Theorising vulnerability and male sexual victimisation

Abstract

This UK study is about perceptions and constructions of male rape among police officers and agency practitioners. This paper seeks to particularly understand and explain the relationship between vulnerability and male sexual victimisation in the UK. It employs gender and sexualities frameworks to elucidate the connection between vulnerability and male rape, offering primary data (N = 70). The data consist of police officers and voluntary agency practitioners. I aim to make sense of male rape discourse through the participants’ voices since they intimately serve male rape victims/offenders on a one-to-one basis. Because of the lack of male rape research specifically looking at this nuanced area that I seek to explore, this paper will attempt to open up a dialogue regarding male rape not only in an academic context but also in a policy and practice context. This paper also offers suggestions for policy and practice to better deal with male rape victims and to tackle gender inequality and injustice both in a social and criminal justice context. Ultimately, I argue that male rape is often mistakenly considered as a ‘homosexual issue’, so gay and bisexual men who have been raped are regarded as unmasculine or, in other words, not ‘real’ men. Myths and misconceptions of male rape have serious implications for the way societies, the criminal justice system and the voluntary sector view and treat these victims.

Keywords

Gay scene gender heterosexuality male rape masculine resources

Introduction

While male rape, which is defined as men and women raping men for the purposes of this paper, continues to be neglected in the academic, social and criminal justice contexts, this paper attempts to start a discussion of male rape discourse. Rape victims, generally, are seen as vulnerable. No critical discussion, however, has really explored this vulnerability, especially in a male rape setting. Examining the interconnection between vulnerability and male rape sheds light on broader processes of the ways in which gender is embedded in and constructed through societies, the criminal justice system and the voluntary sector. The empirical part of this paper will illuminate notions of vulnerability and male rape. I examine how male rape is socially and culturally constructed in societies, state and voluntary agencies and interlinking these constructions to an ideology of vulnerability. In relation to notions of vulnerability and male rape, particularly from a gender perspective, this paper will provide some understanding of the link between vulnerability and the discourse of male rape, with the use of gender and sexualities lens and frameworks.

This paper attempts to tackle the under-reporting of male rape, which is still a serious issue for the police (Abdullah-Khan, 2008; Javaid, 2016c). Due to the stigma associated with male rape, many male victims of rape are reticent to come forward to report their rape to the police and the wider societies (Walker et al., 2005). This reluctance, arguably, stems from their fear of people finding out that their sexual victimisation challenges and inverts overall norms of hegemonic masculinity and sexuality (Javaid, 2014a, 2015a). Masculinities are multiple, contested, hierarchical, actively constructed and collective. Male and female victims of rape suffer similar experiences, such as they both suffer coercive and physically violent attacks, and their offenders are often close associates or acquaintances (Gregory and Lees, 1999). Strangers can, of course, also rape both men and women, however. In addition, the places in which sexual assault and rape occur for both men and women can be anywhere, ranging from schools, private homes, bars, clubs to prisons or institutional establishments. The victims often report feelings of trauma, and feelings of denial, shame, anger and embarrassment are also frequently reported to be present amongst male rape victims (Javaid, 2014c; Walker, Archer, & Davies, 2005).

Historically, there were no adequate cultural and legal frameworks with which to understand and tackle male rape or male sexual assault, for many states applied only gender-specific rape laws and policies. Some supporters and activists, notably gay activists, advocated for gender-neutral laws and policies and campaigned tirelessly to expand legal and cultural definitions of rape beyond myopic definitions and conceptualisations of male rape and male sexual assault. Legal frameworks are improving, although there are considerable weaknesses to the current English law regarding male rape (see Javaid, 2014b, for an in-depth critical discussion of the English law).

Theoretically, this paper will draw on Foucault’s (1981) and Simon and Gagnon’s (1986) theoretical perspectives to inform the empirical discussions and to inform the arguments to be developed throughout this article. In my view, the social constructionist ideology is highly adequate and appropriate to understanding and theorising male sexual victimisation. This ideology essentially provides the theoretical foundations wherein sexuality is seen as a matter of social definition instead of a quality of certain actors or acts. Foucault and Simon and Gagnon contest the biological deterministic ideology; they argue that sexuality is a social product instead of the outcome of people’s biological drives. They will inform the theoretical and empirical discussions throughout this paper.

This paper is structured in four parts. First, I provide a review of recent, although scarce, literature on male rape and vulnerability together while enmeshing this with the theoretical perspective of sexual scripts. Second, I briefly cover the larger study in which the data emerge for this paper. Third, I provide the data linking the data to relevant literature, theories and concepts to make sense of vulnerability and male rape. Fourth, I provide a discussion and concluding section to discuss the implications that my findings have for policy and practice, in order to provide suggestions and recommendations for better policy and practice that can work to better manage male victims of rape, encouraging them to engage with the criminal justice system should the victims choose to do so.

Theoretical context and contextualising male sexual victimisation and vulnerability

There has been no systematic examination of male rape and vulnerability collectively. Nonetheless, in this section of the paper, I will provide foundations regarding male rape literature and theoretical perspectives from which to speculate and to make a sound judgement of the potential relationship between vulnerability and male rape. In particular, Simon and Gagnon’s (1986) sexual script theoretical framework, followed by Foucault (1981), can help to elucidate the interconnection between male sexual victimisation and vulnerability. It highlights gendered conventions in sexual interactions, communications and practices. Rather than critically exploring the transgressive or the deviant, Simon and Gagnon were concerned with ordinary everyday sexuality. I begin my analysis with them, followed by an analysis of Foucault.

As anti-essentialist sexuality theorists, Simon and Gagnon (1986) offer a dimensional theoretical paradigm to human sexuality. This includes intrapsychic scripts that consist of people’s understandings and desires in respect of what sexual communications, interactions and practices can and ought to look like. Intrapsychic scripts are essentially ‘a socially based form of mental life’ (Gagnon, 2004, p. 276). Gagnon and Simon’s theoretical perspective provides room for change and agency within the constitution of the sexual self; its variability is seen as a continuing reflexive procedure. Sexual behaviours actively include ‘doing sex’ regarding sexual conducts and as forming and changing sexual meaning. Moreover, interpersonal scripts are involved in their theory, which considers how people negotiate sexual communications, interactions and practices. Furthermore, and finally, cultural scenarios also underpin their theory, which involves the extensive social frameworks through which individuals learn the different ways in which to partake in (or not to partake) sexual communications, interactions and practices. For the negotiation of consent and boundaries, sexual scripts are important. They outline dissimilar conducts for males and females. In societies, through social practices and relations, we are constantly being exposed to a variety of cultural and societal messages regarding sexualities that foster our own understandings and desires of sexual communications, interactions and practices. For example, boys typically subscribe to sexual scripts that render them likely to sexually engage with girls in a forceful and aggressive fashion. As boys transform into men, sex is crucial for their development, particularly in terms of acquiring hegemonic masculinity that all men are expected to embody in contrast to subordinate and marginalised forms of masculinities. According to Gagnon and Simon (1974), then, feelings, acts and body parts are not sexual within themselves, though become so only via the application of sociocultural scripts that infuse them with sexual meanings. These meanings are consistently changing, shaped by wider social and cultural forces.

Because sexual self and sexual behaviour are completely social, ingrained in wider patterns and practices of social relations, sexuality is always happening that is shaped by wider sociality in the context of everyday life. Gagnon and Simon develop the concept that sexuality is always, reflexively, altered throughout our lives because of social forces. In parallel, this view has some resonance with Foucault’s theoretical perspective, but, while both perspectives deem sexuality as a social factor, Foucault conflates sexuality with gender whilst Gagnon and Simon argue that the sexual self is formulated based on the previous construction of a gendered self. Therefore, Gagnon and Simon provide a way of developing an analytical difference between gender and sexuality, but at the same time considering their interconnection. However, Simon and Gagnon’s theoretical perspective could be seen as socially deterministic so as a fixed, socially determined theory of sexual behaviour, although they point out this limitation themselves. They highlight, though, that sexual scripts are unsolidified improvisations that consist of continuing procedures of negotiation and interpretation. Thus, they focus on the interacting individual, excluding any discussion about the source and origins of the sexual scripts. Where do the sexual scripts emerge? Overlooking the social and cultural contexts wherein sexual scripts are situated leave them vulnerable to criticism. Nonetheless, they later developed revisions to the theory (see Laumann and Gagnon, 1995; Simon, 1996; Simon and Gagnon, 1986).

Foucault (1981) helped to fill in the gaps of sexual script theory, such as how sexualities emerge. He focused on the historical development of the construction of sexuality. For Foucault, people become aware of sexualities through discourse that shapes the ways in which pleasures and bodies are arranged and rearranged. As similar to Gagnon and Simon, Foucault contested the idea that sexualities were an innate, biological aspect shaped by repressive forces. In contrast, Foucault theorises sexualities as effects of power. For example, ‘sexuality is not, in relation to power, an exterior domain to which power is applied…on the contrary it is a result and an instrument of power’s designs’ (Foucault, 1981, p. 152). Foucault’s theoretical interest lies not in repression but in why we say we are repressed. Foucault (1981, pp. 8–9) stipulates:

The question I would like to pose is not, why are we repressed? But rather, why do we say, with so much passion and so much resentment against our most recent past, against our present, and against ourselves, that we are repressed? … What led us to show, ostentatiously, that sex is something we hide, to say it is something we silence? … What paths have brought us to the point where we are ‘at fault’ with respect to our own sex? And how have we come to be a civilization so peculiar as to tell itself that, through an abuse of power which has not ended, it has long ‘sinned’ against sex?

On balance, what these two perspectives mean for male rape victims, then, is that male victims of rape are often seen to be invulnerable to sexual violence. This is because, through the sexual scripts rooted in societies and through everyday discourses and social forces that shape sexualities, men are expected to enact hegemonic masculinity sexual practices and to embody heterosexuality, which means they are propelled to hunt for, initiate, and always be ready for sexual practices only with women, and lots of women (Connell, 2005; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Messerschmidt, 2000). They are unexpected to engage in homosexual practices or anal-penile penetration. By not enacting hegemonic masculine practices or heterosexual practices in this way, however, men are vulnerable to a derogatory discourse that comprises of insults, such as being called ‘faggots’ (Pascoe, 2011), ‘wimps’, ‘poofs’ or being referred to as not ‘real’ men (Javaid, 2015a, 2015b; Lees, 1997). There is some empirical support for the intertwinement of sexual scripts and male rape (see Chapleau, Oswald, & Russell, 2008) and for the link between discourse and male rape (Allen, 2002). Accepting male rape myths, such as men cannot be raped, shapes the way in which male rape victims are seen as invulnerable by the police and the wider society (Javaid, 2014d, 2015c), including the voluntary sector (Javaid, 2016a, 2016b). This is because, for Foucault, power operates essentially through discourse that is omnipresent. It even emerges from men themselves, as men are under constant surveillance not only by themselves, but also by other men to ensure that they are behaving in a heterosexual and hegemonically masculine way that does not contest normative discourses of heterosexuality and heteronormativity. Contesting these discourses and power may bring about disdain, disgust and hostility from others.

Myths and misconceptions, moreover, such as ‘male rape is a homosexual issue since gay men are promiscuous’, operate as cultural scenarios that shape the ways in which societies, state and voluntary agencies view, respond to, and serve male rape victims (Abdullah-Khan, 2008). Male rape myths, then, stem and emerge from the sexual scripts theorised by Simon and Gagnon. For example, Chapleau et al. (2008, pp. 611–612) found that ‘individuals high in benevolent sexism toward men may believe that men are supposed to be invincible and, if a man is raped, he must have showed some unmanly weakness to provoke or permit the assault’. Believing that men are supposed to be invulnerable and so are unable to be rape victims as they are able to fight off their attacker(s) or are able to protect themselves indeed stems from the sexual scripts and discourse that outline and shape how men are expected to sexually behave. In these scripts and everyday discourse, it seems that male rape is unwritten or uncoded.

Therefore, the sexual scripts and discourse may facilitate negligence of male rape while discouraging male rape victims from reporting or disclosing their rape to the police and the wider society. From the sexual scripts and discourse, sexual and gender norms develop and formulate, influencing whether men are vulnerable to rape and sexual assault; or whether certain male rape victims are only susceptible to rape and sexual assault, such as gay men or bisexual men. This will be further elaborated upon in the empirical sections of this paper. Challenging the sexual scripts and discourse, or, in other words, sexual and gender norms, may bring about backlash, antagonism and homophobic reactions, responses or appraisals from others (Rumney, 2008, 2009), particularly from other men (Chapleau et al., 2008). This paper will examine the empirical relevance of these theoretical assumptions and of the sexual script and discourse ideology. The gender and sexual dynamics of communications, interactions and practices will be closely explored since the evidence suggests that men are presumed to be initiators and women the recipients of sexual practices. The sexual script and discourse theoretical frameworks point to gender and sexual norms and expectations, so these will be the frameworks for the empirical sections of the paper to see whether men (and which types of men) are able to be seen as vulnerable to male sexual victimisation, and, when/if men do become victims of rape, do they subsequently suffer sexist attitudes, assumptions and responses.

The police as an organisation is a hegemonic male-dominated organisation that constructs hierarchical masculinities, with hegemonic masculinity as ‘superior’ and homosexuality as ‘inferior’, and ‘real’ men and sexualities in very particular ways. I attempt to explore, then, how notions of gender, sexualities and masculinities shape and affect the way in which male rape victims are seen as (in)vulnerable by state and voluntary agencies and what the implications are for the (mis)recognition of male sexual victimisation. This is important to do since ‘the law is what constitutes both desire and the lack on which it is predicated’ (Foucault, 1981, p. 81), meaning that the law and the criminal justice system may have the power to decide whom are likely to be desired as rape victims: men or women? Power, for Foucault, is located as prescriptive in the criminal justice agencies that are concerned with censoring and prohibiting those that deviate from power and gender norms, challenging them in the way of becoming male rape victims who exude powerlessness and emasculation, engaging in gay sexual conducts that are embedded in taboo and stigma. For example:

The language and law that regulate the establishment of heterosexuality…is the language and law of defence and protection: heterosexuality secures its self identity and shores up its ontological boundaries by protecting itself from what it sees as the continual predatory encroachments of its contaminated other, homosexuality. (Fuss, 1991, p. 2)

In prisons, heterosexual men often carry out rape against homosexual men as a way in which to position them in feminised and stereotypical roles, usually that of the subordinate ‘bottom’ role (Wooden & Parker, 1982). A range of patterns of sexual conduct and sexual scripts are evident in men’s prisons. Wooden and Parker (1982) define and explain some sexual scripts:

‘Punk’ or ‘kid’: These are bisexual or heterosexual men who have been ‘turned out’ or coerced to assume a sexually subordinate role.

‘Stud’ or ‘Jocker’: These are men who carry out sex with punks or gays. Although these men do not define themselves as gay men nor see themselves as engaging in gay sexual acts, these men only assume the hegemonic masculine role in the sexual encounter (e.g. active in anal intercourse). However, some of the jockers classify themselves as bisexual. It is the partner who takes on, or is forced into, the subordinate, ‘bottom’ role (subordinate masculinity) and who is constructed as inferior, powerless and weak. Because the ‘bottom’ often deviates from hegemonic masculinity practices, he is constructed as a ‘sissy’. The distinction is between the weak and the strong, the dominated and the dominant, and between women and men.

‘Sissy’ or ‘Queen’: These are gay men or transsexuals who take on stereotyped effeminate mannerisms and enact predominantly the submissive sex role.

‘Gays’ or ‘Homosexuals’: These men are more diverse in their sexual conducts who take on both passive and active roles, showing few (if any) effeminate mannerisms.

From this fluid and dynamic typology, gay men are often constructed as either adopting ‘active’ and ‘passive’ sexual roles. The passive is divided into effeminate ‘fags’ who deliberately seek to provoke sexual tension, and ‘punks’ who accept the passive role for the sake of protection and material rewards (Srivastava, 1974, p. 21). Srivastave (1974) argues that the passive gay is usually younger than their active partner; the ‘wolf’ is the aggressor and the ‘punk’ is the victim. The male rape victims within the male prisons are likely to embody a low, powerless and inferior status since they are servicing their violent attackers, giving up their power at particular times and places when their rape occurs. Although the above concepts may be nearly universal in prisons, or are contextual depending on time and place, they will likely vary from prison to prison. From the arguments presented herein, clearly sexuality and gender are important concepts to understanding discourses on male sexual victimisation.

The study

This article draws on data that were produced as part of a larger study conducted in 2015, which explored how notions of sexualities and masculinities affect and shape police officers and voluntary agency practitioners’ understandings of male rape and views of men as victims of rape. By taking this approach, I was able to examine male rape discourse through the respondents’ perspectives, while also being able to understand the nature and pattern of male rape through the participants’ views since they deal intimately with male rape victims on a frequent basis. In relation to notions of vulnerability and male rape, the study was concerned with understanding the relationship between vulnerability and the discourse of male rape, with the use of gender and sexualities lens and frameworks. As a result, I was able to explore the formation and enactment of different masculine and heterosexual identities and practices in relation to the ways in which male rape is policed and responded to. The rest of the findings of the research, along with a substantial discussion of the methodology and research questions, are reported more comprehensively elsewhere (see Javaid, 2017). The study employed qualitative interviewing with a sample of 25 police officers, male rape counsellors, therapists and voluntary agency caseworkers, who live in England, and it also employed 45 qualitative questionnaires with individuals of the same occupation.

There are some differences between voluntary and state agencies. The former tend to have fewer resources available to give a robust service to male rape victims, while the latter have more resources available, although there is a current decline in this due to budget cuts in the state sector. Voluntary organisations tend to be more relaxed and informal, in which staff members are dressed casually, as opposed to state organisations where it is more formal, rigid and the police are noticeable through their police uniform. Furthermore, the philosophy of the voluntary and state sectors was different; for instance, the police were more focused on getting a prosecution, whereas the voluntary sector was more concerned with providing a safe space for male rape victims to share their story, providing support and care for them.

In respect of how many police forces and voluntary agencies declined to take part in this study, eight police forces and six voluntary agencies refused. Ultimately, five police forces and four voluntary service provisions participated in the research. For the interviews, 15 police officers and 10 practitioners from voluntary agencies took part. For the questionnaires, 38 police officers and seven practitioners from voluntary agencies filled out, completed and returned them. I ensured that those who were interviewed did not also fill out a questionnaire to prevent skewed data results. I accessed these agencies essentially through email and through gatekeepers. It is important to highlight that both of the state and voluntary agency practitioners discussed male rape in different contexts, such as male rape in prison, institutionalised establishments and male rape occurring in the community context. In their discussions about male rape in differing contexts, there is likely to be dissimilar cultural dynamics; for example, for rapes that occur inside prisons, there may be different characteristics to rapes that occur outside such as the rapist’s identity is likely to be known in the prison setting. There may also be similarities between the different contexts, in that victims may fear speaking out against their attacker(s) for fear of retaliation, threats and repercussions.

The research participants are diverse in regards to amount of experience handling male rape cases, educational level, ethnic background and training of rape cases. The type of participants include the following: specialist police officers (4), police detectives (4), police constables (34), police sergeants (9), police response officers (2), male rape counsellors (7), male rape therapists (3) and voluntary agency caseworkers (7). The gender of the participants comprises of 33 males and 37 females. The sample is predominately white and most of the participants are under 40 years of age and are mostly from highly educated and middle-class backgrounds. The respondents provide services for many male rape victims, although they often serve more female rape victims due to the higher number of female rape victims who come forward. On average, the respondents have had around seven years of experience of working with male rape victims and male victims of sexual assault. Most of their clients are middle-class men. Some of my participants had no training on male rape and sexual assault against men, but most had training on female rape and sexual assault against women. The findings from the interviews and questionnaires cannot be generalised to the wider population, so the sample may not necessarily represent the population of state and voluntary agencies that deal with male rape and sexual assault against men. In the next section, I outline how notions of gender and sexualities affect and shape the participants’ understandings of male rape and their views of men as victims of rape regarding notions of vulnerability.

Vulnerability, alcohol/drugs and blame

In relation to vulnerability and male sexual victimisation, on the whole, respondents believed that men’s lifestyle made them more vulnerable to sexual violence, such as placing themselves in vulnerable situations with the use of alcohol or drugs. For example:

I think a lot of things contribute to vulnerability generally, like alcohol abuse, drug taking, which can leave victims vulnerable to attack, if you know what I mean. I’ve seen city centre videos of people who are on a night out in the town and they’ve been that drunk, they are staggering around the streets uncontrollably drunk. For that reason, they are vulnerably open to attack for various crimes, but equally leave them open and vulnerable. We have had cases where young people who have been drunk by drink have been attacked, so it does happen. (Specialist Police Officer 1, Male)

The other [male rape case] I dealt with, more recently, was a male rape [victim] who was befriended. He was significantly under the influence of alcohol. The victim sort of wasn’t aware of his surroundings, what was going on, and he became split up from his friends, and basically he was targeted by someone who befriended him, took him off to an address, and the next thing he comes around and he’s been raped by this guy. (Specialist Police Officer 3, Female)

I would probably assume that alcohol and drugs [are] involved…I mean, we can’t assume that every man is big, tough, strong and powerful….Their [victims’] memory might not be the best ever because of the trauma, but it can be misconstrued…as, “oh, well you have had too much alcohol or you have been under the influence of drugs so therefore you may have said yes”. (Police Detective 1, Female)

These excerpts suggest that alcohol and drugs may play a part in male rape occurring, whereby victims of this crime are susceptible to being raped whilst intoxicated or on drugs. Police Detective 1 (Female) suggests that, because the victims may have been intoxicated or on drugs, they may encounter disbelieving accusations from the wider society, state and voluntary agencies; for instance, ‘oh, well you have had too much alcohol or you have been under the influence of drugs so therefore you may have said yes [to sex]’. Hlavka (2014) argues that victims of sexual violence may be seen as blameworthy for putting themselves in a vulnerable position where they can be raped or sexually assaulted. Police Detective 1 (Female) also points out another issue in her quote: ‘we can’t assume that every man is big, tough, strong and powerful’. This suggests that alcohol and drugs may make it difficult for male rape victims to enact hegemonic masculine practices because they may impede their sense of power, control and domination, bringing about, therefore, a lack of control of their own body and mind. Consequently, this lack of power and control may facilitate disbelieving attitudes and biased assumptions and responses regarding gender roles and stereotypes, since men are supposed to embody hegemonic masculinity at all times (Kimmel, 2005). Alcohol and drugs, however, make hegemonic masculinity difficult to embody. At the same time, men can reclaim back their or embody hegemonic masculinity after having been raped. For example, as Weiss (2010, p. 289) maintains:

One of the ways in which men can reassert masculinity is to blame their vulnerability for victimization on the consumption of alcohol, essentially providing an explanation for how people who are supposed to be in control at all times could have been (sexually) victimized in the first place. Since alcohol impairs a victim’s ability to resist attacks, being drunk provides a plausible explanation for how it was possible for men to be overpowered and unable to defend themselves.

This suggests that, while male rape victims are unable to enact hegemonic masculinity practices at times, they can also embody hegemonic masculinity when it is doable given the context, situation and social structures. By men adopting hegemonic masculinity practices after their rape, such as admitting that they were drinking before they were raped so they took part in hegemonic masculine practices, they may be able to demonstrate a hegemonic masculine project revealing to the police and to the voluntary sector that they engaged in a hegemonic masculine activity prior to their rape, which may help to offset the feminine connotations linked to male rape. I argue, therefore, that male rape victims selectively providing snapshots of hegemonic masculine conducts that these victim engaged in prior to, during, or after their rape may induce more sympathetic and sensitive police and voluntary sector attitudes and responses. By not revealing a hegemonic masculine project in this way, however, male victims of rape may encounter unsympathetic and insensitive police and voluntary sector attitudes and responses and may be positioned in subordinate masculinities.

‘Real’ men and vulnerability

There was a belief amongst the respondents that, for most ‘real’ men, the risk and vulnerability of being raped by other men is low: ‘I think for most real men, the risk of being raped by other men is probably quite low’ (Male Rape Counsellor 1, Male. Emphasis added). This suggests that a particular male rape myth is present in this belief. That is, ‘“real” men cannot get raped or are not vulnerable to rape’. Arguably, this is problematic because it is unclear as to which types of men are conceptualised as ‘real’ men. Does it include gay, bisexual or heterosexual male rape victims? Connell (2005, p. 45) argues that this belief of there being ‘real’ men is omnipresent, defined as natural and ‘deep masculine’. Goffman (1963, p. 128) similarly defines ‘real’ men as the following:

[Y]oung, married, white, urban, northern, heterosexual, Protestant, father, of college education, fully employed, of good complexion, weight, and height, and a recent record in sports. Any male who fails to qualify in any one of these ways is likely to view himself—during moments at least—as unworthy, incomplete, and inferior. (Emphasis added)

It appears that, from the respondent’s belief of there being ‘real’ men, homosexual and bisexual male rape victims are not classed as ‘real’ men, only heterosexual men are. This suggests, then, that gay and bisexual male rape victims are only thought of as being vulnerable to rape and that male rape is only applicable to them. What this indicates, furthermore, is that state and voluntary agencies may position gay and bisexual men at the bottom of the gender hierarchy, who are compelled to embody subordinate masculinities (Messerschmidt, 2000). The respondent’s quote above, using Goffman and Connell as frameworks to understand it, indicates thus that gay and bisexual male rape victims are deemed as abnormal and ‘unworthy, incomplete, and inferior’ or as not ‘real’ men, so they are solely vulnerable to, and at risk of, rape. Arguably, moreover, it may also be put forward that gay and bisexual male rape victims are more likely to be disbelieved regarding their rape, as they may be seen to be putting themselves in vulnerable and risky situations. To suggest that these victims are not ‘real’ men and so are ‘more vulnerable’ to rape ignores the possibility that ‘anyone is at risk of rape’ (Police Detective 3, Female). Although men are less likely than women to admit their risk and vulnerability since men are socially constructed to be able to control or conceal their emotions, they are simultaneously demonstrating hegemonic masculinity practices by concealing their vulnerabilities, anxieties and weaknesses, instead revealing strength, self-reliance, autonomy and invulnerability. In other words, ‘[m]en’s vulnerability [is] dealt with through intended solitary discourses and practices…[such as] containment of difficult feelings, rational thinking alone, activities to deal with vulnerability without disclosure, and not accessing others’ help’ (Williams, 2009, p. 448). Similarly, Seidler (2007, p. 13) explains:

Men often feel that it is harder to lift the phone to reach out when they are down than when they are feeling good about themselves….Masculinities become performative often as a way of concealing inner emotional turmoil from others. If there is a fear about how young men are to cope, often this is a fear they hide from themselves. They can take refuge in the notion that as long as they remain unspoken and others do not know, these emotions are not real and might disappear just as they arrived. Vulnerabilities are often hidden as men can feel they should somehow be able to handle their own emotions so as not to be more shamed, especially in conditions where they can feel without employment of relationships that their masculinities are all they have left as sources of self-esteem.

One could argue, then, that male victims of rape and sexual assault are less likely to report their rape and to seek help from state and voluntary agencies because of society’s emphasis on the construction of men and boys. This means that many male rape victims will ‘bottle up’ their emotions, feelings and pains that stem from their rape. Their vulnerability, thus, is often hidden from sight even though the male victims can experience a wide variety of emotions that stem from their rape and/or sexual assault, such as depression, powerlessness, stigma, anxiety and fear. This is also likely to be the case for male rape victims who have been attacked in gay communities.

Gay community as vulnerable

Another finding that emerged in relation to vulnerability and male rape is the issue of the gay community being vulnerable to male sexual victimisation. For example:

[T]he gay community are not the only people who are gonna be victims of male rape, but they are a vulnerable group. But it is a very difficult area of business. I think that there’s a lot of people who still think that the police are going to have a negative attitude towards them….If you wanted to be a predatory rapist who wanted to target men, that’s the place to go to. (Specialist Police Officer 1, Male)

I think, in the gay community, it [male rape] is something that happens quite a lot, or sexual assault does, which is, yeah. I think that [gay community] is a very vulnerable group. (Male Rape Counsellor 1, Male)

[W]ith gay men in the gay community, because they are looking for relationships, they’re out socializing, there’s lots of alcohol, they’re more vulnerable in that respect. Yeah. You wouldn’t get a heterosexual male flirting with a homosexual male. Even if they had no intention of a sexual relationship, you don’t get that flirtatious, it’s not the same. (Police Sergeant 3, Female)

These extracts suggest that participants in this study perceive that the gay community (or gay scene) is most vulnerable to male rape or male sexual assault. The quotes, however, challenge the male rape literature. For example, Scarce (1997) demonstrates that the gay community is vulnerable to or at risk of rape and sexual assault equally as the heterosexual community is (also known as the ‘straight’ scene). There is very limited research on whether the gay community is more or less at risk of rape. Arguably, though, it may be problematic to make ‘more than or less than’ statements or generalisations because it neither gives us any context and understanding with which to tackle male sexual victimisation nor provide us with any comprehension of the nature and pattern of male sexual victimisation. In fact, it may impede one from exploring or considering male rape in the heterosexual community if state and voluntary agencies believe that the gay community is the only vulnerable place in which male rape occurs. Javaid (2017) argues that ‘professionals’ believing that male rape only occurs in the gay community provides a huge disservice to heterosexual male rape victims or may even neglect reaching out to them. Following Javaid, it could also be argued that particular male rape myths may be perpetuated if these ‘professionals’ maintain that the gay community is the only place where male rape occurs or can occur. For instance, ‘sexual assault by someone of the same sex causes homosexuality’, suggesting that gay men frequent the gay scene, not the ‘straight’ scene or either; ‘homosexual and bisexual individuals deserve to be sexually assaulted because they are immoral and deviant’, potentially inducing victim-blaming views, attitudes and responses; and ‘male rape is a homosexual issue’, which arguably may overlook heterosexual, bisexual or transgendered (from female to male) male rape victims.

Specialist Police Officer 1 (Male) suggests that gay men in the gay community or gay scene are going to ‘think that the police are going to have a negative attitude towards them’. Weeks, Heaphy and Donovan (2001) argue that, as the gay scene is seen as a place where gay or bisexual men go to in order to seek casual, ‘no strings attached’ sex, ‘[t]his is an aspect of gay culture that has received criticism from both outside and within the gay community [and] has often caused moral outrage from some heterosexuals’ (p. 143). In the gay community, gay men creating a moral outrage, challenging moral norms and values in this way, may facilitate active repugnance against not only gay men, but also against the gay community, which in turn may propel state and voluntary agencies to conceptualise the gay community as being ‘more vulnerable’ to male sexual victimisation. Moreover, when sexual violence does occur in the gay community, the victims may be met with scorn, hostility and disgust for challenging morality in the way of engaging in public or casual sex. It is clear that policy and practice need to be more sensitive and sympathetic to male rape victims to which I turn next.

The interconnections between male sexual victimisation and vulnerability

This paper has shed light on the interconnection between vulnerability and male rape. From the findings, it was found that some respondents believed that men’s lifestyle makes them vulnerable to rape; this is usually in the way of consuming alcohol or drugs. As a result, male rape victims may encounter disbelieving accusations from the wider society, state and voluntary agencies, as the findings suggest. For example, male rape victims are likely to be held culpable for their rape for making themselves vulnerable, either through placing themselves in a particular vulnerable situation or for making themselves intoxicated or high on drugs that facilitate their vulnerability. In addition to this finding, it was found that ‘real’ men are invulnerable to male sexual victimisation, meaning that homosexual and bisexual male rape victims are not classed as ‘real’ men, only heterosexual men are. This suggests that gay and bisexual male rape victims are only thought of as being vulnerable to rape, and that male rape is only applicable to them, ignoring the possibility that heterosexual men can also be vulnerable to rape. Believing that only gay and bisexual men are vulnerable to rape means that the heterosexual community may be overlooked or ‘straight’ men may encounter disbelieving, hostile or negative attitudes, responses or appraisals when/if they report their sexual victimisation to the police and to the wider society. Finally, the findings suggest that gay men and the gay scene are at risk of, and most vulnerable to, rape, based on aspects of gay culture that create a moral outrage and so shape the way in which state and voluntary agencies serve male rape victims in a social and criminal justice context. This moral outrage may manifest itself into homophobia, in that it draws in homophobia from the wider society and the criminal justice system. To prevent homophobia and sexual prejudice from being unleashed onto gay male rape victims or victims presumed to be gay, it is important that policy and practice become aware of the findings and discussions presented in this paper to challenge gender inequality and injustice throughout the entire world where inequalities reside.

Therefore, I believe further research is needed to help raise awareness of and to tackle inequalities and injustices. Future research should consider exploring vulnerabilities and male rape in different contexts, as I only considered these in state and voluntary agencies, such as in prisons, institutional establishments, warfare contexts, psychiatric settings, train stations and other establishments and contexts. This would help develop further understanding of the relationship between vulnerability and male sexual victimisation. Scarce (1997) suggests for more male rape research that looks at male rape being fuelled by homophobia and racism. This is important, as there is no current research looking at these nuanced areas. He argues that such research would give an understanding of whether ethnic minorities or gay men are being raped or sexually assaulted because of their identities. This will provide a platform with which to make sense of the motivations of male rape and why it occurs. To end, Scarce (1997, p. 34) rightfully reminds us that:

As a more comprehensive body of work begins to develop in this area, solid findings will facilitate better prevention and treatment of the rape of men. These studies will hopefully allow social scientists and public health professionals to translate resulting theory into practice. As male rape becomes extensively documented and analysed, society will have less and less grounds on which to deny its existence.

It is clear that rape creates a long-lasting, incurable state of fear for many male rape victims. Therefore, policy and practice need to be sympathetic and sensitive to the needs of male victims of rape. It is important to not hold these victims culpable for their rape because of their lifestyle. The findings suggest, however, that male rape victims are blamed for the way in which they present themselves in their everyday life, that their lifestyle is the root cause for their rape. Men, as well as women and other individuals, can be raped and sexually assaulted at anytime and anywhere. Holding these victims culpable for their rape can produce secondary victimisation, which in turn can reinforce and exacerbate their trauma while increasing the rate of attempted or actual suicide for male victims of rape (see Walker et al., 2005). It can also make these victims feel the need to commit self-harm (Abdullah-Khan, 2008).

Police officers have an important part to play in providing services for male rape victims. This paper has shown that, though many male victims of rape are reluctant to engage with the police for fear of being disbelieved or of having their hegemonic masculinity questioned, the police are frequently the first point of contact when/if the victims choose to report and disclose their sexual victimisation. The findings suggest, however, that male rape victims can experience insensitivity and hostility from the police when/if they report their rape. The findings indicate that the source of hostility from police officers lies in myths, prejudicial attitudes and stereotypes and also in the sexual scripts (see Simon and Gagnon, 1986) that are all embedded in societies. These caveats manifest themselves into a police culture that shapes the way in which police officers deal with male rape victims. The respondents believed that the chief reason for male rape victims not reporting their rape to the police and to the voluntary sector is because the victims fear that they would be either considered as gay (if they were ‘straight’) or would suffer homophobia if they are gay while their hegemonic masculinity is questioned and contested. The data, moreover, indicate that most of the respondents believed that only gay and bisexual men are vulnerable to rape because they are not ‘real’ men, which suggests that the respondents link male rape to homosexuality and bisexuality without recognising that all men can become victims of rape at anytime and at any place.

Blending the use of discourse approaches with sexual scripting theory was useful because it increased greater depth to both forms of analyses when using them collectively. I placed greater emphasis on micro-interaction in discourses, examining the ways in which power manifests itself in scripts. State and voluntary agency practitioners are ‘actors’ drawing on ‘scripts’ to make sense of and shape their understandings of male sexual victimisation. Scripts shift across time, place and culture; thereby, two people may not have similar sexual scripts, though individuals in a certain working cultural environment, such as a police agency, can have access to scripts that are reasonably similar. Sexual scripts relating to gay and bisexual men as not ‘real’ men, powerless, and emasculated through their rape produces a type of discourse. Consequently, a discourse about male rape emerges that constructs these types of male rape victims, especially if they were consuming alcohol before their rape, as not credible victims (or not ‘real’ rape victims). Cultural scripts connect to gender roles in heterosexuality and how sexuality is supposed to be enacted at the most macro level (Simon & Gagnon, 1986). Therefore, the constructions of gender and heterosexuality mean that, through discourses about male rape, the heterosexuality is constructed as ‘normal’ while other sexualities, notably homosexuality, are positioned as ‘abnormal’ through social relations, social structures and social institutions. Normative scripts position men in discourses of invulnerability, meaning that men are not expected to be vulnerable to rape. In the discourse of heterosexuality, heterosexual men are constructed as ‘impenetrable’ or ‘invulnerable’ to non-consensual sex since heterosexuality is ‘desirable’, the leading norm that guarantees heterosexual sexual relations. The heterosexual discourse, then, shapes actions and meanings available to state and voluntary agency practitioners about whom is vulnerable to male sexual victimisation and whom is not at particular contexts, times and places. As Foucault (1980) argues, power is non-monolithic and is not an oppressive force constraining action; rather, power is productive, creating sexual relations, actions and subject positions. Still, heteronormative discourses remain stubbornly intact in organisations and in our everyday life (Jackson, 2005), but negotiated and potentially contested.

Therefore, it is clear that the criminal justice system and the voluntary sector need adequate training that can dispel male rape myths, misconceptions, and inaccurate and incorrect views and assumptions about male rape. The sexual script ideology needs challenging in all segments of the population. At the front desk, it is often the police officer and the receptionist at a voluntary agency who are initially in direct and intimate contact with male rape victims. They, as well as all police officers and voluntary agency practitioners, need to be trained and aware of the realities associated with male rape. Training and awareness raising initiatives, thus, need to be aimed at all police officers and all workers in voluntary agencies to prevent insensitive responses towards male rape victims and male victims of sexual assault. I have found that state and voluntary agencies replicate many of the stereotypes, misconceptions and sexual scripts perpetuated within wider societies, perhaps promoted by the media. Although specialist training may be provided to certain police officers for specifically managing rape cases, I believe that a basic comprehension of the issues associated with male rape would benefit all officers so that they are well equipped to deal with male victims of rape, should they come into contact. This would help facilitate a safe and comfortable environment. However, while training officers about male rape might facilitate a safe and comfortable environment for rape reporting, that environment will not be free of sexual scripts, some of which may be toxic and harmful whereas some others may be more positive and accepting of men as victims of sexual crime. This is because sexual scripts are always being shaped and reshaped, negotiated through social and power relations. Therefore, there are potential harms of power as one can never somehow be ‘free’ from the shackles of power.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abdullah-Khan

(2008) Male rape: The emergence of a social and legal issue, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Allen, S. (2002). Male victims of rape: Responses to a perceived threat to masculinity. In C. Hoyle & R. Young (Eds.), New Vision of Crime Victim (pp. 23–48). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Chapleau

K. M.

Oswald

D. L.

Russell

B. L.

(2008) Male rape myths: The role of gender, violence, and sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 23(5): 600–615.

Connell

R. W.

(2005) Masculinities, 2nd ed.. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Connell

R. W.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2005) Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society 19(6): 829–859.

Foucault

(1980) Power/knowledge, Brighton, UK: The Harvester Press Limited.

Foucault

(1981) The history of sexuality, volume one, Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Fuss, D. (1991). Inside/out. In D. Fuss (Ed.), Inside/out: Lesbian theories, gay theories (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gagnon, J. (2004). An Interpretation of Desire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

10.

Gagnon, J., & Simon, W. (1974). Sexual Conduct. London: Hutchinson.

11.

Goffman

(1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.

12.

Gregory

Lees

(1999) Investigating sexual assault, London, UK: Sage.

13.

Hlavka

H. R.

(2014) Normalizing sexual violence: Young women account for harassment and abuse. Gender and Society 28(3): 337–358.

14.

Jackson

(2005) Sexuality, heterosexuality and gender hierarchy: Getting our priorities straight. In: Ingraham

(ed.) Thinking straight: New work in critical heterosexuality studies, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 15–39.

15.

Javaid

(2014a) Feminism, masculinity, and male rape: Bringing male rape ‘out of the closet’. Journal of Gender Studies 25(3): 283–293.

16.

Javaid, A. (2014b). Male rape in law and the courtroom. Web Journal of Current Legal Issues, 20(2).

17.

Javaid, A. (2014c). Male rape: The ‘invisible’ male. Internet Journal of Criminology. Retrieved from http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Javaid_Male_Rape_The_Invisible_Male_IJC_Jan_2014.pdf.

18.

Javaid, A. (2014d). Male rape: The unseen world of male rape. Internet Journal of Criminology. Retrieved from http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Javaid_The_Unseen_World_of_Male_Rape_IJC_Jan_2014.pdf.

19.

Javaid

(2015a) The dark side of men: The nature of masculinity and its uneasy relationship with male rape. The Journal of Men’s Studies 23(3): 271–292.

20.

Javaid

(2015b) Male rape myths: Understanding and explaining social attitudes surrounding male rape. Masculinities and Social Change 4(3): 270–294.

21.

Javaid

(2015c) Police responses to, and attitudes towards, male rape: Issues and concerns. International Journal of Police Science and Management 17(2): 81–90.

22.

Javaid, A. (2016a). Voluntary agencies’ responses to, and attitudes toward male rape: Issues and concerns. Sexuality & Culture, 20(3), 731–748.

23.

Javaid

(2016b) Male rape, stereotypes, and unmet needs: Hindering recovery, perpetuating silence. Violence and Gender 3(1): 7–13.

24.

Javaid, A. (2016c). Giving a voice to the voiceless: Police responses to male rape. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 11(2), 146–156.

25.

Javaid

(2017) Male rape, masculinities, and sexualities: Understanding, policing, and overcoming male sexual victimisation, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave.

26.

Kimmel

(2005) Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In: Kimmel

(ed.) The gender of desire, New York: State University of New York Press, pp. 25–42.

27.

Laumann

E. O.

Gagnon

J. H.

(1995) A sociological perspective on sexual action. In: Parker

R. G.

Gagnon

J. H.

(eds) Conceiving sexuality: Approaches to sex research in a postmodern world, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 183–213.

28.

Lees

(1997) Ruling passions. Sexual violence, reputation and the law, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

29.

Messerschmidt

(2000) Becoming “real men”: Adolescent masculinity challenges and sexual violence. Men and Masculinities 2(3): 286–307.

30.

Pascoe

C. J.

(2011) “Guys are just homophobic”: Rethinking adolescent homophobia and heterosexuality. In: Seidman

Fischer

and Meeks

(eds) Introducing the new sexuality studies, 2nd ed. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 175–182.

31.

Rumney

(2008) Policing male rape and sexual assault. Journal of Criminal Law 72(1): 67–86.

32.

Rumney

(2009) Gay male rape victims: Law enforcement, social attitudes and barriers to recognition. The International Journal of Human Rights 13(2): 233–250.

33.

Scarce

(1997) Male on male rape: The hidden toll of stigma and shame, Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.

34.

Seidler

V. J.

(2007) Masculinities, bodies, and emotional life. Men and Masculinities 10(1): 9–21.

35.

Simon

(1996) Postmodern sexualities, London, UK: Routledge.

36.

Simon

Gagnon

(1986) Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior 15: 97–120.

37.

Srivastava

S. P.

(1974) Sex life in an Indian male prison. Indian Journal of Social Work 35(1): 21–33.

38.

Walker

Archer

Davies

(2005) Effects of rape on men: A descriptive analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior 34(1): 69–80.

39.

Weeks

Heaphy

Donovan

(2001) Same sex intimacies families of choice and other life experiments, London, UK: Routledge.

40.

Weiss

K. G.

(2010) Male sexual victimization: Examining men’s experiences of rape and sexual assault. Men and Masculinities 12(3): 275–298.

41.

Williams

(2009) Masculinities and vulnerability: The solitary discourses and practices of African-Caribbean and white working-class fathers. Men and Masculinities 11(4): 441–461.

42.

Wooden

W. S.

Parker

(1982) Men behind bars: Sexual exploitation in prison, New York, NY: Plenum Press.