The Feminizing Effect of Sexual Violence in Third-Party Perceptions of Male and Female Victims

Just One Shot? The Contextual Effects of Matched and Unmatched Intoxication on Perceptions of Consent in Ambiguous Alcohol-fueled Sexual Encounters

The current research examined how contextual factors-the quantity of alcohol consumed by each partner, and whether this quantity matched-influenced how alcohol-fueled sexual encounters were perceived with regard to consent, coercion, sexual assault, and perceived responsibility of the focal partner for the outcome of the encounter. Across four studies (Ntotal = 535), participants read vignettes in which one person described a sexual encounter they had following a night out drinking. These scenarios differed within studies as a function of quantified alcohol consumed (1 shot; 15 shots) and whether both people in the vignettes consumed the same amount of alcohol (matched; unmatched). They also differed between studies as a function of whether the couples described were mixed gender or same gender. Across all four studies, scenarios in which both people in the scenario consumed different quantities of alcohol (i.e., 15 vs. 1 shot) were seen as less consensual, more coercive, and more likely to be an assault compared to scenarios where consumption was matched, especially at lower levels of intoxication (i.e., 1 shot each vs. 15 shots each). However, focal partners were also seen as less responsible for the outcome of the interaction when levels of intoxication were unmatched compared to matched. This pattern replicated across scenarios depicting same-gender and mixed-gender couples. These findings suggest that people prioritize information regarding whether sexual partners are "matched" or "unmatched" in terms of their intoxication when evaluating whether ambiguous sexual encounters are consensual and perceived individual responsibility.

"'I am a Man. How Could I Possibly Have Been Raped?' Men Making Sense of Their Experiences With Sexual Violence"

Sexual violence among college students is an enduring issue that can shape adverse outcomes for victim survivors. The gender dynamics of college sexual assault and rape include rates of women overrepresented as victims and men as perpetrators. Dominant cultural frames reinforcing the (hetero)normative gendered sexual scripts of masculinity often preclude men from being considered as legitimate victims of sexual violence, despite evidence documenting their victimization. The present study contributes to knowledge of men's experiences of sexual violence by sharing the narratives of 29 college men survivors and how they make sense of their experiences. Through open and focused thematic qualitative coding, findings revealed how men struggled to understand their victimization experiences within cultural frameworks that exclude men as victims. Participants engaged in complex linguistic processes (i.e., "epiphanies") to process their unwanted sexual encounter, in addition to altering their sexual behavior after experiencing sexual violence. Findings can inform programing and interventions to be more inclusive of supporting men as victims.

Reacting to Non-Prototypical Victims: Blame, Empathy, and Willingness to Label Sexual Assaults of Men and Sexual Minority Victims

Sexual assault is prevalent in the U.S. society, with an estimated 16% of women and 8% of men experiencing some form of sexual violence during their lifetime (Breiding, 2014). Sexual violence crosses all identity lines; however, legislation, cultural representation, and academic scholarship on sexual violence has historically been limited to assaults against women perpetrated by men. This dominant analysis of sexual assault focuses on the impact of sexism on sexual violence, neglecting the impact off other forms of oppression and attitudes related to sexuality and gender. This dominant representation leaves non-prototypical victims, such as men, people of other genders, and sexual minorities of all genders, less visible and less understood. This underrepresentation may lead to negative reactions toward these victims including blame, exoneration of the perpetrator, and reluctance to acknowledge assaults. In the current study, I explored the impact of both victim gender and sexual orientation on reactions to a hypothetical intimate partner sexual assault victim. Results indicated that perpetrators who assaulted a man were blamed less than those who assaulted a woman. Furthermore, study participants had more empathy for women who were assaulted than they did for men. There were no differences in participants' negative reactions to victims by sexual orientation. Results suggest that, while some advances have been made in public support for sexual assault victims, these advances may not extend yet to men as victims.

Violations of Sexual and Information Privacy: Understanding Dataraid in a (Cyber)Rape Culture

Technology-facilitated sexual violence is a violation unique to the digital age that extends the analog-era rape culture, but electronic privacy invasions are often an overlooked part of these violations. This article examines three emblematic cases of information privacy violations that get used, framed, or rationalized in connection with violations of sexual privacy. In showing how aggressive electronic intrusions borrow the well-worn tropes of rape culture, we show how violations of sexual and information privacy are linked in the digital age. Digital violations of both sexual and information privacy are impacted simultaneously by rape culture and surveillance culture, which are mutually reinforcing.

Negative Third-Party Reactions to Male and Female Victims of Rape: The Influence of Harm and Normativity Concerns

Male and female victims of sexual violence frequently experience secondary victimization in the form of victim blame and other negative reactions by their social surroundings. However, it remains unclear whether these negative reactions differ from each other, and what mechanisms underlie negative reactions toward victims. In one laboratory study (N = 132) and one online study (N = 421), the authors assessed participants' reactions to male and female victims, and whether different (moral) concerns underlay these reactions. The reactions addressed included positive and negative emotions, behavioral and characterological blame, explicit and implicit derogation, and two measures of distancing. It was hypothesized that male victimization would evoke different types of (negative) reactions compared with female victimization, and that normative concerns would predict a greater proportion of the variance of reactions to male victims than female victims. Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were conducted to test whether reactions to male and female (non-)victims differed. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to test the influence of gender traditionality, homonegativity, as well as binding and individualizing moral values on participants' reactions. Results revealed that participants consistently reacted more negatively to victims than to nonvictims, and more so to male than to female targets. Binding values were a regular predictor of negative reactions to victims, whereas they predicted positive reactions to nonvictims. The hypothesis that different mechanisms underlie reactions to male versus female victims was not supported. The discussion addresses implications of this research for interventions targeting secondary victimization and for future research investigating social reactions to victims of sexual violence. It also addresses limitations of the current research and considerations of diversity.