“Cuz They Straight and Everything”: Barriers to Reporting Among Gay Latino Male Sexual Assault Survivors

Abstract

There remains a paucity of research examining the barriers to reporting sexual assault among gay and bisexual male assault survivors, despite much higher sexual assault victimization rates for gay and bisexual men. Few researches have examined barriers for gay Latino and/or Black male sexual assault survivors, specifically focusing on the role of racism and homophobia. To address this gap in literature, our study examined the specific barriers to reporting sexual assault for gay Latino (including Black) male sexual assault survivors, with a focus on how their multiple marginalized identities influenced their decision-making process. The study consisted of 14 gay Latino sexual assault survivors from six cities in the United States who participated in one-on-one semistructured in-depth interviews. Our data revealed three themes: (a) Bias and Discrimination, which describes how racism, homophobia, and gendered ideology serve as barriers to reporting sexual assault; (b) the Unjust Reporting Process focuses on the unnecessarily difficult, complex, and unclear timely reporting process; and (c) Retraumatization, which describes how participants were likely to be retraumatized by reporting. Content analysis was conducted and methodology consistent with this analysis was completed. Our findings provide recommendations to enhance the reporting process for gay Latino male sexual assault survivors which include law enforcement practices (e.g., Training tailored for engaging with LGBTQIA+ individuals and male survivors) as well as agency-wide practices (e.g., trainings and groups specifically for gay and bisexual men of color). All practices should be survivor centered and trauma-informed.

Introduction

The prevailing literature on rape has focused on the experiences of cisgender women; however, research within the last two decades has begun to focus on the sexual assault of men (Chen et al., 2020; Du Mont et al., 2013), including gay and bisexual cisgender men (here on after referred to as gay and bisexual men [GBM]) (Javaid, 2017; Meyer, 2022). The existing research focusing on the sexual assault of GBM consistently finds that GBM are more likely to be sexually assaulted than heterosexual men (Chen et al., 2020; Eisenberg et al., 2021; Gurung et al., 2018). Sexual assault rates of men have varied. One study estimated lifetime sexual assault (LSA) for heterosexual men at 21% (Walters et al., 2013), while other studies have estimated LSA of men at 1.4% (Black et al., 2011). Estimates of LSA for GBM range from 11.8% to 54.0%, and estimates of adult sexual assault (ASA) prevalence rates range from 10.8% to 44.7% for GBM (Rothman et al., 2011). Another study found that 30% of gay men and 47% of bisexual men will be sexually assaulted during their lifetime (Edwards et al., 2022; Walters et al., 2013). These disparities render it critical to ensure that GBM are supported as they report their experiences of victimization to law enforcement and other reporting authorities. To that end, this study relies on data collected from semistructured interviews with gay Latino and/or Black male sexual assault survivors to illuminate the barriers these men experience in reporting sexual assault to reporting authorities.

Background

Barriers for Men in Reporting Sexual Assault

The majority of individuals who are sexually assaulted do not report being sexually assaulted to the police and/or other authorities (Meier & Nicholson-Crotty, 2006). As is the case with women, sexual assault against men is underreported (Davies, 2002; Donnelly & Kenyon, 1996; McLean, 2013; Scarce, 1997; Tewksbury, 2007). However, research has found that men are less likely to report being sexually assaulted compared to women (Davies, 2002; McLean, 2013; Tewksbury, 2007).

Men are notably different in certain instances in their reasoning to forgo reporting being sexually assaulted to authorities. Men often do not report being sexually assaulted to authorities due to concerns about perceptions of their masculinity, fear of not being taken seriously, beliefs that men cannot be raped, and being blamed for being sexually assaulted (Davies, 2002; Davies et al., 2022, 2006; Donne et al., 2017; Donnelly & Kenyon, 1996; Javaid, 2015; McLean, 2013; Pino & Meier, 1999). Consistent with men being less likely to report being sexually assaulted, men fear being taken less seriously by reporting authorities than women when reporting having been sexually assaulted (Davies, 2002; McLean, 2013). In addition, men who are sexually assaulted may also experience difficulty locating other male sexual assault survivors as a source of support (Pino & Meier, 1999; Sable et al., 2006).

While there is a myriad of barriers that men may encounter when reporting being sexually assaulted, researchers have identified facilitators to reporting sexual assault among male sexual assault survivors. Research has found that men are more likely to report being sexually assaulted if they are assured they will not encounter homophobic responses and can prove their heterosexuality or conceal their sexual orientation (if they are gay) when reporting being sexually assaulted to authorities (Davies et al., 2006; Hodge & Canter, 1998). Whether males report being sexually assaulted to authorities is largely contingent on believing that they will be treated fairly (Javaid, 2017).

Barriers to Reporting for Gay Latino and/or Black Male Sexual Assault Survivors

There is a paucity of literature that exists on the sexual assault of men and even less centering on the experiences of sexual assault among Latino and/or Black GBM. Indeed, while there has been a focus on sexual assault victimization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) adults and college students (Chen et al., 2020; Coulter & Rankin, 2017; Eisenberg et al., 2021; Langenderfer-Magruder et al., 2016), these studies did not focus on the barriers to reporting for gay men of color. More recent studies, however, sought to address this gap by examining reporting procedures (Meyer, 2020, 2021) and racialized experiences of emasculation (Meyer, 2022) among Latino and Black GBM who have been sexually assaulted. In his 2020 study, Meyer reported that the survivors felt their assault would not be taken seriously by law enforcement, and in his 2022 study, he unveiled that Black men in particular experienced racism during the reporting process. While these findings are noteworthy, previous studies have not yet examined reporting barriers focused solely on Latino and/or Black gay male sexual assault survivors and recommendations to enhance the reporting process. In addition, literature has not yet examined reporting barriers for Latino and/or Black GBM.

Health Care Barriers for Gay and Bisexual Male Sexual Assault Survivors

There has been some literature regarding barriers for gay and bisexual male sexual assault survivors. As sexual assault survivors may seek medical care postassault, it is important to identify barriers to seeking those services, particularly among Latino and Black GBM. Over two decades of studies show that male sexual assault survivors, irrespective of racial or ethnic identity, are unlikely to disclose being sexually assaulted to medical care providers, even when seeking medical care resulting the assault (Masho & Alvanzo, 2010; Ruvalcaba et al., 2022; Walker et al., 2005). More recently, Bach and colleagues’ (2021) scoping review of the literature found that racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual minorities continue to be underserved populations of sexual assault survivors. Male sexual assault survivors report negative experiences with medical care practitioners, including minimization of being sexually assaulted, a lack of follow-up in care provision, and homophobia (Davies et al., 2022; Du Mont, 2013; Javaid, 2017; Javaid, 2018).

Theoretical Frameworks

Intersectionality

This study and the phenomena of the sexual assault of gay Latino men were considered through the lens of intersectionality. Owing to the multiple marginalized identities of gay Latino (including Black/Afro-Latino) men, the totality of their marginalized identities must be simultaneously considered. Known as a framework to capture the dynamics of power (Cho et al., 2013), intersectionality was originally conceptualized by Crenshaw (1991) to explain the complex ways in which racism and patriarchy shape rape conceptualizations. As gay Latino sexual assault survivors have multiple marginalized identities, this lens allows a way of recognizing how their identities shape how the understanding of sexual assault against these men is conceptualized and how these men will be addressed by reporting authorities. One tenant of intersectionality is that some bodies are valued over other bodies, particularly due to the race or ethnicity of the individual. Crenshaw (1991) argues that women of color’s bodies are less valued than those of White women, which results in their rape being taken less seriously than the rape of White women. This theory is also applicable to the rape of Brown and Black male bodies. As such, gay Latino (including Black) male bodies will be less valued than White heterosexual male bodies.

Masculinities

Masculinities may shape how a man’s gender is perceived by reporting authorities. By understanding how masculinities are socially constructed in society and their respective power, we can better understand how these masculinities are used to perform gender. Gender performativity was originally proposed by Butler (1988). Butler (1988) posits that gender is socially constructed through a series of performative acts. Reeser (2010) contends that masculinities may also be performed, which is in accordance with masculinities falling under the theory of gender performativity posited by Butler (1988). Consistent with Butler (1988), a man’s masculinity through gender performativity can promote heterosexuality. “In other words, the ‘unity’ of gender is the effect of a regulatory practice that seeks to render identity uniform through a compulsory heterosexuality” (p. 31). Reeser (2010) contends that masculinity is an act of separating heterosexuality and homosexuality, which in turn creates a binary. This binary allows for a power differentiation between gay and heterosexual men.

Hierarchy of Masculinities

The hierarchical nature of masculinities is crucial in understanding the barriers gay Latino men encounter when reporting being sexually assaulted to authorities. This power structure allows us to understand how masculinities prevail, as part of gender performativity in its acquisition and maintenance of power. If we view masculinities in a power relational construct, then we are to recognize that inequality exists among different masculinities. As such, a hierarchical structure allows for differing degrees of power afforded to each. At the top of the hierarchical structure of masculinities is hegemonic masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity is the exalted and culturally accepted form of masculinity that justifies dominance and inequality (Pascoe & Bridges, 2016). Hegemonic masculinity can result in the subordination of gay men. At the bottom of the hierarchical structure exists subordinated masculinity. “Subordinated masculinity refers to configurations of masculinity with the least cultural status, power, and influence” (Pascoe & Bridges, 2016, p. 18). Gay men have been used to exemplify subordinated masculinity because gay men are viewed and treated as inferior to heterosexual men. This concept of subordinated masculinities can lend explanatory power toward understanding why reporting authorities may not believe it when gay Latino and/or Black males report sexual assault due to their subordinated masculinities.

Current Study

Existing literature has not yet fully examined the unique barriers to reporting sexual assault for gay Latino male sexual assault survivors. Our study is unique in that it examines the specific barriers to reporting sexual assault for gay Latino sexual assault survivors, with special consideration to their multiple marginalized identities. As such, this study sought to identify what barriers exist for gay cisgender Latino (including Black/Afro-Latino men, here on after referred to as gay Latino) men in deciding to report being sexually assaulted to reporting authorities (here on after referred to as gay Latino men). Relying upon interviews with gay Latino men, the primary aim of this study was to determine what factors influence gay Latino men’s decision-making about whether to report being sexually assaulted. We then elicit their suggestions on how to improve the sexual assault reporting process for gay Latino sexual assault survivors.

Methods

Sampling and Recruitment

The study consisted of 14 gay Latino sexual assault survivors from six cities in the United States who participated in one-on-one semistructured in-depth interviews. Participants were recruited using the following strategies: (a) flyers distributed by 16 nonprofit advocacy-oriented agencies dedicated to supporting sexual assault survivors, particularly survivors from the LGBTQ+ and/or Latinx communities; (b) advertisements in six LGBTQ+ newspapers; (c) social media including Twitter and Grindr; and (d) 45 personal contacts who worked with LGBTQIA+ Latino clients. The inclusion criteria for this study were (a) self-identify as a gay Latino man; (b) over the age of 18; (c) be fluent in English, Spanish, or Portuguese; (d) have experienced sexual assault victimization over the age of 18; and (e) have reported being sexually assaulted or considered reporting being sexually assaulted to a reporting authority. Men were recruited from Miami, New York City, Orlando, Houston, Dallas, and Los Angeles. Details about the recruitment and the efficacy of these approaches are described elsewhere (Jacobson López et al., 2022).

As described by Jacobson López and colleagues (2022), potential participants had the options to contact the first author through (a) two designated professional email accounts/addresses, (b) a professional Google Voice number (set up for the purposes of this study), or (c) Wix.com internal messaging. Once connected, potential participants were provided a brief description of the study, the purpose of the study, average duration of the interview, and the process of data collection.

Data Collection

Data were collected using a self-administered demographic form and in-depth interviews. The questionnaire included but was not limited to race(s), nationality, primary language, age, and income. Pseudonyms were used to protect the identity and ensure the anonymity of each of the 14 participants.

In-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted in English and/or Spanish, which were transcribed by a professional bilingual Latin American doctoral candidate transcriptionist. All interviews were audio-recorded, translated, and transcribed verbatim. Participants provided verbal consent rather than written consent to safeguard confidentiality and anonymity. Protocol for this study was approved by the University IRB (Jacobson López et al., 2022).

Data Analysis

Content analysis was used throughout the study, adhering to the procedures outlined by Strauss and Corbin (1990). The first step involves open coding. During this phase, the first author read through the text, line by line, noting key phenomena with no preconceived ideas. To further enhance the open-coding process, the first author engaged in first cycle coding, in accordance with Saldaña (2015). The four approaches used for the first cycle coding included: in vivo coding, descriptive coding, emotion coding, and versus coding. In vivo coding uses the participant’s own language (exact words/phrases) as codes and is one of the most well-known coding methods (Miles et al., 2014; Saldaña, 2015). Descriptive coding assigns short labels in a word or a phrase to capture the essence of the data segment. This was particularly useful for the second cycle or axial coding stage of coding, when condensing the codes into themes. Emotion coding was used as this study explored intrapersonal and interpersonal participant experiences and provided insight into their perspectives (Miles et al., 2014). This was particularly relevant for understanding the perceived potential barriers for men in deciding whether to report being sexually assaulted. Versus coding analyzes the data into binary terms for instances where individuals, groups, and/or social systems experience in conflict with one another and where there is often a power dynamic imbalance between two groups (Saldaña, 2015). As this study sought to understand the influence of gay Latino men’s identities on reporting sexual assault, versus coding allowed for the analysis to identify differences perceived between two identities (gay versus straight, White versus Black, White versus Latino).

Next, in concert with Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) analytic approach, focused coding entailed grouping open codes that reflected similar patterns ideas, and content. These more selective codes (Glaser & Strauss, 2017; Thornberg & Charmaz, 2014) were synthesized to explain larger sets of data (Thornberg & Charmaz, 2014). During this process, the codes become fewer and more condensed. The final stage of coding the data was axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). During this stage, the first author connected similar groups of codes into themes, thereby synthesizing the data even further (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Thus, codes (and in some cases, subcodes) for emerging themes are reported. Key quotes were then selected to support emerging phenomena.

As coding is an iterative process, the first author kept an audit trail to provide a detailed description of the decision-making process of the data analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Saldaña, 2015). After each interview, the first author wrote memos in which initial reflections and impressions from each interview were documented. Following Miles and Huberman’s (1994) procedures, the first author drafted a summary sheet from the field notes (in this case transcripts and memos), that summarized the important aspects for each participant, that later would assist with open coding. To further increase rigor, the second author reviewed all transcripts, replicated the coding process, and helped solidify the grouping and labeling of codes.

Positionality

The first author recognizes his positionality as a gay cisgender Latino man, while the second author identifies as a cisgender heterosexual man. The first author conducted all the interviews, shared his identities with all participants, and allowed participants to ask him questions about his identities and interest in the research area. Although the first author’s could better understand some of the nuanced forms of the men’s experiences and concerns regarding racism and homophobia due to his positionality, he debriefed with the second author to reduce bias and ensure his experiences did not influence interpretations of the lived experiences of the participants. Both authors have experience focusing on addressing trauma among Latin American, Latinx, and Black men in their practice and research.

Findings

Findings revealed three core themes, with the first one highlighting the numerous forms of bias and discrimination that serve as barriers to reporting sexual assault. The second theme, the unjust reporting process, focuses on the unnecessarily difficult, complex and unclear timely reporting process. The third theme, retraumatization, describes how participants felt retraumatized while enduring the unjust reporting process. Each of the themes describes the various factors that contributed to whether gay Latino sexual assault survivors felt it was in their best interest to report being sexually assaulted.

Theme 1: Bias and Discrimination

Data illuminated three distinct forms (noted as subthemes) of bias and discrimination that served as barriers to reporting sexual assault to authorities: (a) gendered stereotypes, (b) fears of homophobic reactions by reporting authorities, and (c) racism.

Gendered Stereotypes

Many of the men spoke about how being a male and the expectations and gendered norms associated with being a man affected their decision-making process in deciding whether to report being sexually assaulted to authorities. Men felt that their identity as men resulted primarily in (a) being blamed, (b) not being believed or not being taken seriously, and (c) being emasculated/seen as less than a man.

This perception of a potential barrier was often tied to the notion that men cannot be raped. Men expressed that their identity as a man would be questioned by reporting authorities, having been raped by another man. Although not explicitly stated in these terms, men felt they might not be viewed as a man if they “allowed” another man to rape them. Participants referenced the commonly held perception that men should be able to defend themselves and that reporting authorities may hold this belief and therefore blame them for being sexually assaulted.

Sebastian stated that his identity as a male influenced who he felt comfortable reporting to and that he would only feel comfortable disclosing that he was sexually assaulted to other men. Sebastian spoke to the belief that men cannot be raped and how it differs for men than women. The first author asked: “How do you think being a male differs on how people perceive sexual assault or rape as opposed to when women are sexually assaulted?” Sebastian replied: “Like it can’t happen because you’re a male, it can’t happen.” When asked to expand on his answer and he said: “Not believable because you’re able to overpower people. . . in a way that you’re not gonna be able to defend yourself. Stuff like that.”

Homophobic Reactions

Men cited stereotypical beliefs and perceptions that reporting authorities and heterosexual individuals may have about them being gay men, which would result in the following: (a) being blamed and (b) not being believed and/or that their report of sexual assault would not be taken seriously. Many men felt that they would be blamed as gay men for the assault itself, consistent with the erroneous stereotype that gay men are promiscuous, constantly wanting sex, and are “asking for it.” Homophobia additionally resulted in these gay men not being believed or taken seriously. Such homophobic attitudes are based in the notion that gay men are promiscuous, and that these men had consented to the encounter, and therefore were falsely claiming that they had been raped.

Another participant, Alfredo, also felt that he would not be taken seriously by reporting authorities if he attempted to report being sexually assaulted. Alfredo felt that he would receive a response based on the notion that he was “asking for it.” Alfredo stated:

I’ve heard of like other friends that they’ve been sexually assaulted, and the police make fun of them and saying, `Don’t you guys all get raped or like getting raped? . . . just like not really taking you seriously, they think that it’s not really important and that somehow gay men are deviant in some way in that they liked it or deserved it.

In this instance, Alfredo mentions both primary manifestations of homophobia when reporting being sexually assaulted. He references that he would likely not be taken seriously and be blamed for his identity as a gay man. This highlights that homophobic responses often do not occur in one form or the other—that at times the various manifestations of homophobia overlap with one another can occur simultaneously.

Another participant stated that he was unsure how his identity as a gay man might influence the reporting process but expressed concern about how he would be responded to by reporting authorities. Jonathan stated:

. . . another factor that I considered was that we were, we were both men, we were both guys, so, like, how is that going to be perceived, how am I going to report this to, a cop, let’s say, to a straight cop, and you know, what is their reaction going to be initially with this, with this being an instance, an instance of two men, of Gay men, how are they gonna to me being gay versus how they are going to react handling the case itself.

While Jonathan was not entirely sure how heterosexual reporting authorities would respond to him reporting sexual assault or how their homophobia may play out, he was worried about how reporting authorities would handle his case.

Racism

Many times, men’s race/ethnicity could not be parsed from their identity as a gay man, as specific stereotypes about gay men of color were factors in deciding whether or not to report. Racism for both Black and non-Black Latino gay men were referenced as barriers among men.

Some of the participants discussed how their multiple identities could not be separated from one another and influenced their decision-making process. For instance, Ricardo shared how his identity as both a Latino and a gay man would affect the ways in which reporting authorities would respond to his reporting of being sexually assaulted:

Or oh, you know you were asking for it because that’s what you do. Just like to fuck. Gay men just like to fuck. Latinos like to be great bottoms. It’s bullshit. Yeah. Or, if you’re a gay man, then you’re like oh, well, that’s okay, boys do. Come on.

As a gay Latino man, he is oversexualized and stereotyped an account of his ethnicity and being a gay man. His sexuality and perception of being hyper-sexual as a Latino is exacerbated by the fact that he is also a gay man. His multiple marginalized identities influence how and the extent to which he is going to be blamed and not be taken seriously, specifically on how the assault will be believed as being consensual. Ricardo speaks to how being a gay Latino man is often associated with wanting sex and that some may find it difficult to believe that he could be sexually assaulted. Both identities play a role in determining these outcomes, as stereotypes of being Latino and a gay man influence the ways that gay Latino men may be responded to when attempting to report being sexually assaulted.

Four of the participants identified primarily as Black men. These men also identified as being Latino. For these participants, their identity as Black men and their experience in society as Black Latino men resulted in unique and additional challenges for them in reporting sexual assault, due to their race. For two of these men, perceptions about their Black masculinity were also cited as another factor for not reporting being sexually assaulted to reporting authorities.

Jevon stated that the fragility of Black masculinity needs to be considered and taken into account for Black Latino survivors of sexual assault. Jevon stated:

I think that Black men are really fragile about their masculinity so they would most likely not report things because I think a lot of black men already feel that they don’t have any power and that their masculinity is in jeopardy. If they felt more confident in their masculinity they would probably report it more.

Deon, another Black male stated that the false stereotypes surrounding Black men may have influenced his decision to not report being sexually assaulted. I asked him if he thought that being a Black Latino man was a factor in deciding to report or not, and he replied, “Maybe a little. But it didn’t, then I didn’t believe those . . .but thinking about it, maybe it probably did, just because of the stereotype of being bi-racial.”

One noticeable difference between Black/Afro-Latino men and non-Black Latino men was that two Black participants felt that race did serve as a barrier for them, while non-Black Latinos did not always cite racism as a perceived barrier. It appears that the experiences of racism for Black men may shape their perceptions of racial barriers differently than those of non-Black Latino men.

Theme 2: Unjust Reporting Process

The second theme, Unjust Reporting Process, focused on various complications in making a formal report and enduring the reporting process. This theme centered on men feeling that they did not have enough details to make a formal report and/or not wanting to endure a long reporting process. This theme manifested in three main ways (labeled herein as subthemes): (a) the perpetrator, (b) lack of details, and (b) “I didn’t want to deal like with drawing this out.”

The Perpetrator

Another barrier that prevented men from reporting being sexually assaulted was their relationship with the perpetrator of their assault. This was mostly focused around their feelings of personal safety and well-being. The relationship to the perpetrator as a barrier was due to four factors: (a) personal safety, (b) fear of retaliation, (c) not being believed, and (d) power dynamics.

A couple of the men expressed that they did not report being sexually assaulted to reporting authorities due to fear for their personal safety. Men were worried that the perpetrator would further harm them if they reported being sexually assaulted. Christian, who was raped in jail, was threatened by his rapist after the assault. Christian’s perpetrator stated that he would kill him if Christian reported being raped to the authorities. Although scared for his safety, Christian reported being raped to the guards in the jail and was moved to another pod. Another survivor, Adam, was concerned for his personal safety if he reported to police. Adam knew he would not be safe and might be subject to further abuse if he reported to authorities. In both of these cases, the survivors were in situations that they could not be physically separated from their perpetrators.

Another barrier to reporting that men cited was fear of retaliation by their perpetrators, whether it be physically or legally. Malcolm was concerned about retaliation, but it did not prevent him from reporting to authorities. He stated:

I was afraid of being threatened and I was afraid that my assailant was going to try to legally do something because at that point it’s like. . . my thought process was: there’s a gag order against these people, like, I wasn’t sure like what could he do to me at this point. I didn’t know what he could do to me because I was the one who told these people about what happened. I was afraid that like what if he tried to put a gag order towards me or what if he tried to do something else legally. I was just afraid of that kind of thing.

Other men referenced that they may not be believed, as the perpetrator may be more likely to be believed over them. This was often tied to the perpetrator’s position of power. Some of the men expressed that there was a power imbalance between them and their perpetrator, which resulted in being hesitant to report the sexual assault. Ryan spoke to one occurrence where he was assaulted by an administrator in his job. Ryan stated that as he was in a less-powerful position than his perpetrator, he decided not to report the incident. The primary interviewer asked, “And do you think that their position had any effect on how comfortable you felt on reporting it due to their position?” Ryan replied:

I mean, that’s a very good question, because at the time I wasn’t a full time [job position]. I was sort of just working at two different colleges, working my way up. This person was a [administrative position]. . . And so, I didn’t want to. . .anything there, or minimize my chances of getting a job. So yeah, definitely, the power that this person had, you know, had an influence.

An imbalance of power in relation to their perpetrator served as a barrier to reporting for these men. Men did not want to risk being further harmed by their perpetrator either physically or in relation to their career.

Lack of Details

Some of the participants stated that one of the reasons for not reporting sexual assault was that they did not know details regarding the perpetrator or other aspects of the sexual assault itself, which they believed would not lead to a successful complaint or case. Some of the men felt that they did not have enough details to give to the police or other reporting authorities to make an official complaint. The lack of details for these survivors led them to not report because (a) they did not have enough details about the perpetrator and (b) they did not have enough other evidence which they thought would make their case hard to prove.

In addition, many of the survivors said that they did not know the perpetrator who attacked them, as they met the person online and only knew them from a social media app. For example, many men did not know the perpetrator’s name or any other identifying information. Some of the survivors felt that reporting authorities would judge them for meeting strangers online and that they would be further stigmatized as gay men. For example, one of the participants, Ricardo, stated the only details he could provide were the approximate height of the person and the person’s race. He did not know the perpetrator by name and would therefore not be able to provide any useful details to the police. Among other reasons, these were factors that led him to decide not to report being sexually assaulted to reporting authorities. Another participant, Israel also cited the same barrier. He stated:

(ENGLISH TRANSLATION)

Israel: well . . . the truth is that I had a . . . I mean, he left clothes in my apartment, and i wanted, like, I mean, to find out who was it, right? but then, I don’t remember, I mean, I didn’t even remember what he looked like, whether he was Latino or Hispanic, I just remember that, I mean, he wasn’t Black, it was between Hispanic or Latino, be- or White or Hispanic, so like I didn’t know who he was, I didn’t know, I was embarrassed to report and say I was raped and I didn’t know who he was, right? I mean, yes, it was embarrassing, and I preferred not to.

Other men stated that another barrier to reporting was that they did not have enough evidence to prove that they were sexually assaulted. Deon was one male who spoke to the concerns about not having evidence. Deon stated:

Well, I’ve never reported it and I feel like I would have to not only report it but be believable. Like I would have to, like I’m a victim but I would have to have like some kind of evidence or something because I feel like being the gay male of the assault, people will automatically assume that hey, you were the one provoking it or like you enjoyed it. But in reality, no. It was not, I was assaulted.

Deon was able to speak to the sentiment that many of the other gay Latino survivors felt: that they would not be able to report without evidence of the assault having taken place.

“I Didn’t Want to Like Deal Like With Drawing This Out”

Men cited that they did not want to report being sexually assaulted to reporting authorities because they did not want a long and drawn out official process to take place. Many men worried that an official report would take up a large amount of their time. Survivors’ reasons for not wanting to prolong the process included (a) not wanting to be questioned about the assault, (b) not wanting a legal case, and (c) wanting to move on.

Some of the men spoke of not wanting to be continually questioned about being sexually assaulted in detail. For example, Ricardo stated, “You don’t wanna have a lot of people that are in your face, ad nauseam, asking you every detail, and questioning your own mental facility.”

Other participants were concerned that a legal case would result from reporting the sexual assault. Many were unsure of what a legal case regarding sexual assault would entail. Israel was one of the men who stated he did wish to have his report result in a legal case.

Many expressed that they wanted to be able to move on from the sexual assault. Participants felt that they would be unable to move on if there was an open case, which would entail questioning from police, filing forms, waiting for long periods of time, and having to talk about the sexual assault. Yuriel was one participant who spoke to not wanting to prolong the reporting process, stating,

And then, once, once I actually sat, and actually thought about it, I, it was a lot of the same, of like, I didn’t want to, kind of, drag out the drama. I didn’t want to keep dragging the situation, I wanted to just be done with him.

Theme 3: Retraumatization

The third theme, Retraumatization, concerned the ways in which gay Latino male survivors disclosed they had experienced trauma and victim blaming by others and were worried about being subjected to more heartache. Retraumatization spoke to the ways in which men would be subjected to experiencing additional trauma apart from the initial rape. The experiences were described in three main ways (noted as separate subthemes): (a) negative/nonsupportive reaction by others, (b) not wanting others to know, and (c) “Because they straight and everything.”

Negative/Nonsupportive Reactions by Authorities and Others

The majority of men spoke about the possible negative reactions they felt they would receive from reporting authorities as well as negative responses received by nonofficial reporting authorities when disclosing that they had been sexually assaulted. Three primary negative reactions were identified: (a) being made fun of, (b) being judged, and (c) being discouraged from reporting. These negative reactions were, at times, not independent of one another; most survivors cited that they could be subject to multiple negative reactions by reporting authorities.

The possibility of receiving a negative response of being judged by reporting authorities often had to do with being questioned about whether they had been drinking or using drugs at the time of the assault. Some of the men felt that they would be judged, and therefore, viewed as less credible or blamed if they had been drinking. At times, this further led to men blaming themselves for the assault that had occurred. One participant, Yuriel, stated:

I considered the fact that when it happened, I was uhm, I was extremely under the influence. I was drunk, and I uhm, I had a prescription medication that was not prescribed to me. I know now that that it didn’t excuse anything and it didn’t make it OK and that wasn’t a reason for it to happen but that made it easier for that person to take advantage of me that one time, uhm, but at the time, well, I thought, I shouldn’t have, I shouldn’t have drunk that much, I shouldn’t have gotten high and uhm, another factor that I considered was that we were, we were both men. . .

Sebastian and Yuriel stated that embarrassment/shame was one of the primary factors to not reporting being sexually assaulted. Sebastian stated that “embarrassment and not being believed” were the two main factors that caused him to not report.

Another hesitation in deciding whether to report was not wanting to be made fun of by reporting authorities. Many men cited negative experiences when disclosing that they were sexually assaulted to others, which discouraged them from reporting to official reporting authorities. Participants spoke about the negative reactions they received from friends and family members after disclosing having been sexually assaulted. Men often reported to various people in nonofficial capacities including friends and family members. This was the case with Deon, who had disclosed being sexually assaulted to a close family friend. Deon stated:

It’s a tie. I felt like it was positive because I was telling someone what had happened to me and but I felt like it’s also a negative because it didn’t give me any encouragement to tell other people or those friends of my mother or father or tell them or anyone else. I mean it left me kind of in the middle, I guess.

Not Wanting Others to Know

Many of the men spoke about how they did not disclose to reporting authorities and other people because they did not want other people to know that they had been sexually assaulted. This notion was often tied to (a) feelings of embarrassment/shame, (b) being judged, and (c) not wanting publicity. Some men did not want family members and/or friends to know that they were sexually assaulted, and worried that his could occur as a result of reporting being sexually assaulted to reporting authorities. Some men felt that if they reported being sexually assaulted to reporting authorities that it may somehow be leaked to the press or that their parents or friends may find out. A few of the participants did not want their family members to know that they had been sexually assaulted. This often occurred for participants whose family members were not accepting of them being gay. Other men shared that their family members would not believe them if they found out that they had been sexually assaulted or would blame them for being sexually assaulted. There was also a general worry about feeling embarrassed or ashamed of having been sexually assaulted and being judged if it was made public.

For example, Israel was worried that his parents would find out that he was sexually assaulted if he reported being sexually assaulted to authorities. Israel stated “Israel responded, “I think that, I mean. . . the truth is that, I didn’t want to be involved in something legally so that my parents wouldn’t know (0.1). I think that’s it.”

This fear was a similar sentiment shared by Malcolm. Malcolm stated, “And I think my mom doesn’t know what happened. I have no idea if she would notice anything so that was kind of my biggest worry or my biggest concern is regretting to report and that my mom finds out.”

Many men additionally stated that they did not want the general public to know that they had been sexually assaulted. Some of the men were worried that a story would be published and that people would read about it in the newspapers and/or online. For example, Malcolm said:

I was concerned about my name getting out there for sure. Thankfully, it didn’t, and it still hasn’t gotten out there but I was very worried about that. [PI : Although it might be self-evident, if your name was publicized, what was your major concern about everyone knowing?] I was worried I was going to be attacked online.

“Because They Straight and Everything”

Another barrier that prevented gay Latino men from reporting that they were sexually assaulted was that they did not feel comfortable reporting to systems and organizations that they believed were heterosexist or homophobic. Participants were worried about having to report to heterosexual reporting authorities. These men felt systems were not (a) inclusive of gay men, (b) designed or equipped to handle situations involving gay men, and (c) wanting to assist gay men.

Among the men who cited being worried about reporting to heterosexual reporting authorities was Sebastian. Sebastian stated that one of the major factors for not reporting being sexually assaulted was that he did not believe that heterosexual police officers would take his complaint seriously. He felt that heterosexual reporting authorities may have biased attitudes toward gay men and would not be equipped to handle the complaint. When asked about what factors led him to not report to reporting authorities, he stated:

It’s like pretty much as a gay man, I knew even then whenever it happened to me that people always think like, you know, oh, it’s just gay guys who want sex and everything, and the thing is that like on top of that, too, like you know, policemen ‘cause they’re straight and everything, they don’t take sexual assaults on men very seriously and everything, and I feel like they kind of just like drop it off and not even take it serious.

Other men felt that the systems were not friendly toward gay men. For example, Jevon stated that he would not go to heterosexual/straight medical clinics because they are not gay-friendly and would only go to gay clinics. I asked Jevon if he felt included in his university’s programming to address sexual assault and, while he stated he did feel included in the conversations, he said that he would not seek services at heterosexual clinics. I asked him: “When your university told you about the services did you feel that as a Black gay man, you were included in those conversations or did you feel excluded?” Jevon replied,

I felt included but I wouldn’t go get services from like a straight organization because I’ve gone to like STD clinics and like regular straight clinics in the past and they’re kind of mean to gay men so I usually just go to only gay places.

It is important to note that while Jevon felt included in the conversations and services provided at his university, he still would not seek out services at places that were heterosexual due to his treatment there as a gay man. Jevon noted that while the services provided at the university stated their programming did include men, the services were mostly focused on women. Like many of the men, Jevon was still hesitant to receive services from heterosexual organizations.

Discussion

This is the first study to our knowledge to illuminate the varied interpersonal and contextual barriers to reporting solely among Latino and/or Black gay male sexual assault survivors. Owing to the intersectionality of their multiple marginalized identities, gay Latino men often had to contend with multiple barriers simultaneously when deciding whether to even report being sexually assaulted to authorities. These included bias and discrimination, an unjust reporting process, and retraumatization. Within each of those barriers (or themes), several subthemes further elucidated why deciding to report the assault is grounded in unwavering fear of being treated unfairly and subjected to harm. After relating our findings to previous literature, we draw upon the narratives to propose trauma-informed and culturally grounded recommendations for enhancing sexual assault reporting procedures for gay Latino male sexual assault survivors.

The first theme, bias and discrimination, spoke of the possibility of being subjected to identity-based discrimination when reporting. Men cited gendered stereotypes, homophobic reactions, and racism as barriers to reporting to authorities. Regarding gender stereotypes, as highlighted in prior literature (Davies, 2002; Javaid, 2017; Meyer, 2020), the majority of men felt that reporting authorities would not believe that they had been raped or sexually assaulted, due to being a man. This finding is consistent with Meyer’s (2022) conclusion that the most common reason why GBM do not report being sexually assaulted was that they felt the police would not take their assault seriously. Men were discouraged from reporting, given gendered stereotypes and myths that men should be able to protect themselves and the notion that men cannot be raped. This was intensified for Black men, due to their race and notions around Black masculinity, consistent with Meyer (2022).

In addition, fears of homophobic reactions and racism-affected survivors in their decision-making process in deciding whether or not to report. Men stated that they would be subjected to antiquated notions of gay men wanting sex, being promiscuous and “asking for it.” It became apparent that men would essentially be blamed for the rape merely for being a gay man. Racism further factored into the decision-making process for gay Latino male sexual assault survivors, consistent with the framework of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991). Non-Black Latino survivors felt that racist stereotypes of Latino men being hyper-sexual and over-sexualized would affect their credibility and believability as sexual assault survivors. However, Black/Afro-Latino men cited a notably different reason for how racism would affect their credibility. For instance, one participant stated that issues surrounding Black masculinity and its vulnerability affected the ability of Black men to report being sexually assaulted. In addition, all Black participants cited race as a barrier to reporting while non-Black Latinos did not. Meyer (2022) similarly found that Latino men cited emasculation as a barrier to reporting, whereas Black/Afro-Latino men were more likely to cite race as a barrier compared to Latino men. Our findings are consistent within the hierarchy of masculinities (Pascoe & Bridges, 2016), where gay Black men would be afforded the least power among men.

The unjust reporting process (second theme) illustrated the concerns over an unclear and tedious investigation. Each of these barriers created hesitancy in men and dissuaded most sexual assault survivors (N = 10) from making official reports to a reporting authority. This is consistent with prior literature that most sexual assault survivors do not report to the police (Chen et al., 2020; Davies, 2002; Meyer, 2022). Survivors stated they were concerned that the perpetrator may further jeopardize their safety or may retaliate against them for reporting the sexual assault. As this is a novel finding, additional research is needed to unpack the meaning, context, and circumstances that contribute to fear of retaliation and how to address it among male sexual assault survivors.

Some participants cited a lack of details, which prevented them from reporting the sexual assault. While many survivors may be concerned with having sufficient evidence of the sexual assault, gay Latino men, particularly Black/Afro-Latino men may even feel that they need additional evidence to prove they were sexually assaulted due to their multiple marginalized identities (Crenshaw, 1991; Davies, 2002; Meyer, 2022).

Survivors expressed concern over the length of a time legal case would entail, not wanting to be questioned about the assault and wanting to move on. As prior literature has indicated, there has been a lack of (a) best practices and procedures for handling sexual assault cases and (b) trained law enforcement officers to investigate sexual assault complaints (DeMatteo et al., 2015). Our findings revealed that many sexual assault survivors felt that not receiving information regarding their legal rights, the unjust reporting process, and the discouragement to report were rooted in biases the authorities held about their ethnic, racial, and/or sexual identities.

The third theme of retraumatization is especially salient for gay Latino male sexual assault survivors. Most survivors did not wish to be retraumatized throughout the reporting process by individuals or by systems or organizations that engage with sexual assault survivors. Participants discussed the possibility of being made fun of, being judged, not wanting others to know, or being met with antigay services. These feelings of shame and embarrassment, a result of being judged, were referenced by the survivors and in an earlier study (Sable et al., 2006) as barriers to reporting being sexually assaulted. Campbell and colleagues (2001) refer to the lack of community support which leaves survivors feeling blamed, doubted, and revictimized as “the second rape,” originally coined by Madigan and Gamble (1991). These findings, in particular, contribute to the literature on sexual assault survivors and underscore the salience of recognizing and addressing identity-based trauma endured by Black and Latino male sexual assault survivors.

Implications

During the interviews, the surviving men provided recommendations on what they would need to seek justice and healing in the aftermath of their sexual trauma. These men identified trauma-sensitive and culturally grounded agency-wide and law enforcement practices that may offer refuge and cultivate a space to feel supported during the reporting process.

Agency Wide Practices

This study found that gay Latino men were often unaware of what resources were available to them as well as reporting feelings of exclusion and discomfort from existing agencies. This finding was consistent with prior literature that found that male sexual assault survivors are often unaware of what resources are available to them (Pino & Meier, 1999). Participants primarily cited a lack of inclusion for men and gay men from local agencies. Social service agencies, including rape crisis centers, women’s centers and health clinics should make a veritable effort to include programming targeted to gay Latino and/or Black men through advertisements, training, prevention efforts, seminars, and outreach. It is incumbent upon social service providers to be well-equipped to work with and provide services to gay Latino men. Agencies should also locate books and referral information on male sexual assault for survivors who may wish to receive more information on their legal rights or about sexual assault in various languages. Many survivors have a difficult time processing that they had been sexually assaulted. Books providing information to sexual assault survivors would be especially helpful to male sexual assault survivors to gain more information on other survivors’ experiences and resources. Agencies are able to provide support to gay Latino sexual assault survivors but only if agencies are intentional and strategic in doing so.

Law Enforcement Practices

Findings from this study indicated that male survivors felt that law enforcement would not be well trained or equipped to investigate male sexual assault, consistent with previous findings regarding law enforcement handling of gay male sexual assault (Jamel, 2009; Javaid, 2017). The majority of men worried that reporting authorities would subject them to homophobia, if they reported being sexually assaulted. Prior literature investigating homophobia among male sexual assault survivors (Javaid, 2015, 2017) has found that gay men do encounter homophobic reactions by police officers and that homophobia negatively affects the reporting process for gay men. Literature has similarly noted racist ideology of police toward Black men (Braga et al., 2019) and how Black men cite racism as a barrier when reporting being sexually assaulted (Meyer, 2022). Law enforcement agencies would benefit from training focused on engaging working with male sexual assault survivors, male survivors of color, and general knowledge of the LGBTQIA+ community.

Limitations

There are a few limitations of this research study. While 40 potential participants had expressed initial interest in the study, only 14 participated in the interview process. Some of these men stated that they were hesitant to speak about the topic, and others did not respond to follow-up communication about participating. As such, we could not capture the experiences of many men who were interested in participating. Sampling bias is another limitation of this study. Men were recruited from LGBT-themed newspapers, personal contacts and Grindr. The gay men in this study were men who were most likely actively involved within the gay community. Most of the men were recruited from Grindr, known as a social networking app for GBM. Thus, our findings are most likely representative of those who use Grindr and are single.

Conclusion

There are unique barriers to reporting sexual assault for gay Latino male sexual assault survivors. Our study illustrates the ways in which the racial, ethnic, and sexual identities of gay Latino male sexual assault survivors exacerbate already existing stigma among sexual assault survivors. Our data revealed three main themes that served as barriers to reporting being sexually assaulted: (a) bias and discrimination, (b) the unjust reporting process, and (c) retraumatization. The participants in this study cited how their identities as men, gay men, and gay Latino men influenced their decision to not report being sexually assaulted to authorities. Many of these barriers overlapped with one another in their decision-making process, consistent with the framework of intersectionality. Our study further reveals that gay Latino male sexual assault survivors were discouraged from making official reports based on former disclosure or by the possibility of being retraumatized through the reporting process and postassault care. While literature has begun to explore the ways in which race and masculinity (Meyer, 2020, 2022) affect the reporting process experiences for gay Latino and Black men, our study provides unique insight into specific barriers focused on gay Latino (including Black) male sexual assault survivors. Our findings recommend a need for trauma-informed and culturally congruent service provision for gay Latino male sexual assault survivors for them to not only risk retraumatization but to thrive.