1987, 1995; Lewis
and Stanley, 2000; Vandiver and Walker, 2002, the aggressor
is most often the victims own mother, or a baby-sitter or
nanny looking after the child.
In our literature review, the victim is typically chosen
from within the family circle, most often a mother on her
own child in 65.5% of cases.
Sex of the victim
Whereas male sex offenders mainly choose female victims,
and in a very large majority (92% of cases according to
the American judicial system, for Catalano and Shannon,
2005), the gender preference for the victim of female sex
offenders is still very controversial. The most popular idea
is that female sex offenders mainly choose female victims
(Mathews et al., 1989; Faller, 1995; Brown et al., 1984).
More recently Deschacht and Genuit (2000) found the same
results as Faller, and with the same type of sample popu-
lation, 74.6% female victims for 69 women aggressors. In
Elliotts series in 1994 (Elliott, 1994), out of 127 female sex
offenders, two thirds abused girls, and one-third boys.
There are other studies though that evidence female
sex offenders preferring to abuse boys. This is the case
for Ramsey-Klawsnik (1990), Finkelhor and Russell (1984) or
Fromuth and Conn (1997).
At the same time, authors who have investigated sex-
ual crimes committed by children and juveniles are also
in disagreement. For some of them, such as Hunter et al.
(1993), the victims are mainly female for rst crimes com-
mitted before 11 years of age. Mathews, in his 1987 study
noted that the results obtained during comparative studies
suggested that both female and male juveniles were more
likely to prefer victims of the opposite sex (Mathews, 1987).
But more generally speaking, the choice of victim gender
for young juvenile or child sex-offenders would appear to
be more commonly based on opportunity than a true sex-
ual preference (Bumby and Bumby, 2004; Frey, 2006; Hunter
et al., 2006; Robinson, 2006). Authors such as Vandiver and
Walker (2002) are of the same opinion, as is Faller (1995);
or McCarty (1986), who all suggest that women who commit
violent sexual offenses so do in an opportunistic manner,
on victims to whom they have access, rather than through
specic choice of a gender or age distinction.
Female sex offenders
An analysis of studies providing information about the
victims gender evidences that although there is a prefer-
ence for the sex of the victim, this will more frequently be
female (45.7% in 39 studies) than male (44.20% in 38 stud-
ies). But in 21 studies and for 17.9% of cases of sexual abuse
committed by a woman, the sex of the victim is indifferent,
with opportunity being the important factor for triggering
the crime rather than the victims sex.
Limitations
In our study we have tried to compile raw data from studied
publications when they were accessible, before they had
been used in questionable statistical processing (percent-
ages calculated on series often lower than 15 cases, etc.),
with a view to better dening the characteristics that gave
rise to controversy.
This is difcult work, with limitations imposed by the very
nature of the material used: work relating to female sex
offenders, when it refers to a large number of cases, is usu-
ally retrospective (compiling data from judicial and prison
authorities; a lot of missing data). When this work is prospec-
tive and uses a well-proven methodology, it is usually based
on a small sample size.
A lot of data was collected in a rather fanciful man-
ner, with no systematic criteria, sometimes not really even
clearly dened. A lot of interesting data is unfortunately
unusable for a statistical analysis and it is often difcult to
extract the most important items from it.
Some interesting criteria are impossible to compile. This
is the case for example when we attempted to ascertain
the age of victims of female sex offenders, as there is no
standardization in the collection of data from source pub-
lications, since the age of sexual majority varies from one
country to another.
Conclusion
It would appear that we still do not fully understand female
sex crime. Its real importance is not fully grasped, given
the obvious contradictions that exist between its conse-
quences in the eyes of victims; their accusations expressed
either during therapy or in systematic studies, and the small
amount of judicial and prison data available.
It seems clear that part of this form of crime goes unde-
tected. The women; mothers, sisters, aunties, carers and
baby-sitters all have much freer access to children and can
touch them much more freely than men (Marvasti, 1986;
Faller, 1995; Rowan et al., 1990; Saradjian, 1996). Incest
can go unnoticed for a long time, or might even never be
revealed. Children who are victims of incest nd it very dif-
cult to talk about the subject, and the medical world still
nds it difcult to accept the idea that it exists at all (Elliott
and Peterson, 1993).
Our current lack of understanding of female sex crime
also seems to be perpetuated by certain preconceived ideas
tending to minimize it. For the DSM IV for example, para-
philia is virtually non-existent in women. Some authors
believe that pedophilia does not exist in women (Freund
et al., 1984). For others, there are only very small numbers
of female sex offenders, and those that do exist are seen as
e115
victims of male accomplices and are not dangerous. These
preconceived ideas seem to be fostered by the rst publica-
tions and the frequent use of statistics or typologies based
on a dramatically insufcient number of cases to be any-
where near signicant, or on a proposal for typologies using
a satisfactory number of cases but without clear information
about the items used, or with too much missing data. All too
often, the outcomes of research are assertions formulated
on the basis of insufcient data, usually retrospectively and
often without any control data.
Our review, conducted on a large population covering
61 of the most recent acceptable evidence-based studies,
enables us to conrm three already-known suppositions:
one female sex offender in two has herself been a victim
not only of sex abuse, but perhaps more importantly, of
other types of family violence and instability (49.1% and
55.4% respectively for these two items);
one in two suffer from psychiatric disorders, depression
and/or mental retardation (51.2%);
female sex offenders are more likely to attack their own
children or other close relatives before looking for victims
outside of their family unit (63.9% of cases).
However, there are other generally held beliefs that
do not seem to be based on fact and should certainly be
reviewed, in particular concerning the belief that female
sex offenders are not dangerous:
alcohol and drug abuse appeared in our series as less
signicant (29.1%) than previously described in older
research, and seemed to conrm the results found with
more rigourous data and larger scope studies described in
the more recent literature;
female sex offenders are more likely to choose male vic-
tims (60%) over female victims (40%). 13.3% of them do
not have any sexual preference;
contrary to popular belief, more female sex offenders
commit their rst crime alone than with an accomplice
(66.7% of them act alone);
violence and coercion is far from absent when a female
commits a sex offense. There is characterized violence in
45.8% of cases. In a signicant number of cases, the vio-
lence and coercion is accompanied by the use of a weapon
and nishes with barbaric acts and murder;
although repeat sex offenses are rare, in a large num-
ber of cases (40.3%), female sex offenders have already
been charged with other criminal offenses, or have repeat
offenses in non-sexual criminal acts.
Disclosure of interest
The authors have not supplied their declaration of conict
of interest.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data (Appendix 1, Appendix 2: Tables 19)
associated with this article can be found, in the online ver-
sion, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sexol.2013.05.002.
e116
References
Allen CM. Women as perpetrators of child sexual abuse: Recogni-
tion barriers. In: Horton AL, Johnson BL, Roundy LM, Williams D,
editors. The incest perpetrator: a family member no one wants
to treat. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991. p. 10825.
Allen CM, Pothast HL. Distinguishing characteristics of
male and female child sex abusers. J Offender Rehab
1994;21(12):7388.
Atkinson J. The assessment of female sex offenders. Kingston, ON:
Correctional Service of Canada; 1995.
Bader SM, Scalora MJ, Casady TC, Black S. Female sexual abuse
and criminal justice intervention: A comparison of child protec-
tive service and criminal justice samples. Child Abuse Neglect
2008;32:1119.
Banning A. Mother-son incest: confronting a prejudice. Child Abuse
Neglect 1989;13:56370.
Becker JV, Hall S, Stinson JD. Female sexual offenders: clin-
ical, legal, and policy issues. J Forensic Psychol Pract
2002;1(3):3153.
Blanchette K, Brown SL. The assessment and treatment of women
offenders: an integrated perspective. Chichester, England: John
Wiley; 2006.
Bonta J, Rugge T, Dauvergne M. The reconviction rate of federal
offenders (User Report No. 2003-03). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada:
Public Safety Canada; 2003.
Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to
meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2009.
Brown EJ, Flanagan TJ, McLeod M. Source book of criminal justice
statistic 1983. Washington: Bureau of Justice Statistics; 1984.
Brown J, Cohen P, Johnson JG, Salzinger S. A longitudinal analysis
of risk factors for child maltreatment: Findings of a 17-
year prospective study of ofcially recorded and self-reported
child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse Neglect 1998;22(11):
106578.
Bumby NH, Bumby KM. Bridging the gender gap: Addressing juvenile
females who commit sexual offences. In: OReilly G, Marshall
WL, Carr A, Beckett RC, editors. The handbook of clinical inter-
vention with young people who sexually abuse. New York, NY:
Brunner-Routledge; 2004. p. 36981.
Burgess AW, Hartman CR, McCormack A. Abused to abuser:
Antecedents of socially deviant behaviors. Am J Psychiatry
1987;144:14316.
Catalano, Shannon M. Criminal Victimization, 2006. Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics 2006; 2005.
Cortoni F, Hanson K, Coache M. The Recidivism rates of
female sexual offenders are low: a meta-analysis. Sex Abus
2010;22(4):387401.
De Bellis MD, Hooper SR, Spratt EG, Woolley DP. Neuropsychological
ndings in childhood neglect and their relationships to pediatric
PTSD. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2009;15:86878.
Denov MS. A culture of denial: Exploring professional perspectives
on female sex offending. Can J Criminol 2001;43(3):30329.
Denov M. Perspectives on female sex offending: A culture of denial.
Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin,
Cornwall; 2004.
DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin
Trials 1986;7:17788.
Deschacht JM, Genuit P. Femmes agresseuses sexuelles en France.
In: Ciavaldini A, Balier C, editors. Agressions sexuelles: patholo-
gies, suivis thrapeutiques et cadre judiciaire. Paris: Masson;
2000. p. 4757.
Dube SR, et al. Long-term consequences of childhood sexual abuse
by gender of victim. Am J Prev Med 2005;28:4308.
Elliott AJ, Peterson LW. Maternal sexual abuse of male chil-
dren: When to suspect and how to uncover it. Postgrad Med
1993;94(1):16980.
M.-H. Colson et al.
Elliott M. Female sexual abuse of children. New York: The Guilford
Press; 1994.
Elliott M, Browne K, Kilcoyne J. Child sexual abuse preven-
tion: what offenders tell us. Child Abuse Neglect 1995;19:
57994.
Elliott IA, Eldridge HJ, Asheld S, Beech AR. Exploring risk:
potential static, dynamic, protective and treatment factors
in the clinical histories of female sex offenders. J Fam Viol
2010;25(6):595602.
Faller KC. Women who sexually abuse children. Violence Vict
1987;2(4):26376.
Faller K. A clinical sample of women who have sexually abused
children. J Child Sex Abus 1995;4(3):1330.
Fazel S, Khosla V, Doll H, Geddes J. The prevalence of mental
disorders among the homeless in Western countries: system-
atic review and metaregression analysis. PLoS Med 2008;5(12):
e225.
Fazel S, Sjostedt G, Grann M, Langstrm N. Sexual offending in
women and psychiatric disorder: a national case-control study.
Arch Sex Behav 2010;39:1617.
Finkelhor D, Russell D. Women as perpetrators: review of the evi-
dence. In: Finkelhor D, editor. Child sexual abuse: new theory
and research. NY: Free Press; 1984. p. 17187.
Finkelhor D, Williams LM, Burns N. Nursery crimes: sexual
abuse in day care. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications;
1988.
Finkelhor D, Hotaling G, Lewis IA, Smith C. Sexual abuse in a national
survey of adult men and women: prevalence, characteristics,
and risk factors. Child Abus Neglect 1990;14(1,):1928.
Ford H. Women who sexually abuse children. Chichester, UK: Wiley;
2006.
Frey LL. Girls dont do that, do they? Adolescent females who
sexually abuse. In: Longo RE, Prescott DS, editors. Current per-
spectives: Working with sexually aggressive youth and youth with
sexual behavior problems. Holyoke, MA: NEARI Press; 2006. p.
25572.
Freund K, Heasman G, Racansky et IG, Glancy G. Pedophilia,
heterosexuality versus homosexuality. J Sex Marital Ther
1984;10:193200.
Fromuth M, Conn V. Hidden perpetrators: sexual molestation
in a nonclinical sample of college women. J Interpers Viol
1997;12:45665.
Gannon TA, Rose MR, Ward T. A descriptive model of the offence
process for female sexual offenders. Sex Abus Treatment
2008;20:35274.
Grayston AD, De Luca RV. Female perpetrators of child sexual abuse:
A review of the clinical and empirical literature. Aggression Viol
Behav 1999;4(1):93106.
Green AH, Kaplan M. Psychiatric impairment and childhood victim-
ization experiences in female child molesters. J Am Acad Child
Adolesc Psychiatry 1994;33:95461.
Hetherton J, Beardsall L. Decisions and attitudes concerning child
sexual abuse: does the gender of the perpetrator make a dif-
ference to child protection professionals? Child Abuse Neglect
1998;22:126583.
Hislop J. Female sex offenders: What therapists, law enforcement
and child protective services need to know. Ravensdale, WA:
Issues Press/Idyll Arbor; 2001.
Hunter JA, Lexier LJ, Goodwin DW, Browne PA, et Dennis C. Psycho-
sexual, attitudinal and developmental characteristics of juvenile
female sexual perpetrators in a residential treatment setting. J
Child Fam Stud 1993;2(4):31726.
Hunter JA, Becker JV, Lexier LJ. The female juvenile sex offender.
In: Barbaree HE, Marshall WL, editors. The juvenile sex offender.
New York: Guilford Press; 2006. p. 14865.
Jameson PA, Schellenbach CJ. Sociological and psychological factors
in the backgrounds of male and female perpetrators of child
abuse. Child Abus Negl 1977;1:7783.
Female sex offenders
Jespersena AF, Lalumire ML, Setob MC. Sexual abuse history among
adult sex offenders and non-sex offenders: a meta-analysis.
Child Abus Negl 2009;33:17992.
Johansson-Love J, Fremouw W. A critique of the female sexual per-
petrator research. Aggression Viol Behav 2006;11:1226.
Johnson TC. Female child perpetrators: children who molest other
children. Child Abus Negl 1989;13:57185.
Kaufman KL, Wallace AM, Johnson CF, Reeder ML. Comparing female
and male perpetrators modus operandi: victims reports of sex-
ual abuse. J Interpers Viol 1995;10(3):32233.
Kercher G, McShane M. The prevalence of child sexual abuse vic-
timization in an adult sample of Texas residents. Child Abus Negl
1984;8:495502.
Knopp FH, Lackey LB. Female sexual abusers: a summary of data
from 44 treatment providers. Orwell: The Safer Society Program
of the New York State Council of Churches; 1987.
Kubik EK, Hecker JE, Righthand S. Adolescent females who have sex-
ually offended: comparisons with delinquent adolescent female
offenders and adolescent males who sexually offended. J Child
Sex Abus 2002;11(3):6383.
Langan PA, Levin DJ. Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994 (Spe-
cial report). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US
Department of Justice; 2002.
Lewis CF, Stanley CR. Women accused of sexual offenses. Behavi Sci
Law 2000;18(1):7381.
Marvasti J. Incestuous Mothers. Am J of Forensic Psychiatry
1986;9(4):639.
McCartan FM, Law H, Murphy M, Bailey S. Child and adolescent
females who present with sexually abusive behaviours: a 10-year
UK prevalence study. J Sex Aggression 2011;17(1):414.
McCarty L. Mother-child incest: characteristics of the offender.
Child Welfare 1986;65(5):44758.
McClellan DS, Farabee D, Crouch BM. Early victimization, drug use,
and criminality: A comparison of male and female prisoners.
Crim Justice Behav 1997;24:45576.
Mathews R. Preliminary typology of female sex offenders. Minneapo-
lis: MN: PHASE and Genesis II for Women, Inc; 1987.
Mathews R, Matthews JK, Speltz K. Female sexual offenders: an
exploratory study. Orwell, VT: Safer Society Press; 1989.
Matthews JK. Working with female sexual abuse. In: Elliot M, editor.
Female sexual abuse of children: the ultimate taboo. Essex, VT:
Longman; 1993. p. 5773.
Mathews R, Hunter JA, Vuz J. Juvenile female sexual offen-
ders: clinical characteristics and treatment issues. Sex Abuse
1997;9:18799.
Matravers A. Understanding women who commit sex offences. In:
Letherby G, Williams K, Birch P, Cain M, editors. Sex as crime?
Devon: William Publishing; 2008. p. 299320.
Mendel MP. The male survivor: the impact of sexual abuse. London:
Sage; 1995.
Miccio-Fonseca LC. Adult and adolescent female sex offenders:
Experiences compared to other female and male sex offenders.
J Psychol Hum Sexuality 2000;11:7588.
Nathan P, Ward T. Females who sexually abuse children: Assessment
and treatment issues. Psychiatry Psychol Law 2001;8:445.
Nathan P, Ward T. Female sex offenders: clinical and demographic
features. J Sex Aggression 2002;8(1):521.
Neidigh L, Krop H. Cognitive distortions among child sexual offen-
ders. J Sex Educ Ther 1992;18(3):20815.
Newcombe R. Two-sided con dence intervals for the single propor-
tion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 1998;17:85772.
OConnor AA. Female sex offenders. Br J Psychiatry
1987;150:61520.
Peter T. Mad, bad, or victim? Making sense of motherdaughter
sexual abuse. Feminist Criminol 2006;1:283302.
e117
Ramsey-Klawsnik, H. Sexual abuse by female perpetrators: impact
on children. Paper presented at the national symposium on child
victimization, keepers of the children. 1990.
Robinson S. Adolescent females with sexual behavioral problems:
What constitutes best practice? In: Longo RE, D. S. Prescott DS,
editors. Current perspectives: working with sexually aggressive
youth and youth with sexual behavior problems. Holyoke, MA:
NEARI Press; 2006. p. 273324.
Roe-Sepowitz D, Krysik J. Examining the sexual offenses of female
juveniles: The relevance of childhood maltreatment. Am J
Orthopsychiatry 2008;78:40512.
Rosencrans B, Bear E. The last secret: daughters sexually abused by
mothers. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press; 1997.
Rowan EL, Rowan JB, Langelier P. Women who molest children. Bull
Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1990;18:7983.
Sandler J, Freeman NJ. Female sex offenders and the criminal
justice system: A comparison of arrests and outcomes. J Sex
Aggression 2011;17(1):6176.
Saradjian J. Women who sexually abuse children: from research to
clinical Practice. London: John Wiley Sons; 1996.
Smallbone SW, Wortley RK. Child sexual abuse: offender character-
istics and modus operandi. Aust Institute Criminol Trend Issue
Crime Crim Justice 2001:193.
Solomon JC. Child sexual abuse by family members: a radical fem-
inist perspective. Sex Roles 1992;27(910):47385.
Stuart A, Ord JK. Kendalls advanced theory of statistics. 6th Ed.
London: Edward Arnold; 1994.
Strickland SM. Female sex offenders: exploring issues of per-
sonality, trauma, and cognitive distortions. J Interpers Viol
2008;23:47489.
Tardif M, Lamoureux B. Les femmes responsables dabus sexuels:
refus dune certaine ralit. Forensic. Rev Psychiatr Psychol
Legales 1999;21:268.
Tardif M, Auclair N, Jacob M, Carpentier J. Sexual abuse perpe-
trated by adult and juvenile females: An ultimate attempt to
resolve a conict associated with maternal identity. Child Abus
Negl 2005;29:15367.
Travin S, Cullen K, Protter B. Female sex offenders: severe victims
and victimizers. J Forensic Sci 1990;35(1):14050.
Turton J. Child abuse, gender and society. Abingdon: Routledge;
2008.
Turton DJ. Female sexual abusers: Assessing the risk. Int J Law Crime
Justice 2010;38(4):27993.
Vandiver DM, Walker JT. Female sex offenders: an overview and
analysis of 40 cases. Crim Justice Rev 2002;27(2):284300.
Vandiver DM, Kercher G. Offender and victim characteristics of reg-
istered female sexual offenders in Texas: A proposed typology
of female sex offenders. Sex Abuse: 2004;16(2004):12137.
Vandiver D, Kercher G. Registered female sex offenders in Texas; an
oddity or an overlooked population. In: Ford H, editor. Women
Who Sexually Abuse Children. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Inc;
2006.
Vandiver D. Female sex offenders: A comparison of solo offenders
and co-offenders. Viol Vict 2006;21:33954.
Vandiver DM, Cheeseman Dial K, Worley RM. A qualitative assess-
ment of registered female sex offenders: Judicial processing
experiences and perceived effects of a public registry. Crim
Justice Rev 2008;33(2):17798.
Wakeeld H, Underwager R. Female child sexual abusers: a critical
review of the literature. Am J Forensic Psychol 1991;9(4):4569.
Weiler BL, Widom CS. Psychopathy and violent behaviour in
abused and neglected young adults. Crim Behav Mental Health
1996;6:25371.
Widom CS. Posttraumatic stress disorder in abused and neglected
children grown-up. Am J Psychiatry 1999;156:12239.