Boys and men are subjected to sexual assault, with perpetrators drawn from both sexes. This article discusses the necessity of recognizing the victim position as a possibility within an understanding of manliness. As well as being a necessary part of work with boys and men who have been subjected to abuse, the inclusion of the victim dimension will expand and add nuance to the perception of manliness in general. An argument for the involvement of social work in the field is offered based on an understanding of its mandate and responsibility as a profession.Findings: A traditional view of manliness stands in the way of men being taken seriously as assault victims. Despite more recent academic and professional discourses on men as victims, a traditional ideal of manliness is still a reality with considerable influence on institutions and attitudes. Sexually abused men tend to judge themselves according to an ideal of manliness that does not allow a man to be a victim, and are thereby silenced.Applications: These findings have relevance for social work students, for social work practice and supervision and for directing professional attention towards the aspects of gender issues represented in sexual abuse of males.

Traditionally, sexual abuse of males has not been an issue of priority among politicians or researchers. When addressed, focus is often on context or harmful effects of the abuse. This article is based on the idea of reality as socially constructed, examining possible ways for sexually abused males to come to terms with their experiences. The emphasis is on accessible discursive resources on “the abused male” and how cultural stereotypes of manliness influence and limit individual and societal constructions. An important key to reconstruction of abuse history and selfhood lies in acceptance of the idea of men as suppressed. Sexually abused males tend to feel marginalized and different. However, when given the opportunity, they offer alternative discourses of manliness with the potential for bringing sexually abused males out of the shadows, assisting them in better understanding, dealing with, and explaining their experiences to themselves and others. This article brings out the importance of a gender-sensitive approach to working politically as well as directly with men who have been sexually abused. The horizon of understanding in professional social work needs to include attention to stereotypical constructions of manliness that reject men's experiences of being “victims.”

No abstract

Much of the literature on sexual abuse of males tends to emphasize the harmful effects of the abuse. ‘Deviants’ from assumed causal assessments do not seem to attract equal attention. Some abused males apparently manage remarkably well, even with a considerable amount of supposed risk factors in their history. This article explores how a man in his fifties appears to have managed to handle and make sense of highly complicated and difficult lived-through experiences during youth, including four years of sexual abuse. He is one of 15 men interviewed as part of a qualitative research project on sexually abused males. His story contains some surprising features and illustrates many aspects of sexual abuse otherwise dispersed throughout the entire research data. The article points in the direction of overcoming problems and hindrances, describes one possible solution, and hopefully contributes to the base of ‘non-tragic’ knowledge in the field of sexual abuse of males.

This article highlights conversation as an event in a professional context, arguing that there are basic ethical conditions shared across different categories of professional conversations, most explicitly expressed in relation to qualitative research interviews. Supervisory/consultative and therapeutic conversation are discussed in light of the research interview, arguing that in professional conversation, methods and categorisation are less important than ethical consciousness. Placing method at centre stage in understanding therapy or supervision/consultation involves a risk of objectivising the other.In the qualitative interview the interviewee is considered an intersubject. Conversation understood as a reality-construction makes it logical to take aninterest in what is happening there, especially for the professional as a co-creator of his "findings".