Gertie Pretorius. Journal of Psychology in Africa. Volume 19, Issue 4, 2009.
Introduction
The conventional stereotype is that rape is an act perpetrated by men on women. In this conception, men are viewed as “eternal perpetrators [of rape] and the female as the eternal victim” (Hull, 2003, p. 19). But, what if a man is the victim of rape by a man or a woman? How can we make sense of this form of rape? The definitions of rape, the literature on rape, the psycho-social services and rape law for rape victims as well as societal views and media presentations tend to be female-centric resulting in the devaluation and trivialisation of, and insensitivity toward, the experiences of men who have been raped.
Accordingly, in this article, I will attempt, firstly, to explicate the impossibility of male rape by considering the legal definitions of rape and the consequences of these definitions for male victims of rape. Secondly, I will attempt to elucidate the possible meanings of male rape by analysing the silence surrounding male rape in feminist and philosophical theories of rape. Thirdly, I will describe the perpetrators of male rape and analyse the physiological and psychological sequelae of male rape. Finally, I will propose a participative conversation involving men as well as women as a way to transcend the warrior psyche and facilitate healing.
Impossibility of male rape from a legal perspective
Until recently – globally and in South Africa – it was impossible for a man to be raped as men were not included as victims in definitions of rape. This impossibility may be a reflection of unacknowledged biases and political concerns in the dominant discourses and groups (Muehlenhard, Powch, Phelps & Giusti, 1992). Dominant social discourses allocate men and women rigid roles and keep them hostage in a social construction of power dynamics in the context of rape. Such discourses are limiting to both genders and to the male gender in particular. The construct of masculinity as all powerful, invulnerable and always in control leaves men with little opportunity to be vulnerable and victimised (Scarce, 1997a). Although feminism has changed the position of women in society – with far-reaching effects – the power dynamics are still centred in patriarchical systems in which men have authority over and superior status to women. This is evidenced in legal language, which, until recently, and in some instances even currently, still uses the vocabulary of the patriarchical grand narrative.
Definition of Rape. The use of language is instrumental in establishing definitions, and those in power use language as a means to define, label and rank. The definition of rape has been influenced by political concerns and biases that have led to the centring of the construct of rape within the context of violence against women. According to Hull (2003), this hinders the understanding of rape when the victim is male.
The Oxford Dictionary of Current English (Hawker & Waite, 2007; see also Branford, 2001 and Hornby, 2007) defines rape as engaging in sex with someone against their will. Superficially, this definition appears to be gender neutral, but further enquiry indicates that this is not the case. Sex, according to this dictionary, is sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse, however, is defined as penile-vaginal sexual contact where the penis is inserted into the vagina. The construct of rape pertaining to male victims seems to be elusive, and sometimes alternative words, such as sodomy or indecent assault, are used to describe it rather than calling it by name. The National Centre for Victims of Crime (2008) defines male rape as the forced penetration of a penis, finger or other object into the anus or mouth of another person. Notwithstanding these social definitions, the impossibility of female rape is argued convincingly by Du Toit (2005) and Brownmiller (1975). Du Toit (2005) contextualises the impossibility of rape of women within the framework of patriarchy.
Legal context. When the history of legal definitions of rape is analysed, it emerges that until 1994 it was impossible for males to be raped in the United Kingdom, and, until as recently as 2007, a man could not be raped in South Africa. Prior to 1994, rape under English law referred only “to the penile penetration of the vagina and excluded” penetration of the anus. This made rape against men impossible in the eyes of the law (Rogers, 1997, p. 3). The female victim-male perpetrator construct and the perceived power imbalances inherent in the unequal construction of genders are also evident in American courts. Hull (2003) relates three cases where discrimination against men was based on these constructs.
In a case in Rhode Island, where a man claimed that he was forced to have sex with his boss’s secretary, the court awarded him damages of only one dollar (Thomas, 1993 cited in Hull, 2003). A man who received harassing and suggestive sexual notes from a female colleague, who subsequently also fondled his buttocks, was awarded a mere one hundred dollars by a Michigan jury (Thomas, 1993 cited in Hull, 2003). Hull (2003) demonstrates the existence of a gender-based cost differential regarding buttock fondling (and thus sexual assault against men by women) in American courts. This argument is exemplified by the contrary approach the court took when Mike Tyson was “involved in a one hundred million dollar lawsuit by a beauty queen who claimed that he touched her buttocks” (Thomas, 1993 cited in Hull, 2003, p. 9). These cases demonstrate the claim that women have on the role of victim while the role of perpetrator is steadfastly reserved for men. Until 2007, South African law defined rape as non-consensual vaginal penetration. The rape of a child – according to this definition – carried a minimum sentence of life imprisonment. Anal penetration, including that of minors, however, fell under the lesser offence of indecent assault for which there was no prescribed sentence (Mills, 2006; www.mrc.ac.za/public/facts, retrieved 15/5/09).
The South African National Assembly took ten years to pass a draft South African Sexual Offences Amendment Bill, which aimed to broaden the definition of rape and amend the Sexual Offences Act of 1964. This Bill was passed only when the Constitutional Court changed the definition of rape to include non-consensual anal penetration. At the time, the court was hearing a landmark appeal by a man who had been convicted of rape by a Pretoria Court for the anal penetration of a nine-year-old girl. However, although the Constitutional Court agreed that rape included non-consensual anal penetration of a female, the man’s rape conviction was overturned because the extended rape definition could not be applied retrospectively (Ntombizozuko, 2008; Phelps & Kanzee, 2007).
On 22 May 2007, the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act was passed, and the definition of rape was extended to include anal sex and oral sex – regardless of the victim or perpetrator’s gender (South African Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, 2008; www.mrc.ac.za/public/facts, retrieved 15/5/09). Burgess-Jackson (1996) holds that the law can be seen as an expression of certain values, beliefs and attitudes. He argues that the law of a given time and place (including the law of rape) reflects the prevailing sentiment towards that class of acts. According to Burgess-Jackson (1996), the law on rape is linked to how people think and also to their values and their actions.
By not extending the definition of rape to include male victims of rape, and by delaying the extension, South African law determined rape on the basis of gender. This unfair discrimination and gender bias perpetuated gender stereotypes about male sexuality and served to keep male-on-male rape invisible and impossible. Prior to the Amendment Act, the law contravened the Bill of Rights of the South African Constitution (Phelps & Kanzee, 2007) whereby all South Africans, including men, have the right to freedom and security of their person, the right to protection and the right to a fair legal hearing (from the perspective of the victim as well as the alleged perpetrator). In respect of rape, South Africa meets its obligation of equality (at least in terms of the legal definition of rape). The question remains, however, whether on other levels, such as the personal, social and political levels, male victims of rape are actually equal, free and secure (Criminal Law (Sexual offences and related matters) Amendment Act, 2007).
What is the meaning of the silence on male rape?
What is the meaning of male rape? Because philosophical theories and feminism are generally silent about male rape, this silence requires some analysis. When a woman is raped, society understands and recognises the devastation, horror and aftermath of the act. Feminist philosophers and theorists debate rape as violence and rape as sex. Du Toit (2005. p. 87) argues that the power of the perpetrator and the powerlessness of the victim, and the force with which the innate self of the victim is destroyed, amounts to rapist violence “which ‘shapes’ and ‘moulds’ a living being into an inanimate sex object”.
According to Brison (2002, p. 93), this debate is pointless because the dichotomy of violence and sex is untenable. According to her, rape is sexual violence although it is not “necessarily arousing (even to the perpetrator) and I don’t mean that it is experienced as sex by the victim, but it is violence committed (typically) on the basis of sex (or because of the sex of the victim)”. Although this conceptualisation of rape refers to the rape of women, it can also be applied to male rape. It may add to the stereotypical notion of male rape that it is homosexual men who rape men, and that men who are raped are homosexual (Donaldson, 1990). According to Scarce (1997a, 1997b) society generally does not make a distinction between sex and rape, and, accordingly, male rape as an act of sex is attributed to homosexuality. This societal attribution ignores the reality of violent sex and, once again, conceptualises male rape in the context of sexuality or sexual orientation. The real horror of male rape is therefore not recognised in terms of this societal construction of male rape.
Influence of the Feminist Movement. Why, then, does male rape remain a silent crime? The feminist movement has had a significant impact on how rape is defined and described (Pretorius & Hull, 2005). Contemporary feminism emerged as the main voice in gender-related issues, and Hull (2003) argues that the feminist discourse on the victim-perpetrator model became the ‘politically correct’ way of thinking. The construct of males as victims of rape contradicts the victim-perpetrator model advocated by accepted feminist thinking and therefore cannot exist politically. Contemporary feminism was, however, central to the understanding and improvement of women and their social status vis-à-vis men (Burgess-Jackson, 1996).
Our academic as well as political understanding of rape has undoubtedly been advanced by the feminist movement. However, a consequence of this is the general refutation of the notion that a male can be the victim of rape. Research into male rape and its consequences began only in the 1970s and 1980s (Scarce, 1997a; Tewksbury, 2007). Despite limited research studies on male rape in the adult population, and despite the fact that research on male rape has been done for approximately only three decades, the general social construct of rape remains female-centric. Does this mean that male rape and its consequences are not viewed as of equal importance compared to those of female rape? Does this mean that the vulnerability of men as rape victims is not acknowledged?
Social Liminality of Male Rape. Although numerous studies on male rape in boys have been done, it appears that male rape in adults, as already mentioned, is generally ignored (Scarce, 1997a). According to Donaldson (1990), this has resulted in the belief that male rape does not occur. This belief may be due also to the female-centric notion of rape and the socially unacceptable nature of adult male rape. Scarce (1997a, p. 9) states that “society tends to silence and erase them [male rape victims] rather than acknowledge the vulnerability of masculinity and manhood”. By ignoring the adult male rape victim, the impact of male rape on the victim is poorly understood and underrepresented. Hull (2003) refers to the book The Rape Victim by Koss and Harvey where only one page out of three hundred deals with the rape of a male.
It seems therefore that silence about male rape is not restricted to researchers, philosophers and scholars but extends to society as a whole where the results of the limited research on male rape tend to be ignored (in comparison with the plethora of studies and publications on rape in general). I contend that this silence serves to uphold the construct of men as perpetrators rather than to acknowledge that they can be vulnerable and victims of rape as well. The concept of men as victims of rape is further silenced in debates on rape where the vocabularies have been established by feminist theory and social constructs of masculinity. I do not propose going back to a philosophy that is masculine, patriarchical and demeaning of the feminine voice; rather I propose that we seek an inclusive, ethical, human philosophy that neither represents the female nor the male exclusively but that transcends the stereotypical constructs of gender, race, sex, sexuality and class by creating a space where all voices are of equal value and importance.
Gender Bias and Stereotypes. In his philosophical investigation of rape, Burgess-Jackson (1996) describes three theories of rape all of which define rape as something that is mostly done to women by men within a patriarchical context of prevailing power structures in society. He quotes MacKinnon who writes: “What is wrong with rape …. is that it is an act of subordination of women to men. It expresses and reinforces women’s inequality to men” (p. 55). This echoes Brownmiller (1975, pp. 14-15) who stated that “rape becomes not only a male prerogative, but man’s basic weapon of force against women, the principle agent of his will and her fear”. Such descriptions of rape do not take cognisance of the fact that men are also victims of rape. The descriptions exemplify the harm done by feminist theorists to male victims of rape and to some extent explain the silence of such victims and why male rape is often not taken seriously by society.
Burgess-Jackson (1996) examines Catherin MacKinnon’s argument that rape is ‘special’ because it is a crime against women. According to her, “the meaning of rape differs according to one’s sex and according to the standpoints of those who dominate (men) and those who are subordinate (women)” and “the injury of rape lies in the meaning of the act to its victim, but the standard for its criminality lies in the meaning of the act to the assailant” (Burgess-Jackson, 1996, p. 145). In other words, the uniqueness or specialness of rape, according to Mackinnon, lies in its gendered nature, “the fact that it is a crime by men, against women in a society in which men have disproportionate power” (emphasis added) (Burgess-Jackson, 1996, p. 55).
The flaw in this conception is that it denies the possibility of the rape of men by men or women. It thus contributes to the myths surrounding male rape, which centre on internalised social beliefs that the rape of a man is beyond the realm of possibility. The myths about male rape include the notion that real men do not get raped (Donaldson, 1990), that male rape occurs only in prison contexts, that only weak men and boys get raped, that only homosexual males rape men, that the victim is homosexual and that men are less traumatised by rape than women (Anderson, 2007; Booyens, Hesselink-Louw & Mashabela, 2004; Scarce, 1997b). According to Hull (2003, p. 22), men have difficulty accepting their own rape experience as real “not only because it happened to them, but because it happened at all” (emphasis added).
Hull (2003) reports that even environments that are meant to support victims of rape often propagate the myth that males cannot be raped. In a research study by Donnelly and Kenyon (1996 cited in Hull, 2003, p. 22), a female interviewee working at a rape counselling centre stated, “honey, we don’t do men, men can’t be raped”. It seems that men who report rape to police are not taken seriously, and male victims are often blamed for the rape by their friends and family. Brison (2002) describes how after her own rape, she was surrounded by men – policemen, a male doctor, the male prosecutor and a male judge. They were all men, and they were in charge. Is this not part of the reason why men do not report their rapes – they know that men expect other men to be strong, in control and in charge? If it is men who are in charge, and if men believe that men should be strong and in control, will this not deter men from reporting their rape to other men? Until the myths surrounding male rape are challenged, and society recognises the possibility of male rape (Du Toit, 2005), the silence surrounding males who are raped will continue, and we will have to look for the meaning of the silence rather than the meaning of the rape. My contention is that the meaning of the silence is that it maintains the familiar and comfortable societal myth that males are capable of committing the crime of rape but are not vulnerable enough to be the victims of such a crime.
The silence on male rape in feminist theories, social constructs, support services and the legal realm suggests that males are not seen as victims, cannot access support services and do not receive the same sympathy or treatment that females receive. Perhaps the meaning of the silence is to be found in what Du Toit (2005, p. 32) called a rapist culture, which “effectively negates the existence of rape and its consequences, so effectively in fact, that the issue of rape is consistently denied political visibility”. Unless male rape is propelled into the political arena and onto the political agenda, the silence will be perpetuated. The time has come for feminists to extend the discourse on rape from an exclusively female-centric discourse to an inclusive discourse and to create a shared language and understanding of rape in which males and females can be seen as victims and equally heard, and where the reality of male rape can be accepted and discussed.
Who are The Perpetrators of Male Rape and What is the Meaning of their Action?
Who are the perpetrators of male rape? In the absence of well-conceptualised and constructed studies on the profile of perpetrators of male rape, the dominant discourses are that rapists are sexually deviant, homosexual and psychologically pathological men (Anderson, 2007; Booyens et al., 2004; Scarce, 1997b). The facts, however, contradict these stereotypes. My contention is that researchers, theorists and philosophers shy away from investigating the profile of male rapists and the meaning of their acts because they do not want to be associated with such acts. Furthermore, if they start investigating the phenomenon of male rape from the perspective of the rapist, they have to acknowledge the existence of male rape as well as the possibility that the rapist does not fit the generalised social construction of the perpetrator of male rape.
Perpetrator Identities. According to Hull (2003), stereotypical notions, such as that the perpetrator is homosexual, can easily be refuted. For example, Donaldson (1990) and Scarce (1997a) argue that the perpetrator is more often likely to be heterosexual and that homosexual men are less likely to engage in rape. Research suggests that male rape is rather an issue of power, control and humiliation, and that these factors motivate the perpetrator of rape (Groth & Birnbaum, 1979; Hull, 2003; Pretorius & Hull, 2005). The rapist appears to achieve power and control over his or her male victim by humiliating him, using physical force, inflicting bodily harm by hitting and punching, or by using of weapons such as knives and guns (Roos & Katz, 2003; Walker, Archer & Davies, 2005). According to Groth and Birnbaum (1979) and Walker et al. (2005), male rape can include forced masturbation of the perpetrator, penetration of the anus and penis by an object, fellatio and sadomasochistic practices. Perpetrators have also been found to use degrading and misogynistic language during and after the rape to affirm the sense of power they have over their victims (Scarce, 1997a; Walker et al., 2005). The sense of helplessness and loss of control reported by victims, as well as the experience of the rape as repulsive, degrading and humiliating (Roos & Katz, 2003), give us a glimpse of the meaning of the act for the perpetrator as that of power, control and humiliation, which are motivating factors in the rape.
The rape and sexual assault of males during war is also a common occurrence (Brownmiller, 1975). The meaning of the rape of a soldier seems to be the loss of his ‘manhood’ (Donaldson, 1990). However, male rape does not occur only in the military during war—male rape in military institutions sometimes forms part of recruit training and initiations and is used as a means of ‘making real men’ out of new soldiers (Scarce, 1997a). If the victim is a defeated soldier, rape robs him further of his dignity and his manhood, but, if he is a future victor, rape will add to his invulnerability and make him more of a man. War and military training therefore appear to promote rape together with violence to suit whichever side of a war the soldiers are on. A political agenda clearly exists for male rape as rape victims during war affirm the power and control of one nation over another. The use of violent sex (rape) as a weapon against the defeated army and against new recruits makes the victims and perpetrators political pawns of those in power (Brownmiller, 1975; Scarce, 1997a).
A topic that has received scant attention in the literature is the female perpetrator of rape. Davies (2002), however, reports that in his study a large proportion of the sexual assaults in a campus setting were perpetrated by female assailants. Describing the female perpetrator, Groth and Birnbaum (1979) write that female-on-male rape is often perpetrated by two or more female offenders. As with the male perpetrator, the female perpetrator does not appear to be motivated by sexual gratification (Groth & Birnbaum, 1979). In the grand narrative of women as victims and men as perpetrators, this type of rape seems unspeakable. How in this social construct of rape can a woman be a perpetrator, and what can the meaning of raping a man be for her on a personal and social level? Also, what can the meaning be for the male victim of a female-perpetrated rape? During the Iraq war, atrocities committed against captive soldiers by the American forces were brought to light. For example, in Abu Gharib, a female soldier, Private First Class England, was found guilty of sexual assault and rape-related atrocities against prisoners (Allen-Mills, 2004; Hersh, 2004). It appears that she enjoyed the power and control she had over her male victims. Male and female perpetrators therefore seem to have the same motivation in raping their victims.
Until we confront the reality of the perpetrator and attempt to understand the meaning for the rape from the perspective of the rapist, the perpetrator will remain faceless, soulless and contextless without a history and without a reason for what he or she does. Until we understand what compels the rapist, we will understand only half of the story of rape. Not only do we have to create access to support services for male victims of rape, we also have to create rehabilitation programmes for the perpetrators of male rape – punishment without healing is meaningless. I therefore appeal for studies, theories and philosophies that will incorporate the perpetrator and his or her meanings so that we can begin to understand the whole story of male rape.
Physical and Psychological Sequelae of Male Rape
Although numerous studies have been conducted on the sequelae of rape for female victims, little research has been done on the sequelae of rape for male victims (Pretorius & Hull, 2005). From studies that could be found, and the narratives of male victims, however, it is evident that the damage done to the male victim is as horrendous as it is to the female victim. The phenomenological and narrative descriptions of male rape victims reveal that the intrusion and invasion of their personal space is experienced not only as a violation of their bodies but also a violation of the very essence of their sense of self (Pretorius & Hull, 2005). As a man, the victim experiences ultimate humiliation and embarrassment as his male perpetrator wrestles control of his life from him and destroys who and what he is (Burgess & Holmstrom, 1974; Pretorius & Hull, 2005). As do female victims of rape, male victims often experience rape trauma syndrome (RTS) (Burgess & Holmstrom, 1974). RTS disrupts the lives of male victims and seriously undermines their sense of well-being.
According to Donaldson (1990), after the rape the heterosexual male has to contend with sexual role inversion, rape myths, homosexuality, guilt, shame, humiliation and perceived loss of manhood. It seems to me that this struggle of the male victim following the rape is the meaning of male rape for the perpetrator. Robbing another man of his manhood and his masculine identity may be the ultimate goal of the perpetrator when he commits this act of violent sex.
Immediately after the rape the humiliation the male victim experiences when the legitimacy of the rape is denied (Dumond & Dumond, 2002) frequently undermines the possibility of recovering from the rape. Male rape victims are often met with scepticism, disbelief and blame when they disclose the rape (Groth & Birnbaum, 1979; Hull, 200; Scarce, 1997a). The fear of stigmatisation after the rape is often confirmed when victims report the rape to the police, which could lead to regret at having made the disclosure. The disclosure might be met with homophobic victim blaming; unsympathetic, uninterested and homophobic treatment; and a sense that the complaint was not taken seriously (Walker et al., 2005). If the male victim and his experiences are trivialised by the legal system, relatives and friends, he may well himself question the validity of his experience. This will impact on his meaning-making process, his healing and the new identity he has to create after the rape (Pretorius & Hull, 2005).
Society views the male as autonomous and physically strong and believes that he should therefore be able to fight off any perpetrator (Anderson & Doherty, 2008). According to Funk (1997), men are expected to handle physical and emotional pain, to be in control at all times and to protect themselves from danger. The rape of a heterosexual male is considered worse than that of a homosexual male as society tends to view the rape of a homosexual male as ‘more acceptable’ (Anderson & Doherty, 2008). The victim’s sexuality consequently becomes an important factor in societal consideration of the victim’s experience of rape. A concern, however, is that society often reconstitutes a heterosexual male victim as homosexual after the rape thus implying that the rape was a normal sexual experience for a homosexual male. Homosexual males are accordingly treated with less sympathy after a rape (Anderson & Doherty, 2008). In addition, If a victim experiences an erection or ejaculation – which are natural physiological reactions during sexual stimulation – during the rape, society may reject the claim of male rape (Scarce, 1997a). Davis, Pollard and Archer (2006) found that men had more negative views about the male victim if he was homosexual or was raped by a woman.
Analysis of the sequelae of male rape for the victim on a personal and societal level shows that, just as for women, the world of male victims is ‘demolished’ (Brison, 2002). Male rape may thus undermine our most fundamental assumptions about the world. Society, and men in particular, may not only have little empathy for male victims of rape but also an “active fear of empathising with those whose terrifying fate forces (them) to acknowledge that (they) are not in control of their own lives” (Brison, 2002, p. 57). My contention is that to deny that male rape can happen and to deny the sequelae of male rape is a defence of patriarchy as well as the general basic assumptions of the world by men and women. In challenging patriarchy, men and women need to undergo an active unlearning of the patriarchical and feminist idea that men are either heroes or villains. We need to unlearn that men are strong and cannot be victims. We need to unlearn the masculine and feminine constructs that prevent us from creating a new philosophy about gender. By doing so, we will help an equalist philosophy to emerge that will allow men and women to participate in meaningful personal, social, legal and political discussion and action. Men and women will be persuaded to come forward and admit that evil is done to both genders and that male rape warrants public and political concern.
Transcending the Warrior Psyche and the Possibility of Healing
Although some progress on male rape has been made on a legal level, and some studies on the phenomenon of male rape have entered the literature, the idea that men are raped has not yet been accepted in society. Du Toit (2005) recommends that we turn to a phenomenological model to illuminate the damage done by rape in terms of sexual subjectivity. Brison (2002) offered a narrative approach as a way of identifying and healing the damage of rape. Both researchers call for first-person accounts of the lived experiences of rape victims. I would like to add my voice to theirs by calling for the male rape victim and his experience to be brought into the consciousness of society and to give the experience prominence by not “pressurising those who have been traumatised to forget and by rejecting the testimonies of those who are forced to remember” (Brison, 2002, p. 57). This should be done in order to address male rape in the political arena (Du Toit, 2005).
After conducting a phenomenological study of male rape, (Hull, 2003; Pretorius & Hull, 2005) concurred with Brison (2002) and Du Toit (2005) that although rape is never fully resolved by the victim, the emergence of a new, different self after the rape is a possibility for the victim of rape. Brison (2002, p. 26) noted that the “awkwardly personal experiences of men have been neglected in philosophical analysis”. According to her, first-person narratives are needed “to expose previously hidden biases in the discipline’s subject matter and methodology”, to “facilitate understanding of (or empathy with ) for those different” from us, and to disclose our own biases as scholars (Brison, 2002, p. 26). Although some studies have given male victims of rape a voice through phenomenological investigations (Pretorius & Hull, 2005; Roos & Katz, 2003), this previously neglected and discounted group need to tell their stories so that we can create an “adequately inclusive understanding of the moral, legal and political issues” (Brison, 2002, p. 26) surrounding male rape and actively participate in changing the misconstructions of male rape.
Before men can tell their stories and recount the lived experiences of their rape, they first have to confront the fallibility of the constructions and narratives of what it means to be a man and the limitations this places on them. Hull (2003, p. 185) referred to Koen (1996) who maintained that “men are socially enamoured with a warrior psyche that allows them to live with the illusion of their own invulnerability and immortality. It is a psyche that allows the warrior no tears, only anger that compels him to strive for independence and self-definition.” In order to empathise with male victims and to take their stories seriously, we need to question the value of such views of masculinity and to realise that it is these untenable characteristics of manhood that lead to men’s destruction. As a society, we must release man from the bonds of the warrior psyche so that he can transcend it, embrace healing and achieve the birth of a new man. This will provide a context conducive to change that arises when the possibility of conversation becomes part of the equation.
In this article on male rape, I do not speak on behalf of men nor do I speak for men. Rather, I speak with them and call on men to start speaking for themselves. In this conversation, I hope that we will hear the first-person narratives of male rape victims and perpetrators, that we will co-create social constructions of rape as something that can happen to anyone, that we will achieve legal actions that admit that it is possible for men to be raped and that, finally, we will achieve political action that protects the victims, that provides support services for the victims and their families, and that gives rape perpetrators appropriate sentences and rehabilitation services.
Conclusion
I attempted in this article to describe the impossibility of male rape from a legal perspective by investigating the history of the legal definitions of rape and explicating how, until recently, these definitions excluded the possibility of male rape. Secondly, I attempted to explain the meaning of the silence about male rape. I argued that although feminism contributed greatly to our understanding of rape in general, it silenced the voice of the male rape victim so effectively that men have been excluded from conversations about rape. I also argued for an equal discourse on rape where men as well as women can be seen as victims with a right to be heard. Thirdly, I questioned who the perpetrators of male rape are and attempted to understand the meaning of their actions. I challenged the social constructions of the stereotypical perpetrator and argued that we need to create new constructs, theories and philosophies incorporating the perpetrator in order to understand the meaning of male rape. Fourthly, I attempted to describe the physical and psychological sequelae of male rape, and I argued that we need to transcend the warrior psyche and create opportunities for conversation before healing for male rape victims can take place.
In conclusion, male victims of rape should be given a voice so that a more complete and deeper understanding of the meaning of this phenomenon can emerge and so that the prevailing attitude toward male victims of rape can be challenged and changed.