Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jun;27(6):2015-2029.
doi: 10.1007/s10461-022-03935-8. Epub 2022 Nov 28.

"Men Rule… this is the Normal Thing. We Normalise it and it's Wrong": Gendered Power in Decision-Making Around Sex and Condom Use in Heterosexual Relationships Amongst Adolescents and Young People in South Africa

Affiliations

"Men Rule… this is the Normal Thing. We Normalise it and it's Wrong": Gendered Power in Decision-Making Around Sex and Condom Use in Heterosexual Relationships Amongst Adolescents and Young People in South Africa

Zoe Duby et al. AIDS Behav. 2023 Jun.

Abstract

We examined power and decision-making in heterosexual relationships amongst South African adolescents and young people. A survey conducted with 515 adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) included items from the Sexual Relationship Power Scale (SRPS) adapted for South African women. Qualitative interviews with fifty AGYW aged between 15 and 24, and nine males aged 18 years and above, explored decision-making in heterosexual relationships, particularly relating to timing of sex and condom use. Theories of gendered power, sexual relationship power and sexual scripting were used in interpreting the data. Findings showed that the power AGYW have in sexual relationships determines their ability to use condoms, and that males generally control condom use and timing of sex. Both survey and interview data suggest that male control over female partners' behaviour also extends beyond the sexual domain. Although while male power is pervasive and enduring, it is simultaneously contested and negotiated. Despite some young people believing that gendered power in decision-making should be equal, it is not always possible for AGYW to enact agency in the dyadic context of heterosexual relationships. Whilst adolescents and young people in South Africa move away from traditional cultural gendered expectations, relationship power inequity and hegemonic masculinities continue to legitimise men's power over women, constraining the sexual agency of adolescent girls and young women and discouraging them from taking control of their own sexual interests and sexual health.

Keywords: Adolescents and Young people; Condom use; Sex; Sexual Relationship power; Sexual decision-making; South Africa.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None to declare.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Qualitative Analysis Coding Tree

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Seidu A, Gyan Aboagye R, Okyere J, Agbemavi W, Akpeke M, Budu E, Ishaque Saah F, Tackie V, Opoku Ahinkorah B. (2021). Women’s autonomy in household decision-making and safer sex negotiation in sub-Saharan Africa: An analysis of data from 27 Demographic and Health Surveys, SSM - Population Health, 14. 10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100773. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Connell RW. Gender and power. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1987.
    1. Closson K, Hatcher A, Sikweyiya Y, Washington L, Mkhwanazi S, Jewkes R, Dunkle K, Gibbs A. Gender role conflict and sexual health and relationship practices amongst young men living in urban informal settlements in South Africa. Cult Health Sex. 2020;22(1):31–47. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2019.1568578. - DOI - PubMed
    1. McMahon JM, Volpe EM, Klostermann K, Trabold N, Xue Y. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of the sexual Relationship Power Scale in HIV/AIDS research. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44(2):267–94. doi: 10.1007/s10508-014-0355-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Blanc AK. The effect of power in sexual relationships on sexual and reproductive health: an examination of the evidence. Stud Fam Plann. 2001;32(3):189–213. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2001.00189.x. - DOI - PubMed

Grants and funding