Other patterns of wartime sexual violence against men can be highlighted, for instance, with regards to victims’ profiles. The empirical evidence collected on known cases suggests that male members of marginalized groups, such as minority ethnic, religious or sexual groups, seem to be particularly vulnerable to wartime sexual violence. This is, of course, especially the case in conflicts that display a strong ethnic dimension, and/or of a genocidal nature, but also applies to cases of sexual torture in detention. As illustrated by the examples of Palestine, Kashmir, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, sexual torture in particular primarily targets political or military opponents, or people belonging to categories specifically targeted for repression, because of their ethnic or religious belonging. In that sense, sexual torture does not seem to differ from more general patterns of politically motivated torture. In addition, the vulnerability of these communities seems enhanced when membership to specific ethnic, religious or cultural groups intersects with other exposure factors, such as being a refugee, a homosexual or an internally displaced person.
In some cases like in Eastern DRC, the absence of a clear political division, the ethnic fragmentation, the multiplicity of active armed groups, as well as the blurred nature of cleavages and oppositions mean that almost every man living in an isolated, rural and deprived area is a potential target. If there are indications of certain ethnic groups being sometimes more targeted than others, most (male and female) survivors do not seem to have a particular political or religious profile, but rather a socio-economic one. Many live or used to live in small villages or camp settlements, more vulnerable to raids from armed groups, and mostly belong to disadvantaged socio-economic groups. According to the fieldwork data that I have collected in Eastern DRC and Burundi, many male survivors of sexual violence were young men or even adolescent boys at the time of the assault, and some of them were abducted or forcefully recruited into armed groups after being victimized.
Quite clearly, who is targeted by sexual violence, and how, also depends on how gender relations are structured in the relevant area, including, especially with regards to sexual violence against men, which masculinity models are valued by perpetrators. Most male survivors I have met did not embody what could be described as militarized or dominant masculinities, and lived simple lives before being attacked. Admittedly, a few cases of sexual violence exerted against community leaders have been documented, in Rwanda, for instance, (Mullins 2009), a trend that often signals a wish to challenge traditional power structures and weaken local communities. However, these cases remain comparatively rare.
As we will further explore in chapter 3, whatever the setting, most perpetrators of sexual violence against men are members of armed groups or of state security forces. If a few cases of sexual violence against men seem to be committed by partners and relatives, only a very limited number is indeed perpetrated by “non-combatant strangers” (see, for instance, in the case of Eastern DRC, Johnson et al. 2010, 557). Testimonies collected in various settings also suggest that new recruits or combatants are more likely to commit these acts than seasoned ones (Cohen 2013, 465). Most of the perpetrators I have met were in their twenties or even younger when they committed these acts. This also relates to the fact that sexual violence seems to be used by some armed groups as a bonding and initiation ritual for new combatants, who thereby prove their “toughness” and loyalty to the group. Worth underscoring also is the fact that most perpetrators of sexual violence against men are male, with a minority (for instance, around 10% in Eastern DRC, see Johnson et al. 2010) of female perpetrators.[5] As we will see, this gender imbalance seems connected to the lower percentage of female recruits in armies and armed groups, and to their positioning within these groups. It is also related to a series of gender norms and expectations that most female recruits accept—by agreeing to have a lower status and a more passive role than their male counterparts—and a few decide to challenge—by enacting the same violent and militarized masculinity model.
Another regular pattern is that wartime sexual violence against men is often perpetrated publicly. The testimonies I have collected in the Great Lakes Region both with perpetrators and victims, as well as with professionals from the NGO and medical fields, indeed seem to indicate that sexual violence against men is often staged, choreographed and perpetrated in the presence of bystanders, who can be other combatants, civilians or even the victim’s relatives. It is especially the case of sexual humiliation, forced nudity, forced incest or forced rape (Sivakumaran 2007, 264), but it also applies to other forms of sexual violence such as castration, mutilation and beatings of the genitals. Similar trends have been noted in many other conflict situations, such as during the war in Croatia (Oosterhoff et al. 2004, 74). As suggested in a UN report (2013, 12), this is likely a deliberate strategy to further shame the victim by making it impossible for him to hide what happened: “In many accounts, conflict-related sexual violence against men and boys is deliberately done with an audience, with the result that the violation is an open secret, known about by a number of individuals beyond the immediate perpetrator(s) and victim”.
In some settings, sexual violence also seems to be frequently perpetrated collectively, in particular in the case of rape, with numerous instances of gang rapes. In the DRC, for instance, Duroch et al. (2011, 4) have found that 89.3% of male survivors of sexual violence in their sample had been gang raped,[6] a finding confirmed by Mervyn et al. (2011, 234): “All the male survivors reported being raped by a group of male rebels or soldiers and the armed groups ranged in size from five to as many as thirty men. Male survivors reported being raped in front of their family and friends and others were raped at the same time as their wives and daughters”. Other empirical data, mostly pertaining to cases of sexual torture perpetrated in detention, however, suggests opposite trends. Based on the testimonies of sexual torture survivors treated at Freedom from Torture (formerly the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture), Peel (2004, 61) states, for instance, that “men (…) were almost always raped individually, alone. Unlike women, men are not usually raped in groups, adding to the feelings of isolation. There may have been several perpetrators involved, but generally they do not all rape the victim”. Similarly, testimonies of LTTE militants tortured by members of Sri Lankan security forces (Sooka 2014) seem to indicate that they had often been raped in their individual cells, and that gang rapes were relatively rare.
Although this would need to be further explored and confirmed by empirical data, this suggests that gang rapes of men are less frequent in detention settings than they are when sexual violence is perpetrated in a “lootpillageandrape” context, to borrow from Enloe (2000, 108). Testimonies collected by Mervyn et al. (2011, 234–35) aptly describe these dynamics: “Male survivors reported being captured by the armed groups with other men and women from their family and village. Some women and men were raped at the point of capture and then killed, while others were abducted and raped multiple times over weeks, months and even years by multiple male perpetrators before they were able to escape to safety. Survivors reported being held in captivity for periods of time ranging from one month to three years”. One potential explanation for these diverging patterns is that the gang rape dimension presumably reinforces the political domination aspect of sexual violence, strengthening territorial control and ensuring the submission of local populations. In detention settings, these objectives are present but arguably less salient, because the detention system itself already enacts domination and control.
5
Interestingly, Johnson et al. registered a percentage of 41.1% of female perpetrators of sexual violence against women, another indication that the victim/female, perpetrator/male distinction is both empirically and analytically incorrect.