DIFFERENT VICTIMS, DIFFERENT TACTICS: HOW FEMALE PREDATORS ADAPT THEIR APPROACH

© By Sophie Lewis | The Grooming Files | @sophielewiseditorial

Part 3 of 5: The Female Predators Series

Rebecca Joynes groomed two 15 year old boys.

Catherine Pearl abused a teenage girl.

Both were teachers. Both exploited positions of trust. Both committed serious sexual offences against children.

But the tactics they used were different.

Not because one was more calculating than the other.

Because predators adapt their grooming strategies based on what works with their intended victim.

Gender matters in grooming.

Not because boys and girls experience harm differently (they don’t).

But because predators exploit different vulnerabilities, different social scripts, and different cultural expectations depending on who they’re targeting.

Understanding these tactical differences isn’t academic.

It’s operational.

Because if we only recognise one grooming pattern, we miss half the predators.

THE TACTICAL SPLIT: MALE VICTIMS VS FEMALE VICTIMS

Rebecca Joynes: Grooming Male Victims

The Material Grooming Pattern:

With Boy A, Joynes used material gifts as a grooming tool.

On 5 October 2021, she took him to the Trafford Centre and bought him a £345 designer belt before taking him back to her flat for sex.

Why a belt?

Because it’s:

Visible (worn daily, seen by peers)
Status conferring (designer brand)
Explicable (a teacher helping a student who needed it)
A marker of the “special relationship”

The material grooming wasn’t about the item itself.

It was about creating a sense of obligation, special status, and secrecy.

“She bought me this. She chose me. I owe her something. This is between us.”

The Flattery and Status Elevation Pattern:

Female predators targeting male victims often deploy what researchers call “status elevation grooming.”

The message conveyed to the boy is:

“You’re more mature than other boys your age”
“I can talk to you like an adult”
“You’re special”
“This is what real relationships look like”

This exploits specific male adolescent vulnerabilities:

Desire to be seen as mature
Social status among peers (having an attractive older woman interested)
Cultural scripts about male sexuality (sex as achievement)
Lack of framework to recognise victimisation

The protective framing reinforces this.

When a 30 year old woman sexually abuses a 15 year old boy, cultural scripts tell him he’s lucky, not harmed.

The predator knows this.

And uses it.

The Isolation Through Flattery:

Joynes isolated her victims not through threats (the typical male predator tactic with female victims) but through manufactured intimacy.

The grooming process creates a pseudo relationship where:

The victim feels chosen
The abuse is reframed as consensual
Disclosure becomes betrayal
Speaking out means losing the “relationship”

This is sophisticated predation.

It exploits the victim’s developmental stage, the cultural devaluation of male victimisation, and the protective framing of female perpetrators.

Catherine Pearl: Grooming Female Victims

Pearl’s case involves different tactical elements because the victim’s gender creates different vulnerabilities and different cover.

The Safeguarding Role as Grooming Tool:

Pearl wasn’t just a teacher. She was deputy head with explicit safeguarding responsibilities.

This position provided:

Legitimate access to vulnerable students
Authority to have private, one on one interactions
Institutional trust (she’s literally responsible for preventing abuse)
Plausible deniability (all contact can be framed as pastoral care)

For a female victim being groomed by a female authority figure, the abuse is often embedded within a mentoring or special care relationship.

The grooming doesn’t look like grooming.

It looks like exceptional pastoral support.

The Emotional Grooming Pattern:

Where Joynes used material gifts and status elevation with male victims, female predators targeting female victims often use emotional intimacy as the primary grooming mechanism.

This includes:

“I understand you in ways others don’t”
“You can tell me things you can’t tell anyone else”
“Our connection is special”
“I’m the only one who really sees you”

This exploits:

The victim’s need for validation
Developmental identity formation
Isolation from peers or family
Trust in female authority figures as inherently safe

The Boundary Dissolution:

Pearl’s abuse occurred “over a period of years” and included incidents on school premises.

This suggests a pattern of gradual boundary erosion:

Professional boundaries → blurred into personal relationship
Appropriate touch → progressed to inappropriate contact
School setting → became location of abuse
Teacher role → merged with abuser role

For the victim, this creates profound confusion:

The same person responsible for her safety is violating her.

The same environment meant to protect her (school) is where abuse occurs.

The same relationship that felt supportive becomes the source of harm.

WHY THESE TACTICAL DIFFERENCES MATTER

For Recognition:

If safeguarding training focuses only on male predator tactics (threats, physical coercion, stranger danger), we miss female predator tactics:

Material grooming presented as generosity
Status elevation framed as recognising maturity
Emotional intimacy disguised as pastoral care
Professional relationships that gradually become abusive

Different tactics require different recognition frameworks.

For Response:

When a male victim reports that his female teacher bought him expensive gifts and they had sex, the protective framing reframes it as:

“He’s exaggerating”
“He wanted it”
“She was just being nice”
“Boys that age fantasise about teachers”

These responses deny victimisation.

When a female victim reports abuse by a female teacher, additional barriers emerge:

Limited cultural language for female on female child sexual abuse
Potential homophobic assumptions about the victim
Double protective framing (women don’t do that + it’s just close friendship)
Institutional investment in protecting the perpetrator’s professional reputation

Different victim genders face different disclosure barriers.

Effective response requires understanding both.

For Prevention:

Gender neutral safeguarding must account for tactical diversity:

Warning signs for material grooming (often male victims):

Unexplained expensive gifts
Teacher paying for student activities
Special trips or outings
Visible markers of “chosen” status

Warning signs for emotional grooming (often female victims):

Excessive one on one time
Blurred professional boundaries
Teacher sharing personal information
Student isolated from peers
“Special relationship” dynamics

Warning signs common to both:

Contact outside school hours
Private communication channels
Secrecy about the relationship
Victim defending the adult against concerns
Changes in victim behaviour or academic performance

THE SOPHISTICATION QUESTION

Are female predators more sophisticated than male predators?

No.

They’re equally calculating.

But they exploit different vulnerabilities and operate within different cultural contexts.

Male predators targeting female victims often use:

Physical intimidation
Threats
Coercion
Isolation through fear

Female predators targeting male victims often use:

Status elevation
Material grooming
Cultural scripts about male sexuality
Protective framing to prevent disclosure

Female predators targeting female victims often use:

Emotional intimacy
Professional authority
Same sex trust dynamics
Pastoral care frameworks

All are predatory.

All cause serious harm.

All exploit power differentials.

The tactics differ because the opportunities differ.

CASE STUDY: THE BAIL PERIOD

Rebecca Joynes’s offending while on bail illustrates predator adaptability.

After being arrested for offences against Boy A, she:

Was suspended from teaching
Placed on bail
Subject to safeguarding restrictions

Despite these constraints, she targeted Boy B.

This demonstrates:

1. Predatory drive overrides consequences

Even facing prosecution, Joynes continued offending.

This isn’t impulsive behaviour. It’s compulsive predation.

2. Protective framing creates operational space

A male teacher on bail for child sexual abuse would face:

Community awareness
Social isolation
Intense scrutiny
Practical barriers to accessing victims

Joynes was able to continue because protective framing created doubt:

“Surely this is a misunderstanding”
“She doesn’t seem like that type of person”
“Maybe the first allegation was false”

3. Tactical flexibility

Unable to access victims through her teaching position, Joynes adapted.

She didn’t stop offending.

She found a different victim.

Predators don’t stop because they’re caught.

They stop when they can’t access victims.

THE HARM IS IDENTICAL

This analysis of tactical differences is not suggesting:

Male victims are harmed less than female victims
Female perpetrated abuse is less serious
Different tactics mean different levels of trauma

The harm of child sexual abuse is profound regardless of:

Perpetrator gender
Victim gender
Grooming tactics used

What differs is:

How victims are groomed
How abuse is concealed
How disclosure is prevented
How society responds

Understanding tactical differences improves:

Recognition of warning signs
Support for victims
Prevention frameworks
Institutional response

WHAT THE CASES REVEAL ABOUT PREDATOR THINKING

Rebecca Joynes: The Material Grooming

The £345 belt wasn’t generosity.

It was:

A test of boundaries (will he accept expensive gifts?)
Creation of obligation (he owes her something)
A marker of selection (you’re special)
Plausible deniability (I was just being nice)

This is calculated predation.

Catherine Pearl: The Positional Grooming

Using her role as deputy head to access and abuse a vulnerable student wasn’t opportunistic.

It was:

Strategic use of institutional trust
Exploitation of legitimate access
Concealment within professional duties
Protection through authority

This is calculated predation.

THE PROBLEM WITH GENDER SPECIFIC SAFEGUARDING

Current safeguarding frameworks often assume:

Male predators are the primary threat
Female staff are inherently safer
Boys are less vulnerable than girls
Same sex abuse (particularly female perpetrator, female victim) is rare

These assumptions create gaps:

Gap 1: Male victims are invisible

If safeguarding focuses on protecting girls from men, boys abused by women fall outside the framework.

Gap 2: Female perpetrators are trusted

If women are presumed safe, warning signs are missed or explained away.

Gap 3: Tactical diversity isn’t recognised

If we only train staff to spot male predator tactics, female predator tactics go unnoticed.

Gap 4: Same sex abuse is minimised

If we assume sexual abuse is primarily heterosexual male perpetrator, female victim, then female on female abuse is conceptually invisible.

BREAKING THE TACTICAL BLIND SPOT

Effective safeguarding requires:

1. Gender neutral frameworks

Warning signs should focus on behaviours, not perpetrator demographics:

Is there boundary violation?
Is there inappropriate gift giving?
Is there isolation of the victim?
Is there excessive one on one contact?
Is there secrecy?

These questions work regardless of staff gender.

2. Recognition of tactical diversity

Training should include:

Material grooming patterns
Emotional grooming patterns
Status elevation tactics
Professional role exploitation
Different disclosure barriers for different victim genders

3. Institutional courage

Schools must be willing to:

Investigate concerns about female staff
Respond to reports from male victims
Address same sex abuse
Act despite reputational concerns

Catherine Pearl abused a student for years while serving as deputy head.

Institutional structures failed to detect or stop her.

Not because the warning signs weren’t there.

Because we weren’t looking for them in a female deputy head.

WHAT VICTIMS NEED US TO UNDERSTAND

For male victims of female perpetrators:

Your abuse is real.

The protective framing that tells you “you’re lucky” is wrong.

The cultural scripts that say “boys can’t be victims of women” are false.

The harm you experienced is as serious as any other child sexual abuse.

You deserved protection.

You deserve support now.

For female victims of female perpetrators:

Your abuse is real.

The fact that your abuser was female doesn’t make it less serious.

The confusion you felt about a trusted female authority figure harming you is a normal response to abnormal circumstances.

The difficulty in naming what happened doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

You deserved protection.

You deserve support now.

WHAT COMES NEXT

In Part 4, we’ll investigate the sentencing gap: why Rebecca Joynes received 6.5 years while Catherine Pearl received 2 years 4 months, and what comparative analysis of sentences reveals about protective framing in courtrooms.

In Part 5, we’ll examine prevention: what these cases teach us about recognition, response, and building safeguarding frameworks that actually protect children regardless of perpetrator gender.

Different tactics.

Same predation.

Equal harm.

We need safeguarding that sees all of it.

SOURCES & VERIFICATION

All facts in this article are drawn from:

Catherine Pearl case:

BBC News, 27 January 2025
BBC News, 30 July 2025
Court of Appeal judgement, July 2025
Thames Valley Police statements

Rebecca Joynes case:

Crown Prosecution Service press release, 4 July 2024
Manchester Crown Court proceedings, May 2024

Research on grooming tactics:

Academic literature on gender differences in child sexual abuse perpetration
Safeguarding guidance from NSPCC, Stop It Now UK
Research on male victimisation and disclosure barriers

RESOURCES & SUPPORT

If you’ve been affected by the issues in this article:

Stop It Now UK – Confidential helpline for preventing child sexual abuse
https://www.stopitnow.org.uk

NAPAC – Support for adult survivors of childhood abuse
https://napac.org.uk

Survivors UK – Support for male survivors
https://www.survivorsuk.org

The Survivors Trust – Specialist support services
https://www.thesurvivorstrust.org

If a child is at immediate risk:
UK: Call 999 (emergency) or 101 (non-emergency)

ABOUT THIS RESEARCH

This article is based exclusively on publicly available court documents, official statements from the Crown Prosecution Service and police forces, verified media reporting from established news outlets (BBC, official court reporters), and Court of Appeal judgements. All case details are matters of public record.

Sophie Lewis is a final year BA (Hons) Social Sciences student specialising in criminology and forensic psychology at the Open University, and an NUJ accredited investigative journalist. She operates The Grooming Files, an independent research platform documenting predator behaviour patterns and institutional safeguarding failures.

Contact: sophie.editorial@outlook.com

Read the full Female Predators series:

Part 1: The Invisible Predator
Part 2: The Protective Framing Problem
Part 3: Different Victims, Different Tactics (you are here)
Part 4: The Sentencing Gap (coming next)
Part 5: Breaking the Pattern

This is survivor led, evidence based journalism. If this work matters to you, share it.

Sophie