The realisation of how sexuality and sexual health are experienced within relationships was reflected by the participants. The dynamics of parent-child relationships are portrayed in the section on sexual education by parents and thus will not be repeated. Similarly the perception of the role friends played in one’s negotiation of their sexuality is discussed in the section on the learners’ experience of participation in a youth sexuality and sexual health programme facilitated by university students. The participants’ perceptions of non-heteronormative relationships are discussed on the section on sexual diversity.
Heterosexual romantic relationships were given primary emphasis and thus are discussed at greater length. The power dynamics of gender which are operationalised in the form of gender roles were recognised by the participants as being significant in youth sexuality and sexual
102 health. Participants’ views indicated that the patriarchal influence was as significant in matters of sexuality as it is in other aspects of life such as in the economic sphere and domestic space where women are still disempowered. The female participants reported disgruntlement with the status quo that placed responsibility for sexual health on their shoulders whilst not empowering them in the decision-making process. A cited anomalous scenario is when a young couple has unprotected sex which leads to the pregnancy of the girl. This is followed by the condemnation of the girl whilst the boy who impregnated her does not face condemnation of equal intensity.
Juxtaposed with the dominant view amongst participants who reported that it is still frowned upon for girls to carry condoms it appears to be illogical and unfair to blame the girl. Mantell et al. (2006) highlight the need to address this unfortunate situation. Mantell et al. argue that socio- cultural expectations send contradictory messages. Young girls are expected to prevent falling pregnant while simultaneously advocating an image of male masculinity based on sexually conquering girls. In this respect it seems the participants in this study are faced with the same dilemma as outlined by Mantell et al. (2006).
Sexual assertion was reported to be an area that most vividly illustrated the gender based inequality in heterosexual relationships. Having multiple sexual relationships is endorsed for men and is seen as an emblem of masculinity. In contrast a woman with multiple sexual partners is seen to be an indictment to femininity (Selikow, 2004). Similar to Selikow’s (2004) findings the participants in this study reported that a woman with multiple sexual partners was called
‘isifebe’ (bitch) or ‘unondindwa’ (a woman with loose morals). The term used to refer to a male who is polygamous or a man who is in multiple relationships ‘isoka’ is similar to ‘ingangara’ the term Selikow (2004) reports in that it celebrates the man’s sexual assertion by constructing it as a
103 desirable trait of masculinity. The participants’ critical reflection of the perceived gender inequality and their reference to the 2nd and 3rd workshop lessons, which explored gender issues, indicated programme fidelity. Their reflection also suggested that the lessons were pitched in a manner the learners could comprehend.
According to Schalet (2004) the sexuality programme introduced in the Netherlands which advocated for valuing of romantic relationships in young people while not emphasising the differences between the two genders resulted in safer sexual behaviours. In this study participants reported that relationships amongst young people were construed, by society, in a sexualised manner which left no room for amity and other non-sexual aspects. Whilst it is not plausible to argue for a blind replication of the programme espoused by Schalet (2004) given the differing social and cultural make-up of the two countries youth sexuality interventions must attend to the romantic relationships of young people. It may not be culturally permissible for youth to sleep at their romantic partner’s home. However aspects such as nurturing friendship within romantic relationships and encouraging communication between youth and their parents may be worth exploring.
The gendered nature of sexual violence was highlighted by the participants, with the girls understanding the constraints placed by the risks they faced. Sexual violence was seen to be perpetrated by men with women as the victims. This was seen to place limits on girls such as having to abide to stricter curfews due to being at a higher risk for being raped.
104 Young people’s romantic relationships were revealed to be a space where youth sexuality and economics intersect. The phenomena of ‘sugar daddies’, older men who use their economic standing to engage in sexual relationships with younger girls was reported to be common. The participants reported that the workshops were instrumental in offering a different narrative that assured them it was a misleading notion to say you had to sleep with a partner who spent their money on you. Nyazi (2011) cautions of the risk youth are exposed to when they are in intergenerational relationships with so called ‘sugar daddies’ or ‘sugar mums’ who are likelier to be HIV positive than the youth’s peers. In this regard exploring the economical nuances of relationships appears to have been a worthy endeavour. The participants identified an exercise in the workshops in which they had collectively discussed what was expected of a young female when her partner bought her an expensive present. In this regard the discussions that emerged, framed in a social constructivist analysis, enabled what Paiva (2005) refers to as analysis of a sexual scene. Thus the approach enabled the participants to engage with an actual scenario in a manner that encourages a critical dialogue on the contextual factors that influence the behaviour of a young person faced with such a situation.