Abstract
This research examines how men make sense of their experiences with sexual victimization. Through 19 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with men who experienced sexual victimization since turning 18 years old, this research provides insight into how men progress through the recovery process, including how they actively transformed from viewing themselves as a victim into viewing themselves as a survivor. For the participants, this process meant revising their masculinity so they could embody a new identity that did not stigmatize their experience. The conclusions suggest the development of an alternate narrative of men who experience sexual victimization that does not include gender stereotypes. Limitations of the study and implications for future research are also discussed.
Keywords
The sexual victimization of adults occurs at an alarming rate in the United States. According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) of 2010, approximately one in five women and one in 71 men report being sexually victimized at some point during their life (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2011). Of individuals who experience sexual victimization, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) estimates that approximately 9% of rape and sexual assault victims are male (Weiss, 2010a).
The sexual victimization of men is similar in nature to what women who have been sexually victimized experience. Like women, the majority of men’s sexual victimization experiences mirror the definition of date rape (Weiss, 2010a). These are incidents that are perpetrated by intimate partners and dates, which do not typically result in physical harm (Weiss, 2010b). According to incident reports from the NCVS, most of the incident reports discussed girlfriends, exes, and female friends as the perpetrator (Weiss, 2010a). The typical sexual victimization experience for men includes a social gathering where alcohol is present, and the perpetrator tends to be a friend or romantic partner, particularly with college men (Banyard et al., 2007). This is similar to the experience for women because both groups typically know their perpetrator (U.S. Department of Justice, 2003).
However, the sexual victimization of men is more likely to include physical harm (Struckman-Johnson, 1991), especially if the perpetrator is a stranger (Stermac, Del Bove, & Addison, 2004). Certain groups of men are more likely to experience sexual victimization. This includes men with certain conditions or situations that make them more vulnerable to violent victimization, including homelessness and physical, psychiatric, or cognitive disabilities (Stermac et al., 2004). This study examines the role masculinity and stigma play in the recovery process for men who have experienced sexual victimization as they begin to process their experience and transform from viewing themselves as a victim to viewing themselves as a survivor.
Myths About Sexual Victimization
Even though both men and women experience sexual victimization, there are still certain myths that are present in public discourse. Myths about rape and sexual victimization are widely held beliefs (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1995), which are typically constructed to reduce the severity of sexual victimization (Bohner et al., 1998). These myths are situated in a narrative based in stereotypes and prejudices, with ill-informed beliefs about the perpetrators and victims of sexual assault and rape (Burt, 1980). Many of these beliefs lead to the perception that the individual who has been sexually victimized is to blame (Costin & Schwarz, 1987).
There are a set of perceptions for both men and women. Stereotypical views about women who experience sexual victimization include that she “asked for it,” enjoyed the experience, or lied about what happened (Buddie & Miller, 2001). For women, the myths associated with their sexual victimization experience are tied to her sexuality and purity. For men, there are six categories of myths, which all acknowledge and perpetuate the hegemonic masculine and heteronormative nature of American men and society as a whole (Kassing, Beesley, & Frey, 2005). The categories include the following: (a) because men are strong and powerful, they cannot be overpowered and raped; (b) because men are sexual beings, they initiate sex and would not be targets; (c) men who are sexually victimized lose their masculinity because masculinity does not include sexual victimization; (d) the sexual victimization of men is rare; (e) because men are strong, both emotionally and physically, they can easily cope with being sexually victimized; and (f) the sexual victimization of men only happens in prison (Kassing et al., 2005). In addition, a man will always enjoy sex even if it is pushed on him and that any normal man can resist and stop a sexual victimization experience (Sleath & Bull, 2009).
The belief and acceptance of these myths can harm individuals who experience sexual victimization, which is true for both men and women. Certain myths about men who have been sexually victimized posit that men cannot be raped or that the sexual assault of men is not as severe as women who are sexually victimized, leading toward blaming the victim narrative (Groth & Burgess, 1980). As a result, men who have been sexually victimized may internalize these myths to blame themselves and think that they should have been able to do something to prevent their attack, which can make it difficult for men to acknowledge that they were sexually victimized (Davies, 2002; Garnets, Herek, & Levy, 1990).
Scholars suggest that myths about sexual victimization for men and women are related to dominant and often stereotypical views of gender (Buddie & Miller, 2001). For men, this is often related to how masculinity and sexuality are viewed for them. Stereotypical aspects of masculinity contend that men are heterosexual, strong, powerful, and unable to be sexually dominated. Even though statistics say otherwise, these myths still persist.
Rape Myths and Gender Stereotypes
Myths about the sexual victimization of men and women can be viewed in the context of gender stereotypes. Rape myths about men and women can cause harm for victims, including not reporting to police or seeking treatment. This can lead both men and women to leave any psychological, emotional, and behavioral problems untreated. The anchoring of myths associated with male sexual victimization in traditional gender ideologies supports and perpetuates the idea that women are submissive and men are dominant (Sleath & Bull, 2009). Thus, men cannot be sexually victimized, especially by women, because of their dominant status in the gender hierarchy.
The hegemonic construction of masculinity can be directly connected to the myths of sexual victimization, especially when examining men who have experienced sexual victimization. Hegemonic masculinity, a widely discussed notion of masculinity, is defined as the ideal construction of masculinity (Connell, 1987, 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). This version of masculinity changes over time and typically involves characteristics of a strong, heterosexual man who is always ready for sex and is devoid of emotion. The relationship between sexuality and masculinity creates a climate where homosexuality and other forms of male sexuality that are not heterosexual are viewed as the “Other” and therefore marginalized in comparison with heterosexual masculinity.
The characteristics associated with the hegemonic construction tend to coincide with hypersexualized stereotypes of men, and contrast with what real men encounter or the identities they embody. This includes the idea that men are sexually insatiable. However, because this form of masculinity is present in the media through television, film, music, and sports figures, the construction is glorified as the ideal and pressures men to see their own masculinity in relation to this ideal. When men are victimized, the quality and characteristics associated with hegemonic masculinity are counter to the qualities often attributed to a successful recovery. Men are socialized to not include those qualities in their masculine identity.
Rape Myth Acceptance
The acceptance of the myths about sexual victimization leads to an amount of blame being placed on the victim (Davies & Rogers, 2006; Sleath & Bull, 2009; Ward, 1995). The blame placed on the victim can lead to a magnitude of problems, including psychological, emotional, and behavioral problems (Frazier, 1993; Goyer & Eddleman, 1984; Groth & Burgess, 1980; Kimerling, Rellini, Kelly, Judson, & Learman, 2002; Mezey & King, 1989). At times, men who have been sexually victimized accept these same myths and blame themselves for their victimization, especially in their belief that they must have done something to provoke the incident or they should have done something more to prevent it (Davies, 2002). In addition, perceptions of culpability can even influence reporting behavior for male and female victims. If people who experience victimization accept myths about sexual victimization, it could lead them to put blame on themselves, and cause additional trauma or secondary victimization related to their experience with sexual victimization.
Sexual Victimization and Stigma
The concept of stigma has been extensively written about since Goffman published his seminal book on it in 1963. Since that time, the basic concept of stigma (act of becoming stigmatized, managing stigma, and repairing identity) has not been significantly altered, although some of the language has been modified. Stigma is less about the attribute itself and more about the social response to that attribute (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998; Hebl & Dovidio, 2005). Stigma is a product of social interaction that emphasizes the recognition that an attribute is “different” causing a response that marginalizes the individual who has that attribute (Dovidio, Major, & Crocker, 2000). However, social interaction is not always needed for stigmatization and can occur based on perceived social response to an attribute (Pryor & Reeder, 2011).
According to Pryor and Reeder’s (2011) conceptual model of stigma, there are four ways that stigma works: public stigma, self-stigma, stigma by association, and structural stigma. Their model asserts that public stigma represents how society views people they believe have a stigmatized trait, while self-stigma is the internalization of holding a stigmatized trait. This includes internalizing how the individual thinks society members will react if their stigmatized trait is made known. Self-stigma encompasses the worry of having a stigmatized attribute exposed and the internalization of the negative outcomes related to others knowing about the attribute (psychological and emotional manifestations). Stigma by association is the reaction individuals receive when they are associated with someone who has a stigmatized trait, and structural stigma is how stigmatization is ingrained in certain social institutions. For Pryor and Reeder (2011), each of these aspects of stigma works together, but public stigma is the core because it represents the response society has toward stigma and helps to influence the other three. However, structural stigma is necessary for public stigma, meaning certain beliefs about an attribute need to be present for society to have a negative response to it.
The sexual victimization of men is a good illustration of the interplay between structural stigma, public stigma, and self-stigma. In this context, structural stigma can be viewed as the gender stereotypes that influence the dominant perspective associated with sexual victimization, meaning the acceptance of hegemonic masculinity legitimizes these stereotypes through its inclusion in various social institutions. Public stigma is therefore society’s response to the perceptions created by structural stigma, including blaming individuals who experience sexual victimization. Self-stigma is the internalization of the response. Pryor and Reeder’s (2011) conceptualization of stigma, and how it works at different levels of society, can provide insight into men’s responses to their experience with sexual victimization.
Both men and women can experience shame associated with the stigma from their sexual victimization experience (Stemple & Meyer, 2014). However, feminist work about women has helped to challenge the myths about sexual victimization for women, allowing discourses that do not always include the dominant perception (Stemple & Meyer, 2014). That is not to say that women are no longer stigmatized for their sexual victimization experience. Just that an alternate discourse about the sexual victimization of women is present; one that is not based completely on myths and gender stereotypes. This alternate narrative teaches that the victimization of a woman is not her fault, that it is not caused by her prior sexual history or her choice of attire, and that for survivors of rape and other abuse, speaking out against victimization can be politically important and personally redemptive. (Stemple & Meyer, 2014, p. e20)
However, an alternate narrative is not present for men who experience sexual victimization and is still based on gender stereotypes. Until the narrative is created, men must navigate the stigma that is based on these gender stereotypes. An alternate narrative has been suggested by scholars who study male survivors, but this narrative has not been widely accepted (Levant & Kopecky, 1995; Pleck, 1981; Pollack, 1998). It is important that society follows the narrative suggested by these scholars. The results of this study discuss how men may navigate the stigma they encounter as they progress and recover from their experience with sexual victimization.
Method
This study builds on the current literature about men who have experienced sexual victimization, incorporates masculinity, and implements a qualitative approach that does not rely on NCVS incident reports or other survey data. As the research emphasizes a victim-centered approach that situates the analysis on narratives, it incorporates a feminist epistemology both in terms of study design and reflexivity (Collins, 2000; Harding, 1987).
This study reports on 19 semi-structured in-depth interviews with men who reported at least one experience with sexual victimization since they turned 18 and that did not occur during an incarceration. All interviews, transcription, and data analysis were conducted by the author. In addition, it implemented grounded theory to simultaneously conduct interviews and analyze the transcripts so the data could be tested for reliability and validity while also testing for the saturation of data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). All participants provided demographic and background information, their perceptions of men who have been sexually victimized, details about their own victimization, how they view their identity since being victimized, their experience going through recovery, and their involvement in advocacy work. Participants were recruited through online discussion boards housed on national advocacy group websites (MaleSurvivor and 1in6), advocacy and support groups throughout the United States, a crisis center at a mid-Atlantic university, and social media support group sites. The majority of social media support groups were found on Facebook. In addition to the purposive sampling, the study also relied on snowball sampling in the recruiting of participants, which included asking participants to provide information about the research to individuals they thought would qualify (Charmaz, 2006).
Demographics of Participants
The participants of this study consisted of 19 men who report experiencing sexual victimization since they turned 18 years old that did not occur during an incarceration. However, this did not exclude participants who experienced sexual victimization before they turned 18 years old, as long as they had at least one experience since turning 18 years old that did not occur while they were incarcerated. Early on in the planning process for this study, the decision was made to only include men who experienced sexual victimization while a member of the general public instead of also including men who were only sexually victimized while they were incarcerated or in the military. The reason is because some literature suggests that masculinity is viewed differently in prison and the military, while other literature does not. Informing those topics is beyond the scope of this study. Future research that includes both groups is discussed in the “Discussion and Conclusion” section of this article. Overall, 13 of the 19 participants reported experiencing sexual victimization during both childhood and as an adult, while only six participants reported experiencing sexual victimization only as an adult. Sixteen of the 19 participants who participated reported experiencing sexual victimization more than once, meaning that three of the six participants who reported only experiencing sexual victimization as an adult had multiple experiences as an adult. The results indicate that the experience for the men who experienced childhood and adult victimization was not different from the men who only experienced adult victimization. However, further research would need to be conducted to unpack this comparison.
The sample of men who participated was not very diverse across race, with 14 participants reporting that they are White, two reporting they are Black, and three reporting that they are multiracial. Regarding ethnicity, only two participants reported that they view themselves as Hispanic or Latino. The sample did provide more diversity across sexuality, with eight participants reporting they are heterosexual, eight reporting they are homosexual, and three reporting they are bisexual. It should be noted that the interview guide incorporated open-ended questions when asking participants about their race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. Labeling a participant’s sexual orientation was accomplished through the context they provided in their answers, which ranged from a one-word answer to a paragraph. Participants mostly reported that they are middle class (N = 14). It should be noted that all of the participants of this study experienced treatment to some degree (one on one, group, or both). The results discussed in this research are not generalizable to all men who have experienced sexual victimization.
Interviews
All of the interviews were conducted by the author. Only one participant was local and interviewed in-person. All other participants were given the opportunity to conduct the interviews over the phone or through a video chat client like Skype. Sixteen participants were interviewed over the phone and two participants interviewed through video chat. Each interview took place in a location where others could not overhear the conversation. This was important because it helped to keep the confidentiality of the participants and hopefully helped to make each participant more comfortable about discussing their sexual victimization experience with the interviewer. The interviews lasted approximately 1 to 2 hr, with 15 of the 19 interviews lasting over 90 min. Each interview was audio recorded and all participants consented to be contacted in the future for follow-up interviews or research in addition to consenting to participate. The interview guide asked questions about the victim’s demographic characteristics and family to build rapport with the participant and allow them to become more comfortable before transitioning to questions about their experience with sexual victimization. During the questions about their experience with sexual victimization, the interview focused on details about their victimization, including perpetrator, characteristics about the episode, whether they reported the incident, why or why not, who else they told, how their victimization made them feel, support services they took advantage of or wished were available, coping strategies, and short- or long-term issues from their sexual victimization. The interview guide then shifted to questions about how others perceived them if they talked about their victimization to others and their recovery process of transitioning from viewing themselves as a victim to viewing themselves as a survivor (including the identity work involved in this process). The final part of the interview was meant to end the discussion in as positive of a manner as possible by focusing on advocacy and advice for other participants who have experienced sexual victimization. Probing questions were used to help decipher or gain more information where appropriate.
Data Analysis
The study incorporated a grounded theory approach, so analysis and data collection could occur simultaneously (Charmaz, 2006); thus, the analysis could inform any modifications that needed to occur to the interview guide. The study was exploratory in nature and incorporated a process of continued analysis to follow a grounded theory approach. This included first and second cut examinations of interview notes, preliminary memo-writing, line-by-line coding, focused coding, and advanced memo-writing to begin focusing on themes present in the data (Charmaz, 2006). The use of grounded theory is in line with a feminist epistemology. Instead of relying on previous theory that does not fully put men in the center of the analysis, the narrative drove the research and its results. The study used NVivo, a qualitative data analysis software program, during the line-by-line coding and analysis of de-identified interview data.
Results
The men in this study faced many of the problems associated with the trauma of sexual victimization outlined in previous research, including various psychological and emotional issues (Frazier, 1993; Goyer & Eddleman, 1984; Groth & Burgess, 1980; Kimerling et al., 2002; Mezey & King, 1989). As the men interviewed for this study began going through recovery, they went through a process of stigma management to allow them to repair their identities and shift from viewing themselves as a victim to viewing themselves as a survivor. The results of this study outline this process and the central role masculinity played.
Defining Sexual Victimization
The experiences with sexual victimization and their recovery are tied to when they first experienced sexual victimization. Out of the 19 participants, 13 experienced sexual victimization as a child and an adult, while only six reported that they only experienced sexual victimization as an adult. It is not surprising that most of the participants reported they had multiple sexual victimization experiences. All of the 13 participants who experienced sexual victimization as both children and adults experienced multiple episodes of sexual victimization, and approximately half of the participants who only experienced sexual victimization as an adult reported multiple episodes of victimization.
Each participant labeled at least one adult experience as sexual victimization. A small group of the participants (2) described experiences that they said could be defined as sexual victimization but did not label them as such. John, a 25-year-old, White, upper-class, bisexual man, discussed instances where he “gave into” sex with women because he did not want to cause any problems and did not want them to question his sexuality. After John described his experience with sexual victimization, he was asked if he had any other experience. John replied, A couple times it would be socially better if I just went, just went along with it. It is just alright I guess we’re doing it. That has happened more than once definitely, but if you mean in a more serious manner then only once.
In these situations, John did not himself label them as sexual victimization, but talked of giving into societal norms as the reason he had sex with these women. George, a 37-year-old, multiracial, middle-class, heterosexual man, also did not think episodes that failed to cause severe issues were considered sexual victimization even if it fit the legal definition. When asked about his experiences with sexual victimization, George described two experiences that he said would be defined as sexual victimization under a legal definition. However, George only labeled his most recent experience as sexual victimization because it caused him psychological and emotional issues that still bother him today. George provided this response to a question of whether he was sexually victimized more than once: Yes, I mean there was one other time in my life that something happened to me that qualifies, I think, that’s sexual assault, but I didn’t really have long term psychological effects. It happened one night, it was freaky for that night, and I went to see a counselor at the University for a couple weeks after that . . . its effects paled in comparison to what happened to me in 2011 . . . to the order of magnitude from one to hundred or something like that for the level of trauma.
Participants did not have trouble defining their experience as sexual victimization unless they were victimized by a significant other or did not view the experience as creating problems for them. The reason for this appears to be the result of dominant scripts associated with masculinity. The participants who shared that they either had trouble defining an experience as sexual victimization or did not define certain experiences as sexual victimization all described this in the context of masculinity. John described giving into sex with women because he was afraid they would challenge his sexuality if he did not. George gave into sex with an ex-girlfriend who was visiting him even though he was not interested, and regretted it the next day. In each of these cases, characteristics of a “real” man are present. The idea—that a man should be ready for sex whenever the opportunity is there and that if he is not, there must be a problem with his sexuality—was especially present in the narratives of John and George.
Seeking Treatment
Seeking and receiving treatment was a survival tactic used to help progress through the recovery process and to begin to understand the shame they attributed to the stigma associated with their experience. This meant processing their issues and feelings of shame, and figuring out a way to move on in their lives. For all the participants, it meant seeking treatment, which included seeing a psychiatrist or psychologist in an individual treatment environment or being involved in group therapy in-person or online. Group therapy for the participants ranged from online support groups to in-person groups of all men or co-ed led by a professional psychologist or person who identified as a survivor. The participants sought treatment regardless of their sexuality, the type of sexual victimization they endured, and perpetrator characteristics for various reasons, including wanting their lives back, to fix issues they attributed to their sexual victimization experiences, and to address relationship problems they were having with family and friends. Ultimately, seeking and receiving treatment was a way to begin to process their sexual victimization experiences and to help formulate tools for managing stigma and repairing their identity.
Treatment Experience
Most of the participants received both individual and group therapy. Alan, a White, middle-class, gay man who experienced both childhood and adult sexual victimization shared his experience with treatment: The group work was really powerful because it helped, it really helped because it’s like a family and we’re all men and we could all talk openly . . . We’re all talking dealing with shame and feeling embarrassed . . . we grew and we experience the bond together to where we could talk openly about it and discuss the issues related to manhood. Been sexually abused, it was so powerful and I continue.
In Alan’s narrative, he talked about the community of men in his support group as important to helping him deal with both his childhood and adult sexual victimization.
The participants felt their experience with treatment was beneficial because it provided a safe space, advice shared by the therapist, and the skills developed during treatment. As Lance, a Black, working-class, gay man said, “I was in a safe space . . . it changed everything because now I realize that it wasn’t my fault.” Feeling safe was important but also so was the advice provided. Overall, the participants described treatment as helping them develop skills to understand their experiences and helped them overcome any issues they attributed to their experiences with sexual victimization. To them, treatment was also a way to meet other men who experienced something similar to themselves, understand they are not alone, build a community with other men, and learn from these men. Nate described this experience well when he said, I would say overall they’re pretty helpful, pretty positive. I think as well you develop a lot of skills in helping yourself . . . to have people support you for that and I always look forward to those groups for the days leading up to them. I tried to inventory about what I’ve done that week or what’s going on inside . . . felt some really great skills that mindfulness and and recovery in general . . . and able to meet other people [who] have gone through similar experiences, I’ve been able to connect with them.
Group therapy allowed the participants to meet others who had also experienced sexual victimization and to learn that they are not alone. It also helped them to learn how to process what happened to them, and to observe how other men like them have progressed through the recovery process. It not only provided community and bonding but also taught them about the process and challenged them to work through any issues they encountered. The experience with treatment was not specific to a certain group of participants and instead was a universal and beneficial experience. This study cannot generalize its results to every man who has experienced sexual victimization because all participants were involved in treatment based on the recruitment strategy.
Victim to Survivor Process
Recovery and transforming into a survivor was mostly about treatment and constructing a healthy identity. This process was a long road for the participants and treatment was needed to begin. All the participants, regardless of any aspect of their victimization, underwent this process. In response to a follow-up question asking Brian, a White, working-class, heterosexual man, to describe what made him want to see himself as a survivor instead of a victim, he explained that the victim identity was not healthy or beneficial: I recognized that I, through a pattern of me being a victim throughout my life, seemed to be repeating patterns and almost a self-fulfilling prophecy and the realization . . . that actually allowing myself to be the victim was really harming me and I began to recognize and realize that and so I thought well, I don’t want to stay here . . . being a victim and out of control that I should bring it to something that I have control over, that I can define the boundaries . . . and that’s really important to me . . . [where] I know a life that’s not dominated by anxiety and actually be able to give myself properly to my family.
For Brian, treatment helped him to recognize that his victimization caused a negative pattern of behavior in his life. He talked of how he viewed himself as a victim, which almost acted as a self-fulfilling prophecy. The internalization of the victim identity for Brian caused him to act as a victim, and continue behavior that led to more victimization. The only way to change this pattern and identity was to take control of his life. Taking control meant figuring out how to have a healthy view of himself that did not include the victim identity. For the participants, that was accomplished through the trauma work in therapy and redefining how they viewed their masculinity. This healthy view of themselves led to reduced feelings of shame associated with their stigma and a more positive view of self. Regardless of the reason why, this work allowed them to begin to manage stigma and repair their identities.
Sexual Victimization and Redefining Masculinity
Through treatment, the participants learned that they needed to re-formulate their identity from a victim to a survivor. This entailed creating a healthy view of self in conjunction with the trauma work in therapy. One way they accomplished this was to redefine their views on masculinity in a healthy way so they embodied the construction, meaning a masculinity that is not characterized by gender stereotypes and is more inclusive. This process entailed managing the stigma associated with their victimization experience, reducing it by redefining their masculinity so it did not exclude their experiences and ultimately repair their identity as a survivor. The redefined masculinity reduced the self-blame they felt, which led to lower levels of shame and guilt. This allowed the participants to no longer feel like they did something wrong regarding their victimization. Their revised views of masculinity also provided them with a masculine identity they could embody because it did not contain gender stereotypes. This opened the door for them to begin the transition from viewing themselves as a victim to viewing themselves as a survivor. The process of redefining their masculinity was a form of stigma management for the participants. It helped them to redefine their stigma as positive, thus repair their identity in a positive way. It also highlights agency the participants had in the process as they made the transition to the more positive survivor identity. This is not to say that participants viewed their experience with sexual victimization as positive. Instead, they redefined it as something that happened to them and was not something that defined who they were.
While each participant underwent identity work as they redefined their masculinity and made the transition from viewing themselves as a victim to a survivor, the identity work was not the same for all groups of participants. While each participant talked of shame in response to the interview question about how their sexual victimization made them feel, men who identified as heterosexual were more likely to associate this shame directly with their masculinity. Participants who identified as gay or bisexual were more likely to talk about this shame in relation to something they did or did not do in the situation, thus mirroring what is discussed with women. Because a non-heterosexual masculinity is often viewed as being closer to femininity in stereotypical constructions of gender, this makes sense. This variation in how the participants talked of shame when asked about their feelings associated with their sexual victimization experience led the participants who identified as heterosexual to view their masculinity as lost, thus the need to re-create their masculinity. However, the participants who identify as gay or bisexual had less identity work to undergo related to their masculinity. This section discusses the idea of losing one’s masculinity and what that means for the participants who described this process.
Losing masculinity
The participants who identified as heterosexual were more likely to describe feeling like they lost their masculinity when asked how their experience affected their masculine identity. The few participants who shared this experience described it as not feeling like they were a man because of their experience. It was felt by heterosexual participants after experiencing adult sexual victimization and also while looking back at childhood sexual abuse. For some of these participants, feeling like they lost their masculinity was connected to not being able to stop what happened to them, while for others it was just something that they never thought about prior to their experience with sexual victimization.
Participants who had ongoing trouble with their identity and masculinity also felt like they lost their masculinity. For example, Brian, a White working-class, straight man, who experienced both childhood and adult sexual victimization, described difficulties he had with masculinity after being sexually victimized as an adult. He attributed these difficulties to problems he still had with processing his childhood abuse: Yeah I think absolutely it was, it was such a defining thing to happen and I just felt that everything was stolen from me, including my masculinity and already I think before it happened that I was someone who is struggling with identity because what [I] had gone [through] before. I didn’t struggle afterwards, I didn’t [feel] like I had it anymore, any identity I didn’t feel like I had a, anything to offer. I didn’t feel like there’s anything left and so I very rarely referred to myself, [my] identity.
For some of the participants, issues they attributed to their childhood abuse caused trouble for them when they experienced sexual victimization as an adult, like with Brian. They were at a point where they had not fully developed their masculine identity and experiencing sexual victimization again only magnified the issues they already had.
Brett, a White, upper-middle-class, bisexual man who only experienced adult sexual victimization, also felt like his experience reduced his masculinity. Brett felt that because he was unable to stop his victimization from happening, it meant that he was not a real man. When asked about his masculinity in relation to his sexual victimization experience, Brett said, If I think about the part of me that should’ve been strong or should’ve been more resourceful, you accept that on the one he did stop, but I’m ashamed that the fact that I didn’t do it in a more direct forceful way. I did [so] by collapsing emotionally and I feel like that was, I mean intellectually, I know [I] feel this way but emotionally that I keep going over that . . . if I was stronger, was a real man, you know and that’s just what it is.
In this instance, Brett was influenced by the hegemonic construction of masculinity that men are strong and powerful and able to stop someone from sexually dominating him. Because he was not able to stop his perpetrator, Brett felt like he was not a real man. While Brett did attempt to stop his sexual victimization, it was not in a hegemonic masculine way. This caused him to feel like he did not do what a “real man” is supposed to do in that situation.
A few participants reported that they had never thought about their masculinity before their experience with sexual victimization. This led them to feel like it was lost after their experience. For Bob, a 36-year-old, White, middle-class, straight man who only experienced adult sexual victimization, this was the case. In response to a follow-up question regarding why he felt like he lost his masculinity, Bob shared that he had never really thought about masculinity before and how he fit into a masculine identity: Before I never identified or I never had to . . . find it before so . . . it wasn’t something that I really ever thought about. It was just there, but once it wasn’t there I recognize[d] that it wasn’t there and that’s what I had to go learn . . . what it meant to me first and then what, how to re-create it. I think that, that’s been the biggest thing for me is re-creating everything . . . that I didn’t originally define. Images, something that we grow into and it is who we are but we never define it but then learning to define things because [they] are not there.
According to Bob, he never defined his masculinity and felt like it was just there, and it was not until he experienced something counter to what he assumed masculinity was, that he felt like it was not there. During his interview, Bob went on to share this process of feeling like his masculinity was lost: It wasn’t something that I ever defined in my life before or I can never remember defining. It was just not there as a feeling . . . I can’t really explain it other than I just didn’t feel like a man. Mean I walk around as a man for several months then when I realized that it was a feeling and an issue that I was dealing with.
In Bob’s explanation, he described his masculinity as being something that was there, but something that he never really thought of until he felt like it was no longer there. Basically, his masculinity was unquestioned until something happened that was counter to the dominant ideal, like with Brett. For both Brett and Bob, they did not question or even think about their masculinity prior to their experiences with sexual victimization because they never had to think about masculinity. Their standpoint, as White, middle-class, males, came with assumptions of masculinity that they did not have to question or think about growing up until they experienced sexual victimization. However, for the other participants who always had to think about their masculine identity, because they were marginalized through their race or sexuality, always had to navigate and understand where their masculine identity fit into the larger social construct. So, regardless of how they described viewing masculinity growing up, their membership in a group that is often marginalized meant that they had already thought about and navigated their masculinity in relation to dominant ideologies. Therefore, even though their experiences with sexual victimization could be seen as counter to the construction of masculinity, their experiences navigating their own masculinity meant it did not completely take it away and instead simply challenged it. Thus, you have participants who must completely re-create their masculinity, and others who need to revise it as they manage the stigma associated with their sexual victimization experiences.
Revising Masculinity
Regardless of whether the participants felt like they lost their masculinity because of their experiences with sexual victimization, all of them had to redefine their masculine identity to some degree. The revised view of their masculinity took on characteristics that did not include stereotypes. Instead, the participants now saw masculinity as more compassionate and less associated with the hegemonic ideal. The revised view on masculinity constructed an identity that the participants felt they could embody. This meant that they no longer viewed their experience as counter to masculinity, which was important for shifting to viewing themselves as a survivor. The changing or evolving masculine identity for the participants centered on emulating role models, not adhering to stereotypes, having a more inclusive and understanding view of masculinity, and, most of all, being comfortable with themselves. The revised masculinity was not specific to a certain group of participants. However, certain groups, like the participants who felt like they lost their masculinity, had more identity work to accomplish to meet their goal of a revised masculinity they could embody as someone who experienced sexual victimization as an adult.
Role models and redefined masculinity
The participants learned how to redefine their masculinity through their interactions with other men who experienced sexual victimization. These role models included therapists, friends, family, and other men they encountered in group therapy. For Eric, a White, heterosexual man who only experienced adult sexual victimization, his circumstance in life helped to shape and alter his masculinity. He described wanting to be like his father while he was growing up and then after his father left his family, he wanted to be like other father figures who mentored him. Ultimately, Eric learned that manhood meant the lack of stereotypes, and in response to the interview question about how he viewed his masculinity now, he said, I’m not into a lot of the stereotypical stuff.
In each circumstance, Eric emulated role models to develop and change his views on masculinity. At the end, he finally viewed masculinity in a way where he could embody the definition he held because it did not include gender stereotypes.
The less stereotypical construction that Eric described in his description of how he currently thinks of masculinity is a view that was held by most of the participants. This less stereotypical view allowed them to define masculinity in a way where they could embody the definition, be more compassionate toward others, and finally be comfortable with themselves. During his interview when asked how his view of masculinity has changed because of his experience with sexual victimization, John, a 25-year-old, White, upper-class, bisexual man, shared, I used to think it was a man’s job to provide for those who were less fortunate than him. A man’s duty to, you know always show respect towards women, to show respect towards other men, to at all other times to bend over backwards to be cordial all you know be the sort of image of the perfect gentleman and I think that has gone away. I don’t think that I think that anymore.
In his description, John mentions that he does not think in a stereotypical way. However, when asked how he views masculinity now, John responded, Okay, there is a common phrase that women are and men do. Boys act and it is through actions and through being forged through men. You hear it often you know, through struggle through strife through adversity they become men . . . scars make us in a way. Whatever those scars are, negative, positive experiences, it does not matter. The fact that we have had experiences, they shape our world view, and then we are expected to make judgment decisions, hard ones. We are the deciders, and the fact that we make those decisions that also means the rights and responsibilities fall on our shoulders. We are expected to be strong and in part because we are physically strong, but I think, we are also expected to be mentally stronger. We are expected to have the authority, whatever else. I don’t know if that is right or wrong, but I think that is what it means to be a man.
John’s new definition of masculinity still contains some of the stereotypical language of masculinity, that of strength, power, and privilege over women. However, his new definition does not contain ideas about sexuality. For John, who was sexually victimized as an adult by a female acquaintance, his new view of masculinity contained some of the hegemonic characteristics, but not the aspects he did not embody. Instead, John’s revised views on masculinity created an identity he could relate to, identify with, and embody. This is a view that did not exclude men who experience sexual victimization, an important aspect of the revised masculinity for the participants.
While John’s revised definition of masculinity contained some stereotypical characteristics, his definition still only contained characteristics he attributed to himself. For the vast majority of the participants, their revised masculinity was more inclusive and equality focused. For example, Jim, a multiracial, middle-class, gay man who only experienced adult victimization, now saw his masculinity as more about standing up for others than being strong and powerful and shared the following when asked how he views masculinity now: Now I look at it, if you’re man, if you’ve got, you know, integrity that you’ll stand up for the right things. If you will defend those who cannot defend themselves, you know, honesty, all the kind of cliché words . . . there I see an inner deeper meaning to manhood than anything about chopping wood, killing. The biggest part or being able to, when, when in a fight, I, I see that, that masculinity has very little to do with doing and it [is] simply about being the best person that you can be if you happen to be a man.
Jim’s view of masculinity also did not include hegemonic characteristics about what made a man a man, but instead he felt compassion was key. When the interviewer asked Jim what was important about his recovery, he shared how he processed and revised his masculinity to view compassion as one of the most important characteristics: I think it force[d] me to dig down into myself and dig down myself about others as well and I think I would be, I think it removes a lot of judgmental things for my own life because I was so defensive growing up that I would find things wrong with other people just to make myself feel better and I, still do that somewhat in adulthood and years of growth and years of learning to hate myself . . . just taught, it taught me a lot about the man is just a man and nothing else.
Jim’s experience with sexual victimization and his recovery taught him that compassion and not judging others was important; thus, it is what he used to redefine his masculinity. He did not want to be judged, so he did not judge others.
The identity work involved in this process varied between the participants, with the participants who felt like they lost their masculinity having to re-create their masculinity, while other participants had less work and simply had to situate their experiences within a slightly altered masculine identity. This helped repair their identity because their new views on masculinity had a positive focus and definition of self. Their revised masculinities led them to believe that the most important part of masculinity is feeling comfortable with yourself and what you have experienced. During his interview, Nate, a 22-year-old, White gay man described this aspect of his masculine identity when asked how his views of masculinity have changed since his experiences with sexual victimization: I would say it [has] change[d] from, well, being a lot more confident . . . in expressing, in being a lot more sexually active in [the] last six months, but they’ve opened positive experiences and so I guess you could, but I think it’s just . . . just, just raising myself right now. I would like to be an adult man . . . and I think generally [to] be man to me just means being yourself and not being afraid.
Nate came to realize that being happy with yourself is the most important part of the masculine identity. Steve, a 45-year-old, Black, working-class, bisexual man very poignantly described this process of redefining masculinity: Well for me to be a man is dealing with who you are and your issues and taking responsibility for your life, coming to terms with, and dealing with reality. I think to me [it] is what my manhood has been, becoming a man because I was very naïve and very immature in my 20s . . . and denial about what I was going through and so I let things fester, I let things boil and sort of bubble underneath before they exploded in different ways so when I started dealing with myself in going to therapy you know and doing with my health and you know finding spirituality and taking care of my physical body I think that’s what it meant to be man you know that’s what it means to be a man.
The revised definitions created through treatment and the recovery process allowed the participants to create a masculine identity they felt they could embody and apply to their own lives and identity because it does not punish or stigmatize someone for experiencing sexual victimization. These inclusive definitions of masculinity were important to moving forward in the recovery process and helped the participants to manage their stigma and repair their identity. Once the participants revised and constructed a masculine identity that they themselves embodied, they were ready to take the next step in the recovery process, transforming their identity from a victim to a survivor.
Discussion and Conclusion
The aim of this study is to provide insight into the victim to survivor process for men who experience sexual victimization. The narratives described highlight the victim identity and the process of shifting from viewing oneself as a victim to a survivor. The process included recognizing that one was having problems associated with their personal history of sexual victimization. Once they acknowledged having these problems, including psychological issues, drug and alcohol addiction, relationship issues with friends and family, problems understanding their sexuality, and feelings of shame, self-blame, guilt, and anger, they sought help. The time spent receiving treatment allowed the participants to tackle the issues they were having head-on, and learn how to manage and reduce the negative feelings they were having, including shame. Through this process, the participants were able to manage and reduce the stigma associated with their sexual victimization by revising their personal masculine identity, whether through completely re-creating their masculine identity or slightly altering it. Standpoint theory may provide insight into why this is the case. According to standpoint theory, individuals characterized by marginalized traits better understand the complete picture between the lives of those who are privileged and their own (Collins, 2000; Harding, 1987). However, individuals characterized by privilege have a harder time recognizing how their lives are privileged because the privilege is often seen as invisible (Collins, 2000). This reasoning could be the reason that the participants who identified as gay did not have as much identity work to do in regard to their masculine identity, compared with the participants who identified as heterosexual and felt like their masculinity was lost. The dominant construction of masculinity conceptualizes masculinity as heterosexual and marginalizes the masculinity of men who are not heterosexual (Connell, 1987, 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Thus, the participants who identified as gay were already coming from a marginalized position and had more of an understanding of how masculinity works in that marginalized position. In contrast, the participants who identified as heterosexual were more likely to have seen their privileged masculinity as invisible. Thus, they felt it was lost and had to completely re-create it instead of a less major revision. In both cases, this allowed the participants to shift from viewing themselves as a victim to viewing themselves as a survivor.
Not everything included in this study is new information. The takeaway from the results is the process of revising masculinity to make the shift from the victim to survivor identity and how this fits into the idea of stigma management. According to Goffman (1963), individuals who are stigmatized attempt to manage their stigma by becoming “normal” or “passing” as “normal” unless they are unable to because of a stigmatized trait that is noticeable. In his work, Goffman (1963) also writes about how stigmatized individuals associate with sympathetic others, other individuals who also share the stigmatized trait, to learn how to cope with their stigmatization, receive social support, understand the stigma, and learn alternate interpretations of the stigma. Finally, Goffman mentions that stigmatized individuals often redefine the stigmatized trait as positive.
The participants follow a model of stigma management during the victim identity stage of their recovery. As experiencing sexual victimization is not a characteristic that is visually recognized, they managed their stigmatization by deciding who to tell and wait until it is someone they could trust. Through treatment and support groups, the participants learned strategies for coping with their sexual victimization and other important information from other group members. Within this social network of other men who experienced sexual victimization, the participants learned that they could develop a positive view of themselves and ultimately transform their identity from a victim to a survivor.
The act of redefining their masculinity was an important part of the recovery phase for the participants. This process encompassed the recognition that the current label of victim was not what they wanted and instead they sought a positive view of self. This meant that the participants had to develop a view of masculinity that they could embody, did not include stereotypical language, and was healthy, inclusive, and compassionate. For some participants, this meant that they simply did not connect sexuality with masculinity so that their experience was no longer counter to their views on masculinity. For other participants, it meant completely changing their views on masculinity, or even defining masculinity for the first time.
The revised view of masculinity situated their masculine identity into a “normal” view for the participants, thus allowing them to reduce the shame they associated with any stigma. The identity work conducted through managing their stigma during the victim identity stage of recovery led to a turning point. Without learning how to manage the stigma of experiencing sexual victimization as a man, the participants would not have experienced a turning point and progressed from viewing themselves as a victim to viewing themselves as a survivor. Once they repaired their identity through this work, they were ready to transform from a victim to a survivor.
The process of stigma management and revising masculinity for the participants highlights some important issues. For one, it highlights how power and privilege work within this model to create slightly different recovery experiences for men who experience sexual victimization. Masculinity was central to recovery and making that transition from the victim identity to the survivor identity. Even before making this transition, masculinity was central to why certain participants sought treatment. While the participants who identified as heterosexual sought treatment to help with problems they associated with their sexual victimization, like psychological, substance abuse, and relationship, the participants who identified as gay or bisexual were more likely to also seek treatment to help them understand and process their sexuality. While the idea of needing to seek therapy to help process sexuality is not a new concept, it has not been associated with men’s recovery from sexual victimization. The majority of the research on women who experience sexual victimization discusses help-seeking more in the context of the other reasons described by participants, and not in the context of processing and understanding sexuality. This suggests some practical contributions in addition to what this says about gender and masculinity.
In addition to highlighting the intersection of sexuality and masculinity as a catalyst for seeking treatment, the process of stigma management undertaken by the participants also shows how masculinity provides a different context for understanding the victim to survivor process for men versus women. The work about women discusses how gender, structure, politics, and identity transformation are an important part of the process and discourse about the victim and survivor dichotomy (Harned, 2005; Naples, 2003).
The process is about being viewed as a “deserving” victim in the context of how femininity is viewed in relation to masculinity. With the process for women, recovery and the victim to survivor process work from a marginalized perspective when examining gender. However, the participants highlight this process from a privileged identity when it comes to gender, as well as varying identities when examining the intersection of sexuality and gender. Thus, the process of stigma management and revising masculinity varies depending on the intersections of gender and sexuality. For participants who identified as heterosexual, the victim to survivor process included more of a revision of their masculinity, with some completely having to redo their masculine identity. However, from the slightly less privileged identity, the participants who identified as homosexual did not have to revise their masculinity as much. In this context, this study highlights how privilege and power work differently in the process for men compared with women. For men, it became more about understanding their own masculine identity in the context of shifting from the victim to survivor identity. While for women, research suggests it is more about navigating behavior associated with their feminine identity to make the transition and be viewed as a “deserving” victim. There are numerous areas where future research can focus in regard to male survivors, including (a) the need to examine in more detail the role of the survivor identity and the impact masculinity has on it for men who experience sexual victimization; (b) how the recovery experience compares for men who experience childhood, adult, or both childhood and adult victimization; and (c) how masculinity and the recovery process compares in different environments and social institutions (for men who are in the military or incarcerated).
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.
