Sexual Violence Against Men in Canada: Relational Challenges and Pathways to Resilience—Insights on Masculine Norms with Broader Implications

Abstract

In recent decades, awareness of sexual violence against men has grown, yet research and services remain limited compared to those addressing women’s experiences. This qualitative study examined how male survivors in Canada navigate social connection, masculinity, and resilience following sexual violence. Using interpretative phenomenological analysis, in-depth interviews were conducted with three men aged 40–70 who experienced sexual abuse beginning in childhood. The analysis generated six experiential themes—Nature of the Abuse, Impacts of the Abuse, Breaking the Silence, Healing Journey, Victim versus Survivor, and Life Today—alongside a central theme, Words of Wisdom, which captured survivors’ efforts to transform suffering into meaning and connection. Findings highlight how stigma, silence, and masculine norms disrupted trust and disclosure, while peer support, spirituality, and redefined understandings of masculinity fostered relational recovery. Although situated in Canada, the study offers broader insights into how men negotiate vulnerability, identity, and connection after sexual violence. These findings underscore the importance of relational, survivor-centred approaches in therapy, community support, and policy.

1. Introduction

1.1. Literature Review

Sexual violence against men has long been underrecognized, both in research and in service provision. Survivors often face compounded challenges, not only from the psychological and physical consequences of the assault but also from social stigma and cultural norms that discourage disclosure. Across the literature, the impacts of sexual violence are well documented. Survivors may experience depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), shame, guilt, stigma, self-blame, anger, and declines in self-worth and confidence (Poirson et al. 2023; Yagi et al. 2022). These effects frequently extend to the relational domain, manifesting as difficulties with intimacy, trust, sexual functioning, and the formation and maintenance of close relationships (Poirson et al. 2023; Yagi et al. 2022). Socially, survivors often report isolation, lack of justice, and limited access to resources and compassionate support (Petreca and Burgess 2024; Poirson et al. 2023; Yagi et al. 2022; Purnell 2019; Lowe and Rogers 2017; Wilson and Scarpa 2016; Ferrales et al. 2016; Forde and Duvvury 2017; Christian et al. 2011).

Gender-specific differences in the effects of sexual violence are particularly evident for men. Male survivors often struggle with issues of masculinity and identity, reporting feelings of humiliation, weakness, and dishonour associated with an inability to prevent the assault (Poirson et al. 2023). These challenges can be compounded by misunderstandings within medical, legal, and social systems regarding physiological responses during assault, such as involuntary erections or ejaculations (Petreca and Burgess 2024). Such responses can deepen stigma and reinforce silence, leaving many men isolated in the aftermath of victimization.

Resilience has increasingly been understood within the social sciences as a dynamic, relational, and socio-ecological process rather than a fixed personal trait. Social identity and group-based frameworks highlight how individuals draw on relationships, communities, and collective meaning to navigate adversity (Muldoon et al. 2019). In contexts of sexual violence, resilience is shaped by how survivors reconnect with others, rebuild disrupted identities, and access supportive environments (Clark 2023; Forde and Duvvury 2017). Research on male survivors further demonstrates that resilience unfolds within systems marked by stigma, silence, and gendered expectations—factors that influence disclosure, help-seeking, and identity reconstruction (Hlavka 2017; Turchik and Edwards 2012; Wilson and Scarpa 2016). Studies focusing specifically on male victimization emphasize that resilience involves relational recovery, meaning-making, and redefining masculinity after trauma (Poirson et al. 2023; Yagi et al. 2023). Grounding resilience in this broader social-science tradition strengthens the conceptual foundation for the present study, which examines how men cultivate resilience within contexts where their experiences are often marginalized, misunderstood, or rendered invisible.

Resilience offers an important counterpoint to deficit-focused narratives in sexual trauma research. Survivors may draw on personal, relational, and social resources to rebuild trust, find belonging, and adapt to life after assault. Scholars highlight the role of connection in recovery, emphasizing that healing is not only the alleviation of trauma symptoms but also the capacity to reconnect and reestablish meaningful relationships (Shevell and Denov 2021; Poirson et al. 2023; Clark 2023). This study contributes to this growing body of research by focusing specifically on male survivors of sexual violence in Canada. While situated in the Canadian context, the findings are also relevant to broader discussions of masculinity, as traditional male norms—such as emotional stoicism, self-reliance, and aversion to vulnerability—shape survivors’ relational challenges across cultures. Drawing on qualitative accounts, this article examines how men navigate barriers of stigma, silence, and mistrust, while also identifying pathways of resilience through peer support, redefinitions of masculinity, and community belonging.

Despite growing awareness, male survivors remain significantly underrepresented in both research and service provision. The rarity with which men disclose sexual victimization—shaped by stigma, shame, and rigid masculine norms—means that few studies have access to survivors willing to participate. As a result, men’s relational experiences of trauma and recovery remain insufficiently documented in the scholarly record. This study therefore contributes meaningful and urgently needed insight by amplifying voices that are seldom heard. By examining the relational and resilience processes of men who do come forward, the research helps break the silence surrounding male sexual violence and addresses a critical gap in the literature and in trauma-informed practice.

The analysis generated a set of Guiding Experiential Themes (GETs) that structure the interpretation of the findings: Breaking the Silence, Victim versus Survivor, Nature of the Abuse, Impacts of the Abuse, Healing Journey, Life Today, and the central theme, Words of Wisdom. These GETs reflect the relational, identity-based, and meaning-making dimensions of recovery and provide the conceptual lens for the discussion that follows.

Guided by the seven pillars of resilience (Poirson et al. 2023) and relational frameworks of recovery (Clark 2023), the analysis explores the following questions:

• What relational barriers do male survivors encounter when seeking to build and sustain social connections after sexual violence?
• What strategies and supports facilitate relational recovery and resilience for men?
• How do masculine norms influence both the challenges and the opportunities for connection?

1.2. Resilience and Connectivity

Although many individuals experience significant personal and relational challenges when confronted with adversity, others not only adapt but also develop resilience. Resilience has been defined in multiple ways across disciplines. The notion of “resilience” is derived from the Latin term resilire, which means the ability to rebound or recoil. Initially, this term was associated with the field of material science. According to Merriam-Webster, in physics, resilience refers to the capacity of an elastic material, such as biological tissue or rubber, to absorb energy from an impact and subsequently release that energy as it returns to its original form. This recovery process can be likened to an individual’s ability to adapt after a disruptive life event (Ungar 2013; Clark 2023). In human terms, resilience should not be understood as a simple return to a prior state. Lives disrupted by adversity cannot be effortlessly restored as if the event had never occurred.

Resilience has taken on multiple meanings across disciplines, advancing from a descriptive term to an interdisciplinary concept that guides both theory and practice. Ungar (2013) defines resilience as “the capacity of both individuals and their environment to interact in ways that optimize developmental processes” (p. 256). In support of this definition, Clark (2023) employs a socio-ecological framework, emphasizing that resilience involves not only the individual but also the wider systems they inhabit. From this perspective, resilience reflects the ability of human and community systems to withstand disturbances, adapt to changes, and preserve critical functions and structures. Clark (2023) further argues that resilience should be understood through the lens of connectivity, establishing a foundation for a relational methodology.

Researchers have documented numerous ways in which adversity can affect connections to the self, to others, and to surrounding resources (Petreca and Burgess 2024; Poirson et al. 2023; Yagi et al. 2022; Purnell 2019; Lowe and Rogers 2017; Wilson and Scarpa 2016; Ferrales et al. 2016; Forde and Duvvury 2017; Christian et al. 2011). Stigma, rigid norms, and societal stereotypes often disrupt these connections. For example, dominant cultural expectations surrounding masculinity position “real men” as invulnerable, strong, self-sufficient, and unemotional (Hlavka 2017; Yagi 2024). Such norms can discourage expressions of vulnerability and create barriers to seeking support, leading to isolation and disconnection. On a societal level, these expectations contribute to rejection, exclusion, and secondary marginalization (Yagi 2024). On an individual level, internalization of these ideals may lead to shame, embarrassment, and self-blame (Yagi et al. 2023; Ralston 2020; Gorris 2015), thereby reducing willingness to seek help or build new connections.

Despite these ruptures, resilience remains achievable (Clark 2023). Some individuals find it challenging to interpret their pain, while others adjust and reconstruct their sense of identity. Reframing traditional ideals—for example, emphasizing compassion, care, and relational interdependence—can foster resilience (Yagi et al. 2023; Clark 2023). Many also uncover meaning and purpose through spiritual exploration, community belonging, and supportive relationships (Yagi et al. 2022; Calhoun and Tedeschi 2014). In this way, resilience involves not only recovery but also growth, adaptation, and flourishing (Clark 2023).

Shevell and Denov (2021) highlight the importance of expanding resilience beyond the individual through the concepts of intergenerational, national, and global resilience. Intergenerational resilience refers to the legacy of strength transmitted across generations, as individuals use creative outlets such as social media, support groups, poetry, and literature to share experiences of recovery and foster hope. National resilience emphasizes structural responses that strengthen communities and address vulnerabilities (Shevell and Denov 2021). Global resilience manifests as collective responses to crises, grounded in shared values and international standards (Shevell and Denov 2021).

The concept of resilience thus underscores the dynamic relationship between individuals and their environments, extending across personal, relational, and systemic levels. Critics, however, have argued that resilience sometimes places undue responsibility on individuals to adapt, aligning with a neoliberal emphasis on self-reliance (Joseph 2013). In contrast, the perspective adopted here focuses on protective and relational factors that extend beyond the individual, emphasizing connectivity as a foundation for recovery and growth.

While resilience has been widely theorized as a dynamic and relational process, far less attention has been paid to how these processes unfold for men who have experienced sexual violence. Dominant constructions of masculinity—emphasizing emotional restraint, self-reliance, and invulnerability—can intensify stigma, inhibit disclosure, and disrupt relational recovery for male survivors. At the same time, emerging research suggests that men often engage in complex forms of identity renegotiation following trauma, redefining strength through vulnerability, meaning-making, and connection (Forde and Duvvury 2017; Hlavka 2017; Yagi et al. 2023). This study builds on these insights by examining how male survivors in Canada navigate resilience within social contexts shaped by silence, stigma, and gendered expectations, and how relational processes support or constrain their pathways to recovery.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

This study employs interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) to explore how men in Canada navigate relational challenges and cultivate resilience. IPA was chosen because it closely examines participants’ subjective and lived experiences, their meaning-making, and their emotional responses. This approach is widely used for exploring lived experience and meaning-making in health and trauma research (Smith et al. 2009; Smith and Osborn 2015).

2.2. Participants and Recruitment

Participants included three men aged between 40 and 70 at the time of data collection who had experienced sexual victimization beginning in childhood. Although their current ages varied, all participants reported sexual abuse occurring during childhood or adolescence, with some able to recall specific ages (e.g., as early as 4–5 years old), and others reporting only general developmental periods due to memory gaps commonly associated with early trauma.

All participants experienced contact sexual abuse in childhood, and all described multiple and cumulative forms of victimization across family, community, and institutional contexts. This included, for some participants, experiences of penetrative rape, and for all participants, additional forms of sexual exploitation, coercion, and abuse. The phrase “rape and other forms of sexual violence” is used in this study to reflect this cumulative and poly-victimization pattern rather than to suggest mutually exclusive categories.

Participants were recruited through outreach to clinicians and community organizations serving survivors of sexual violence and trauma in Ottawa and surrounding regions. All participants resided in Canada and had navigated similar social and service systems when seeking support.

In interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA), homogeneity refers to a shared experiential focus rather than identical life histories, allowing researchers to examine convergence and divergence within a defined group (Smith et al. 2009; Smith and Osborn 2015). In this study, homogeneity was defined by a shared phenomenon: being men who experienced childhood sexual victimization within a Canadian social and service context, while acknowledging variation in form, severity, and life course. Participants’ experiences varied in form, severity, and context, but all involved early sexual trauma, long-term impacts, and later efforts to seek meaning, connection, and recovery—making them appropriate for idiographic comparison.

2.3. Rationale for Small Sample Size

While a sample of three participants does not allow for statistical generalization, small samples are appropriate in interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). IPA prioritizes depth, nuance, and detailed exploration of lived experience over breadth. Studies employing IPA commonly include small samples (often 3–6 participants) to enable intensive engagement with each narrative and preserve the idiographic focus of the method (Smith et al. 2009; Smith and Osborn 2015). The present sample size, therefore, aligns with the study’s qualitative, exploratory aims and is consistent with IPA methodology.

2.4. Data Analysis and Coding Procedures

Data were analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA), which involves a detailed, multi-stage engagement with each transcript. The coding process began with repeated readings of each interview to develop familiarity with the participant’s narrative. The researcher then conducted initial noting, focusing on descriptive comments, linguistic observations, and interpretative reflections. From these notes, emergent themes were generated for each case, capturing meaningful patterns in how participants made sense of their experiences. These themes were subsequently clustered into higher-order categories through iterative comparison, while ensuring that individual voices remained central to the analysis. Consistent with IPA’s idiographic commitment, each transcript was analyzed independently before identifying connections across cases. The sole researcher conducted all coding individually. To strengthen analytic rigour, a reflexive journal was maintained to document analytic decisions, transcripts were returned frequently to verify interpretations, and an audit trail was developed to track theme development across analytic stages. These strategies support transparency, dependability, and trustworthiness in the interpretative process (Smith et al. 2009; Lincoln and Guba 1985).

2.5. Participant Backgrounds

Brief participant profiles are provided below to contextualize the idiographic analysis.

Participant 1 was an Indigenous man who experienced chronic childhood abuse in residential schools, foster care, and community settings. His narrative centered on trauma, spirituality, and reclaiming emotional expression through music.

Participant 2 was a man who experienced repeated childhood sexual abuse by neighbors and family acquaintances. He described prolonged anger, numbness, addiction, and later healing through public disclosure and peer advocacy.

Participant 3 was a man who experienced intrafamilial sexual abuse beginning in early childhood, followed by further victimization by peers and workers. His narrative focused on shame, self-blame, and a pivotal turning point following a personal crisis.

These portraits provide contextual grounding for the idiographic analysis and illustrate the diverse pathways through which male survivors make meaning of trauma and recovery.

2.6. Data Collection

Data were collected via semi-structured, in-depth interviews over the 8-month recruitment and collection period. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. Survivors were invited to discuss experiences of relational challenges, masculinity, resilience strategies, and social support. Interviews were conducted via secure virtual platforms, according to participant preference. Although interviews occurred within an eight-month time frame, each participant completed one in-depth, semi-structured interview; the extended period reflects the challenges of recruitment and scheduling rather than multiple interviews.

Each interview lasted between 60 and 90 min and was conducted via secure video call, allowing participants to choose a safe, private location. The semi-structured interview schedule included open-ended prompts such as:

“Can you tell me about your experience of disclosure and what influenced your decision to share or not share your experience?”

“How did the abuse affect your life and relationships before and after the incident?”

“What were some of the most challenging impacts of the trauma for you?”

“What has been most helpful in your healing and recovery journey?”

“How do you make sense of your identity today, particularly in relation to the concepts of victimhood and survivorship?”

“What meaning do you attribute to your experiences now, and what messages or insights would you offer to others with similar experiences?”

Follow-up questions were used to deepen meaning-making and to allow participants to guide the conversation. The full interview guide is available upon request. The interview format supported IPA’s idiographic goals by enabling flexible, participant-led exploration of sensitive and emotionally complex experiences.

2.7. Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from the Saint Paul University research ethics board. Participants provided informed consent and were assured of confidentiality and anonymity. To protect confidentiality, participants were assigned numerical identifiers (e.g., Participant 1, Participant 2, Participant 3) rather than pseudonyms in the written report. This approach was chosen to minimize the risk of identification given the small sample size and sensitivity of the narratives.

Participation was voluntary, with the option to pause or withdraw at any time without consequence. Given the sensitivity of the subject, participants were provided with information about relevant support services in Canada. All data (audio files, transcripts, and notes) were securely stored with restricted access.

2.8. Rigour and Reflexivity

Trustworthiness was supported by an audit trail (interview guides, analytic memos, codebooks), peer debriefing, and reflexive journaling to surface assumptions about masculinity, stigma, and recovery. Where feasible, participant reflections on preliminary themes were invited to enrich interpretive accuracy.

IPA was selected because it offers a methodological fit for examining sensitive, under-researched experiences and for exploring how individuals make sense of trauma, identity, and recovery in their own terms (Smith et al. 2009; Smith and Osborn 2015). Its idiographic and interpretative focus allows for detailed exploration of lived experience while maintaining transparency and rigour in qualitative analysis (Lincoln and Guba 1985). The approach supports detailed exploration of how individuals interpret trauma, identity, and recovery, keeping the analysis grounded in participants’ words while acknowledging the researcher’s interpretive role.

2.9. Recruitment Context and Access Constraints

The combination of organizational non-response and the fact that many clinicians did not work with male clients contributed to the limited sample size. These recruitment barriers are considered part of the phenomenon under study—they reflect systemic service gaps for men, potential gatekeeping, and the low visibility of male-focused care in Canada.

Recruitment Challenges as Part of the Phenomenon. Recruitment took place over eight months and involved outreach to more than 50 professionals and organizations, including psychologists, psychiatrists, psychotherapists, social workers, community agencies, and trauma-focused services for all genders in Ottawa and surrounding regions. Despite this extensive effort, very few clinicians reported having male clients who had disclosed sexual victimization, and most organizations were unable to assist with recruitment. This difficulty reflects the deep stigma surrounding male sexual violence, and for many men, disclosing victimization conflicts with dominant masculine norms that equate manhood with invulnerability, strength, and emotional self-reliance. Shame, disbelief, and myths surrounding male sexual abuse further reinforce silence and underreporting. These recruitment barriers, therefore, are not merely logistical constraints but part of the phenomenon under study: the invisibility of male survivors and the pervasive social forces that limit their willingness or ability to come forward.

3. Results

Participants are identified using numerical labels (Participant 1, Participant 2, and Participant 3) to protect confidentiality.

3.1. Overview of Emergent Themes

The interpretative phenomenological analysis surfaced six survivor-centered themes and one central theme:

• Nature of the Abuse: This theme captures the layered and cumulative forms of sexual victimization experienced in childhood across familial, community, and institutional contexts, often involving repeated breaches of trust and authority.
• Impacts of the Abuse: This theme highlights both immediate and long-term psychological, emotional, and relational consequences, including shame, fear, emotional numbness, substance use, and what participants described as the “hard wiring” of trauma.
• Breaking the Silence: This theme describes survivors’ prolonged experiences of secrecy, delayed disclosure, and the complex processes through which they selectively or publicly shared their stories.
• Healing Journey: This theme focuses on pathways to recovery, including seeking support, reconnecting with emotions, spirituality, peer relationships, and critical reflections on psychiatric and therapeutic systems.
• Victim versus Survivor: This theme explores how participants negotiated identity labels over time, including rejecting victimhood, embracing survivor or warrior identities, and reframing their experiences through collective belonging.
• Life Today: This theme reflects survivors’ present-day perspectives, sources of meaning, and ongoing efforts to live authentically while managing lasting effects of trauma.
• Words of Wisdom (central theme): This synthesizes insights across all themes, capturing participants’ messages of worth, love, resilience, and hope directed toward other survivors.

The theme Words of Wisdom emerged as the central theme, synthesizing processes described across all other themes and reflecting how survivors sought to transform painful experiences into messages of meaning, connection, and hope for others. The survivor-centred themes illustrate the lived experiences that lead to this overarching narrative of resilience.

These themes map onto the study’s resilience framework by showing how men navigated connection, identity, meaning-making, and spirituality across time. Survivors’ accounts highlighted both barriers (stigma, disbelief, systemic neglect) and enablers (community, spirituality, activism, therapy) in their journeys.

3.2. Findings from Survivors

3.2.1. Nature of the Abuse

Participants’ narratives revealed that sexual abuse was rarely experienced as a single, isolated event. Instead, it unfolded as layered and cumulative victimization across childhood, often involving multiple perpetrators and settings. Survivors described experiences of physical, sexual, emotional, and institutional abuse that blurred boundaries between care, power, manipulation, and violence. Participant 1 recounted harrowing experiences of childhood abuse in residential schools, foster care, and beyond. As a deaf child with physical disabilities, he described being forcibly removed from his family and subjected to extreme punishments and sexual abuse by priests:

“They tied us to benches and whipped us until near death… at night, priests would take boys to the basement.”

He noted that his scars—both physical and emotional—served as daily reminders:

“I went like this throughout my life… scratching my nose, because of what that priest did.”

Later, in foster care, he endured sexual abuse from a foster mother and further violence at school:

“Nobody came to the rescue.”

(Participant 1)

Participant 2 similarly described repeated abuse across childhood contexts, beginning with a male neighbour and continuing with a family friend after relocation. Both men and women perpetrated abuse in his life, underscoring the multiplicity and complexity of victimization.

Participant 3 recounted early experiences of abuse within his family, including by his father, which he described as both sexual and emotionally manipulative:

“It wasn’t through you against the wall and rape you. It was seductive, and it was my first experience of a hard-on.”

(Participant 3)

He also recalled additional abuses from cousins and workers, noting how the body remembers:

“The abuse began at age 4 or 5… the body remembers, even if the details are hazy.”

(Participant 3)

Across all accounts, abuse involved betrayal by caregivers and authority figures, creating deep confusion, shame, and mistrust that shaped survivors’ later relationships and sense of self. These early experiences formed the foundation for the long-term psychological and relational impacts described in the following section.

3.2.2. Impacts of the Abuse

Survivors described the impacts of abuse as long-lasting and pervasive, shaping their emotional lives, relationships, and sense of identity across the lifespan. The effects were not confined to childhood but resurfaced repeatedly in adulthood through fear, anger, numbness, and self-blame.

Early Impacts.

For Participant 2, trauma manifested in intense childhood anger:

“I became a very, very angry child… displayed a lot of anger… everywhere, including public school.”

(Participant 2)

He reflected that beneath this anger was profound helplessness:

“I was a kid, I had no control over what happened to me.”

(Participant 2)

Both Participants 2 and 3 recalled early attempts to disclose abuse that were dismissed or minimized:

“I remember talking to my—to my mother and telling her what was happening, but nothing was ever done.”

(Participant 2)

“Nobody would really believe me anyway, and I thought it was my fault.”

(Participant 3).

These failed disclosures reinforced shame and mistrust, contributing to long-standing silence.

Long-Term Impacts.

Participants described decades of anxiety, depression, hypervigilance, and self-blame:

“My life—I lived my life in fear… when I got home, I checked the door.”

(Participant 1).

“My thoughts and emotions and feelings were basically non-existent… I was always numb.”

(Participant 2)

Substance use was described as a coping strategy with destructive consequences:

“I was a very angry man… got into a lot of trouble, fights all the time, alcohol, drugs.”

(Participant 2)

“The only two feelings I knew were numbness and getting high.”

(Participant 2)

Isolation and lack of support were recurring experiences:

“When I told my mother at age 7 and wasn’t believed, I never told anyone else until rock bottom… It never came out until I was nearly 50.”

(Participant 2)

Participant 3 described the sense that trauma had become “hard wired” into his identity:

“It shatters your whole sense of security… the hard wiring was set from that point on, and I’ve been fighting the hard wiring ever since.”

(Participant 3)

“A plus B equals C. This happened, and the reaction was that I felt like it was my fault, and I was worthless and garbage for the rest of my life.”

(Participant 3)

For some, help-seeking only began at a critical breaking point:

“When I hit rock bottom, that’s when I sought out [a support organization].”

(Participant 3)

Together, these accounts illustrate how early trauma became embedded in emotional patterns, shaping survivors’ relationships, coping strategies, and self-concept over time. These cumulative impacts set the stage for the next phase of their journeys: the difficult process of breaking silence.

3.2.3. Breaking the Silence

For all participants, breaking the silence marked a critical turning point in their lives. After decades of secrecy, fear, and isolation, disclosure became both a risk and a necessity—an act that opened the possibility of connection while also exposing survivors to vulnerability and potential rejection.

One of the most consistent themes across survivors’ accounts was the long journey toward disclosure. Participants described suffering in silence for many years, though the duration and timing of this silence varied. For all three participants, silence extended across several decades. Shame, fear of disbelief, and mistrust of others were commonly cited as reasons for not speaking sooner.

Selective/Supportive Sharing. One participant emphasized the importance of being cautious about disclosure and choosing supportive contexts:

“I feel fine about sharing it. I wouldn’t share it to any group… but a group such as yours or yourself… who is there to help. Sharing with ‘who’s there to help,’ that I don’t mind doing at all.”

(Participant 3)

Public Disclosure and Advocacy. In contrast, another participant embraced visibility through social media as both a healing practice and a form of activism:

“My face is all over social media. If you were to Google my name, you will see that on social media… exactly doing what I do.”

(Participant 2)

Navigating Silence and Voice. Taken together, these accounts illustrate the paradoxical nature of silence. For participants, silence prolonged suffering and isolation, yet at times functioned as a protective strategy against further harm. Breaking silence—whether selectively or publicly—marked a turning point in their journeys, but required them to face fears of being judged, misunderstood, or rejected.

As one participant reflected:

“When I told my mother at age 7 and wasn’t believed, I never told anyone else until rock bottom… It never came out until I was nearly 50.”

(Participant 2)

Breaking silence did not immediately resolve trauma, but it created the conditions for healing by allowing survivors to be seen, believed, and supported for the first time. This shift opened the path toward recovery described in the following section.

3.2.4. Healing Journey

Survivors emphasized that healing was not a return to a pre-trauma state, but a lifelong and non-linear process of transformation. Rather than “getting over” the abuse, recovery was described as a gradual movement from emotional numbness and isolation toward connection, self-understanding, and meaning. Participants articulated different turning points that marked the beginning of this process. Participant 1 emphasized the importance of breaking silence, stating,

“You have to talk because if you keep it inside, it blows up like a balloon.”

Similarly, Participant 2 reflected on the emotional disconnection that characterized much of his life, explaining that

“the hardest part would have been not being able to feel, not knowing connection… feeling very alone.”

For Participant 3, healing began following a personal crisis that forced him to confront the long-term impacts of trauma:

“It probably started when I was 45… I was charged with impaired. That was my bottom. It was someplace I never, ever thought I would end up. And that’s what started it.”

Breaking decades of silence and reaching out to others were described as essential steps toward recovery. Participant 2 explained,

“When I told my mother at age 7 and wasn’t believed, I never told anyone else until rock bottom,”

highlighting how disbelief delayed healing for many years. Similarly, Participant 3 described the gradual process of finding support, stating,

“Reaching out is key… I’ve found some kind people, and one step led to another.”

Participants emphasized that connection with others played a critical role in rebuilding trust and reducing isolation.

Participants also reflected on how substance use and emotional numbing had functioned as coping strategies that delayed healing. Participant 1 described his early struggles with addiction, stating,

“I started drinking when I was 13, and I quit when I was 25… I was able to say what I had to say.”

Participant 3 similarly reflected,

“The addiction is just 10%. It’s all the other personal issues that really are the issue.”

Emotional numbness was described as a significant barrier to recovery. Participant 2 explained,

“My thoughts and emotions and feelings were basically non-existent… I was always numb.”

Sobriety, therapy, and peer support helped participants reconnect with emotions, even when doing so was difficult and painful.

Healing also involved challenging deeply internalized beliefs about worth and connection. Participant 2 described the long-term effects of trauma on his ability to relate to others, explaining,

“Not believing I was capable of connecting. Not knowing your wants and needs… can be really challenging in life.”

This process required sustained effort to reconstruct identity and develop new ways of relating to oneself and others.

Spirituality emerged as an important source of strength and grounding. Participant 1 recalled a moment of choosing to live, which he credited with giving him the strength to survive. Participant 3 described an ongoing spiritual relationship, explaining,

“Every day I’m in conversation with my higher power… I threw out my idea of the punishing God.”

Similarly, Participant 2 described carrying a symbolic object for grounding, stating,

“Whenever I felt activated or triggered, this was my spiritual grounding in my pocket.”

These spiritual practices helped participants develop a sense of meaning, comfort, and stability.

Participants also reflected critically on psychiatric interventions that focused primarily on medication rather than relational healing. Participant 2 described his experience following a suicide attempt:

“They loaded me with pills. If I wanted to be numb, I could get a better numbness from the street drugs.”

In contrast, participants emphasized that supportive relationships, peer connection, and opportunities for meaning-making were more helpful in their recovery.

Healing was often described as an ongoing and effortful process. Participant 3 compared his journey to climbing a mountain, stating,

“I work my ass off, and for me, I’m at the top of where I’m supposed to be.”

This metaphor reflected both the difficulty of recovery and the sense of accomplishment associated with continued growth.

Together, these accounts illustrate healing as a gradual and relational process involving breaking silence, reconnecting with emotions, forming supportive relationships, and constructing new meanings after trauma.

3.2.5. Victim Versus Survivor

As participants moved through healing, many began to reflect explicitly on how they understood themselves in relation to their experiences. Identity labels such as “victim,” “survivor,” and “warrior” became important tools for making sense of trauma and reclaiming agency.

One participant contrasted “victim” with “survivor” as follows:

“A victim is like, oh my God, it’s only me, and it’s terrible… it’s all about me. A survivor is, OK, this happened to me and this is what I’m doing now to get past that.”

(Participant 2)

For him, reclaiming the identity of survivor meant moving forward and refusing to remain defined solely by the abuse. He ultimately embraced a further identity label:

“What it means is that I’ve been dragged through the mud and you couldn’t keep me down… I picked myself up every time that I’ve been through that, and I keep fighting on. No matter what you do to me, I keep fighting.”

(Participant 2).

Another participant expressed discomfort with the term “victim,” stating:

“I’m more of a survivor because I do feel I’ve gone beyond, you know, the issue.”

(Participant 3)

At the same time, he acknowledged that this sense of identity was not fixed:

“I slip back into victimhood once in a while… I think we are survivors, but…”

(Participant 3)

These reflections illustrate how identity was experienced as fluid rather than stable, shifting across time and emotional states. Healing did not eliminate vulnerability, but it allowed participants to reinterpret themselves as active agents rather than passive recipients of harm.

Participants also emphasized a sense of solidarity:

“We’re in this together, right? Victims and survivors, we’re all in the same boat.”

(Participant 3)

One participant proposed an alternative expression:

“If I were to use a different word or description, how about one of many. It means I am not the only one, and it’s spread far and wide.”

(Participant 3)

By situating themselves within a broader community of survivors, participants reframed trauma as a shared social experience rather than a private personal failure. This identity shift shaped how they understood their present lives and ongoing sense of meaning.

3.2.6. Life Today

Although the effects of trauma continued to echo in their lives, participants described their present circumstances with greater authenticity, self-awareness, and acceptance. Life today was not defined by the absence of struggle, but by an ongoing commitment to emotional honesty, connection, and contribution.

Better Life Today.

“Being able to feel your emotions… even if you are trying to figure out that feeling.”

(Participant 2)

“Today? It’s very good… I still have things I have to deal with daily, leftovers of body dysmorphia and worthlessness. But more and more I work on it.”

(Participant 3)

“I know a ton of people, but I don’t have anyone intimate in my life, and yet I’m very content.”

(Participant 3)

“I learned to read lips… because you hear these people’s stories all the time.”

(Participant 1)

These reflections suggest a shift from emotional survival toward emotional presence and self-compassion.

Current Sources of Meaning.

–Connection and Involvement.

“Being able to connect with you and to be able to talk about this… this conversation was never ever possible, maybe 10 years ago. Being able to connect with people around the world and talk about this—hopefully they see my life.”

(Participant 2)

“When I hear others my age say, ‘well, you can’t do that, you’re too old,’ I say, ‘you’re full of crap.’”

(Participant 2)

“I’ll never know the full impact, but that was really nice—you know, that he started his journey of recovery because of this article on my story.”

(Participant 3)

“When I sang that to them, it was like… eventually, they all stopped.”

(Participant 1)

–Spirituality.

“Whenever I felt activated or triggered, this would be my spiritual grounding in my pocket that I could reach out for.”

(Participant 2)

“Every day I’m in conversation with my higher power… I threw out my idea of the punishing God.”

(Participant 3)

“For me, spirituality is in my music… when I sing, I feel peace.”

(Participant 1)

Impact on Others.

Participants described a strong desire to positively influence others:

“The six times I’ve written my story, my ending has always been different.”

(Participant 2)

“You never know the impacts… years ago there was a fellow I met at an AA meeting. He said, ‘when I read the article [about your story], I started my journey.’”

(Participant 3)

Across accounts, living in the present involved transforming personal pain into connection, creativity, and contribution. These orientations toward others laid the foundation for the closing reflections captured in the central theme, Words of Wisdom.

3.2.7. Words of Wisdom

Participants concluded their narratives by offering messages of encouragement and insight for others who may still be struggling. These reflections transformed personal suffering into collective meaning, positioning recovery not only as an individual journey but as a source of hope for others.

“You Matter.”

“What I tell males here… is that, you know you matter.”

(Participant 1)

“Just being able to discover that you’re worth more than what your groomers have told you is pretty huge.”

(Participant 2)

“I Love You.”

“Do you know who you are? … He literally yelled at me, said ‘I love you.’”

(Participant 1).

This moment was described as a transformative experience of validation that contrasted sharply with earlier experiences of rejection and abuse.

Deep Lessons Learned.

“Well, the nicest lesson is that I’m not a piece of garbage that I thought I was.”

(Participant 3)

“The deepest is that humans can be very awful, but they can also be lovely, you know.”

(Participant 3)

“Healing was really, really hard and a struggle for me.”

(Participant 2)

Hope for the Future.

“If there’s anything—there are no guarantees of the outcome of the journey, but as long as you have a little kind of light left… just hang on to whatever that is, and hug your pillow at night until it gets better.”

(Participant 3)

“I’ll encourage them—especially at a young age—to come forward and try to seek help. Because if you don’t… I use my own story as an example of what could happen to you if you don’t.”

(Participant 2)

Across accounts, these closing reflections reframed trauma as a source of connection, empathy, and social responsibility. By addressing future survivors directly, participants positioned their own healing as meaningful not only for themselves, but for others navigating similar journeys.

4. Discussion

This study explored the lived experiences of male survivors of sexual violence in Canada, emphasizing relational challenges, resilience pathways, and the influence of gendered expectations. Survivors’ narratives revealed six interrelated themes—Nature of the Abuse, Impacts of the Abuse, Breaking the Silence, Healing Journey, Victim versus Survivor, and Life Today—as well as a central theme, Words of Wisdom, in which participants addressed other survivors directly with messages of worth, love, and hope.

The discussion is grounded in the Guiding Experiential Themes (GETs) that emerged directly from the participants’ narratives. Rather than applying resilience as an abstract or universal construct, the study interprets it as it appeared in the men’s lived experiences—through silence and disclosure, identity negotiation, relational struggle, and meaning-making. Accordingly, the discussion is organised to reflect survivors’ narrative trajectories rather than treating the themes as discrete categories.

These findings build on and extend existing research on male survivors by highlighting the relational and identity-based dimensions of recovery, and by showing how stigma, silence, and social norms intersect with men’s efforts to seek support and rebuild their lives (Hlavka 2017; Lowe and Rogers 2017; Poirson et al. 2023; Wilson and Scarpa 2016; Yagi et al. 2022). While participants did not always name “masculinity” explicitly, their accounts of shame, pressure to remain silent, emotional restriction, and struggles with connection and self-worth align closely with research on masculine norms and male sexual victimization (Forde and Duvvury 2017; Hlavka 2017; Turchik and Edwards 2012).

4.1. Relational Challenges: Silence, Stigma, and Disrupted Trust

Disclosure emerged as both a barrier and an opportunity. For long periods, all participants described not talking about the abuse, citing fear of judgment, shame, or the belief that no one would listen or understand. Early experiences of being ignored or disbelieved when they did try to speak reinforced this impression and contributed to what has been described as a “culture of disbelief” around male sexual victimization (Lowe and Rogers 2017; Wilson and Scarpa 2016).

These findings echo resilience research highlighting disclosure as a cornerstone of recovery. For example, Poirson et al. (2023) found that disclosure allowed male survivors to begin reconstructing identity and accessing relational support, while Yagi et al. (2022) emphasized its role in restoring social belonging. The present findings extend this work by illustrating that disclosure was not a single event but a gradual, relational process shaped by prior experiences of disbelief and trust. For participants in this study, early dismissal by caregivers contributed to long-term silence, reinforcing the relational risks associated with disclosure and shaping how survivors evaluated when and to whom it was safe to speak. These findings also show that disclosure is rarely absolute. Survivors described carefully navigating whom to trust, how much to reveal, and when to remain silent. For some, public visibility—such as sharing their stories on social media or leading peer groups—became both a healing practice and a form of activism, while for others discretion remained essential to feeling safe.

Participants’ experiences also align with Hlavka’s (2017) findings that stigma and shame can inhibit male survivors’ willingness to disclose abuse, particularly when disclosure risks further rejection or disbelief. In the present study, silence functioned not only as a consequence of stigma but also as a protective strategy, allowing survivors to avoid additional relational harm. This finding adds nuance to existing research by showing how silence may represent an adaptive response within environments perceived as unsafe, rather than simply an absence of resilience.

The difficulty in recruiting participants—despite extensive outreach across more than 50 clinicians and organizations—further underscores the depth of stigma and silence surrounding male sexual victimization. The invisibility of male survivors is not only a methodological challenge but also a social reality that shapes disclosure, service access, and relational recovery. This reinforces the need for further research to increase visibility, challenge stigma, and improve relational and institutional responses to male sexual victimization.

Taken together, these patterns align with Touquet and Gorris’s (2016) and Touquet and Schulz’s (2021) arguments that silence should not always be interpreted as passivity or powerlessness. In this study, silence sometimes functioned as a protective strategy, allowing men to shield themselves from further harm or disbelief. Breaking silence—whether selectively or publicly—was described as transformative but also precarious, requiring survivors to balance safety with the desire to be heard.

4.2. Identity Work: From Victimhood to Survivorhood and Beyond

Survivors’ reflections on identity highlighted the fluidity of labels such as victim, survivor, warrior, and “one of many.” These terms were used to capture different emotional states and stages of the healing journey. Participants associated “victim” with feeling trapped, overwhelmed, or defined by the abuse, while “survivor” signalled movement, agency, and the capacity to live beyond what had happened.

One participant’s adoption of the term warrior underscored a desire to honour his endurance and ongoing struggle, not just his survival. Another participant’s phrase “one of many” emphasized solidarity and collective experience, reframing his trauma as part of a broader social pattern rather than a singular, shameful event. This kind of identity work is consistent with research showing that meaning-making and narrative reconstruction are central to resilience after sexual violence (Calhoun and Tedeschi 2014; Poirson et al. 2023).

These evolving identities also intersect with gender. When men move from seeing themselves as “garbage” or powerless to seeing themselves as worthy, connected, and capable of helping others, they are implicitly renegotiating what it means to be a man in the aftermath of sexual violence (Brooks 1998; Forde and Duvvury 2017; Yagi et al. 2023). Rather than equating masculinity with emotional suppression or invulnerability, participants described alternative forms of strength rooted in honesty, persistence, and care for others.

4.3. Healing as Integration, Not Erasure

The findings affirm that healing is not a linear return to a pre-trauma self but an ongoing process of integration. Survivors described “climbing up a mountain,” confronting memories they had long avoided, and learning to tolerate feelings that had been numbed through substance use or emotional shutdown.

Key elements of healing included breaking the silence, entering recovery and therapeutic spaces, reconnecting with emotions, and drawing on spiritual or existential resources. Participants’ critical reflections on psychiatry—which they experienced as overly focused on medication and symptom management—highlighted the importance of relational and survivor-centred approaches. Rather than seeking to erase symptoms alone, participants valued spaces where they could tell their stories, feel understood, and explore meaning.

These accounts resonate with Poirson et al.’s (2023) emphasis on meaning-making, embodiment, and identity reconstruction as pillars of resilience. They also echo Yagi et al.’s (2022) and Forde and Duvvury’s (2017) observations that, for male survivors, healing often involves reworking narratives of masculinity, reclaiming agency, and building relationships that counteract shame and isolation.

4.4. Impacts Across the Lifespan

The survivors’ stories illustrate how sexual violence reverberates across the lifespan. Early impacts included intense anger, confusion, and failed disclosures in childhood. Over time, these experiences contributed to chronic fear, emotional numbness, self-blame, substance use, and difficulties with trust and intimacy. Participant descriptions of “hard wiring” capture the sense that trauma became embedded in automatic emotional and cognitive patterns.

Yet within these long-term impacts, participants also identified turning points: “rock bottom” moments that triggered help-seeking, supportive encounters that disrupted beliefs of worthlessness, and opportunities to reframe their experiences through storytelling or advocacy. These findings are consistent with research on post-traumatic growth and social identity, which emphasizes that trauma can lead to both ongoing distress and new forms of meaning, connection, and prosocial engagement (Calhoun and Tedeschi 2014; Muldoon et al. 2019).

The lifespan perspective in this study underscores the importance of viewing male survivors’ trajectories not only in terms of symptom reduction but also in relation to changing relationships, identities, and social roles over time.

4.5. Masculine Norms Across Contexts

Although the present study is situated in Canada, its findings resonate with broader research on male sexual victimization in both domestic and conflict-affected settings (Christian et al. 2011; Ferrales et al. 2016; Sivakumaran 2007; Stemple 2009; Yagi et al. 2022). Across these contexts, survivors face intertwined challenges of stigma, disbelief, and gendered expectations.

In this study, participants’ long delays in disclosure, struggles with emotional expression, and efforts to appear “fine” or “angry” rather than vulnerable align with dominant masculine norms that position men as invulnerable, self-contained, and in control (Brooks 1998; Hlavka 2017; Turchik and Edwards 2012). The shame participants described after experiencing arousal during abuse, as well as their concerns about not being believed, further reflect cultural myths about male sexuality and consent (Turchik and Edwards 2012; Wilson and Scarpa 2016).

At the same time, survivors’ narratives suggest avenues for transforming masculinity. Identity shifts toward survivor, warrior, and “one of many,” engagement in public advocacy, and willingness to speak openly about trauma point to more relational and compassionate versions of manhood. These findings parallel calls in the literature to develop models of masculinity that integrate emotional openness, mutual care, and interdependence (Brooks 1998; Fisher et al. 2008; Yagi et al. 2023).

4.6. Implications for Therapy, Community, and Policy

The findings of this study carry several implications for therapeutic practice, community support, and policy development.

Therapeutic Practice. Survivors’ accounts point to the need for relationally safe, client-centred approaches that respect pacing, honour the fluidity of identity (victim, survivor, warrior, one of many), and recognize the influence of gendered expectations on shame and silence. Clinicians should avoid framing men’s distress solely in terms of individual pathology or substance use and instead attend to underlying trauma, relational ruptures, and experiences of disbelief. Group-based interventions, peer support, and survivor-led spaces may be particularly helpful for challenging restrictive masculine norms and fostering solidarity. Fisher et al. (2008) emphasize that group settings can provide male survivors with opportunities to reconstruct identity in the presence of others with similar experiences, while Forde and Duvvury (2017) highlight the importance of relational support in renegotiating masculinity during recovery. Similarly, Poirson et al. (2023) found that connection with others played a central role in resilience among male survivors. The present findings extend this work by illustrating how peer connection not only reduced isolation but also enabled survivors to redefine strength through emotional openness and mutual support.

Community and Social Support. Community organizations, recovery groups, and survivor-led initiatives emerged as crucial sites of connection and meaning-making. Lowe and Rogers (2017) note that stigma and social invisibility often limit male survivors’ access to appropriate support, while Purnell (2019) emphasizes the importance of storytelling and public narrative in restoring agency and recognition. In the present study, opportunities to share personal stories—whether privately or publicly—allowed survivors to transform silence into connection and to challenge internalized shame. Supporting platforms where men can share their stories—through groups, creative expression, or public advocacy—may therefore help reduce stigma and normalize male experiences of sexual victimization. Encouraging collaborations between mental health professionals, community agencies, and male survivors can strengthen networks of care.

Policy and Institutional Responses. The persistent under-recognition of male survivors, combined with the difficulty of recruitment in this study, underscores the need for more inclusive policies, resources, and training. Stemple (2009) argues that sexual violence policies have historically overlooked male victims, limiting access to justice and care, while United Nations reports (UN Secretary-General 2020, 2023) call for more inclusive frameworks that recognize men and boys as victims of sexual violence. The present findings reinforce these concerns by showing how stigma, disbelief, and lack of recognition continue to shape survivors’ help-seeking experiences. Sexual violence policies and service frameworks should explicitly acknowledge men and boys as potential victims, ensure access to trauma-informed care, and address the effects of gender stereotypes on disclosure and service use. In addition, institutional cultures—within healthcare, justice, and social services—must be challenged where they implicitly assume that sexual violence is primarily or exclusively a women’s issue.

Taken together, these implications highlight resilience not as an individual trait but as a relational, social, and institutional process shaped by gendered norms and social recognition. Survivors’ voices in this study show that healing is fostered when environments validate their experiences, support flexible redefinitions of masculinity, and create pathways for connection and contribution.

5. Limitations

This study makes an important contribution to understanding the relational challenges and resilience pathways of male survivors of sexual violence in Canada. At the same time, several limitations must be acknowledged. The final sample comprised three survivors, which does not allow for statistical generalization and is not intended to. This is consistent with interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA), which prioritizes depth and idiographic understanding over breadth, typically employing small, information-rich samples to enable detailed exploration of lived experience (Smith et al. 2009; Smith and Osborn 2015). The small sample also reflects the significant stigma surrounding male sexual victimization. Despite contacting over 50 clinicians and trauma-focused organizations during the recruitment period, very few male survivors were accessible or willing to participate. This scarcity is itself indicative of the cultural silence, shame, and rigid masculine norms that discourage disclosure.

Trustworthiness was strengthened through the use of an audit trail, reflexive journaling, and transparency in analytic decisions, consistent with established qualitative research standards (Lincoln and Guba 1985). Nevertheless, future research would benefit from expanded recruitment strategies, including partnerships with national and online survivor communities, anonymous participation options, and collaboration with male-specific support organizations. Such approaches may help increase participation and broaden understanding while maintaining the depth and sensitivity central to qualitative inquiry.

Future Recruitment Considerations

Future research would benefit from expanded recruitment strategies to increase participation among male survivors. Potential approaches include partnering with a wider network of male-specific support organizations, engaging national and online survivor communities, collaborating with healthcare providers who serve diverse populations, and offering anonymous virtual participation options. Such strategies may help reach individuals who are reluctant to engage in research due to stigma, fear of disbelief, or concerns about confidentiality. Increasing recruitment pathways may support larger samples in future studies and help move closer to thematic saturation while still honoring the idiographic depth central to qualitative inquiry.

6. Conclusions

This study underscores the relational dimensions of resilience for male survivors of sexual violence. Survivors’ accounts highlight the profound challenges posed by stigma, disbelief, and the weight of masculine norms, which often lead to silence and isolation. At the same time, their narratives reveal resilience pathways: breaking silence through selective or public disclosure, redefining identity beyond victimhood, reconnecting with emotions and spirituality, and finding meaning in advocacy and contribution.

These findings emphasize that resilience is not an individual trait but a relational and social process. Healing is fostered through supportive relationships, community belonging, flexible redefinitions of masculinity, and environments that affirm survivors’ worth. By situating men’s experiences within broader cultural and institutional contexts, the study contributes to the growing body of scholarship that calls for more inclusive, survivor-centered responses.

The significance of this study lies not only in its findings but also in the fact that so few male survivors come forward at all. The challenges encountered during recruitment mirror the broader cultural silence that surrounds male sexual victimization. Publishing and disseminating studies such as this one are essential steps toward increasing visibility, challenging stigma, and creating environments where more men may feel safe to disclose their experiences. By documenting the lived realities of those who do speak out, this study fills a critical gap in the literature and contributes to the ongoing effort to expand trauma-informed care and social recognition for male survivors.