Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this paper presents as an interesting paper with some original contributions to the literature. It properly engages with the background literature and helpfully uses the voices of the male victims to provide depth. These are some suggestions to help readers such as myself further benefit from the underlying research.

The Section 3 results could use further development to help contextualize perhaps important points for the reader. Section 4 could also more concretely connect the results in Section 3 to the background of masculinities developed in Section 1. For purposes of space, the Section 1 discussion could be substantially reduced as some concepts appear to be repeated while some aspects do not seem to be addressed in the results (e.g., the impact of sexual violence on significant others and the community (section 1.4 and 1.5) are not really addressed in the results other than through the lens of the men, which is covered in sections 1.1 to 1.3.).

 Several of the comments and reflections from the men in Section 3 are unclear and thus could use the author’s further treatment to assist the reader in understanding the cultural significance for the region (e.g., I could not understand the quotes at lines 318-321, 329-331, 369-371, or 376-377, and then while 348-349 discuss four participants, the quote that follows appears to be of only one of them).  At line 309, there is a reference to the men being forced to accept feminine roles, but this was not sufficiently evident in the quote that follows or in other parts of Section 3.

I could also have used more context behind the structural violence which seems to have precipitated the sexual abuse of the men in the country at the time. Because of some of the references in Section 1 to intersectionalities with same sex relations, it would be helpful to understand if all of the participants were heterosexual or not (if not, further discussion of the barriers that face homosexual victims of male rape would be helpful).

The first sentence beginning at line 22 indicates the legal definitions of rape had a non-gendered lens, but I think in context, a gendered lens is meant as

Author Response

Please see attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This strong paper concerning an important and undertheorised issue is well-written and covers a lot of ground. While the qualitative data it references is also fascinating, it does raise some questions that I encourage the author to consider further.

Firstly, I was struck by the highly gendered (verging on misogynist at times) nature of some of the participants' responses - evident in references to women's duplicity as well as talk of 'real' men, etc. While this is not surprising in the context (as you set out early in the paper - and is your point), I would've like to see closer engagement with these complexities; there was, for example, a disconnect at times between the quotes and your interpretation / discussion of these. For example, on page 3 (131-134), you wrote 'A male victim redefined his masculinity creatively and compassionately by stating, “‘I am fully a man with little strength ... [etc]"'. Interpreting this as a 'redefining' seems to simplify the relationship between masculinity and physicality, overlooking the equally important role of (and power relations associated with) respect and authority in sustaining and enacting (traditional) masculinity.   

The use of a local 'research assistant' to carry out the interviews also demands more attention. Given the significance of shame, etc (as you describe), surely the choice of interviewer was critical to the data collection (what participants felt able to share, how they framed this, etc)? At the very least, this should be considered (and acknowledged) as a key limitation of the research.    

Your paper would be strengthened by a shorter beginning section (literature review, etc) which would enable more space for engagement with the data (as above). Relatedly, it wasn't clear to me whether the qualitative content (quotes, etc) discussed here (pages 1 - 6) was from the same data set as that discussed in the Results. Were you referring to the same participants? If so, why weren't these used in the Results & Discussions sections?

Not a deal-breaker but you could consider including a table of participants with key demographics.

The paragraph on the merits of an ecological approach (Bronfenbrenner) adds little to the paper and could be deleted (again, provides more space for deeper engagement with data). 

Good luck with the paper - with a little more work it has the potential to make an important contribution.  

Author Response

Please see attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript titled “Sexual violence against men: Impacts on individual victims, significant others, and the community”.

This work addresses a significant and underexplored topic, offering valuable insights about sexual violence against men. I strongly recommend its publication and have no substantial concerns regarding the manuscript in general. The following are some minor suggestions that the authors could consider.

 

The manuscript is well-written and does not need improvements to meet academic standards. The literature review is substantial and effectively provides the background of this work. However, I suggest including a paragraph explaining the differences between female and male victims of sexual violence.  This addition would enhance the paper by highlighting the differences and unique challenges faced by male victims (which are already discussed in the paper), further strengthening the study’s contribution to the field. Here, you could also explain why stigma tends to be greater for male victims, considering societal expectations and traditional gender roles. 

 

Line 68, the abbreviation “DRC” is introduced without first providing the full name. Please include the full name before the abbreviation for clarity.

 

The Materials and Methods section is fine and needs no further revisions. It is clear that the authors have dedicated significant time to this part, and it effectively reflects the level of detail of a doctoral thesis.

 

The conclusion could be more extensive to reflect this work's importance better. Expanding this section would strengthen the manuscript and reinforce its academic value. Some personal remarks or reflections from the authors could also be valuable.

 

A final comment regards the title of this manuscript. This work has been conducted in the DRC, and I believe it should be mentioned in the title to provide the context of this work.

 

Overall, this is a very nice work - thank you again for the opportunity to review it.

Author Response

Please see attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf