Sexual Victimization Among Men: A Qualitative Analysis of the Twitter Hashtag #UsToo

Abstract

The present study sought to characterize use of the hashtag #UsToo on Twitter to disclose or comment on men’s experiences of sexual victimization. A sample of 281 original content, English-language tweets containing the hashtag were collected from Twitter over five consecutive weekdays. Thematic content analysis was conducted by a three-person coding team (full team consensus, achieving 100% agreement). Researchers categorized tweets as either a disclosure of victimization (N = 6) or a response to this hashtag (N = 275). When responding to the hashtag, users commented on the emotional impact of victimization, provided positive responses within the forum (i.e., advocacy, call to action, raising awareness, and prosocial reactions), and also engaged in negative responses within the forum (i.e., distracting attention away from the experiences of victims, egocentric responses which called attention to themselves or others, and otherwise harmful reactions). Despite the popularity of the #MeToo hashtag to disclose personal experiences of violence victimization, Twitter users were unlikely to utilize the hashtag #UsToo to disclose personal experiences of sexual victimization. Results highlight a divergence between online behavior in response to a call for men’s disclosure of sexual victimization using the hashtag #UsToo versus online behavior in response to a call for women’s disclosure of sexual victimization using the hashtag #MeToo.

Keywords

men’s victimization disclosure social reactions Twitter

Sexual victimization among boys and men is an underacknowledged public health problem in the United States. In a survey of 17,337 adults, 16% of men report experiencing sexual abuse before the age of 18 (Dube et al., 2005). According to the U.S. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, approximately one quarter of American men experience contact sexual victimization in their lifetime, and 1 in 14 men report an attempted or completed experience of being made to penetrate someone else during their lifetime (Smith et al., 2018). Among men, sexual victimization is associated with numerous deleterious health outcomes, including psychological distress and sexual dysfunction (O’Leary & Gould, 2009).

Despite the prevalence of sexual victimization among men, relatively few men disclose their experience to others or formally report the experience to the police (Cohen, 2014). Though quantitative data regarding the frequency of men’s disclosure of sexual victimization is limited, qualitative analyses suggest that men describe few disclosure experiences, while citing many barriers to disclosure across levels of the social ecology (Sorsoli et al., 2008). Research comparing rates of disclosure between men and women who experience sexual victimization yields mixed results. Some research indicates that boys and girls who experience childhood sexual abuse disclose at comparable rates (Goodman-Brown et al., 2003). Other studies suggest that men are less likely than women to disclose experiences of sexual trauma across the lifespan (De Graaf & Wijsen, 2017). According to Donne et al. (2018), men of color may be particularly unlikely to disclose sexual victimization, especially men with multiple intersecting marginalized identities (i.e., gay men of color). Notably, Dhaliwal et al. (1996) suggest that men disclose sexual abuse histories for the first time when participating in research on the topic.

Low rates of disclosing sexual victimization among men are concerning for several reasons. Research among women suggests that disclosure of sexual victimization is associated with help-seeking behaviors (Ullman & Filipas, 2001) as well as lower levels of self-blame (i.e., placing appropriate blame on the perpetrator; Ullman & Najdowski, 2011). Disclosure can also help victims to conceptualize the experience (Starzynski et al., 2005) and experience personal growth (Sorsoli et al., 2008).

When boys and men do tell someone about experiences of sexual victimization, data indicate that—like girls and women—disclosure often occurs long after the assault (Goodman-Brown et al., 2003). One analysis of the disclosure and reporting experiences of 487 men who were sexually victimized during childhood found that, on average, men who experience childhood sexual abuse first disclosed at about 32 years old, waited 21 years to disclose, and waited 28 years before engaging in an in-depth discussion of their abuse experience (Easton, 2013). Whereas there are numerous reasons why a survivor may wait to talk about their experience, waiting to disclose sexual victimization is associated with greater PTSD symptoms (Ullman, 2007). Further, due to legal statues of limitations for sexual crimes, delayed disclosure may limit the ability of law enforcement to hold perpetrators accountable (Weiss & Alexander, 2013).

Ascription to traditional masculine ideals may serve as a barrier to disclosing and reporting sexual victimization among men. Easton (2014) found that higher conformity to 11 traditional masculine norms, including masculine control and risk-taking, was associated with fewer help-seeking behaviors among men who experience sexual violence. There are several potential explanations for the association between ascription to traditional heteronormative masculine ideals and help-seeking behavior among men. First, experiencing victimization is inconsistent with the traditional masculine norm of “male invincibility” (Stemple & Meyer, 2014). Men are often perceived as being more capable of coping with adversity than women (Scarce, 1997), and are expected to be “in control” over both their emotions and their environment (Courtenay, 2000). As a result, men who experience sexual victimization may not talk to others about the experience for fear of being perceived as weak. Second, the misperception that men welcome all sexual interaction (see Smith, 2011) may also reduce the likelihood that men acknowledge unwanted sexual experiences as victimization (Sorsoli et al., 2008). Acceptance of rape myths may also predict men’s likelihood to acknowledge or report sexual victimization. For example, Walfield (2021) identified several widely held rape myths regarding experiences of sexual victimization among men (i.e., men cannot be raped by women, men can enjoy sex even when it is forced, and healthy men are able to physically resist victimization).

Men may also refrain from disclosing sexual victimization due to fear that others will respond negatively to the information or due to concerns that disclosure will disrupt their relationships (Sorsoli et al., 2008). Whereas positive reactions such as providing emotional support, validation, belief, and tangible aid have a protective effect against negative health outcomes, negative reactions, like disbelief or victim blame, exacerbate symptoms of posttraumatic stress, self-blame, depression, and problem coping (Dworkin et al., 2019; Sigurvinsdottir & Ullman, 2015; Ullman, 2010; Ullman et al., 2008). Notably, men are less likely than women to receive positive reactions to disclosure (Ullman & Filipas, 2005), which may reduce the likelihood that they tell others about the experience.

Social Media and Disclosure of Sexual Victimization

Social media is emerging as a widely utilized platform for disclosing and discussing experiences of sexual victimization (Bogen et al., 2018a, 2018b, 2021). Twitter is a social media platform that allows users to view, post, and respond to short, character-limited messages referred to as “tweets”, which may include original text generated by users, or links to external content, such as articles, news stories, or webpages (Twitter, 2017). Twitter users can include a “hashtag” (the symbol “#” followed by term or phrase describing the content of tweet) in their tweets to associate them with certain topics and allow other users interested in those topics to easily search for them (Yang, 2016).

Whereas the hashtag #MeToo emerged in 2017 as an opportunity for individuals to disclose experiences of sexual victimization via Twitter, with over 1.5 million tweets in the first week alone (i.e., Modrek & Chakalov, 2019), this hashtag was established specifically as a forum for women to describe their personal experiences of victimization. As discussed by Gallagher et al. (2019), the messaging around #MeToo also discouraged disclosure by individuals who did not identify as a woman. It is therefore not surprising that Gallagher et al. found that 97.4% of tweets in a random sample of posts with the hashtag #MeToo were authored by women. Given that there has yet to be a movement comparable to #MeToo which prompts disclosure of sexual victimization among men, we currently have little information regarding how men discuss and disclose experiences of sexual violence online. For example, Fawcett and Shrestha’s (2016) thematic analysis of the personal blogs of sexual assault survivors included only one blog written by a man.

The tendency to frame women as victims of sexual violence and men as perpetrators may therefore preclude some men from discussing their own experiences of sexual victimization in public and online spaces (Stemple et al., 2017). For example, efforts to raise awareness about sexual victimization also tend to focus on women who experience sexual victimization (Arnold, 2017). Further, efforts to engage men and boys in sexual violence prevention generally urge men to take responsibility as proactive bystanders when they witness other men engaging in sexually aggressive behavior (Denov, 2003; Funk, 2008; Stemple & Meyer, 2014).

There are several reasons to expect that men would participate in online forums established as platforms for discussion of sexual violence in a manner that differs from women. Men’s internet usage tends to mirror the goals prescribed by masculinity norms during in-person interactions, that is, interactions often reflect competition and markers of social status (Haferkamp et al., 2012). In fact, examinations of social media profiles on the social networking site MySpace found that men’s online portrayals of themselves conformed to and emphasized stereotypes of masculinity, including strength, power, and status (Manago et al., 2008; Sveningsson, 2007).

Despite the paucity of research examining men’s disclosure of sexual victimization in online forums, it is feasible that online platforms may enable men to more readily discuss their own experiences of sexual victimization. As discussed by Suler (2004), individuals generally exhibit disinhibited behavior when interacting online. Feelings of online anonymity may reduce the sense of vulnerability that people typically experience when sharing personal information in person. When individuals post information online, they do not see or hear the other individuals who receive their information and may be more likely to continue their train of thought without interruption or self-censoring. Whereas these factors may promote disclosure of sensitive information via social media, online disinhibition also facilitates hostility, harsh criticism and threatening behavior in individuals who comment on posts in online forums (Alonzo & Aiken, 2004; Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012, 2015), which can increase the likelihood that individuals experience a negative social reaction to disclosing sexual victimization (see Bogen et al., 2018a; Bogen et al., 2021).

Sexual Victimization Among Men and the Twitter Hashtag #UsToo

Efforts to raise awareness about sexual violence are more frequently occurring via social media. For example, the “Me Too Movement”, which seeks to empower survivors of sexual violence to disclose their experience, was created nearly a decade earlier by black social justice activist Tarana Burke, and gained widespread attention and impact across social media platforms (Hawbacker, 2019). Twitter emerged as a particularly popular social media platform for disclosing personal experiences of sexual victimization using the hashtag #MeToo (Bogen et al., 2018b). Individuals who disclose their experience using the hashtag #MeToo report feeling empowered by the experience (Eiler et al., 2019). Notably, however, efforts to raise awareness of sexual violence via social media have largely focused on women’s victimization experiences (Harlow et al., 2021; PettyJohn et al., 2019; Pipyrou, 2018).

On August 2, 2018, The New York Times released a story detailing experiences of sexual abuse among young men on the Ohio State wrestling team (Edmondson & Tracy, 2018). Over 100 men came forward to report that they experienced sexual molestation perpetrated by Dr Richard Strauss, a physician at Ohio State who had acted as team doctor from the 1970s to 1990s. Jim Jordan—a member of the United States Congress—served as the assistant wrestling coach at the time of the abuse and was accused of knowing that the athletes were experiencing sexual abuse, yet failing to report to the proper authorities. The New York Times article, entitled “It Can Happen Even to Guys: Ohio State Wrestlers Detail Abuse, Saying #UsToo,” sparked conversation on Twitter via the hashtag #UsToo. Given the common use of #MeToo by white, cisgender women, the hashtag #UsToo had been previously utilized by women of marginalized groups to discuss experiences of sexual violence (Onwuachi-Willig, 2018). Following the widespread news coverage of The New York Times article, this hashtag was largely employed to comment on the disclosure of sexual abuse among men at Ohio State, and discuss the experience of sexual victimization among men more broadly.

Given the paucity of research examining men’s participation in social media platforms to discuss experiences of sexual victimization, the present research study sought to characterize how individuals utilized the hashtag #UsToo to disclose and respond to experiences of sexual victimization among men. Two research questions were posed. First, how did Twitter users utilize the hashtag #UsToo to disclose personal experiences of sexual victimization? Second, how did Twitter users utilize the hashtag #UsToo to either positively or negatively comment on experiences of sexual victimization among men? As these research questions were descriptive in nature, no specific hypotheses were proposed.

Method

Procedure

Tweets using the hashtag “#UsToo” were downloaded at approximately 11:30 am daily over five consecutive weekdays (August 3, 2018 to August 9, 2018). Data collection began the day after the related The New York Times article was published, while the piece was widely discussed on social media. This timeline of data capture aligns with extant research on social media analysis as it allows researchers to collect data during the “peak” of online conversation regarding a focused topic (Bogen et al., 2021; McCauley et al., 2018). Data capture was achieved using NCapture, a NVivo toolbar addition created for Google Chrome that facilitates the collection of publicly accessible social media data. The present research did not involve human subject participation and examined only publicly accessible tweets; this project was deemed exempt from IRB review. The anonymity of those who produced the tweets included in the present study was further protected by removing usernames, locations, and Twitter user bios—which have the potential to be personally identifiable—from the dataset prior to coding. No demographic information is collected when using NCapture. However, a higher proportion of Twitter users are black, young, urban, and educated than the general US population (Smith & Anderson, 2018).

Data Preparation

In total, 12,111 tweets were collected from users with public Twitter profiles during the data collection window. Consistent with social media content analysis research (Bogen et al., 2018a, 2018b), data were cleaned to isolate original content tweets. Tweets including the #UsToo hashtag alone or with a linked article and/or @user but no original content (n = 625), tweets in which a user simply reposted another user’s tweet with no additional content (i.e., “retweets”; n = 11,089), and irrelevant/non-English tweets (e.g., tags from competing #UsToo movements for STEM/black/indigenous women; n = 65) were removed from the dataset, resulting in final sample of 332 original tweets. This sample size is consistent with qualitative analyses of social media data (Bogen et al., 2021; Jaremko et al., 2019). NCapture collects the first 140 characters of data provided in a tweet. As Twitter has expanded the character limit that can be included in a tweet from 140 to 280 characters, researchers manually checked links associated with downloaded tweet content in order to code the full tweets. Most of the longer tweets (over 95%) were associated with working links, which allowed researchers to code the full text. However, it is expected that a small amount of information included in tweets longer than 140 characters was not included in the analysis.

Coding Procedure

The coding process enabled researchers to identify factors relating to disclosure of sexual victimization using hashtag #UsToo, as well as responses to disclosure of sexual victimization using hashtag #UsToo. The coding procedure used in the present work was guided by a preconstructed codebook applied to previous analysis of Twitter disclosures (Bogen et al., 2018a; Bogen et al., 2018b). One portion of the codebook included factors commonly included in online sexual assault disclosure (i.e., who, what, when, where, why, how). The next portion of the codebook included factors commonly included in reactions to disclosure of sexual victimization in an online forum. These factors included some social reactions to sexual assault disclosure documented in Ullman’s (2000) classification systems of social reactions to in-person sexual assault disclosure, as well as social reactions documented in response to online sexual assault disclosure (e.g., advocacy, hashtag commentary; Bogen et al., 2018a).

Consistent with processes for developing thematic reliability and validity in qualitative research (Alhojailan, 2012), the primary and secondary coder built the initial a priori codebook and invited the consensus coder—a senior researcher in the field of violence prevention, victim disclosure, and social reactions—to assess the codebook for validity. The essential role of the consensus coder during codebook construction was to identify whether the primary and secondary coder had failed to include relevant themes and to provide feedback ensuring the codebook reflected extant research on patterns of disclosure and response. Importantly, in addition to the inclusion of these a priori themes, researchers followed open-ended coding procedures in order to allow themes and subthemes to emerge that fell outside of the preconstructed codebook.

A priori codes included the major theme to indicate whether each tweet represented a disclosure or a response. When a tweet was categorized as a response, it was next coded as either: (a) commentary on the hashtag; (b) a positive/supportive response; or (c) a negative/harmful response. Within positive reactions, tweets were coded as advocacy, call to action, emotional support, and raising awareness. Within negative reactions, tweets were coded as distracting, egocentric, or harmful. The decision to code tweets as either positive or negative responses was based on previous qualitative work examining social reactions to in-person disclosures, which utilized this classification scheme (Bogen et al., 2018b; Bogen, 2019; Ullman, 2000). For example, all egocentric responses were categorized as negative, given evidence that in-person egocentric responses are associated with poorer survivor health outcomes (Ullman, 2010). Similarly, as distracting survivors from their process of disclosure (for example, trying to get them to talk about something else) may be seen as a “turning away” reaction (Ullman, 2010), distracting responses, regardless of whether they appeared to be well intended, were categorized as negative.

The combined process of content—and codebook—guided analysis resulted in a final codebook containing three primary themes—disclosure, response, and hashtag commentary—as well as subthemes falling under each of these major themes. Themes that represented in more than 1% of the data (n = 3) were reported. Some themes were considered hierarchical, and therefore mutually exclusive. For example, tweets involving both disclosure and response were coded only as a disclosure. There were only a few tweets (n = 3) that qualified as both a disclosure and (positive or negative) response. Further, there were only a few instances in which the coding team experienced an initial disagreement on coding a tweet as either a positive or negative response. In some cases, a tweet reflected what could be considered both a positive and negative response. For example, one tweet noted, “[Link] Continue to be true to who you are and f*** Jim Jordan. Call him out, he does not deserve to hold elected office.” Whereas this tweet encourages men who experience sexual violence to be true to themselves, it also shifts focus away from survivors’ experience to Jim Jordan’s role as an elected official. Whereas a third category was considered for tweets that included what could be categorized as both positive and negative responses, ultimately not enough tweets were identified that fit this classification. In these cases, the coding team decided upon the most salient classification of the tweet, with negative sentiment overriding the presence of positive sentiment.

The coding team consisted of three researchers in the field of sexual violence prevention. Each coding team member was familiar with existing characteristics of survivor disclosure, including knowledge of the literature regarding social reactions to disclosures. A senior researcher with expertise in sexual assault prevention and survivor support served as the consensus coder. Coders met once weekly for approximately four weeks. Coding disagreements were discussed in-person between team members until consensus was reached, resulting in 100% agreement on all thematic coding decisions.

Results

Disclosures of Sexual Violence Victimization Using #MeToo

A small sample of tweets (2%) reflected a personal disclosure of sexual victimization (N = 6). Most men who disclosed personal experiences of sexual victimization described experiences of childhood sexual abuse. For example, one Twitter user commented:

I can echo the same terrible truth. #UsToo It happened to me when I was 6-10 years old. It has caught up with me and consumed me. I’m in therapy now but death was my only escape and it almost won. Please reach out. The stigma gets easier with time. Scary as hell though. Thank you.

Users commented on the emotional consequences of experiencing sexual victimization. For example, “#MeToo needs to embrace #UsToo, because there are plenty of men who are abused and molested growing up. We just keep it bottled up and never talk about it. #UsToo”. As highlighted by the tweet, there was a question of whether MeToo was a movement that acknowledged men’s experiences of victimization. Three users who disclosed via the hashtag also shared support for others using the hashtag, including one who wrote: “For all who are afraid to tweet about it like I was… #MeToo #UsToo.”

Reactions to Sexual Violence Using #MeToo

Positive responses. Positive responses accounted for 69% of tweets (see Table 1), and were categorized into the subthemes of raising awareness, advocacy, prosocial responses, and calls to action, which are described in detail below.

Table 1.

Themes and Subthemes (N = 281).

Theme	n (%)	Description	Example
Disclosure	6 (2%)	Survivor’s disclosure of their own experience of violence victimization	“Back in college I had a lot of drunk sex living in a party house for 2 years. Looking back, I feel the women took advantage of me even though I would brag about it to my friends the next day. #UsToo”
General commentaryon the hashtag	7 (2%)	Reflection on the use or popularity of the hashtag itself	“@User I went to read up on #ustoo. It’s all over the place.
Positive responses	193 (69%)
Advocacy	76 (27%)	Reactions that advocated on behalf of survivors, challenged inappropriate online behavior, or tweeted @ individuals involved in the scandal	“#UsToo - so many males have these experiences. I hope the lid of shame gets lifted as they continue to speak up/out. Will education help in a culture that normalizes/justifies such abuses of power?”
Call to action	8 (3%)	Statements encouraging groups to respond to male victimization a certain way (i.e., “we should…” or “we must…”)	“As fall semesters begin, we must support all victims of sexual harassment, including the men.”
Emotional support	1 (11%)	Positive social reactions to victims or the community of male victims including provision of emotional support, validation, belief, and tangible aid	“@User stands with people of all genders and across genders who are violated, harassed, or exploited. Thank you for bravely telling our stories and driving the fight for human dignity and equality.”
Raising awareness	78 (36%)	Sharing information on the Ohio State abuse or on male victimization through links and online articles	“100+ men have now come forward to say they were molested by Dr. #RichardStrauss, a team doctor and physician at Ohio State University from the late 1970s to the 1990s, per an independent investigation commissioned by the university [link].”
Negative responses	75 (27%)
Distracting	45 (16%)	Reactions that distract from survivors’ needs, frequently by drawing attention to the political context	“@Jim_Jordan You would get majority in US senate with that head count. If this number doubles, you would get majority in House of Representatives, too.”
Egocentric	15 (5%)	Responses that focus on the emotional response of the Twitter user, or forms of self-promotion	“Episode 66 of @Podcast is here! We talk @OhioStateFB Bullshit, #UsToo, and have an awesome interview with @IDonotCara on the #GayGames”
Other Harmful responses	15 (5%)	Expressions of victim blame, trolling, misogynistic sentiment, or disbelief of victims	“I think #MeToo is overworked. If a bad “pass”, pick-up line or inappropriate comment/behavior is criteria, approximately 100% of men (including gays) are guilty - as are many women. Maybe we need an #UsToo movement? Lots of legit accusations, lots of bandwagons.”

Note. Themes and subthemes are mutually exclusive.

Advocacy. Tweets coded as advocacy (27%) included those in which users spoke out on behalf of survivors, denounced the actions of individuals involved in the Ohio State scandal, or confronted inappropriate online behaviors by other members of the online community. In one advocacy tweet, a user wrote: “Keep educating yourself about these problems, do not be ignorant, and be supportive of all who come forth during #MeTooMovement”, encouraging support for survivors. In another tweet demonstrating advocacy, an individual challenged the critical views of survivors expressed by other individuals in the online community; “*Rant* Read reports on how male wrestlers were abused @ Michigan University #UsToo but disturbed most by the criticism 'how could well-built young men not fight back or why they didn’t just punch the doctors/coaches,’ it doesn’t work that way.”

Call to action. Tweets coded as call to action (3%) represented messages that made efforts to activate others to become engaged in sexual violence prevention or offer positive reactions to disclosure of sexual victimization. These messages communicated a sense of group responsibility for ending sexual violence. For example, one individual directed those reading their tweet to “Read this & educate yourself how even strong men can be victims… .” Another user employed the word “we” to highlight the need for everyone to contribute to a cultural shift to prevent sexual violence, stating: “Everyone deserves to be free of #HumanRights view need to work together to transform #ToxicCulture #Risk2Value & it starts at the #Board level & requires a strong & transparent #SpeakUp #ListenUp organizational culture.”

Emotional support. Tweets coded as emotional support (11%) included those in which individuals expressed emotional support for survivors in the form of validation or belief, or by suggesting resources through which survivors could access tangible aid. For example, one Twitter user expressed emotional support for survivors by tweeting “@nytimes I called them out a few weeks ago. I agree completely Mr. Nutter. You are a with us, with me. I am so sorry for what happened to you. It is a darkness that you do not have to go through alone anymore.” Another provided validation by tweeting “I believe the 100 men #UsToo Someone make this right - give those guys the respect & support they deserve; the coaches didn’t respect them & protect them - who will make this right?” Tweets providing tangible aid typically included links to mental health and legal resources.

Raising awareness. Tweets coded as raising awareness comprised the largest portion of positive responses (36%) and included those in which users shared links and/or online articles providing information on the allegations of sexual misconduct at Ohio State that sparked the #UsToo movement, or men who experience sexual victimization in general. For instance, many responses in this category noted the prevalence of sexual victimization among men. One Twitter user commented:

‘It Can Happen Even to Guys’: Ohio State Wrestlers Detail Abuse, Saying #UsToo Damn straight it can happen to men too. Over 100 men have come forward & most are saying #JimJordanKnew; yet the head coach is asking them to take back their claims. #MeToo.

Negative responses. Negative responses accounted for 27 % of tweets (see Table 1), and were further categorized into the subthemes of distracting, egocentric, and harmful, which are described in detail further.

Distracting responses. Tweets coded as distracting (16%) shifted attention away from survivors’ disclosures and towards related topics without reference to supporting survivors. Most often, tweets called for punitive actions to be taken against parties perceived as culpable, including politicians. For example, most distracting tweets called for retribution against Jim Jordan, a US senator who served as the assistant wrestling coach while the sexual misconduct occurred at Ohio State. A significant portion of distracting tweets also criticized political parties, politicians, public figures, or other organizations perceived to be in a position of power or responsibility to influence legal or social consequences for sexual violence, including tweets such as, “After reading this post from @User I have to wonder in 2042 if the excuse will be, ‘well those were the trump years.’ As if #MeToo #UsToo isn’t happening. Is @Lawrence O’Donnell the only one who will hold Rep Jordan accountable b/c Congress isn’t.” In some cases, distracting tweets referenced parties not directly related to the events that initiated the hashtag #UsToo.

Egocentric responses. Tweets coded as egocentric (5%) focused on respondents’ personal reactions, opinions, or role in sexual violence prevention efforts rather than survivor’s experiences or needs. For example, one Twitter user emphasized their own fears about their children in the following tweet: “Devastating. As I prepare to send my boys to college, I hope I’ve taught them enough [link].” Individuals also demonstrated egocentric responses focused on self-promotion of their own engagement in activism against sexual violence; “I’m at #NN18 hearing from activists from across the country including my brilliant colleague…Join us at Friday at 9 am for the “#UsToo overcoming invisibility & battling #MeToo backlash” in room 220/ then Friday at 1 pm for the consent caucus in room 226!”

Other harmful responses. A final subtheme within negative responses captured tweets comprising a range of responses determined to be potentially harmful to survivors (Ullman, 2010). These included victim blame, disbelief, misogynistic sentiment, or trolling behavior. Trolling behavior is defined as posting inflammatory or off-topic material within an online community for the purpose of upsetting others or starting conflict (see Paavola et al., 2016). For instance, one Twitter user expressed their disbelief of the reports of sexual misconduct made by Ohio State wrestlers by commenting “WHATS INAPPROPRIATE IF YOU’RE A WRESTLER?”, suggesting that no form of physical contact is inappropriate in the context of wrestling. Trolling behavior documented within tweets included the following: “@User Gonna be taking the dick by force! #UsToo”. The tweet from this individual, who suggests that a specific Twitter user would be sexually assaulted, is representative of some of the threatening and vitriolic dialogue that occurred within the thread that not only diminished the seriousness of sexual violence, but also contributed to the normalization of its occurrence.

Commentary on the Hashtag

A small sample of tweets (2%) utilized the hashtag #UsToo to comment on the hashtag itself (N = 7). Some tweets expressed personal support for the forum. For example, one Twitter user commented: “I love this so much. #MeToo #UsToo (for the men victims of sexual abuse)”. Other tweets raised concern regarding the emergence of #UsToo as a separate space for men to disclose personal experiences of sexual victimization, suggesting instead that men should disclose personal experiences of trauma using #MeToo. For example, one Twitter user commented: “Please read this. It’s important to know that boys/men can be abused too. Wrestlers even. I just object to the use of #UsToo. Why separate it from #MeToo?”.

Discussion

The present study sought to examine Twitter dialogue regarding sexual violence victimization among men using the hashtag #UsToo. Recent research examining the use of hashtags such as #MeToo has provided insight into the ways in which social media may be used to elicit and provide support for women who experience sexual violence. Results of the current study revealed both discrepancies and similarities in patterns of online communication regarding sexual violence victimization among men using the Twitter hashtag #UsToo, detailed further.

Disclosures of Sexual Violence Victimization

The first aim of the present study was to examine the use of #UsToo by men to disclose and characterize their experiences of sexual violence victimization. Given that #MeToo emerged as a popular venue for women’s disclosure of sexual victimization, it would have been reasonable to expect that #UsToo would likewise be heavily utilized as a forum for men to disclose their personal experiences of sexual violence. However, personal disclosures of sexual victimization comprised only 2% (N = 6) of the sample of tweets analyzed in the current study. It appears that, rather than being utilized as a platform for disclosures or to provide support for men who experience sexual violence, the hashtag #UsToo was utilized to discuss the sexual abuse of young men on the Ohio State wrestling team. The widespread use of #UsToo to share commentary about the Times piece may have discouraged men who experience sexual violence from coming forward via the hashtag, in spite of the stated goal that #UsToo provided a space for men victims to discuss their experiences. Variation in online disclosure rates between men and women is consistent with previous research, demonstrating different rates of in-person sexual assault disclosure among men and women (see Cohen, 2014). As is true for women who experience sexual assault, some men never report their victimization (Javaid, 2016). Weiss (2010) suggests that men who do disclose experiences of sexual violence are more likely to disclose victimization perpetrated by a man than by a woman. Further, men who disclosed also shared support and encouragement for others using the hashtag, indicating that individuals who disclose victimization online may also react in supportive ways that foster group solidarity.

Ascription to traditional masculine norms which prioritize toughness may contribute to low rates of sexual violence disclosure among men (Copelon, 1994; Kassing et al., 2005; Mendel, 1995). There is significant evidence to suggest that normative beliefs regarding masculinity, such as the expectation that men be strong in control of their emotions (King, 1992), undermine men’s ability to safely and comfortably disclose sexual victimization. These stigmatizing views may inhibit men from seeking support and accessing activist communities that may validate their experiences (Allen et al., 2015). Future research is needed to explore whether individuals who experience sexual violence remain inhibited from disclosing experiences online due to fear of negative reactions, such as victim blame. Men who experience sexual violence may also hold internalized rape myths, including the belief that men cannot be raped by women, and that men can enjoy forced sex (Walfield, 2021). Men may hesitate to disclose if they themselves adhere to these myths or are concerned that these beliefs are held by members of their own social networks.

Of note, research on online disclosure of sexual victimization suggests that individuals who disclose online report higher levels of trauma-related distress, lower self-esteem in the aftermath of sexual trauma, and a desire for improved self-image following an experience of sexual victimization (Fawcett & Shrestha, 2016; Moors & Webber, 2013). Individuals may also lack of adequate emotional support in their in-person social networks (Andalibi et al., 2016). As these findings were gleaned from samples comprised predominantly of women, future research is needed to better understand the characteristics of individuals who disclose experiences of sexual violence online.

Reactions to Sexual Victimization Among Men

The second aim of the present study was to characterize reactions of Twitter users to men’s experiences of sexual victimization. The patterns of responses documented in previous analyses of Twitter dialogue using #MeToo (Bogen et al., 2021) also emerged in the present dataset. Specifically, most tweets (69%) were positive in valence, raising awareness of sexual violence and advocating for victims. A smaller portion of tweets classified as positive responses expressed emotional support (11.5%), and only a few involved taking responsibility for addressing the issue of sexual violence among men. The prevalence of these themes in Twitter user’s reactions underscore the unique and positive contributions of social media discourse in increasing sexual violence prevention and intervention efforts. However, the extent to which such positive reactions were associated with positive outcomes cannot be determined in the current analyses. Prospective research which engages Twitter users in assessments of health outcomes over time is needed to better understand the association between online disclosure of sexual victimization, positive social reactions, and health outcomes.

Like the rates of negative responses documented in analyses of the hashtag #MeToo (Bogen et al., 2021), negative responses using #UsToo comprised nearly one-third of the sample (27%) and consisted mostly of tweets that were categorized as distracting (16%). An interesting and somewhat unique quality of distracting tweets in the present sample was that many were retributive in nature and called for punitive actions to be taken against individuals accused of engaging in sexual violence, or political and public figures thought to be complicit in its perpetration. Consistent with guidelines established in previous qualitative analyses of Twitter dialogue around sexual violence victimization among women (Bogen et al., 2018a, 2018b), these reactions were coded as negative since they drew attention away from the experiences of survivors. However, it is unclear whether men who experience sexual violence would perceive these responses as helpful, hurtful, or both. Campbell et al. (2001) noted that women tend to vary in their conceptualization of three reactions typically classified as negative, including: (a) telling you to get on with your life; (b) wanting to seek revenge; and (c) trying to control your decisions. More recent studies also suggest that reactions can be considered positive or negative by survivors depending on their relationship to the support provider, the degree to which they were impacted by the assault, and the presence of other social reactions (Dworkin et al., 2019; Kirkner et al., 2021). Further research which assesses how individuals who utilize Twitter and other social media sites perceive the responses provided to them following disclosure of sexual victimization is needed to ascertain the construct validity of classification schemes for online social reactions to disclosure.

Limitations and Future Directions

The descriptive nature of the current study precluded making any empirical inferences regarding the motives, attitudes, and perceptions of individuals who used the #UsToo hashtag to engage in dialogue around the issue of sexual violence victimization among men. Additionally, this hashtag arose from a high-profile case of sexual abuse against a group of heteronormative athletes. Therefore, findings may not transfer to other forms of sexual violence, other movements of survivor disclosures via social media, or to the qualitative content of disclosures by sexual minority men.

At the time of data collection, captured tweets were subject to a 140 character limit. Thus, analyses and interpretations were based on a limited amount of text, making it difficult to determine user’s intentions and sentiments. Moreover, because only tweets including #UsToo posted during a relatively brief time period were analyzed, it was not possible for the researchers to follow ongoing Twitter conversations between multiple users. The lack of conversational context limited interpretations of tweets, as well as the ability to determine the emotional or informational dynamics (e.g., greater empathy for victims as a result of conversation) that unfolded as a result of certain tweets. The subset of tweets selected for analysis may have also excluded important data and skewed the results. For example, tweets that only included the #UsToo hashtag, or only this hashtag and a linked article, without any additional meaningful hashtags or words, were not included because they did not provide original content reflecting the user’s views or intentions behind sharing this information. Nonetheless, it is possible that these tweets may have also increased other users’ awareness of the issue of sexual violence victimization among men.

Furthermore, the demographics of the sample may limit the generalizability of the study. The current study did not collect demographic data; however, prior research suggests that Twitter users tend to be younger, more highly educated, and more affluent (having access to computers, smart phones and other devices on which Twitter can be used) relative to non-Twitter users (Giglietto et al., 2012). Moreover, it is possible that findings from the present study are not generalizable outside of the United States. The extent to which the patterns of disclosures and responses observed in the current sample apply to other populations is unclear. It is possible that the qualitative interpretation and classification of tweets in the present study may have been impacted by the researchers’ backgrounds and values, despite efforts to recognize and remove the influence of personal biases from the coding process.

The lack of demographic information pertaining to the sample precludes attending to sexual minority status, race, class, or other identity-related factors in the analyses. It is important that future research examine online disclosure of victimization among sexual minority men. Recent research indicates childhood sexual victimization prevalence rates of 24.5%, 21.2%, and 4.64% for bisexual, gay, and heterosexual men, respectively (Friedman et al., 2011), and national lifetime sexual victimization rates of 47.5% and 40.2% among bisexual and gay men, respectively (Black et al., 2011). Potential barriers to reporting that are specific to sexual minority men include anticipated sexual orientation-related discrimination from disclosure recipients (Rumney, 2009), and perceived lack of support from other sexual minority individuals (Todahl et al., 2009). Further, Jackson et al. (2017) indicate that sexual minority men report especially high rates of negative social reactions to disclosure. Research which examines how belonging to multiple marginalized groups impact men’s disclosure of sexual victimization is also warranted.

The limitations described above underscore the need for mixed methods investigations that pair the qualitative analyses employed in the present study with quantitative follow-up assessments of user’s intentions, motivations, and emotional experiences of engaging in online discourse around men’s sexual violence victimization. This approach would provide a more rigorous and objective index of psychological factors underlying the patterns of online disclosures and reactions. Finally, it is feasible that, distinct from #UsToo, the #MeToo tag was so widely used that it caused some social contagion, inspiring individuals to tweet using #MeToo based on their repeated exposure to the hashtag. Future research should analyze the reach and impact of tweets highlighting men’s sexual victimization – a deeper understanding of Twitter metrics could help to quantify the comparable visibility of tweets using #UsToo versus #MeToo, and whether people disclosed using #MeToo as a function of hashtag visibility.

In conclusion, the present study extends the literature on online disclosures of and reactions to sexual violence victimization by providing additional insight into how Twitter may be used as a platform for dialogue regarding sexual violence victimization among men. Specific themes and response patterns observed in the current analyses elucidate important discrepancies in the ways men and women use social media to disclose and react to sexual violence victimization. Future work should advance the scientific understanding of the manners in which social media may be utilized to support and benefit men who experience sexual violence.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Lindsay Orchowski is also affiliated with Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USA and Katherine Bogen is now affiliated with the University of Nebraska – Lincoln, Department of Psychology.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This was worked supported in part by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (T32 AA007459, PI: Monti).

ORCID iDs

Katherine W. Bogen

Mohamed Mazheruddin M. Mulla

Lindsay M. Orchowski

Author Biographies

Katherine W. Bogen, BA, is a graduate research assistant at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln in the Department of Psychology.

Mohamed Mazheruddin M. Mulla, PhD, MPH, is a clinical psychology postdoctoral fellow within the Brown University Medical School in the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior.

Michelle Haikalis, PhD, is a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies at Brown University.

Lindsay M. Orchowski, PhD, is associate professor (Research) in the Alpert Medical School of Brown University within the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior.

References

Alhojailan

M. I.

(2012). Thematic analysis: A critical review of its process and evaluation. West East Journal of Social Sciences , 1(1), 39–47.

Allen

C. T.

, Ridgeway

, & Swan

S. C.

(2015). College students’ beliefs regarding help seeking for male and female sexual assault survivors: Even less support for male survivors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24(1), 102–115.

Alonzo

& Aiken

(2004). Flaming in electronic communication. Decision Support Systems , 36(3), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(02)00190-2

Andalibi

, Haimson

O. L.

, De Choudhury

& Forte

(2016, May). Understanding social media disclosures of sexual abuse through the lenses of support seeking and anonymity. In Kaye

& Druin

Allison

(Chairs), Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 3906–3918). ACM Digital Library.

Arnold

(2017). US women’s movements to end violence against women, domestic abuse, and rape. In McCammon

H. J.

, Taylor

, Reger

, & Einwohner

R. L.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of US women’s social movement activism (pp. 270–290). Oxford University Press.

Black

M. C.

, Basile

K. C.

, Breiding

M. J.

, Smith

S. G.

, Walters

M. L.

, Merrick

M. T.

, Chen

& Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report . National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Bogen

K. W.

, Bleiweiss

& Orchowski

L. M.

(2018a). Sexual violence is #notokay: Social reactions to disclosures of sexual victimization on twitter. Psychology of Violence , 9(1), 127–137.

Bogen

K. W.

, Bleiweiss

K. K.

, Leach

N. R.

& Orchowski

L. M.

(2021). #Metoo: Disclosure and response to sexual victimization on Twitter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 36(17-18), 8257-8288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519851211

Bogen

K. W.

, Millman

, Huntington

& Orchowski

L. M.

(2018b). A qualitative analysis of disclosing sexual victimization by #notokay during the 2016 presidential election. Violence and Gender , 5(3), 174–181.

10.

Campbell

, Wasco

S. M.

, Ahrens

C. E.

, Sefl

, & Barnes

H. E.

(2001). Preventing the “second rape”: Rape survivors’ experiences with community service providers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 16, 1239–1259.

11.

Cohen

(2014). Male Rape Is a Feminist Issue: Feminism, Governmentality, and Male Rape . Palgrave Macmillan.

12.

Copelon

(1994). Surfacing gender: Re-engraving crimes against women in humanitarian law. In Nicole Ann Dombrowski (Ed.), Women and war in the twentieth century: Enlisted with or without consent (pp. 245–266). Garland.

13.

Courtenay

W. H.

(2000). Engendering health: A social constructionist examination of men’s health beliefs and behaviors. Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 1(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.1.1.4

14.

Denov

M. S.

(2003). The myth of innocence: Sexual scripts and the recognition of child sexual abuse by female perpetrators. Journal of Sex Research , 40(3), 303–314.

15.

Dhaliwal

G. K.

, Gauzas

, Antonowicz

D. H.

, & Ross

R. R.

(1996). Adult male survivors of childhood sexual abuse: Prevalence, sexual abuse characteristics, and long-term effects. Clinical Psychology Review , 16, 619–639.

16.

Donne

M. D.

, DeLuca

, Pleskach

, Bromson

, Mosley

M. P.

, Perez

E. T.

, Mathews

S. G.

, Stephenson

& Frye

(2018). Barriers to and facilitators of help-seeking behavior among men who experience sexual violence. American Journal of Men’s Health , 12(2), 189–201.

17.

Dube

S. R.

, Anda

R. F.

, Whitfield

C. L.

, Brown

D. W.

, Felitti

V. J.

, Dong

, Giles

W. H.

(2005). Long-term consequences of childhood sexual abuse by gender of victim. American Journal of Preventative Medicine , 28(5), 430–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.01.015

18.

Dworkin

E. R.

, Brill

C. D.,

& Ullman

S. E.

(2019). Social reactions to disclosure of interpersonal violence and psychopathology: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review , 72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101750

19.

Easton

S. D.

(2013). Disclosure of child sexual abuse among adult male survivors. Clinical Social Work Journal , 41(4), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-012-0420-3

20.

Easton

S. D.

(2014). Masculine norms, disclosure, and childhood adversities predict long-term mental distress among men with histories of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect , 38(2), 243–251.

21.

Edmondson

& Tracy

(2018). ‘It Can Happen Even to Guys’: Ohio State Wrestlers Detail Abuse, Saying #UsToo . The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/us/politics/ohio-state-wrestlers-abuse-me-too.html

22.

Eiler

B. A.

, Al-Kire

, Doyle

P. C.

& Wayment

H. A.

(2019). Power and trust dynamics of sexual violence: A textual analysis of nassar victim impact statements and# MeToo disclosures on Twitter. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology , 13(2), 290–310.

23.

Fawcett

& Shrestha

(2016). Blogging about sexual assault: a thematic analysis. The Journal of Forensic Practice , 18(1), 39–51.

24.

Friedman

M. S.

, Marshal

M. P.

, Guadamuz

T. E.

, Wei

, Wong

C. F.

, Saewyc

E. M.

& Stall

(2011). A meta-analysis of disparities in childhood sexual abuse, parental physical abuse, and peer victimization among sexual minority and sexual nonminority individuals. American Journal of Public Health , 101(8), 1481–1494.

25.

Funk

(2008). Men’s work: Men’s voices and actions against sexism and violence. Journal of Intervention and Prevention in the Community, 36(1–2), 155–171.

26.

Gallagher

R. J.

, Stowell

, Parker

A. G.

, Welles

Foucault

B. (2019). Reclaiming stigmatized narratives: The networked disclosure landscape of #MeToo. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , 3(CSCW), 1–30.

27.

Giglietto

, Rossi

& Bennato

(2012) The open laboratory: Limits and possibilities of using Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube as a research data source. Journal of Technology in Human Services , 30(3–4), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2012.743797

28.

Goodman-Brown

T. B.

, Edelstein

R. S.

, Goodman

G. S.

, Jones

& Gordon

D. S.

(2003). Why children tell: A model of children’s disclosure of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect , 27(5), 525–540.

29.

Gries

L. T.

, Goh

D. S.

& Cavanaugh

(1997). Factors associated with disclosure during child sexual abuse assessment. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 5(3), 1–19.

30.

Haferkamp

, Eimler

S. C.

, Papadakis

A. M.

& Kruck

J. V.

(2012). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus? Examining gender differences in self-presentation on social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking , 15(2), 91–98.

31.

Harlow

A. F.

, Willis

S. K.

, Smith

M. L.

& Rothman

E. F.

(2021). Bystander prevention for sexual violence: #howiwillchange and gaps in Twitter discourse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 36(11-12), NP5753-NP5771. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518808854

32.

Hawbacker

K.T.

(2019 September 17). #Metoo: A timeline of events. Chicago Tribune. https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-me-too-timeline-20171208-htmlstory.html

33.

Herek

G. M.

(1992). The social context of hate crimes: Notes on cultural heterosexism. In Herek

G. M.

& Berrill

K. T.

(Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gay men (pp. 89–104). Sage Publications.

34.

Jackson

M. A.

, Valentine

S. E.

, Woodward

E. N.

& Pantalone

D. W.

(2017). Secondary victimization of sexual minority men following disclosure of sexual assault: “Victimizing Me All Over Again…”. Sexuality Research and Social Policy , 14(3), 275–288.

35.

Jaremko

K. M.

, Schwenk

E. S.

, Pearson

A. C.

, Hagedorn

, Udani

A. D.

, Schwartz

, Elkassabany

N. M.

, Snively

Mariano

E. R.

(2019). Teaching an old pain medicine society new tweets: Integrating social media into continuing medical education. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology , 72(5), 409.

36.

Javaid

(2016). Male rape, stereotypes, and unmet needs: Hindering recovery, perpetuating silence. Violence and Gender , 3(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2015.0039

37.

Kassing

L. R.

, Beesley

& Frey

L. L.

(2005). Gender role conflict, homophobia, age, and education as predictors of male rape myth acceptance. Journal of Mental Health Counseling , 27(4), 311–328.

38.

Keary

& Fitzpatrick

(1994). Children’s disclosure of sexual abuse during formal investigation. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18(7), 543–548.

39.

King

M. B.

(1992). Male rape in institutional settings. In Mezey

& King

M. B.

(Eds.), Male victims of sexual assault (pp. 67–74). Oxford University Press.

40.

Kirkner

, Lorenz

& Ullman

S. E.

(2021). Recommendations for responding to survivors of sexual assault: A qualitative study of survivors and support providers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 36(3-4), 1005-1028. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517739285

41.

Lapidot-Lefler

& Barak

(2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior , 28(2), 434–443.

42.

Lapidot-Lefler

& Barak

(2015). The benign online disinhibition effect: Could situational factors induce self-disclosure and prosocial behaviors? Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace , 9(2). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2015-2-3

43.

Manago

A. M.

, Graham

M. B.

, Greenfield

P. M.

& Salimkhan

(2008). Self-presentation and gender on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 446–458.

44.

McCauley

H. L.

, Bonomi

A. E.

, Maas

M. K.

, Bogen

K. W.

, & Malley

T. L.

(2018). #MaybeHeDoesntHitYou: Social media underscore the realities of intimate partner violence. Journal of Women’s Health , 27(7), 885–891. http://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2017.6560

45.

Mendel

M. P.

(1995). The male survivor: The impact of sexual abuse . Sage Publications.

46.

Modrek

, & Chakalov

(2019). The #MeToo movement in the United States: text analysis of early twitter conversations. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 21(9), e13837.

47.

Moors

& Webber

(2013). The dance of disclosure: Online self-disclosure of sexual assault. Qualitative Social Work , 12(6), 799–815.

48.

O’Leary

& Gould

(2009). Men who were sexually abused in childhood and subsequent suicidal ideation: Community comparison, explanations and practice implications. The British Journal of Social Work , 39(5), 950–968.

49.

Onwuachi-Willig

(2018). What about #ustoo?: The invisibility of race in the #metoo movement. Boston University School of Law. https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/331

50.

Paavola

, Helo

, Jalonen

, Sartonen

& Huhtinen

A. -M

. (2016). Understanding the trolling phenomenon: The automated detection of bots and cyborgs in the social media. Journal of Information Warfare , 15(40), 100–111.

51.

PettyJohn

M. E.

, Muzzey

F. K.

, Maas

M. K.

& McCauley

H. L.

(2019). #Howiwillchange: Engaging men and boys in the #metoo movement. Psychology of Men & Masculinities , 20(4), 612–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000186

52.

Pipyrou

(2018). #MeToo is little more than mob rule //vs// #metoo is a legitimate form of social justice. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory , 8(3), 415–419. https://doi.org/10.1086/701007

53.

Rumney

P. S.

(2009). Gay male rape victims: law enforcement, social attitudes and barriers to recognition. International Journal of Human Rights , 13(2–3), 233–250.

54.

Ruzek

J. I.

& Yeager

C. M.

(2017). Internet and mobile technologies: Addressing the mental health of trauma survivors in less resourced communities. Global Mental Health , 4.

55.

Scarce

(1997). The spectacle of male rape. Male on male rape: The hidden toll of stigma and shame . Basic Books.

56.

Sigurvinsdottir

& Ullman

S. E.

(2015). Social reactions, self-blame, and problem drinking in adult sexual assault survivors. Psychology of Violence , 5(2), 192–198.

57.

Smith

B. V.

(2011). Uncomfortable places, close spaces: Female correctional workers’ sexual interactions with men and boys in custody. UCLA Law Review , 59, 1690.

58.

Smith

& Anderson

(2018). Social media use in 2018. Pew Research Center: Internet and Technology Report. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/

59.

Smith

S. G.

, Zhang

, Basile

K. C.

, Merrick

M. T.

, Wang

, Kresnow

, & Chen

(2018). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2015 Data Brief - Updated Release. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

60.

Sorsoli

, Kia-Keating

& Grossman

F. K.

(2008). “I keep that hush-hush”: Male survivors of sexual abuse and the challenges of disclosure. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 55(3), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.333

61.

Starzynski

L. L.

, Ullman

S. E.

, Filipas

H. H.

& Townsend

S. M.

(2005). Correlates of women’s sexual assault disclosure to informal and formal support sources. Violence and Victims , 20(4), 415–431.

62.

Stemple

, Flores

& Meyer

I. H.

(2017). Sexual victimization perpetrated by women: Federal data reveal surprising prevalence. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 34, 302–311.

63.

Stemple

& Meyer

I. H.

(2014). The sexual victimization of men in America: New data challenge old assumptions. American Journal of Public Health , 104(6), e19–e26.

64.

Suler

(2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior , 7(3), 321–326.

65.

Sveningsson

E. M.

(2007). Doing and undoing gender in a Swedish Internet community. In Sveningsson

E. M.

& Sunde´n

(Eds.), Cyberfeminism in northern lights. Gender and digital media in a Nordic context (pp. 104–129). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

66.

Todahl

J. L.

, Linville

, Bustin

, Wheeler

& Gau

(2009). Sexual assault support services and community systems. Violence Against Women , 15(8), 952–976.

67.

Twitter. (2017). About. https://about.twitter.com/

68.

Ullman

S. E.

(2000). Psychometric characteristics of the social reactions questionnaire: A measure of reactions to sexual assault victims. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 24(3), 257–271.

69.

Ullman

S. E.

(2007). Relationship to perpetrator, disclosure, social reactions, and PTSD symptoms in child sexual abuse survivors. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse , 16(1), 19–36.

70.

Ullman

S. E.

(2010). Talking about sexual assault: Society’s response to survivors . American Psychological Association.

71.

Ullman

S. E.

& Filipas

H. H.

(2001). Correlates of formal and informal support seeking in sexual assault victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 16(10), 1028–1047.

72.

Ullman

S. E.

, & Filipas

H. H.

(2005). Gender differences in social reactions to abuse disclosures, post-abuse coping, and PTSD of child sexual abuse survivors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(7), 767–782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.01.005

73.

Ullman

S. E.

& Najdowski

C. J.

(2011). Prospective changes in attributions of self-blame and social reactions to women’s disclosures of adult sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 26(10), 1934–1962.

74.

Ullman

S. E.

, Starzynski

L. L.

, Long

S. M.

, Mason

G. E.

& Long

L. M.

(2008). Exploring the relationships of women’s sexual assault disclosure, social reactions, and problem drinking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 23(9), 1235–1257.

75.

Walfield

S. M.

(2021). “Men cannot be raped”: Correlates of male rape myth acceptance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 36(13-14), 6391-6417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518817777

76.

Weiss

K. G.

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

77.

Weiss

K. J.

& Alexander

J. C.

(2013). Sex, lies, and statistics: Inferences from the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online , 41(3), 412–420.

78.

Yang

(2016). Narrative agency in hashtag activism: The case of #blacklivesmatter. Media and Communication , 4(4), 13–17. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.17645/mac.v4i4.692