Male-on-Male Sexual Assaults

Abstract

While the concept of male victimization is not a new phenomenon, the sexual assault of a male is a relatively new notion, emerging over the last 30 years in social research literature. Studies of female rape, pedophilia, and juvenile sex offenders have suggested that different styles of offending are reflected in the different types of behaviors committed by offenders at the crime scene. These studies suggest that there are three distinct themes of behavior: Control, Hostility, and Involvement. Using the crime scene actions of 305 male-on-male sexual assault from a U.K. national police database, multidimensional analysis was carried out. The proposed framework was found to be a useful way of classifying male-on-male sexual assaulters with 74% displaying a dominant theme. These resulted in 42% classified as displaying hostility, 23% as control, and 9% as involvement. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

male-on-male sexual assault behavioral theme crime scene analysis smallest space analysis offender profiling

Introduction

While the concept of male sexual victimization is not a new phenomenon (Graham, 2006), until the 1970s it was largely ignored within clinical and research literature. From a forensic and policing perspective, exploration of male sexual assaults are still largely absent from the literature. The sexual assault of a male has previously been defined “as any non-consensual sexual act perpetrated against a man, 16 or older, by a male or female” (Isely & Gehrenbeck-Shim, 1997, p. 160). Until recently, the sexual assault of a male by another male, specifically male/male rape, was not regarded as an equal crime to the rape of a woman within the United Kingdom. In November 1994, the 1956 Sexual Offenses Act was modified to include anal penetration in the legal definition of rape. As is the case with all rapes, the exact prevalence of male/male sexual assault is unknown; therefore, when using recorded offense data figures indicate in 2009-2010 7.7% of recorded offenses of rape in the United Kingdom involved a male victim (Home Office Statistics, 2011). This figure was reported to be much higher in the United States with the Human Rights Watch (2001) stating there were twice as many male victims of rape than females, with this directly linked to the significant increase in the prison population in America.

Although research surrounding the concept of male/male sexual assault is sparse within the forensic literature, it can broadly be divided into two schools of thought: those that consider male sexual assault as a predominantly homosexual encounter (Hickson, 1994) that often involves some form of interpersonal relationship. Alternatively, there are those that consider male/male sexual assault as an expression of social dominance conducted by heterosexual offenders (Groth & Burgess, 1980).

Hickson (1994) investigated the frequency of nonconsensual sex among 930 homosexually active men. Results indicated that 28% reported having sex against their will with a significant number of the sexual assaults investigated involving homosexual offenders. Thus, Hickson (1994) concluded that sexual gratification was a primary motivation for the sexual assault of a male. Similarly, Stermac, Sheridan, Davidson, and Dunn (1996) conducted research on 29 male victims who had self-reported to the sexual assault crisis unit, concluding that is was young homosexual males who were most at risk of becoming a victim of male/male rape. It was victims who had met their offender socially or were in a long-term relationship who were most likely to be assault victims.

Alternatively, Sivakumaran (2005) claimed that the sexual assault of a male can be understood as an expression of dominance and control over another human being, and the sexual assault itself is predominantly about exerting this power, not sexual gratification. Likewise, McMullen (1990) argued that “males who rape other men are, more often than not, heterosexual” and it is the “the feared or actual loss of positive power and aggression which motivates the offender to behave negatively” (p. 24). Groth and Burgess (1980) in their study of 16 male rapists concluded that a typical male rapist will be younger than 30 years of ages and more likely to be heterosexual. They also found that 12 of these offenders committed their assault against a stranger and control over their victim was gained through three methods: entrapment, intimidation, and physical force. Groth and Burgess identified five motivational components of male on male sexual assault: (a) conquest and control, (b) revenge and retaliation that are motivated by anger, (c) sadism and degradation, (d) conflict and counteraction that involved issues of unresolved sexuality, and (e) status and affiliation that are usually present in gang-related assaults.

It is evident from the research literature that those males who sexually assault other males are not a homogeneous group. Just as with those who sexually assault females, those males who sexually assault another male “do not do the very same thing in the very same way or for the very same reasons” (Groth & Birenbaum, 1979). Using police and prison reports and victim self-survey questionnaires, Hodge and Canter (1998) attempted to demonstrate the heterogeneity of perpetrators of male/male sexual assault. In the self-report sample (n = 83), it was reported that 45% of the offenders were heterosexual; however, within the police sample (n = 36) only 22% of offenders were heterosexual. Hodge and Canter (1998) accounted for the difference in these results, suggesting that victims would perhaps be more inclined to report a stranger attack than they would be to report an attack in which they knew their assailant where issues of consent could be open to question.

Hodge and Canter (1998) concluded that there were indeed two distinct types of perpetrators of male/male sexual assault. First, there were those sexual assaults committed by heterosexual men in which the assailant was not victim specific and that all males are potentially vulnerable victims. These assaults tended to be stranger attacks, often involving multiple perpetrators. The motivations of these offenders are solely of dominance and control, with no sexual gratification involved in the assault. The authors suggested that this need to control and humiliate the victim “may be motivated by feelings of unresolved sexuality, gay hatred, or difference with peer acceptance” (p. 236), drawing parallels with the assumptions of Groth and Burgess (1980). Second, there are those sexual assaults that are more likely to be committed by homosexual offenders, in which sexual gratification is a primary motivator for the attack. Hodge and Canter (1998) concluded that the victim and the offender were more likely to have had previous social encounters and were more likely to have some form of established relationship. This sexual act displays more psychological manipulation rather than physical control or dominance.

The present study will use data collected by the Serious Crime Analysis Section (SCAS). Although these data are not without its limitations, it has nevertheless been obtained from a UK national database and is representative of the male/male sexual assaults reported to the police, including England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

On the whole, the existing literature on male/male sexual assault is either descriptive or based around the offenders’ sexuality, something that would not be known to the police when investigating such crimes. What is needed is a broad multifaceted approach capable of responding to the diversity, as well as the complexity of this phenomenon. In the sex offender literature, researchers have used multivariate models to illustrate how variations between different types of offenders/offenses are reflected in differences in crime scene actions. Researchers examined stranger female rapists (Canter, 1994; Canter, Bennell, Alison, & Reddy, 2003; Canter & Heritage, 1990), juvenile sex offenders (Almond & Canter, 2007), and pedophiles (Canter, Hughes, & Kirby, 1998) and have developed models that argue that offender−victim interactions vary from each other in terms of interpersonal distance, and they represent underlying themes in crime scene actions (Almond & Canter, 2007). Although each of these models examined a distinct subset of sex offenders the themes they identified had high levels of commonality. Although they may have different labels the three themes of Control, Hostility, and Involvement are consistently found to occur (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Themes Found in Behaviors of Sex Offenders.

Authors	Offense	Hostility	Control	Involvement
Canter (1994)	Rape	Victim as vehicle	Victim as object	Victim as person
Canter and Heritage (1990)	Rape	Violence	Impersonal criminality	Intimacy sexuality
Canter, Bennell, Alison, and Reddy (2003)	Rape	Hostility	Control theft	Involvement
Häkkänen, Lindlöf, and Santtila (2004)	Rape	Hostility	Theft	Involvement
Santtila, Junkkila, and Sandnabba (2005)	Rape	Hostility		Involvement
Park, Schlesinger, Pinizzotto, and Davies (2008)	Serial Rape	Violence	Criminal sophistication	Interpersonal involvement
Canter, Hughes, and Kirby (1998)	Child abuse	Aggressive	Criminal-opportunistic	Intimate
Almond and Canter (2007)	Juvenile sex offenders	Victim as vehicle	Victim as object	Victim as person

Control Theme

This theme is characterized by the offenders’ lack of empathy for their victims, treating them as objects to be exploited for their personal gain (Almond & Canter, 2007). This offense is about the offender achieving not only sexual gratification, but also instrumental by using the opportunity to steal items from the victim (Canter et al., 2003). It has been argued that crime scene actions in this theme refer to the perpetrator exerting power and control over their victim by demobilizing them, forcing them into a nonparticipative role (Canter, 1994). It is not the intention of these offenders to unnecessarily hurt their victim and the force used is unlikely to exceed that necessary to control the victim (Almond & Canter, 2007). These incidents are opportunistic in nature with the offender often being intoxicated resulting in the lowering of their impulse control and enhancement of their perception of opportunities to offend. These offenses do not involve emotional attachment, thus reflecting these individuals’ general disregard for the rights of others in their nonoffending life. These individuals tend to be generalist offenders not specializing in sexual offending (Canter et al., 1998).

Hostility Theme

This theme is characterized by domination and anger and necessarily involves the degradation of the victim (Canter et al., 1998). The perpetrators view their victims as a representation or surrogate for some generalized other, using them as a focus to vent their anger and frustration. These offenses involve verbal and physical aggression over and above that necessary to conduct the offense resulting in the humiliation and the demeaning of the victim (Canter et al., 2003). These offenses may involve multiple perpetrators resulting in high levels of aggression and potential injury to the victim (Almond & Canter, 2007).

Involvement Theme

These perpetrators view their victims as reactive individuals rather than sexual objects, the complete antithesis of the Control theme. They may view their victims as comparable with conventional sexual relationship with the offender attempting to develop a pseudointimate relationship with their victim (Canter, 1994). These offenses stem from a desire for social contact and intimacy indicating that the offender lacks healthy adult sexual relationships (Canter et al., 1998). These offenses may indicate a prior knowledge of the victim and the offenses may take place over an extended period of time, involving reciprocal sexual behaviors and more coercive methods of controlling the victim (Almond & Canter, 2007).

Aims

The limited research surrounding the issue of male/male sexual assault has primarily focused on the psychological effects the sexual assault may have on the victim (Rogers, 1997), the sexuality of the offender (Hickson, 1994), or incarcerated perpetrators (Dumond, 1992). Findings, therefore, have had limited utility for police investigations and offender profiling. The present study will investigate the crime scene actions displayed by perpetrators of male/male sexual assault with the aim of providing much-needed empirical research regarding a serious issue that until recently has been largely ignored within the literature. The investigation aims to produce a thematic analysis of perpetrators of male/male sexual assault, demonstrating the heterogeneity of these offenses.

As mentioned above, the crime scene action themes of Control, Hostility, and Involvement have been repeatedly reported to be useful in differentiating sex offenders. The current study aims to first explore the usefulness of this classification framework when examining male/male sexual assault crime scene actions. Second, the study will examine whether individual offenses involve one dominant behavioral theme. It is therefore proposed that the resulting multivariate model will be able to identify any underlying structure of the behaviors of male/male sexual assault perpetrators and will help to distinguish one set of assaults from another.

Method

Sample

The sample consisted of 305 male/male sexual assaults recorded from 1998 to 2011 from the SCAS UK database. A total of 196 of the cases involved a single offender and 109 multiple offenders (range = 2-6 offenders); the term offender will be used throughout the article to denote single and multiple offenders. The average age of the victim was 26.52 (SD = 10.70). Of those 305, 11.5% (n = 35) of them resulted in a conviction. The average age of the convicted male was 27.53 years (SD = 9.71). No multiple offenses by the same offender were included in the analysis, ensuring that there was no weighting being given to those frequent offenders who displayed a particular behavior across a number of offenses. This method was also adopted by Canter et al. (2003).

Crime Scene Action Variables

In total, 35 mutually exclusive crime scene actions¹ were coded as either present or absent for each offense, these being related to sexual behaviors, verbal behaviors, violent behaviors, precautions taken and nonsexual offending behaviors. Using this dichotomous approach has been found to ensure maximum clarity and reliability when using records not initially collected for research purposes (Almond & Canter, 2007). Crime scene actions that had a prevalence of less than 5% were excluded as including variables that have such a low prevalence may affect the significant results and including them would have little positive benefit (Goodwill & Alison, 2007). In addition, crime scene actions with greater than 70% prevalence were excluded as they occur in the majority of cases and would therefore be of limited utility when trying to differentiate assaults (Almond & Canter, 2007).

Statistical Analysis

Using multidimensional scaling procedures that have been used in previous research, (Almond & Canter, 2007; Canter, 1994; Canter et al., 2003) the present study aimed to investigate the crime scene actions displayed by a male on male rapist. The data were analyzed using the Smallest Scale Analysis (SSA) whose primary assumption is that any underlying structure can be readily appreciated by examining the relationship each variable has with every other variable (Lingoes, 1973). A measure of association is calculated that indicates the degree of co-occurrence between each crime scene action with every other crime scene action. Jaccard’s coefficient has previously been regarded as the most appropriate measure of association to use for the analysis of police data, as there is a possibility that variables may not have been recorded even though they were perhaps present (Canter et al., 2003). These associations are then rank ordered and represented as a ranked distance in an abstract “space.” This visual representation was created such that the higher the correlation between any two given behaviors, the closer they will appear on the spatial plot (Guttman, 1968). The resulting patterns can then be examined allowing for the underlying structure of the crime scene actions to be identified, and thematic differentiation can then be defined.

Results

A Smallest Space Analysis was carried out on 35 behaviors across 305 offenses. The three-dimensional SSA produced a coefficient of alienation of .20, suggesting a good fit between the SSA plot and the original association matrix (Canter & Heritage, 1990). Figure 1 represents Vectors 1 and 3 of a three-dimensional space. Each point within the space represents a crime scene action displayed by the offender during the assault. The closer any two points are within the plot the more likely they are to have occurred together.

Figure 1.

Smallest space analysis of behavioral themes of male/male sexual assault.

Thematic Analysis of Crime Scene Actions

The study aim was to examine whether the crime scene actions of male on male sexual assault could be classified into three distinct themes. Figure 1 demonstrates how the co-occurrence of the behaviors within the sample can be divided into three thematically similar subgroups made up of a subset of co-occurring crime scene actions.

Table 2 shows the crime scene actions within each theme and their corresponding frequencies. The highest frequency crime scene action in the Control theme was “victim makes oral contact with offender’s genitals” (35%). In the Hostility theme, they were “offense happened in conjunction with another crime” (35%) and multiple offenders (34%) and in the Involvement theme it was “self-disclosure” (34%).

Table 2.

Behavioral Composition of Themes.

Theme	Name	Explanation	n (%)
Hostility	Other crime	Offense happened in conjunction with another crime	107 (35)
	Multioff	Multiple offenders involved	105 (34)
	Weapon	Offender used/referred to weapon	96 (31)
	Violence	Offender used violence	96 (31)
	Force	Offender used force	93 (30)
	Injury	Victim obtained injury	89 (29)
	Verbal	Offender verbally threatens victim	82 (27)
	Abusive	Offender uses abusive/degrading language	42 (14)
	Vicreport	Offender makes reference to victim reporting offense	37 (12)
	Personal	Offender implies personal knowledge of victim	21 (7)
	Suff	Offender used suffocation	18 (6)
Control	Vicoral	Victim makes oral contact with offender’s genitals	107 (35)
	Sexacts	Offender requests victim to perform sexual acts	82 (27)
	Kisses	Offender kisses victim	70 (23)
	Useveh	Offender used a vehicle during the assault	61 (20)
	Fondvicgen	Offender fondles victim’s genitals	58 (19)
	Offoral	Offender makes oral contact with victim’s genitals	40 (13)
	Masvic	Offender masturbates victim	34 (11)
	Blocked	Offender blocked entrance/exit	31 (10)
	Kissesoff	Victim kisses offender	27 (9)
	Condom	Offender used a condom	24 (8)
	Vicmastoff	Victim masturbates offender	21 (7)
Involvement	Disclosure	Self-disclosure	104 (34)
	Curiosity	Offender shows curiosity toward victim	67 (22)
	Offmastself	Offender masturbates self	46 (15)
	Comp	Offender compliments victim	31 (10)
	Reassures	Offender reassures victim	27 (9)
	Vicenjoy	Offender refers to victim’s enjoyment/needs	24 (8)
	Prorel	Offender refers to prolonged relationship with victim	24 (8)
	Ingratiating	Offender displays ingratiating behavior	24 (8)
	Vicsex	Offender refers to victim’s sexual practice	21 (7)
	Admindrugs	Offender administrates drugs to victim	21 (7)
	Analdig	Anal penetration (digital)	21 (7)
	Ejac	Offender ejaculates on victim	18 (6)
	Vicpart	Offender instructs victim to participate	9 (3)

Control

Those behaviors that are at the bottom-left of the plot in Figure 1 demonstrate the offender’s control over the offense and their victim. The offender gains control of their victim by “offender blocked entrance/exit.” This region contains a number of sexual behaviors; “offender fondles victims’ genitals,” “offender masturbates victim” and “offender makes oral contact with victim’s genital,” and “offender kisses victim.” While this suggests that sexual gratification for the offender is the primary motivation, this region also includes “offender requests victim to perform a sexual act” “victim kisses offender,” “victim masturbates offender,” and “victim makes oral contact with offender’s genitals.” This could infer that the offender wants to be in control of the sexual aspect of the assault by requesting reciprocal sexual behaviors. This is in contrast to the studies of juvenile sex offenders and pedophiles where reciprocal sexual behaviors reflected a desire for a pseudointimate relationship rather than control and dominance as is seen in perpetrators of male sexual assault. The variable “offender used a vehicle during the attack” may also highlight the offenders need for control and dominance by moving the victim to another, preferred location to commit the offense. Parallels can be drawn between the actions within this theme and the “Victim as object theme” previously identified by Canter (1994) and Almond and Canter (2007) and the Control theme identified by Canter et al. (2003), the Impersonal theme identified by Canter and Heritage (1990).

Hostility

Those behaviors that are at the top-left of the plot in Figure 1 suggest that the offender is using their victim as a target for their frustration and anger. The behaviors that fall into this theme strongly suggest that the offender(s) is interacting with their victim in an aggressive, violent manner; “victim obtained injury,” “offender used violence,” “offender used force” and “offender used suffocation.” Furthermore, the fact that “verbally threatens victim” and “offender uses abusive/degrading language” are included within this category would suggest that the offender is being physically and verbally violent to the victim. In this theme it would appear that the assault is not about sexual gratification, but is primarily about the offender’s venting their anger and frustration. With the variables “offender makes reference to victim reporting offense” and “Offender implying personal knowledge of the victim” being included in this theme, it can be assumed that the offender is not only intimidating the victim physically, but attempts to psychologically intimidate them too. This region also included the characteristic “multiple offenders involved.”

This was an expected finding as previous research has suggested that the sexual assault of a male by another is associated with the status and affiliation of gangs (Groth & Burgess, 1980). Furthermore, Amir (1971) claimed that those sexual assaults committed by groups were significantly more likely to be associated with violence. Parallels can be drawn between the actions within this theme and the “victim as vehicle theme” previously identified by Canter (1994) and Almond and Canter (2007); the Hostility theme identified by Canter et al. (2003), Häkkänen, Lindlöf, and Santtila (2004), and Santtila, Junkkila, and Sandnabba (2005); and the Aggressive region identified by Canter and Heritage (1990).

Involvement

As demonstrated in Figure 1, a large proportion of the spatial plot is made up of the behavioral theme Involvement. The behavioral variables that make up this theme have distinct interpersonal components. The variables “offender reassures victim,” “offender shows curiosity of victim,” “offender compliments victim,” and “offender displays ingratiating behavior” all suggest that the offender attempts to be intimate with the victim and the assault itself is more about the interaction with the victim rather than solely for sexual gratification. The variable “offender administers drugs to victim” indicates the social aspect of these assaults that may have occurred in pubs or nightclubs, where the offender and victim are both socializing. The variables “offender refers to prolonged relationship” and “anal penetration (digital)” may imply that the offender views the assault as a consenting sexual act and therefore a conventional sexual relationship, treating the victim as an interacting person. These variables are the antithesis of those found in the control theme, as the sexual arousal is not directly impacting on the offender, but trying to illicit an arousal response from the victim. The variable “ejaculating on the victim” demonstrates the offenders’ lack of criminal sophistication and shows that they are less concerned with leaving forensic evidence, otherwise they would have used a condom. Parallels can be drawn between the actions within this theme and the “victim as person theme” previously identified by Canter (1994) and Almond and Canter (2007); the Involvement region identified by Canter et al. (2003), Häkkänen et al. (2004), Santtila et al. (2005); and the Intimacy region identified by Canter and Heritage (1990) and Canter et al. (1998).

Classifying Male/Male Sexual Assault Offenses in Terms of a Dominant Behavioral Theme

The current study proposed that the behaviors during an offense would reflect one dominant theme of behavior. An offense may involve behaviors from more than one theme, but as they are psychologically distinct it was hypothesized that the majority would be able to be assigned to one dominant theme. To identify dominant themes of behavior within the sample, the same criteria used by Almond, Canter, and Salfati (2006) were adopted. The percentage of occurrence of the variables in the dominant theme had to be greater than the sum of the percentage occurrence for the other two themes. If an offense had a similar high percentage in two themes it was classed as a hybrid and if it had similar percentage in all three themes then it was deemed unclassifiable.

Each of the 305 cases was examined individually to examine whether the offense could be assigned to one dominant theme of behavior. The percentage of Control, Hostility, and Involvement behaviors for each incident was calculated. Using this method, 74% (226 of the 305 total cases) of the offenses could be assigned to a dominant behavioral theme, 129 (42%) as Hostility, 70 (23%) as Control, and 27 (9%) of cases were classified as Involvement. Only 37 (12%) of the samples were unclassifiable. See Figure 2 for hybrids.

Figure 2.

Dominant theme of male/male sexual assault.

Discussion

Research surrounding the issue of male/male sexual assault has previously demonstrated the heterogeneity of perpetrators of such a crime. There are those offenders who commit the assault to gain some form of intimacy, for example, homosexual offenders (Hickson, 1994; Mezey & King, 1987; Stermac et al., 1996) and there are those offenders who commit the offense as an expression of social dominance and control (Groth & Burgess, 1980; McMullen, 1990; Sivakumaran, 2005). The aim of the present study was to demonstrate the heterogeneity of these offenses using crime scene actions. Using a sample of 305 offenses, a thematic analysis was carried out to investigate the behavioral themes displayed by such offenders. The SSA identified three behavioral themes displayed by these offenders of Control, Hostility, and Involvement. The majority of the cases studied (74%) could be appointed to one dominant theme of behavior, providing empirical support that this multivariate model represents the underlying structure of male/male sexual assault behavior.

This model provides support for the notion that perpetrators of male on male sexual assault are not a homogeneous group. As Hickson (1994) and Stermac et al. (1996) suggested, this model demonstrates that there are offenders for whom the assault is primarily about gaining some form of intimacy, treating the victim as a person, with this demonstrated in the interpersonal behavioral theme. Furthermore, the model has demonstrated that for others the assault is primarily about gaining control and power over the victim (violence and control behavioral themes), providing support for the view that for some offenders assaulting another male is primarily an expression of social dominance (Groth & Burgess, 1980; McMullen, 1990; Sivakumaran, 2005). However, as the sample did not include the sexuality of the offenders, it cannot be determined whether those offenders who gain intimate gratification from the attack were homosexual, just as it cannot be determined that those who commit the assault to gain control and power over their victim were heterosexual offenders. Not including the sexuality of the offender can be regarded as a potential limitation of the study; however, this information is unlikely to be known by police when investigating such crimes. Future research that is able to obtain information about offenders and victims’ sexuality may investigate this further.

Whilst the SCAS database is a National database and can be regarded as a representative sample of police investigations into this crime, it is not without its limitations. It is a well-established fact that rape is perhaps the most underreported crime with only 15% being reported to the police (Walby & Allen, 2004) and therefore any sample that is investigated is only potentially a small fraction of those perpetrators who commit such crimes. This is likely to be further reduced when exploring the reporting rates of male/male sexual assaults (Pino & Meier, 1999). As mentioned earlier, Hodge and Canter (1998) reported that victims were more likely to report a stranger attack and this may be reflected in the low number of Involvement offenses found in this police sample. It may be that some offenses are easier to detect and convict in court again reflecting in high number of Aggression offenses. Data taken from other sources, for example, rape crisis centers, drop-in clinics, and prisons, may result in different percentages of dominant themes, but the underlying structure of the behaviors is not expected to change as they are psychologically distinct (Almond & Canter, 2007).

Although this study gathered a relatively large number of male/male sexual assault cases, a number of limitations must be considered. First, all data were gathered from police case files that were originally gathered for investigatory purposes, rather than for use in this study. As such, the researchers were unable to follow up any queries and data may not be fully represented. The validity of the coding could be questioned; however, this was conducted by trained professionals. Moreover, the sample is only representative of those offenses reported to the police. If a more representative sample was acquired the authors hypothesize that the correlations between the behaviors, and therefore the model, would remain the same; however, the proportions of the themes may change, for example, a higher proportion of involvement assaults due to reduced reporting to the police.

Criminal profiling has recently undergone significant changes such that all Behavioural Investigative Advisors’s (BIA) should now provide the reasoning process for each inference they make (Almond, Alison, & Porter, 2007). It is not sufficient to make assumptions on instinct alone; they must provide some form of theoretical or empirical evidence for their claim. Models similar to this one, for example, the stranger murder model devised by Salfati and Canter (1999) and the stranger rape model devised by Canter et al. (2003), have previously been identified as aiding with case linkage, suspect prioritization, and veracity testing. This current model could potentially aid the police and BIA’s when investigating male/male sexual assaults as it allows offenses to be differentiated into three distinct types, which is the first step in examining whether offenders are consistent in their behavior. It may be the case that when linking offenses to an unknown offender it is not the actual behaviors displayed by the offender at the crime scene that are important, but the function they serve, that is, the underlying theme. Future research would need to examine serial offenders of male/male sexual assault to determine if they are consistent in the behavior theme they display across their series of offenses. To assist in the prioritization of offenders, future research needs to examine whether these dominant offenders have different background characteristics as found within juvenile sex offenders (Almond et al., 2006).

The current model could be informative with regard to the treatment programs of men who sexually assault another man. The model can potentially aid practitioners who work with such offenders as it demonstrates the heterogeneity of such a group of offenders and highlights the fact that a “one size fits all policies” will not effectively treat such perpetrators. If perpetrators of male sexual assault are to be effectively treated, their individual needs need to be considered, for example, those offenders who were classified into the Hostility theme may require a different treatment program than those offenders classified into the Involvement theme. To effectively treat these offenders and reduce recidivism, individualized programs need to be developed that focuses on the offender’s individual needs.

In conclusion, the current model demonstrates that those offenses involving male/male sexual assault can be differentiated into three distinct types of Control, Hostility, and Involvement. These underlying differences in behavior suggest that perpetrators commit the offense for a number of different reasons. There are those who gain intimacy and closeness from the offense, others who use the offense to vent misplaced anger and frustration and those that use the offense as an expression of social dominance. This research provides a solid platform for future work to examine the issues of consistency and prioritization of male/male offenders.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Louise Almond is a lecturer and researcher at the University of Liverpool. Since 2011, she has been the director of the Centre for Investigative psychology and program director of the MSc Investigative and Forensic Psychology. She completed her PhD in 2006 at the University of Liverpool examining the behavior and backgrounds of juvenile sex offenders. Previous to that, she wrote a report for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister into arsonists and their behavior. More recently she has worked with the National Policing Improvements Agency, the Serious Crime Analysis Section, and various police forces on topics such as behavioral investigative advice, sexual offending, arson, and violence presenting her work nationally and internationally. Since 2011, she has been a board member of the Division of Forensic Psychology.

Michelle A. McManus is a lecturer and researcher at the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan). As part of this role, she is involved in several collaborative research projects with various Police Forces across the United Kingdom working on topics from sexual abuse, domestic violence, and gun crime culture. She completed her PhD at the University of Liverpool in 2012. Her doctoral research titled “The Investigation, Prioritisation and Risk Management of Indecent Image Offenders Within Policing” was the first to examine how the police deal with this high volume crime and prioritize those offenders who are most likely to be committing hands-on child sexual abuse. Specifically, her doctoral research assisted with the creation of KIRAT (Kent Internet Risk Assessment Tool), a risk management tool for individuals accessing indecent images of children. Previous to this, she worked as an analyst and researcher for Kent Police. During this time, she was involved in the development and rollout of risk management strategies for indecent image offenses, training child exploitation teams, with presentations and training to law enforcement organizations internationally. She has presented her work at International Conferences and assisted on various high-profile cases. She has been a Justice of the Peace since 2007.

Lydia Ward was a student on the MSc investigative and forensic psychology course at the University of Liverpool from 2010 to 2011.

References

Almond

Alison

Porter

(2007). An evaluation and comparison of claims made in behavioural investigative advice reports compiled by the National Policing Improvements Agency in the United Kingdom. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 4, 71-83.

Almond

Canter

D. V.

(2007). Youths who sexually harm: A multivariate model of behaviour. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 13, 217-233.

Almond

Canter

D. V.

Salfati

C. G.

(2006). Youths who sexually harm: A multivariate model of characteristics. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 12, 97-114.

Amir

(1971). Patterns in forcible rape. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Canter

D. V.

(1994). Criminal shadows. London, England: HarperCollins.

Canter

D. V.

Bennell

Alison

Reddy

(2003). Differentiating sex offences: A behaviourally based thematic classification of stranger rapes. Behavioural Sciences & the Law, 21, 157-174.

Canter

D. V.

Heritage

(1990). A multivariate model of sexual offence behavior: Developments in “offender profiling.” The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 1, 185-212.

Canter

D. V.

Hughes

Kirby

(1998). Paedophilia: Pathology, criminality, or both? The development of a multivariate model of offense behaviour in child sexual abuse. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 9, 532-555.

Dumond

R. W.

(1992). The sexual assault of male inmates in incarcerated settings. The International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 20, 135-157.

10.

Goodwill

A. M.

Alison

L. J.

(2007). When is profiling possible? Offense planning & aggression as moderators in predicting offender age from victim age in stranger rape. Behavioural Sciences & the Law, 25, 823-840.

11.

Graham

(2006). Male rape and the careful construction of the male victim. Social & Legal Studies, 15, 187-208.

12.

Groth

A. N.

Birenbaum

H. J.

(1979). Men who rape: The psychology of the offender. New York, NY: Plenum.

13.

Groth

A. N.

Burgess

A. N.

(1980). Male rape: Offenders & victims. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 806-810.

14.

Guttman

(1968). A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest co-ordinate space for a configuration of points. Psychometrika, 33, 469-506.

15.

Häkkänen

Lindlöf

Santtila

(2004). Crime scene actions and offender characteristics in a sample of Finnish stranger rapes. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 1, 17-32.

16.

Hickson

(1994). Project sigma: Gay men as victims of non-consensual sex. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 23, 281-294.

17.

Hodge

Canter

(1998). Victims and perpetrators of male sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 222-239.

18.

Home Office Statistics. (2011). Crime in England and Wales 2010/11: Findings from the British Crime Survey and police recorded crime (2nd ed.). London, England: Home Office Statistical Bulletin.

19.

Human Rights Watch. (2001). United States human rights watch world report 2001. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k1/usa/index.html

20.

Isely

P. J.

Gehrenbeck-Shim

(1997). Sexual assault of men in the community. Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 159-166.

21.

Lingoes

J. C.

(1973). The Guttman-Lingoes non-metric program series. Ann Arbor, MI: Mathesis Press.

22.

McMullen

R. J.

(1990). Male rape: Breaking the silence on the last taboo. London, England: GMP.

23.

Mezey

King

(1987). Male victims of sexual assault. Medicine, Science and the Law, 27, 122-124.

24.

Park

Schlesinger

Pinizzotto

Davies

(2008). Serial and single-victim rapists: Differences in crime scene violence, interpersonal involvement and criminal sophistication. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26, 227-237.

25.

Pino

N. W.

Meier

R. F.

(1999). Gender differences in rape reporting. Sex Roles, 40, 979-990.

26.

Rogers

(1997). Post traumatic stress disorder following male rape. Journal of Mental Health, 6, 5-9.

27.

Salfati

Canter

(1999). Differentiating stranger murders: Profiling offender characteristics from behavioural styles. Behavioural Science & the Law, 17, 391-406.

28.

Santtila

Junkkila

Sandnabba

(2005). Behavioural linking of stranger rapes. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2, 87-103.

29.

Sexual Offences Act. c. 69 O.P.S.I. (1956).

30.

Sivakumaran

(2005). Male/male rape and the “taint” of homosexuality. Human Rights Quarterly, 27, 1274-1306.

31.

Stermac

Sheridan

Davidson

Dunn

(1996). Sexual assault of adult males. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 901-915.

32.

Walby

Allen

(2004). Findings from the British crime survey: Home office research study No. 276. London, England: Home Office.