Adult Male Contact Sexual Offenders:

Challenges in Classification 22
and Theoretical Perspectives

Mirthe G. C. Noteborn

Key Points

• Male sexual contact offenders constitute a heterogeneous population that varies in

(offending) behavior, individual characteristics, risk factors, and re-offending risk.
• Child sexual abusers are largely classified based on sexual preference for children
(exclusively or not), level of social competency, and relationship to the victim(s).
• Men who sexually offend against adults are mainly classified based on offending
motivation, amount of aggression used, and relationship to the victim(s).
• Classification typologies are user-friendly, but often limited by cross-classifications
and legal definitions of offending that are state- and time-specific.
• Other classifications include those based on risk assessment or multifactorial
models, both with their merits and limitations.
• A step forward may be found in a developmental life-course perspective aimed
at explaining sexual offending via between- and within-person differences and
changes.

Introduction

Adult male contact sexual offenders are often regarded as a homogeneous group
with extremely high recidivism rates and low treatment success (e.g., Leven-
son et al., 2007). However, researchers and clinicians have indicated that sexual
offenders constitute a heterogeneous population that varies in (offending) behav-
ior, individual characteristics (e.g., psychological problems, motivation), risk

M. G. C. Noteborn (B)
Department of Developmental Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
e-mail: m.g.c.noteborn@tilburguniversity.edu

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 415
C. Garofalo and J. J. Sijtsema (eds.), Clinical Forensic Psychology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80882-2_22
416 M. G. C. Noteborn

factors, and re-offending risk (e.g., Mathews & Collin-Vézina, 2019). Classifi-
cation systems and explanatory theories can be used to simplify and explain
the heterogeneity of the sex offender population, assist in practical decision-
making related to the type and duration of the intervention(s), and risk assessment
instruments/management and risk of recidivism (e.g., Thornton, 2020).
This chapter provides a glance into the current classification and theoretical
perspectives of adult male contact sexual offenders. Classifications and theoretical
perspectives will be reviewed by looking at four important criteria for clinical
forensic practice and sexual offenders. For one, classifications and theories should
have a certain level of practicality and user-friendliness for the clinical field.
Among researchers and clinicians, there should thus be a clear understanding
of what the category or theory entails, indicating a certain level of simplicity
(see also Thornton, 2020; Ward et al., 2006). Additionally, it should account for
the heterogeneity of the sexual offender population by explaining, accounting
for, and validating differences between sexual offenders (validity in differences).
Moreover, as forensic practice’s primary goal is to manage (sexual) offending
behavior, classifications and theories should be helpful in treatment and should
be able to assist in the prediction of recidivism (see also Thornton, 2020).
First, I will review several examples of the most commonly known and
researched classifications in the sexual offending literature.1 Pros and cons of
the classifications types will be discussed, focusing on the four criteria men-
tioned above (for a more extensive review of classifications of sexual offenders
see Thornton, 2020). Second, multifactorial theories about adult male contact sex-
ual offenders are discussed by focusing on general limitations. Finally, directions
for future research are mentioned from a developmental life-course perspective.

Classification of Adult Male Contact Sexual Offenders

In the following section, classification systems based on (1) offense and offender
characteristics and (2) risk assessment will be discussed, addressing their
strengths and weaknesses.

1 The current chapter describes the classifications in terms of offense and offender character-
istics and risk assessment. However, other categorizations of the classification systems have
been mentioned, such as clinical descriptions, demographic clusters, psychometric profiles,
and theory-driven groups (Bickley & Beech, 2001) or first–fourth-generation classification
systems (Cale, 2018).
22 Adult Male Contact Sexual Offenders: Challenges … 417

Classification Based on Offense and Offender Characteristics

The type of offense classification is based most often on the victim’s age (i.e.,
children vs. adults). The term rapist2,3 often refers to a person who has sexually
assaulted an adult, whereas a person who has sexually abused a child is often
labeled a child sexual abuser. Research has indicated that men who offend against
adult women differ from men who offend against children based on the kind of
offense supportive attitudes and coping strategy, the level of social competence,
and a history of antisocial behavior (e.g., Cale, 2015; Feelgood et al., 2005;
Sigre-Leiros et al., 2015). Moreover, men who abuse children are often older and
show fewer externalizing behaviors than men who sexually offend against adults
(Gannon & Ward, 2008; Whitaker et al., 2008). At the same time, men who
rape are more likely to abuse alcohol and to be diagnosed with an (antisocial)
personality disorder (e.g., Langstorm et al., 2004).

Adult Men Who Sexually Offended Against Children

Men who sexually abuse children are often described as having low social and
emotional functioning (e.g., developmental immaturity, poor social skills, prob-
lems with adult relationships), and social incompetence (e.g., low self-image,
feelings of being inadequate and loneliness, fear of intimacy in adult relation-
ships, depression, and anxiety) (Allan et al., 2007; Beech, 1998; Bumby &
Hansen, 1997; Maniglio, 2012). Additionally, a history of sexual victimization
in childhood is prevalent in men who sexually abuse children (Jespersen et al.,
2009).
Men who sexually assault children are often classified based on the degree of
their sexual preference for children (exclusively or not). As having a pedophilic
disorder is a strong predictor of sexual recidivism (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998), the

2 Terminology and definitions on (contact) sexual offenses (e.g., rape, (child) sexual
abuse/assault) can differ significantly across legal frameworks, policymaking, social norms,
and research. While the current chapter will touch upon some aspects of this issue, it is beyond
the current chapter’s scope to address this in more detail. For suggested reading, see Mathews
and Collin-Vézina (2019).
3 Many scientific journals are currently moving away from using terms that define the perpe-

trator and refer to the offense rather than the offender, e.g., men who rape vs. rapist. However,
I have chosen to use rapists and child sexual abusers in this paragraph in keeping with previ-
ously cited research. Throughout the rest of the chapter, a reference toward the offense will
be used (e.g., men who sexually offend against children /adults).
418 M. G. C. Noteborn

foremost distinction is based on having a pedophilic disorder or not. Pedophilia

is described by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed;
DSM–5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) as “Over a period of at least six
months recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors
involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13
or younger). […] The individual is at least age 16 years and at least five years
older than the aforementioned child or children” (p. 697; American Psychiatric
Association, 2013). To be diagnosed with a pedophilic disorder, the sexual urges
and fantasies have to cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social,
occupational, or other functioning areas, or the person has to have acted on these
urges. The latter means that someone can have a pedophilic disorder without
having acted on these feelings. Hence, this person can have a pedophilic disorder
without abusing children. In turn, someone can be convicted of having molested
a child without having recurrent sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviors that would
indicate a pedophilic disorder’s diagnosis. Thus, merely the existence of isolated
instances of child sexual abuse does not warrant the diagnosis of pedophilia.
Seto (2008) estimated that approximately half (40–50%) of the men who sexually
abuse children are diagnosed with a pedophilic disorder.
Additionally, men who sexually abuse children are often classified based on:

(1) The degree to which the sexual behavior is fixated (also called preferen-
tial; primary sexual preference for children of a certain age) or the basis
for psychological needs (regressed or situational; abuse in case of stress or
psychological problems, while being primarily attracted to adults) (Groth &
Birnbaum, 1978; Groth et al., 1982);
(2) A multidimensional axis system in which the offender is classified on
the degree of fixation on children and the level of social competency on
one axis, and the amount of contact, the relationship with the victim, the
injury conflicted on the victim, and the level of sadistic interest on another
axis (Massachusetts Treatment Center Child Molester Classification System
(MCT:CM3)) (Knight et al., 1989; Knight & King, 2012; Knight & Prentky,
1990);
(3) The relationship with the victim (e.g., intra- (incest and sibling sexual abuse;
Loinaz et al., 2019) or extra-familiar victim).
See Table 22.1 for an overview and explanation of these classifications.
 22

Table 22.1 Overview of adult male contact sexual offender classifications systems
Classification Reason of Example Short explanation
category classification classification
Offence and Men who Degree of 1 Pedophilic Classification based on having the DSM-IV diagnosis of pedophilic
offender offend sexual disorder disorder or not.Focus is on “Over a period of at least 6 months
characteristic against preference / recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges,
children fixation or behaviors” p. 697
2 Fixated or Fixated offender Situational offender
situational • Primarily social and • Primarily attracted to adults
offender sexual preference for • Prefer female victims
children certain age • Abuse under stress or psychological
• Prefer male victims problems
• Lack peer-age • Often under influence during offence
relationships
• Often diagnosed
pedophilic disorder
Multilevel Massachusetts Two multidimensional axes; separate axis I and II typology
classification Treatment resulting in 24 types
Adult Male Contact Sexual Offenders: Challenges …

Center Child
Molester
Classification
System
(MCT:CM3))

(continued)
419
Table 22.1 (continued)
420

Classification Reason of Example Short explanation

category classification classification
• Axis I: The degree of • Axis II: Amount of contact
fixation on children (high/low), relationship with victim
(high/low) and the level (interpersonal/narcissistic), injury
of social competence conflicted on victim (high/low) and
(SC; high/low). 4 types: sadistic interest (SI; high/low). 6
high fixation, low SC types: high amount of inter-personal
(type 0), high fixation, (type 1) or narcissistic (type 2)
high SC (type 1), low contact; low amount of contact, low
fixation, low SC (type physical injury and low SI (type 3) or
2), low fixation, high SC high SI (type 4); low amount of
(type 3) contact, high physical injury and low
SI (type 5) or high SI (type 6)
Relationship Intra- and Intra-familiar Extra-familiar
with the extra-familiar • ↓ Antisocial behavior, • ↓ Age
victim victim sexual deviance, offence • ↑ Denial and minimization, risk for
supportive beliefs reoffending
• ↑ History of childhood
difficulties
Men who Motivation 1 Groth and Motivation and amount of aggression
offend for offending Birnbaum
against (1978)’s rape
adults typology
(continued)
M. G. C. Noteborn
 22

Table 22.1 (continued)

Classification Reason of Example Short explanation
category classification classification
• Power assertive Impulsive, to confirm virility and
• Power reassurance dominance. ↑ aggression.
• Anger retaliation Overcome insecurities related to
• Anger excitation / women and poor social skill. +/−
sadistic aggression
• Opportunistic Revenge and power. ↑ aggression
(Hazelwood, 1987) Planned eroticized sadistic aggression
In conjunction with other crimes. Rape
was not the main reason for offence +
/− aggression
2 Massachusetts Multilevel classification based on 4 primary motivation including 9
Treatment types
Center Rape • Opportunistic: ↑ or ↓ Impulsive, unplanned, predatory act
Classification SC (1 & 2) seeking gratification
System Undifferentiated anger in different
• Pervasively angery (3)
(MTC:R3) domains
Adult Male Contact Sexual Offenders: Challenges …

• Sexual: + Sadistic
Overt (4), Muted (5) Prolonged sexual / sadistic fantasies
– Sadistic ↑ SC (6), ↓ - Aggression, mixture of sexual
SC (7) arousal, distorted cognitions,
• Vindictive: ↑ SC (8), ↓ inadequate sexuality and masculine
SC (9) self-image
Women are focal point of anger, ↓
impulsivity
(continued)
421
Table 22.1 (continued)
422

Classification Reason of Example Short explanation

category classification classification
Relationship Stranger vs. Difference based on the notion that the offender "knows" the victim
with the acquaintance before the offence. Sometimes defined as known 24 hours before
victim rape the offence
• Most sexual offences are • Stranger victims is ↑ risk for
against acquaintances reoffending
Risk Risk level Based on the final judgment of the risk assessment the offender is
assessment classified. For instance, low, medium, or high risk
Dynamic risk Statistical analyses created typologies based on dynamic risk
factors factors, crimingenic needs and the accumulation of dynamic risk
factors
Note. DSM-IV = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), SC=social
competence, SI=sadistic interest
M. G. C. Noteborn
22 Adult Male Contact Sexual Offenders: Challenges … 423

Adult Men Who Sexually Offend Against Adults

Despite the heterogeneity, men who sexually offend against adults are generally
characterized by low social economic status, poor education, maltreatment in
childhood, and psychopathic traits (e.g., Bard et al., 1987; Olver & Wong, 2006;
Vess et al., 2004). In terms of criminal history, men who abuse adults are often
compared to violent offenders as they are both characterized by a more extensive
criminal record pertaining to non-sexual offenses (e.g., Simon, 2000; Smallbone
et al., 2003).
Previous work has classified men who sexually offend against adults into
several typologies mainly based on offending motivation. Groth and Birnbaum
(1978) developed such a typology based on motivation for the offense in combi-
nation with the amount of aggression displayed, resulting in four different types
of men who rape: (1) power assertive type (i.e., antisocial rapist)—impulsive,
sexual offense to confirm virility and dominance by using aggressive methods;
(2) power reassurance—overcome insecurity concerning women and poor social
skills by displaying dominant behavior; (3) anger retaliation type (also called the
aggressive aim rapist)—revenge and power; and (4) anger excitation or sadistic—
expresses planned eroticized sadistic aggression. Later on, Hazelwood (1987)
added a fifth type, named opportunistic rapist—abuses due to opportunity while
committing another offense.
Similar to men who sexually offend against children, there is also a multi-
dimensional typology classifying men who sexually offend against adults based
on four main motivations for offending, (1) opportunistic, (2) pervasively angry,
(3) sexually sadistic/gratification, or (4) vindictive (the Massachusetts Treatment
Center Rape Classification System (MTC:R3 Knight & Prentky, 1990; Prentky
et al., 1985).
Additionally, men who sexually offend against adults can be classified based
on their relationship with the victim. The most used classification is based on
stranger vs. acquaintance rape (e.g., date rape, intimate partner rape).4 The term
acquaintance is often defined as a victim with any degree of familiarity with
the perpetrator (Koss et al., 1988) or based on the notion that the victim and
perpetrator know each other (Benson et al., 1992). However, as these definitions

4Having a stranger victim is also a risk factor for men who sexually abuse children (Helmus &
Thornton, 2015).
424 M. G. C. Noteborn

are ambiguous, some research refers to sexual assault involving assailants known
for more than 24 hours (Stermac et al., 2004). The prevalence of acquaintance
rape is about 60–80% of all rape cases (for an overview, see Lopez et al., 2019).
Sexual assault of a stranger or an unknown victim is seen as a risk factor for
re-offending (e.g., Helmus & Thornton, 2015).
Pros and cons. The practicality and user-friendliness of the classification based
on offense type are mixed. Classifying sexual offenders based on the victim’s age
or the victim’s relationship can be considered user-friendly. This type of classifi-
cation is often straightforward—it is often based on index offense—and therefore
widely used in clinical and research practice. However, there is also criticism
on this use as the multidimensional models (e.g., MCT:CM 3 and MCT:R3) are
considered too complicated for clinical practice (e.g., Knight & King, 2012).
When looking at the validity of several classifications, as indicated above,
some differences between the categories have been found, indicating that there
is some truth in these classifications. However, the primary source of criticism
when considering the validation of the classifications is twofold. First, research
has indicated a crossover effect between categories (e.g., Heil et al., 2003). For
instance, some offenders have both child and adult victims, known and unknown
victims, or committed both sexual and non-sexual crimes (for an overview, see
Saramago et al., 2020). Moreover, many classifications are based on the nature
and characteristics of a particular sexual offense, usually, the offense for which
the person is currently incarcerated/arrested (i.e., the index offense) rather than
taking into account crossover offenses and victim characteristics over a more
extended period (Cale, 2018).
The second point of criticism is based on the legal definition of sexual offend-
ing, as sexual offenders are often classified after being convicted of a crime (i.e.,
incarcerated samples). Whether someone is a sexual offender is determined in
the first place by the definition of the law, such as the definition of statutory rape
(i.e., sexual contact with a person under the age of consent is illegal regardless of
whether both parties freely consented), the age of consent (the age from which
someone is deemed capable of consenting to sexual contact), what is consid-
ered “consent,” and the minimum age of criminal responsibility. The differences
in laws between countries or states complicate the definition and classification
based on offense type as sexual offender populations differ between countries.
22 Adult Male Contact Sexual Offenders: Challenges … 425

An example of how differences in legal definitions of sexual offending can vary

between countries/states is given in Textbox 1.

Textbox 1
Laws and legislation concerning sexual offenses and offenders can differ
considerably across countries. For instance, the age of consent is often
clearly prescribed by law. However, in some countries, the age of consent
is not defined. However, sexual contact outside wedlock is illegal, or may
differ depending on marital status or indicate contradicting laws and reg-
ulations (e.g., in Indonesia age of consent is 15 for girls, who can marry
at 16, whereas children are defined as 18 years or younger by law; for
a discussion see Wismayanti et al., 2019). Additionally, same-sex contact
is often treated differently—in some countries, same-sex intercourse is per
definition considered illegal, or the age of consent differs between same-sex
and opposite-sex sexual contact.
Furthermore, some countries do not use gender-neutral language in the
statutory rape law, whereby the perpetrator and victim can only be male
and female, respectively (e.g., Morocco; Moroccan Penal Code Art. 486).
The difference in the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MCAR)
also differs significantly across countries. In some Islamic societies, such
as Iran, criminal responsibility is linked to the age of maturity or puberty.
According to Sharia law, it is nine years for girls and 15 years for boys. In
Europe, the age of criminal responsibility ranges from ten (e.g., Switzer-
land; Loi fédérale régissant la condition pénale des mineurs Art. 3.1) to 16
(e.g., Portugal; the Portuguese penal code art. 19).
The combination of the age of consent and the MCAR provides another
challenge: the age of consent and MCAR are often close in age. This
resulted that in some countries, sexual activity between consenting adoles-
cents close in age is criminalized and can be considered an act of statutory
rape. For this reason, some countries implemented the so-called Romeo and
Juliet laws, also called the close-in-age exception, to avoid criminalizing
sexual activity between consenting adolescents close in age. In some geo-
graphical areas, however, these exceptions are limited to sexual activities
of the opposite sex (e.g., Texas; Tex. Penal Code § 21.11). Furthermore,
age of consent and MCAR also contribute to the debate about including
hebephilic disorder (sexual attraction to children age 11–14 years (early
pubertal children)) in the diagnostic manual. While some researchers argue
426 M. G. C. Noteborn

that the inclusion of this additional age category would result in increased
diagnostic reliability, others argue that defining something as a disorder
when it is considered acceptable in some countries as indicated by the age
of consent seems to be a form of social control and would not increase
psychiatric credibility (see Blanchard, 2013; Green, 2010).

Case Example
To illustrate the differences in defining a sexual offender and its problems
in the definition of sexual offending and the classification systems, the
following case is presented, including several alternative scenarios. Possible
outcomes in 5 different countries/states are illustrated below.
It is hereby important to note that the following examples are used for
illustrative purposes only and do not include exemptions in the law or
personal/situational circumstances.
Daniel H. (49) was arrested for having sexual contact with Anna (12).
Both Daniel H. and Anna state that the sexual contact was consensual. Is
Daniel in this context considered a sexual offender? Or if Daniel (16) and
Anna (13) were close in age? Moreover, would it differ if Anna was, in
fact, Arno, who was in a same-sex relationship with Daniel?
22 Adult Male Contact Sexual Offenders: Challenges … 427

Sexual offender
Country/State Daniel (49) and Anna (12) / Daniel (16) and Anna (13)
Daniel (49) and Arno (12), /Daniel (16) and Arno (13),
same-sex relationship same-sex relationship
The No. The age of consent is 12, No. Age of consent is 12,
Netherlands making sexual contact with MCAR is also 12. The
Anna or Arno not a criminal Netherlands also has a
offence per se. No exemption close-in-age exemption (at the
to same-sex relationship. discretion of the prosection).
No differences for same-sex
relationships.
Chile Yes. The age of consent is 14, Yes/No, Chile has a
making sexual contact with close-in-age exemption.
Anna a criminal offence However, this age gap can be a
whether the relationship was maximum of 2–3 years
mutual or not. In same sex the depending on the sexual crime.
age of consent is higher, MCAR is 18 and can be
namely 18, making sexual lowered to 14 in certain cases.
contact with Arno also a Therefore Daniel would be
criminal offense. considered a sexual offender in
the heterosexual relationship.
However, for same-sex
relationships the age of consent
is 18 making Daniel and Arno
both under the age of consent.
United Kingdom Yes. The age of consent is 16, Yes, the United Kingdom has
(England and Wales) making sexual contact with no close-in-age exemption. The
Anna/Arno a criminal offence minimal age of criminal
whether the relationship was responsibility is 10 years old.
mutual or not. No exception
to same-sex relationship.
Texas, US Yes. The age of consent is 17, Yes, Texas has a close-in-age
making sexual contact with exemption, however the age
Anna/Arno a criminal offence differences is maximum
whether the relationship was 3 years and it only applies to
mutual or not. couples of the opposite sex.
While made invalid by the MCAR is said to be 15.
Supreme court, Texas Penal However, between the age of
code still states: “A person 10–15 years a judge can decide
commits an offense if he that you were liable and charge
engages in deviate sexual the person with the offence.
intercourse with another
individual of the same sex”.
428 M. G. C. Noteborn

Sexual offender
Country/State Daniel (49) and Anna (12) / Daniel (16) and Anna (13)
Daniel (49) and Arno (12), /Daniel (16) and Arno (13),
same-sex relationship same-sex relationship
Iran Yes, both could be considered It depends on Daniel and
punishable. Sexual contact Anna’s marital status. Sexual
outside the marriage is illegal. contact outside the marriage is
Legal age for marriage is 13 illegal. When Daniel and Anna
for girls. Marriage at younger are married sexual contact is
age is possible with guardian’s permitted as girls can legally
permission. Assuming Daniel marry at the age of 13. The
and Anna are not married with minimum age of criminal
permission, Daniel and Anna responsibility is 9 for girls and
both could be punished for the 15 for boys under Sharia law,
sexual contact as MCAR is so both could be held
9 years for girls accountable in case the two are
Iran’s Islamic law considers not married. Same-sex
same-sex relationships a relationships are a criminal
crime punishable by the death offence.
penalty.
Note. These examples were chosen to illustrate a point and do not take other factors into
account
The Netherlands; Criminal code §245, §247, §486
Texas: Texas Penal Code §8.07, § 21.02, § 21.06, §21.11
Iran: Iranian Civil Code §1041; Islamic Penal Code 1991; see also Mousavi et al. (2012)
Chile: Chilean Penal Code §363; Law 20.084 §3; see also Ahumada (2009)
United Kingdom: Children and Young Persons Act 1933, Section 50; Sexual Offences
Act 2003

When considering the treatment use of classifications based on offense and

offender characteristics, classifications are sometimes used to indicate placement
in treatment facilities, intervention groups, and supervision (e.g., specific treat-
ments for child sexual abusers). However, classifications based on offense and
offender characteristics fail to provide specific treatment needs and thereby com-
plicate effective risk management partly due to their often simplistic nature and
heterogeneity of the offender population. (Ward & Carter, 2019).
Additionally, several classifications have failed to predict recidivism (Camil-
leri & Quinsey, 2008). For instance, the multidimensional axis typologies of
Knight and colleagues have been empirically validated (e.g., Loomans et al.,
2001; Schaaf et al., 2019, but see also Barbaree et al., 1994), but have been criti-
cized, also by the authors themselves, because of their limited treatment relevance
and predictive ability (e.g., Camilleri & Quinsey, 2008). The limited predictive
22 Adult Male Contact Sexual Offenders: Challenges … 429

ability of some of these typologies may in part be due to the complexity of some
of the typologies (e.g., MCT-CM3), crossover effects, and legal complexities.

Classification Based on Risk Level and Dynamic Risk Factors

An additional way of classifying offenders is the use of risk assessment. Risk

assessment instruments can be used to identify the risk of re-occurrence of the
same criminal behavior. There are currently two widely accepted approaches
to assess recidivism risk for (sexual) re-offending: (1) actuarial risk assess-
ment and (2) structured professional judgment (SPJ) (Chapter 25). An example
of an actuarial risk assessment instrument commonly used to assess a sexual
offenders’ recidivism risk is the STATIC-99(R)/20025 (Hanson & Thornton,
2000/2003). The Static comprises 10—primarily static—risk factors based on
empirical research in combination with rules for aggregating the relevant infor-
mation, a numerical score is obtained. The evaluator can come to a numerical
prediction of the risk based on included outcome tables and norms. Examples of
risk factors include age at release from the index sex offense, criminal history
(e.g., prior non-sexual violent or sexual offenses), and several items, including
victim characteristics (stranger, unrelated, male).
SPJ instruments, such as the second version of the Sexual Violence Risk–20
(SVR-20 V2; Boer et al., 2018), comprise risk factors (e.g., sexual deviation,
escalation in sexual offending, extreme minimization/denial of sexual offend-
ing, attitudes that support or condone sexual offending, negative attitude toward
supervision/intervention) that are supported by scientific literature to lead to an
increased risk in re-offending. Instead of relying on statistical estimates, total
scores and norm/percentile tables are used as guidelines for evaluators to decide
about the offenders’ risk level (Hart et al., 2017).
The two ways of using risk assessment instruments in classifying male contact
sexual offenders are somewhat equivocal to the two assessment methods. The
first way to use risk assessment in the classification of sexual offenders is by
using the total risk level. That is, based on the assessed level of risk for re-
offending, the sexual offender can be classified as, for instance, low, medium, or
high risk. The second way is focused on classifications based on dynamic risk

5 To assess recidivism risk, the STATIC can be used in combination with the STABLE (Fer-
nandez et al., 2012) and the ACUTE (Hanson & Harris, 2012). In short, the STABLE measures
13 dynamic risk factors and gives information that can also be used for risk management and
treatment goals. The ACUTE consists of seven acute dynamic risk factors that can change in
a relatively short time.
430 M. G. C. Noteborn

factors and criminogenic needs and the accumulation of dynamic risk factors—
which is more in line with using an SPJ method. Several studies have attempted
to create such typologies using statistical methods, resulting in typologies such
as a “high-needs group,” a “moderate-needs group,” and a “low-needs/high-denial
group and/or sexually deviant group” (Beech, 1998; Martínez-Catena et al., 2017;
Seto & Fernandez, 2011).
Risk level pros and cons. This classification can be considered user-friendly.
Most clinicians who work with sexual offenders are experienced in working with
risk assessment instruments or can obtain a risk assessment of the offender (prac-
ticality and user-friendliness). Considering treatment use, classification based on
risk level can help clinicians indicate the level and intensity of treatment needed.
For instance, research has indicated that providing long, intense treatment to low-
risk offenders increases the risk of re-offending (see Andrews & Bonta, 2010;
Bonta & Andrews,2017; Risk principle of the Risk Need Responsivity Model)
(Chapter 27). However, classification based on risk level alone neither specifies
the interplay between the risk factors underneath the risk level nor the specific
treatment needs related to the sexual re-offending behavior and the offender.
Risk levels are developed to predict a person’s chance of committing the same
offense again; however, they fail to explain why the offender committed the
crimes or what the offender needs to refrain from re-offending (e.g., the Need
and Responsivity Principles form the RNR model; see Ward & Carter, 2019).
Classification based on risk level helps inform practitioners who are most
likely to re-offend and provide a probability of re-offending within a specific
period (Ward & Carter, 2019). However, whereas research has indicated that
risk levels predict recidivism—which is logical as these risk levels are based
on recidivism data—risk levels used in different risk assessment instruments can
have a different meaning. For example, a high-risk level (score four or higher) as
indicated by the STATIC-99R6 indicates an estimated chance of 27.3 to 48.5%
of re-offending within ten years. However, the same risk level (high; score +
20 and higher) using the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG; Quin-
sey et al., 2006) indicates a probability of re-offending of 80–100% in the same
period. Therefore, it could also be necessary to specify the risk assessment tool

6Table of the Static-99R used: Observed and estimated ten-year sexual recidivism rates for
Static-99R: High Risk/need Sample. Supplemental Recidivism Rate Tables for Static-99R and
Static-2002R (2015) obtained from www.Static-99.org. Table of the SORAG used from Mac-
Donald, D. K. (2017). Using the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG). Retrieved on
March 16, 2021, from http://dustinkmacdonald.com/using-sex-offender-risk-appraisal-guide-
sorag/.
22 Adult Male Contact Sexual Offenders: Challenges … 431

used to determine the classified risk level and re-offending probability (predicting
recidivism).
Dynamic risk factors pros and cons. In terms of practicality and user-
friendliness, classifications based on dynamic risk factors are similar to those
for risk level. Additionally, dynamic risk factors are part of risk assessment
and risk of recidivism. Some researchers argue that the classification based on
dynamic risk factors works in treatment settings when treatment adheres to the
risk-need-responsivity principle (e.g., Martínez-Catena et al., 2017). More pre-
cisely, classifications based on dynamic risk factors assess the risk level, which
is often used to determine treatment intensity and the need principle, indicat-
ing which factors need to be targeted in treatment (RNR-model, see criticism
risk level). However, the description of a single risk factor often includes sev-
eral components of that risk factor (see Ward & Carter, 2019), leaving room for
differences between offenders who may seem similar at first sight (validity in
differences). For instance, the item Sexual Deviance of the STABLE (Fernandez
et al., 2012) includes deviant behaviors, deviant victims, and a range of interests
and activities. Different offenders could thus end up having the same score on
this item.

Multifactorial Models of Adult Male Contact Sexual Offending

In the next section, the major multifactorial models of adult male contact sexual
offending will be reviewed. Multifactorial models, also called Level I theories,
consider multiple factors in creating a comprehensive account of what causes
sexual offending and how certain factors may lead to sexual offending (e.g.,
Ward et al., 2006). These models will be reviewed by linking general criticism to
the four aspects mentioned before: practicality and user-friendliness, explanation
and differences between offenders, treatment use, and predictive validity. A full
review of these explanatory models and their criticism is beyond the scope of this
chapter. However, a brief overview is provided in Table 22.2. Interested readers
are referred to Ward and colleagues (2006) who provided an in-depth evaluation
and explanation of several of the mentioned theories separately.
The first multifactorial models of child sexual abuse and adult sexual abuse
are Finkelhor’s (1984) Precondition Model of child sexual abuse and Malamuth
and colleagues’ (1986, 1996) Confluence model of sexual aggression, respec-
tively. These models were followed by Marshall and Barbaree’s (1990) Integrated
Theory and Hall and Hirschman’s (1992) Quadripartite Model, which aimed
to explain sexual offending against children and adults. After evaluating the
432 M. G. C. Noteborn

Table 22.2 Short overview of multifactorial theories of adult male contact sexual offending
Short explanation
Sexual offences against children
Finkelhor’s (1984) Includes four preconditions occurring in sequential order containing
Preconditions model four etiological factors: (1) the motivation to sexually abuse and
includes 3 of the etiological factors—emotional congruence with
children, being sexually aroused by children, and blockage of
sexual gratification and sexual fulfillment in more socially approved
ways, (2) overcoming internal inhibitors and contains the fourth
etiological factors, disinhibition including trait factors (e.g.,
personality) and state factors (intoxication, stress, cognitive
distortions), (3) overcoming external barriers (e.g., lack of parental
control) and (4) overcoming resistance by the child (e.g., seeking
vulnerable child, using force, manipulation). The four conditions
have to be met before sexual abuse will occur
Ward and Siegert’s (2002) Five different pathways to sexually abusing a child. These pathways
Pathway model have at the core four clusters of distinct but interacting
psychological problems (i.e., intimacy and social skill deficits,
distorted sexual scripts, emotional dysregulation, and cognitive
distortions). In each pathway, all the clusters are present however
differ in degree. The five pathways are (1) Intimacy deficits, (2)
Deviant sexual scripts, (3) Emotional dysregulation, (4) Antisocial
cognitions, and (5) Multiple dysfunctional mechanisms
Sexual offences against adults
Malamuth and colleagues An evolutionary and feminist sociocultural approach explains
(1986, 1996) Confluence sexual offending and uses ultimate and proximate causes of sexual
model of sexual offending. Men and women have evolutionary different mating
aggression strategies. It is a small investment for men to produce offspring
(minutes); however, he is never certain that the offspring is his. For
women, the investment is longer and the number of offspring lower,
resulting in choosing partners based on genetic quality and
commitment to parenting. As a result, Malamuth indicated two
pathways that converge to produce sexually aggressive behavior:
(1) sexual promiscuity (i.e., a preference for impersonal sex with
many partners) and (2) hostile masculinity—the use of hostile,
dominating, and controlling characteristics to have sexual contact
(and other interactions with women) based on the fear and anger
resulting from the mating strategy of women. As proximate
elements, there are four central elements in Malamuths theory, (1)
sexual aggression results from a convergence of risk factors, (2) that
predict aggression against woman and not other men, (3) and other
coercive and dominating behaviors towards women, and (4) factors
beyond the evolutionary factors are important in explaining the
occurrence of sexually aggressive behavior (e.g., situational factors,
child abuse, parental relationship)
(continued)
22 Adult Male Contact Sexual Offenders: Challenges … 433

Table 22.2 (continued)

Short explanation
Sexual offences against both children/adults
Marshall and Barbaree’s Sexual abuse occurs as a sequence of a number of interacting distal
(1990) Integrated theory and proximal factors. Developmentally adverse events in early life
(e.g., poor or harsh parenting, abuse) result in distorted internal
working models of relationship, particularly regarding sex and
aggression. These in turn will cause poor social relationship and
self-regulation skills. These experiences in early childhood result in
several difficulties and vulnerabilities in adolescence leaving the
offender illequiped to deal with challanges of adolescence (e.g.,
dealing with the increase in hormons; resulting in an increase in
aggressive and sexual impulses) resulting in greater chance of a
disturbed sexual development, low self-esteem etc. These
vulnerabilities interact with more transient situational factors that
remove the offenders inhibition to sexually offend (e.g.,
intoxication, stress, presence of a potential victim)
Hall and Hirschman’s Based on four so-called primary motivational precursors: 3 state
(1991, 1992) factors (1) physical sexual arousal (e.g., pedophilia,violent sexual
Quadripartite model fantasies), (2) inaccurate cognitions that justify sexual aggression
(e.g., cognitive distortions, offense supportive beliefs), (3) affective
dyscontrol, and one trait factors (4) developmental personality
problems (e.g., antisocial personality traits). Whereas all factors are
seen as precursors for offending, one factor seems as predominant.
Situational factors (e.g., encountering a child alone) function as an
activator of the primary factors above the individual’s threshold for
offending, subsequently increasing the intensity of the other factors.
Each of the four factors can be used to identify a particular type of
offender, thereby including a male contact sexual offender
classification system
Ward and Beech’s (2006, Four sets of factors converge to cause sexual offending. Biological
2016) Integrated theory factors (genetics and brain development) interact with ecological
niche factors (e.g., social and cultural environment, personal
circumstances, physical environment), resulting in the different
neuropsychological factors (motivation/emotion, action selection
and control, perception and memory). Together, these factors
generate clinical problems related to sexual offending (deviant
arousal, offense-related thoughts and fantasies, negative and
positive emotional states, and social difficulties. These factors are
mediated by the personal agency (i.e., intentional mental states).
The consequence of the sexual abuse functions to maintain the
cycle as mentioned above
(continued)
434 M. G. C. Noteborn

Table 22.2 (continued)

Short explanation
Seto’s (2008, 2019) Indicates three primary motivations for sexual offending
Motivation-facilitation (paraphilia’s, high sex drive, and intense mating effort). As only
model being motivated to offend does not always result in offending
behavior (e.g., due to high levels of self-control), facilitation factors
may lower the inhibiting factors (e.g., alcohol a state factor,
antisocial personality as a state factor). However, Seto argues that
even if motivation and facilitation factors are present, sexual
offenses cannot occur without situational factors to create
opportunities to act (e.g., seeking vulnerable victims). The
interaction of motivation, facilitation, and situation leads to sexual
offending

strengths and weaknesses of the theories mentioned above concerning child sex-
ual abuse, Ward and Siegert (2002) developed the Pathways Model of child sexual
abuse. Building on these theories, Ward and Beech (2006, 2016) developed the
Integrated Theory of Sexual Offending (ITSO), a broad theoretical framework
through which sexual offending can be understood, including aspects of etiology,
biology, and neurology. Not long after the ITSO, Seto (2008, 2019) established
the Motivation-Facilitation Model (MFM) of Sexual Offending, focusing on moti-
vations for offending with state and trait factors that facilitate acting upon these
motivations.
Taking a close look at these multidimensional theories, it becomes clear that
(most of) these models attempt to account for some variation in sexual offenders
with different offending motivations. However, the central focus of these theories
is on the sexual aspect or motivation of the crime. Because these theories focus
primarily on sexual aspects, they are not suitable for offenders who commit sex-
ual offenses out of a mere antisocial motivation. Additionally, in these theories,
crossover effects are not always considered and explained by the models, making
them most suitable for index offenses explanation instead of explaining more gen-
eral offense patterns. Similar to classifications, legal definitions concerning sexual
offenses differ across countries, which make cross-country validation difficult
(validity in differences). That is, if theories are built on or developed for specific
classifications of offenders, the process of crossover effects and legal definitions
becomes circular (see Bickley & Beech, 2001). In terms of user-friendliness and
practicality, a certain level of simplicity is needed for a theory to be used in
daily practice. Whereas some of the listed theories explain offending behavior in
22 Adult Male Contact Sexual Offenders: Challenges … 435

a relatively straightforward manner (e.g., Finkelhor’s Precondition Model), oth-

ers include too many factors and conditions to be considered user-friendly (e.g.,
Hall & Hirschman’s Quadripartite Model; Ward et al., 2006). Although these
multidimensional models are based on single-factor theories (e.g., Level II theo-
ries; theories aimed at understanding individual factors that contribute to sexual
offending behavior such as sexual deviance, social skill deficits), the definition
of these single-factor theories is not always straightforward. An important exam-
ple is the term ‘cognitive distortions’, which is often used in sexual offending
literature (Chapter 4). This term is often criticized for its vagueness and broad
formulation (e.g., Ó Ciardha & Gannon, 2011), as is illustrated by the fact that
distorted sexual scripts (Ward Pathway Model), inaccurate cognitions that justify
sexual aggression (Hall & Hirschman’s Quadripartite model), and offense-related
thoughts and fantasies (Ward & Beech’s Integrated theory), all fall under the
umbrella of cognitive distortions. Additionally, the term may also include justifi-
cations, excuses, denial, minimization, and rationalizations concerning antisocial
behavior (see Ó Ciardha & Gannon, 2011). Although efforts have been made to
provide more clarity regarding this term (i.e., Ó Ciardha & Ward, 2013), there
is not one single clear definition used by researchers and clinicians that defines
cognitive distortions. The lack of clarity regarding such terminology can make
communication between clinicians complex (practicality and user-friendliness).
Considering treatment use, these multifactorial models explain offending
behavior and are partly developed to help treat sexual offenders. Multifactorial
models can help clinicians understand the offense patterns and causal factors
leading up to the offense (see criticism predicting recidivism). Such knowledge is
vital for effective practice as it informs clinicians what to target in treatment and
how. That is, theories can inform clinicians about different treatment strategies
for different motivations, pathways, and offending factors. However, an essential
criticism often offered is the vagueness of these theories describing processes
and their lack of conceptual clarity (see Ward et al., 2006). This may limit treat-
ment effectiveness as it could be unclear what should be the target of treatment
(treatment use; see Maruna & Mann, 2006).
Considering the risk of recidivism, multidimensional models consist of several
single-factor theories considered to be involved in the sexual offending process
and are often included in risk assessment instruments. For example, all theories
include the single-factor theory of deviant sexual interest, which is considered
one of the strongest predictors of sexual recidivism (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon,
2005). However, caution is warranted as formal tests of these theories are chal-
lenging. When theories are tested (level I or II), conclusions are often based on
cross-sectional correlational designs, making causal interference and predictive
436 M. G. C. Noteborn

conclusions limited (i.e., temporal precedence; McMillan et al., 2008). Addition-

ally, the number of study participants, that is, sexual offenders, is often limited.
Against popular belief, the rate of adult male contact sexual offending is - com-
peratively - low. This low rate of offending in combination with the heterogeneity
of sexual offenders makes generalizability difficult. Moreover, most studies are
conducted in clinical or legal settings, which leads to an overrepresentation of
more serious offenders (e.g., Lussier, 2017; predicting recidivism).

Future Steps in Classification and Theory of Adult Male

Contact Sexual Offending

Several researchers state that using a more developmental life-course approach

to classification and theory could solve several of the aforementioned problems
of current classifications and/or theories (e.g., Cale, 2018; Lussier & Blokland,
2017; Seto, 2018). Current perspectives on male contact sexual offending mainly
focus on differences across individuals (i.e., between-person differences). In con-
trast, the developmental life-course (DLC) perspective aims at explaining sexual
offending by looking at both these between-person and within-individual differ-
ences, such as a person’s ability to change their offending behavior over time.
The DLC approach thereby focuses on the onset and duration of offending, turn-
ing points and life events, and the time of desistance from offending. Moreover, it
focuses on longitudinal patterns of individual criminal behavior (Lussier, 2017),
which requires longitudinal data from birth cohorts. Although this is challenging
(e.g., a significant time investment, clear definitions of single factors that might
contribute to the several stages of offending behavior, questionnaire development
of certain factors; Lussier & Blokland, 2017), it would eliminate biases related
to the use of incarcerated and clinical samples and limit temporal precedence.
The advantages of such a longitudinal approach include more precise predictions
about recidivism (predicting recidivism) and avoiding the implicit bias that sex-
ual offenders are lifelong offenders with a relatively high chance of re-offending
(e.g., Spaan et al., 2020; predict recidivism).
Whereas multidimensional models using a DLC perspective are still in its
infancy, some steps have been taken in the direction of life-course typologies. A
life-course typology often used in the general criminal literature is Moffitt’s dual
taxonomy. Moffit distinguishes two offending pathways, a life-course-persistent
offending pathway and an adolescence-limited offending pathway (Moffitt, 1993)
(Chapter 2). In the sexual offending literature, there is some evidence for early
onset and late-onset antisocial trajectories in men who sexually assault women,
22 Adult Male Contact Sexual Offenders: Challenges … 437

whereas most men who sexually assault children engage in minimal offending
across the life span and are more associated with late-onset offending trajectories
(predicting recidivism; e.g., Cale, 2015; Cale et al., 2009; Francis et al., 2014).
Furthermore, crossover effects could be lowered because more general crim-
inal trajectories are often included in typologies based on a more life-course
approach (e.g., Spaan et al., 2020). However, it has to be noted that life-course
typologies using populations from different countries suffer from similar difficul-
ties with the definition of the law and sexual offender populations across countries
as the aforementioned classification and multifactorial approaches (validity in dif-
ferences; see Spaan et al., 2020). Considering treatment use, a within-person
approach may entail a more prominent focus in treating patients’ individual needs
and values related to the onset, desistance, or handling specific turning points in
their life.

Conclusion

Despite the merits of using a DLC model for classification and theory, this
approach will not solve all the listed challenges faced by current classifications
and theories. For instance, the fact that offender samples are generally small,
sexual offender populations can change—among others—across jurisdictions and
geographical locations, and the fact that definitions of level II theories are some-
times not clear does not disappear when using a DLC approach. More priority in
research, law, and policymaking regarding universal definitions of (contact) sex-
ual offenses and the concepts of risk factors (Level II theories) would provide an
essential basis for clear classifications and theories’ development. One theory can
never explain all forms and motivations for adult male contact sexual offending
while still being straightforward and specific at the same time. Future research
and clinical practice should thus examine a DLC approach in terms of practi-
cality and user-friendliness and its ability to explain and account for differences
between offenders, treatment use, and predicting recidivism.

References

Ahumada, C. (2009). Statutory rape law in Chile: For or against adolescents. Journal of
Politics & Law, 2(2), 94–108. https://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jpl/article/view/
2311