Sexual
Victimization of Boys by Men: Meanings and Consequences
by Richard B. Gartner, Ph.D.
This paper was published in the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy (1999), 3:1-33.
Abstract
Sexual
abuse of boys by men and older boys has been misunderstood
in the professional and lay literatures. Confusing
same-sex victimization with homosexual orientation,
many abused boys, and people they talk to about
it, understand it as a sign of the victim's
or the abuser's homosexuality. This confuses
how a boy processes his victimization, whether he
was previously headed for a homosexual or heterosexual
orientation. Gay boys may see it as a sexual initiation
rather than an abusive exploitation; straight boys
may understand it as a sign that they are "really"
gay. In addition, gay boys may fear that their orientation
derives from their sexual abuse history. Both straight
and gay boys may consider that the abuse is a sign
that they are unmanly and weak.
Sexual
Victimization of Boys by Men: Meanings and Consequences
In
the outpouring of books and papers on childhood
sexual abuse that have appeared since 1980, the
emphasis has primarily been on sexually abused girls
and their reactions to the abuse as women. While
most writers acknowledge that boys are also subject
to sexual abuse, the focus on women has misleadingly
implied that the occurrence of sexual abuse among
boys is rare. But, as Holmes and Slap (1998) conclude,
"the sexual abuse of boys is common, underreported,
underrecognized, and undertreated" (p. 1860);
approximately one in six boys experiences direct
sexual contact with an adult or older child by age
sixteen (Urquiza and Keating, 1990; Lisak, Hopper,
and Song, 1996). Often abusers are parents or other
adults who violated positions of power and trust.
This results in a shattering of the natural trust
a boy has in the adults who care for him.
I
have elsewhere (Gartner, 1999; see also Gartner,
1994, 1996a, 1996b, 1997a, and 1997b) addressed
a number of issues related to the sexual abuse of
boys and its aftermath as boys become men. These
include how to define sexually abusive situations
for boys; sexually abused men's social isolation
and shame; the effects of masculine gender socialization
on processing boyhood sexual abuse; the likelihood
that sexual abuse of boys by women will be encoded
as "sexual initiation"; the impact of
boyhood sexual abuse on adult sexual and other intimate
relationships; the benefits for sexually abused
men of same-sex analytic group therapy; and the
intense transference/countertransference interplay
in the treatment of these men. In this article,
I will focus on the meaning and aftereffects of
same-sex molestation for boys, whether they are
headed for predominantly heterosexual or predominantly
homosexual orientations.
Same-Sex Abuse, Masculine Gender Identity, and Sexual
Orientation
Same-sex abuse is often interpreted as a sign of
the victim's or the abuser's homosexuality.
Yet victims are frequently headed for predominantly
heterosexual orientations at the time they are sexually
abused, and continue on that path, albeit with negative
aftereffects; and, as discussed below, virtually
all male abusers consider themselves to be heterosexual.
Confusion of same-sex abuse with homosexuality or
a gay identity gets further complicated when considered
in the context of masculine gender ideals. In turn,
they both interact with a man's understanding
of his own sexual orientation and any ambivalence
he feels about himself as an erotic, sexual being.
These are all complex, interrelated subjects for
a male victim of childhood sexual abuse. As such
themes emerge in treatment, both therapist and patient
may be unclear about which is the crucial thread
at any given moment. A man may easily confuse shame
about victimization with shame about same-sex behavior,
or shame about homosexual wishes, or even shame
about feeling sexual desire. It is important to
track the patient's subtle shifts in focus
as he moves from one of these feelings to another.
Most
studies of boyhood sexual victimization demonstrate
that boys are more often abused by men and older
boys than by women and older girls. In one large
sample of college men, among those who reported
boyhood sexual abuse histories, 61 percent had male
abusers, 28 percent had female abusers, and 11%
percent reported having both male and female abusers
(Lisak, et al., 1996). Thus, large numbers of men
in the general population have histories of same-sex
sexual victimization as boys.
As
they attempt to process their abuse histories, many
of these men are trapped by cultural norms that
regard "real" men as being in charge
of themselves and, therefore, who cannot be victimized,
that masculine men don't express emotions,
and that men are competitive and resilient, and
"independent" rather than "needy."
Men abused as boys may be particularly affected
by these norms, which can create great confusion
and internal turmoil for them. In addition, self
concepts in relation to both sexual orientation
and gender identity have not yet coalesced for boys
and adolescents. Fears, prejudices, and misinformation
about both sexual orientation and gender identity
are particularly prominent in adolescence, when
both are being consolidated. Because of their traumatization,
sexually abused boys may continue to understand
their own or others' masculinity and orientation
in the literal and concrete way they conceptualized
them at the time they were victimized (Shapiro,
1994). Thus, sexual abuse may cause boys to retain
the black-and-white views of homosexuality, heterosexuality,
masculinity, and femininity that are characteristic
of childhood and adolescence.
A
sexually abused boy may have particular trouble
in relation to sexual orientation and masculine
identity if he encodes his experience as a "feminizing"
victimization. In the context of their masculine
gender socialization, most men cannot even visualize
themselves as victims (Morris et al., 1997). Lew
(1988) explains that "our culture provides
no room for a man as victim. Men are simply not
supposed to be victimized. . . . If men aren't
to be victims . . . , then victims aren't
men" (p. 41). Or, as Crowder (1995) puts it,
"Our culture has no mythology to identify
the process of male victimization and boy victims
are emasculated by this bias. They are either seen
as being like a woman and therefore feminized, as
being powerless and therefore flawed, or as being
interested in sex with men and therefore homosexual"
(p. 12).
Masculine
gender identity struggles are rooted in a fear of
forfeiting a self-definition as a man. This self
concept can be thought of as achieved through disidentifying
with qualities that signify being female (see Greenson,
1966, 1968; Stoller, 1968, 1985; Fast, 1984; Weeks,
1985; and Pollack, 1990, 1995, 1998). The disidentification
with femaleness seems to originate in a very young
boy's need to define himself as different
from the mother with whom he identified in his earliest
years. In this schema, "homosexuals"
are seen as men who have not successfully differentiated
themselves from their female identity. Since women
and "homosexuals" are seen as passive
and penetrable, men must experience themselves as
active and impenetrable to maintain a sense of themselves
as men. Therefore, sexual victimization brings up
concerns about sexual orientation when a boy equates
victimization with passivity, and passivity in turn
with homosexuality (Nasjleti, 1980). This is especially
true when a boy is sexually victimized by a man.
Such a betrayal is apt to be regarded by the boy
or by anyone who hears about the molestation as
something to hide, specifically, a worrisome indication
that the boy is gay (see Johanek, 1988; Sepler,
1990; and Struve, 1990). Fears of homosexuality
thus may especially interfere with the ability to
process same-sex abuse, whether a boy is headed
for a predominantly heterosexual or predominantly
homosexual orientation.
Molestation
by a man is likely to undermine any boy's
sense of both his gender identity and sexual orientation,
as well as bring up worries about why he was chosen
as a victim (Nasjleti, 1980; Finkelhor, 1984; Bruckner
and Johnson, 1987; Dimock, 1988; Lew, 1988; Bolton,
Morris, and MacEachron, 1989; Struve, 1990; Mendel,
1995). In most instances, sexually abusive behavior
is fundamentally about power and aggression rather
than about sexuality. Even when homosexual desire
is not the motivating force in a molestation, however,
as Pescosolido (1989) notes, "[T]he victim's
perception is that of being involved in homosexual
behavior. As a result, [he] is left with emotional
confusion regarding his developing psychosexual
identity. Essentially the victim may believe that
something within himself almost magically communicated
a homosexual invitation prompting the molestation"
(p. 89; emphasis added).
Pescosolido
adds that there is even more uncertainty for the
victim if he becomes erect or ejaculates during
the abuse (see also Ehrenberg, 1992). While these
are the normal physiological responses to stimulation,
the abused boy may feel they provide proof of his
participation in the act. Thus the boy, and later
the man, may ask himself, "Was I chosen because
I seemed interested? Was I interested? Did he know
I was not man enough to resist? Did my 'femininity'
or 'sissiness' show enough to attract his attention?"
Clinical
work with Greg illustrates a number of these confusions
about masculine gender identity and homosexual orientation.
He was a boy growing up gay who had already in some
ways integrated or accepted his sexual interest
in men before he was abused by his father and grandfather.
(These early abuse experiences set the stage for
a prolonged sexually abusive relationship with the
pastor of a religious cult when Greg was a young
adult). Indeed, Greg's early recognition of
his homosexuality actually helped him confirm for
himself that he had been abused.
Greg
remembered being interested in boys and men from
early childhood. As an adult, he recalled his earliest
pubescent fantasies and came to feel that they were
confirming evidence of sexual abuse by his father.
Although he had clear memories of his grandfather
exposing himself to Greg when Greg was of latency
age, his memories of abuse by his father were more
shadowy. But he told me, with great embarrassment,
that as a young adolescent he had had overwhelming,
frank, consuming sexual fantasies about his father.
Later, he began to think this was abnormal, and
said, "I used to think it was because I was
gay -- yet another shameful thing about being gay
-- that I had sexual fantasies about my father.
Then, as I grew up, I suddenly wondered -- do straight
men have sexual fantasies about their mothers? I
don't think so -- not like I did, not all
the time. Something was definitely going on between
us if I was having fantasies like that. But I always
thought it was just me and my dirty, evil mind."
Thus, while Greg was never in doubt about his homosexual
orientation, the way he thought about his homosexuality
(and, indeed, his sexuality) was adversely affected
by his sexual abuse.
Greg
discerned at one point that his bewilderment about
his gender identity as a boy might have been related
to a similar confusion on his father's part.
He revealed that his father used to say to him when
he was small, "When I was your age, I was
a girl." At first, Greg interpreted this as
an example of his father's inauthenticity.
But as we investigated the meaning behind the father's
words we both began to wonder what the father's
fantasy had meant. Given his father's general
inexpressiveness and rigidity, it seemed impossible
that he was playfully conveying a flexibility about
his own internalized gender self-concepts. We wondered
whose "girl" the father had been. His
mother's? His father's? Was the father
ever allowed by them to be a girl, whatever that
meant to him? Or did he have to hide his fantasy
from the adults in his life? Had the father been
abused? Did he feel like a girl because of such
childhood sexual abuse? Greg noted that when he
was a child his father had often acted in hypermasculine
ways. For example, he used to do handstands on the
beach and show off his physique. Greg now wondered
whether this was a counterphobic reaction to a "girlness"
he felt inside. He also remembered that, unusually
in their culture, his father had not minded when
Greg dressed up in girl's clothes as a little
boy, though the father later seemed ashamed of this
behavior. Was Greg living out unresolved gendered
fantasies for his father?
We
then wondered about his father's reactions
to Greg's homosexuality. Did the father himself
have secret homosexual wishes as represented by
the fantasy that he had been a girl when he was
young? Had he communicated these wishes to Greg
by saying he used to be a girl? Had whatever sexuality
that went on between Greg and his father, whether
overt or covert, been an acting out of such homosexual
desires on the father's part? Or was it a
representation of the power relationship between
the two, as sexual abuse and rape often turn out
to be? Considering questions like these gave us
a more complex understanding of Greg's responses
to his abuse as well as to his homosexuality and
self-concept as a man.
Primary Object Choice and Gender of the
Abuser
A boy's confusion about his masculinity and
sexual orientation is particularly problematic if
his abuse runs counter to his own object choice.
Men are especially likely to think of their abuse
as "sexual initiation" if the abuser
is not a parent and is of the same sex as the boy's
eventual primary sexual object choice. In other
words, a straight man who was abused by a sister
or a female baby-sitter, or a gay man who was abused
by an uncle or a male camp counselor, often thinks
of the episode as one he should have liked or actually
did like, rather than as anxiety-laden or abusive.
Thus,
a boy who has been headed for a predominantly heterosexual
orientation is likely not to consciously consider
molestation by a woman to be abusive. If he is abused
by a man, however, he may perceive the very fact
of his molestation as a shameful sign of "queerness"
or femininity (Sepler, 1990; Struve, 1990). He may
fear that he somehow invited the abuse and therefore
is "really" interested in men. Or he
may wonder why he was chosen by a man as a sexual
target, and whether having been chosen means he
is "truly homosexual." Whether he is
aroused or not during the abuse, he may fearfully
assume he is "really" gay.
Meanwhile,
a boy with even a partial awareness of being headed
toward a predominantly homosexual orientation may
be repulsed and frightened by sexual activity with
a woman. When the abuser is a man, however, he may
feel excited by what he considers a "sexual
initiation." On the other hand, sexually abused
boys who are predominantly homosexual may feel the
abusive experience prematurely rushed them into
defining themselves as gay. The problem is thus
made more complicated when we take into account
how far the boy's conscious understanding of his
sexual orientation and identity has developed at
the time of the abuse.
Among
the gay men I have treated, many did not initially
encode premature sex as betrayal. Men in this subgroup
considered the sexual events they experienced to
have been pleasurable, even though each demonstrated
sequelae that suggested the experiences had abusive
and traumatizing aspects. Owen, who is discussed
at greater length below, maintained that at age
twelve he could not have been abused by an older
man because he was already interested in sex with
men. It was not until late in his psychotherapy
that he considered whether his life-long propensity
to be exploited and to feel victimized might be
related to this early "affair." Similarly,
as a boy and adolescent Jared thought he was not
especially affected by what he considered excited,
willing, and pleasurable participation in sex at
age five with a teenage boy. In his case, however,
he realized before ever entering therapy that the
experience had severe, adverse effects on his adult
relationships.
The
picture is very different when the abuser's
gender does not match the boy's eventual predominant
primary object choice. What follows are brief examples
of the likely reactions of boys abused by adults
of the opposite sex from their eventual predominant
primary object choice. Yale, for example, was a
gay man who was abused by a nun when he was a second
grader. His scornful attitudes toward others, especially
the women in his adult life and the presumably straight
boys he seduced in high school, were closely connected
to his continuing clear inner sense of having been
abused and exploited by her. He openly loved "getting
back" at heterosexuals, whom he considered
to have mistreated him in many ways all his life.
Conversely, Quinn, a straight man who was abused
by his grandfather for years from the time he was
a preschooler , and Harris, a straight man abused
by his father during his latency years, both felt
victimized and continued to harbor both rage and
dread about men, particularly those in authority.
Each felt a mixture of fear, yearning, and contempt
about the possibility of intimate relatedness with
other men (see the discussion of these issues below).
Encoding
Male Abuse of Homosexual Boys
Like a heterosexual boy abused by a woman, if a
boy growing up to be gay is abused by a man he may
think he deliberately sought or at least enjoyed
his victimization. Such sexual activity may indeed
sometimes appear consensual. In most cases, however,
true assent is not possible in this interaction.
Children do not have the capacity to give informed
consent to sexual activities with adults. A child
is not developmentally capable of considering or
comprehending the emotional implications of sexual
behavior with an adult. For this reason, sexual
acts between children and people who have power
over them are implicitly abusive. This is true if
the power derives from the actual structure of the
relationship (as in the case, for example, of a
child abused by a baby-sitter, teacher, or parent).
But it may be equally true if the power is inferred
by the child because of the age difference between
him and the abuser (as in the case, for example,
of a young boy abused by a neighborhood teenager
who is not his caretaker). It is also usually true
even if the child appears to ask for or participate
in the sexual activity. There is a big difference
between the inviting flirtatious behavior characteristic
of children whose sexuality is beginning to emerge
and a child's actual wish, for example, to
have a penis in his mouth. When this difference
is ignored, the child is abused by having the natural
developmental unfolding of his sexuality violated
and hurried into awareness. His very childhood is
assaulted.
I
differentiate here between abusive behavior and
the traumatic or nontraumatic impact of this behavior.
Sexually abusive behavior involves using a power
relationship in order to satisfy the abuser's
needs without regard to the needs of the person
being abused. By contrast, trauma refers here to
the devastating effect sexual abuse usually has
on the victim. It is possible for a child to be
abused without suffering severe symptoms of trauma.
Behavior that is abusive and betraying may therefore
in some cases not be traumatic to the victim. In
these relatively rare situations, a boy who has
been sexually abused may not feel traumatized, particularly
if he is past puberty, if the abuser is the same
gender as the boy's sexual object choice (whether
same or opposite sex), and if the abuse was not
violent or otherwise obviously coercive. However,
the nontraumatic impact on the victim does not make
the behavior itself less abusive. The adult is acting
to alleviate some sort of internal psychological
pressure. However he rationalizes his behavior,
he is not acting in the interests and needs of the
child, who in most cases is better served by not
being sexual in an "adult" way.
Some
boys who seem willing to engage in sex at the time,
or who even appear to welcome it, may nevertheless
suffer traumatic responses from their sexual exploitation.
An adult has no way of knowing whether a specific
boy will be traumatized by a sexual experience.
For example, Abe was a gay man who as a boy was
locked into a relationship with his narcissistic
mother that was simultaneously sexually overstimulating
and verbally abusive. By age twelve, he was regularly
looking to be picked up by older men. Many of these
men were interpersonally cold and hurtful to Abe
during sexual encounters. Yet at the time he felt
good about being chosen by them. It did not occur
to him until he was in his fifties that he had perpetuated
with them a pattern of being exploited and abused,
and that they had been pedophiles who took advantage
of his neediness, an interpersonal pattern he had
continued throughout his adult life.
Gay
men have occasionally asserted -- sometimes convincingly
-- that they were not hurt by premature sexual experiences
with men. Far more often, however, as in Abe's
case, there are both subtle and obvious negative
sequelae. The possibility of trauma is therefore
always present. Since it is not possible for an
adult to know whether a set of behaviors will be
traumatic to a boy, I believe that an adult's
sexual behavior with a child is exploitative and
abusive even if in a particular case the results
turn out to be benign and/or nontraumatic.
We
have to be very careful when considering this issue,
as gay boys are likely to think of premature sex
as "sexual initiation." Later on, as
men, they may continue to think of their early sexual
experience as positive, and not connect it to a
whole range of symptomotology often associated with
sexual abuse histories. These may include social
isolation, nonintimate relationships, sexual dysfunction,
dissociative episodes, secrecy, shame, emotional
and behavioral constriction, suicidality, inability
to control rage, and compulsive behaviors like drug
addiction, alcoholism, gambling, overeating, and
sexual compulsivity. Such symptoms are more likely
to be present in men with histories of premature
sexual activity who come for treatment -- even those
who do not consider sexual abuse to be a problem
-- than in nonabused men who enter psychotherapy.
Nevertheless,
if a man claims that premature sex that took place
in an abusive situation was not traumatic, or even
claims that it was desired by him, this must be
accepted as a possibility. At the same time, the
therapist should continue to listen for other, less
conscious reactions. For instance, the therapist
should evaluate whether the patient has an exaggerated
capacity for denial and a consequent inability to
appraise realistically the effects of abusive behavior.
Likewise, the therapist and the abused man need
to look at how the man's life is going, assessing,
for example, whether on some level there are repetitions
of abusive patterns in his current relationships,
and judging whether there is a general emotional
sparseness and constriction in his life arising
from deprivations that accompanied the betrayal.
Even if we accept the man's positive or neutral
feelings about the experience and his belief that
the outcome was benign or positive, the therapist
may need to help him come to terms with the feelings
that he was exploited.
Encoding
sexual victimization by a man may be especially
complicated because being involved in erotic same-sex
behavior may itself be experienced as shameful,
and may give cause for others to consider the boy
himself depraved or wanton. Wright (1995) describes
how a thirteen-year-old boy, not a hustler, was
arrested along with the adult man who was having
sex with him. Instead of being treated as a victim
of a crime, however, the boy was himself charged
with sexual immorality. This makes sense only if
we believe the socialized masculine gender norm
that boys, whether gay or straight, are in charge
of themselves, sexually and otherwise, and therefore
are totally responsible for all their actions.
Consider
Owen, who came to treatment in his retirement years.
He was a man with complex reactions to his homosexuality,
to being exploited by his family, and to his sexual
betrayal by an older man throughout his adolescence.
The complexities of these experiences led him to
believe for the rest of his life that he had not
been sexually abused, even though he freely acknowledged
that if he were to hear of a child going through
experiences identical to his own, he would try to
protect the child from them.
Owen
grew up in a family whose roots in its Midwestern
community went back many decades before his birth.
His family was respectable and hardworking, though
never wealthy. Indeed, during Owen's formative
years in the Great Depression they were quite poor,
although never in an absolutely disastrous financial
situation. The oldest of six, Owen was raised with
a strong sense of duty to his family, and in particular
was given considerable responsibility for his younger
siblings. This became more pronounced when a younger
sister became an invalid for several years due to
a life-threatening debilitating disease requiring
frequent hospitalizations and constant, special
care.
Owen's
interest in other boys was well established by age
eight, when he was involved over a period of time
in consensual sex play with a ten-year-old friend.
At age twelve, Owen began a long-term "affair,"
as he called it, with Calvin, a twenty-nine-year-old
man. Calvin was a man of some wealth, a member of
the town's most prominent family. He openly
courted Owen, though the sexual nature of this courtship
seems not to have been apparent to others, and showered
him and his family with various gifts and favors.
He was a constant visitor in Owen's home.
He owned a car, something of a rarity in the town
at that time, and willingly gave rides to various
members of the family. Owen recalled his father
requesting him to ask Calvin if the father could
use the car, so it appears that the specialness
of the relationship between Owen and Calvin was
clear and openly acknowledged. Owen was ashamed
of having to ask Calvin to do such favors for his
family, but only in therapy nearly sixty years later
did he begin to think about how the family used
him to get what they needed from Calvin. Owen's
father once asked him if Calvin ever did anything
with Owen that "he shouldn't."
Owen quickly answered "No," and the
question was never brought up again, even when Calvin
took the family on vacations at his own expense
and shared a room (and bed) with Owen while the
rest of the family shared another room.
When
Owen went away to college, the sexuality in the
relationship with
Calvin ended at Owen's request, though a friendship
continued until Calvin's death. After Owen
married. Calvin also married, and even asked Owen
to be his best man. Owen declined because he was
afraid that somehow people would know that he and
Calvin had been sexually involved if he filled this
role (see below for a discussion of the self-discordant
nature of Owen's homosexuality). Calvin later
had children of his own, and only in his treatment
with me did Owen begin to wonder whether Calvin
had abused his own children.
It
was in the context of our exploring Owen's
attitude toward his homosexuality that he told me
about his "affair" with Calvin. Owen
never considered the relationship to have been abusive,
even though, as stated earlier, he acknowledged
that if he heard about such a relationship between
a twelve-year-old boy and a twenty-nine-year-old
man he would feel it was inappropriate and exploitative.
But he maintained that there was no abuse from Calvin
because Owen knew how interested he was in sex with
men and with Calvin. Owen insisted that since he
had always loved sex and was delighted to be sought
out as a sexual partner by nearly any man, he could
not have been abused by Calvin. Equally important,
and not unrelated, Calvin was very loving in manner
to Owen and emotionally supportive in a variety
of ways. This support was largely lacking elsewhere
in Owen's life, where he was expected to nurture
his younger siblings while much of the parental
attention was focused on his dangerously ill sister.
In addition, for many years Calvin was the only
person Owen knew who seemed content about his homosexuality.
It
was almost an afterthought for Owen that he never
felt he loved Calvin, and was far more interested
in boys his own age. That Calvin loved him was sufficient
for them to have a six-year "affair."
This seems to be primarily related to Owen's
inner sense, which lasted all his life, of being
homely and perhaps unlovable. He experienced himself
simultaneously as highly sexual but unattractive,
and learned that sexualized responses from men,
starting with Calvin, ultimately made him feel both
loved and sexually fulfilled. He therefore could
not imagine that such attentions could be abusive.
The Fear That Sexual Abuse Turns a Boy Gay
A boy like Owen, with an early consciousness of
being gay, may welcome aspects of his sexual experience
with male predators, especially if he has felt isolated
and freakish in relation to his sexual desire. This
attitude is discussed more fully below. On the other
hand, such a boy may feel hurried into considering
himself gay. For boys like this, there are complicated
questions about their victimization beyond those
heterosexual boys might ask themselves. Such questions
might include, "Did I ask for it? Was my interest
in men so obvious? Did I really want it? If I found
it exciting does that mean it was not a molestation?"
and, finally, "Is this why I'm gay?"
Any
boy growing up gay in our society is likely to endure
painful psychological and social struggles as he
comes to understand his orientation and deal with
people's reactions to it. In reacting to these
struggles, he will probably go through a period
of wondering about how he came to be homosexual.
At such a time, he will look everywhere for an answer
to the question "Why am I gay?" And,
if he has been sexually abused by a man, it is easy
for him to "blame" his sexual orientation
on the abuse.
Many
boys or young men who have been sexually abused
share the commonplace view that sexual abuse by
a man makes a boy gay. Beau, for example, took it
as a matter of course that any man sexually abused
in childhood was molested by men, as he had been,
and grew up to be gay, as he had. He was astonished
to hear that some men in the group for sexually
abused men he was joining considered themselves
straight and that some (not always the same ones)
had been abused by women.
Paradoxically,
however, a young gay man abused by a woman in childhood
may use the reverse logic to account for his homosexuality.
In that case, he may assume that fearful reactions
to his female abuser generalized to all women, and
made him later turn to men for sexual pleasure.
Thus, whether the abuser is male or female, the
betrayal complicates how the homosexually-oriented
victim deals with being gay, and he may view abuse
as the origin of his orientation.
But
if we were to assume sexual orientation is changed
or directed by sexual abuse, similar logic could
be applied to heterosexual men. Thus, straight men
abused by women would think their early sexual experience
with women turned them heterosexual. If abused by
men, they might assume that fears of men made them
turn to women. But heterosexual men do not seem
to consider these possibilities, nor is there any
reason for them to do so. By the same token, there
is no reason for gay men to believe sexual abuse
caused their orientation.
Note
that I am talking here about how the individual
encodes experiences that coincide in his life. A
boy or man knows he has been sexually abused and
also knows he is attracted to men. As he puts together
this knowledge, he is likely to add a causality
between the two that is in fact logically specious.
Interestingly, this conflict seems to get resolved
for many sexually abused gay men by their middle
to late twenties. Most gay men I have seen at this
age no longer link their orientation to sexual abuse,
a finding also reported by Lew (1988, 1993) and
Gonsiorek (1993, as cited in Mendel, 1995).
Is
there indeed a link between sexual molestation and
subsequent predominant sexual orientation? As Mendel
(1995) says, "The relationship between factors
associated with childhood sexual abuse and sexual
orientation is complex and controversial"
(p. 169). In discussing the higher incidence of
childhood sexual abuse among homosexual men, Finkelhor
(1981, 1984) considers the possibility that boys
growing up to be gay are more likely to be vulnerable
to sexual victimization, but he favors the explanation
that abuse fostered the homosexuality. This is contradicted,
however, by the fact that most researchers believe
predominant sexual orientation is established before
latency, while most sexual abuse of boys occurs
later (Mendel, 1995). Nor does it explain Simari
and Baskin's (1982) finding that most of the
abused gay men they studied had a clear sense of
a homosexual orientation before their abuse or incest.
I will return to the issue of gay boys being especially
vulnerable to sexual abuse later in this paper.
The
sexual confusion and homophobia seen in boys who
were sexually abused by men is also discussed by
Bolton et al. (1989). They conclude that there is
no reason to believe that sexual abuse alone fundamentally
changes or shapes sexual orientation, despite the
conventional wisdom that premature sexual activity
with a man can "turn" a boy homosexual.
Like Lew (1988, 1993), Bolton et al. (1989), Gonsiorek
(1993, as cited in Mendel, 1995), and Rosenberg
(1995), my clinical impression is that sexual orientation
is nearly always determined for reasons other than
premature sexual activity. On the other hand, it
is not at all uncommon for a straight man who suffered
same-sex abuse to go through a period of sexual
acting out with men, sometimes in a compulsive way,
while he struggles to answer for himself whether
the abuse either means he was always gay or turned
him gay. A man named Andreas, for example, at one
point in his thirties experimented sexually with
men because of the numbness he felt during sex with
his wife. Eventually, he decided he had even less
interest in sex with men than in sex with women.
Go
to page two of this article
|