15
Women’s Sexual Violence of Male
Intimate Partners1
Joana Carvalho and Nélio Brazão
INTRODUCTION
Sexual violence has been defined as any kind
of sexual activity that is committed against
someone who is unwilling or unable to con-
sent (Basile et al., 2014). Distinct strategies
may be used to commit sexual violence of a
non-consenting partner, including hands-on
(e.g., physical force) and hands-off (e.g.,
verbal pressure, blackmailing) strategies
(Carvalho and Sá, 2017). Considering the
strong variety of sexual offending strategies,
empirical research incorporates different ter-
minologies that fall under the heading of
sexual violence (e.g., sexual abuse, sexual
coercion). In this chapter, the label sexual
violence will be use throughout the text,
excepting when quoting specific studies. In
these cases, the terminology used by the
respective authors will be reported.
Women’s sexual violence of men is a topic
clearly neglected in the scientific literature.
The lack of systematic research on this topic,
as seen by the scarce empirical evidence and
BK-SAGE-SHACKELFORD_S2V1-200349-Chp15.indd 241
dated literature, does not indicate the inexist-
ence of women’s sexual offending behavior.
Instead, it reveals that sexual violence as
committed by women against men is still sur-
rounded by great taboo (Larsen and Hilden,
2016; Javaid, 2018a, 2018b; Walfield, 2018).
Until the 1980s, very little attention was
given to women as initiators of sexual inter-
course using sexually aggressive means
(Anderson, 1998). Surprisingly, Sarrel and
Masters (1982) noted that the Kinsey research
program, one of the largest and paradigmatic
surveys ever conducted in the field of sexol-
ogy, did not include questions about men’s
sexual victimization by women (Kinsey
et al., 1948). Sarrel and Masters (1982) were
among the first to study men who were sexu-
ally abused by women, including their inti-
mate partners. Men were finally recognized to
be coerced into sex, demonstrating unwilling
erection and ejaculation, triggered by non-
consented sexual stimulation, fear, or anger.
Until then, men were seen as potential vic-
tims, but only if other men were the offenders
28/08/20 8:29 AM
 242 The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
(Busby and Compton, 1997). Currently, and
despite emerging literature on women’s sex-
ual violence, most surveys still ask women
about sexual victimization, and men about
sexual perpetration (Larimer et  al., 1999;
Davies et al., 2006; Walfield, 2018).
COMMUNITY WOMEN AS
PERPETRATORS OF SEXUAL
OFFENDING BEHAVIOR
Prevalence and Strategies
Sexual violence of men by women, including
women’s intimate partners, is believed to be
non-trivial in prevalence among college stu-
dents. Still, we cannot directly compare data
from the different studies, as researchers use
distinct questions to capture sexually violent
behavior. Women report using a variety of
coercive ‘hands-off’ strategies, including
psychological manipulation, verbal pressure,
blackmailing, taking advantage when the
man is intoxicated by alcohol or other drugs,
or using a position of power and authority
(O’Sullivan et  al., 1998; Anderson et  al.,
2005; Hines, 2007; Turchik, 2012; Carvalho
and Nobre, 2016; Carvalho et  al., 2018a).
However, hands-on strategies, that include
using physical force, have also been reported
(Struckman-Johnson, 1988; Carvalho and
Nobre, 2016; Carvalho et  al., 2018a).
Moreover, the use of these ‘hands-on’ strate-
gies are more likely to occur in heterosexual
dating relationships (O’Sullivan et al., 1998).
Prevalence rates of young/college men
reporting women’s sexual aggression have
varied from 5% to 38.5% (Struckman-
Johnson, 1991; Hannon et al., 1996; Larimer
et  al., 1999; Hines et  al., 2012; Badenoch,
2015). While the lowest rates correspond to
behaviors representing severe forms of
aggression, the highest rates represent the
less (physically) severe forms, i.e., the hands-
off strategies. Furthermore, studies targeting
heterosexual intimate relationships showed
BK-SAGE-SHACKELFORD_S2V1-200349-Chp15.indd 242
that between 2.8% and 37% of college men
reported being forced into sex by women
(Hines, 2007; Aosved et  al., 2011; Artime
et  al., 2014; Lehrer et  al., 2015). Similarly,
Hines and Douglas (2016) found that 48.6%
of men seeking help for partner violence
reported being a victim of sexual aggression
by a woman; further, 28% reported severe
sexual aggression, i.e., being threatened or
physically forced to have oral, vaginal, or
anal intercourse.
As for women, 26% reported engaging
in sexual coercion perpetration (Struckman-
Johnson et  al., 2003) and 5% endorsed
using physical force to attain sex (i.e., rape;
Monson et al., 2009). In a review conducted
by Williams and colleagues (2008), the prev-
alence rates of sexual violence by female col-
lege students against male intimate partners
ranged from 2.1% to 46.2%.
More recently, findings from two inde-
pendent samples revealed that 32.7–35.8%
of female college students used sexually
aggressive strategies as a means to initiate
sexual intercourse with men. These included
verbal tactics (46.2–72.3%), use of power/
authority (34.1–46.5%), and physical force
(13.1–19.8%) (Carvalho and Nobre, 2016;
Carvalho et al., 2018a). Indeed, women and
men presented a similar pattern of sexual
initiation by coercive means, with both
using similar levels of physical force and
power/authority, while men reported to use
significantly more verbal tactics (Carvalho
et al., 2018b).
Psychosocial Characterization of
Community Women Reporting
Sexual Violence of Men
Unfortunately, few studies have addressed
the psychosocial correlates of women’s per-
petration of sexual violence against men.
However, research does indicate that women
who report perpetrating higher levels of
forced sex toward men, are more likely to
endorse a higher social status than women
28/08/20 8:29 AM
 ATTACHMENT THEORY
reporting lower levels of forced sex (Hines,
2007). Furthermore, and regarding historical
factors, it has been demonstrated that sexu-
ally aggressive women were more likely to
be sexually abused in the past (Russel and
Oswald, 2001; Schatzel-Murphy et al., 2009;
Carvalho and Nobre, 2016).
With regard to individual differences,
Carvalho and colleagues (2018a) found that
the sexually aggressive women presented
more psychopathological symptoms (e.g.,
somatization, depression, interpersonal sensi-
tivity, anxiety, psychoticism, hostility), alex-
ithymia, impulsiveness, negative trait-affect,
and neuroticism, as well as less agreeable-
ness and conscientiousness. Furthermore,
findings revealed that extroversion predicted
women’s membership to the category physi-
cal force, i.e., using physical force (rather
than hands-off strategies) as a means to initi-
ate sex (Carvalho et al., 2018a).
As for the psychosexual aspects, studies
revealed that sexually aggressive women
reported more peer pressure to be enrolled in
sexual behavior (Krahe et al., 2003), as well
as more deviant sexual fantasies, both of sub-
missiveness and domination (Carvalho and
Nobre, 2016), and more sexual compulsivity
(i.e., a pattern of out of control sexual fan-
tasies, impulses or urges – Schatzel-Murphy
et  al., 2009; Carvalho and Nobre, 2016). In
all, it seems plausible to consider that wom-
en’s sexually violent behavior against men
may be triggered by a combination of social
factors and psychological vulnerabilities,
and somehow have a homeostasis function,
being used as a coping mechanism aimed
at restoring emotional adaptation (Carvalho
et  al., 2018a). Indeed, both consented and
non-consented sexual behavior are frequently
used to cope with disruptive emotional states,
and are seen as precursors of sexual offend-
ing behavior (Bancroft et al., 2003; Wakling
et al., 2007; Ward et al., 1998).
Regarding relationship and/or intimacy-
related factors, female-perpetrated sexual
aggression may be more likely to occur
when male partners are seen as unwilling
BK-SAGE-SHACKELFORD_S2V1-200349-Chp15.indd 243
243
to be actively in the relationship. In other
words, women’s perceptions of male partner
passivity/withdrawal during conflict situa-
tions may be associated with women’s use
of aggression (Katz et  al., 2002). Women
who perpetrate sexual aggression also report
more negative attitudes toward men (Hines,
2007) and endorse the belief that hetero-
sexual intimate relationships are inherently
bad and conflictive (Christopher et al., 1993;
Anderson, 1996). Also, sexually aggressive
women were found to have a manipulative
style within romantic relationships, and to
endorse a more positive appraisal of sexual
harassment (Russel and Oswald, 2001).
CRIMINAL SAMPLES OF WOMEN
COMMITTING SEXUAL VIOLENCE
AGAINST MEN
Prevalence and Typologies
Research on female sex offenders (FSO) is
increasing. However, it remains rare when
compared to research on male sex offenders
(Gannon et  al., 2008; Vandiver et  al., 2008;
Gannon and Cortoni, 2010). Though rates of
women’s sexual offending are low compared
to rates of men’s sexual offending, the actual
numbers of FSO are not trivial (Turner et al.,
2008). According to a 1999 Federal Bureau
Investigation (FBI) report, between 1993 and
1997, 2.2% of sex offenders arrested for rape
each year were women. Although this per-
centage is small, it is worth noting that about
10,000 women were arrested each year
during this period for violent sexual offenses
(FBI, 1999). In a more recent report, of the
10,471 arrests for rape, 168 (1.6%) of the
perpetrators were women; of the 35,604
arrests made for other sex offences, 2,675
(7.5%) of the perpetrators were women (FBI,
2013). Recently, research has yielded preva-
lence rates of women’s sexual offending
between 1.6% and 20% (e.g., McLeod and
Craft, 2015). Additionally, research on dating
28/08/20 8:29 AM
 244 The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
violence and/or intimate partner violence
conducted with heterosexual couples has
shown that 18.5–35% of men have been
coerced into sex by female intimate partners
(Chan et  al., 2008; Brousseau et  al., 2011,
2012). Despite these findings, law enforce-
ment is less likely to make arrestments in
these cases (Williams and Bierie, 2015), and
sex crimes perpetrated by women are less
likely to be recorded in arrest data even if
they are detected (Budd, 2017).
The available evidence suggests that
FSO are a heterogeneous population with
different features (Gannon et  al., 2008;
Gannon and Cortini, 2010; Elliot and
Bailey, 2014; Tozdan et al., 2019). However,
most research on FSO has been focused on
offenders’ demographic features (i.e., age,
socioeconomic status) and victims’ charac-
teristics rather than models of their offend-
ing behavior. Researchers have developed
typologies of FSO based largely on sociode-
mographic, offense-related information, or
clinical observations (Gannon et  al., 2008;
Gannon and Cortini, 2010). Taken together,
these studies suggest that there are different
types of FSO, namely:
Women who abuse adolescent boys
Women who abuse young children
Women who have co-offenders
Women who abuse adults. (For a review, see Harris,
2010.)
Women who target adult victims (typically
within intimate relationships, and possibly as
part of domestic violence interactions) repre-
sent a minority of FSO. Several authors have
suggested that these women are much less
likely than other subtypes of FSO to come to
the attention of authorities, which might
account for their small representation in
extant typologies (Harris, 2010), thus
explaining the absence of scientific data on
women’s sexual violence of male intimate
partners.
To sum up, research addressing typologies
of FSO is the result of a few small-sample
BK-SAGE-SHACKELFORD_S2V1-200349-Chp15.indd 244
descriptive studies (Vandiver and Walker,
2002; Denov, 2003), which may lack the
validity and reliability of quantitative studies
with large samples (Turner et al., 2008), thus
limiting our knowledge about FSO, espe-
cially about women’s sexual violence of male
intimate partners.
Understanding Female Sex
Offenders
Theoretical models about women’s sexual
offending behavior, which may be used to
inform and guide the assessment/treatment
process of FSO, are lacking. This gap in the
literature is especially true for women who
sexually assault male intimate partners. In
order to address these issues, Gannon and
colleagues (2008) developed a model using
data from FSO, rather than data or theories
previously validated with male sex offenders.
The Descriptive Model of Female Sexual
Offending (DMFSO; Gannon et  al., 2008)
seeks to explain the offence process and its
constituent parts (i.e., the planning processes
and any particular offending styles). This
model is divided into three phases:
(1) Background factors. Gannon and colleagues
(2008) found that early family environment could
be predominantly negative, marked by paren-
tal neglect or rejection, prolonged periods of
parental absence and ineffective or dysfunctional
parenting style, as well as abusive experiences
such as witnessing domestic violence, physical
punishment, sexual assault, and school bullying.
In order to cope with negative childhood experi-
ences, many FSO present a maladaptive lifestyle
in adolescence and early adulthood, marked
by erratic or unstable behavior, criminal behav-
ior, promiscuous sex, and poor mental health
(Gannon et al., 2008; Harris, 2010).
(2) Pre-offence period. This phase describes the
offenders’ motivations, which can include sexual
gratification and the desire for intimacy with the
victim. A more instrumental motivation, such as
financial gain or vengeance, could also occur. The
main motivation here is to seek retribution for a
perceived wrong committed by the victim or the
28/08/20 8:29 AM
 ATTACHMENT THEORY
group of people the victim represents (Gannon
et al., 2008; Harris, 2010).
(3) Offence period. This phase describes the
female’s sexual strategies, which include four
categories:maternal approach, especially used
by the women who sexually abuse adoles-
cent boysmaternal avoidant, which includes
women coercive and non-aggressiveaggressive
approach, which includes women who offend
against adults (including male intimate partners)
with an instrumental motivation that focuses on
humiliation or vengeance, and not sexual arousa-
loperationalized approach which also includes
an instrumental motivation in order to achieve
a specific goal (e.g., prostitution, human traffick-
ing) (Gannon et al., 2008; Harris, 2010).
Despite the DMFSO’s strengths (e.g., a model
specifically designed for FSO, considering
the contributory roles of cognitive, behavio-
ral, emotional, and contextual factors), some
limitations should be highlighted. The theo-
retical components of the DMFSO were
derived from a small sample (n = 22) of FSO,
using qualitative analyses. In addition, some
typologies were underrepresented, namely
women who had sexually offended against
adults, including male intimate partners. For
that reason, DMFSO may not be accurate in
conceptualizing women’s sexual violence of
male intimate partners. The lack of theoreti-
cal perspectives on women who sexually
assault male intimate partners stresses the
need to conduct research on this group in
order to inform and guide practitioners in the
assessment and treatment process of these
women. It is important to add that the lack of
knowledge about women’s sexual violence of
men may be explained, not only by erroneous
social perceptions about female sexuality, but
also by male rape myths.
SOCIAL PERCEPTIONS ABOUT
WOMEN’S SEXUAL VIOLENCE
Script theory has long been guiding research
conducted in the topic of sexual violence
BK-SAGE-SHACKELFORD_S2V1-200349-Chp15.indd 245
245
within heterosexual relationships, suggesting
that men are the ones who initiate sexual
intercourse (O’Sullivan et al., 1998). On the
other hand, women are seen as passive, wait-
ing for the man’s approach, and deciding
whether sexual intercourse will occur
(Jozkowski et  al., 2014). This gender-role
stereotype extends to the sexual violence lit-
erature, where men are socially portrayed as
the aggressive initiators, and women as the
passive recipients or victims (Malamuth,
1981; Denov, 2001; Cohen, 2014; Javaid,
2017). Social perceptions and scripts define
who the offender is, the plausible victims of
sexual violence, as well as the expected strat-
egies used to commit a sexual offense (Byers,
1996). Accordingly, men are not regarded as
possible targets of sexual violence and people
often believe that it is physically impossible
to rape a man, or that sexually abused men do
not experience trauma when the aggression is
committed by a woman (Struckman-Johnson
and Struckman-Johnson, 1998). In addition,
the idea of a sexually abusive woman strongly
conflicts with the prevalent social representa-
tions of women as mothers and caregivers
(Motz, 2001). These biased scripts influence
the recognition of sexual violence by women,
not only in ordinary citizens, but also in the
law and health professionals, masking offi-
cial records of sexual violence (Denov,
2003). As argued by Mezey and King (1989),
this point of view has produced significant
harm, considering that ‘the politicization of
rape as a feminist issue may contribute to the
isolation and suffering experienced by the
male victim’ (1989: 208). Consequently,
men’s sexual victimization has historically
been downplayed or ignored by the scientific
community (Stemple and Meyer, 2014;
Javaid, 2017; Walfield, 2018).
In the past few years, researchers have
gathered evidence on perceptions about
women’s sexual violence of men. The fol-
lowing studies exposed participants to sexual
violence scenarios, varying the gender of
the offender and victim, while keeping the
same semantic content, i.e., a sexual violence
28/08/20 8:29 AM
 246 The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
scene or narrative. In one of these studies,
men were presented with narratives describ-
ing women versus men as sexual offenders
and victims. Participants appraised women
sexual offenders as less threatening; fur-
thermore, women’s sexual offending behav-
ior was rated as less negative than men’s
offending behavior (Struckman-Johnson and
Struckman-Johnson, 1993). Likewise, Black
and Gold (2003) found that male participants
presented a positive appraisal of women’s
sexual abuse of men. Indeed, individuals con-
sidered the sexually aggressive strategies used
by the female character as romantic; moreo-
ver, male participants were more willing to
accept such strategies if they were used by a
woman (Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-
Johnson, 1991). In a similar vein, Oswald
and Russel (2006) found that, in a sexual
aggression scenario, the male sexual offender
was labeled as ‘aggressor’, while the female
sexual offender was labeled as ‘promiscu-
ous’. As for the appraisal of the victim, Smith
and colleagues (1988) found that partici-
pants rated the impact of the offence as less
severe if the offender was a woman and the
victim was a man. Accordingly, past studies
demonstrated evidence that if a man coerces
a woman into sex, this interaction will be
more readily labeled as rape, than if a woman
coerces a man into sex (Hannon et al., 2000).
More recently, Carvalho and Rosa (2019)
evaluated individuals’ emotional responses
to rape scenes, varying the gender of the
offender and the victim. Findings revealed
that participants displayed increased psy-
chophysiological activation (as captured by
pupil dilation) to the scene displaying a man
raping a woman, reacting more to the proto-
typical representation of rape. Yet, increased
psychophysiological activation to the male
perpetration scene was not accompanied by
an increase in self-reported emotions. On the
other hand, they reported more disgust and
anger to the scene displaying a woman raping
a man, which may signal moral disapproval
of that action. In all, past findings point to
the existence of a double standard on how
BK-SAGE-SHACKELFORD_S2V1-200349-Chp15.indd 246
people appraise sexual violence, with more
positive appraisals when the offender is a
woman and the victim is a man. However,
recent data, using distinct exposure modali-
ties and assessment techniques, seem to point
to different patterns of results, providing new
inputs to this area of research.
Evidence on people’s appraisal of wom-
en’s sexual violence of men may shed some
light on the psychosocial factors behind
rape-related attrition. Attrition (i.e., the loss
or withdrawn of judicial cases, from the
moment they are reported to the authorities,
until a conviction is made) is high in alleged
sexual crimes (Daly and Bouhours, 2010;
Jordan, 2011). When a sexual abuse episode
does not fit gender stereotypes and tradi-
tional sexual scripts, it may be considered a
false report, influencing the rates of attrition
(Darwinkel et al., 2013). On the other hand,
when the victim aligns with the stereotype of
a victim of sexual violence, criminal investi-
gation is more efficient, increasing the like-
lihood of a conviction (Alderden and Long,
2016). However, studies on rape-related
attrition are still focused on the stereotypi-
cal presentation of ‘men’s sexual violence
of women’, which may translate into a lack
of judicial support for men victims of sexual
violence by women (Javaid, 2017). Indeed,
the few men who report sexual victimiza-
tion by women are often disbelieved, and feel
great hostility from other people (King and
Woolett, 1997; Jamel, 2010; Cohen, 2014;
Javaid, 2017, 2018a, 2018b). Moreover, men
victims also report significant psychological
impairment after the abuse (O’Sullivan et al.,
1998; Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-
Johnson, 2004).
MALE RAPE MYTHS
In addition to the social perceptions about
women’s sexual violence, the invisibility
and marginalization of men’s sexual victimi-
zation (namely when victimized by female
28/08/20 8:29 AM
 ATTACHMENT THEORY
intimate partners) may be related to the
endorsement of rape myths (Rando et  al.,
1998; Kassing et  al., 2005; Turchik and
Edwards, 2012). In accordance with Burt
(1980) rape myths are ‘prejudicial, stereo-
typed, or false beliefs about rape, rape vic-
tims, and rapists,’ (1980: 217), which may
result in a rape-supportive climate hostile to
victims (Walfield, 2018). Lonsway and
Fitzgerald (1994) add that rape myths are
‘attitudes and beliefs that are generally false
but are widely and persistently held, and that
serve to deny and justify male sexual aggres-
sion against women’ (1994: 134). Therefore,
rape myths may reinforce what is and is not
sexual violence, as well as who is a ‘credi-
ble’ victim, which has implications for vic-
tims, offenders, and society, in general
(Walfield, 2018).
Research about rape myths suggest
that victims may not report sexual assault
because it does not fit their understanding
of rape. Cohn and colleagues (2013) found
that half of the women who did not report
an incident to the authorities did not iden-
tify their experience as rape, despite the
experience meeting the legal definition. The
lack of reporting is especially true for male
victims as ‘men, in general, do not want to
identify men as being victimized by sexual
crimes because there is no way to see men
as “victims” and still as men’ (Scarce, 1997:
203), which may result in dissociation with
severe consequences for men’s psychologi-
cal and emotional wellbeing (Elliott et  al.,
2004; Peterson et al., 2011). Moreover, most
men who experience something that would
legally qualify as rape do not label their
experiences as such, especially if they were
raped by a woman (Artime et al., 2014).
Most research about rape and rape myths
has been conducted with a focus on female
victims (e.g., Edwards et  al., 2011). More
recently, there has been a focus on the
endorsement of male rape myths including:
(a) men cannot be raped; (b) ‘real’ men can
defend themselves against rape; (c) only gay
men are victims and/or perpetrators of male
BK-SAGE-SHACKELFORD_S2V1-200349-Chp15.indd 247
247
rape; (d) men are not affected by rape (or
not as much as women); (e) a woman can-
not sexually assault a man; (f) male rape
only happens in prisons; (g) sexual assault by
someone of the same sex causes homosexu-
ality; (h) homosexual and bisexual individu-
als deserve to be sexually assaulted because
they are immoral and deviant; and (i) if a men
physically responds to an assault (through an
erection and/or ejaculation) he must have
wanted/enjoyed it (Anderson, 2007; Turckik
and Edwards, 2012; Walfield, 2018). Some
studies have examined the prevalence of these
male rape myths. For instance, Chapleau and
colleagues (2008) found that between 2.7%
and 45.9% of men and between 1.5% and
23.4% of women agreed with these same
rape myths.
More recently, Walfield (2018) studied the
prevalence of male rape myths in a commu-
nity sample (not limited to college students)
of 617 men and 603 women. The rape myth
agreement ranged from 9.8% (‘A man who
allows himself to be raped by another man
is probably homosexual’ and ‘Most men who
are raped by a man are somewhat to blame
for not escaping or fighting off the man’)
to 44.1% (‘Women who rape men are sexu-
ally frustrated individuals’). One in three
respondents believed a man’s resistance to
be crucial in determining whether he was
raped, would doubt a man who claimed he
was raped by a woman, and thought that
male rape was committed only by homosexu-
als. About 25% of the participants endorsed
rape myths based on the false idea that men
can enjoy forced sex and would enjoy being
raped by a woman.
A number of demographic variables
have been found to be related to rape myth
adherence. Men are more likely to endorse
rape myths than women (Davies et  al.,
2012; Rosenstein, 2015; Walfield, 2018),
and people who are older, less school edu-
cated, and identify as heterosexual have
higher levels of rape myth endorsement
(Davies and McCartney, 2003; Kassing et al.,
2005; Rosenstein, 2015; Walfield, 2018).
28/08/20 8:29 AM
 248 The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
Individuals who subscribe to traditional gen-
der roles, hold negative attitudes towards
homosexuals, adhere to stereotypes about
masculinity, and endorse traditional male
gender roles also report higher acceptance of
male rape myths (Nalavany and Abell, 2004;
Kassing et  al., 2005; Davies et  al., 2012;
Walfield, 2018).
Further, these myths are not only preva-
lent among the general public and college
students, but among counselors, medical
trainees, rape crisis workers, and profession-
als in the justice system (Struckman-Johnson
and Struckman-Johnson, 1993; Donnelly
and Kenyon, 1996; Kassing and Prieto,
2003; Anderson and Quinn, 2009; Turckik
and Edwards, 2012; Walfield, 2018).
Consequently, the endorsement of these
false beliefs will continue to discourage men
from reporting their assaults or seeking treat-
ment for their physical and/or psychological
injuries (e.g., Melanson, 1998). So, chang-
ing the norms and how society approaches
sex, masculinity, rape, and rape myths can
increase reporting rates and criminal jus-
tice system engagement (Walfield, 2018).
Prevention programs designed to decrease
male rape myth acceptance are needed, to
provide factual information about male rape
(especially within intimate/romantic rela-
tionships), while challenging the traditional
beliefs about male sexuality, sexual arousal,
and masculinity (Larsen and Hilden, 2016).
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF
SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN MALE VICTIMS
First, it is important to stress that social
expectations about male gender roles and the
concept of male sexuality impacts signifi-
cantly on men’s understanding of their own
sexual victimization (Javaid, 2017, 2018a,
2018b). As a consequence, male victims may
question their gender and/or sexual identity
following sexual assault, regardless of the
gender of the perpetrator (e.g., Davies et al.,
BK-SAGE-SHACKELFORD_S2V1-200349-Chp15.indd 248
2012). In addition, many men will blame
themselves first for not stopping the attack
and then for struggling with its aftermath,
due to the erroneous assumption that as men
they should be able to avoid/fight against the
offender (Javaid, 2017, 2018a, 2018b;
Walfield, 2018).
Studies focusing on male college students
as victims of sexual aggression by women
revealed that sexually victimized men pre-
sented decreased social activities, as well
as impaired academic performance after the
incident (20% and 19% of men, respectively;
O’Sullivan et  al., 1998). Furthermore, 32%
of men reporting sexual touch and inter-
course by aggressive means reported that
the incident had a strong negative impact on
their lives. Likewise, these men presented
significantly more evidence of depression
as compared with a control group (Larimer
et al., 1999).
More recently, in a sample of men report-
ing partner violence by women, it was found
that being sexually victimized by a female
partner was associated with psychopatho-
logical symptoms, such as depression, post-
traumatic stress, substance abuse, suicidal
ideation, and self-injury. Victims have also
reported significant anger and aggression,
difficulty in romantic relationships, and psy-
chosexual malfunctioning. Also, this sort of
victimization was related to men’s poor health
in work or social activities. Additionally, sex-
ual victimization of these men was associated
with affective, disruptive, somatic, and per-
vasive developmental problems in their pre-
school children (Hines and Douglas, 2016).
Although the literature on men’s sexual vic-
timization is still scarce, it seems to suggest
that the psychological consequences may
extend to several contexts in men’s life.
CONCLUSIONS
Although research about women’s sexual
violence is scarce, the available findings
28/08/20 8:29 AM
 ATTACHMENT THEORY
indicate that women (either from community
or criminal samples) do use sexually violent
behaviors, particularly hands-off strategies,
in their intimate relationships with men.
Despite these findings, is worth noting that
studies use different methodological
approaches, including different means of
measuring sexual violence as committed by
women. Accordingly, findings must be
interpreted with caution. While some preva-
lence data relate to complete sexual inter-
course with an unwilling partner, other
relate to attempted sexual activity with non-
consenting men; also, the strategies used by
women (whether these are hands-on or
hands-off, and which strategies women are
asked about) vary across studies. The same
rationale applies to studies targeting the
psychosocial characterization of sexually
violent women. Researchers should be
encouraged to use standardized assessment
methodologies in order to achieve a more
accurate knowledge of women’s sexual vio-
lence and associated factors.
Also, women’s sexual violence of men
remains a taboo, not only in society, but also
in the criminal justice system. This bias about
women’s sexual offending may be explained
by male rape myths, which, in turn, are based
on gender stereotypes and social norms con-
cerning masculinity and male sexuality (e.g.,
Turckik and Edwards, 2012; Walfield, 2018).
Therefore, changing male rape myths through
prevention programs seems important (e.g.,
Larsen and Hilden, 2016), especially with
young adults, considering the prevalence of
women’s sexual offending behavior found in
college student samples.
Within prevention programming, male
rape myths could be included alongside
female rape myths, as rape myths are often
included in the educational component of
sexual assault programs with the goal of
debunking these myths by providing facts
that refute them (Anderson and Whiston,
2005). Instead of only addressing women
as victims and men as perpetrators, a more
recent type of programming has focused
BK-SAGE-SHACKELFORD_S2V1-200349-Chp15.indd 249
249
on men and women as bystanders of sexual
assault who have the power to intervene and
prevent sexual assault (Banyard et al., 2004;
Turckik and Edwards, 2012).
Regarding female sex offenders (i.e., crim-
inal samples) – and although the Descriptive
Model of Female Sexual Offending by
Gannon and colleagues (2008) has provided
a framework for working with female sex
offenders – there is currently no consensus
theoretical model to guide practitioners in
the assessment and treatment process with
women who sexually assault male intimate
partners. So, research with this subgroup of
female sex offenders is lacking, limiting our
knowledge about a phenomenon that is not
as rare as official statistics and reports may
suggest.
Note
1  This chapter was written under the framework
of the project ‘FEMOFFENCE – The myth of inno-
cence: A mixed methods approach toward the
understanding of female sexual offending behav-
ior’ (PTDC/PSI-GER/28097/2017), sponsored by the
Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology.
REFERENCES
Alderden, M. and Long, L. (2016) Sexual
assault victim participation in police investi-
gations and prosecution. Violence and Vic-
tims, 31: 819–36.
Anderson, I. (2007) What is a typical rape?
Effects of victim and participant gender in
female and male rape perception. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 46: 225–45.
Anderson, I. and Quinn, A. (2009) Gender dif-
ferences in medical students’ attitudes
towards male and female rape victims. Psy-
chology, Health and Medicine, 14, 105–10.
Anderson, P.B. (1996) Correlates with college
women’s self-reports of initiating heterosex-
ual contact. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research and Treatment, 8: 121–31.
Anderson, P.B. (1998) Variations in college
women’s self-reported heterosexual
28/08/20 8:29 AM
 250 The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
aggression. Sex Abuse: A Journal of Research
and Treatment, 10: 283–92.
Anderson, P.B., Kontos, A.P., Tanigoshi, H., and
Struckman-Johnson, C. (2005) An examina-
tion of sexual strategies used by urban south-
ern and rural Midwestern university women.
The Journal of Sex Research, 42: 335–41.
Anderson, L. A., & Whiston, S. C. (2005).
Sexual assault education programs: A meta-
analytic examination of their effectiveness.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29,
374–388.
Aosved, A.C., Long, P.J., and Voller, E.K. (2011)
Sexual revictimization and adjustment in col-
lege men. Psychology of Men and Masculin-
ity, 12: 285–96.
Artime, T.M., McCallum, E.B. and Peterson,
Z.D. (2014) Men’s acknowledgment of their
sexual victimisation experiences. Psychology
of Men and Masculinity, 15: 313–23.
Badenoch, K. (2015) Silent Suffering: Support-
ing the Male Survivors of Sexual Assault.
Greater London Authority Report, London.
Bancroft, J., Janssen, E., Strong, D., Carnes, L.,
Vukadinovic, Z., and Long, J.S. (2003) The
relation between mood and sexuality in het-
erosexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
32: 217–30.
Banyard, V., Plante, E., & Moynihan, M. (2004).
Bystander education: Bringing a broader
community perspective to sexual violence
prevention. Journal of Community Psychol-
ogy, 32, 61–79.
Basile, K.C., Smith, S.G., Breiding, M.J., Black,
M.C., and Mahendra, R.R. (2014) Sexual
Violence Surveillance: Uniform Definitions
and Recommended Data Elements, Version
2.0. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
Black, K.A. and Gold, D.J. (2003) Men’s and
women’s reactions to hypothetical sexual
advances: The role of initiator socioeconomic
status and level of coercion. Sex Roles, 49:
173–8.
Brousseau, M.M., Bergeron, S., Hébert, M.,
and McDuff, P. (2011) Sexual coercion vic-
timization and perpetration in heterosexual
couples: A dyadic investigation. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 40: 363–72.
Brousseau, M.M., Hébert, M., and Bergeron, S.
(2012) Sexual coercion within mixed-sex
BK-SAGE-SHACKELFORD_S2V1-200349-Chp15.indd 250
couples: The roles of sexual motives, revic-
timization, and reperpetration. Journal of
Sex Research, 49: 533–46.
Budd, K.M. (2017) Female sexual offenders. In
V.B. Van Hasselt and M.L. Bourke (eds),
Handbook of Behavioral Criminology (pp.
297–311). Switzerland: Springer.
Burt, M.R. (1980) Cultural myths and supports
for rape. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38: 217–30.
Busby, D.M. and Compton, S.V. (1997) Pat-
terns of sexual coercion in adult heterosexual
relationships: An exploration of male victimi-
zation. Family Process, 36: 81–94.
Byers, E. (1996) How well does the traditional
sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review
of a program of research. Journal of Psychol-
ogy & Human Sexuality, 8: 7–25.
Carvalho, J. and Nobre, P.J. (2016) Psychosex-
ual characteristics of women reporting sexual
aggression against men. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 31: 2539–55.
Carvalho, J. and Rosa, P.J. (2019) Emotional
Responses, Sexual Arousal, and Pupil Dila-
tion to Male Versus Female Sexual Perpetra-
tion: An Eye Tracking Study, poster presented
at the 16th European Congress of Psychol-
ogy, Russia, Moscow.
Carvalho, J., Rosa, P.J, and Pereira, B. (2018a)
Dynamic risk factors characterizing aggres-
sive sexual initiation by female college stu-
dents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177%
2F0886260518760010 (accessed 8 May
2020).
Carvalho, J. and Sá, A. (2017) Male college
students using sexually aggressive strategies:
Findings on the interpersonal relationship pro-
file. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(3–4).
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177%
2F0886260516689779 (accessed 8 May
2020).
Carvalho, J., Benzinho, E., and Robalho, R.
(2018b) Psychosexual Characterization of
College Men and Women Reporting
Attempted Sexual Intercourse by Coercive
Means, oral communication presented at the
14th Congress of the European Federation
of Sexology, Portugal, Albufeira.
Chan, K.L., Straus, M.A., Brownridge, D.A.,
Tiwari, A., and Leung, W.C. (2008) Preva-
lence of dating partner violence and suicidal
28/08/20 8:29 AM
 ATTACHMENT THEORY
ideation among male and female university
students worldwide. Journal of Midwifery
and Women’s Health, 53: 529–537.
Chapleau, K., Oswald, D., and Russell, B.
(2008) Male rape myths: The role of gender,
violence, and sexism. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 23: 600–15.
Christopher, F.S., Owens, L.A., and Stecker, H.L.
(1993) An examination of single men’s and
women’s sexual aggressiveness in dating
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 10: 511–27.
Cohen, C. (2014) Male Rape is a Feminist Issue:
Feminism, Governmentality, and Male Rape.
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cohn, A., Zinzow, H.M., Resnick, H.S., and
Kilpatrick, D.G. (2013) Correlates of reasons
for not reporting rape to police: Results from
a national telephone household probability
sample of women with forcible or drug-or-
alcohol facilitated/incapacitated rape. Jour-
nal of Interpersonal Violence, 28: 455–73.
Daly, K. and Bouhours, B. (2010) Rape and
attrition in the legal process: A comparative
analysis of five countries. Crime and Justice,
39: 565–650.
Darwinkel, E., Powell, M., and Tidmarsh, P. (2013)
Improving police officers’ perceptions of sexual
offending through intensive training. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 40: 895–908.
Davies, M. and McCartney, S. (2003) Effects of
gender and sexuality on judgements of
victim blame and rape myth acceptance in a
depicted male rape. Journal of Community &
Applied Social Psychology, 13: 391–8.
Davies, M., Pollard, P., and Archer, J. (2006)
Effects of perpetrator gender and victim
sexuality on blame toward male victims of
sexual assault. Journal of Social Psychology,
146: 275–91.
Davies, M., Gilston, J., and Rogers, P. (2012)
Examining the relationship between male
rape myth acceptance, female rape myth
acceptance, victim blame, homophobia,
gender roles, and ambivalent sexism. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 27: 2807–23.
Denov, M.S. (2001) A culture of denial: Explor-
ing professional perspectives on female sex
offending. Canadian Journal of Criminology,
43: 303–29.
Denov, M.S. (2003) Sexual scripts and the rec-
ognition of child sexual abuse by female
BK-SAGE-SHACKELFORD_S2V1-200349-Chp15.indd 251
251
perpetrators. Journal of Sex Research, 40:
303–14.
Donnelly, D.A. and Kenyon, S. (1996) ‘Honey,
we don’t do men’: Gender stereotypes and
the provision of services to sexually assaulted
males. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11:
441–8.
Edwards, K.E., Turchik, J.A., Dardis, C., Reyn-
olds, N., and Gidycz, C.A. (2011) Rape
myths: History, individual and institutional-
level presence, and implications for change.
Sex Roles, 65: 761–73.
Elliott, D.M., Mok, D.S., and Briere, J. (2004)
Adult sexual assault: Prevalence, symptoma-
tology, and sex differences in the general
population. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17:
203–11.
Elliott, I.A. and Bailey, A. (2014) Female sex
offenders: Gender and risk perceptions. In K.
McCartan (ed.) Responding to Sexual
Offending: Perceptions, Risk Management
and Public Protection (pp. 48–71). London:
Palgrave McMillan.
Federal Bureau Investigation (1999) Crime in
the United States 1993–1997. Washington,
DC: US Department of Justice, Criminal Jus-
tice Information Services Division.
Federal Bureau Investigation (2013) Crime in
the United States 2013. Washington, DC: US
Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Infor-
mation Services Division.
Gannon, T.A. and Cortoni, F. (2010) Female
sexual offenders: Theory assessment and
treatment – an introduction. In T.A. Gannon
and F. Cortoni (eds), Female Sexual Offend-
ers: Theory, Assessment and Treatment
(pp. 1–8). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gannon, T.A., Rose, M.R., and Ward, T. (2008)
A descriptive model of the offense process
for female sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A
Journal of Research and Treatment, 20:
352–74.
Hannon, R., Kuntz, T., Van Laar, S., Williams, J.,
and Hall, D.S. (1996) College students’ judg-
ments regarding sexual aggression during a
date. Sex Roles, 35: 765–80.
Hannon, R., Hall, D., Nash, H., Formati, J., and
Hopson, T. (2000) Judgments regarding sexual
aggression as a function of sex of aggressor
and victim. Sex Roles, 43: 311–22.
Harris, D.A. (2010) Theories of female sexual
offending. In T. Gannon and F. Cortoni (eds),
28/08/20 8:29 AM
 252 The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
Female Sexual Offenders: Theory, Assess-
ment and Treatment (pp. 31–51). Chiches-
ter: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hines, D.A. (2007) Predictors of sexual coercion
against women and men: A multilevel, mul-
tinational study of university students.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36: 403–22.
Hines, D.A. and Douglas, E.M. (2016) Sexual
aggression experiences among male victims
of physical partner violence: Prevalence,
severity, and health correlates for male vic-
tims and their children. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 45: 1133–51.
Hines, D.A., Armstrong, J.L., Reed, K.P., and
Cameron, A.Y. (2012) Gender differences in
sexual assault victimization among college
students. Violence and Victims, 27: 922–40.
Jamel, J. (2010) Researching the provision of
service to rape victims by specially trained
police officers: The influence of gender – an
exploratory study. New Criminal Law Review:
An International and Interdisciplinary Jour-
nal, 13: 688–709.
Javaid, A. (2017) Making the invisible visible:
(Un)meeting male rape victims’ needs in the
third sector. Journal of Aggression, Conflict
and Peace Research, 9: 106–15.
Javaid, A. (2018a) Male rape, masculinities,
and sexualities. International Journal of Law,
Crime and Justice, 52: 199–210.
Javaid, A. (2018b) Male Rape, Masculinities,
and Sexualities: Understanding, Policing, and
Overcoming Male Sexual Victimization.
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jordan, J. (2011) Here we go round the review-
go-round: Rape investigation and prosecu-
tion-Are things getting worse not better?
Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17: 234–49.
Jozkowski, K.N., Sanders, S., Peterson, Z.D.,
Dennis, B., and Reece, M. (2014) Consenting
to sexual activity: The development and psy-
chometric assessment of dual measures of
consent. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43:
437–50.
Kassing, L.R. and Prieto, L.R. (2003) The rape
myth and blame-based beliefs of counselors-
in-training toward male victims of rape.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 81:
455–61.
Kassing, L., Beesley, D., and Frey, L. (2005)
Gender role conflict, homophobia, age, and
education as predictors of male rape myth
BK-SAGE-SHACKELFORD_S2V1-200349-Chp15.indd 252
acceptance. Journal of Mental Health Coun-
seling, 27: 311–28.
Katz, J., Carino, A., and Hilton, A. (2002) Per-
ceived verbal conflict behaviors associated
with physical aggression and sexual coercion
in dating relationships: A gender-sensitive
analysis. Violence and Victims, 17: 93–109.
King, M. and Woolett, E. (1997) Sexually
assaulted males: 115 men consulting a coun-
seling service. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
26: 579–83.
Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., and Martin, C.E.
(1948) Sexual behavior in the human male.
In Voices from the Past. American Journal of
Public Health [2003], 93: 894–8.
Krahe, B., Waizenhofer, E., and Moller, I. (2003)
Women’s sexual aggression against men:
Prevalence and predictors. Sex Roles, 49:
219–32.
Larimer, M.E., Lydum, A.R., Anderson, B.K.,
and Turner, A.P. (1999) Male and female
recipients of unwanted sexual contact in a
college student sample: Prevalence rates,
alcohol use, and depression symptoms. Sex
Roles, 40: 295–308.
Larsen, M.L. and Hilden, M. (2016) Male vic-
tims of sexual assault: 10 years’ experience
from a Danish assault center. Journal of
Forensic and Legal Medicine, 43: 8–11.
Lehrer, J.A., Lehrer, E.L., and Koss, M.P. (2015)
Unwanted sexual experiences in young men:
Evidence from a survey of university students
in Chile. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42:
213–23.
Lonsway, K.A. and Fitzgerald, L.F. (1994) Rape
myths: In review. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 18: 133–64.
Malamuth, N.M. (1981) Rape proclivity among
males. Journal of Social Issues, 37: 138–57.
McLeod, D.A. and Craft, M.L. (2015) Female
sexual offenders in child sexual abuse cases:
National trends associated with child protec-
tive services systems entry, exit, utilization,
and socioeconomics. Journal of Public Child
Welfare, 9: 399–416.
Melanson, P.K. (1998) Belief in male rape myths:
A test of two competing theories. Doctoral
dissertation, Queen’s University. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 59: 5620.
Mezey, G.C. and King, M.B. (1989) The effects
of sexual assault on men: A survey of 22
victims. Psychological Medicine, 19: 205–9.
28/08/20 8:29 AM
 ATTACHMENT THEORY
Monson, C.M., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., and
Taft, C.T. (2009) Sexual aggression in inti-
mate relationships. In K.D. O’Leary and E.M.
Woodin (eds), Psychological and Physical
Aggression in Couples: Causes and Interven-
tions (pp. 37–58). Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychological Association.
Motz, A. (2001) The Psychology of Female Vio-
lence: Crimes Against the Body. London and
New York: Routledge.
Nalavany, B.A. and Abell, N. (2004) An initial
validation of a measure of personal and
social perceptions of the sexual abuse of
males. Research on Social Work Practice, 14:
368–78.
O’Sullivan, L.F., Byers, E.S., and Finkelman, L.
(1998) A comparison of male and female
college students’ experiences of sexual coer-
cion. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22:
177–95.
Oswald, D.L. and Russel, B.L. (2006) Percep-
tions of sexual coercion in heterosexual
dating relationships: The role of aggressor
gender and tactics. Journal of Sex Research,
43: 87–95.
Peterson, Z.D., Voller, E.K., Polusny, M.A., and
Murdoch, M. (2011) Prevalence and conse-
quences of adult sexual assault of men:
Review of empirical findings and state of the
literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 31:
1–24.
Rando, R.A., Rogers, J.R., and Brittan-Powell,
C.S. (1998) Gender role conflict and college
men’s sexually aggressive attitudes and
behavior. Journal of Mental Health Coun-
seling, 20: 359–69.
Rosenstein, J.E. (2015) Military sexual assault
prevention and male rape myth acceptance.
Military Behavioral Health, 3: 207–11.
Russell, B.L. and Oswald, D.L. (2001) Strategies
and dispositional correlates of sexual coer-
cion perpetrated by women: An exploratory
investigation. Sex Roles, 45: 103–15.
Sarrel, P.M. and Masters, W.H. (1982) Sexual
molestation of men by women. Archives of
Sexual Behaviour, 11: 117–31.
Scarce, M. (1997) Male on Male Rape: The
Hidden Toll of Stigma and Shame. New York,
NY: Insight Books.
Schatzel-Murphy, E.A., Harris, D.A., Knight,
R.A., and Milburn, M.A. (2009) Sexual coer-
cion in men and women: Similar behaviors,
BK-SAGE-SHACKELFORD_S2V1-200349-Chp15.indd 253
253
different predictors. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 38: 974–86.
Smith, R., Pine, C., and Hawley, M. (1988)
Social cognition about adult male victims of
female sexual assault. The Journal of Sex
Research, 24: 101–241.
Stemple, L. and Meyer, I.H. (2014) The sexual
victimization of men in America: New data
challenge old assumptions. American Jour-
nal of Public Health, 104: 19–27.
Struckman-Johnson, C. (1988) Forced sex on
dates: It happens to men, too. Journal of Sex
Research, 24: 234–41.
Struckman-Johnson, C. (1991) Male victims of
acquaintance rape. In A. Parrot and L. Bechhofer
(eds), Acquaintance Rape: The Hidden Crime
(pp. 192–214). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Struckman-Johnson, C. and Struckman-
Johnson, D. (1991) Men and women’s
acceptance of coercive sexual strategies
varied by initiator gender and couple
intimacy. Sex Roles, 25: 661–76.
Struckman-Johnson, C. and Struckman-
Johnson, D. (1993) College men’s and
women’s reactions to hypothetical sexual
touch varied by initiator gender and coercion
level. Sex Roles, 29: 371–85.
Struckman-Johnson, C. and Struckman-
Johnson, D. (1998) The dynamics and
impact of sexual coercion of men by women.
In P.B. Anderson and C. Struckman-Johnson
(eds), Sexually Aggressive Women: Current
Perspectives and Controversies (pp. 121–69).
New York: Guilford.
Struckman-Johnson, C. and Struckman-John-
son, D. (2004) Men pressured and forced
into sexual experiences. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 23: 93–114.
Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson,
D., and Anderson, P.B. (2003). Tactics of
sexual coercion: When men and women
won’t take no for an answer. Journal of Sex
Research, 40: 76–86.
Tozdan, S., Briken, P., and Dekker, A. (2019)
Uncovering female child sexual offenders –
Needs and challenges for practice and research.
Journal of Clinical Medicine, 8(3): 401.
Turchik, J.A. (2012) Sexual victimization among
male college students: Assault severity,
sexual functioning, and health risk behav-
iors. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 13:
243–55.
28/08/20 8:29 AM
 254 The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence
Turchik, J.A. and Edwards, K.M. (2012) Myths
about male rape: A literature review. Psy-
chology of Men & Masculinity, 13: 211–26.
Turner, K., Miller, H.A., and Henderson, C.E.
(2008) Latent profile analyses of offense and
personality characteristics in a sample of
incarcerated female sexual offenders. Crimi-
nal and Justice Behavior, 35: 879–94.
Vandiver D. M., & Walker J. (2002). Female sex
offenders: An overview and analysis of 40
cases. Criminal Justice Review, 27,
284–300.
Vandiver, D.M., Dial, K.C., and Worley, R.M.
(2008) A qualitative assessment of registered
female sex offenders: Judicial processing
experiences and perceived effects of a public
registry. Criminal Justice Review, 33:
177–98.
Walfield, S.M. (2018) ‘Men cannot be raped’:
Correlates of male rape myth acceptance.
BK-SAGE-SHACKELFORD_S2V1-200349-Chp15.indd 254
Journal of Interpersonal Violence. doi:
10.1177/0886260518817777
Wakeling, H.C., Webster, S., Moulden, H.M.
and Marshall, W.L. (2007) Decisions to
offend in men who sexually abuse their
daughters. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 13:
81–99.
Ward, T., Hudson, S.M., and Keenan, T. (1998)
A self-regulating model of the sexual offense
process. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research
and Treatment, 10: 141–57.
Williams, K. and Bierie, D. (2015) An incident-
based comparison of female and male sexual
offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research and Treatment, 27: 235–57.
Williams, JR., Ghandour, RM., & Kub, JE.
(2008). Female perpetration of violence in
heterosexual intimate relationships: Adoles-
cence trought adulthood. Trauma Violence
Abuse, 9, 227–249.
28/08/20 8:29 AM