Unjust Desserts! Unravelling the Gender-Specific Dimensions of Female Sexual Offending

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=udbh20
Deviant Behavior
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udbh20
Unjust Desserts! Unravelling the Gender-Specific
Dimensions of Female Sexual Offending
Robert M. Worley, Ginger Gummelt & Vidisha Barua Worley
To cite this article: Robert M. Worley, Ginger Gummelt & Vidisha Barua Worley (2023) Unjust
Desserts! Unravelling the Gender-Specific Dimensions of Female Sexual Offending, Deviant
Behavior, 44:10, 1533-1548, DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2023.2214288
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2023.2214288
Published online: 18 May 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 92
View related articles
View Crossmark data

Unjust Desserts! Unravelling the Gender-Specic Dimensions of
Female Sexual Oending
Robert M. Worley, Ginger Gummelt, and Vidisha Barua Worley
Lamar University, Beaumont, Texas, USA
ABSTRACT
Western society historically views females as protectors who engage in acts of
violence or sexual aggression only when they are triggered by a combative
male partner. Nevertheless, research indicates some patterns of female violent
oending have been on the rise, and this includes sex crimes. In fact, it has
been estimated that female oenders may account for up to 12% of all sexual
oenses.. In the present study, we conducted face-to-face interviews with ten
females on the sex oender registry in Southeast Texas to explore patterns in
sexual oending. Results indicated that respondents in our sample had unique
motivations and circumstances that set them apart from male sex oenders.
Similar to other studies, our ndings reveal the dynamics of female sexual
oending are vastly dierent from sex crimes perpetuated by men.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 27 February 2023
Accepted 10 May 2023
Introduction
Even though males commit sex crimes at a higher rate than women, there is a strong indication that
the rate of female sexual offending has increased within the last ten years (Miller and Marshall 2019). It
is also likely that female sexual offending goes unreported in many cases, perhaps due to the fact that
females may mask these offenses during caretaking activities, such as, bathing or grooming (Ferguson
and Meehan 2005; Kaylor, Winters, and Jeglic 2022). Professionals may also disbelieve victims who
disclose they were sexually offended against by a woman, and this may be especially true when the
offender is the victim’s mother (Denov 2004). While female sexual offending has increased within the
last several years, both the media and academic researchers have devoted very little attention to female
sex offenders, and the literature on females who sexually harm is quite scarce, especially in comparison
to male sexual offending (Darling and Hackett 2020; Matthews, Kinder Mathews, and Spelz 1989;
Wijkman, Bijleveld, and Hendriks, 2010). Unfortunately, studies of female sexual offending often have
small sample sizes and selection bias which makes them less generalizable, much like the present study
(Gannon, Rose, and Ward 2008; Levenson, Willis, and Prescott 2015; Maddan and Pazzani 2017).
Female sex offenders overwhelmingly tend to be Caucasian or Hispanic (Vandiver and Kercher 2004;
Vandiver, Cheeseman Dial, and Worley 2008). For example, a scholarly examination of data from the
National Incident-Based Reporting System revealed 81% of female sexual offenders were Caucasian or
Hispanic while 18% of the sample was African American, and 1% were Asian or Native American (Williams
and Bierie 2015). If a girl experiences emotional neglect and verbal, physical, or sexual abuse, she is more
than three times as likely to carry out a sexual offense as an adult (Levenson, Willis, and Prescott 2015;
Maddan and Pazzani 2017). Female sex offenders are significantly less likely than their male counterparts to
offend against other women. They rarely commit sexual offenses against strangers, and in fact, this
comprises less than 10% of all victimizations (Budd, Bierie, and Williams 2017). Female sex offenders
who act alone are also more likely to victimize males than females (Vandiver 2006; Williams and Bierie
CONTACT Robert M. Worley rworley@lamar.edu Department of Sociology, Social Work, and Criminal Justice, Lamar
University, Beaumont, TX 77710
DEVIANT BEHAVIOR
2023, VOL. 44, NO. 10, 1533–1548
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2023.2214288
© 2023 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

2015). It has been estimated that only 1% of the victims of female sexual offenders are adults while 70% of
victims are between twelve and sixteen years of age (Budd, Bierie, and Williams 2017). When a female
offender commits sexual acts with a male co-offender, she is typically romantically entangled with this
individual; and it is not unheard of for the woman herself to fall victim to abusive behavior at the hands of
her partner (Worley and Gummelt, 2022). In the present study, we analyze face-to-face interviews
conducted with ten females who were arrested, convicted, and ultimately required to register as sex
offenders. We specifically examine their individual characteristics and motivations as we explore whether
these women mimicked the behaviors of male sex offenders or rather had unique circumstances which
compelled them to commit sex offenses.
Female sex oenders
Victims of female sexual offenders are often reluctant to bring these crimes to the attention of law
enforcement personnel; and therefore, there is a dark figure of female sexual offenses that are missing
from the crime statistics. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey reveal women may commit up
to 12% of sexual offenses in any given year (Cortoni, Babchishin, and Rat 2017). However, Uniform Crime
Report (UCR) statistics, which only include offenses known to the police, indicate female offenders account
for roughly 7% of all known sexual offenses (other than prostitution) and approximately 3% of known
forcible rapes (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2014). It is noteworthy that the old definition of rape, “carnal
knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will,” was changed on January 1, 2013 by the UCR to remove
the requirement of force, include both male and female victims, and a wider range of penetrations. This old
definition had excluded about 40% of sexual assaults (Bierie and Davis-Siegel 2015). The new definition of
rape includes both forced completed, forced attempted, or drug-facilitated, vaginal, anal, or oral penetration
by using penises, fingers, or other objects, without consent, perpetrated by a male or a female (Basile et al.
2022). Yet, when comparing women to men, female sex offenders tend to receive more lenient sentences
than their male peers (Maddan and Pazzani 2017; McLeod 2015). These women are less likely to be arrested,
less likely to be convicted, and are more likely than male offenders to serve their sentence in the community
rather than in a prison or jail (Amanda, Comartin, and Kubiak 2017; Blackwell, Holleran, and Finn 2008;
Shields and Cochran 2020).
Female sexual offenders tend to be in their late 20s or early 30s, and they often offend against younger
victims, such as, children, adolescents, and teenagers (Budd, Bierie, and Williams 2017; Williams and Bierie
2015). Young people who fall victim to female sex offenders may suffer considerable trauma and develop
sexual identity problems which place these actors at a higher risk of becoming future sex offenders when
compared to victims of male sexual assault (Bunting 2006;). While there is no question female sex offenders
have the potential to inflict considerable damage on their victims, it is imperative to examine both the
situational forces as well as the individual characteristics that compel these women to offend. Specifically,
social, historical, cultural, as well as biological and reproductive factors should be taken into account when
considering the gender-specific dynamics of female offending (Pflugradt, Allen, and Marshall 2018).
In order to gain insights into female sex offenders’ motivations and characteristics, researchers have
developed typologies of women who sexually offend (Nathan and Ward 2002; Vandiver and Kercher 2004).
For example, Sandler and Freeman (2007) tested the analyses of Vandiver and Kercher (2004), using
a sample of 390 registered female sex offenders in New York State and found six distinct types of female sex
offenders. In the past, researchers have coined a variety of exotic terms to categorize female sex offenders,
such as: experimenter-exploiters (Matthews, Mathews, and Spelz 1990); seductive abuse mother molesters
(Lawson 1993); and noncriminal homosexual offenders (Vandiver and Kercher 2004) among others.
However, given the relational and contextual nature of female sexual offending, as well as the political,
social, cultural, and economic realities which invariably shape women’s lives, we believe the above terms are
obsolete and cannot be applied to most female sex offenders (Pflugradt, Allen, and Marshall 2018). Instead,
we prefer an abbreviated typology consisting of only three groupings, much like the categories Matthews,
Kinder Mathews, and Spelz (1989) first proposed.
1534 R. M. WORLEY ET AL.

The first category of female sex offenders are nurturers, women who engage in sexual relationships with
younger men they meet through a caretaking role. The majority of female sex offenders are nurturers
(Vandiver and Kercher 2004). Nurturers have tendencies to justify their illegal sexual behaviors by believing
they are teaching their male victims about sexuality, and the victims genuinely appreciate the experience
(Robert and Thompson 2019). It is also not unusual for these women to use illicit substances. Next, some
female sex offenders are co-offenders who either passively or actively work with male romantic partners to
abuse their victims (Nathan and Ward, 2002; Vandiver, Cheeseman Dial, and Worley 2008; Williams and
Bierie 2015). It is likely women who co-offend may be emotionally as well as economically dependent on
their male partner. They tend to suffer from low self-esteem and may offer up their own children to satisfy
the sexual cravings of their dominant companion (Gannon, Rose, and Ward 2008). Some female co-
offenders may also be coerced and have a history of being abused by violent men while others have
a strong fear of being abandoned by their male partner (Matthews, Mathews, and Spelz 1991). While it is
likely many female co-offenders are passive and perhaps victims themselves, some women who sexually
abuse others with a male co-offender are willing allies (Nathan and Ward, 2001; Miller and Marshall 2019).
Co-offenders who are willing allies may occasionally commit sex crimes as a solo offender either before or
after co-offending with a male partner (Franca, Babchishin, and Rat 2016). Women who co-offend are
significantly more likely than female solo offenders to have multiple victims, familial victims, and previous
convictions for non-sexual crimes (Miller and Marshall 2019; Vandiver 2006)
Finally, while nurturers and co-offenders comprise the vast majority of female sex offenders, researchers
have argued there are women who are psychologically impaired or intergenerationally predisposed to commit
sex crimes, often against their own children (McCarty 1986; Ten Bensel, Gibbs, and Raptopoulos 2019).
These women tend to have a history of physical or sexual abuse; they may also score higher on dominance
and aggression scales than other types of female sexual offenders; and they are more likely to recidivate
(Miller and Marshall 2019). Even though it is exceedingly rare, these actors may even offend against adult
male victims by themselves. Psychologically impaired or intergenerationally disposed female offenders may
also have lengthy criminal histories, long records of mental illness, as well as suicide attempts (Vandiver,
Cheeseman Dial, and Worley 2008).
A gender-specic approach of female sex oenders
While there has been a growing body of literature that explores the dynamics of female sexually
offending, our knowledge of this behavior is still in the very early stages which has prompted
researchers to call for a gender-specific approach toward female sexual offending (Pflugradt, Allen,
and Marshall 2018; ten Bensel, Tusty, and Rush Burkey 2019). Unlike men, women who sexually
offend not only violate the law but also social norms we ascribe to gender, such as, being sexually
passive nurturers who protect rather than harm children (Denov 2003). There tends to be an under-
reporting of female perpetrated sex crimes, perhaps because some people perceive that “the taboo
against disclosure [of female sexual abuse] is stronger than the behavior itself” (Lawson 1993: 264).
Young men may engage in the self-minimization of victimization if they perceive their masculinity will
be questioned once it becomes known they were sexually abused by a female offender (Wijkman,
Bijleveld, and Hendriks 2010). When women do engage in sex offenses, they are more likely than men
to offend against their own biological children (Amanda, Comartin, and Kubiak 2017). In their
analysis of 802,150 incidents of sexual offenses reported to the National Incident-Based Reporting
System (NIBRS), Williams and Bierie (2015) found females are nearly twice as likely (10%) to victimize
their biological children than male (6%) offenders. This study, however, does not take into account the
dark figure of sex offenses as the data is based only on crimes reported to the police.
Female sex offenders do not have a clear preference for a victim based on gender (Gannon et al. 2013).
Budd, Bierie, and Williams (2017) contend solo female sex offenders sexually victimize males in 55% and
females in 45% of all reported incidents of female-perpetrated sex crimes (Budd, Bierie, and Williams 2017).
Female sex offenders tend to offend against both genders, whereas male sex offenders strongly prefer female
victims and offend against them 90% of the time when committing a sexual offense (Williams and Bierie
DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 1535

2015). Female sex offenders are also four times less likely than men to sexually abuse strangers (Williams and
Bierie 2015). They are more likely than men to use drugs though less likely to use alcohol during the
commission of a sexual crime. Female sex offenders also have a co-offender (who is almost always a male
romantic partner) approximately 38% of the time, whereas men have co-offenders in less than 12% of all
incidents (Williams and Bierie 2015). The pathways to sexual offending differ substantially for females and
males; and while it is not our intent to develop a gender specific theory of sexual offending, more research is
needed to explore the nuances of female sexual offending. Specifically, factors, such as, prior victimization
experiences, substance abuse history, trauma, and social norms which dictate behavior for both genders
should be considered when differentiating between women’s and men’s experiences with sexual offending
(McDaniels-Wilson and Belknap 2009).
Method
In the present study, we identified female sex offenders through the Texas Department of Public Safety’s sex
offender registry. The Wetterling Act and Megan’s Law established a sex offender registry which requires
virtually anyone who has been convicted of a sexual offense to be publicly identified online (Tewksbury and
Levenson 2009; Worley and Worley 2013). In most states, defendants who plead no contest and receive
a sentence of deferred adjudication must still register as sexual offenders. Many states and cities also place
restrictions on where a registered sex offender can live, work, and travel. Today, the internet is the primary
method by which criminal justice officials inform the community about the locations of sex offenders
(Budd, Bierie, and Williams 2017; Klein, Tolson, and Collins 2014; Tewksbury et al. 2013).
We developed in-depth interview questions, and a research proposal was submitted for a full human
subjects review at our university. Once our research proposal was approved, we sent an initial letter of
introduction to 100 female registered sex offenders in the Southeastern region of Texas. There are
approximately 7.7 million people living in this area and more than 25,000 registered sex offenders –
which is a rate of 324 sex offenders per 100,000 residents. Roughly 2%, or 500 of the sex offenders residing
in Southeast Texas, are female – which is especially low considering that females account for roughly 7% of
known sex offenses other than prostitution (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2014). We sent out letters to 100
of these female registrants. The name of each potential participant and her home address was listed on the
public sex offender registry. The letter of introduction briefly explained the goals of our project and invited
participants to contact us by phone. Over the next two weeks, twenty-two female registrants reached out to
us and accepted our invitation for an interview. We interviewed fifteen women, and the current study is
based on interview data from ten of these research subjects. This exploratory investigation is based upon
a convenience sample intended to generate hypotheses rather than make inferences to the broader
population of female sex offenders.
Half of the in-depth interviews took place in the interviewees’ homes, whereas the other half were
conducted in a public place, such as, a restaurant or coffeeshop. Regardless of where the interview occurred,
all respondents were afforded the utmost privacy. The interview location did not prevent subjects from
talking about highly sensitive and personal issues. The second author who has almost 20 years of clinical
work with both victims and offenders conducted the interview while the first author took notes. The
interviews were about 90-minutes and consisted of closed- and open-ended questions. The questions
focused upon the unique circumstances of the offense that led to each respondents’ arrest, conviction,
and registration as a sex offender. All interviews were recorded with the registrants’ permission. It is
noteworthy that the presence of a recording device did not appear to inhibit the respondents. In fact, if
anything, the recording device expressed to these women the seriousness of the occasion as well as our
sincerity to this project. Interestingly, the lead author has been involved in two similar projects where
recording devices were not used, and the interview data was not nearly as rich or meaningful. Given this, it is
possible the use of recording devices may encourage respondents to give thoughtful, honest feedback.
Once all of the interviews were completed, they were transcribed verbatim. We coded the data by
adhering to the principles of analytic induction through multiple readings (Charmaz 2006).
Specifically, we utilized line-by-line coding which helped us examine the interview data from a fresh
1536 R. M. WORLEY ET AL.

perspective as we asked analytic questions. Examining codes and themes in the early interviews helped
us move beyond merely describing the data to developing new sensitizing concepts which allowed us
to ask more pointed questions that we initially did not believe would be relevant (see Charmaz and
Thornberg 2020). While the interviewees provided us with an abundance of information, for the
purpose of this study, during each reading of the transcripts, we focused on conceptual categories,
such as: a.) description of the offense; b.) offender characteristics and motivations; and c.) pathways to
female sexual offending. Given our small convenience sample size of ten female registrants, we opted
not to use any computer software to aid in our analysis of the data. Below is a summary of our research
subjects and their characteristics (Table 1).
Table 1. Offender Characteristics.
Name
Sex of
Victim
Age at
Time of
Offense
Race of
Perpetrator
Race of
Victim
Victim
Age
Offense
Committed Sentence Typology
Summer Male 44
years
Caucasian Caucasian 15
years
Statutory Rape 4 years in prison; 3
years of parole
supervision and
lifetime registration
as a sex offender
Nurturer
Veronica Male 52
years
Caucasian Caucasian 15
years
Oral indecency
with a child
90 days in jail, 10 years
of probation and
lifetime registration
as a sex offender
Nurturer
Karen Male 49
years
Caucasian African-
American
15
years
Statutory Rape 3 years in prison, seven
years of parole
supervision, and
lifetime registration
as a sex offender
Nurturer
Shawna Female 24
years
Asian Caucasian 15
years
Indecency with
a child
7 years of probation;
later, probation
revoked and
incarcerated for 4
years
Nurturer
Cindy Male 23
years
Caucasian Caucasian 13
years
Indecency with
a child
11 years of probation
and was required to
register as a sex
offender during that
time
Nurturer
Mercedes Female Late
20s
Caucasian Caucasian 14
years
Oral indecency
of a minor
4 years of probation
and lifetime
registration as a sex
offender; later
probation revoked
and 3 years in prison
Co-offender
Amanda Female 25
years
Creole and
African
American
Hispanic 15
years
Compelling the
prostitution
of a minor
5 years of probation
and lifetime
registration as a sex
offender; later
probation revoked
and 4 years in prison
Co-offender
Jasmine Female 23
years
Caucasian Hispanic N/A Possession of
child
pornography
6 months in prison,
7-and-a-half years
under community
supervision
Co-offender
Angela Male 19
years
Caucasian Caucasian 7 years Sexual assault
of a child
8 years of deferred
adjudication
probation
Psychologically
impaired and
predisposed
Ruth Female 34
years
Caucasian Caucasian 14
years
Second-degree
rape
(prostituted
her
youngest
daughter)
8 years in prison and
12 years on parole
and lifetime
registration as a sex
offender
Psychologically
impaired and
predisposed
DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 1537

Findings
Nurturers
In this study, we interviewed Summer, a Caucasian female who had sexual relations on one occasion
with a fifteen-year-old Caucasian boy when she was forty-four years old. When we met Summer, she
was employed as a detailer at the local carwash company. She did not have a car and had to ride her
bicycle to work across a long, winding route to comply with sex offender registration guidelines.
Summer had a two-hour roundtrip commute to work. We asked Summer to discuss the sexual
encounter with one of her daughter’s underaged friends, and she expressed herself in the follow-
ing way:
I’ve always had an attraction to younger men. But, this kid misled me. We’d been texting for six months, and he
told me he was eighteen. Anyway, on Valentine’s Day, both of my kids were spending the night at my brother’s
house, and I was all alone. I had been snorting cocaine all day and getting high and was about ready to pass out.
I slept with my phone because it was my alarm clock. Next thing I know, my phone went off, and it was a text
from this kid asking if he could come up to my apartment. I’m like, ‘Okay, whatever.’ When I opened the door
and laid eyes on him, I saw that it is not who I thought it was . . . But, I still felt obligated, you know. Like, ‘I was
promising you this was going to happen for six months’ . . . I felt oddly obligated. So, he comes in, and we do our
thing, and immediately afterward, this kid tells me he’s only fifteen. I told him, ‘Alright, put your pants on and get
your ass home and don’t come back and don’t call no more.’ That was the last time I saw him until court.”
Summer’s story began by reporting that she was sexually abused by her father for two years beginning
when she was only eight-years old. It is interesting to note that in this case, the fifteen-year-old victim
reportedly initiated the sexual encounter. Summer describes the onset of the relationship with the
victim as somewhat of a caretaker role, since the victim was a friend of her daughter and she
functioned as the adult within this dynamic. As such, Summer would most likely be characterized
as a nurturer; however, the fact that Summer was under the influence of cocaine may have impaired
her decision making and shifted the role dynamic. Summer told us that upon arrest, she was not
Mirandized by the police, and she made an incriminating statement. Summer stated she was given
a court appointed attorney; however, he spent less than one hour with her and urged Summer to sign
a plea bargain agreement for seven years in prison. When Summer protested, her attorney tried to get
the sentence reduced to five years; however, the district attorney would not agree to this. Rather than
face a trial, Summer reluctantly signed the plea bargain agreement and would ultimately spend four
years as an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice followed by three years of parole
supervision and registering as a sex offender in the state of Texas. Summer’s children were removed
from her care, and she experienced difficulty finding work due to her status as a registered sex
offender. She eventually found employment with a car wash that is known to hire ex-convicts.
During the course of our research project, we uncovered two instances where female educators
were placed on the sex offender registry for having sexual relationships with their minor male students
(see Robert and Thompson 2019). Veronica was a fifty-two-year-old Caucasian art teacher when she
met a fifteen-year-old student, Mikey, who was also a Caucasian. Veronica and Mikey had
a relationship for eight months until she was eventually caught by another teacher in the act of giving
fellatio to this young man. Veronica was charged with one count of oral indecency with a child. She
pled no contest and spent 90 days in jail and was given ten years of probation and required to register as
a sex offender for life. While Veronica stated she was “extremely dissatisfied” with her attorney, she
nevertheless received a fairly lenient sentence in the way of having to serve actual time in a correctional
facility. This may be due, at least in part, to the fact that she and her husband spent $25,000 on a private
attorney to assist in her legal defense. Veronica told us her husband was “completely shocked” by her
affair with a student; however, they continued to remain married and had been married for forty-six
years when we interviewed her. Veronica was also identified as a nurturer as she met her underaged
victim through a caretaking role. Veronica told us she had a strong connection with Mikey, and when
asked to elaborate stated:
1538 R. M. WORLEY ET AL.

I knew it was wrong, but I just couldn’t help myself. He [Mikey] was so attentive and understanding. And, he was
such a gifted and talented artist and very attractive. I wasn’t in love with Micky, but I was extremely infatuated
with him. I just wanted him to feel as good as he made me feel.
Although sexual activity occurred over several months, it was limited to oral copulation. Veronica was
3 ½ times Mikey’s age, but as she described to us, she was smitten and lovesick with her student.
We also spoke with Karen, a former teacher who was forty-nine-years old when she had sex with an
underaged high school student, Rodney, on two reported occasions. It appeared that Karen was
suffering from empty nest syndrome at the time of the offense after her two adult children moved
out of the house. She stated:
My husband traveled a lot, and we had a lot of money. We had a nice life. But, I relied on my children because my
husband was never around. And, when my kids went off to college and then to law school, I realized there was
nothing in my life. I had a huge house and lots of money, but that was it. There was this huge void in my life.
In order to overcome her sense of loneliness, Karen accepted a job where she taught students with
severe behavioral disorders. Every workday, Karen drove an hour one-way from her affluent suburb to
teach in an underserved, under-resourced community. Karen, a Caucasian, taught classes that con-
sisted entirely of African American students. Despite the cultural differences, Karen told us she was
able to get her students “under control,” and this included fifteen-year-old Rodney, an up-and-coming
member of the Bloods, a vicious street gang. She told us:
Rodney belonged to a single mother and had fifteen siblings, and they all had different Daddies. His mother called
me and asked me if I wanted to buy him for $10,000. She said he could come live with me, and she would sign over
the rights to him.
When talking about her teaching career, Karen boasted that if she saw a male student wearing his pants
low, she would forcibly pull them up. Karen did not seem to recognize the above behavior as
a boundary violation which would lead her down a slippery slope of rule infractions with her students.
After a class fieldtrip to the circus and aquarium, Rodney told his teacher he left his backpack in the
classroom. It was late, and no one was there. According to Karen, almost immediately after they
entered the empty classroom, Rodney hugged her. Though she initially interpreted the hug as
a motherly sign of affection, it quickly turned into a romantic gesture and led to sex on two occasions.
Rodney bragged about having sex with the teacher to all his friends, and this ultimately led to Karen
getting terminated from her teaching position and charged with a sex offense. Karen was given an
attorney through the teacher’s union – who she said turned out to be “useless.” She pled no contest and
was sentenced to three years in prison, seven years of parole supervision, and lifetime registration as
a sex offender. It is noteworthy, the above incident occurred in Georgia where the age of consent is
sixteen-years old. Had the offense occurred just a few months later, Rodney would have reached his
sixteenth birthday, and a crime (in the state of Georgia) would most likely not have occurred.
During the course of our research, we uncovered one case of a female-on-female sex crime which
was committed by a sole offender. The perpetrator, Shawna, was an Asian woman who was born in
a refugee camp in Thailand. As Shawna stated in her interview, she was “still in the blanket” when her
family immigrated to Chicago before eventually settling in Texas. Even though Shawna had traditional
Asian parents, she was always open about her sexuality and told them she was attracted to people of
the same sex. While her parents were surprised by this revelation, they still accepted their daughter’s
lifestyle – though they did not reveal Shawna’s sexuality to anyone outside the immediate family.
Shawna told us when she was twenty-four years old, she befriended a fifteen-year- old Caucasian
girl, Valerie, who was about to turn sixteen. As Shawna explained, “I was young and drinking and did
not have much responsibility.” The duo started going to a pool hall, and Shawna was drinking beer –
though it was not clear if Valerie was also consuming alcohol. Eventually, Shawna initiated sexual
contact. When asked to elaborate, she stated:
I was just like fondling her breasts and genitals, and no clothes were off. It was likeflirting and seemed very
innocent and fun.
DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 1539

Not long after the incident, a detective showed up at Shawna’s job at a clothing store. Shawna was
taught by her parents to trust the police, and she accompanied the detective to the station and told the
officer about the incident without asserting her right to an attorney. She told us:
The next thing that happened is I was getting arrested and put in handcuffs. I did not have experience with the
police. I just didn’t know that would come back to me like that.
Shawna told us her attorney talked to the victim – since she herself was prohibited from having contact
with her. Her attorney confirmed from the victim’s perspective, the behavior was consensual.
Shawna’s court-appointed attorney (whom she was satisfied with) convinced her to plead no contest
and accept seven years of probation. In this case, Shawna continued to drink alcohol and did not
adhere to the requirements of her probation. As she stated in her interview, “I wasn’t making the
probation payments, and the drinking caught up to me.” After many warnings from her probation
officer, Shawna would eventually have her probation revoked and be incarcerated for four years. She
was transferred to multiple correctional facilities in border cities throughout southern Texas. During
this time, immigration officials visited her in prison and confiscated her driver’s license. This kept
Shawna from being able to apply for state benefits once she was released from prison. Before the
interview concluded, Shawna told us, once she completes her parole she will have a “50/50 chance” of
staying in the country.
The last nurturer we spoke to was Cindy who was twenty-three when she was babysitting seven kids
and fondled a thirteen-year-old boy who was under her care. Cindy told us this child, Timmy, had
a crush on her. When asked to elaborate, she said:
Timmy ended up kissing me on the mouth. He threw me up against the wall and kissed me. He literally ripped
down my shorts, and I saw him as a man at that point and not a boy. I didn’t open up my lips when he kissed me,
but when we laid down to watch TV, I put my hand over his jeans and briefly touched his private parts. That’s
when Timmy jumped up and went to the bathroom because he felt uncomfortable. No clothes were taken off, and
that is as far as it went, thank God. Things happened that shouldn’t have happened, but I stopped it before it went
any further.
When Timmy’s father returned home, Cindy told him of the above incident because she was extremely
disturbed by what she had done. The father drove her home and the next day she was arrested. Cindy
hired an attorney and eventually pled no contest and received eleven years of probation and was
required to register as a sex offender during this time. The above event was extremely traumatic for
Cindy and derailed her dreams of becoming a teacher. The stress of having to attend treatment with
male sex offenders coupled with the loss of job opportunities caused Cindy to experience extreme
anxiety and have a mental breakdown which ultimately led to her being diagnosed as bipolar and
schizophrenic. Cindy had three girls, and she eventually gave them up for adoption to a “church
family.” Cindy herself was a victim of child sexual abuse. Her paternal grandfather forced her to have
oral sex when she was thirteen years old – which, ironically, was the same age of her victim. While it is
impossible to know for sure, it is likely Cindy may not have developed a serious mental illness had she
not experienced the turning point of being punished and publicly labeled as a sex offender (Sampson
and Laub 1995).
Co-oenders
We interviewed Mercedes, a Caucasian mother of three girls, who sexually assaulted her fourteen-year
-old Caucasian cousin with her husband, Brett. As a child, Mercedes herself was a victim of sexual
abuse – Mercedes’s maternal uncle forced her to perform oral sex on him when she was only eight-
years old. She reported this behavior to her mother and her uncle eventually went to prison. Mercedes
stated:
I was the one who stepped up and said something about my uncle. Turned out, he was doing it to his own kids.
After I spoke up, so did my cousins [two boys].
1540 R. M. WORLEY ET AL.

Mercedes and Brett were in their late twenties when they offended against her female cousin. Mercedes
recollected she saw many signs her husband was going to cheat on her which made her vulnerable and
insecure. At the time, she had no meaningful job skills or education and was financially dependent on
her husband. During a long weekend at a party in the family lake house, Mercedes; her husband, Brett;
her brother, Felix; and cousin, Vicky, all consumed an extra-large bottle of Crown Royal and became
extremely intoxicated. Mercedes told us:
It happened only one time that night. And, it wasn’t like she was forced. My cousin willingly walked into our
bedroom, and then she and my husband started having sex.
I don’t know if you need all the specifics of what happened, but I also performed oral sex on Vicky . . . I was forced
to do this. My husband said, ‘If you don’t do this, I’m going to leave and take the girls and never come back.
You’re never gonna see them again.’
Shortly, after the above incident, criminal investigators contacted Mercedes and Brett. Mercedes
was charged with oral indecency of a minor while Brett was charged with the sexual assault of
a minor. The couple went on the lam to Canada with their three daughters before eventually
coming back to Texas to face the criminal charges. By this time, Mercedes was planning to
divorce her husband, however, the couple hired the same attorney to represent both of them.
The case went to trial, and she received four years of probation while Brett was given a prison
sentence of twelve years. Both offenders were given lifetime registration. Mercedes later violated
her probation after taking her three daughters to a public pool without her probation officer’s
permission. Under the terms of her probation, she was not permitted to go to public places
where children congregated. Since this was Mercedes’s third time to violate the terms of her
probation, she was sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for three years. During her
incarceration, Mercedes divorced her husband, and she attempted suicide on two occasions and
was diagnosed with acute anxiety syndrome. Upon her release, Mercedes was reunited with her
three daughters and a former boyfriend – who ironically located her through the sex offender
registry.
We next spoke with Amanda, a woman of Creole and African American descent, who was
forced into a life of prostitution by sex traffickers when she was twenty-five years old. Amanda
was taken from her home and then moved from Washington, D.C., then to New York, and
finally to Las Vegas. After two years in Las Vegas, Amanda became the bottom girl for her pimp,
and with this new title, she was given new responsibilities (see Horning, Thomas, and Jordenö
2019). Amanda began handling finances, recruiting new women to work as prostitutes, and
finding new customers through social media. Amanda took a picture of a fifteen-year-old
Hispanic girl who she believed was nineteen and posted it on Craigslist. When asked why she
did this, Amanda expressed herself in the following way:
I had a pimp who was verbally abusive, and he was basically a gorilla. My choices were pretty much to do what he
said, or get beaten and do it anyway . . . I told the cops, I willtake a prostitution charge all day long, but was
I pimping this girl? No. The cops foundshe [the victim] was using someone else’s driver’s license and was only
fifteen. She admitted in her statement that she lied to everyone about her age, but of course, that didn’t help me
and I got the same charge as he did [the pimp].
Even though the picture did not have nudity, Amanda was charged with compelling the prostitution of
a minor and was ultimately given five years of probation as well as lifetime sex offender registration.
However, because Amanda was unable to find gainful employment due to her status as a sex offender,
she soon resorted to selling cocaine and Xanax. Amanda was quickly arrested and required to serve the
remaining four years of her sentence in prison.
During our study, we also met Jasmine, a Caucasian. former dental hygienist, who was convicted at
twenty-three for possession of child pornography. Although it was her computer and the internet was
in her name, Jasmine insisted it was John, her husband at the time, rather than she, who uploaded
a photo of a nude Hispanic underaged girl to a Yahoo group. They were living with Jasmine’s parents
DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 1541

when she found out her husband uploaded child pornography. Rather than reporting this behavior to
the police, Jasmine attempted to cover up her husband’s illegal behavior. She stated:
I was like, “You are stupid! Yahoo traces and tracks everything.” I found the picture and deleted it. But, John had
backed it up on discs and put the picture back, and I didn’t know about it. A week or so later, the cops came to my
house and asked me if they could take the computer, and I said, ‘Yeah.’ A few days later, the police surrounded the
house, and they pointed guns at my twelve-and thirteen-year-old brothers. It was the middle of the day and
everybody saw it.
Jasmine had a bench trial, and she told us the district attorney was unnecessarily antagonistic and
accused her of molesting her brothers. Jasmine stated she never informed her parents, the judge, or
even her lawyer that her husband, John, was the person who uploaded the photo.
John threatened me and said he would kill me if I told anyone. He was not going to prison. He was very abusive.
Because Jasmine went to prison, sex offender treatment, and probation to protect John from
prosecution, this makes her a co-offender. Jasmine told us her ex-husband was violent and forced
her to have threesomes. Jasmine would eventually be convicted and was sentenced to eight years in
prison; however, she qualified for shock probation and would only spend six months in
a correctional facility and the remaining seven-and-a-half years under community supervision.
Jasmine divorced John four years after her release from prison and was diagnosed with bipolar
disorder.
Psychologically impaired or intergenerationally predisposed
While we encountered mainly nurturers and co-offenders during the course of this study, we also
interviewed two respondents who were either psychologically impaired or intergenerationally predis-
posed to commit sexual offenses. For example, we talked with Angela, a Caucasian woman who had
been on the registry for twenty-five years for an offense she committed when she was nineteen years
old. Angela was sexually molested and physically abused by her father from five years of age to
fourteen. Angela told us that she was made to feel blamed when she reported this inappropriate
behavior. Eventually, Angela’s father was incarcerated for sexually abusing multiple underaged victims
in her immediate family – after he was released, he was shot and killed by his brother.
Growing up, Angela’s household was characterized by excessive drug and alcohol usage. At sixteen
years of age, she married her first husband; however, they divorced a year later. At eighteen years of
age, Angela remarried, and when asked to describe this relationship, she told us:
We both beat the hell outta each other. We were addicts. It was an everyday occurrence, and sometimes we would
go without electricity so we could get high.
When she was nineteen years old, Angela sexually assaulted her seven-year-old Caucasian stepson.
Like many of the sex offenders we interviewed, Angela employed neutralization strategies to mitigate
her responsibility (Burkey and ten Bensel 2015; Sykes and Matza 1957). For example, when asked to
discuss the offense which led to her arrest and ultimately her registration as a sex offender, Angela
stated:
I don’t really remember what happened. I was drinking and taking a lot of drugs.
Apparently, I was . . . you know, I don’t really know. Apparently, there was oral sex
and touching. I woke up the next morning and had flashes of what happened. I broke
down and checked myself into the hospital. I was later diagnosed as bipolar.
Angela would later have her two children and stepchild removed from her house by Child Protective
Services. Interestingly, the investigation did not substantiate any child abuse, and all three children –
including the victim – were returned to the family. A year later, however, the mother of the seven-year-
1542 R. M. WORLEY ET AL.

old victim pressed charges. Angela was pregnant when her car was pulled over on the 4
th
of July.
Angela’s husband had an open warrant for a hot check, and much to her chagrin, she was wanted for
the sexual assault of a child. Although Angela’s court appointed attorney advised her to plead not
guilty, she pled no contest and received eight years of deferred adjudication probation. We believe
Angela’s conflicts with her husbands (she married four times), history of physical and sexual abuse,
alcohol and substance abuse problems, history of mental illness, as well as the nature of her offense,
placed her at higher recidivism rate than other female sex offenders. In spite of being both psycholo-
gically impaired and an intergenerationally predisposed sex offender, Angela did not recidivate and
would receive her Bachelor’s degree in Psychology. At the time of the interview, Angela was working
on her Master’s degree in Social Work; however, she was unable to complete the internship require-
ment of this program due to her status as a registered sex offender.
We also spoke to Ruth, another psychologically impaired and intergenerationally predisposed female
sex offender who was thirty-four years old when she prostituted her fourteen-year-old daughter to her
fifty-five-year old Sugar daddy, Merle for $1,000. A Sugar daddy is an older male who provides
financial compensation to a younger woman in exchange for companionship and sexual favors
(Upadhyay 2022). According to Ruth, Merle had been her Sugar daddy for twelve years even when
she was married – her husband would eventually kill himself. When Ruth, a Caucasian, was asked to
describe her relationship with Merle, who is also a Caucasian, she stated:
I was on HUD, so he paid what little rent I had. He paid the bills. Paid my car note. I
had new furniture in my house. He took care of me for many, many years while the kids
were growing up. I mean, I got his credit card at Christmas and right before school
started . . . I would get up in the morning and get my kids ready for school and get my
husband off to work and then I’d meet Merle at a café. This happened every day of the
week, Monday through Friday. We’d have breakfast, and then we’d go back to his place
and have sex. He would give me pills and money, and I always made sure I was straight
[sober] by the time I needed to get my daughter off the bus from Head Start [academic
program for low-income youths].
We asked Ruth to describe why she resorted to offering her youngest daughter, Gloria, to Merle, and
she expressed herself in the following way:
I had been up for three-or four-days smoking crack. I was sleeping with my drug dealer because I literally had no
money. We didn’t have any food in the house and my car wasn’t running, so I said, ‘Let’s go over there.’ So, we
went over to Merle’s house. I took a bunch of pills and passed out and Gloria [daughter] had sex with him. He
gave us $500 a-piece. I stayed high all week, and then when I ran out, I started stealing her money. This went on
for about four months.
Ruth’s daughter continued visiting the Sugar daddy on her own, and she eventually began to blackmail
him. Ruth told us:
A private detective got pictures of Gloria taking money out of Merle’s mailbox. He recorded her saying
threatening things to him on his voicemail like, ‘If you don’t give me money, I will take you down.’ She absolutely
despised Merle.
The case soon came to the attention of the district attorney – though he postponed the trial for three
years. Since Ruth’s daughter, Gloria, was a minor while she was having sexual relations with Merle, she
was not charged with blackmailing him. Ruth was charged with second-degree rape and received
a twenty-year sentence. She attributed this long sentence to her previous criminal convictions for
forgery, driving under the influence of alcohol, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Ruth spent eight
years in prison and served the other twelve years on parole and had to register as a sex offender for life.
Ruth’s Sugar daddy, Merle, was also given a twenty-year sentence; however, he was out on bond for
nineteen months before his trial and was released after only five years without being placed on parole
supervision. Merle was also required to register as a sex offender for life.
DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 1543

Ruth was a psychologically impaired offender due to prolonged drug use. Ruth told us she began
abusing drugs after the birth of her youngest daughter who was also the victim. She met Merle, and he
gave her prescription drugs, such as, Soma, Xanex, and Valium. Ruth routinely took pills from the
time Gloria was four months old up until the time of her arrest. She had five major overdoses and
multiple suicide attempts.
Discussion and conclusion
Though researchers have called for a gender-specific theory of female sexual offending (Ten Bensel,
Gibbs, and Raptopoulos 2019; Gannon and Cortoni, 2010), it would be beyond the scope of this
exploratory study for us to attempt to develop such a theory. This is especially true due to the fact we
employed a small convenience sample of female sex offender registrants in Southeast Texas. This is
often the case with hard-to-reach populations, and the stigma associated with female sex offenders
made it even harder to secure these interviews. Traditionally, women are associated with caring,
nurturing, and selflessly serving others as they focus on maintaining relationships above all (Gilligan
et al. 1970). Given these characteristics, it is not surprising that we had a low response rate.
Nevertheless, our microcriminological, in-depth case study approach supports research which sug-
gests many female sex offenders commit sex crimes to fulfill unmet emotional needs, and in some
cases, may even be victims themselves (see Christensen and Darling, 2019; Pflugradt, Allen, and
Marshall 2018).
As our findings demonstrate, the power dynamics between solo female sex offenders and teenage,
male victims are often likely to be unclear, ambiguous, and unpredictable. It is possible that fifteen-
year-old male victims are not perceived by the female perpetrators as such due to the myth, the
misperception that males cannot be raped (Walfield 2021). The age of consent often varies from state
to state, and behaviors may be illegal or legal depending upon geographical jurisdiction. In many cases,
if the fifteen-year-old teenage male victim had been only a month or two older, this behavior would be
legal in states, such as, Arizona, Illinois, Connecticut, and the District of Columba – just to name a few.
While male juveniles cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with an adult female, in many
cases of female sexual offending, including three cases in the present study, the power dynamics are
difficult to define (Christensen and Darling 2020); (Pflugradt, Allen, and Marshall 2018). We are not
in any way attempting to minimize our subjects’ predatory behaviors; however, the dynamics between
adult female sex offenders and male teenagers are often contextual, where the offender seeks to fulfill
emotional and other unmet needs. (Pflugradt, Allen, and Marshall 2018). The above interview data
suggest that in many cases of female sexual offending, underaged men follow traditional gender scripts
where they initiate sexual relationships with adult females and sometimes even entice these women
into having sexual liaisons. Some of these young men have a great deal of sexual experience and can
physically overpower their older female adult lover at any time.
After perusing through the interview transcripts and reflecting upon our face-to-face
conversation with Karen, a former teacher who had a sexual relationship with her fifteen-
year-old male student, we believe it is possible the student was very adept at identifying
vulnerabilities in people and exploiting them. This is, in fact, a survival mechanism for those
living in impoverished neighborhoods in the inner city (Goffman 2014). According to Karen,
Rodney slept on the floor, and his mother was addicted to crack cocaine. It is plausible
Rodney coveted his teacher’s displays of wealth (e.g. jewelry, designer clothing, and a luxury
car) and was prepared to do anything to undermine her position as a teacher – perhaps out of
deep sense of envy and financial insecurity.
The present paper confirms findings from previous studies that female sex offenders tend to
have long histories of sexual abuse which can impact their decision making and increase their
likelihood of associating with dangerous and toxic individuals (Budd, Bierie, and Williams 2017;
Cortoni, Babchishin, and Rat 2017; Levenson, Willis, and Prescott 2015; ten Bensel, Tusty, and
Rush Burkey 2019). This was true in the case of many of our research subjects. For example,
1544 R. M. WORLEY ET AL.

when we delved into the background of Jasmine, who accepted responsibility for possession of
child pornography committed by her husband, we discovered she was physically, emotionally,
and sexually abused by her father’s friends beginning at age seven. Though her father was not
complicit in the victimization, he was a heavy drug user. On one occasion, his friend snorted
a line of cocaine in Jasmine’s bedroom. By the time she was thirteen-years old, Jasmine was
having sex with adult men. It is probable Jasmine’s history of sexual violence prompted her to
marry an abusive husband which eventually led to her incarceration and registration as a sex
offender.
Female co-offenders, typically align themselves with male romantic partners out of self-preservation
(Matthews, Mathews, and Spelz 1991; Vandiver 2006; Worley and Gummelt, 2022). If a female
defendant is a coerced co-offender, this does not necessarily excuse her from all criminal culpability;
however, it may warrant lesser charges that do not carry the stigma of being permanently labeled as
a sex offender (Gannon, Rose, and Ward 2008). For example, while we obviously cannot in any way
excuse the fact that Amanda unwittingly participated in the sex trafficking of a minor by taking
a photo, she herself was a victim of the illegal sex trade and was beaten and forced into a life of
prostitution by multiple pimps. Given this, we wonder if it would have been more appropriate for
Amanda to have been given job training coupled with some type of restitution rather than being
forever branded as a sex offender. Our findings indicate that some women who are co-offenders may be
intensely loyal to the men who have pressured them into committing sex crimes. When female
defendants cling to their husbands or boyfriends out of blind loyalty, it is likely this hurts their
cases considerably, and as a result, they may wind up with far more punishment than they actually
deserve.
Like previous studies, our findings also demonstrate that psychologically impaired and intergener-
ationally predisposed sex offenders are especially likely to come from a long line of familial abuse (Ten
Bensel, Gibbs, and Raptopoulos 2019). For example, Ruth told us her grandmother prostituted her
mother out to other men – which is ironically what Ruth would do to her own daughter. Ruth also said
she believed her maternal uncles may have had sexual relations with her at a very early age; however,
she intentionally blocked this out to avoid stress and anxiety. Ruth reported that she has suicidal
ideations and currently takes Celexa for severe depression. Upon her release, she was charged with
failing to register as a sex offender – something we attribute to her long history of severe drug use,
family violence, as well as her struggle with mental illness.
While some female sex offenders may appear to mimic the behaviors of male sex offenders or be
motivated by antisocial behavior or sexual deviancy, our study demonstrates they often have vastly
different motivations than male sex offenders which may be a product of their interactions with others
within a patriarchal society (see Pflugradt, Allen, and Marshall 2018). More research is warranted to
determine the extent to which some females are compelled to commit sex crimes – and, in some cases,
may be victims themselves – as our study seems to suggest.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Robert M. Worley, Ph.D. is a Professor of Criminal Justice at Lamar University. He has published extensively in the areas
of institutional corrections and correctional officer stress and job burnout. Robert has also published research studies
which examine relations between correctional officers and inmates. He has served as an expert witness and was
successful in helping plaintiffs win more than $2.5 million dollars. Most recently, Robert and his colleagues have
conducted research related to the behaviors and offending patterns of female sex offender. Robert is also planning a new
research project with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. In 2019, Robert was the first recipient of the ACJS
Historical Mini-Grant and was awarded $5,000. He used this funding to produce a documentary titled, “Editorial
Excellence” where he and his wife Vidisha interviewed numerous ACJS members about the history of the organization’s
DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 1545

journals (documentary available on YouTube). In addition to this, Robert also served as the Editor of ACJS Today for six
years and was the Editor of ACJS Now for three years. Robert also served as Treasurer for the Southwestern Association
of Criminal Justice. He has been quoted in Reuters, the New York Times, the Dallas Morning News, and the Houston
Chronicle, among others.
Dr. Ginger Gummelt is the Program Director and an Associate Professor of Social Work at Lamar University in
Beaumont, Texas. She has more than twenty years of clinical experience working primarily with children, adolescents,
and families. She is a current member of the Executive Team for the Center for Resiliency at Lamar University, past
president for the Board of Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of Southeast Texas, a board member for Recovery
Council of Southeast Texas, member of the ExxonMobil Community Advisory Panel, and member of the Lamar
University Community Relations Advisory Council. She serves as lead researcher for the National Campaign to Stop
Violence’s local initiative of Do the Write Thing and a collaborative researcher for the Center for Resiliency. Dr.
Gummelt’s current research focuses on vulnerabilities and resiliency among at-risk populations. Dr. Gummelt is a
licensed clinical social worker and certified secondary teacher (6-12) in the state of Texas.
Professor Vidisha Barua Worley, Esq. is nationally known for her legal research related to police and correctional officer
use of force, especially, tasers and stun guns, and the condition of excited delirium. She is also the lead Editor of
American Prisons and Jails: An Encyclopedia of Controversies and Trends, (ABC-Clio). Vidisha is a licensed attorney
and has conducted legal research related to inmates as third-party sexual harassers of female correctional employees. She
has also conducted quantitative and qualitative research related to correctional officer deviance and boundary violations,
rapelore in prisons, police officer stress, and sex offenders. She has coauthored with her graduate students, most recently
with the Deputy Chief of Corpus Christi, Texas Police Department. Their research addressed the concern about police
use of force in situations where subjects exhibit signs of excited delirium. In addition to publishing numerous peer-
reviewed publications, Professor Worley she has also made an enormous contribution to criminal justice legal education
by writing “From the Legal Literature” columns that have been published in the Criminal Law Bulletin. These
publications, cover a wide array of criminal justice-related topics ranging from counterterrorism to Terry stops and
Miranda rights, online gambling, and prescription drug, among other topics.
References
Amanda, Burgess-Proctor, Erin B. Comartin, and Sheryl P. Kubiak. 2017. “Comparing Female- and Male-Perpetrated
Child Sexual Abuse: A Mixed Methods Analysis.” Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 26 (6):657–76. doi:10.1080/10538712.
2017.1336504.
Basile, Kathleen C., Sharon G. Smith, Marcie-jo Kresnow, Srijana Khatiwada, and Ruth W. Leemis. 2022. The National
Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2016/2017 Report on Sexual Violence. Atlanta, GA: National Center for
Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Bierie, David M. and James C. Davis-Siegel. 2015. “Measurement Matters: Comparing Old and New Definitions of Rape
in Federal Statistical Reporting.” Sexual Abuse 27 (5):443–59. doi:10.1177/1079063214521470.
Blackwell, Brenda Sims, David Holleran, and Mary A. Finn. 2008. “The Impact of the Pennsylvania Sentencing
Guidelines on Sex Differences in Sentencing.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 24 (4):399–418. doi:10.
1177/1043986208319453.
Budd, Kristen, David Bierie, and Katria Williams. 2017. “Deconstructing Incidents of Female Perpetrated Sex Crimes.”
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment 29 (3):267–90. doi:10.1177/1079063215594376.
Bunting, Lisa. 2006. Females Who Sexually Offend Against Children: Responses of the Child Protection and Criminal
Justice Systems. London, England: National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
Burkey, Chris Rush and Tusty ten Bensel. 2015. “An Examination and Comparison of Rationalizations Employed by
Solo and Co-Offending Female Sex Offenders.” Violence and Gender 2 (3):168–78. doi:10.1089/vio.2015.0018.
Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.
Charmaz, Kathy and Robert Thornberg. 2020. “The Pursuit of Quality in Grounded Theory.” Qualitative Research in
Psychology 18 (3):305–27. doi:10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357.
Christensen, Larissa and Andrea J. Darling. 2020. “Sexual Abuse by Educators: A ComparisonBetween Male and Female
Teachers Who Sexually Abuse Students.” Journal of SexualAggression 26 (1):23–35. doi:10.1080/13552600.2019.
1616119.
Cortoni, Franca, Kelly M. Babchishin, and Clémence Rat. 2017. “The Proportion of Sexual Offenders Who are Female is
Higher Than Thought: A Meta-Analysis.” Criminal Justice & Behavior 44 (4):145–62. doi:10.1177/
0093854816658923.
Darling, Andrea J. and Simon Hackett. 2020. “Situational Factor in Female-Perpetuated Child Sexual Abuse in
Organizations: Implications for Prevention.” Journal of Sexual Aggression 26 (1):5–22. doi:10.1080/13552600.2019.
1695968.
Denov, Myriam S. 2003. “The Myth of Innocence: Sexual Scripts and the Recognition of Child Sexual Abuse by Female
Perpetrators.” Journal of Sex Research 40 (3):303–14. doi:10.1080/00224490309552195.
1546 R. M. WORLEY ET AL.

Denov, Myriam S. 2004. “The Long-Term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse by Female Perpetrators: A Qualitative Study of
Male and Female Victims.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19 (10):1137–56. doi:10.1177/0886260504269093.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2014. Crime in the United States 2013. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice.
Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/ .
Ferguson, C. J. and D. C. Meehan. 2005. “An Analysis of Females Convicted of Sex Crimes in the State of Florida.”
Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 14 (1):75–89. doi:10.1300/J070v14n01_05.
Franca, Cortoni, Kelly M. Babchishin, and Clémence Rat. 2016. “The Proportion of SexualOffenders Who are Female is
Higher Than Thought: A Meta-Analysis.” Criminal Justice & Behavior 44 (2):145–62. doi:10.1177/
0093854816658923.
Gannon, Teressa A., Mariamne Rose, and Tony Ward. 2008. “A Descriptive Model of the Offense Process for Female
Sexual Offenders.” Aggression & Violent Behavior 13 (6):442–61. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2008.07.002.
Gannon, Teressa A., Greg Waugh, Kelly Taylor, Kelly Blanchette, Alisha O’Connor, Emily Blake, and Caoilte
O. Ciardha. 2013. “Women Who Sexually Offend Display Three Main Offense Styles: A Reexamination of the
Descriptive Model of Female Sexual Offending.” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 26 (3):207–24.
doi:10.1177/1079063213486835.
Gilligan, C., L. Kohlberg, J. Lerner, and M. Belenky. 1970. Report: Moral Reasoning About Sexual Dilemmas. U.S.
Commission on Obscenity and Pornography.
Goffman, Alice. 2014. On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City. New York: Picador.
Horning, Amber, Christopher Thomas, and Sara Jordenö. 2019. “Harlem Pimps Accounts of Their Economic Pathways
and Feelings of Insiderness and Outsiderness.” Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology 7 (3):69–94.
doi 10.21428/88de04a1.17dc609d.
Kaylor, Leah E., Georgia M. Winters, and Elizabeth L. Jeglic. 2022. “Exploring Sexual Grooming in Female Perpetuated
Child Sexual Abuse.” Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 31 (5):503–21. doi:10.1080/10538712.2021.1994505.
Klein, Jennifer L., Danielle Tolson, and Cathy Collins. 2014. “Lamenting the List: A Partial Test of Sherman’s Defiance
Theory as Applied to Female Sex Offenders.” Contemporary Justice Review 17 (3):326–45. doi:10.1080/10282580.2014.
944798.
Lawson, Christine. 1993. “Mother-Son Sexual Abuse: Rare or Underreported? A Critique of the Research.” Child Abuse
and Neglect 17 (2):261–69. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(93)90045-7.
Levenson, Jill S., Gwenda M. Willis, and David S. Prescott. 2015. “Adverse Childhood Experiences in the Lives of Female
Sex Offenders.” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 27 (3):258–83. doi:10.1177/1079063214544332.
Maddan, Sean and Lynn Pazzani. 2017. Sex Offenders: Crimes and Processing in the CriminalJustice System. Frederick,
MD: Wolters Kluwer.
Marshall, E. A. and H. A. Miller. 2019. “Examining Gender-Specific and Gender-Neutral Risk Factors in Women Who
Sexually Offend.” Criminal Justice & Behavior 46 (4):511–27. doi:10.1177/0093854818796872.
Matthews, Ruth, Jane Kinder Mathews, and Kathleen Spelz. 1989. Female Sexual Offenders: An Exploratory Study.
Orwell, VT: Safer Society Press.
Matthews, Ruth, Jane Kinder Mathews, and Kathleen Spelz. 1990. “Female Sexual Offenders.” in Pp. 275–93 in The
Sexually Abused Male. Volume 1: Prevalence, Impact, and Treatment, edited by Mic Hunter. Lexington MA:
Lexington Books.
Matthews, Ruth, Jane Kinder Mathews, and Kathleen Spelz. 1991. “Female Sexual Offenders: A Typology.” in Family
Sexual Abuse: Frontline Research and Evaluation, edited by M.Q. Patton. Pp. 199–219. Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
McCarty, Loretta M. 1986. “Mother-Child Incest: Characteristics of the Offender.” Child Welfare 65 (5):447–58.
McDaniels-Wilson, Cathy and Joan Belknap. 2009. “The Extensive Sexual Violation and Sexual Abuse Histories of
Incarcerated Women.” Violence Against Women 14 (10):1090–127. doi:10.1177/1077801208323160.
McLeod, David A. 2015. “Female Offenders in Child Sexual Abuse Cases: A National Picture.” Journal of Child Sexual
Abuse 24 (1):97–114. doi:10.1080/10538712.2015.978925.
Miller, Holly A. and Ethan A. Marshall. 2019. “Comparing Solo and Co-Offending Female Sex Offenders on Variables of
Pathology, Offense Characteristics, and Recidivism.” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment 31 (8):972–90.
doi:10.1177/1079063218791179.
Nathan, Pamela and Tony Ward. 2002. “Female Sex Offenders: Clinical and DemographicFeatures.” Journal of Sexual
Aggression 8 (1):5–21. doi:10.1080/13552600208413329.
Pflugradt, Dawn M., Bradley P. Allen, and Willam Marshall. 2018. “A Gendered Strength-Based Treatment Model for
Female Offenders.” Aggression & Violent Behavior 40:12–18. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2018.02.012.
Robert, Catherine E. and David P. Thompson. 2019. “Educator Sexual Misconduct and Texas Educator Discipline
Database Construction.” Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 28 (1):7–25. doi:10.1080/10538712.2018.1476999.
Sampson, Robert J. and John H. Laub. 1995. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Harvard
University Press.
Sandler, Jeffrey C. and Naomi J. Freeman. 2007. “Topology of Female Sex Offenders: A Test of Vandiver and Kercher.”
Sexual Abuse 19 (2):73–89. doi:10.1177/107906320701900201.
DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 1547

Shields, Ryan T. and Joshua C. Cochran. 2020. “The Gender Gap in Sex Offender Punishment.” Journal of Quantitative
Criminology 36 (1):95–118. doi:10.1007/s10940-019-09416-x.
Sykes, Gresham and David Matza. 1957. ‘Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency.” American
Sociological Review 22 (6):664–70. doi:10.2307/2089195.
Ten Bensel, Tusty, Benjamin R. Gibbs, and Kilby Raptopoulos. 2019. “The Role of Childhood Victimization on the
Severity of Adult Offending Among Female Sex Offenders.” Victims & Offenders 14 (6):758–75. doi:10.1080/
15564886.2019.1630044.
Ten Bensel, Benjamin Gibbs Tusty, and Chris Rush Burkey. 2019. “Female Sex Offenders: Is There a Difference Between
Solo and Co-Offenders?” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 34 (19):4061–84. doi:10.1177/0886260516674202.
Tewksbury, Richard, David P. Connor, Kelly Cheeseman, and Beth Lynne Rivera. 2013. “Female Sex Offenders’
Anticipations for Re-Entry: Do They Really Know WhatThey’re in For?” Journal of Crime & Justice 35 (3):451–63.
doi:10.1080/0735648X.2012.691240.
Tewksbury, Richard and Jill Levenson. 2009. “Stress Experiences of Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders.”
Behavioral Sciences & the Law 27 (4):611–26. doi:10.1002/bsl.878.
Upadhyay, Srushti. 2022. “Sugaring: Understanding the World of Sugar Daddies and SugarBabies.” Journal of Sex
Research 58 (4):1–10. doi:10.1080/00224499.2020.1867700.
Vandiver, Donna. 2006. “Female Sex Offenders: A Comparison of Solo and Co-Offenders.” Violence & Victims
21 (3):339–54. doi:10.1891/vivi.21.3.339.
Vandiver, Donna M., Kelly Cheeseman Dial, and Robert M. Worley. 2008. “A Qualitative Assessment of Registered
Female Sex Offenders Judicial Processing Experiences and Perceived Effects of a Public Registry.” Criminal Justice
Review 33 (2):177–98. doi:10.1177/0734016808318448.
Vandiver, Donna M. and Glen Kercher. 2004. “Offender and Victim Characteristics of Registered Female Sexual
Offenders in Texas: A Proposed Typology of Female Sexual Offenders.” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research &
Treatment 16 (2):121–37. doi:10.1177/107906320401600203.
Walfield, Scott M. 2021. “Men Cannot Be Raped”: Correlates of Male Rape Myth Acceptance. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence 36 (13–14):6391–417. doi:10.1177/0886260518817777.
Wijkman, Miriam, Catrien Bijleveld, and Jan Hendriks. 2010. “Women Don’t Do Such Things! Characteristics of Female
Sex Offenders and Offender Types.” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 22 (2):135–56. doi:10.1177/
1079063210363826.
Williams, Katria S. and David M. Bierie. 2015. “An Incident-Based Comparison of Female and Male Sexual Offenders.”
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment 27 (3):235–57. doi:10.1177/1079063214544333.
Worley, Robert M. and Ginger Gummelt. 2022. “From Seduction to Registration: Case Studies of Women in the Sex
Industry.” Criminal Justice Studies 35(2):145–61.
Worley, R. M. and V. B. Worley. 2013. “The Sex Offender Next Door: Deconstructing the United States’ Obsession with
Sex Offenders in an Age of Neoliberalism.” International Review of Law, Computers and Technology 27 (3):335–44.
doi:10.1080/13600869.2013.796708.
1548 R. M. WORLEY ET AL.