The fear of girls; how does this oxymore work in social representations? And is the paradox not just a particular fear of a familiar and harmless figure? Indeed, through discourse such as the portraits of “dangerous” youth, girls seem to be less inspiring for fear than boys. They are considered to be weaker and less violent, which is confirmed by criminal statistics from the 19th century, and popular imagery: the girls Apaches are the exception and are rarely threatening [1], young parricides under the magnifying of psychiatrists are cold and denatured monsters, whose juvenile and female quality is denied [2]. Unlike boys for whom violence — or some of its forms — is incorporated into their social identity, because it constitutes masculinity [3], girls’ violence appears most often, when it occurs, to be unthinkable, monstruous or pathological. This female violence is unpredictable because it is pushed back and raises fear commensurate with the unexpected that characterises it. When and how do these episodes of fear of girls occur? What are the issues at stake, or, more precisely, what was the moral panic then embracing the name? There is a wide gap between the attempts to protect weak people who lead certain reformist groups, and national moral or health distress. We will stop in three stages, three episodes which, in addition to the events, show a change in the perception of the problem: the campaign against the White Traite, starting from the so-called ‘small English’ case, which broke out in Brussels in 1880; the extension of the Traite question to the ‘sexual delinquency’ of minors, which crystallises a real social fear at the time of the two world wars in Belgium; the shift from sexual despravation to social ‘inadaptation’, as manifested by fear of female rebellion, in the fifties marked by the rise in the expertise of psychism sciences.