While previously referred to as “human rights’ last taboo,” today the visibility of conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) against men and boys is far more pronounced at the international level. What explains this shift, and what can be learned from it? Drawing from a collection of advocacy documents and institutional records assembled through both inductive and deductive logics, as well as interviews with 35 participants constituting the heterogenous CRSV issue network and participant observation at two major international conferences related to CRSV, I propose a two-pronged argument as to how the securitization of CRSV created an opening for this issue. First, at the practical level, securitization necessitated a redirection of resources resulting in the proliferation of institutional and governmental architectures specifically focused on CRSV, whereas previously, it was bundled as part of the broader Women, Peace and Security agenda. This prompted the international community to identify ‘holes’ in existing approaches to CRSV. Second, at the ideational level, securitization entailed significant constructive ambiguity regarding gender and sexuality, thus enabling the reinterpretation of CRSV against men and boys in diverse and even contradictory ways which overcame previously silencing factors. Drawing from three case studies, I show how different actors situated the issue within feminist, ‘gender-neutral,’ and conservative approaches to gender/sexuality. While previous analyses emphasize how securitization narrows understandings of CRSV, I reinterpret the ‘weapon of war’ framework as a radically open tool which can be appropriated to suit a variety of political projects, enabling in this instance surprisingly widespread recognition of male survivors. I suggest that securitization should be understood as a process with the capacity not create not only new meanings and rationalizations for otherwise ‘extraordinary’ measures, but also opportunities to surface ‘untouchable’ subjects. I conclude by reflecting on the challenges entailed by constructive ambiguity for moving beyond recognition into action.
