The Hidden Pattern Behind Sexual Violence Statistics

Picture two people filling out the same anonymous survey. One question asks whether they have ever been forced into sex against their will. Another asks whether they have ever forced someone else. Something strange happens when researchers compare the answers across a population: the number of people who say "it happened to me" is consistently, sometimes dramatically, higher than the number of people who say "I did it to someone." That gap is not a paradox. It is a clue, and it turns out to be one of the more revealing threads running underneath a large body of research on gender, power, and sexual violence. This piece pulls together six recent reviews and meta-analyses covering prevalence, perpetrator identity, motive, and life-course patterns, and tries to explain, in plain language, what they actually show, what they leave unresolved, and what seems to be sitting just beneath the surface of the data without ever being said outright.

A Prevalence Gap That Shows Up Almost Everywhere

Researchers use the term lifetime prevalence to describe the percentage of a population that has experienced a given event at any point in their life, not just recently. When it comes to sexual violence, lifetime prevalence is not just a little higher for women. In Sweden, 23.2% of women reported severe sexual violence compared with 6.5% of men, roughly a 3.5-fold gap (Öberg et al., 2020). Among young Swedish adults, women were eleven times more likely than men to report forced penetration (Löfström-Bredell et al., 2025). Brazil's national health survey found women had seven times the odds of lifetime sexual violence compared with men (Szwarcwald et al., 2024). In Belgium, more than half of older women, 55.2%, reported lifetime sexual violence versus 29.0% of older men (Nobels et al., 2021). Among United States military veterans, women were six to seven times more likely than men to report sexual violence that occurred before they even entered service (Iverson et al., 2023).

What makes this pattern worth pausing on is not any single number. It is the consistency across wildly different countries, survey instruments, and cultural contexts. Sweden and Brazil do not share a language, a legal system, or a religious history, yet the gender gap in lifetime sexual violence shows up in both. That kind of cross-cultural convergence is one of the stronger forms of evidence a social scientist can point to, because it is harder to explain away as an artifact of one survey design or one country's particular politics.

The gap is not uniform, though, and the places where it narrows are almost as informative as the places where it is largest. In Haiti, the gender difference was much smaller, 29.0% for women versus 25.7% for men (Cénat et al., 2022), and child sexual victimization in that same sample showed no significant gender difference at all (Cénat et al., 2022). In Iran, non-contact and contact non-partner sexual violence showed no meaningful gender gap, even though rape itself did (Khayer et al., 2026). So the disparity is not a flat, universal law. It concentrates most heavily in the most severe category, rape and forced penetration, and loosens for less severe or non-contact forms.

Who Gets Hit Hardest Within the Gap

A few subgroups carry a disproportionate share of this burden, and the numbers here are genuinely startling. Women with intellectual disabilities had 4.3 times the odds of rape compared with men with the same disabilities (Codina & Pereda, 2021). Women with multiple disabilities reported a lifetime sexual violence prevalence of 42.1% (Ledingham et al., 2022). And prevalence in some psychiatric and disability subgroups reached 40 to 55% (Nobels et al., 2021; Kaul et al., 2024). It is worth sitting with that figure for a second. In some of these subpopulations, sexual violence is not a minority experience. It is closer to a majority one.

There is also a finding that complicates any simple story about heterosexual men as the sole source of risk. In Brazil, homosexual and bisexual men had nine times the odds of lifetime sexual violence compared with heterosexual men (Szwarcwald et al., 2024), and Brazilian men who have sex with men reported a lifetime prevalence of 20.3% (Ferreira et al., 2022). Sexual minority status, in other words, appears to function as its own independent risk factor, layered on top of whatever risk comes from gender alone.

One more thread is worth naming, and it is a limitation rather than a counterweight. Men are less likely to disclose being victimized, largely because of stigma and a fear of appearing weak, so the true prevalence of male victimization is probably somewhat higher than survey data captures (Khayer et al., 2026; Kaul et al., 2024). Researchers flag this openly, and it matters for understanding men's own experience. But it does not overturn the broader pattern, and it is not evidence that the gender gap is smaller than it looks. As the next section lays out, the far larger and better-documented measurement bias in this literature runs in the opposite direction, toward undercounting how much sexual violence men commit, not how much they endure.

Who Is Doing It: The Shift From Family to Partner Across a Lifetime

If prevalence tells you how much sexual violence exists, perpetrator research tells you where it is coming from, and that answer changes depending on the victim's age in a way that forms something like a quiet life-course narrative, even though none of the individual studies frame it quite that explicitly.

For young children, the danger is overwhelmingly close to home. In the Brazilian Federal District, 82.1% of rape cases involving children under 14 were classified as vulnerable-victim cases, and 83.5% were perpetrated by family members or acquaintances, mostly indoors (Humanes et al., 2026). Relatives and other household members were the most frequent perpetrator category in early and middle childhood specifically, while parents themselves were, somewhat counterintuitively, the least frequent perpetrator group for sexual abuse across all onset ages (Fiedler et al., 2026). Closer kinship to the perpetrator was associated with earlier onset, longer duration, and more severe trauma outcomes (Wolf & Pruitt, 2026).

Then adolescence arrives, and the perpetrator pool shifts toward peers and romantic partners (Fiedler et al., 2026), with friend or romantic-partner perpetrators using more emotionally intimate grooming strategies than family perpetrators do (Jeglic et al., 2026). Grooming is the term researchers use for the gradual, deliberate process an abuser uses to build trust, lower a victim's defenses, and normalize boundary violations before abuse occurs; in plain terms, it is less like an ambush and more like a slow erosion of a young person's sense of what feels wrong. By young adulthood, ages 20 to 24 accounted for 59% of rape cases in one Brazilian metropolitan sample, with suspected alcohol involvement concentrated heavily in that age band (Gomiero et al., 2026), and the same study found that boyfriends or intimate partners were the primary perpetrators in 71.9% of rape cases where a relationship existed, though fathers were the leading perpetrators of sexual harassment specifically, at 80.8% (Gomiero et al., 2026).

By adulthood, the intimate partner has become the dominant perpetrator category almost everywhere researchers have looked. Globally, an estimated 27% of ever-partnered women aged 15 to 49 have experienced physical or sexual intimate partner violence in their lifetime (Sardinha et al., 2022). That figure climbs sharply in conflict-affected settings, where 39% of women and girls across thirteen studies reported lifetime physical or sexual violence from a partner (Murphy et al., 2024), and in South Sudan, lifetime intimate partner violence ranged from 54% to 73% depending on the site, remaining the single greatest source of risk even against a backdrop of catastrophic non-partner sexual assault (Ellsberg et al., 2020). In the United States, among women who experienced both sexual violence and stalking from the same person, 76.2% identified an intimate partner as the perpetrator (Basile et al., 2022).

Put those pieces next to each other and a pattern emerges that none of the six sources states directly, but that seems to follow reasonably from what they do say: risk does not so much decline with age as it relocates. It moves from the household to the peer group to the romantic partnership, tracking almost exactly the social structures a person is embedded in at each stage of life. That reframing might be useful, because it suggests prevention efforts probably need to be age-specific and relationship-specific rather than built around a single generic "stranger danger" model, which the data suggest is actually the least common pathway of the three (Ajayi et al., 2020, being something of an exception here, where strangers were the most frequently reported category in one South African university sample).

Yes, It Is Overwhelmingly Men, and the Evidence Is Not Just Asserted, It Is Measured

The evidence for male predominance in perpetration is genuinely strong, not a starting assumption dressed up as a finding. Men were identified as perpetrators 89 to 96% of the time across studies of heterosexual, bisexual, and lesbian women victims (Hindes et al., 2025). Cisgender men were the most prevalent perpetrators of every category of sexual assault against cisgender women in a large college sample (Martin et al., 2020). Heterosexual men reported perpetration rates around 33 to 38%, compared with roughly 12 to 23% among heterosexual women, a pattern that has replicated across multiple independent studies using different samples and instruments (Trottier et al., 2021; Anderson et al., 2024). This is where the research is most consistent, and it is also where it is most rigorously tested, which is worth sitting with before moving to anything that qualifies it.

Here is the part I think deserves the most attention, not the least: when researchers have actually gone looking for measurement bias in these numbers, they have found it running in one direction. Self-reported perpetration rates come in as much as 75% lower than victimization rates for the same behaviors, and researchers treat that gap as a measurement artifact rather than as evidence that only a small number of repeat offenders account for it (Mou, 2025; Jeffrey & Senn, 2024). A mixed-method study dug into why, and found that men frequently described their own behavior using softer language than the physical force they actually used, while some women mistakenly labeled their own compliance or victimization as if it were perpetration on their part (Jeffrey & Senn, 2024). Put plainly, the tools used to measure this are not neutral, and the direction of the error is toward undercounting men's perpetration and overcounting women's. That means the true male-to-female perpetration ratio is very likely even more lopsided than the already stark self-report numbers suggest, not less.

The research does note two real complications, and they are worth naming honestly without letting them do more work than they can. One is that gay men reported a perpetration rate of 35% in one study, statistically indistinguishable from heterosexual men's 33% and well above either group of women (Anderson et al., 2024), which suggests general risk factors beyond heterosexual power dynamics specifically are also at play. The other is that female-perpetrated violence, particularly against male partners, remains genuinely understudied, with most existing research on perpetrators built around incarcerated offenders and stranger assault rather than the far more common pattern of violence between people who know each other (Aceves & Tarzia, 2024; Bates & Weare, 2020). Neither of these findings competes with the core pattern. They sit inside it, as open questions about mechanism and about where research funding has and has not gone, not as a counterweight to what is otherwise one of the more settled findings in this entire body of evidence.

Why the Severity Gap Persists Even When Rates Look Similar

One of the more useful distinctions in this literature is between how often something happens and how much damage it does, because those two things do not move together in a simple way. Researchers sometimes use the terms intimate terrorism and situational couple violence to separate two very different patterns hiding inside the umbrella phrase "intimate partner violence." Situational couple violence refers to conflict that escalates into physical aggression from either partner, often mutual, usually less severe, and not aimed at controlling the other person. Intimate terrorism refers to a pattern of coercive control, repeated and often escalating, used specifically to dominate a partner, and it is perpetrated almost exclusively by men (Straus, 2011; Swan et al., 2008).

That distinction resolves something that otherwise looks like a genuine contradiction in the research: some studies find men and women hit each other at fairly similar rates, while other studies find women are overwhelmingly the ones who get hurt. Both can be true at once, because rate and severity are separate variables. A meta-analysis found men were significantly more likely than women to inflict injury on a partner, and that 62% of people injured by a partner were women (Archer, 2000). Women may initiate minor physical acts at rates close to men's, but men strike harder and cause disproportionately more harm (Morse, 1995), and motivation differs too, with men's violence more associated with control and dominance, and women's more associated with self-defense or retaliation (Ðurđević et al., 2022).

What Seems to Be Driving This, and What the Studies Do Not Quite Say Out Loud

The sixth piece of research turns from what is happening to why, and the answer it converges on is patriarchal structure, meaning cultural and institutional arrangements that grant men greater authority, entitlement, and control within relationships and society generally. Men who hold traditional gender-role beliefs and view women as subordinate are significantly more likely to perpetrate intimate partner violence (Fattah & Camellia, 2020; Fleming et al., 2015). Across eight low- and middle-income countries, 31% of men reported lifetime physical intimate partner violence perpetration, and inequitable gender attitudes were among the strongest risk factors identified (Fleming et al., 2015). In California, every one-point increase in gender-unequal beliefs doubled a man's odds of past-year perpetration, even after controlling for mental health and substance use (Closson et al., 2025). Men who justify wife-beating are roughly 20% more likely to actually perpetrate it, showing that the attitude and the behavior are not just correlated but appear to translate directly into each other (Chandra et al., 2023).

Perhaps the single strongest individual predictor across the reviewed evidence is intergenerational transmission: witnessing parental violence during childhood was the strongest risk factor for a man's lifetime perpetration across all eight countries studied in the IMAGES survey (Fleming et al., 2015). That finding, sitting quietly inside a study mostly framed around attitudes and gender ideology, arguably deserves more attention than it gets. It suggests that at least part of what looks like a gender-based cultural pattern is also, simultaneously, a learned behavioral pattern passed down within families, which is a slightly different mechanism than pure ideology, even though the two clearly reinforce each other in practice.

One thing sits underneath the gender story that none of these six sources quite says out loud, and it is worth naming carefully, as an addition rather than a competing explanation. The research is clear that patriarchal ideology drives who chooses to perpetrate. What it does not fully separate out is who has the opportunity to. Family members dominate as perpetrators of young children because family members have unsupervised access; intimate partners dominate as adult perpetrators because intimate partnership is, structurally, the relationship with the most privacy and trust. Gender explains, powerfully and consistently, who is most likely to exploit that access once it exists. It is a smaller, additional point that access and supervision are also part of why the pattern lands where it does, and it points toward prevention efforts that address both belief systems and structural safeguards, not toward any doubt about the central finding.

What This Actually Means

The research, taken together, does not leave much room for ambiguity. Sexual violence against women is a serious, disproportionate, extensively documented problem, and the consistency of that finding across Sweden, Brazil, Belgium, Iran, Haiti, South Sudan, and the United States is about as strong as social science evidence gets. Men are the perpetrators in the overwhelming majority of cases, that finding survives every measurement check researchers have thrown at it, and where the data have a directional bias at all, it runs toward undercounting men's perpetration rather than exaggerating it. Patriarchal norms, gender-inequitable beliefs, and intergenerational transmission of violence are not soft cultural explanations tacked onto the data. They are, across country after country, the variables that most reliably predict who perpetrates. The genuine open questions in this literature, around female-perpetrated violence and underreported male victimization, are real gaps that researchers themselves flag as understudied. They are not evidence that the central, well-replicated pattern is somehow overstated.

• One in three women globally experiences physical or sexual violence from a partner or non-partner over her lifetime (Stojetz & Brück, 2023; Mannell et al., 2022; Nguefack-Tsague et al., 2024). This is the number that anchors everything else, it's not a regional finding, it's the pooled global figure.

• In Afghanistan, 55.5% of ever-married women experience some form of partner violence (Shinwari et al., 2021). In South Sudan, 50 to 65% (Ellsberg et al., 2020). Among Arab women in Israel, roughly 75% report any IPV during marriage (Sokar, 2025).

• A partner's alcohol use is one of the strongest predictors: women whose partners are frequently drunk face nearly 6 times the odds of physical violence (Kebede et al., 2022; Ramsoomar et al., 2021).

• Controlling behavior alone raises risk over 6-fold (Kebede et al., 2022; Aboagye et al., 2025).

• War exposure has a documented causal effect: Angolan veterans exposed to sexual violence during conflict were 30 percentage points more likely to commit partner violence eighteen years later (Stojetz & Brück, 2023). That's not correlation across a survey, that's a measured effect that persists across nearly two decades.

• Education is protective: more than 12 years of schooling significantly reduces a woman's odds of experiencing violence, replicated across multiple countries (Oluwagbemiga et al., 2022; Shinwari et al., 2021; Sokar, 2025).

• 
  

Self-admission from a population not yet in the pattern

• Among young Tanzanian men, 9% self-admitted to non-partner rape perpetration, 19% to physical harassment, and 33% to verbal harassment, with pornography use, multiple partners, and gambling as associated risk factors (Brambilla et al., 2025). This is self-reported, meaning the real number is almost certainly higher, per the undercounting bias already established.

Neuroscience, not just self-report

• Brain imaging of male perpetrators found neural hyperconnectivity patterns that correlated directly with distorted thinking about women and reduced empathic response (Amaoui et al., 2022). This isn't a survey answer. It's a measurable difference in how perpetrators' brains process women, imaged directly.

Cross-national scale of the belief system

• A UN study spanning over 10,000 men across multiple countries found controlling behavior and inequitable gender attitudes were the two factors most strongly tied to both physical and sexual intimate partner violence perpetration (McCarthy et al., 2018).

• Hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men, the belief that men are "designed" for dominance, were found across 16 nations and were negatively correlated with gender equality in each one. The more a culture holds this belief, the less gender equality it has (Glick et al., 2004).

• In less gender-equal countries specifically, men are more likely to both perpetrate intimate partner violence and hold beliefs in male dominance, a relationship that held up across cross-national data (Li, 2026).

Repeat behavior, not one-off

• A history of prior perpetration was the single strongest predictor of future sexual violence among men at higher education institutions, more predictive than any environmental or cultural factor measured (Steele et al., 2020).

How perpetrators talk about what they did

• Male perpetrators commonly deflect blame onto the victim, cite external circumstances, or attribute their own behavior to uncontrollable biological urges, according to a synthesis of perpetrators' own accounts (Aceves & Tarzia, 2024). The justification pattern itself is a documented finding, not a suspicion.

• In Ghana, men described wife-beating as a legitimate disciplinary tool, explicitly rooted in the belief that men own their female partners and are entitled to sex on demand (Sikweyiya et al., 2020). Not implied. Stated as belief.

Perpetration rates, measured directly

• Men were identified as the perpetrator 89 to 96% of the time across studies of heterosexual, bisexual, and lesbian sexual violence victims (Hindes et al., 2025).

• Cisgender men were the most prevalent perpetrators of every single category of sexual assault against cisgender women in a large college sample (Martin et al., 2020).

• Heterosexual men reported perpetration rates of 33 to 38%, versus 12 to 23% for heterosexual women, replicated across multiple independent studies (Trottier et al., 2021; Anderson et al., 2024).

• All perpetrators of nonpartner sexual violence against women with disabilities were men, with a single exception in the entire sample (Malihi et al., 2021).

• Men remained the primary perpetrators of nonpartner physical violence against both women (55.3%) and men (84.7%) with disabilities. The gender of the perpetrator does not flip based on who the victim is (Malihi et al., 2021).

• Male intimate partners are the primary perpetrators of violence against women with disabilities across every setting studied (Anyango et al., 2023; Malihi et al., 2021).

The bias runs toward undercounting men, not exaggerating them

• Self-reported perpetration rates come in as much as 75% lower than victimization rates for identical behaviors, a gap researchers attribute to measurement bias, not fewer offenders (Mou, 2025; Jeffrey & Senn, 2024).

• Men frequently described their own forceful behavior using softer language than what actually occurred, while some women mislabeled their own compliance or victimization as their own perpetration, skewing self-report data toward undercounting men specifically (Jeffrey & Senn, 2024).

Injury and severity

• 62% of people injured by an intimate partner are women, even in studies where men and women report committing minor aggression at similar rates (Archer, 2000). Men strike harder and cause disproportionately more harm.

• "Intimate terrorism," the pattern of repeated, escalating coercive control aimed at dominating a partner, is perpetrated almost exclusively by men (Straus, 2011; Swan et al., 2008).

The drivers

• Witnessing parental violence in childhood was the single strongest predictor of a man's lifetime intimate partner violence perpetration across all eight countries in the IMAGES study, stronger than poverty, alcohol use, or general attitudes (Fleming et al., 2015).

• In California, every one-point increase in gender-unequal beliefs doubled a man's odds of past-year perpetration, independent of mental health or substance use (Closson et al., 2025).

• Men who justify wife-beating are 20% more likely to actually perpetrate it. The belief and the act track almost one-to-one (Chandra et al., 2023).

• Male adolescents who endorse rigid, hierarchical masculine superiority are significantly more likely to perpetrate dating violence and sexual coercion (Malhi et al., 2020).

• Hostile masculinity and male peer support for violence against women mediate the link between childhood abuse and adult perpetration, showing the pattern is taught and reinforced socially, not just individually pathological (Sutton, 2024).

It's not mental illness explaining it away

• Only about 11% of homicide perpetrators had a major diagnosable mental illness (Caman et al., 2022). Roughly 60% had no psychiatric contact at all in the year before the crime (Selin & Shannon, 2024). What's left after ruling out illness is a consistent profile: learned masculinity, childhood violence exposure, and entitlement, or lack of diagnosis.

  
  

  Even outside heterosexual contexts, it's still men

  • Over 90% of sexual assault against women is perpetrated by men, and among sexual minority women specifically, over 70% of bisexual and lesbian women reported experiencing only male-perpetrated sexual assault across their lifetime (MacDonald et al., 2024). Even in populations where you'd expect the perpetrator pool to shift, it doesn't.

    
    

References

Aceves, J. J., & Tarzia, L. (2024). Understanding the perspectives and experiences of male perpetrators of sexual violence against women: A scoping review and thematic synthesis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25, 3226-3240. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241241014

Ajayi, A., Mudefi, E., & Owolabi, E. (2020). Prevalence and correlates of sexual violence among adolescent girls and young women: Findings from a cross-sectional study in a South African university. BMC Women's Health, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-021-01445-8

Anderson, R., Piggott, D., Feinstein, B. A., & Dyar, C. (2024). Comparison of sexual violence perpetration rates among gay, lesbian and heterosexual cisgender adults. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 22, 1158-1168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-024-01030-2

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651-680. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.651

Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Wang, J., & Friar, N. W. (2022). Characteristics and impacts of sexual violence and stalking victimization by the same perpetrator using a nationally representative sample. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 32, 1271-1284. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2022.2133660

Bates, E., & Weare, S. (2020). Sexual violence as a form of abuse in men's experiences of female-perpetrated intimate partner violence. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 36, 582-595. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986220936115

Cénat, J., Dalexis, R. D., Clorméus, L., Lafontaine, M., Guerrier, M., Michel, G., & Hébert, M. (2022). Lifetime and child sexual violence, risk factors and mental health correlates among a nationally representative sample of adolescents and young adults in Haiti: A public health emergency. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38, 2778-2805. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221102484

Chandra, R., Srivastava, S., Singh, A., Mukherjee, S., & Patel, J. K. (2023). Locating perpetrators of violence against women in India: An analysis of married men's characteristics associated with intimate partner violence. PLOS ONE, 18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289596

Closson, K., Johns, N. E., & Raj, A. (2025). Are men's gender equality beliefs associated with self-reported intimate partner violence perpetration? A state-level analysis of California men. PLOS ONE, 20, e0315293. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315293

Codina, M., & Pereda, N. (2021). Characteristics and prevalence of lifetime sexual victimization among a sample of men and women with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37, NP14117-NP14139. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211006373

Ðurđević, S., Ðurđević, A., & Lukić, A. (2022). The abuse of men by women. Zbornik radova Filozofskog fakulteta u Pristini. https://doi.org/10.5937/zrffp52-34405

Ellsberg, M., Ovince, J., Murphy, M., Blackwell, A., Reddy, D., Stennes, J., Hess, T., & Contreras, M. (2020). No safe place: Prevalence and correlates of violence against conflict-affected women and girls in South Sudan. PLoS ONE, 15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237965

Fattah, K., & Camellia, S. (2020). Gender norms and beliefs, and men's violence against women in rural Bangladesh. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35, 771-793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517690875

Ferreira, D. G., Veras, M., Saggese, G., Guimarães, M., Magno, L., Dourado, I., Macena, R. H. M., Leal, A. F., Kendall, C., Mércham-Hamann, E., Díaz Bermúdez, X. P., Knauth, D., & Kerr, L. R. F. S. (2022). Prevalence, characteristics, and factors associated with sexual violence in adulthood among Brazilian MSM. American Journal of Men's Health, 16. https://doi.org/10.1177/15579883221142173

Fiedler, M., Otten, D., Jud, A., Brähler, E., Fegert, J., & Clemens, V. (2026). Associations between perpetrator characteristics of child maltreatment, age of onset, and physical and mental health. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-026-01049-w

Fleming, P., McCleary-Sills, J., Morton, M., Levtov, R., Heilman, B., & Barker, G. (2015). Risk factors for men's lifetime perpetration of physical violence against intimate partners: Results from the International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES) in eight countries. PLoS ONE, 10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118639

Gomiero, C. L., Hino, P., De Sousa, G. S., Iwamura, M., Peixoto Caldas, J. M., & Fernandes, H. (2026). Sexual violence against children and adolescents: Analysis in peripheral contexts in the metropolis of São Paulo, Brazil. Archives of Public Health, 84. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-026-01933-z

Hindes, S., Ison, J., & Fileborn, B. (2025). LGBTQ+ adult sexual violence critical scoping review: Insights into victimization and perpetration. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 27, 305-318. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241311928

Humanes, A. C., Calil, A. L., Lopes, C. A. A., Da Silva Alves, J. M., Dias, T. T. R., Gomes, J., & Gallassi, A. D. (2026). Rape crimes in the Brazilian Federal District: A four-year analysis of vulnerabilities and victimization pattern. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605261426594

Iverson, K. M., Livingston, W. S., Vogt, D., Smith, B. N., Kehle-Forbes, S., & Mitchell, K. S. (2023). Prevalence of sexual violence and intimate partner violence among US military veterans: Findings from surveys with two national samples. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 39, 418-427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-023-08486-9

Jeffrey, N., & Barata, P. C. (2021). Intimate partner sexual violence among Canadian university students: Incidence, context, and perpetrators' perceptions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50, 2123-2138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02006-8

Jeffrey, N., & Senn, C. Y. (2024). Gender differences in sexual violence perpetration behaviors and validity of perpetration reports: A mixed-method study. The Journal of Sex Research, 62, 208-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2024.2322591

Jeglic, E., Winters, G. M., Johnson, B. N., Steedman, L. A., & Rasol, A. (2026). Examining sexual grooming behaviors of children: Variations by relationship to the perpetrator. Child Abuse & Neglect, 178, 108174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2026.108174

Kaul, A., Connell-Jones, L., Paphitis, S., & Oram, S. (2024). Prevalence and risk of sexual violence victimization among mental health service users: A systematic review and meta-analyses. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 59, 1285-1297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-024-02656-8

Khayer, E., Zarei, R., Bőthe, B., & Farnam, F. (2026). Gender-specific lifetime prevalence and patterns of non-partner sexual violence in Iran: A nationwide cross-sectional study. Reproductive Health, 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-026-02285-1

Ledingham, E., Wright, G., & Mitra, M. (2022). Sexual violence against women with disabilities: Experiences with force and lifetime risk. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2021.12.015

Löfström-Bredell, M., Åkerman, E., Sörensdotter, R., Ström, S., Källberg, H., & Klingberg-Allvin, M. (2025). Sexual violence across gender identities and sexual orientations: A stratified, population-based, cross-sectional study among young people aged 16-29 years in Sweden. BMC Public Health, 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-22970-3

Martin, S. L., Fisher, B., Stoner, M. C. D., Rizo, C., & Wojcik, M. L. T. (2020). Sexual assault of college students: Victimization and perpetration prevalence involving cisgender men, cisgender women and gender minorities. Journal of American College Health, 70, 404-410. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1751644

Morse, B. J. (1995). Beyond the Conflict Tactics Scale: Assessing gender differences in partner violence. Violence and Victims, 10, 251-272. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.10.4.251

Mou, N. L. (2025). Men's sexual violence against women: A systematic review of self-reported measures of perpetration. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 27, 475-489. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380251316907

Murphy, M., Smith, E. R., Chandarana, S., & Ellsberg, M. (2024). Experience of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence in conflict-affected settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 26, 1109-1124. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241305355

Nobels, A., Inescu, A., Nisen, L., Hahaut, B., Beaulieu, M., Lemmens, G., Adam, S., Schapansky, E., Vandeviver, C., & Keygnaert, I. (2021). Sexual violence in older adults: A Belgian prevalence study. BMC Geriatrics, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-021-02485-3

Öberg, M., Heimer, G., & Lucas, S. (2020). Lifetime experiences of violence against women and men in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 49, 301-308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494820945072

Sardinha, L., Maheu-Giroux, M., Stöckl, H., Meyer, S., & Garcia-Moreno, C. (2022). Global, regional, and national prevalence estimates of physical or sexual, or both, intimate partner violence against women in 2018. The Lancet, 399, 803-813. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(21)02664-7

Straus, M. (2011). Gender symmetry and mutuality in perpetration of clinical-level partner violence: Empirical evidence and implications for prevention and treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 279-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.010

Swan, S., Gambone, L. J., Caldwell, J. E., Sullivan, T. P., & Snow, D. (2008). A review of research on women's use of violence with male intimate partners. Violence and Victims, 23, 301-314. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.23.3.301

Szwarcwald, C. L., De Souza, P. R. B., Almeida, W. D. S., & Castilho, E. (2024). Sexual orientation-motivated violent victimizations in Brazil: Using representative data from the 2019 national health survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 40, 5377-5401. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241303957

Trottier, D., Nolet, K., Benbouriche, M., Bonneville, V., Racine-Latulippe, F., & Bergeron, S. (2021). Sexual violence perpetration and victimization: Providing prevalence rates for understudied populations. Violence and Gender, 8, 59-66. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2020.0037

Wolf, M. R., & Pruitt, D. (2026). When the perpetrator is family: Grooming, abuse severity, and trauma outcomes in adult survivors of child sexual abuse. Journal of Sexual Aggression. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2026.2667976