Surveying the research makes clear that, in quantity alone, a substantial amount exists on sexual abusers. But at the same time, this research is so flawed with conceptual and methodological problems that there is good reason to question virtually everything this accumulated work reveals. This chapter will outline some of these major problems and make suggestions about ways of correcting them.
One current flagrant example of the problem is the attempt to explain child molesters as simply persons who were themselves the victims of molestation. As was indicated in the previous chapter, there are several studies that do suggest that many incarcerated sexual abusers have histories of sexual abuse (Gebhard et al., 1965; Groth, 1979; Langevin et al., 1985; Seghorn et al., n.d.). Such findings have been snatched hastily from the context of all the research done on sex offenders and given great emphasis by journalists and even some professionals. In recent times, whenever the question, "Why do men abuse?" is asked, the answer most frequently given is that they themselves were victims of abuse. Unfortunately, the fixation on this overly simple, single-factor explanation poses serious risks for the field. We need to discuss some limitations of this explanation, and some of the risks its popularity poses.
First of all, the actual finding that many molesters were themselves victims, although replicated in several studies, is itself subject to some important qualifications. There is a serious question whether or not it is a finding that can be generalized to all molesters. The studies establishing this finding have been mostly on incarcerated child molesters. These molesters constitute a relatively small portion of all offenders - the ones who were so repetitive, compulsive, and flagrant in their molesting that they were caught, convicted, and jailed. Among this more pathological group, it may be more likely that one find a history of sexual abuse. Among a more representative group of sex abusers, histories of sexual abuse might not be nearly so common.
A second problem with the findings is that even though the amount of sexual abuse in the backgrounds of molesters may seem high, it has not been shown conclusively that it is higher than among similar men who did not become molesters. The studies so far have not really used adequate comparison groups. It is hardly convincing to compare child molesters to police officers, as one study did. There are even problems in comparing incarcerated molesters to men selected randomly in the general population, because incarcerated molesters come disproportionately from certain disadvantaged sectors of the population. It may be that incarcerated molesters have been abused more than other men in general, but not abused more than their brothers or neighbourhood friends who did not grow up to be molesters. The abuse may be related to their families or social backgrounds or even the fact that they got caught, not to the fact that they were molesters.
[...]
Now let us suppose that the deficiencies are corrected and this more rigorous study still finds more victims of sexual abuse among child molesters than among their nonmolested peers. (Based on the evidence to date, it seems probable that this will the case, although the relationship may not be as strong or the prevalence as high as some past studies have indicated.) Nonetheless, some major qualifications still need to be observed. It is quite clear that not all abusers were themselves abused. Even if one generalizes form the available studies on incarcerated offenders, the maximum number one would expect with this factor in their histories would be between 30% and 60% of abusers. In a representative population of molesters, the number might be much lower. Therefore, this explanation still canot be said to solve fully the question of why someone becomes an abuser. Other explanations are needed for nonmolested molesters.
Moreover, other explanations also are required even for those molesters who were themselves abused. It is clear that being molested in itself is not enough to create a molester. Otherwise all those who were molested would themselves become molesters. We know from many clinical histories that this is not the case. In fact, it is probable that only a small percentage of victims go on to become abusers. What are the additional circumstances or events that influence a victim of abuse to become an abuser himself? [...] Victimizing others may be the response encouraged by male socialization to the insult to masculinity involved in being a victim of abuse. The "explanation" of molestation implied by this combination of factors could just as easily be attributed to male socialization as to a history of sexual abuse.
Other contingencies certainly are involved also in the relationship between being victimized and victimizing others. For example, it may be that only when the abuse is accompanied by intense humilation does it create a need to reenact the molestation. When victims receive support and comfort, the relationship may be nonexistent. It may be also that only when the abuse becomes the focus of a powerful sexual fantasy does it lead to future molestation. When children are not made to feel guilty about sexual fantasies or have opportunities to develop normal fantasies, no deviant fantays may develop and victimized children may not become molesters.
[...] The idea that abusers can be explained by the fact that they were abused is just not adequate.
[...]
[...] The idea that victims grow up to become abusers has struck terror into the hearts of victims, in particular male victims, and their parents. These people, now even more than in the past, have an unrealistic and unnecessary fear that they or their children are inevitably destined to become abusers. Although not a possibility to be ignored completely, these concerns are almost certainly exaggerated. [...] It is even possible that the fear itself has some self-fulfilling properties that may prompt some children to become molesters who would not otherwise have done so.
[...]
[...] Theories from only one level of the model will never accurately discriminate between those who engage and those who do not engage in such behavior. Although molesters will always show up as having many of these characteristics - for example, arousal to children, shyness, impulsivity, need for dominance, or a history of being victimized themselves - there will be large numbers of "false positives" in the population at large, people who have these characteristics too, but, because the behavior is not released by other factors, never become molesters.
[...]