A/HRC/31/58 dating”.15 It is also at the heart of the exploitation of children in the context of tourism and travel. 29. The majority of offenders do not automatically have a sexual preference for children and have been classified as situational offenders.16 Individual offenders often resort to prostitution involving children simply because it is available; they do not take the child’s age into account. Since those offenders are not considered to be driven by a sexual attraction to children, their motives can be attributed to several cultural, social and economic factors linked to the other two levels of demand. 17 30. In all of the above-mentioned offender categories, the majority of perpetrators are men; there is only anecdotal evidence of female offenders. Law enforcement data has consistently identified female offenders in the developed world, but without clearly classifying their crime. A 2005 study indicated that women accounted for up to five per cent of all sexual offences against children.18 The exact traits and motivations of female offenders are still the subject of numerous discussions and further research is required. They have generally been identified in cases of child abuse, and in respect to child sexual exploitation have fulfilled the role of accomplices to male offenders. Female offenders are indeed much more likely to act with a male offender. 19 Comprehensive and updated data at the global level is nonetheless lacking. This is partly owing to pre-existing social constructs that have led to underreporting, since in most societies it has often been considered unimaginable for women to be sex offenders. 31. The consumption of child sexual abuse material has been facilitated by the rise of information and communications technologies and it is more and more characterized by its international nature. The ease of obtaining child abuse material through information and communications technologies has given rise to a greater range of offenders. Such offenders can generally be compared to offline offenders, in particular as most of them are male, though there are some differences in relation to offline offenders. For instance, online offenders are younger and more likely to be white than offline perpetrators, in the specific context of studies in the United States of America.20 Furthermore, according to some studies there is some form of greater self-control or inhibitory mechanism among online offenders since the majority have not committed contact sexual offences. 21 There are nonetheless significant crossovers between online and offline offenders which can render the differentiation between the two groups artificial.22 32. Child sexual exploiters, both preferential and situational, have been regularly identified in certain contexts regardless of their specific profile. This is, for example, the 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 8 T.Y. Lee and D.T.L. Shek, “Compensated Dating in Hong Kong: Prevalence, Psychosocial Correlates, and Relationships with Other Risky Behaviors”, Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, vol. 26, No. 3, supplement (June 2013), pp. 42-48. E/CN.4/2006/67, para. 39. Alessia Altamura, “Understanding demand for CSEC and the related gender dimensions: A review of the research”, in Examining neglected elements in combatting sexual exploitation of children, ECPAT Journal Series No. 7 (2013), p. 4. See Lisa Bunting, Females who sexually offend against children: responses of the child protection and criminal justice systems, NSPCC Policy Practice Research series (London, 2005). Ryan Hall and Richard Hall, “A Profile of Pedophilia”, p. 459. K. Babchishin, R. Hanson and C. Hermann, “The characteristics of online sex offenders: a metaanalysis”, Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, vol. 23, No. 1 (March 2011), p. 105. Ibid, p. 109. M. Bourke and A. Hernandez, “The ‘Butner Study’ Redux: A Report of the Incidence of Hands-on Child Victimization by Child Pornography Offenders”, Journal of Family Violence, vol. 24, No. 3, (2009), pp. 183-191.