Recently, a tragic story of a young man completing suicide hit the news. The rationale for his act, was said to be prompted by him being drugged and raped by a local personality. Emanating from that story, were the various ways we continue to fail survivors of violence, from confidentiality issues, victim blaming, rallying around the abuser and rampant homophobia.
In order to pay respect to victims of sexual assault (SA) and their families, the media fraternity is guided by principles to ensure victim’s confidentiality in their reporting. There is an unfortunate growing trend however, of fly-by-night online information sources and those calling themselves journalists, to prioritize sensationalism over the ethics of their trade. This is a practice that is also employed by some of the more established media houses, and it speaks to the growing culture around consumption of victim’s stories, and the lack of ethics.
In sharing the identity of the victim, their memory, and the grieving process of the family was heavily impacted. Many saw it as an opportunity to blame or strongly doubt what was said to have happened to him, which of course sends a message to other survivors of abuse that coming forward can result in them being retraumatized. This is a message that is especially sent by those who automatically rally around abusers, because they might know them or support them in some way or the other. The thing to remember when allegations surface, is that abusers are not abusive towards everyone they meet. They are often very strategic in who they target and know well how to don a mask. So someone can indeed be very nice to you, while being someone else’s nightmare.
There was on the other side of the scale however, those who quickly took up the story and the alleged abuser to task. This though, was primarily done not from a place of concern or wanting accountability for the deceased, but rather, from a place of homophobia. Despite the small progressive steps that have been made, Guyana largely remains a country that is intolerant. There are many myths that abound concerning the morality and trustworthiness of those who do not abide by strict heteronormative standards. So it was not surprising when this case was used as an opportunity to denigrate those who identify as part of the LGBT+ community, with a specific focus on gay men.
Largely, there remains the belief that men who are sexually attracted to men, are inherently deviants who engage in abuse against others. This is incredibly inaccurate and is often used to demonize the community, resulting in continued stigma and discrimination against them. When we have heterosexual/straight offenders, we do not ever hear anything about their sexuality. Why is that? Instead, a culture of protection can often spring up around these offenders, while those who are queer identifying can often face immense backlash. This of course, does not only harm perceptions of the LGBT+ community amongst the wider populace, but it also significantly harms those who are abused. Given the stigma that often intensifies around these cases, it makes the environment an unsafe one for other survivors of same-sex abuse to come forward as they fear the way in which they and their experience will be viewed. It is things such as these that contributes towards the much lower reporting rates of SA from male survivors in comparison to girls, and is also a major contributor in the higher rates of completed suicide in men.
Much like how victims of SA do not look one way, perpetrators of SA do not look one way either. Abusers, regardless of sexual orientation or gender should be held accountable. It is important that we move away from regressive beliefs that harms both survivors of SA, and other vulnerable members in our society.
