“Nobody Really Got Hurt”—The Legitimization of the Grey Area of Sexual Violence and the Reflection of Gender Roles

Abstract

There is little research exploring the grey area of sexual violence (SV), considered in the literature as being a more subtle manifestation of SV, and therefore tending to be trivialized, legitimized, and normalized by society. This study aimed to compare students’ perceptions of the grey area of SV based on the gender of those involved, in a cis-hetero context, as well as potential sex differences in these perceptions. A vignette methodology was employed to gain valuable insights into the topic. The sample consisted of 164 university students living in Portugal, 71.3% (n = 117) female, with an average age of 23 (SD = 5.84). The thematic analysis revealed a central theme, Severity, reflecting participants’ perceptions of the seriousness of sexual violence within the “grey area”. This theme is expressed through four sub-themes: Attribution of severity, referring to how seriousness is assigned depending on context and beliefs; Identifying sexual violence, highlighting difficulties in recognizing certain behaviors as abusive; Frequency, capturing perceptions of how often such situations occur; and Report, addressing the barriers and facilitators to formal reporting. Our results indicated that while some participants minimized the scenario, the majority of the sample considered the situation as somewhat or very serious. Only few participants trivialized subtle forms of SV, perceiving incidents without overt physical force as less severe. Notably, sex differences emerged, despite being in the minority of the sample, female participants were more inclined to recognize these behaviors as abusive and to view the allegations as credible, whereas male participants tended to downplay the severity.

1. Introduction

Sexual violence (SV) is a serious, prevalent and significant societal issue, broadly defined as any non-consensual sexual act, whether completed or attempted, unwanted sexual advances or comments, as well as any other forms of sexual contact or interaction of a sexual nature imposed on someone against their will (APAV 2024b; Jaffe et al. 2021; Spowart 2020). This form of violence encompasses different types of abuse, coercion, violence, and manipulation, extending beyond forced penetration (European Institute for Gender Equality 2017; World Health Organization 2022).

Currently, it has become increasingly recognized by society, due to its profound physical and psychological repercussions, both in the short and long term. Physically, it can cause injuries and/or wounds to the victim’s body (APAV 2024b; De Souza Costa et al. 2020; White et al. 2015). However, the psychological and emotional impact extends far beyond the event itself. Victims often experience long-term trauma and feelings of guilt and shame, exacerbating the risk of PTSD symptoms (Bhuptani and Messman-Moore 2019; Sinko et al. 2020).

Worldwide, 6% of women report having been victims of sexual violence (World Health Organization 2024). In the United States of America alone, 43% of the men and 81% of the women inquired reported having experienced some type of sexual harassment or assault in their lifetime (RAINN 2025). In Portugal, the Portuguese Association for Victim Support (APAV 2024a) reported 2524 sexual assaults happening in 2024, of which 1990 (6.4% of all crimes) were committed against children and young people, and 534 against adults. The majority of victims seeking support were female (n = 6.10, 76.3%), with an average age of 37 years old. According to the 2024 Annual Internal Security Report (Relatório Anual de Segurança Interna 2024), 1245 crimes of a sexual nature were recorded in the country during that year. Of these, 1030 victims were identified, 85% (n = 876) female and 15% (n = 155) male. Concerning the perpetrators, the report indicates that 90% of those suspected of sexual crimes were male, while 10% were female, aged between 25 and 44 years old. It is important to note that these rates are likely underestimations, as SV is widely underreported. Therefore, the actual prevalence may be significantly higher than what is officially documented.

Although this study assessed SV in binary terms (men and women) and in cis-heteronormative affective relationships, it is crucial to emphasize that the LGBTQ+ communities experience disproportionately high rates of sexual violence (Hindes et al. 2025). In Belgium, 73.6% of transgender and gender-diverse adolescents and young adults aged 15–25 faced SV over a two-year period, with significant mental health impacts. Additionally, studies showed that transgender men, non-binary adults and bisexual women are at highest risk compared to cisgender heterosexual women (Burgwal et al. 2023; Closson et al. 2024; Löfström-Bredell et al. 2025).

Portugal’s legal framework regulating sexual offences in the Portuguese Penal Code, encompasses various acts of SV, sexual harassment and abuse of sexual self-determination. Rape is criminalized under Article 164 of the Penal Code, which defines the offence as engaging in sexual intercourse or similar sexual acts with another person by means of violence, serious threat or by rendering the victim unconscious or incapable of resistance (Portugal 1995, art. 164.°). Article 163 criminalizes sexual coercion, which occurs when an individual compels another to endure or perform a sexual act through violence or threat (Portugal 1995, art. 163.°). Article 170 criminalizes Sexual harassment, characterized by unwanted sexual conduct, propositions or behavior intended to obtain sexual favors, particularly when the perpetrator is in a position of authority or influence over the victim (Portugal 1995, art. 170.°). Additionally, Articles 171 and 172 address sexual abuse in cases involving victims who are unable to comprehend or resist the sexual act, such as minors, people with mental disorders, or those rendered unconscious (Portugal 1995, art. 170.°–171.°).

Despite the fact that legislation is fundamental to combating sexual violence, it does not seem to cover the full scope of experiences that constitute this issue (Cerdán-Torregrosa et al. 2023; Gunnarsson 2018; Krahé 2016). Sexual experiences that, even though not classified as crimes, constitute forms of coercion, intimidation, and violation, remain invisible in both the legal and social fields (Carlisle and Schmitz 2023; Carstensen 2016; Starosta and Schuller 2020). It is precisely in this space of silence and invisibility that the relevance of this study lies—to give visibility to what is systematically ignored, to understand the mechanisms that sustain its legitimization, and to question the boundaries between the legal, the social, and the ethical. The concept of SV, as previously discussed, encompasses various forms of abuse beyond rape. However, some incidents that do not involve rape are often perceived as less severe or as not constituting SV at all. Social changes, including the rise of casual relationships and digital dating apps, seem to have contributed to increased concern and discussions on the complexities of sexual interactions, consent, and coercion (Waling 2023). Movements such as #MeToo and #TalkAboutIt have revealed experiences that fall within the grey area of SV, including sexual harassment and sexual coercion, which have resulted in a new narrative that challenges traditional perceptions of consent (Hindes and Fileborn 2020; Jaffe et al. 2021). The concept of consent is not expressly defined in the Portuguese Penal Code. The absence of consent is inferred through factors such as the use of force, threats, coercion, or the victim’s inability to resist or understand the nature of the act (Fernandes 2023). The Portuguese Justice System considers contextual factors, namely mental or physical incapacity, fear, manipulation, or the existence of an unequal power relationship (Fernandes 2023; Ventura 2016). Consent constitutes not only the absence of resistance, but also the existence of a voluntary and independent agreement. For the Portuguese legal system, silence or lack of resistance may be interpreted as consent, unless evidence of coercive circumstances is proven (Ventura 2016; O’Malley and Hoven 2020), which can restrict the recognition of this type of experiences, considered non-consensual. The existing model based on coercion places the burden of proof of resistance on victims, rather than focusing on the voluntary and affirmative nature of consent (Krahé 2016; O’Malley and Hoven 2020).

Gunnarsson (2018) defines the grey area as all the experiences that occur at the interface of consent and coercion, where the boundaries between the two are blurred, making it difficult for individuals to recognize themselves as victims or even perpetrators. These ambiguities are shaped by gender norms, which often normalize coercive scenarios (Gunnarsson 2018; Hindes and Fileborn 2020). Within relationships, coercion is often justified by love or commitment, leading victims to comply with their partner’s demands out of fear of losing the relationship or due to societal expectations (Martins 2013; Hindes and Fileborn 2020). The legitimization of such situations is reinforced by misplaced beliefs and myths that encourage victim-blaming while minimizing the perpetrator’s responsibility. In reporting to the authorities, the perpetuation of myths and beliefs proves detrimental to the way cases are processed, as studies reveal a tendency among authorities, legal professionals, and even healthcare providers to unconsciously blame victims rather than support them (Anderson and Overby 2021; Bates et al. 2019). Consequently, victim-blaming influences the determination of what is or is not sexual violence, as well as the perception of who is a credible victim (Walfield 2021). The Scale of Beliefs about Sexual Violence (Martins et al. 2012) allows for the measurement of dysfunctional social beliefs that influence the perception and interpretation of SV. In the legal-criminal context, such beliefs are particularly important, as they seem to interfere both in the assessment of victims’ credibility and in the legal classification of facts, contributing to the legitimacy of the grey area of SV (Anderson and Overby 2021; Bates et al. 2019; Martins 2013). This scale highlights the prevalence of gender stereotypes, myths associated with rape, and social representations that legitimize or relativize harmful acts against sexual freedom, which, although illegal, may be socially devalued or understood as ambiguous conduct.

Victim-blaming is closely associated with gender roles and the belief in cause and effect, in which the victim, through their behavior or circumstances, is perceived as having contributed to their assault (Landström et al. 2016). Research identifies key factors that appear to influence victim-blaming, including the victim’s behavior (whether sexual or not), the relationship with the perpetrator, the location of the assault, the victim’s attractiveness, and the level of victim’s resistance exhibited during the attack (Burt 1980; Rollero and Tartaglia 2019; Royal 2019). Consequently, these attitudes not only exacerbate feelings of shame and self-blame but also discourage victims from reporting incidents and seeking help, increasing the risk of re-victimization (Bhuptani and Messman-Moore 2019). Social and cultural norms shape perceptions of acceptable sexual behavior, with gender playing a key role in these dynamics. Myths and beliefs rooted in gender roles reinforce narratives that legitimize SV (Martins 2013; Royal 2019; Ryan 2011). Known rape myths related to women are, for example, “rape is impossible if the woman fights back”; “women accuse men of rape to control or offend them”; “most rape allegations are false” (Rocha and Vieira 1990); “she wanted it”; “she lied” (Chapleau et al. 2008). Research has also identified beliefs concerning male victims, for example: “men who are sexually assaulted by men must be gay”; “a man is expected to be able to defend himself against sexual assault” (Chapleau et al. 2008); “if a man responds physically to an assault (through an erection and/or ejaculation) then he enjoyed the experience”; “men are in a constant state of readiness to accept any sexual opportunity” (Anderson 2007; Walfield 2021). Consistent with research on female rape myths, men seem to be more accepting of male rape myths than women (Chapleau et al. 2008).

Feminist and sociocultural perspectives suggest that gender roles shape beliefs, leading to misconceptions such as the idea that women who say no to sex actually mean yes (Abbott 2013; Anderson 2007). Research also shows that men are more likely to legitimize SV and blame victims (Anderson 2007). These norms do not explicitly justify SV, directly saying that men have the legitimacy to force women to have sex, but rather create conditions that implicitly legitimize coercion in specific contexts (Humphreys 2007). For example, if a woman engages in sexualized interactions such as kissing or intimate touching, it is often assumed that she has implicitly consented to further sexual activity (Anderson 2007; Carstensen 2016; Oswald and Russell 2006). Such biases influence not only personal attitudes but also the responses of formal institutions and their professionals (i.e., police, judges) shaping how SV cases are handled, influencing whether victims feel supported or discouraged from seeking help and decide to formally report the crime (Bates et al. 2019; Mennicke et al. 2021).

As Gunnarsson (2018) suggests, individual experiences are shaped by external societal forces, since the subjective understanding of these experiences depends on societal discourses rooted in and transmitted by society. Heterosexual scripts seem to reinforce gender-based patterns, particularly in sexual dynamics, where myths and beliefs often structure perceptions of SV in a way that normalizes coercion. These scripts, transmitted through cultural narratives, create a cognitive framework that individuals perceive as reality, further legitimizing SV. On the other hand, they can also provide a certain comfort to people when they find themselves in a situation of victim or perpetrator, being able to distance themselves morally from what has happened (Ryan 2011).

Moreover, the media plays a role in sustaining these beliefs. While coverage of SV has evolved, subtle victim-blaming narratives persist (Royal 2019). The societal narratives minimize the severity of SV, attenuating the connotation attributed to sexual aggression, distorting its consequences, and shifting blame onto victims, ultimately fostering a culture of tolerance toward SV (Bandura 2002; Burt 1980; Royal 2019). Understanding these perceptions and their consequences is crucial to prevent further harm.

Therefore, this study aims to contribute to the understanding and clarification of the grey area of SV, in the context of cis-heteronormative affective relationships, a topic that remains highly relevant in contemporary discussions on SV. By examining societal perceptions, particularly among younger populations, this research seeks to explore how university students perceive and legitimize ambiguous cases of SV, with a focus on potential gender differences. Addressing these questions will provide insights into how social attitudes shape the recognition and response to SV, fostering a more critical and informed perspective on the issue (Deming et al. 2013; Mennicke et al. 2021; O’Connor et al. 2018).

2. Methodology

This study is guided by the following research questions: “What is the perception and legitimization of university students regarding the ‘grey area’ of sexual violence?”, and “What are the possible associated sex differences?”.

2.1. Participants

The final sample consisted of 164 university students, living in Portugal, of whom 71.3% identified as female and 28.7% as male, with an average age of 23 years (see

Table 1. Sociodemographic data.

Data			N	%
Sex
Male			47	28.7
Female			117	71.3
Marital Status
Single			153	93.3
Partners/Married			11	6.7
Cycle of study
Bachelor			77	47
Master			86	52.4
PhD			1	0.6
Course
Psychology			55	33.5
Law			15	9.1
Criminology			18	11
Sociology			2	1.2
Social Services			1	0.6
Nursing			2	1.2
Medicine			4	2.4
Other			67	40.9
	M (DP)	Min-Max
Ages	23.83 (5.84)	18–76

).

2.2. Procedure

Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of ISPA, protocol no. I-014-06-25, 2025. The translation of the materials was conducted by the first author in collaboration with the co-authors, two of them fluent in English. To explore the aforementioned questions, a qualitative methodology was employed to gain an in-depth understanding of participants’ perspectives on the severity, levels of consent, and legitimization in two hypothetical SV scenarios, in which the gender of both the victim and the perpetrator was manipulated. Data was collected in May 2023 through participants’ responses to an online questionnaire, developed with Qualtrics, May 2023 version, and shared via social media, thus utilizing non-random convenience and snowball sampling methods.

Participation was voluntary, confidential, and no direct incentives were given to the participants.

The online questionnaire consisted of sociodemographic and educational-related questions, such as sex, age, marital status, academic cycle of study, and the university course each participant was enrolled in. Following this, participants were presented with a vignette depicting a hypothetical scenario exhibiting a case of SV. To design the hypothetical scenarios, we consulted the items from the Scale of Beliefs about Sexual Violence (Martins et al. 2012) and empirical and theoretical contributions presented in previous studies (McMahon and Farmer 2011; Metz et al. 2021; Nolan 2018). Considering that the vignette methodology requires the formulation of hypothetical but realistic situations, we chose to develop plausible descriptions in which participants could recognize and identify themselves.

In this process, particular attention was paid to avoiding scenarios that were potentially painful or likely to generate a strong emotional impact. Thus, the contexts presented were based on the data and analyses carried out by the aforementioned authors, as well as other sources from the specialized literature that describe more subtle and ambiguous forms of SV and sexual harassment. This methodological choice allowed us to capture the complexity of situations that are often normalized or minimized, while ensuring scientific relevance and ethical care. In line with ethical procedures, participants were provided with a debriefing at the end of the survey. Additionally, the research team’s contact information was made available, so that participants could reach out if they felt the need for clarification or support.

Through Qualtrics, one of the two scenarios was randomly assigned to each participant, expecting that the sample was evenly distributed. Therefore, in the first scenario, we got 26 male participants (32.10%) and 55 female participants (67.91%), and in the second scenario, we obtained 21 male participants (25.30%) and 62 female participants (74.70%).

2.2.1. Scenario 1

Maria had dinner at João’s house for the first time. They had met that year at university and had been exchanging messages for some time. Maria found João attractive and interesting. At the end of the dinner, João suggested they continue to drink wine in the garden, as it was a nice evening. João escorted Maria, placing his hand on the bottom of her back. Once in the garden, João reached down and touched Maria’s butt, then laughed. Maria pulled away slightly. João unexpectedly pulled Maria to him and kissed her. Maria kissed him back. During the kiss, João ran his hand down Maria’s thigh and groped her genital area. Maria stopped the kiss and asked him not to touch her like that, as she wanted to take it slow. João pulled away and apologized for what had happened and invited her to sit on the bench. As they sat down, Maria commented on her admiration for the view of João’s house. As João spoke, he put his hand on Maria’s thigh and rubbed it gently. Maria, trembling, pushed João’s hand away and again asked him not to insist. João, faced with Maria’s response, asked her why she had agreed to have dinner with him. Without letting Maria answer, he asked her to leave. Maria grabbed her belongings and left the house.

2.2.2. Scenario 2

João had dinner at Maria’s house for the first time. They had met that year at university and had been exchanging messages for some time. João found Maria attractive and interesting. At the end of the dinner, Maria suggested they continue to drink wine in the garden, as it was a nice evening. Maria escorted João, placing her hand on the bottom of his back. Once in the garden, Maria reached down and touched João’s butt, then laughed. João pulled away slightly. Maria unexpectedly pulled João to her and kissed him. João kissed her back. During the kiss, Maria ran her hand down João’s thigh and groped his genital area. João stopped the kiss and asked her not to touch him like that, as he wanted to take it slow. Maria pulled away and apologized for what had happened and invited him to sit on the bench. As they sat down, João commented on his admiration for the view of Maria’s house. Maria, as she spoke, put her hand on João’s thigh and rubbed it gently. João, trembling, pushed Maria’s hand away and again asked her not to insist. Maria, faced with João’s response, asked him why he had agreed to have dinner with her. Without letting João answer, she asked him to leave. João grabbed his belongings and left the house.

The characters in each scenario represent either a man or a woman as victims in a hypothetical situation of SV, falling within a grey area case of SV. After reading the vignette, participants were presented with 28 questions related to the depicted scenario covering perceptions of what happened (e.g., “In terms of seriousness, how would you assess what happened?” and “Do you consider João’s attitude to be justifiable?”), frequency of occurrence (e.g., “Do you consider this situation to be frequent?”), opinions on reporting and gender differences (e.g., “If João were a woman and Maria were a man, would Maria’s allegations be more likely to be considered credible?”), and perceptions of the concept of SV (e.g., “Do you consider this scenario a case of sexual violence?”).

2.3. Data Analysis

To process and analyze the quantitative data, we used IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 29, and for the qualitative data, we used thematic analysis, guided by Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase analysis process, which consisted, among other steps, of creating a thematic scheme. This analysis was carried out by the first author of this article and reviewed by a second researcher. The construction of the thematic scheme was carried out through an in-depth analysis of the participants’ responses, with the analysis corresponding to an abductive process of both inductive and deductive inference, to guide and support the analysis. Regarding the deductive aspect of the process, we used the previously conducted literature review and the factors presented in the instrument Scale of Beliefs about Sexual Violence (Martins et al. 2012). This scale provides an insight into how dysfunctional beliefs about SV can compromise the legal and criminal perspective on SV and shows how stereotypes and myths affect the social recognition of inappropriate and illegal sexual behavior. It also constituted a resource for constructing the scenarios used in this study, given that the contents of the scale provided relevant guidelines on beliefs and social representations to be integrated into the formulation of hypothetical situations of SV.

2.4. Main Theme

Severity, in the context of SV, refers to the perceived seriousness of the act, considering the physical, psychological, and social consequences for the victim. This theme covers how participants evaluate and describe these experiences, influenced by factors such as attribution of responsibility, frequency, and credibility of the report (sub-themes).

3. Findings

Based on the thematic analysis, we identified a central theme: Severity. This theme is further divided into four sub-themes (see

Table 2. Thematic outline of insights of the “grey area” of Sexual Violence.

Theme	Sub-Themes
Severity	Attribution of severity
	Identifying sexual violence
	Frequency
	Report

), developed below.

3.1. Attribution of Severity

This theme reflects participants’ perceptions regarding the seriousness and frequency of the presented scenarios, as well as whether they consider them as instances of SV. This theme also captures participants’ views on the credibility of victims’ reports in each scenario.

Regarding the seriousness, in scenario 1, 11 (13.5%) participants rated it as not very serious or not at all serious (seven men, 26.9%; four women, 7.3%). Furthermore, in scenario 2, 11 (13.2%) participants assigned lower severity ratings overall (seven men, 33.3%; four women, 6.5%).

In contrast to the previous point, 70 (86.4%) participants rated the first scenario as somewhat serious and very serious (19 men, 73.1%; 51 women, 92.7%). Concerning the second scenario, 72 (86.7%) participants also rated it as somewhat serious and very serious (14 men, 66.6%; 58 women, 93.5%).

Looking in more detail at the responses to the first scenario (male aggressor and female victim), 51.9% of the 81 participants considered the scenario to be somewhat serious (see

Table 3. Perceptions of the 1st scenario.

Severity Scale
Not at all serious	Not very serious	Somewhat serious	Very serious	Total
1 (1.2%)	10 (12.3%)	42 (51.9%)	28 (34.6%)	81 (100%)
Severity Scale by Gender
Gender	Not at all serious	Not very serious	Somewhat serious	Very serious
Male	1	6	12	7
Female	0	4	30	21
Perceptions of Sexual Violence
Yes	No		Total
63 (77.8%)	18 (22.2%)		81 (100%)
Perceptions of Sexual Violence by Gender
Gender	Yes		No
Male	19		7
Female	44		11
Perceived Victimization Frequency
Yes	No		Total
73 (90.1%)	8 (9.9%)		81 (100%)
Perceived Credibility of the Complaint
Yes	No		Total
14 (17.3%)	67 (82.7%)		81 (100%)

). The majority of the sample perceived the victim’s discomfort, while also recognizing that the aggressor did not respect the victim’s wishes and insisted on forced physical contact:

“Because he had a very wrong attitude by not respecting Maria’s space, but he did not do anything more serious.”

(Female participant, 23 years old)

“It is serious, he wouldn’t take no for an answer, and she was still harassed. But it stopped there, I think it could have been much worse”

(Female participant, 18 years old)

We highlight the response given by two participants, one from each scenario, who shared personal experiences that resonate with the described situations:

“I have been in a situation like this myself, and unfortunately, I let it happen until the end. It is a huge regret, where I was super uncomfortable and did not dare to leave.”

(Female participant, 24 years old)

“Because it reminds me of moments when I was harassed”

(Female participant, 24 years old)

On the other hand, 34.6% of the participants considered the scenario very serious, emphasizing the aggressor’s intent to put the victim in a vulnerable, uncomfortable, and insecure position, particularly by persistently insisting on infringing on her sexual autonomy (see Table 3):

“Although the situation could have evolved into a worse and more serious scenario, I still consider it very serious, and I believe that situations like this cannot be normalized”

(Female participant, 23 years old)

However, this situation has been recognized as not very serious (12.3%) and not at all serious (1.2%) by 11 participants (see Table 3). In their perception, the incident was considered minor because what happened did not escalate into other, more explicit forms of SV and was perceived as having little impact on the victim:

“Even though he treated Maria rudely, he did not force her to do anything.”

(Female participant, 24 years old)

“It is not very serious because it is expected that when he invited her to the house, in a way he already wanted to try to get involved, and he knew that she was going to get involved and knowing that he did not succeed, he simply sent her away, rather than raping or physically or verbally assaulting her”

(Female participant, 23 years old)

“Because Maria avoided João’s actions as much as possible, and in the end, nothing happened that physically jeopardized Maria’s integrity”

(Male participant, 25 years old)

Furthermore, the definition of SV was broad and non-consensual across male participants, which seems to have influenced their perception of the seriousness of the situation (see Table 3). In line with this, scenario 1 was perceived by seven (26.92%) of the men as a mere misunderstanding between two individuals:

“I do not see it as very serious, because this type of ‘misunderstanding’ is all too common”

(Male participant, 22 years old)

Also, the victim’s behavior was seen as a factor influencing the perspective of the participants, as some seemed to expect that the victim should be able to handle the violent situation and confront the aggressor:

“I do not classify it as very serious because Maria had the opportunity to leave in time.”

(Male participant, 18 years old)

“The girl could have simply left at the first sign of discomfort.”

(Male participant, 22 years old)

“Women hardly ever advance, most of it is always done by the man, and it is difficult to judge a situation like this because there are women who want men to come forward even if they say no (…) I do not think what João did was right, but I understand”

(Male participant, 24 years old)

The second scenario (female aggressor, male victim) was mainly considered serious by 49.4% of the 83 participants (see

Table 4. Perceptions of the 2nd scenario.

Severity Scale
Not at all serious	Not very serious	Somewhat serious	Very serious	Total
2 (2.4%)	9 (10.8%)	41 (49.4%)	31 (37.3%)	83 (100%)
Severity Scale by Gender
Gender	Not at all serious	Not very serious	Somewhat serious	Very serious
Male	1	6	12	2
Female	1	3	29	29
Perceptions of Sexual Violence
Yes	No		Total
62 (74.7%)	21 (25.3%)		83 (100%)
Perceptions of Sexual Violence by Gender
Gender	Yes		No
Male	11		10
Female	51		11
Perceived Victimization Frequency
Yes	No		Total
42 (50.6%)	41 (49.4%)		83 (100%)
Perceived Credibility of the Complaint
Yes	No		Total
71 (85.5%)	12 (14.5%)		83 (100%)

). This classification was based on the perception that the victim had set clear boundaries, which were not respected:

“Anything done without the other person’s consent is serious to me”

(Female participant, 24 years old)

Some female participants, however, explained that they did not classify it as very serious because of the outcome:

“Because, although it was serious, she did not carry out the sexual act, in other words, she did not actually rape him”

(Female participant, 22 years old)

On the other hand, 37.3% of the participants considered the situation very serious (see Table 4):

“Because Maria crossed the line even when she was explicitly asked not to”

(Female participant, 21 years old)

In addition, 10.8% of the participants considered it not very serious and 2.4% not at all serious, with these classifications being more common among male participants (see Table 4). From the female participant’s perspective, male victims are expected to be more assertive and straightforward, and this victim was not, as mentioned:

“Because João may have deceived Maria”

(Female participant, 21 years old)

Again, the understanding of what is or is not SV continues to influence the perception of seriousness, since it is not interpreted unanimously:

“I cannot consider it a serious situation; I just consider it an embarrassing situation.”

(Female participant, 20 years old)

“For me, it is just weird. Both”

(Female participant, 21 years old)

“Nobody really got hurt (…)”

(Male participant, 23 years old)

One participant’s perspective is also noteworthy: the reason she did not consider what happened to be serious was because she has established that this type of situation, which is so personal to her, is normalized and that victims are expected to learn to cope and live with situations of this kind:

“Because it is something that has happened and certainly happens to everyone (more females, I think), and it causes discomfort and insecurity. Despite this, I think it is not very serious because unfortunately, you learn to live with this fear and discomfort because there are worse things in life”

(Female participant, 22 years old)

Concerning the male participants, they attributed little seriousness to the situation, devaluing the acts committed by the female aggressor:

“I think it depends on João’s ideals. If that happened to me, it would be something I would laugh about.”

(Male participant, 19 years old)

“João may have felt harassed, but nothing much happened”

(Male participant, 25 years old)

3.2. Identifying Sexual Violence

Most participants (77.8% in the first scenario and 74.7% in the second scenario) considered both scenarios–female and male victimization–to be cases of SV (see Table 3 and Table 4).

“If there is no consent by both parties, and if one of those parties feels uncomfortable and afraid of what might happen, it is an act of sexual violence.”

(Female participant, 25 years old)

“There was an attempt to repeatedly force intimate contact, with the implication that the aim would be to end the night in a sexual relationship.”

(Male participant, 18 years old)

However, as seen in Table 3 and Table 4, disagreement was more pronounced among men when assessing male victimization.

On the other hand, the existence of overtly violent behavior appeared to be a decisive factor in identifying a situation of sexual violence. The sample did not consider the situations, especially in scenario 2, involving a male victim, to constitute SV (see Table 3 and Table 4). In the first scenario, the participants who did not consider it to be a situation of SV distinguished between SV and harassment:

“I do not consider it violence because he did not go so far as to force her to do anything (…) But it was a case of sexual harassment.”

(Female participant, 19 years old)

“It is an unpleasant situation, harassment, but not sexual violence. It is a situation of emotional violence.”

(Female participant, 22 years old)

“Touching on a date is normal (…) nowadays a woman can be touched on the back and say she felt harassed. Going overboard”

(Male participant, 22 years old)

Regarding the male victimization scenario, according to 11 (17.74%) female participants, the attempted assault was not perceived with the same level of severity:

“This is a failed case of attempted sexual contact (…) I do not believe that João was sexually assaulted.”

(Female participant, 22 years old)

“I think this expression should only be applied in more serious situations, if we start applying it to everything, it will not have the necessary value for the victims.”

(Female participant, 22 years old)

“He was touched without consent, but he was not forced to stay there”

(Female participant, 21 years old)

From the male perspective, the fact that the aggressor applied no physical force seemed to be enough to rule out defining the situation as SV, given that the outcome was not extreme:

“Because it did not escalate, and he was not forced into anything.”

(Male participant, 22 years old)

“It was a clear case of sexual harassment, but there was never a position of force or violence towards the victim”

(Male participant, 24 years old)

3.3. Frequency

Regarding female victimization, there was strong agreement in the first scenario within most participants (90.1%) to consider the situation to be frequent (see Table 3):

“It can happen at any age and in any part of the world, unfortunately.”

(Female participant, 25 years old)

“From the stories I have heard on social media and among friends, it seems to be something that happens frequently.”

(Female participant, 22 years old)

“(…) unconsciously, many boys with attitudes like this think they are not doing anything excessive or invasive, when they are actually doing it”

(Male participant, 19 years old)

Among the 9.9% who did not consider this to be a frequent situation (see Table 3), some male perspectives stood out, since they did not know any personal or close cases:

“I do not know of any friends who have done/witnessed this”

(Male participant, 23 years old)

Others did not think it would happen between two acquaintances:

“I imagine that there can be unwanted sexual advances between two people, but I believe that between two people who already knew each other, this is not the case”

(Male participant, 25 years old)

In the second scenario, concerning male victimization, participant opinions were more divided (see Table 4), regardless of their gender, with 50.6% considering male victimization to be frequent and 49.4% not. According to the majority of perspectives, participants acknowledged that female victimization is more socially recognized and reported; however, they pointed out that male victimization may be underrepresented, given that reporting by male victims is low:

“I believe that the victims of these cases are more often women, and there are statistics to prove it. However, there is also a lack of reporting on the part of men who suffer these abuses, out of shame and fragile masculinity”

(Female participant, 22 years old)

However, of the 49.4% who did not consider male victimization to be frequent (see Table 4), it was argued that the opposite situation is far more common, i.e., a female victim and a male aggressor, reinforcing the perception that male victimization is rare:

“I think it is more frequent for this episode to happen to a woman, rather than a man.”

(Female participant, 21 years old)

“Unfortunately, harassment situations are common, but the victim is rarely male”

(Male participant, 19 years old)

Additionally, three male participants considered that it is not expected for women to take on a dominant role in these situations:

“Women rarely make advances of this kind; it is usually men who try to have sex and women who refuse.”

(Male participant, 20 years old)

“Generally, the role of the sexes is reversed in situations like this, where women prefer to take things easy”

(Male participant, 24 years old)

3.4. Report

To gain a deeper understanding of this topic, we found it important to explore participants’ perspectives in a situation where the roles were reversed, and which allegations might be more credible depending on the victim’s gender and the aggressor’s gender (see Table 3 and Table 4). Participants demonstrated a high understanding of how gender norms shape perceptions of SV, contributing with insights and critical reflections on the structures that govern men’s reporting practices, and engaging with such complex social dynamics.

Concerning allegations made by the male victim, female participants’ responses followed three main directions. The first involved gender norms and stereotypes associated with the male gender, with the male victim being ridiculed, humiliated, and his sexual orientation called into question:

“There is an ingrained belief in society that men are always ready for sex (or any other sexually orientated activity) (…) you will certainly be ridiculed and labelled gay”

(Male participant, 22 years old)

“It is not socially or culturally acceptable for a man to reject a sexual advance from a woman.”

(Female participant, 22 years old)

“(…) gender beliefs would not allow him to have the courage to complain.”

(Female participant, 23 years old)

The second perspective related to what is socially expected and the low number of complaints made by male victims:

“It is more normalized for a woman to be the victim of sexual violation.”

(Female participant, 23 years old)

“It is less common or predictable for a woman to exert sexual violence on a man (…) In addition, male victims of sexual violence are more socialized to devalue what happened”

(Female participant, 23 years old)

The third perspective suggested that, regardless of the victim’s gender, the allegations would hardly be credible due to the atypical nature of the case presented:

“It is an unfortunately complicated situation to prove in itself, in the judicial world we have.”

(Female participant, 24 years old)

“The complaint would not be credible anyway.”

(Female participant, 23 years old)

From the male participants’ perspective, they considered that a man is not socially recognized as a possible victim:

“In our society, there is still the spirit that a man can do anything and put up with anything.”

(Male participant, 23 years old)

“Most people would think it was funny or would say he is lucky.”

(Male participant, 24 years old)

“There is a great stigma about sexual abuse in men due to a macho society in which it is considered that all men should accept any sexual advances without saying no, so as not to be seen as weak or gay or any other way of belittling the abuse.”

(Male participant, 24 years old)

Despite these views, some participants believed that complaints of SV should be treated with the same impartiality. Three participants stated:

“I do not look at the person’s gender to see if it is wrong or not.”

(Female participant, 23 years old)

“I think it would be the same.”

(Female participant, 27 years old)

“I like to believe in feminism and therefore equality.”

(Male participant, 24 years old)

A male participant echoed this perspective:

“Because harassment does not choose genders, in front of a judge, there is no such thing as what society sees as acceptable”

(Male participant, 25 years old)

However, 17.3% of participants felt that allegations from male victims would be more credible (see Table 4), arguing that men seem to benefit from more credibility from both society and the justice system. Participants from both genders shared this opinion:

“Because he is a man. To be a man is to be better in this society.”

(Female participant, 23 years old)

“Sometimes in the justice system, women are devalued.”

(Female participant, 23 years old)

“For reasons of jurisprudence. It is a known fact that a man is favored by the judicial system of the time”

(Male participant, 22 years old)

In the case of a female victim and a male aggressor, 85.5% of the 83 participants considered the allegations as more credible (see Table 3). As the female participants pointed out, society tends to expect men to be always willing to engage in sexual activity, a perception that does not seem to apply to women:

“It would be more plausible for the man to attack the woman. It would also be more plausible for the woman to say no instead of the man”

(Female participant, 26 years old)

The image of victimhood seems to continue to be associated with women, reinforced by the statistics and the widespread belief that men, being physically stronger, are more likely to be on the role of the aggressor:

“It is more common with women. Men are seen as the strongest link and not the abused.”

(Female participant, 23 years old)

“Because our society unfortunately still thinks like that, thinking that it is the woman who is the victim.”

(Female participant, 21 years old)

“Women are seen as more fragile.”

(Female participant, 22 years old)

“In fact, men are able to attack women more easily.”

(Female participant, 21 years old)

This perception of physical strength differences between genders influences the credibility and seriousness attributed to the described situation, with women being seen as fragile and weak compared to the idea of masculinity, reinforced by persistent gender roles in our culture. According to participants, this helps explain the lower number of complaints from male victims:

“It is not common for men to feel comfortable enough in their masculinity to file a complaint or talk about it”

(Female participant, 19 years old)

The stigma surrounding what it is to be a man and the perceived fragility associated with women was also mentioned by some male participants:

“Because of all the social stigma around situations against both women and men. If a man is abused, he is considered weak; in other words, society limits or belittles a man’s physical integrity”.

(Male participant, 24 years old)

“Because of the socio-cultural standards in which we citizens are included, since the image that men have in society does not allow them to be victims, because it invalidates their masculinity”

(Male participant, 24 years old)

Of the 14.5% of participants who disagreed with these views, some revealed that the credibility of the allegations should not depend on the victim’s gender. They highlighted issues such as the seriousness of the situation, the (im)partiality of the Portuguese Justice System, and the discrediting of the female voice:

“Because whether you are a man or a woman, the allegations that would be made would most likely not be taken into account, because often what happens in these cases is that they are almost trivialized”

(Female participant, 22 years old)

4. Discussion

The grey area of SV seems to have been uncovered and explored most since the #MeToo and #TalkAboutIt movements. This concept considers both physical and non-physical forms of violence, in ambiguous sexual experiences, where coercion, pressure, and a lack of communication and consent occurred (Cerdán-Torregrosa et al. 2023; Gunnarsson 2018; Hindes and Fileborn 2020). Societal views on SV take a strong influence on how we respond and perceive in this matter (Anderson and Overby 2021; Bates et al. 2019; Royal 2019). The main purpose of this study was to compare students’ perceptions of the grey area of SV, in a cis-hetero affective context, based on the gender of the people involved. Participants reflected on how gender norms shape the perceptions of SV and showed knowledge of legislation and thoughtful critiques to this subject. Since most participants had backgrounds in law, criminology, and psychology, their responses reveal a high level of prior knowledge about sexual violence. This demonstrates that these academic backgrounds might enable a more nuances approach to the scenarios presented.

While some participants minimized the scenario, the majority of sample acknowledged the situation as serious, fitting within the concept of sexual violence without legitimizing what had happened. Nevertheless, the occurrence of an episode of SV, regardless of gender, is often perceived as dependent on the victim and their characteristics, reinforcing the belief that victims have, or should have, control over the situation, implying that it is ultimately their responsibility whether they allow themselves to be victimized (Hlavka 2014; Rollero and Tartaglia 2019; Royal 2019). In our findings, amongst the minority of participants, when they noted that a victim did not resist the verbal coercion strategies enough and ended up yielding, they inadvertently corroborated the myth that a “real” rape, and in this case, a real scenario of SV, must involve prominent physical force and clear physical resistance on the part of the victim (Hockett et al. 2016). Otherwise, the aggressor’s abusive actions are excused and minimized, while the victim is blamed. This pattern is particularly evident when comparing responses from the first scenario with those of the second. However, due to the difficulty in interpreting the grey area of sexual violence, the victim may misinterpret the situation and therefore exert less resistance (physical and/or verbal) than expected (Carstensen 2016; Ryan 2011).

In terms of seriousness, most of the sample considered the described situation to be somewhat severe, namely the scenario of the male aggressor and female victim. Conversely, a small subset of participants appeared to perceive the situation as not very serious or not serious at all, since it did not involve an extreme form of SV (e.g., position of force or explicit violence), and neither led to rape. The concept of SV does not seem to be equally understood by all participants, particularly among male participants, which seems to have, in turn, influenced their perception of the seriousness of the situation. In line with the Portuguese Penal Code, the legal definition of SV has a significant role in how ambiguous experiences are interpreted, as it distinguishes between actions that constitute a crime and those considered socially inappropriate but not punishable. Its restricted focus, prioritizing position of force or violence or explicit threats, risks overlooking more subtle forms of SV (Fernandes 2023; Ventura 2016). When participants rely on this legalistic perspective, their interpretations may underestimate the severity of situations that do not fit the strict legal definition, thereby overlooking the potential emotional impact on the victim and privileging legalistic criteria over experiential dimensions. The legal definition is crucial for clarity, but it remains insufficient to capture the full spectrum of harm in grey area experiences of SV (Ventura 2016).

In fact, the lack of clarity regarding the concept of SV, which is not unanimous among the population, seems to diminish the seriousness of the situation, reducing the abusive act to an embarrassing misunderstanding (Carstensen 2016; Cerdán-Torregrosa et al. 2023). The interpretation of the event aligns with what is described in the literature on ambiguous sexual experiences, where the boundaries between consent and coercion are blurred, leaving room for uncertainty regarding whether sexual violence has occurred (Gunnarsson 2018; Hindes and Fileborn 2020).

The dismissal of sexual advances, unwanted kisses and touches, sexual comments, or other invasive interactions seems to downplay the severity of the incident. This minimization not only makes it difficult to report but also contributes to the perpetuation of this type of behaviour, allowing it to go unscathed (Hindes and Fileborn 2020; Royal 2019). Likewise, there seems to be a distinction between sexual harassment and the concept of SV, with reports of sexual harassment often being discredited, believing that there are currently exaggerations and fabricated reports (Bhuptani and Messman-Moore 2019; Cerdán-Torregrosa et al. 2023; Gunnarsson 2018).

While the majority of participants perceived the scenario as somewhat or very serious, a smaller subset appeared to question its severity, linking the identification and validation of SV to the presence of extreme and violent outcomes, such as rape, and the involvement of strangers—factors known to enhance the credibility of allegations (Cerdán-Torregrosa et al. 2023; Deming et al. 2013). According to our findings, cases lacking these extreme markers tend to receive less credibility. As argued by Hindes and Fileborn (2020), the absence of physical harm and the low level of formal or informal reporting of such incidents seem to shape perceptions of seriousness, despite the fact that a substantial proportion of sexual offences occur without physical violence. The grey area occurrences of SV encompass a variety of behaviors that vary according to the context, the nature of the relationship between those involved, and each individual’s subjective perception. This ambiguity makes such cases inherently open to debate (Carstensen 2016; Waling 2023). The distortion of what happened may be due to the fact that victims do not interpret these events as SV and they may not identify themselves as victims, so subjectively there is no crime and there is no way to proceed with the complaint (Cerdán-Torregrosa et al. 2023; Mulder and Bosma 2022; Royal 2019). The victims’ subjective understanding seems to play a decisive role in whether they accept or deny what happened. Theoretically, individuals select information that they obtain from socially and culturally available discourses that seem credible and relevant to them and that resonate with what they consider to make sense. When processing and trying to explain what happened, the sexual scripts that often emerge and dominate the interpretation of the situation tend to justify and legitimize the aggressor’s actions (Carstensen 2016; Hindes and Fileborn 2020). According to Mulder and Bosma (2022), a woman might consider herself a victim of a man’s abusive actions. However, that same man might believe that what happened was consensual, since he may interpret his own actions as appropriate within culturally accepted sexual scripts.

From the victim’s perspective, these behaviors may be recognized as unwanted and constitute SV, harassment, or coercion. However, the victim’s own denial of the abuse can determine whether the aggressor is held responsible. Moreover, the victim’s relationship with the aggressor can further influence their perception. In cases of coercive sex or attempted rape, victims may downplay the event, they may not consider it to be SV, effectively trivializing the act (Carstensen 2016). When violence occurs in private, without witnesses to corroborate the victim’s perspective, these “grey area” situations tend to fall into a case where it is one person’s word against the other. In addition, prevalent myths and beliefs, such as the idea that victims lie about situations of rape and harassment, foster skepticism about less clear-cut cases of SV (Cerdán-Torregrosa et al. 2023; Gunnarsson 2018). These subjective and controversial experiences may lead victims to fear reporting the act due to shame, self-blame and the associated stigma (Hlavka 2014; Mulder and Bosma 2022; O’Connor et al. 2018), and minimize what has happened, choosing to ignore it and not report it, thereby normalizing this type of violence in their daily lives (Hlavka 2014; Mulder and Bosma 2022).

Furthermore, as these incidents become more normative, they are less likely to be classified as SV. This normalization contributes to tolerance, where such acts of violence are considered less injurious due to repeated exposure (Deming et al. 2013). It also seems that a defensive barrier is constructed through the ideology that victims should learn to live with these situations because “there are worse” situations (Gunnarsson 2018; O’Connor et al. 2018). Such rationalizations perpetuate the trivialization of these situations of SV, as it is believed that they do not result in sufficient trauma to prompt reporting and legal accountability, especially when compared to other reported scenarios where penetrative rape occurs (Mulder and Bosma 2022). In many instances, victims are expected to accept these experiences as inevitable, cope with them, and streamline their daily lives around this problem. However, should victims have to accept this reality? Or does this expectation serve as another mechanism of social control over their behavior? As can be seen in studies (Hlavka 2014; Lonsway et al. 2009; Royal 2019) or even in our daily lives, strategies promulgated in posters and campaigns to prevent sexual aggression often target potential victims rather than addressing the behavior of aggressors.

Moreover, the contemporary mindset of normalized hook-up culture and casual encounters may contribute to a failure to communicate boundaries and a lack of emphasis on affirmative consent, resulting in insensitivity and sexualization of the other (Gunnarsson 2018). In this context, there seems to be a tendency for sexual desire to emerge as a justification for unwanted touching and kissing, being perceived as a basic need, thereby trivializing these behaviors and legitimizing so-called ‘attempts’ at intimacy (Bates et al. 2019; Mulder and Bosma 2022).

Regarding the frequency of these grey area situations, there was agreement among the participants that female victimization is frequent, a finding corroborated by existing statistics (e.g., APAV 2024a; Relatório Anual de Segurança Interna 2024), through studies (De Souza Costa et al. 2020; Mennicke et al. 2021; Sinko et al. 2020) and personal testimonies and cases disseminated via media and social networks. Opinions diverged concerning male victims, with 50.6% of participants considering their victimization frequent and 49.4% considering it infrequent (see Table 4). This disparity may reflect the persistent underrecognition of male victims in society. Although women are the primary victims of SV, male victims often remain less identified and acknowledged, facing particular barriers in reporting the abuse to authorities, which may contribute to the gap between the prevalence of such cases and their formal recognition (Carlisle and Schmitz 2023; Hockett et al. 2016; Walfield 2021). In Portugal, in 2021, only 5.7% of reported victims were men, increasing slightly in 2022 to 6.4%. These figures likely underrepresent the true prevalence due to low reporting (Carlisle and Schmitz 2023; Tewksbury 2007; Walfield 2021). According to Voith et al. (2020), the existing literature continues to represent male sexual victimization inadequately, and this is a harmful gap, as sexual abuse among men occurs not only in childhood but also throughout life, increasing the likelihood of both victimization and perpetration.

Concerning the credibility of cases where the aggressor is a woman and the victim a man, our findings align with previous literature, which reveals that prevailing gender norms and beliefs may contribute to ridicule, humiliation, and the misconception that men are “lucky” for what happened, thereby discrediting male victims (Waling 2023). Murphy and Groves (2024) deepen on this by analyzing social media reactions, showing how assaults by women were reframed as sexual opportunities for men, perpetuating myths like men always desire sex and cannot be abused by women. This framing not only denies the trauma but also discourages men from help-seeking (Bhuptani et al. 2023). O’Callaghan (2023) expands on exposing how dominant masculinity ideals deters recognition of male SV experiences. There seems to be a gendered narrative that dismisses male victimization as atypical or trivial.

The fact that male victims make fewer reports reinforces the societal association of SV with female victims and the portrayal of men as the usual perpetrators (Walfield 2021). Allegations from female victims and male aggressors are generally regarded as more credible than those from male victims of a female aggressor. However, regardless of the victim’s sex, it seems that the allegations were unlikely to be considered credible because it was an atypical case of SV. Despite the few formal reports of such cases, grey area situations seem relatively frequent in this age group and across any context (Cerdán-Torregrosa et al. 2023; Gunnarsson 2018; Waling 2023). Personal accounts and experiences shared on social media and between friends corroborate the existence of these incidents, even if they do not reach formal reporting channels, i.e., the authorities (Gunnarsson 2018; Hindes and Fileborn 2020; Ryan 2011).

5. Limitations

This study aimed to investigate and contribute to the scientific community’s understanding of the grey area of SV. However, it is important to acknowledge and reflect on some limitations. First, the sample was limited to university students, which does not allow for a representative view of Portuguese youth or the broader population. Therefore, future studies should consider extending data collection to a more diverse and representative sample, for example, by varying the age range of participants to verify whether perceptions differ across life stages, given that sexual aggression can affect different genders at all stages of life. Additionally, this study explored sexual violence in binary terms and in cis-heteronormative affective relationships. Nevertheless, it is relevant to include data on LGBTQ+ communities. The absence of this variable is a limitation. Future research would benefit from incorporating sexual orientation as a sociodemographic factor, thereby allowing a more nuanced understanding of how sexuality may intersect with experiences and perceptions of sexual violence. Moreover, we recognize the lack of research on intersectional factors, such as race, disability, or immigration status, which can increase vulnerability to sexual violence and influence reporting behaviors. Future research should address these factors to strengthen the intersectional framework in this field.

6. Conclusions

This study examined how university students perceive SV, particularly in the so-called grey area, which refers to its subtler forms. Therefore, we have observed that students’ perceptions of severity vary, influencing how they define SV. The majority of the sample does not seem to legitimize the behavior of either the male or the female aggressors. Thus, they appear to resonate with the vulnerable situation of the victim, regardless of whether the victim is female or male. However, we found narratives that excuse the aggressor, citing mixed signals, communication failures, or unintentional actions, a phenomenon also noted in a study by Deming et al. (2013). Victims seem to be held responsible, particularly when they fail to resist coercion, reinforcing harmful myths that equate real SV with overt violence (Bates et al. 2019; Hindes and Fileborn 2020; Starosta and Schuller 2020). Additionally, SV is more readily acknowledged when it involves a male aggressor and female victim, while cases with female aggressors or male victims are met with skepticism, ridicule, or disbelief.

We find that the legal definition of the concept of consent and SV may influence the recognition of ambiguous experiences. Also, the lack of a shared understanding of what constitutes SV, especially among men, contributes to underreporting and the persistence of these behaviors (Bhuptani and Messman-Moore 2019). Many victims deny or downplay what happened, especially if the perpetrator is someone they know or trust, making formal complaints unlikely. This is further complicated by the expectation that victims should adapt to and tolerate such experiences, rather than society confronting and addressing the behavior of aggressors.

Finally, we consider it essential to raise public awareness about the full nuances surrounding the concept of sexual violence and to create channels, both informal and formal, for reporting occurrences that fall within the grey area category. Awareness, education, and openness about situations of this kind are crucial, given the widespread difficulty in recognizing and interpreting such behaviors and the challenges many face in identifying themselves as either victims or perpetrators. Moreover, encouraging self-reflection on our experiences when communicating and interacting with others in this context can lead to more empathetic and consensual social interactions.