Why does sexual abuse happen?

Why does sexual abuse happen?


Many theories have been put forward to explain the cause and incidence of sexual assault. Understanding WHY it happens is critical for the development of effective preventions. Lets look at the major theoretical approaches all of which have developed from specific levels of investigation and theoretical orientation.

The Psychoanalytic Approach
The Victim Precipitation Approach
The Family Dysfunction Approach
Psychological Approaches
The Feminist Approach
The Four Pre Conditions Model
1: The Psychoanalytic Approach

The earliest proposed explanation for the occurrence of sexual abuse was Freud's psychoanalytic theory which derived from his clinical work with female clients who disclosed childhood sexual abuse, often at the hands of their fathers. Freud was the first to postulate that the trauma of childhood sexual abuse resulted in later psychic damage. This was the basis of his 'seduction' theory which he presented along with detailed case studies at a major forum in 1896. The idea that fathers were sexually abusing their daughters caused such an outrage in conservative 19th century Vienna that Freud was ridiculed and shunned by his peers. In fact, Seduction Theory was so poorly received that Freud never again publicly referred to it. In 1933, in his Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, he stated:

"I was driven to recognise in the end that these reports (of sexual abuse) were untrue and so came to understand that the hysterical symptoms are derived from fantasises and not from real occurrences."
Freud took the step of disbelieving the reports of his clients but he couldn't deny the traumatic effects or psychic damage he had observed. What he did to explain this is develop his now classic theories of psycho-sexual development in which the theoretical constructs of 'penis-envy' and the 'Oedipus Complex' are central. These theories claim that children pass through a stage of being sexually attracted to their parents (boys to their mothers and girls to their fathers). Freud argued that it is the inability to successfully resolve this psycho-sexual stage of development that gives rise to the psychic damage he observed in his clients who had reported childhood sexual abuse. In other words, he developed an elaborate theoretical framework to deny the reality of childhood sexual abuse and incest.

The same theoretical framework also serves to explain the behaviour of offenders in 'proven' cases of sexual assault or incest. For sexual assaults the theory goes that offenders behaviour is the result of castration anxiety as a result of the failure to resolve the Oedipus Complex which gives rise to feelings of sexual inadequacy and the need to be sexually dominant.

Adult sex offenders are viewed as pathologically disturbed and sexually perverted as a result of poor psycho-sexual development. The distortions in the offenders psycho-sexual development are seen as the result of failure in his mother's parenting.

To explain incest, Freud's Oedipus Complex casts the daughter as the active desiring agent who wishes her father to become her love object. The child is seen as 'seductress' while the father is seen as the passive, innocent object of his daughters seduction: an overtly displayed invitation which he cannot help but act upon. This normalises sexual acts between parents and children by seeing them as NATURAL rather than ABUSIVE and places the responsibility clearly on the child 'victim'.

Associated with the concept of the seductive child is the view of the mother as being responsible for the occurrence of incest. There are numerous ideas around this but the central idea is that the child has natural affection needs which are not met by the mother. The mother is seen as cold and rejecting of the child who turns to the father as a source of security and affection through sexual channels. Another view is that the mother sexually deserts her husband who must then turn to the daughter for sex. The mother's behaviour is explained essentially in terms of poor resolution of her own Oedipus Complex through which she generates a situation in which her daughter acts out her own incestuous desires.

In summary, the psychoanalytic model attempts to deny the reality of childhood sexual abuse and incest and in PROVEN cases places the blame firmly on the child or the mother.

Return to top
Limitations

The psychoanalytic model has been adopted by many psychiatrists and psychoanalysts and has had a huge influence on our understanding of sexual abuse. More importantly, many of the myths about sexual assault and incest that are common in our culture can be traced back to this model. There are however, several limitations of this approach and it's validity has been seriously challenged by the weight of the evidence. Firstly, research evidence has revealed that childhood sexual assault and incest DO exist and indeed are prevalent. So the 'fantasy' theory has been seriously undermined. Secondly, the psychoanalytic formulation may have explanatory power for father/daughter incest but it fails to explain other types of intra and extra-familial child sexual abuse such as father/son, mother/daughter, sibling abuse, uncle or grandparent incest or sexual assaults committed by neighbours, teachers, clergy or family friends. This is a severe limitation because father/daughter incest accounts for only one third of all child sexual abuse.

A further limitation is the model's narrow focus on the intra-psychic functioning of individuals which ignores social and cultural factors, in particular the fact that sexual abuse is primarily committed by men. Fourthly, and perhaps most fundamentally, the psychoanalytic model places responsibility for childhood sexual abuse and incest on the seductive child or the collusive mother while exonerating the abuser. Another problem is that the psychoanalytic theory views most sex offenders or rapists as disturbed individuals even though the vast majority are free of mental illness. This notion of the sexual psychopath has contributed to false ideas of who rapes. In addition, this view suggests that perpetration of sexual abuse is a treatable condition which will change with therapy. However, the weight of the evidence is to the contrary. Finally, locating the origins of sex offenders behaviour in the parenting provided by his mother falsely attributes responsibility for sexual assault.

In summary, the psychoanalytic explanations of sexual assault are contradictory, confusing and provide little explanatory evidence which could be used for the prevention of sexual assault. Instead, it has strongly influenced psychiatric and psychoanalytic practice which can result in the denial of a victims experiencing. In recent times, there have been some revisions by feminist analysts which have attempted to re-attribute blame from victim to offender but common psychoanalytic practice has still largely failed to take account of these revisions.

One thing the psychoanalytic approach to sexual assault has contributed, is the notion that the emotions of love and hate towards an abuser can exist simultaneously as a child has natural affection and security needs.

Unfortunately, the psychoanalytic approach has also led to the development of numerous damaging assumptions which serve to perpetuate the conditions for abuse to continue. Some of these myths include:

Myths:
Women Cry About Rape
Children Lie About Incest
Children Are Sexually Provocative
Men Who Commit Incest Are Sick
Rapists Are Sex-Crazed Madmen
Incest Is Not Harmful
Mothers Collude Etc

Return to top
2: The Victim Precipitation Approach

This approach considers offenders and victims as mutually interacting partners where the victim, through signs, eye contact, gestures and words, or by being present at certain venues or being out alone sometimes encourages rape. Things like accepting a ride home, responding in a friendly manner in conversation, accepting a dinner invitation, visiting a male friend at home or inviting a male friend into her own home may be misread or intentionally rationalized by the perpetrator as a sign of consent to sexual intercourse. In other words, a woman is raped because she failed to accurately communicate her desire not to have sex.

Limitations

There are two main limitations of this approach. Firstly, it is another theory which blames the victim, thereby falsely attributing responsibility for sexual assault. Secondly, it fails to take into account the fact that there is no equality between victim and offender and that men in these situations do not make their intentions to HAVE sex clear. It also presupposed that men must have the right, in certain circumstances, to force a woman to have sex against her will. Myths which derive from this view include:

Myths:
Women Ask For It
Only Young Stereo-typically Attractive Women Are Raped.
Women Can Avoid Being Raped By Not Walking On The Streets Etc.

Return to top
3: The Family Dysfunction Approach

In contrast to the psychoanalytic model which focuses on the individual psyche as the cause of sexual assault, this approach focuses on the family unit as dysfunctional. The notion of the dysfunctional family was first proposed in the 1940's as an outgrowth of family psychiatry and the influence of classic Freudian theory on this approach cannot be ignored. It is a notion that has been popular in explaining the aetiology of a number of disorders with the basic premise that disorders arise from pathological family dynamics. Family dysfunction theory has become one of the most widely held explanations for the manifestation of incest and together with it's treatment methods had been adopted by many government and statutory authorities in Australia, the U.S and the U.K. In this view, incest is seen as an overall symptom of family maladjustment and it proposes that all members of the family are responsible for causing it to occur even though apparently uninvolved, in particular, the mother. Underpinning this approach is a system of family norms which are used as a yardstick for measuring differing degrees of family pathology. A family in which incest is occurring is seen to be dysfunctional as it does not conform to socially approved goals or values and normal family hierarchies based on age and sex have been destroyed. In a dysfunctional family incest is utilized to reduce tension and maintain balance within the family while ensuring that the families pathology is kept a secret.

In this view the mother is seen to have failed fundamentally. Firstly, she is seen as a dysfunctional wife who does not fulfill her assigned role as sexual provider for the husband, or her nurturing role as mother and protector of her child. She does this by absenting herself either emotionally or physically from her children by working outside of the home, pursuing outside interests and activities, or through illness, hospitalization, escaping into depression, or by being emotionally and/or sexually frigid.

Secondly, this view assumes that the mother's failure to provide adequate nurturing means the love-starved and seductive child turns to and accepts the sexual advances of the sex-starved father as a substitute for the mother's love.

Thirdly, both the mother and father are seen as dysfunctional adults who seek a role reversal and disintegration between generational boundaries with the child cast in the role of satisfying the sexual needs of the father while assuming a protective role towards the mother. The mother supposedly engineers the incestuous relationship by placing enormous responsibilities on the child such as housework, child-care and wifely duties towards her father.

What we see in this formulation is, once again, the collusive mother and it is this collusion which is seen to be the cornerstone of family pathology. In fact, it is argued by many family dysfunction theorists that the mother knows consciously or unconsciously that incest is taking place but chooses to deny, it even when confronted by her daughter, by failing to take any preventative action or by blaming the daughter for the incest. Thus, in this view, the real abuser in an incestuous family is the mother.

Return to top
Limitations

Despite its wide acceptance, the family dysfunction model suffers severe limitations. Firstly, like the psychoanalytic model, it has little explanatory power for other forms of intra or extra-familial sexual abuse, and therefore fails to account for two thirds of all child sexual abuse.

Secondly, as this approach regard incest merely as a symptom of pathological family relationships which serves as a functional system to keep the family together, it detracts from the painful and often devastating effects incest has on the child. This has implications for treatment intervention as the child's experiencing is not only minimised but more alarmingly, denied. The therapeutic focus is on restoring 'normal' family relationships and the abusive sexual activity is seen as secondary.

Thirdly, this approach displaces responsibility from the abuser to at best, the whole family, and at worst but most frequently, to the mother. This denies who the abuser actually is and ignores that the abuser chose to respond to family dynamics by sexually abusing his child. This view also proposes that fathers have the right to be sexually serviced by females. It is argued that the husband gets confused when a daughter contributes to household duties because he is used to imposing his sexual demands on whoever does the housework and he doesn't really notice who it is.

Fourthly, in there is no evidence for the collusive mother who chooses to ignore incest. On the contrary, research has shown that 73% of mothers do act when incest is disclosed and 60% take immediate preventative action. This is in direct contrast to what family dysfunction theory proposes to be the case.

In addition, family dysfunction theory, with its postulation that mothers know, either consciously or unconsciously, that incest is occurring invests her with almost magical, omniscient qualities. This unfairly contributes to the sense of betrayal many survivors feel towards their mothers even though there has been no knowledge of or collusion in the abuse.

The family dysfunction approach also shows little recognition of the dynamics and circumstances that may prevent a mother from reporting abuse. Researchers have found that in 78% of incest families known to social workers the mother is also a victim of domestic violence. There are other barriers to disclosure such as financial and emotional dependence, lack of outside support and fear of retribution.

In summary, this approach has contributed little to our understanding of why sexual abuse occurs and not much in terms of prevention other than the importance of appropriate age and inter-generational boundaries. It does serve to reinforce some of the myths we have already seen and with it's assumption that men have the right to sexual service adds the idea that:

Myth:
Incest Only Takes Place In Dysfunctional Families

Return to top
4: Psychological Approaches

Psychological approaches to what causes sexual assault have focussed on the abuser rather than on the victim or the family. Psychologists have focussed their attention on two levels:

Identifying a personality profile of sex offenders.
On isolating the motivations of abusers.
The search for a personality profile of sex offenders has focused on establishing the existence of fixed and stable personality traits that are predictive of sex offenders. A range of studies of diverse population samples have been conducted using differential research techniques and perhaps unsurprisingly, research results have been contradictory and inconclusive. Some of the personality characteristics that have been consistently identified include, social introversion, feelings of masculine inadequacy and the need to exercise a high level of dominance and control in family relationships. This later characteristic is particularly true of incest offenders. Abusers have also been found to be highly adept at rationalisation and displacing responsibility and blame onto others rather than the self. The inability of researchers to consistently define particular characteristics as indicative of sex offenders has nevertheless contributed to our knowledge of sexual abuse. The huge amount of demographic and clinical data that has been collected has helped to dispel many of the myths and stereotypes about who commits sexual abuse. It has become clear that abusers come from all social backgrounds and are not confined to socially or economically deprived families. In addition, they do not suffer from any mental illnesses not do they necessarily have other criminal tendencies. In fact, the sex offender is often an otherwise law-abiding 'guy next door' type.

In terms of motivations for abuse, a common finding has been that alcohol or alcoholism contributes to a reduction in internal inhibitions to commit sex offences and/or incest. Poor impulse control is also seen as a common problem. In terms of child sexual abuse offenders a distinction has been drawn between the fixated and the regressive abuser. The fixated abuser has been conditioned from childhood and adolescence to be primarily sexually attracted to younger children. While the regressive abuser, abuses in response to stress which exacerbates existing feelings of inadequacy and impairs normal impulse control thereby allowing abuse to occur.

Limitations

The psychologist's shift in emphasis from victim and family to abuser is perhaps more helpful for understanding why sexual abuse occurs.

Nevertheless, this approach also has several limitations not least of which is that much of the evidence is contradictory and inconclusive. A further limitation is that the notion of 'poor impulse control' being a cause of sexually abusive behaviour against women and children implies that such abuse is a natural and normal part of male sexuality. As long as sexually abusive behaviour against women and children is seen to be part of the normal repertoire of male behaviour, even though a part that must be controlled, little progress can be made in terms of prevention.

This view also reinforces the myth that men cannot control their sexual urges.

Myth:
Men Can't Control Their Sexual Urges

Return to top
5: The Feminist Approach

The many limitations of previous approaches meant that considerable reinterpretation of the causes for sexual assault was needed. With the emergence of the women's movement in the 1960's and '70's, people began to tell of their experiences of sexual assault and so a more accurate identification of the problem became possible. This victim centred awareness prompted research and investigation in an attempt to address the key issues of sexual assault. In particular,

Why is it men who rape?
Why is it women and children who are primarily the victims of sexually abusive behaviours?
The feminist approach is a sociological analysis which over the past three decades has focused on two important and previously largely ignored aspects of sexual assault.

the unequal power relationships between men and women and adults and children;
the abusers responsibility for initiating and/or maintaining sexual assault.
In examining differential power relationships within society and the family this approach argues that the most adequate explanation of the motivation for, and incidence of, sexual assault is found in the complex interplay between existing social structures, conventional attitudes and socialisation, in particular, the differential gender socialisation of males and females in patriarchal society. A fundamental contribution offered by the feminist approach is that it does not focus exclusively on incestuous abuse within the family. In interpreting sexual abuse as a sexual power relationship rooted in differential gender socialisation and male power in patriarchal society, it is able to broaden its focus to include the dynamics of extra-familial as well as intra-familial sexual and incestuous abuse, all of which rely on males exerting their sexual power over women.

The research has overwhelmingly demonstrated that sexual abuse is not a problem of individual pathology occurring between 'pathological men and 'seductive women and children'. Instead it shows that sexual assault is an extension of the current legal, social, economic and political systems in which we live which manifest and reinforce male dominance over women and children. The manifestation of male power relationships are well documented. In the areas of education, employment, health, income security, law and decision making, women and children come out second best. Unequal power relationships between men, women and children are embedded in social organisations like the family where they become internalised by individuals. Masculine dominance over females is further linked to the patriarchal nature of heterosexual relationships. In a culture were men are socialised to view women as a means of satisfying their emotional, sexual and daily needs, a similar objectification of children is only a step away. The messages that females receive through such power structures and female socialisation serve to emphasise women's powerlessness, passivity and their role as victim. When internalised these messages generate submissive, compliant and self-effacing behaviours which offer little or no protection against sexual abuse.

Examinations of male power within the family show that abusers tend to see their wives and children as property which they can exploit in anyway they wish, including sexually. Incest is thus seen as a just one expression of 'normal' male/female relations in a patriarchal society. Analysis of reported findings of perceived masculine inadequacy and social isolation of incestuous fathers have led to speculations that this prompts abusers to enforce patriarchal rule within the family where it is 'socially acceptable' for them to be in charge. Within the family the abuser is able to reconstruct traditional patriarchal domination in which, by means of threat, physical violence or coercion, he is not only obeyed but serviced by his wife and children.

Differential gender socialisation, in particular male sexual socialisation, is manifested and reinforced through the media, school curricula, sex stereo-typed expectations and role definitions, and gender specific child rearing practices. Male sexual socialisation is a major factor in abusive behaviour, particularly child abuse. Sexuality contains culturally moulded components which include values, feelings and attitudes, as well as biological drives, which account for stereo-typical gender roles in the expression of sexuality. Finkelhor argues there are four distinct features of masculine sexual socialisation that predispose men toward sexually abusing women and children.

Firstly, men are socialised to express their dependency or intimacy needs through sex, and have not always been encouraged to act as nurturers.
Secondly, men tend to have sex as a form of reconfirmation when their ego has encountered any kind of rebuff.
Thirdly, many men experience sexual arousal outside of the context of a relationship but are more specifically aroused and stimulated by the genitals of their preferred sexual object. Whether these belong to a adult or a child may become largely irrelevant.
Finally, men are socialised to desire sexual partners who are younger and smaller than themselves.
Impaired nurturing and diminished capacity for affection, along with putative masculine identity, restricts the forming of genuine relationships while encouraging sexual contact only with compliant submissive women who have inferior status. In addition, as male gender identity is more dependent on sexual success the sexually inadequate male may prefer a child as a sexual partner to bolster an inadequate adult ego. Such socialisation makes male sexual exploitative behaviour towards women and children increasingly comprehensible.

Included in this approach is the analysis of the role of pornography in perpetuating and legitimising sexual abuse and in particular child sexual abuse. The virulence of child pornography and the increase of child sex rings demonstrate that not only do men exert their sexual power over children, more fundamentally they find them erotically desirable. Such analysis provides powerful evidence against the notion that child sexual abuse is a problem of parenting. It is instead a function of masculine socialisation.

It is this social context which both creates and is reinforced by sexual assault and abuse and in which sexual abuse plays an important role in maintaining the status quo. In this view, rape is seen as a SOCIAL rather than a NATURAL fact. It is produced by a certain kind of society and not by immutable human nature and it is argued that the attempt to treat rape and sexual abuse as a natural and inevitable part of human behaviour, through defining psychological structures or developing elaborate theories, is a way to avoid having to do anything about it. But if we view it as a social fact, it can be eliminated through social change.

Limitations

The feminist approach to sexual abuse comes closer than any other appoach to providing explanations for and suggesting responses to the range of abusive behaviours. It has several advantages not least of which is it takes account of the social structure of society and differential gender socialisation. It also attributes repsonsibility to the abuser rather than the mother or the victim. Nevertheless, the feminist perspective does have limitations. Although feminist theory acknowledges and validates the survivors feelings about the abuse with concomitant psychological impacts, it is essentially a sociological approach which tends to focus on social structure and socialisation. As such it minimises psychological factors and motivations that contribute to abuse although these are assumed as a result of socialisation.

Furthermore, in emphasising that all females are vulnerable to sexual abuse, feminist analysis can be construed as dismissive of a survivor's individual experiencing. Some survivors are unable to identify with other women and this presents another barrier for healing.

Associated with this is the assumption that all females are vulnerable, socialised to be compliant and paralysed to offer any resistance. While this is true for many women and children, it is not true for all and investigating the ways in which resistance has been acheived may enhance our understanding of how sexual abuse can be prevented or diminished. The assumption that all women and children are passive and compliant merely serves to reinforce negative messages which contribute to powerlessness and may increase survivors existential anxiety.

Return to top
6. The Four Pre Conditions Model - A Model To Understand Why/how Someone May Sexually Abuse.

To bridge the gap between psychological and sociological interpretations of sexual abuse, Finkelhor (1984) proposed a multi-factor model which has explanatory power on both levels. In reviewing all the causal factors that researchers and clinicians have isolated as contributing to sexual abuse, Finkelhor developed a hierarchical model which included individual factors related tot he victim, abuser and the family as well as social and cultural factors. It provides an adaptable and flexible framework which can accommodate new research to enhance our understanding of why sexual abuse occurs. The model accounts for both intra and extra familial sexual abuse. This perspective clearly places responsibility with the abuser. Finkelhor's model has more explanatory power than other approaches in that it incorporates both psychological factors such as:

The motivation of the abuser.
The existence of internal inhibitors.
And the ego strength of the child.
As well as sociological factors such as:

Male socialisation.
Pornography.
Social tolerance of eroticising children.
Unequal power relationships between men and women.
And the patriarchal prerogatives of fathers and men.
This model also views potential victims as not necessarily passive, but possessing the power to resist.

Finally, Finkelhor's model provides a vital enhancement to treatment in that it allows for evaluation and intervention on all four levels. Capitalising on the strengths while implementing problem solving techniques to ameliorate the weaknesses may facilitate cessation of abuse and prevent its re-occurrence.

All the factors known to contribute to child sexual abuse are grouped into four pre-conditions. These are:

1: Motivation. The potential abuser needs to have some motivation to sexually abuse. Finkelhor argues that there are three fundamental components subsumed under the motivation to sexually abuse children.

Emotional Congruence in which sexual contact with a child satisfies profound emotional needs.

Sexual Arousal in which the child represents the source of sexual gratification for the abuser, and

Blockage when alternative sources of sexual gratification are either not available or are less satisfactory.

These components are not actual pre-conditions and not all three need to be present for sexual abuse to occur. The three components do explain not only the instances of abusers who are not sexually motivated but enjoy degrading victims and welding power but also the paedophile and the sexually motivated abuser.

2: Internal Inhibitions. The potential abuser must overcome internal inhibitions that may act against his motivation to sexually abuse. No matter how strong the sexual interest in children might be, if the abuser is inhibited by taboos then he will not abuse. Arguably, most people have some inhibitions against the sexual abuse of children. Disinhibition is not a source of motivation, it merely releases motivation. This second precondition aims to isolate factors that account for how inhibitions are overcome.

While preconditions 1 & 2 account for the abusers behaviour, preconditions 3 & 4 consider the environment outside the abuser and child which controls whether and whom he abusers.

3: External Inhibitors. The potential abuser must overcome external obstacles and inhibitions prior to sexual abuse. External inhibitors that may restrain the abuser's action include family constellation, neighbours, peers and societal sanctions as well as the level of supervision a child receives. Although a child cannot be supervised 24 hours per day, lack of supervision has been found to be a contributing factor to sexual abuse as has physical proximity and opportunity. External inhibitors are easily overcome if the potential abuser is left alone with an unsupervised child.

4: Resistance. Finally, the potential abuser has to overcome the child's possible resistance to being sexually abused. This capacity to resist may operate in a very subtle covert way and does not necessarily involve overt protestations. Abusers may sense which children are good potential targets, who can be intimidated or co-coerced to keep a secret or otherwise manipulated. Abusers report that they can almost instinctively pick out a vulnerable child on whom to focus their sexual attentions while ignoring those who might resist. Frequently, these children may even be unaware that they are being sexually approached and have little or no capacity to resist. Some of the risk factor that inhibit the capacity to resist include emotional insecurity and deprivation...etc.

Knowing which factors make children vulnerable to abuse is essential in formulating prevention programmes. Isolating behaviours that constitute a risk, while emphasising those that enhance resistance or avoidance can empower children to protect themselves. This is not to say that children who are not vulnerable are not abused. Many children may be forced or co-coerced despite displaying resistance and avoidance behaviours. Some instances of abuse are the result of force, threat or violence and no matter how much resistance the child displays it will not prevent the abuse. Precondition 4 has three possible outcomes:

1) the child may resist by overtly saying no and running away, or covertly by displaying a confident and assertive manner which conveys strong messages to the abuser not to try for fear of detection or exposure.

2) the child may resist but still be abused through force or violence; or

3) a child may resist but be overcome through coercion.

The four pre-conditions for sexual abuse come into play in a logical sequence. The abuser must firstly have the motivation and be able to overcome any internal inhibitions. When these have been overcome the potential abuser will need to overcome external inhibitors and finally the resistance of the child.

Limitations

The main limitation of the model is that it is essentially a descriptive framework which incorporates a range of dissonant theories and observed clinical data. As such, it cannot be viewed as a theory until it is tested empirically, in particular in its application to treatment and prevention. However, it does present us with a comprehensive, multi causal, hierarchical model with both psychological and sociological explanatory power for understanding why and how sexual abuse occurs, which is more than can be said of other theoretical approaches

Labels: Why does sexual abuse happen?

posted by Robert Heard at 9:02 AM