~     INCESTUOUS AND NON-INCESTUOUS OFFENDERS    ~

[Page 21]

"Mr A. is a 38-year-old white male, employed as a certified public accountant in a large corporation, who was involved in incestuous relationships with his now 11- and 14-year-old natural daughters over a period of several years. 

His deviant behavior began when he was under considerable job-related and marital stress. It coincided with his changing jobs to a more demanding one and having persisting doubts about his performance. He had few friends and his wife did not provide emotional support. In fact, they had become increasingly emotionally distant and less sexually active with each other. 

Since he came from a conservative background and had a strict sense of morality, he did not consider having an extra-marital relationship. He felt particularly fond of and close to his eldest daughter who was then 9 years old. Initially, he had her sit on his lap for long periods of time while he fondled her genital area. About two months later the sexual involvement progressed to oral-genital sex and then to penile-vaginal intercourse. 

He always felt guilty afterward, but managed to rationalize that whatever he did was out of love for her. Also, he falsely interpreted her lack of physical resistance to mean enjoyment of the sexual activities ... 
Initial laboratory assessment indicated high arousal to adult consenting sex, adolescent girls and young girls." 
(Travin et at. , 1985a, pp. 94-95) 

Obviously this man is an incestuous father. Despite the excuses that are made for his behaviour throughout the case study, he persists with sexually abusing his daughters over a lengthy period of time. It is a drawn-out process, not a brief "mistake " 

The case study suggests that he cannot resolve the inadequacies of his marriage by having an affair or, by implication, buying sex -- he is too high-mindedly moral for that. On the other hand, he is resilient enough to cope with the guilt he feels at incestuous sexual intercourse! But it is easy to see why he turned to his daughters for sex -- he gets sexually aroused by underage girls in general. Little more evidence is needed to confirm that he is a paedophile. Just what do his sexual fantasies concern? 

[Page 22]

Girls? In truth, has he also been abusing outside of his family? 

It is conventional to regard the dynamics of sexual abuse within the family as different from those outside of the family. The evidence for this is far from convincing, as in Mr A.'s case. While it might be possible to imagine brief sexual episodes that may not be paedophiliac in nature, one would need to know a case in far greater detail than is usually possible before rejecting the possibility of paedophilia. It is traditional to regard incest as a sort of non-sexual sideshow to family pathology, caused by the problems of the wife and mother as much as by the offender himself: 

"In terms of pattern, it is the same: the emotionally dependent man, the domineering or managing wife; withdrawal of the wife from an increasingly frustrating relationship, usually including the refusal to continue sexual relations. The husband then begins drinking and sexually molests an accessible little girl, usually someone over whom he exercises authority and who is not likely to reject him. The child usually feels her father, and most authority figures, can do no wrong and accepts the attentions as a favor. She may, in fact, feel flattered. The aggressive component commonly seen in the rape of adult victims is not usually evident in child rapes. Consequently, the child does not see the happenings as an assault, and she will be unlikely to report it to her mother unless they have an especially trusting relationship." 
(Peters, 1976, p. 411) 

With good cause, feminists have taken exception to this sort of women-blaming scenario (MacLeod and Saraga, 1988). The offender is held hardly to blame -- but his wife is. It goes without saying that numerous acceptable ways exist for dealing with unsatisfactory wives -- putting up with them is just one of many. Sexually abusing her children, needless to say, is not one, and makes no sense unless the man is already sexually attracted to underage children. 

If he is, then this may account for the fact that his wife rapidly loses sexual interest in him. Furthermore, if his interpersonal needs are satisfied by relations with children, we should not be surprised that his wife domineers -- or that is the way she appears to him. Some offenders express variants on this theme: 

"Well, 15 or 16 years ago, my wife committed adultery and I caught her and gave her a damn good hiding ... didn't I? Well, instead of me going out and finding another woman and chucking her out, I was thinking of the kids, you know, and I stuck it for the kiddies' sakes ... 
[A]bout two or three years after that ... me mum and dad died, both within three months of each other, and I was left on my own ... I started drinking 

 [Page 23] 

heavy ... I got as I wouldn't work. I turned to my daughters ... just fondling them. No sexual intercourse ... just pushed my hand up their jumper ... and sometimes down their knickers ... My second eldest says I did try it [sexual intercourse] on with her once but I were drunk, she said I was absolutely drunk ... but my eldest and my youngest they tried to feel me, didn't they?" 
(Howitt, 1992, pp. 178-179) 

If there is anything in the view that incestuous offending has different causes from other sexual abuse then signs of paedophilia in incest offenders should be weak. In addition, incestuous men should be less likely to demonstrate the inadequacies in social and sexual functioning often held to underlie sexual deviance in general. 

Pawlak, Boulet and Brandford (1991) compared intra-familial and extra-familial offenders using self-report measures of current sexual functioning (the Deogatis Sexual Inventory). This assesses: 

Important components of effective sexual behaviour should differentiate extra-familial from intra-familial sex abusers if the theory is sound. 

Male inpatients and outpatients of an Ottawa sexual behaviour clinic were studied. Most of them had not been tried in court at the time of assessment. A quarter maintained their innocence of the charges and so could not be included in the research. Two samples were formed from the viable remainder. The intra-familial sample had offended against their son/daughter, stepson/stepdaughter, niece/nephew or grandchild; the extra-familial sample was made up of the rest. 

There were some differences between the two groups. For example, incest offenders were significantly older (averaging 37 years compared with 34 years). Not surprisingly, the incest group was 

[Page 24]

likely to be married; the majority of extra-familial offenders were not. 
The average age of their youngest victims was the same for both groups (about 9 or 10 years). Usually, the incest group offended against females (84%), compared to only 47% of the extra-familial abusers. Only 5% of the incest offenders molested both sexes, compared with 18% of the extra-familial sample. 

A complex statistical technique (discriminant function analysis) identified the major differences between the two types of offender in terms of a range of possible criteria. Only three things contributed significantly to distinguishing between them: 

Although each of these indicated that both incest and extra-familial offenders had inadequacies, they discriminated only poorly between the two types of offender. The authors point out that some of the significant measures merely reflect what one might expect -- people with a partner showed greater sexual satisfaction and experience. 

One drawback should be mentioned: the questionnaire did not deal with deviant fantasy, perhaps a crucial test of whether or not incestuous offenders differ from non-family offenders. To this might be added evidence that the empirically based paedophilia scale of Toobert, Bartelme and Jones (1958) for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) appears to be poor at distinguishing between incest and extra-familial abusers, despite being regarded as one of the better questionnaire methods for assessing paedophilia. 

Furthermore, Panton (1979) found no differences on the paedophilia scale although social introversion was higher in the incest offenders. 

(Note that the paedophilia scale of Toobert, Bartelme and Jones (1958) may not be very good at distinguishing paedophiles from other men, according to recent research by Johnston et al. , 1992). 

Despite the paucity of objective evidence that differentiates incestuous from extra-familial offenders, some commentators, although aware of this situation, believe that there are at least some incestuous offenders who have no true sexual interest in children. For example, Salter (1988) argues: 

[Page 25]

"In my practice I have seen incest offenders who, I believe, had no prior history of sexual assault prior to the incest, although they frequently had strange practices, beliefs, and opinions regarding sexuality. The incest was, in some cases, a conversion of nonsexual problems into sexual behavior rather than the result of a long standing sexual interest in children." 
(Salter, 1988, p. 51) 

A therapist's failure to elicit accurate information about prior sexual orientation towards children may lead to the mistaken view that no such interest exists. Disclosure by offenders may only occur well into therapy, if ever. An offender who (erroneously) blames his offending on stress may create the impression that he does not require intensive therapy for his offending but for his circumstances. 

In short, caution is required over denials of erotic interest in children in those who offend against children. The validity of a theory of different types of offender based on offenders' claims is questionable.

A more promising approach is the taxonomic analysis offered by Knight (1988, 1992). He describes seven different extant typologies of paedophilia, mainly variants of the true paedophile versus the regressive / frustrated types. Some include a sociopathic paedophile (which includes violent/aggressive paedophiles), others a pathological type who may be senile or mentally defective. 

Based on such typologies and the general clinical literature, four different paedophile types (fixated, exploitative, sadistic and regressed) seemed possibilities. It proved difficult to separate these different types empirically on the basis of clinical or questionnaire studies using known samples of men believed to represent these different types. 

A final typology was developed using a statistical technique that "objectively" creates types and specifies the criteria to be used to identify members of a type. This is statistically rather complex, although the resulting six types are easily understood. 

The fixation and social competence aspects of paedophilia were not the opposite ends of a continuum as in Groth and Birnbaum's typology, but were totally independent factors. Thus it is possible to have a fixated but socially competent offender. 

The six types were: 

1. Interpersonal.

High contact with children (this is the object-related offender who seek a general relationship with children).

2. Narcissistic. 

High contact with children but the motivation for contact is exclusively sex. Usually genital activity is high in this type. 

[Page 26]

3. Exploitative. 

Low contact with children, low physical harm. 

4. Muted sadistic. 

Again, low contact with children, low physical harm. 

5. Non-sadistic aggressive. 

Low contact, high physical damage -- clumsiness and the like might account for the damage. 

6. Sadistic. 

Low contact, high physical damage. 

Such a typology is highly dependent upon the sample on which it was based, so clearly a lot of further work is needed to establish it as reliable and workable. 

Inevitably, sexual politics influences the classification of adult sexual activities with children. §andfort, Brongersma and van Naerssen (1991) argue that the typical "science of sex" approach misrepresents the truth in important respects. The failure to differentiate between paedophilia and what is called man-boy love leaves all adult-child relationships overshadowed by the psychiatric term "paedophilia", with its connotations of pathology.  

Rather than describing the nature of the adult-child relationship, the usual nomenclature neglects that sex is not the essence of, but merely part of the relationship. Furthermore, the wants and motives of the boys are discounted: 

"In man / boy love the unproblematic affectional side of the phenomenon is stressed, suggesting reciprocity or even symmetry between the parties involved; it is understandable that boy-lovers in the United States adopted this term to further their goals. The choice of labels is never without political grounds or consequences. These labels also have consequences for the people who use them for their own self- understanding and influence the way they deal with their desires and express feelings." 
(Sandfort, Brongersma and van Naerssen, 1991, p. 8) 

The age characteristics of paedophiles provide some insight into the nature of offending (Mohr, 1981). Normal involvement with children in economically highly developed societies is confined to the child's family, teachers and other professionals involved in the welfare of children. The lifespaces of children and adults overlap little apart from these exceptions: 

"There is hardly a sphere of in intimacy left, except where adults appear in a legitimate caretaking role" (Mohr, 1981, p. 43). 

Apparently the peak age group of children sexually involved with adults is in the 7 to 12 years range, according to earlier studies. 

[Page 27]

The distribution of offenders' ages demonstrates three peaks: 

 
1. The adolescent group. 

These are largely characterized by an immaturity of psychosexual maturation, which results in a sexual interest in younger people. As they mature and become attracted to older females, the socially unacceptable aspects of their sexual interests disappear. 
The age difference between these adolescents and their child partners indicates their lack of psychosexual development as well as the cause of society's disapproval. 
Children who become sexually involved with this group of offenders average 6.5 years of age. Probably most of these offenders will move on to age-appropriate sexual partners but others will retain their interest in inappropriate age groups. 

2. The middle-aged group. 

Most people's involvement with children decreases after adolescence. Siblings, and attendance at school and recreational facilities ensure that adolescents have high contact with children. There is a decline in contact with children that continues up to and through the third decade of life. During one's 30s children begin to feature more in the life cycle, so that the middle-aged group are socially involved with their own and friends' children. This group is involved with children averaging 11 years of age. 

3. The old-age group. 

Despite the grandparent role, this age group has no special proximity to children. Many may have ceased sexual activity and become increasingly socially withdrawn. 
Mohr suggests that this age group may be inclined towards children other than through proximity. Gross organic defects due to senility and so forth were insufficient to explain the pattern. A large proportion of the sexual incidents happen during play and games: 

"... many of these people were more comfortable with children than adults" 
(Mohr , 1981, p. 50). 

Attempts to classify offenders have proven to be of very limited worth and validity. Nevertheless, they help to highlight the problematic nature of some conventional notions about offenders.  

Menard and Johnson (1992) argue that, despite such problems, typologies are not so much about classifying people than the problems they suffer. That is, the pure types identified by the typology do not have to correspond to any real-life cases.