There is a new book that is coming out next month that has a section that deals with female sex offenders. Once the book is officially released we will add it to the book list and bibliography pages. For now here is the title, link and summary:
The public awareness and acknowledgement of sexually abusive behaviour by women is very new. Traditionally, rape had been viewed as an act of penis–vagina intercourse including oral or anal penetration or penetration by objects other than a penis. Once modern society began to acknowledge the existence of these forms of sexual assault, it was also forced to acknowledge that the assaults could be performed by a woman as well as a man. Besides the physical brutality of sexual assault, women also engage in coercive sexual practices. Despite the growing body of research on the topic of female sex offenders (FSOs), society seems to resist recognizing the problem. Awareness may not be any better in the mental health field. Several studies have indicated that mental health professionals viewed sexual molestation by women as benign and so the professionals were less likely to make appropriate referrals when the perpetrator was female.
Here is a case out of Australia that is just wrong in so many ways. A 47 year old mother of 8 children and school teacher is convicted of trying to sexually abuse a 10 year old boy. Let me rephrase that. A 10 year old special needs student who was a student of hers and a neighbor. She received no jail sentence and only 200 hours of community service.
However there is more to this case. According to the article this woman, Diane Brimble, went way over the line in many ways. She had the boy’s name tattooed on her chest; she wrote him love letters in which she professed her love for him; she exposed herself to him; she showed him sex toys and she attempted to convince him he was old enough to have sex with her when he rebuffed her attempt to get him to sleep with her. She also had a framed photograph of the boy at her bedside.
The jury found her not guilty of the child grooming charge and the judge stated she was unlikely to reoffend. How the jury came to that decision is beyond me and the judge stating she is unlikely to reoffend is puzzling. How does he know she is unlikely to reoffend?
Think about how far this woman went and how far she might have gone if she had succeeded. It is way beyond normal, even for sexual offenders, to have their 10 year old special needs victims name tattooed on their chest.
Her barrister stated that Ms. Brimble “has not overstepped into criminal conduct.” She also went on to state that she had a difficult life and an abusive marriage. Many offenders, both male and female, have had abusive pasts. Yet we tend to give more sympathy to female offenders who have been abused than we do for male offenders.
Lastly ask yourself this. If this was a 47 year old male teacher who had done all this to a 10 year old special needs girl, do you think the outcome here would have been the same? Even close? I very much doubt it.