Underemphasis of extrafamilial child sexual abuse

Underemphasis of extrafamilial child sexual abuse These analyses indicate that extrafamilial abuse is easily the most prevalent type of
abuse, even though intrafamilial abuse is the abuse most often identified. Yet, while only approximately 5% of all committed child sexual abuse is by a biological father
or stepfather and approximately 30% of committed abuse is intrafamilial (Finkelhor
et al., 1990; Russell, 1983; Siegel et al., 1987; Wyatt, 1985), much of the current knowledge base focuses on intrafamilial abuse. Indeed, in October 1998, 123 entries
published since 1966 and indexed under father-daughter incest were listed on PsychLit and almost 2,200 entries were indexed by incest. Conversely, only 15 studies were
indexed under extrafamilial abuse (Bolen, 2000a). What can be responsible for this lapse in the literature base?
To understand this problem, we must first return to the historical and theoretical
formulation of the problem of child sexual abuse, starting with Freud. When Freud repudiated his theory
of seduction, he posited instead that females relating histories of child sexual abuse were not actually abused but were simply recalling incestuous fantasies of themselves
with their fathers (Masson, 1984). Thus, by the early 1900s, child sexual abuse and
father-daughter incest were immutably bound.
It eventually became apparent that some children (girls) were sexually abused,
but because of Freud’s influence, it was assumed that most of these abuse victims
were sexually abused by their fathers. Deriving from psychoanalytic explanations,
these girls were said to be acting out their incestuous wishes by seducing their fathers
(Rush, 1996). This psychoanalytic interpretation predominated well into the second
half of the century.
Other important theoretical developments prior to the 1980s centered on the
culpability of the mother (Machotka, Pittman, & Flomenhaft, 1967) and family
dynamics (Carper, 1979) in the maintenance of father-daughter incest. These themes
were typical of much of the writings on child sexual abuse prior to 1980, with an important exception being that of feminist theory. Yet, even much of the early feminist
literature on child sexual abuse, by reacting to this biased literature, also targeted
father-daughter incest (see Herman, 198 1, for example). Thus, this point/counterpoint
literature maintained an important focus on father-daughter incest. This historical
emphasis on incest not only set the stage for how the problem of child sexual abuse
was conceptualized in more recent eras, but also had a dramatic effect on policies
and intervention strategies.
By the time the first rigorous random prevalence study on child sexual abuse
was published by Russell (1983) in the early 1980s, the stage was set. Even though
Russell’s study showed convincingly that sexual abuse was also, and predominately,
about types of abuse other than incest, the professional literature maintained a primary focus on father-daughter incest. Literature that did focus on extrafamilial
abuse was not so much concerned with blending the types of abuse for the purpose of
developing overarching theories of child sexual abuse, but with explaining how incest and extrafamilial abuse (child molestation or pedophilia) were conceptually different.
The understanding of offenders at that time was that they were either fixated,
having a primary sexual orientation towards children, or regressed, having a primary sexual orientation towards adults (Groth, 1982; Groth, Longo, & McFadin, 1982).
Not surprisingly, incest offenders were typically considered to be regressed, whereas
pedophiles were considered to be fixated. With this in mind, it was assumed that incest offenders could be rehabilitated by targeting the problems that had made them
regressed in the first place. Groth believed that the largest precipitant of abuse for
this group of offenders was stress. Much writing at the time also considered that these
offenders were socially inadequate and isolated (Araji & Finkelhor, 1986; Panton,
1978, 1979). Another body of literature suggested that family dynamics, and especially
the mother’s withdrawal from the sexual relationship, were responsible for the abuse
(Kadushin & Martin, 1988). Interventions thus targeted the development of appropriate
social skills while also employing family and marital therapies (see Giarretto 1982, 1989, for example).
Concomitantly, victims were considered to have the worst outcomes if they
were abused by their fathers. The belief was that the extraordinary betrayal of trust
that occurred in incest was responsible for many of the serious and deleterious
effects of abuse (Gelinas, 1983). Victims of pedophiles and other child molesters,
while they were recognized to suffer from the abuse, did not experience the same
betrayal of trust so could be expected to have fewer negative outcomes.
The systems that intervene in child sexual abuse cases, although they vary by state, also developed differently for incest and extrafamilial abuse. Not only were laws
developed that protected children from statutory rape and other sexual acts, but concomitantly most states passed laws that prohibited incest (Russell & Bolen,
2000). Thus, incest and child molestation were conceptualized as two different types of
crimes. While the laws prohibited both incest and extrafamilial abuse, however, the
implementation of these statutes appears to provide differential protection to victims of
intrafamilial and extrafamilial abuse. For example, although incest victims are always
routed through child protective services, extrafamilial abuse victims may be routed
through law enforcement (Faller, 1994).
This disparity has serious implications. First, it suggests that victims of
extrafamilial abuse may not have the same availability of services given to intrafamilial
abuse victims. Second, it biases the perception of abuse frequency. Because child
protective services is the agency to which most mandated reporting occurs, official
reports of abuse are heavily weighted towards intrafamilial abuse (see the NIS-3, for
example).
This trend is especially intriguing because children and parents may report
extrafamilial abuse more often than they report intrafamilial abuse. For example, in a
survey of 521 parents of children 6 to 14 years of age living in the Boston metropolitan
area, none of the known abuse committed by relatives was reported (Finkelhor, 1984).
On the other hand, 23% of known abuse perpetrated by an acquaintance and 73% of
known abuse perpetrated by a stranger was reported by parents (Finkelhor, 1984).
Sauzier (1989) also found that children were more reticent to disclose abuse by a
natural parent. While 39% of victims of extrafamilial abuse disclosed immediately,
only 17% of victims of abuse by a natural parent did so. Another 32% of victims of
extrafamilial abuse never disclosed, whereas 53% of victims of abuse by a natural
parent never disclosed.
Similarly, treatment populations of victims are heavily weighted towards
victims of intrafamilial abuse (see Bolen, 1998a; English & Tosti-Lane, 1988, for example). Because clinicians may use observation to establish what they consider
normal, it is not unusual for clinicians to conclude that most abuse is intrafamilial,
and most often father-daughter incest.
A similar problem is scarce resources. When only a finite and inadequate amount
ofresources exists, they must be prioritized. Based on the assumption that intrafamilial
abuse is worse for the victim, and because the father is often living with the victim,
father-daughter incest has historically been prioritized as the “worst” type of abuse.
Victims of extrafamilial abuse, on the other hand, are more often assumed to be in
no, or little, danger of revictimization. As such, their cases may go unreported or
uninvestigated. Scarce resources are thus targeted heavily towards intrafamilial abuse.
In summary, the historical emphasis on intrafamilial abuse has led to biases in
laws and policies designed to protect victims, the treatment of offenders and victims,
the allocation of scarce resources, and the theoretical and empirical literature. This
profound minimization of the problem of extrafamilial abuse has created a number of
problems. First, extrafamilial abuse victims do not have equal access to protection
and treatment.2 Further, as evidenced by the data in the NIS-3 (Sedlak & Broadhurst,
1996), extrafamilial abuse cases are also less often reported and investigated. Incest
offenders are also treated as less of a threat, even though a large body of literature
now exists that suggests that they indeed pose an important risk to other children
(Abel et al., 1987, 1988a; Ballard et al, 1990). The prioritization of intrafamilial
abuse also leads to the continuing myth that this type of abuse is actually more
prevalent and that extrafamilial abuse is not as much of a threat to children.
Finally, a focus on intrafamilial abuse logically leads to a discourse on family
dynamics and issues central to the victim. This type of discourse, however, impedes
the more critical level of discourse on societal factors and issues more removed from
the victim that are implicated in the extrafamilial abuse of children. When intrafamilial
abuse is prioritized, issues of primary concern center on those of dysfunctional
families. When extrafamilial abuse is prioritized, however, and it is realized that
children are at significant risk of abuse by virtually any type of nonfilial male
relationship within their environment, then the level of discourse must move to a
higher level. This level of discourse necessitates a focus upon the societal structure
that contributes to this problem. Now simply targeting dysfunctional families no
longer suffices. Instead, strategies that target the sociocultural structure are
necessary. This latter level of discourse is essential for addressing the scope of the
problem of child sexual abuse. Hence, the most important effect of minimizing
extrafamilial abuse is that the scope of the problem of child sexual abuse is obscured.