We fought tooth and toenail: exploring the dynamics of romantic relationships among sex offenders who have desisted

Can Social Support Overcome the Individual and Structural Challenges of Being a Sex Offender? Assessing the Social Support-Recidivism Link

“…Joseph’s commentary also suggests that recidivists who relied on their partner’s instrumental support were not receiving or recognizing the emotional support offered by them, or the accompanying relationship demands caused stress. In contrast, nonrecidivists who highlighted the mental and emotional support of their intimate partner may have had a greater incentive to desist because of their commitment to them, or perhaps felt compelled to prove they had changed (Lytle et al, 2017).…”

“…This may be explained by the same reasoning as the receipt of instrumental support from family translates into expressive support; however, an alternate explanation may be more consistent with this study’s findings. It may be that intimate partners of men who returned to prison enabled deviant or criminal behavior by providing financial support, housing, and transportation, but not the type of accountability needed for the individual to remain in the community (Lytle et al, 2017; Simons & Barr, 2014). Other studies have shown intimate partners can be detrimental to success because they do not engage in treatment or have unrealistic expectations for the individual’s success, or contribute to negative behaviors and cause distress, conflict, and anxiety (Gideon, 2007; Pettus-Davis et al, 2011).…”

“…Recent research suggests that the quality of the intimate partner relationships plays a much larger role in desistance than simply being in one (Simons & Barr, 2014). For recidivists, receiving instrumental support from a partner was important to them in their reentry process, but it may not have translated into the “support reciprocity” necessary for change, whereas nonrecidivists wanted to achieve success despite their challenges and not be solely reliant on their partner (Farmer et al, 2015; Lytle et al, 2017). An additional explanation for tenuous intimate partner relationships involves considering intimacy deficits in sex offenders (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Ward et al, 1997).…”

“…In one study, participants convicted of sex offenses who were in a committed relationship and with residential stability were less likely to be rearrested (Meloy, 2005). Two recent studies (Farmer, McAlinden, & Maruna, 2015; Lytle, Bailey, & ten Bensel, 2017) found sex offending desisters who were married did not attribute desistance to marriage, rather it was a result of “support reciprocity,” reflecting deeper and more prosocial features of the support relationship.…”

Supporting Those Who Love the Loathed: Trauma-Informed Support Groups for Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders

“…The social stigma of registration extends to the RSO’s children, household members, and romantic partners, and loving an RSO brings many psychosocial and practical challenges. They experience disruptions in family life, housing insecurity, psychological distress, employment difficulties, financial hardships, harassment, invasion of privacy, shame, and fear for their own safety (Bailey & Klein, 2018; Farkas & Miller, 2007; Kilmer & Leon, 2017; Lytle et al, 2017; Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009). Children of registrants encounter ridicule, teasing, and ostracization, which can lead to depression, anxiety, fear, anger, and even suicidality in some youngsters (Kilmer & Leon, 2017; Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009).…”