In that perspective, empirical data needs to be collected in a more systematic fashion in order to further explore how the type of conflict and of conflict setting influences how and when wartime sexual violence is perpetrated, and the profiles of victims and of perpetrators. Cases of conflicts where sexual violence against men (and women) is not committed at all, or at least not at all by some conflict actors, deserve more attention too, as they could provide indications for the setting up of prevention programs. It would also be useful to collect data on whether the use of sexual violence evolves (in both qualitative and quantitative terms) during the course of a conflict. Similarly, paying more attention to variations in models and expressions of masculinity can help us to understand not only what types of violence are perpetrated and who are the victims and the perpetrators, but also how survivors react and try to cope with the experience of sexual violence. In the same manner, models of masculinities and femininities could be used to frame support policies for all victims, whatever their gender and sexual orientation, and to better map the impact of sexual violence on survivors’ lives, and on the communities to which they belong. Further, the multiple linkages and interplay between conflict-related sexual violence against individuals belonging to different “categories” (men, women, LGBTQI individuals, refugees, members of minority groups, etc.) have yet to be unpacked. Beyond demonstrating that they are embedded in the very same patriarchal principles, research could document how they might feed each other, for instance, whether a high prevalence of sexual violence against women is always accompanied by high rates of sexual violence against men, whether they are likely to occur at the same conflict stages, etc. Empirical data also ought to be gathered on perpetrators’ profiles, since, as we have seen in the case of Eastern DRC, there seems to be some differences in who perpetrates sexual violence against men, and against women. At the same time, the fact that there are apparently some cases where victims are not really differentiated by their gender, and where both male and female prisoners are submitted to the same kind of sexual torture, calls for further investigation. How to reconcile these configurations with other cases where women are systematically targeted for rape, while men are much more likely to be subjected to other forms of (sexualized) torture? Answering all of these questions requires a significantly increased academic engagement with the field and with local actors on the ground.
Even more importantly, it is urgent to take stock of recent advances in feminist studies, and to start considering that rather than the sex of the victim or even of the perpetrator, one should take seriously the performativity of sexual violence, for both perpetrators and victims. That the victim is a man or a woman is less important than the meaning that sexual violence intends to convey, that is a super/subordination relation which is also related to broader—e.g. economic, political, racial, caste, cultural—relations of power. “Queering” theoretical approaches to conflict-related sexual violence by going beyond the gender binary is crucial to avoid reproducing the limits and shortcomings of previous theoretical models. In other words, an “add men and stir” recipe is unlikely to provide satisfactory answers. Of course, this has to be done carefully so that attention and funding do not drift away from female survivors. But a drastic change in how we frame and understand wartime sexual violence is needed, and long overdue.
Unveiling the super/subordination relations conveyed through sexual violence, regardless of who the victims or the perpetrators are, has important consequences in both research and policy terms, notably because it influences the way survivors of sexual violence are able to cope with what happened to them. Support offered to survivors has to take stock not just of the sexual or even gendered dimensions of sexual violence, but also of how it is interconnected to other types of violence, be they physical, structural or symbolic. Survivors’ recovery is indeed, as we have seen, impeded by the fact that they often belong to otherwise dominated social or cultural groups—which also partly explains why women are particularly vulnerable to sexual violence.
Thus, rather than to analyse wartime sexual violence as a separate category of violence perpetrated during conflicts, it seems that we need to pay more attention to how it is embedded within larger political, economic, social, cultural and military struggles. It also makes sense with regard to survivors’ experiences: sexual violence is part of a much wider continuum of conflict-related violence, and it is almost always perpetrated alongside other forms of violence. The fact that sexual violence is not necessarily what survivors recall the most of their experience of war, and that they almost always mention other types of violence that they have been victims of, is very telling in that respect. When survivors are able to relate their experience of sexual violence to other types of discrimination and structural violence they have faced, as in the case of political opponents tortured because of their opinions or militancy, it increases their chances to be able to cope with it. In other words, connecting gender-based violence to other dimensions of social power opens up spaces of resilience and resistance to the practice of sexual violence, and to its effects. One major task of research is, therefore, to unveil and unpack these connections, so that prevention policies, but also support programs, can be built around them.
Accounting for the context in which wartime sexual violence is perpetrated is paramount, whether it has been committed against men, against women, or against individuals targeted because of their sexual orientation or their ethnic, religious or political belonging. One should be wary of overstating the importance of sexual victimization in the war experience, at the expense of other types of suffering. As has been observed by many feminist scholars, when it comes to speaking about women’s experiences of conflict, sexual violence almost always comes to the fore, pushing into oblivion other non-sexual types of violence, such as beatings, but also displacement, increased poverty, forced recruitment, etc. One of the consequences of this focus put on sexual violence, among all potential forms of violence, is what we could call the “biologization” of women, that is, the assumption that what is the most important about/to women, is their reproductive and sexual health. This incredibly patriarchal and heteronormative representation of women veils the multiple other discriminations they are victim of, and allows gendered inequalities to reproduce themselves.
In parallel, as we have seen, the fact that wartime sexual violence against men hasn’t received much attention yet means that a certain vision of masculinity as invulnerable and as the backbone of the national, ethnic or religious group can be preserved. In other words, the hyper-visibility of the sexual brutalization of women vs. the silencing of the sexual brutalization of men are two sides of the same patriarchal and heteronormative coin. Unveiling and highlighting this is a major feminist task, which demands to treat wartime sexual violence, whatever the gender and sexual orientation of its victims, as part of a much broader experience of war, and as related to wider societal relations of power.