By Dr Haezreena Begum binti Abdul Hamid
The recent case involving a female teacher charged with sexually abusing a 14-year-old male student has sparked public debate across Malaysia. Yet perhaps more disturbing than the allegations themselves has been the reaction from parts of society. Across social media, the case has been met not only with concern, but also with jokes, minimisation, and comments suggesting that the boy was somehow “lucky”.
Such responses reveal a dangerous and deeply entrenched misunderstanding about sexual abuse, victimhood, and gender.
If the genders were reversed – if an adult male teacher had allegedly engaged in sexual acts with a 14-year-old female student, public outrage would be immediate and unequivocal. The incident would rightly be recognised as predatory, exploitative, and abusive. However, when the victim is a boy and the alleged perpetrator is a woman, societal reactions often become clouded by stereotypes surrounding masculinity and sexuality.
This double standard is not harmless. It undermines child protection efforts and trivialises the experiences of male victims.
In criminology and victimology, sexual offending is understood not merely as an act of desire, but as one rooted in power, manipulation, coercion, and unequal relationships. This is particularly significant in institutional settings such as schools, where teachers occupy positions of authority, trust, and influence over children.
A teacher-student relationship is inherently unequal. The issue is not whether a child appeared willing, compliant, or emotionally attached. Children cannot meaningfully consent to sexual relationships with adults who exercise authority over them. The imbalance of power itself is central to understanding the abuse.
Yet public discourse often ignores this reality when boys are involved.
In many societies, including ours, there has traditionally been a stronger emphasis on protecting daughters from the risk of sexual abuse, exploitation, and predatory harm, while the vulnerability of boys is often overlooked or insufficiently acknowledged. Families may worry about girls’ safety in explicit ways, but boys are frequently socialised to appear strong, resilient, and sexually assertive, creating the dangerous assumption that they are somehow less vulnerable to abuse. This cultural blind spot has contributed to a troubling reality in which boys who experience sexual victimisation are often denied recognition, empathy, and support.
Many societies continue to socialise boys into equating masculinity with sexual readiness, emotional toughness, and dominance. As a result, adolescent boys are frequently denied the social status of “victim”. Sexual attention from older women is sometimes framed as a fantasy, an achievement, or a rite of passage rather than what it may actually represent: exploitation by an adult in a position of power.
This cultural conditioning carries serious consequences. Boys who become victims often suffer for years in silence, carrying shame, confusion, and unresolved trauma into adulthood. Many struggle to disclose abuse because they fear ridicule, disbelief, or humiliation. Some do not recognise their experiences as abusive until years later. Others remain silent entirely because society has taught them that males are supposed to welcome sexual experiences regardless of context, age, or coercion.
Research has consistently shown that sexual abuse against boys remains significantly underreported. One reason is precisely this societal reluctance to acknowledge that boys can be harmed in ways that do not conform to conventional narratives of victimhood.
Equally concerning is the persistent assumption that women are incapable of committing serious sexual offences. While most sexual offending is perpetrated by men, female sexual offending is a recognised phenomenon within criminological literature. However, it remains under-discussed, poorly understood, and frequently minimised in public discourse because it challenges deeply held gender assumptions.
Protecting children requires consistency. Abuse cannot be taken seriously only when it conforms to familiar stereotypes. A child’s vulnerability does not change according to gender, nor does the abuse become less harmful because the alleged offender is female.
This case should therefore prompt a broader national conversation about how Malaysia understands sexual victimisation, institutional power, and child protection. Public responses rooted in humour or disbelief do not merely reflect poor taste; they reinforce a culture in which male victims are denied empathy and offenders may escape scrutiny because they do not fit society’s image of a predator.
The accused in this case is entitled to due process, and guilt must be determined by the courts. However, the public reaction already exposes a troubling reality: society remains far more comfortable recognising abused girls than abused boys.
A child subjected to sexual exploitation is a victim regardless of gender. That principle should not be negotiable.
Until society abandons the idea that boys are somehow less vulnerable to sexual abuse, male victims will continue to suffer in silence while harmful myths about masculinity and victimhood remain unchallenged.
The author is a Criminologist and Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya.
About The Author
