Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Sexuality is a core part of human experience, yet in times of war and crisis, it is routinely overlooked in health responses. This neglect disregards a vital dimension of resilience and recovery. To fully support those living through conflict, clinicians must recognize that sexual health is not a luxury but a human right and a vital component of life, and therefore care, requiring both clinical and cultural preparedness. War fractures lives in visible and invisible ways. Global health interventions rightly prioritize food, shelter, and physical safety—but often neglect sexuality. Yet sexuality shapes identity, intimacy, and healing. War upends the basic conditions that allow for intimacy and desire, replacing connection with displacement, fear, and silence. In many contexts, especially in the Middle East, war and patriarchal violence intertwine to politicize and distort sexuality.1 These conditions significantly increase the risk of sexual and gender-based violence, especially for women, children, LGBTQ+ individuals, and other vulnerable groups.2 The collapse of social protections, the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war, and the impunity that often accompanies armed conflict create an environment where abuse escalates. Yet even as rates of violence soar, the long-term sexual and psychological consequences remain largely unaddressed by health systems focused on physical trauma or reproductive care. Most health and mental health professionals receive little training on the cultural and psychosexual dimensions of war. Crisis protocols tend to focus narrowly on trauma and safety, neglecting sexual expression and connection. We need to shift these frameworks: sexuality is not a luxury, but a necessary human experience subject to vulnerability and a source of resilience. Clinicians must be clinically and culturally prepared to address these needs with sensitivity and competence.3
Zakhour et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: