The research, led by Yacouba Tengueri of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Université Daniel Ouezzin Coulibaly in Dédougou, combined a survey of 598 men with a current or past intimate relationship and 26 semi-structured interviews with male victims, women, religious and customary leaders, law enforcement officers, the judiciary, and social services, carried out between June and July 2025. The survey was administered on the KoboToolbox platform and covered five behaviourally specific forms of violence: verbal violence, including insults and humiliating remarks; psychological violence, including threats, intimidation, and controlling behaviour; economic violence, including confiscation of income and sabotage of economic activities; sexual violence, meaning imposed acts without consent; and physical violence, including slaps, blows, bites, and scratches. Respondents indicated whether they had experienced each form within their current or most recent intimate relationship, along with its frequency and duration, so the reference period was the duration of the relationship rather than a fixed recall window.

The headline figure is arresting: 64.55 percent of the men surveyed reported experiencing at least one form of violence within their intimate partnership. Among the forms reported, verbal violence dominated at 49.50 percent, followed by psychological violence at 24.58 percent, economic violence at 21.74 percent, sexual violence at 11.54 percent, and physical violence at 9.20 percent. The principal factors reported by respondents were economic difficulties, cited by 59.20 percent, and jealousy or infidelity, cited by 52.51 percent. The author is careful to note that the survey used non-probability convenience sampling, so the sample is not statistically representative of men in Dédougou or in Burkina Faso, and the prevalence figure should be read as descriptive of the surveyed sample rather than as an estimate for the wider population. Even so, the pattern of multiform, cumulative victimisation fits with recent psychological research showing that distinct forms of abuse have different effects on depression, anxiety, and life satisfaction, and that victims typically experience several forms at once.

For a substantial minority of victims, the violence was recurrent rather than isolated. Some 34.98 percent of the 386 men classified as victims reported violence occurring frequently or very frequently, and 39.12 percent reported violence lasting for more than one year. The qualitative interviews revealed a profound suffering endured in silence, with exchanges on physical and sexual violence marked by emotional charge: a lowering of the voice, a downcast gaze, silence, suppressed tears. One male victim in his thirties described how, during an argument, his wife overpowered him in the courtyard, struck him, and bit his genitals, after which she left the household. He went to beg her to come back because he loved her, and today he has erectile difficulties that she cannot complain about, since she is the cause of the condition.

Perhaps the most sobering statistic concerns help-seeking. Only 0.78 percent of those reporting violence sought help from law enforcement, while 43.26 percent stayed silent. Among the men who did seek help, friends or relatives were the primary resource at 34.20 percent, followed by religious authorities at 14.77 percent, with the man’s parents, the wife’s family, witnesses at the marriage ceremony, neighbours, health centres, and social welfare structures consulted in tiny proportions. The author links this reluctance to resort to the gendarmerie, police, and judiciary to the perception of these institutions as punitive bodies, whose operational approach to conflict management is misaligned with traditional, more conciliatory resolution mechanisms. Resorting to such institutions is synonymous with a complete rupture of the marital bond within society, and it is perceived as humiliating.

The reasons for silence are deeply rooted in the social construction of masculinity. Respondents cited fear of stigmatisation at 64.05 percent, social pressure to appear strong at 52.34 percent, absence of support structures at 30.77 percent, and cultural or religious reasons at 24.41 percent. One male victim explained that if a man speaks out about the violence he is suffering, society will not believe him and will label him a coward, a difficult label to bear, so the man prefers to remain silent and suffer alone. The author frames this pattern in terms of hegemonic masculinity, the culturally idealised standard of manhood built on strength, self-reliance, and emotional restraint, in which admitting victimisation is experienced less as a factual disclosure than as a failure to embody the strength and self-sufficiency expected of men. Male victims thus endure a dual form of violence: that of their partner, and that of a society which struggles to acknowledge their situation.

The consequences are manifold and potentially severe. Respondents reported anxiety and stress at 45.65 percent, diminished self-esteem at 31.27 percent, social isolation at 25.59 percent, professional or economic difficulties at 12.04 percent, and suicidal ideation at 6.69 percent. A gendarme interviewed for the study recounted a case of household abandonment in which a man left everything behind because he could no longer bear the situation, rented a room in another neighbourhood, told his family he was on a mission, and spent over a month drinking heavily and moving from bar to bar. When confronted, he wept as he explained the suffering he endured living alongside his wife, while the wife sat in silence, unable to say a word. The gendarme noted that cases of suicide are known of in the past, and that violence against men is very real, even if it is not widely known.

The qualitative material also documents the harsh social condemnation of violent women, which paradoxically silences her male victim. Religious leaders draw upon Quranic or Biblical passages, or upon prohibitions enshrined in local customs, as a means of dissuading women from violating their husbands, understanding such acts to attract a curse upon her descendants. A female community member stated that violent women are considered wicked, poorly raised, or witches, and that when a woman is violent, the children are ashamed to introduce her as their mother. A Protestant pastor reported receiving approximately three to four male victims of violence per week, resolving conflict through prayer and counselling. Experimental work cited in the study shows that female perpetrators of ambiguous mistreatment attract more moral anger and stronger attributions of intent than male perpetrators, supporting the interpretation that the figure of the violent woman violates prescriptive gender stereotypes and is consequently seen as deviant, a mechanism that shames both partners and keeps the victim quiet.

The study is candid about its methodological boundaries. Beyond the convenience sampling, the author notes that self-reported victimisation is likely affected by social desirability bias and underreporting, since men who most strongly internalise the expectation to appear strong may be the least likely to disclose violence at all, which would tend to understate rather than inflate the true extent of the phenomenon. The questionnaire was developed by the author, as no instrument validated for this setting was available, and no item measured power asymmetry, coercive control, intentionality, or reciprocity, so the 64.55 percent figure almost certainly aggregates situations ranging from isolated conflicts to sustained coercive control. The study measured male victimisation only, with no parallel measurement of violence against women or perpetrated by the respondents, and supports no comparative claim about men’s and women’s experience of intimate partner violence in Dédougou.

These findings call for inclusive policies, formal recognition, support services, and awareness campaigns, without diminishing the gravity of violence against women, who remain disproportionately affected by intimate partner violence worldwide. Feasible measures would include confidential, non-stigmatising reporting mechanisms within the police, gendarmerie, health, and social welfare services; training for service providers to recognise and respond to male victimisation without prejudice; clearly defined referral pathways linking religious and customary mediators, currently the first recourse of most victims, to formal psychosocial, medical, and legal services; and public awareness campaigns aimed at destigmatising disclosure. Such measures should be framed as an extension of existing services toward gender inclusiveness, not as a shift of resources away from services for women. By documenting the prevalence, forms, causes, and consequences of intimate partner violence against men in a West African context, and by shedding light on the normative mechanisms that sustain the culture of silence, the study strengthens the collective capacity to prevent and respond to violence in all its forms.

Subject of Research: Domestic violence against men in Dédougou, Burkina Faso: prevalence, forms, help-seeking, and the culture of silence

Article Title: Violence against men in intimate partnerships in Dédougou, Burkina Faso: reported experiences, forms, and the culture of silence

Article References: Violence against men in intimate partnerships in Dédougou, Burkina Faso: reported experiences, forms, and the culture of silence. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2026.1888378

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fsoc.2026.1888378

Keywords: Burkina Faso, domestic violence, intimate partner violence, male victimisation, masculinity, hegemonic masculinity, culture of silence, help-seeking, Dédougou, gender-inclusive services, Violence, against