Aliraza Javaid. NORMA: Nordic Journal For Masculinity Studies. Volume 13, Issue 1, 2018.
Introduction
Male rape victims continue to remain isolated and hidden as similar to the topic of male rape. There is a lack of British literature regarding the different ways in which homophobia and sexism collectively structure male rape victims’ experiences, and what roles they play in the discourse of male sexual victimisation. The current literature on male rape overlooks state and voluntary agencies’ understandings of male rape and disregards explanations of male rape from state and voluntary agencies’ perspectives. However, these agencies are often the first port of call for male victims of rape, dealing with the victims and offenders of male rape. Departing from my previous work that focused on hegemonic masculinity (see Javaid, 2015b, 2015c, 2016a, 2017), here I place primary emphasis on the intersections between radical feminist theory of patriarchy, hate crime, and homophobic violence. By doing so, I expand on research that has examined gay men’s, and victims presumed to be gay, experiences in managing homophobia in communities (see Perry, 2001). Although the main focus of this paper is on how male rape is understood in state and voluntary agencies, using patriarchy and hate crime as theoretical frameworks, homophobia also supplements the theoretical and empirical discussions because the empirical findings suggest that male rape offenders can and do carry out male rape as a form of homophobic violence. As with all prejudices, homophobia is a cultural and social phenomenon founded on perceptions of ‘difference’. Gay men or men presumed to be gay being excluded in some way suggests that they are constructed in a vulnerable and negative fashion.
In this paper, I provide empirical evidence gleaned from the police and the third sector to make sense of male sexual victimisation, particularly in terms of explaining it through a patriarchal and hate crime framework. Making significant links between radical feminist theory and hate crime frameworks, in respect of power and domination, I reveal the nuanced meanings of male rape as a form of hate crime/homophobic violence. Male rape as a form of hatred and homophobic violence is important to research because many victims of male rape suffer emotional and psychological pain intensively (Davies, 2002; Javaid, 2014c).
Furthermore, male rape can also occur in gay intimate relationships. In their work on violence in gay relationships, Island and Letellier (1991, p. 14) found that:
There are two men present in a gay couple, which means that either member has the same probability of being a batterer. Therefore, the probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple.
It is important to highlight that gay men can also rape other men. However, male rape in gay relationships is not the sole focus of this paper given the lack of space to fully provide a lengthy discussion of this phenomenon to do it any justice. This is also partly because studies of victims of hate crime have suggested that ‘hate crimes hurt more’ than other forms of violence (Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999), yet the criminal justice system, law and courts still fail to address issues associated with male rape, perpetuating male rape myths (Javaid, 2014a, 2014b, 2015d). Male rape myths are inaccurate and erroneous beliefs about male rape. They give individuals a false sense of security through the legitimation of sexual assault or by denying that it even occurs. They often do this by blaming the male victim for their victimisation or making justifications and diminishing their experience. The third sector often perpetuates male rape myths, stemming from the traditional view of masculinity, primarily due to a lack of training and awareness (Javaid, 2016b, 2016c, 2017).
This paper comes from a sociological theoretical perspective. I argue, to avoid essentialising, that the social, rather than the biological, is important to explain male sexual victimisation. A biological/essentialist explanation of the perpetration of male sexual victimisation is grounded in positivism. That is, the idea of uncontrollable urges or impulses, which means that male rape offenders have an overwhelmingly high sex drive that overthrows any normal self-control. Therefore, male rape only occurs for sexual gratification, but high levels of sexual deprivation may result in the innate, natural sex drive of a person reaching short-tempered levels if it is not channelled appropriately. Thus, caused by a powerful, biological drive that the person cannot control, male rape is seen as an ‘outlet’ for sexual gratification. However, this biological explanation does not consider that all men do not rape when they are ‘sexually deprived’. It also ignores social, cultural, and contextual factors. Therefore, considering the situation, environment, context, and setting are important to gain a robust understanding of male rape. Indeed, the larger context in which male rape victims’ violent sexual experiences occur play a significant role in shaping how male rape is explained and understood.
Theorising male rape and male sexual assault is underexplored and understudied (exceptions, however, include Abdullah-Khan, 2008; Groth & Burgess, 1980). This paper adds to the scant literature on this nuanced approach of male rape. This gap persists in studies of male rape and sexual violence against men, with some areas of the literature only giving consideration to the pattern of male rape from a quantitative approach or quantifying views of male rape from certain populations, such as the student population. In contrast, I use a qualitative approach to expand our understanding of male rape as hate crime, revealing how male rape offenders often carry out male rape to exercise power and control and to unleash homophobia through rape, oppressing victims and eradicating them of their power and control. In gay relationships, through emotional, physical, and psychological coercion, the partner/attacker forces his gay partner/victim to engage in unwanted sexual acts, such as oral or anal sex, as a way in which to gain power and control over him (Javaid, 2017).
In respect of the remaining structure of this paper, I outline the definition of male rape to demonstrate how I am defining it for the purposes of this paper. Afterwards, I give a brief overview of the study, where the methods are briefly discussed. Then, I begin to provide two sections that supply some context and background literature regarding male rape while also framing the theoretical and empirical discussions that soon follow. Next, I provide the research findings. This is followed by the discussion/conclusion section that sums up the main points of the paper while offering some suggestions that I believe should be considered in order to take male rape discourse to the next level. It also outlines some limitations of the present study and the difficulties associated with researching male sexual victimisation.
What is male rape?
This paper focuses on men who rape other men and men who are raped by other men. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 strengthened and modernised the law on sexual offences. This Act extends the definition of rape to include the penetration by a penis of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person. Moreover, I argue that sexual violence is any unwanted sexual act or activity. For example, as my own cultural definition, male sexual assault is a form of sexual violence, in that male sexual assault is an act of psychological, physical, and emotional violation in the form of a sexual act, which is inflicted on a male without his consent by another man. It can include manipulating or forcing a male to participate in any sexual act, such as the male offender intentionally touching the victim in a sexual way, apart from penetration of the mouth or anus (however slight) with the penis since this would be rape. These definitions of male rape and sexual assault form the conceptual basis for this paper, while also including a broad spectrum of other unwilling sexual acts in the critical discussions within this article, such as non-consensual object penetration.
Therefore, only forced penile-anal or penile-oral penetrative sex acts are eligible for inclusion under the working definition of ‘male rape’ for this paper. Definitions of male sexual assault and male rape can be vague and are usually used interchangeably in everyday conversation and in research literature, which can obscure the specifics of the sex crime perpetrated. Stemple and Meyer (2014) argue that inconsistent and outdated definitions of male rape fuel incorrect or inaccurate perceptions about this phenomenon, which in turn influences the type of attitudes and responses that male rape victims receive. Sivakumaran (2007) suggests that, ‘It is important to differentiate between the various forms of sexual violence that are committed against men … rather than viewing them all under the rubric of “sexual violence”, for different dynamics may be present in the different types of abuse’ (p. 262). However, there is no agreement in the social science literature regarding exclusion or inclusion criteria for male sexual assault and male rape, and some authors incorrectly interpret the legal definition of male rape (e.g. Graham, 2006). In addition, because of the dissimilar geographical jurisdictions covered by the research studies in this paper, the definitions of male rape are varied. For example, in some studies (e.g. Allen, 2002; Clark, 2014; Davies, 2002; Graham, 2006), the male victim is described as being raped but the actual sex acts are not specified. I will make it clear whenever I am using ‘male rape’, ‘male sexual assault’, or ‘sexual violence’. This research is concerned with male rape and non-penetrative male sexual assault. The way these terms are understood, defined and conceptualised in Western societies, UK policies and in the media may be misinterpreted or misunderstood because of misconceptions of male rape.
For the purposes of this paper, I will not be using the term ‘survivor’. Although I support the notion of ‘survivor’, meaning that the victim is seen as having survived the rape, utilising it all through this paper is impractical: first, research on state agencies uses the term ‘victim’ to recognise victimisation, and this is true all through the criminal justice system; second, a wealth of male rape research uses the term ‘victim’ instead of ‘survivor’. Thus, it is inappropriate to alter the term used by other authors, so I will use the term ‘victim’ throughout this work to maintain consistency and accuracy.
The study
This article draws on data that were produced as part of a larger study conducted in 2015. The research was concerned to explore how notions of sexualities affect and shape police officers and voluntary agency practitioners’ understandings of male rape and views of men as victims of rape. By taking this approach, I was able to examine male rape discourse through the respondents’ perspectives, while also examining the nature of male rape through the participants’ views since they deal with male rape victims/offenders on a frequent basis. The qualitative findings and arguments presented in this paper are preliminary, exploratory, and not exhaustive. A limitation of the present study is that the data that were gathered was part of another project altogether. This means that the evidence to support my claims is arguably limited and includes only a handful of quotes from service providers of different kinds. However, this does not invalidate the views of the participants, but provides some level of understanding regarding how some informants describe and make sense of male rape.
The study employed qualitative interviewing with a sample of 25 police officers, male rape counsellors, therapists, and voluntary agency caseworkers, who live in England. The study also gathered 45 qualitative questionnaires with individuals of the same occupation. I ensured that those who were interviewed did not also fill out a questionnaire to prevent skewed data results. Therefore, 70 participants participated in this study. In respect of how many police forces and voluntary agencies declined to take part in this study, 8 police forces and 6 voluntary agencies refused. Ultimately, 5 police forces and 4 voluntary service provisions, which do not make up the entirety of the British police force and third sector, participated in the research. For example, ‘Victim Support’, ‘SurvivorsUK’, ‘ManKind’, and some rape crisis centres, which male rape victims go to for help and assistance, participated in the research. For the interviews, with each interview lasting approximately 1 hour, 15 police officers and 10 practitioners from voluntary agencies took part. For the questionnaires, 38 police officers and 7 practitioners from voluntary agencies filled out, completed, and returned them. In the interviews, certain questions about male rape myths were asked, and topics of discussion included issues pertaining to the participants’ perceptions of male rape and responses to male rape victims. The interview questions/topics allowed me to consider the ways in which male rape is conceptualised and understood in state and voluntary agencies. I accessed these agencies essentially through email and through gatekeepers after ethical approval was gained from a university research ethics committee.
The research participants are diverse in regards to amount of experience handling male rape cases, educational level, ethnic background, and training of rape cases. The type of participants include the following: specialist police officers (4); police detectives (4); police constables (34); police sergeants (9); police response officers (2); male rape counsellors (7); male rape therapists (3); and voluntary agency caseworkers (7). The gender of the participants comprises of 33 males and 37 females. The sample is predominately white and most of the participants are under 40 years of age and are mostly from highly educated (in that, they had a bachelor’s degree) and middle-class backgrounds. The respondents provide services for many male rape victims, although they often serve more female rape victims due to the higher number of female rape victims who come forward. On average, the respondents have had around 7 years of experience of working with male rape victims and male victims of sexual assault. Most of their clients are middle-class men. Some of my participants had no specialist training on male rape and sexual assault against men, but most had generic training on female rape and sexual assault against women, such as how to interview female rape victims. The findings from the interviews and questionnaires cannot be generalised to the wider population, so the sample may not necessarily represent the population of state and voluntary agencies that deal with male rape and sexual assault against men.
The qualitative findings were transcribed and reviewed by the researcher, drawing on thematic analysis to analyse the data. Thematic analysis requires the researcher to recognise themes or patterns appearing out of qualitative data. There was a concern to recognise differences and commonalities in the views and experiences of the participants. The researcher followed thematic analysis with thematic coding where codes/labels were placed onto segments of the data that looked important. Each transcript was read and reread by the researcher while noting down some initial codes and labels on the transcripts before transcripts were imported into the data analysis software NVIVO 10 for final coding. A stage of coding involved the analysis of sentences and words for common themes, concepts, and patterns across the data set. Analysing the data focused around organising the dissimilar concepts, conceptions, and themes that developed from the data, not just on putting masses of data into order.
Interconnections between patriarchy and male rape
Radical feminist research rightfully points out that gender differences are socially and culturally constructed, shaped by social discourses and historical circumstances, not the implications of biological dissimilarities. For example, gender is now seen as a social category, a personal identity, and a set of relationships between men and women, and among men and women. Sex is no longer perceived as a basic form of material for social arrangements or seen as a one-way input. Rather, sex is an intricate interplay of physiology, hormones, genes, environment, and conduct with look-back effects. Radical feminism has also analysed sexuality, arguing that it is also a social construction. Radical feminists typically argue that gender inequality is not an individual matter but is deeply embedded within social structures. However, believing in and perpetuating the ideology of innate and biological gender differences may allow men to maintain gender inequality and injustice by regarding all women as subordinate to men (Brownmiller, 1975; Connell, 2005; Gregory & Lees, 1999; Lees, 1997; Pascoe & Hollander, 2016). Radical feminist research also points out that subject positions in societies are constructed from an intricate set of influences (Abdullah-Khan, 2008). It is the recognition of the social, ideological construction of gender differences provided by radical feminist work that supplies an adequate framework to explain sexual violence.
It often recognised that male rape is an under-reported crime, particularly because of the social stigma ingrained in the topic of male rape (Javaid, 2015b; Scarce, 1997). Another reason why male rape is often made to be under-reported is due to the myths that ‘male rape is solely a gay issue’ or that ‘male rape only occurs in prison’ (Javaid, 2017). In a recent empirical study, Abdullah-Khan (2008) explored police officers’ attitudes and responses to male rape in the Metropolitan Police Force, England. She found that one police officer said that, ‘I believe male rape is not reported by the victims as they don’t trust the police – officers rarely deal with this crime as a result’ (p. 131). Walker, Archer, and Davies (2005) support this, finding that, of the 40 men who reported their rape to the police, only 5 said that the police were helpful and responsive. In this empirical study, the remaining men found the police to be ‘unsympathetic, disinterested and homophobic’ (p. 74). It is clear that the proportion of men who report their rape to the police is low.
Most empirical work that explores the patterns and contexts of male sexual victimisation suggests that male rape victims tend to be relatively young (mean ages appear to hover between 17 and 30 years) (Davies, Walker, Archer, & Pollard, 2010). This is because young men’s lifestyle increases their vulnerability to male rape, such as involving going out late at night, drinking, socialising in bars, and taking drugs (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2001). Drugs and alcohol linked to higher risk of sexual victimisation because of increasing the victims’ susceptibility and exposure to possible rapists (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2001). To enhance ecological validity, these empirical studies ought to aim to imitate the characteristics typical of a male victim. It is important to note that any man can become a victim of rape. For example, in a recent empirical study, 50% (N = 20) of the men were homosexual, while 32.5% (13) were heterosexual (Davies et al., 2010). Moreover, figures collected from SurvivorsUK between 1994 and 2011 show similar rates of victimisation for homosexual (13, 33%) and heterosexual victims (15, 38%) (Abdullah-Khan, 2008). However, these empirical research findings do not represent male rape victims who have not reported their incident to the police. They do, nonetheless, importantly emphasise that heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual men can be raped in many different contexts, such as the victim’s/offender’s home and alone in the street late at night.
The impact of male rape is often severe. Walker et al. (2005) explored the effects of rape on men and found that 39 of the 40 men who participated in their study reported experiencing depression, and 33 experienced feelings of self-blame and guilt. In a later study examining long-term psychological functioning of male rape victims, Davies et al. (2010) found that most victims reported feeling anxious, depressed, and blamed themselves for their sexual victimisation. Although male rape reports are slowly increasing, Abdullah-Khan (2008) and Javaid (2015d) argue that reporting and seeking help after their rape can often lead to secondary victimisation, that is, male rape victims are made to feel doubted and blamed for their sexual victimisation consequential of negative attitudes from those whom they disclose to. For instance, the police, friends, family members, and other close acquaintances.
Radical feminist Russell (1990) argues that sexual violence perpetration is a form of masculine conduct that stems from patriarchy. Therefore, we could infer that sexual violence is characteristic of masculine conduct, as 90% of sex offenders are male, suggesting a link between masculinity and rape. The different ways in which men see themselves, and the processes by which these views are formulated, are central to comprehending why men rape other men (Weiss, 2010). Another radical feminist, Lees (1997) argues that men raping other men is a means to strengthen, boost and enhance the offender’s masculinity and their status as a man in gender hierarchies. The radical feminist theoretical paradigm, then, suggests that male rape, like female rape (which I define as men’s sexual violence against women), is an act of power wherein men utilise sex to humiliate, control, and downgrade other men who are perceived as weak. Research that has a radical feminist theoretical orientation to it continually indicates that rape is intertwined with power relations between men and women. Hanmer and Maynard (1987) argue that this power operates with socially constructed gender lines within a system that utilises violence to maintain power and control over women. Gender and power, therefore, are two central elements to robustly explain male sexual victimisation.
Male pro-feminists, such as Kaufman (1994) and Kimmel (1994), support the feminist theoretical position of rape. They both argue that men do not hold all positions of power. They argue that structural power does not necessarily mean that men feel powerful. Thus, they consider the disjointedness between men’s individual experience of powerlessness and the collective social power of men. Gregory and Lees (1999) and, more recently, Kelly and Westmarland (2016) suggest that the collective power that men hold as a group allows them to express it at a personal, local, and individual level. One example of doing this is through the act of male rape. By doing so, men feel they have a right and privilege to rape whomever they want. In a similar vein, Kaufman (1994) and Weiss (2010) state that rape is a criminal act that exercises physical power and expresses power through discourse in respect of male–female gender relations. In support of this, Kelly and Westmarland (2016) perpetuate the argument that gender relations are socially constructed in dissimilar legal, social, cultural, and institutional contexts. Lees (1997) focuses more on the way in which these processes formulate and legitimate patriarchy via their construction of male and female sexualities. Feminist work on patriarchy has shown that rape myths support male superiority and female inferiority (Temkin & Krahé, 2008).
Kaufman (1997) developed a theory regarding a ‘triad’ of men’s violence. In it, he shows that, whilst men’s violence against women is one corner of this triad of violence typology, men’s violence against themselves, and men’s violence against other men form the other two corners. He suggests that the first corner, which is violence against women (see Javaid, 2015a), cannot be productively confronted without providing contemplation of the other two corners of the triad because they link with each other. Therefore, the link between these forms of violence indicates that male rape is on a triad, whereby power and control functions throughout this triad. Groth and Burgess (1980) argue that male rape is an act of retaliation, an expression of power and a verification of the offenders’ manhood and strength. Thus, the reason why men rape other men, and women, is not to release sexual frustration, but to hurt, destroy, humiliate, and degrade. It appears, from a radical feminist perspective, rape is a means with which men carry out to prove their masculinity, strength, and manhood. This theme of power and control is clearly important and prevalent in the radical feminist literature, and so it will be further explored in the empirical section of this paper to help understand and explain male rape.
Hate crime and its relationship to male rape
Perry (2001) conceptualises ‘gay-bashing as a response to doing gender inappropriately’ (p. 110). For Meyer (2012, p. 865), ‘Gay men often decrease in status for identifying as feminine, and may view homophobic insults as a particularly harsh attack on their gender and sexual identities’. However, this is not to suggest that all gay men identify as ‘feminine’, but some may do. Mayer goes on to argue that, for the offenders of hate crime, they often use hate crime to position themselves as stronger than their gay male victims. Herek (1989) adds that hate crime offenders exercise their hate crime act as a means to express hate, condemnation, dislike, distrust, or disapproval of the victim due to their subscription to a certain identity that the offender abhors. Kaufman (1997) argue that confusion with sexuality and homophobia, due to the pressures of masculinity, can result in male rape. The social pressures of masculinity may drive some men to commit male rape if other avenues of embodying masculinity are closed off. In a given setting, context, and situation, men raping other men can make them feel like a ‘real’ man whereby manhood is momentarily valid, reaffirmed, and strengthened. The construction of this ‘real’ man image is not, however, fixed and determined, but rather (and always) negotiated through social and power relations, notably between the rapist and the victim, between the dominator and the dominated, between the powerful and the powerless.
From this, it could be argued that homophobic violence serves as a mechanism of social control that is constructed to police gender norms and to maintain the privilege of male heterosexuality. Tomsen and Markwell (2009) argue that homophobic violence is crucial in structuring the lives of those who do not conform to sexual norms. To avoid unwanted attention, then, gay men may conceal their desires in public since it is here where heterosexuality dominates and flourishes. Those men, particularly gay men, including gay male rape victims or are presumed to be gay, who deviate from the gender norms and compulsory heterosexuality may be deemed as an anomaly. Further, they may be conceptualised as inferior, deviant or abnormal. In line with my argument, Mason (2001) argues that gender nonconformity is seen as a sign of homosexuality, and so men who divert from the gender norms and values are heavily stigmatised and so are seen as deserving of ridicule and punishment. It may be, then, that these ‘deviant’ men may suffer most forms of hate crime, including male rape as a form of homophobic violence being carried out against them. Perhaps we ought to comprehend male rape as attempting to challenge both gender and sexuality norms in Western society.
Most offenders of male rape are heterosexual (Groth & Burgess, 1980), contradicting the popular stereotype that ‘male rape is solely a homosexual issue’ (Abdullah-Khan, 2008). However, this is not to suggest that male rape victims cannot be heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or other. Men often struggle coming to terms with their rape since it is commonly, although mistakenly, believed that ‘men cannot be raped’ by western societies (Abdullah-Khan, 2008). Arguably, this might interfere with dealing with their rape after it occurred; for example, treatment to male rape victims may be denied, making recovery difficult, and their allegation may be dismissed. Homosexual male rape victims might interpret their rape as punishment for being gay if internalised homophobia is intensified or resurfaces. Male rape victims who have suffered rape are likely to experience self-doubts and self-blame if their offender(s) successfully forces their victims to gain an erection or to ejaculate during their rape (Groth & Burgess, 1980). For the offender(s), it symbolises their power and control over their victim’s body that is treated nothing but a vessel. It is clear that homophobia is impactful and powerful, shaping the ways in which male rape victims are treated during their rape. After their rape, the effects of hate continue to influence the victims, impacting on the ways wherein they socially behave post-rape, often becoming withdrawn with self-doubts and self-blame. For example, the victim may misinterpret ejaculation with orgasm, but getting an erection or ejaculating are involuntary physiological reactions. Some male rape victims experience sexual pleasure during rape, up to and including orgasm. The experience of sexual pleasure during rape can be extremely confusing to the victims and can result in significant shame and self-blame.
During rape, male rape offenders often express derogatory language to their victims. For example, expressing prejudice and hatred is usually through discourse, such as ‘queer’, ‘poof’, and ‘faggot’, to remind the oppressed of their subordinate and emasculated status (Connell, 2005; Unger, 1979). It could be argued that expressing such discourse represents a symbolic form of violence, highlighting to the victims of their devalued and disliked position in the gender hierarchy. Homophobia through discourse reinforces the victims’ sense of powerlessness, helplessness, and vulnerability, othering them in this process (Perry, 2001). It may be that the ever-present threat of homophobia through discourse may foster victims’ fear, which in turn creates a long-lasting state of fear that propels many gay men from engaging with members of society because of the ‘us’ and ‘them’ divide, meaning that gay men are excluded from public space in which heterosexuals reside (Connell, 2005; Javaid, 2015b; Richardson & May, 1999). Analogously, Rayburn, Mendoza, and Davidson (2003) found that people who hold prejudiced attitudes see hate crime victims as more culpable for their victimisation and hate crime offenders as less culpable than did unprejudiced people. Similarly, most people believe in a ‘just world’, where everyone ‘gets what they deserve’ (Lerner, 1970). This suggests, then, that societies may think that gay male rape victims or male rape victims presumed to be gay deserve what they get, or they must deserve their victimisation in some way for being gay or for allowing themselves to be vulnerable as this goes against masculinity norms and gender expectations of men as strong, powerful and stoic. Arguably, this could foster secondary victimisation by the wider societies, state, and voluntary agencies, whereby these victims are blamed for their hate crime victimisation. The concept of blameworthiness is important since it can shape the ways in which the victim’s are responded to and dealt with post-rape. If the post-rape treatment is negative, it can have severe social, personal, and individual implications.
For example, as a group, gay men have relatively high levels of psychological and emotional pain because of their lack of acceptance in society (Garnets, Herek, & Levy, 1990). This lack of acceptance may be founded on the different forms of homophobia. Moreover, gay men frequently struggle with their sexual identity and development, and the range of emotions and issues associated with coming to terms with their homosexuality, such as finding love but the gay culture often perpetuates the ideal of causal sex with multiple partners. The effects of hate crime against gay men or men presumed to be gay are often severe. For example, ‘Common behavioral and somatic reactions to victimization include sleep disturbances and nightmares, headaches, diarrhea, uncontrollable crying, agitation and restlessness, increased use of drugs, and deterioration in personal relationships’ (Garnets et al., 1990, p. 367). From this, it is clear that the emotional and psychological ramifications of hate crime are severe, often lasting for a long time, creating individual, social, and personal implications. Adding to this, as victims of hate crime suffer their attack not as a result from a natural or accidental force but from somebody or a group who intentionally targeted them essentially because of ‘who they are’, these victims may develop intense trust issues, feelings of helplessness and depression while questioning their own worth (for more general discussions of the aftermath of rape and sexual assault, see Brownmiller, 1975). Concealing one’s sexual identity may exacerbate these issues. In fact, continually concealing one’s sexual identity may produce an emotionally painful divide between private and public identities (Goffman, 1963).
In the next section, I outline the different ways in which male rape is understood from the respondents’ perspectives, using feminist theory of patriarchy and hate crime theoretical perspective as foundations to make sense of the data.
Explaining male rape: patriarchy and hate crime/homophobic violence
Patriarchy and male rape
From the data, there was a recurring theme relating to the ways in which the offender gains power and control over their victim. For instance:
[Offenders] know how to emotionally black mail the victim making them believe the police won’t believe them. (Police Sergeant 9, Female)
It [male rape] is about power and control. It’s a violent crime. (Specialist Police Officer 1, Male)
It’s all to do with power. It’s to do with dominating someone, and forcing your beliefs on them. (Male Rape Counsellor 3, Female)
[Male rape] comes out of power, power and control, and destruction of someone’s sense of masculinity, there is some enjoyment in it, perpetrators enjoy destroying your sense of safety that gives them the sense of power … the penis is a weapon of power. (Voluntary Agency Caseworker 4, Male)
The quotes suggest that offenders carry out male rape as a way in which to maintain power and control over their victim(s). The accounts from the participants suggest that concepts of power, anger, and masculinity are vital to comprehend the sexual offender’s conduct. These concepts appear to be present in most cases of male rape, but the proportion varies and one concept could be dominant in some cases of male rape. The issues of power, anger, control, and masculinity are clearly salient issues in male rape cases. In support of this argument, other research has found that rape is exercised as a way in which to boost, maintain and strengthen the male offender’s hegemonic masculinity by exercising power, control and domination over the victim, as these facets are unachievable through other avenues in the offender’s everyday life (Gregory & Lees, 1999; Messerschmidt, 2000). Male rape as an exercise of manliness and strength is documented in more recent research (Weiss, 2010). Male rape can be exercised as a form of homosexualising, in that the offender(s) emasculates their victim (Ferrales, Brehm, & Mcelrath, 2016). If male rape victims are emasculated and feminised, almost turned into women metaphorically and symbolically, ‘heteronormative discourses have allowed for men’s limited accountability for aggressive, harassing, and criminal sexual conduct’ (Hlavka, 2014, pp. 339–340). This is particularly the case when rape is a male prerogative and a male sexual entitlement (Brownmiller, 1975), meaning that state and voluntary agencies may perpetuate this thinking and belief. Although my findings indicate that male rape is about power and control, which support the research evidence (e.g. Abdullah-Khan, 2008; McMullen, 1990), heteronormative notions may affect and shape societies, police officers, and voluntary agency practitioners’ views and understanding of male rape, such as perpetuating the belief that male rape is normalised, pathologised, non-existent, or conceptualised as not ‘real rape’. Thus, offenders of male rape are rarely prosecuted and convicted, reinforcing the male rape myth that, ‘male rape is not a serious issue’.
For example, because of myths and misconceptions, such as men are ‘unable to control their sexual desires’ (Hlavka, 2014, p. 344), and because casual sex with many different partners is a requirement and an entitlement for men to embody hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 2005), many male rape offenders go unpunished:
There are issues in relation to myths and stereotypes within the criminal justice processes that make it difficult for jury’s to be able to understand the crime and to therefore convict offenders. This is also true in female rape cases. (Police Detective 2, Female)
Offenders are less likely to be prosecuted so continue to offend without being challenged. (Police Sergeant 9, Female)
Male rape offenders, in contrast to men who rape women, in particular are likely to go undetected or unprosecuted because of the myth that ‘men cannot be raped’ (Abdullah-Khan, 2008; Javaid, 2015b, 2017). Male rape offenders are more likely to ‘get away with it’ if they carry out acquaintance rape, which is rape against the offender’s partner, because the victim may be in love with their attacker and so are unlikely to report their crime. Consequently, these victims rarely report these offenders; if reported, they are rarely prosecuted; if prosecuted, they are rarely convicted. This could be because the ideology of love forces these victims to remain loyal and dedicated to their violent partners and hence no report; for to deeply fall in love, one must prove their love since, after all, ‘actions speak louder than words’.
Gang rape of men/male rape as a form of hate crime
Another way in which male rape offenders can execute power and control over male rape victims, emasculating them of their power and control, is within a gang rape context. For instance:
The one I dealt with was a stranger attack, which was in a park in Newcastle many years ago, and it was a male who was attacked by 3 males … who obviously pinned him to the ground and raped him ok … most male rape is gang related. That’s a fact. (Specialist Police Officer 3, Female)
People often think that male rape does not exist or that it only happens in gang violence or in prisons and believe that the victim’s behavior is responsible for the attack. (Male Rape Counsellor 4, Female)
Male rape is gang related and a lot of degrading treatment happens as part of the assault … . In prison men are more vulnerable due to gang related control. (Male Rape Therapist 1, Female)
Some respondents believe that male rape occurs in a group context, referring to this as a ‘gang rape’ situation. There was a suggestion amongst these respondents that people in societies, state, and voluntary agencies perpetuate the view that male rape only occurs within a gang violence context, perpetuating the male rape myth that ‘male rape only happens in prisons’. Male rape myths are an oversimplification of male rape and they provide a stereotypical ideal of the offenders and victims of such rape. There is research evidence, however, that suggests that male rape occurs both in a gang rape context and in a one-to-one context (Abdullah-Khan, 2008), which contradicts the respondents’ views and beliefs. While rapes against men in prison do occur, they also occur in the wider community. Nonetheless, there is research evidence that supports the respondents’ views when they suggest that the group members exercise male rape collectively to degrade their victims. For example, Messerschmidt (1993) and Carlson (2008) argue that, in a gang rape situation, rape helps to enhance and strengthen the group members’ solidarity, brotherhood, and hegemonic masculinity through degrading and subordinating their victims, taking away their victims’ manhood and masculinity in the process. As Pascoe and Hollander (2016) demonstrate, ‘[b]eing penetrated feminizes men, rendering them as less than masculine, perhaps as symbolic women, and rendering the perpetrator as dominant, that is, masculine’ (p. 75). This degradation and subordination often occurs, as my participants suggest, in a hate crime context that can also involve gang rape violence. For instance:
[A] lot of homophobes and people who hate gay people … do [male rape], kind of their way of teaching them a lesson. If you think of the National Front its proving their masculinity, ‘you want it, you get it’ sort of thing … a lot of sexual acts are about domination, power and control. (Voluntary Agency Worker 3, Male)
But what happened was, it was actually the brother and sister who met a group of people at a party and gone back to the house with them and the sister was being raped by two men and he was being raped by three men. And this was happening all in the same room. So he was basically being raped orally and anally at the same time … They were saying things to him like: ‘you never had such a big one like this’, ‘you love it, you love it, you know you do’, and they told him to turn around and watch his sister be raped as well. (Voluntary Agency Caseworker 5, Female)
Male rape is about homophobia, it is an act that allows male rape offenders to conduct rape against other men as a way in which to demonstrate homophobia [sic] violence. Basically, it shows their disgust towards not only their homosexuality, but also in direction to the fact that they are less of a man. (Male Rape Counsellor 1, Male)
I have dealt with many offenders of male rape, and the main thing that I have found is that offenders often say that, ‘I raped him because I hate gay people, I wanted to make him feel my wrath’ … they [the offenders] feel that they have a right to rape other men because of their homosexuality, they feel they deserve to be raped. (Police Sergeant 7, Male)
These passages suggest that male rape can be carried out as a form of hate crime against gay men or men who are presumed to be gay. Male rape offenders express hate and animosity towards other men who are either gay or presumed to be gay through the act of rape due to their feeling of entitlement, power, and responsibility. Their attitude towards homosexuality is negative and this is represented through rape. Homophobia through rape can be comprehended as a direct result of hegemonic constructions of gender and heterosexuality that encourage conformity to ‘normal’ heterosexuality; those whom deviate from ‘normal’ heterosexuality are often constructed as ‘deviant’, marginal, and alien, which are reinforced through rape.
Herek et al. (1999) found that gay victims of hate crime feel a sense of powerlessness during their assault, leaving them open to harassment and homophobia. These quotes also suggest that degrading treatment can occur during the rape of men, as a way in which to enhance the offenders’ power and control over their victims and to enhance group members’ solidarity and relationship. This finding supports earlier research findings. For example, Gregory and Lees (1999, p. 132) stipulate:
Raping gays or men who are perceived as ‘weaker’ can paradoxically be seen as a way of defending oneself against homosexual feelings. When carried out with a friend or gang, rape can be seen as both a way of enhancing relationships with them (victims often report that the assailants laughed and joked with each other) and, by humiliating the victim, of showing oneself to be a ‘real man’. Humiliation was reported by many assailants, some [victims] had been left lying naked and wounded in the street or urinated on.
This section of the paper has discussed the explanations of male rape, using patriarchy and hate crime as analytical and conceptual frameworks. From the data, it was suggested that male rape is about power and control, whereby offenders exercise male rape to dominate their victim while stripping away their masculinity. This process enhances the offender’s masculinity in turn, leaving their victims feeling a sense of powerlessness, a feeling of loss of power and control. Moreover, it was found that, at times, male rape is gang related and degrading treatments can occur as part of the assault. This is usually in a hate crime context, in which male rape can be carried out as a form of hate crime/homophobic violence.
Recognising the linkages between patriarchy, hate crime, and male sexual victimisation
This article is an exploration of the different ways in which male rape is understood and explained through the lenses of radical feminist and hate crime frameworks. It was important to adopt radical feminist and hate crime analytic approaches because they helped to examine the ways in which male dominance takes place against men, and how power manifests itself through homophobic violence, notably male rape. This article, overall, suggests that male rape victims’ masculinity can be diminished during their rape, which in turn can boost the offender(s)’ masculinity while also potentially strengthening the solidarity, brotherhood, and relationship amongst the offenders if the rape was in a gang rape context. However, it is clear that male rape does not only occur in a gang rape context, but also can occur in gay intimate relationships. Male rape victims may struggle to come to terms with their masculinity and sexuality post-rape and even during their rape. The act of male rape may challenge and confront men’s masculinity and sexuality, which may shape the way in which societies, state and voluntary agencies perceive, respond to, and serve male victims of rape. The findings suggest that male rape, like female rape, is often carried out as a way in which to maintain power and control over their victim(s), which supports the male rape literature. My findings, however, suggested something else that has been absent from the literature. That is, male rape can also be exercised as a form of hatred, homophobia, and homophobic violence, particularly in a hate crime and gang rape context. This nuanced finding is important because it gives some understanding of some types of male rape that have previously been unrecognised or incomprehensible. These types of male rape are important to understand, so that victims of these types of male rape can be robustly responded to, served, and handled, while also addressing all aspects of male sexual victimisation in a legal, cultural, and social context. The paper stresses that male rape can, then, occur in a gang rape context; in a stranger rape context where the victim is unfamiliar with their attacker(s); and in an acquaintance rape context where the victim is familiar with their attacker or, in some cases, in love with them.
Moreover, interviewees argue that male rape victims are unable to embody hegemonic masculinity, since the offenders often enact hegemonic masculinity practices through downgrading other men with the use of rape, boosting their own masculinity in turn. As a result, homophobic reactions, responses, and appraisals from the offender(s) are carried out during the rape, particularly through homophobic and hate crime discourse and language. This process, arguably, enables the offender(s) to police masculinities and sexualities using sexual violence against gay men or men who are presumed to be gay. However, this is not to assume that the offender is solely heterosexual. Furthermore, some male rape myths emerged in the findings. For example, ‘male rape only occurs in prison’, which is underpinned by different cultural stereotypes, gender, and sexuality norms. Male rape myths exist because of stereotypes about masculinity, strength, power, and dominance, and because of hegemonic masculinity and heteronormativity. Male rape myths, underpinned by gender norms and values, are deleterious because they make it difficult for victims to report and to receive adequate services and responses from the state and third sector.
Although I have argued that male rape should be seen as something different from female rape, that is, men’s sexual violence against women, there are some important similarities. For example, female rape victims are subjected to sexual and intimate partner violence over a number of years having serious emotional and physical impact (Temkin & Krahé, 2008). This is also true for male rape victims, especially in acquaintance male rape cases where the male victims feel ‘trapped’ because of the love that they may have for their violent partner/offender. Manifestations of sexual violence against men are similar to those suffered by female rape victims in terms of both victims being subordinate, powerless, and controlled. Their offenders often unleash hatred against both types of victims; certainly, female rape victims suffer misogynistic responses by their rapists notably in the form of rape. For male rape victims, misogynistic responses often transpire into homophobic responses, which is notably one of the differences between male and female rape. Homophobic responses through the act of male rape is carried out as a way in which to express the offender’s hatred, objectification, and disgust towards their male victim. The issue of male entitlement is present in both male and female rape cases, in that men often feel entitled to rape men for deviating from gender and sexuality norms, deserving to be punished, whereas men also feel entitled to rape women for they construct them as inferior to men, as objects, and as ‘men’s property’ (Russell, 1990). Hegemonic masculinity operates in both male and female rape cases; for instance, while men circulate power against other men through rape, they also exercise power over women in incidents of female rape. Power circulating against male and female rape victims allows the offender(s) to position these victims in less than desirable positions, reinforcing their control over their vulnerable bodies and enhancing their own power.
Further studies are needed for a much more thorough comprehension of the different factors that shape men’s decision to rape other men. One way in which research can be carried out to further our understanding of male rape is by doing a much more qualitative, in-depth study that is based on interviews with male rape offenders themselves. By doing so, one is able to understand and learn about the different explanations of male rape and why men rape other men. Examining the different reasons why men rape and sexually assault other men in different contexts from the offenders’ perspectives would be useful, although it may be very difficult to get access to this hard-to-reach type of population. This was a struggle that I encountered in the UK, and so this was a limitation of the current study since I was reliant upon police officers and voluntary agency practitioners’ views and understandings regarding male rape. The paper did not discuss these matters with offenders themselves. Future studies that can directly speak with male rape offenders, then, are strongly encouraged in order to address the issue of male sexual victimisation that has for so long now been ‘brushed under the carpet’.