Sexual violence against men is a neglected topic in the field of biblical studies. This article argues for a perspective informed by critical masculinity studies to understand sexual violence against men in an adequate way. It is used as a tool within masculine hierarchies to demean other men and their masculine performance. However, sexual violence against men is often hidden, in the texts as well as in their exegetical commentaries because sexual violence against men is almost unimaginable in common notions of successful masculinities. The article shows that sexual violence against men was used as a rhetorical tool in historical sources. Furthermore, it criticizes exegetical terminology about sexual violence against men (reversed rape, feminization) which conceal the impact of sexual violence on masculinities. The article closes with some considerations for further research.

In Genesis, many of the male protagonists represent different peoples in the Levant and their relationships among each other. How those ancestors perform as ‘masculine’ men reflects the notion of the masculinity of the peoples descending from them, formulated from an Israelite/Judahite point of view. While the ancestors of Israel and Judah (Seth, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) perform a certain masculine style, which can be labelled as pious, peaceful, gentle, smart and cultivated, the ancestors of neighbouring peoples (Ham, Lot, Ishmael, Esau) are portrayed as wild or sexually perverted but also aggressive, dominant or hypermasculine. The authors perceive their own people in a historically realistic way; they are no super-men. However, their masculine performance is favoured throughout and even divinely approved.

Taking a look at Lot through the lens of Biblical Masculinity Studies, we see him constantly trying to meet ideals of a performance of hegemonic masculinity but failing to do so. This paper uncovers masculinity as the motor of the narrative in the Lot stories, especially in Gen 19. The stories make fun of Lot and his offspring, the Moabites and Ammonites, as “failed” men. This paper analyses how this is achieved by the authors. Masculinity and masculine traits are artistically and deliberately used as a highly idealised background foil in order to highlight Lot’s failure. Furthermore, the authors’ point of view is highly ideological. They are in a superior and dominant position from which they portray Lot and his masculinity. They do this from safe distance, since they themselves are not represented in the stories by a character.