South Africa has one of the highest HIV prevalence rates in the world (UNAIDS, 2010). It is estimated that HIV prevalence is 18.9% across the whole population, although there are a number of problems with and limitations to these figures (Department of Health, 2010; Shisana & Simbayi, 2002; UNAIDS, 2010). Nevertheless, the increasing HIV prevalence rate over the
last two decades (although very recently the rate appears to be decreasing) has raised many questions about boys, sex and masculinity. This recognition has led social science researchers to explore the role of gender in HIV transmission (Jewkes et al., 2009; Lindegger & Maxwell, 2007; Pattman, 2007; Sathiparsad, 2007; Shefer, 2003; Wood & Jewkes, 2001). In South Africa, scholars have noted how dominant masculinities shape young boys‘ violent control over girls, the demand for ‗flesh to flesh‘ sex and the celebration of multiple sexual partners (Jewkes et al., 2009; Campbell & MacPhail, 2001; Wood & Jewkes, 2001). Adolescent boys, for example, boast about the number of girlfriends they have and the ability to have sex with all of them. According to Seidler (1989) many boys see sex as a quantitative experience (e.g. how many girlfriends do you have? How often have you had sex with them?). Boys achieve status, prestige and popularity amongst their peers through having multiple partners and through publicly demonstrating or proclaiming this. Young boys also feel entitled to have full penetrative sex, and sex when and how they want it (Jewkes et al., 2009; Campbell, 1997; Wood & Jewkes, 2001). In this respect, masculinity is still saturated with associations of a dominant, active, and promiscuous heterosexuality. However, there is an emerging literature which indicates that not all boys in South Africa engage in sex-related risk-taking behaviours as part of constructing hegemonic masculine identity, but these voices are not very popular (Lindegger & Maxwell, 2007; Pattman, 2007; Sathiparsad, 2007).
In many relationships, young boys control sexual activity, including the use or non-use of condoms. Use of condoms appears to signal and depend on the status of a girlfriend. For example, condoms are reserved for casual encounters or ‗one-night stands‘ (Campbell, 1997; Sathiparsad, 2007). Girls commonly need to be submissive in ‗love affairs‘ or risk being beaten up. Boys may claim that violence against girlfriends is a sign of love and also a legitimate means of instilling discipline (Jewkes et al., 2009; Redpath et al., 2008; Sigsworth, 2009; Wood & Jewkes, 2001). For many boys, there is a sense of entitlement to have sex with girls, particularly when they have spent money on them, such buying them drinks, sweets or chocolates. In this context, successful masculinity is centered on adolescent boys‘ ability to control sexual partners and to have a sex with them on their own terms. In terms of the male sexual drive discourse, sex is presented as ‗masculine or physical need‘, while women‘s desires are barely recognized (Hollway, 1989) and this kind of discursive construction of heterosexual
encounters appears to be persistent as evidenced in the findings of empirical research in South Africa (Wood & Jewkes, 2001). Men feel entitled to initiate a sexual encounter, while women are denied this privilege. Women who initiate sexual encounters or carry condoms are labeled as ‗loose‘, ‗whores‘ or ‗prostitutes‘ (Campbell, 1997; Hollway, 1989).
However, some girls are today defying boys‘ control by also beginning to engage in relationships with more than one boy (Hunter, 2005). These girls are accused of being difebe (sluts or prostitutes) (Hunter, 2005). Boys may try by all means to make practices of ‗hegemonic‘ masculinity, such as engagement in a dominating sexuality, compulsory for their peers, in part through discursive practices. In this instance, masculinity (rather than femininity) is associated with sexual prowess and performance demonstrated in having many sexual partners. Having sex is used as yardstick in proving one‘s manliness. Jewkes and Wood (2001) found that many boys also used violence against girls who refused to have sex with them. This also offers some explanations for the increasing levels of sexual violence against school-going girls (see, Human Rights Watch, 2001). School boys were reported to be using force to have sex with girls in school toilet facilities, in empty classrooms and in hostel rooms and dormitories. These boys may enact their masculinity in this way in part in order to be seen as potent among their male peers.
On the other hand, young boys who have girlfriends complain bitterly about their inability to retain the interest of ‗beautiful‘ girls. Boys report that girls want sugar daddies (men who are already working, driving flashy cars and can afford to buy them expensive gifts) and may thus be dismissive of the interest of younger men (Hunter, 2005; Lindegger & Maxwell, 2007). Securing a girlfriend is all about what is known as the ―triple C syndrome‖, being able to own and provide access to cash, cellular phone and car. Money talks as girls choose partners who are able provide them with material possessions and poorer boys face new difficulties in acquiring girlfriends. Failure to secure a girlfriend may challenge the development of a masculine identity and compromise status in the eyes of one‘s peers. Boys express their anxieties and frustrations about being rejected by girls who they claim are too materialistic and about their powerlessness in competing with older, rich men (Pattman, 2005; Lindegger & Maxwell, 2007). In this context, successful masculinity is associated with economic power and
those without wealth feel emasculated due to their inability fulfill the ideals of ‗hegemonic‘ masculinity. In the township context, hegemonic masculinity also seems to be associated with both heterosexuality (and sexual prowess) and access to wealth, material possessions and resources. From a psychological perspective, it is important to understand how working-class boys in Alexandra Township deal with feelings of powerless, anxiety, and envy and the coping mechanisms they employ to deal not only with their youth, but also with their own class positioning. Thus, the study is interested not only in the kinds of social patterns, exchanges and labels that have been identified in related research, but also in the more personal effects/impact these have on individuals and what kinds of interpersonal and intrapsychic challenges this may pose.