How do perpetrators of sexual violence against children justify their actions? Two researchers tried to understand

Warning: This article contains potentially shocking comments made by perpetrators of child sexual abuse.

Researchers have long tried to answer a question: why do some men commit sexual violence against children? We recently tried to provide some answers. In the largest study ever conducted of perpetrators’ accounts of child sexual abuse, we systematically analyzed the testimonies of nearly 700 adult men from thirty-nine different studies to understand how they explain and justify their actions.

Startling revelations

The men involved were aged 18 and over and came from all over the world, from Norway to New Zealand, from Malawi to Brazil. We sought to understand what the perpetrators’ stories could teach us about the prevention of sexual violence against children.

Their testimonies varied considerably. Some cited drug or alcohol use, or even the mistreatment they themselves had suffered during their childhood. Others said they were looking for new, exciting or risky sexual experiences. Still others claimed to be “lover” of the child or look for“educate”. The most common way perpetrators explained their behavior was by presenting their victims as consenting participants in sexual activity.

In the most shocking cases, some perpetrators of sexual violence described themselves as the unfortunate victims of the alleged sexual maneuvers of their victims – most often girls – whom they described as “seductresses” or “provocative”. One of them stated: “She played the little seductress in this whole story. (…) I really let myself be trapped.”

Of course, children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults. Above all, even if the victim had been an adult, the alleged evidence of “consent” put forward by the perpetrators was extremely fragile. They were generally limited to the absence of explicit or vigorous physical resistance.

Violence as revenge

Revenge was another explanation frequently put forward to justify the facts. In the vast majority of cases, the perpetrators designated their adult partner – a woman – as the real target of their retaliatory behavior. In other words, they were attacking a child to get revenge on his mother.

According to their accounts, this revenge was motivated by the fact that their partner did not conform to their traditional conception of femininity or did not, in their eyes, satisfactorily fulfill their role as romantic and sexual companion, and/or mother and mistress of the house.

One of the authors explains it this way: “There were several times when I abused (my daughter-in-law) because I was angry (…) at (my wife because she) (…) didn’t do the housework. She let the dog do his business in the house and no one cleaned up after him.”

In the authors’ accounts, adult female partners were expected to be sexually available exclusively to them, at the time, place, and manner they desired. In a few cases, the attackers claimed to be led to perpetrate their crimes because of their desire for certain sexual practices or certain bodily displays that their adult partner refused to reproduce.

Anger and so-called “rights”

The perpetrators sometimes presented the child victim as deserving of the attacks suffered, claiming that their actions were the consequence of the anger they felt towards the child. For example, some perpetrators said they were angry because their victims did not meet their expectations in terms of “femininity” or did not demonstrate submission deemed sufficient. So one of them said: “She wasn’t acting like the good little girl she was supposed to be.”

Essentially, the reasons given by these men to explain their anger towards child victims follow the same patterns as those they use to justify their anger towards adult women. Perpetrators frequently appealed to a supposed “right” to sexual activity to explain their actions and complained about the lack of sexual access to their adult partners.

At the same time, they presented their victims as sexually docile and constantly sexually available, once again highlighting their belief in having the right to sexual relations and their indifference to the fact that a child cannot consent.

Compared to previous studies, we observed a more frequent and pronounced presence of patriarchal thought patterns in the authors’ narratives. Research often suggests that men commit sexual violence against children because of “marital conflicts” or “tensions within the home”. However, this interpretation seems to water down what the perpetrators’ own accounts reveal, which often heavily emphasize their anger, retaliatory logic, and an unshakeable sense of male entitlement to sexual access.

The authors’ insistence on the supposed “consent” of children is illuminating in this regard. In sexual relationships with adult women, these men view their partners as “gatekeepers of access to sex” (“gatekeepers”), that is to say as the people responsible for resisting their advances when they do not consent.

Although this representation originally concerned adult women, the men in our study frequently considered women and children as belonging to the same category of subordinate people. Indeed, many of the authors studied erased the distinction between girls and adult women, stating for example: “I felt a need for (…) sexual satisfaction and for that, I needed a woman.”

Better training and better action: a crucial issue

Our results therefore highlight the need for public decision-makers and relevant professionals to strengthen efforts to combat misogyny, the feeling of male entitlement to sexual access and patriarchal privileges.

It remains essential to combat rape myths – these false beliefs about sexual violence, its perpetrators and its victims – as well as adherence to these erroneous beliefs. While these measures generally aim to prevent sexual violence against adult women, our analysis suggests that they could also help prevent sexual violence against children.