Rape Is Not About Sex in South Africa, It Is About Impressing Other Men: Part |

Rape Is Not About Sex in South Africa, It Is About Impressing Other Men

image created through Canva

Masculinity is often misdescribed as a possession. Something men have, inhabit, or naturally express. This description is not merely inaccurate; it is politically evasive. Masculinity is not a state of being but a continuous process of adjudication. Men do not simply exist as men. They are tried as men, evaluated as men, and either acquitted or convicted in the court of other men.

My argument advances a central claim: that men do not principally act for women, desire women, or fear women, but rather orient their conduct toward what may be described as a male jury. This jury is not formal, visible, or benevolent. It is a dispersed collective of male peers, ancestors, institutions, and myths that confer or withdraw masculine legitimacy. Masculinity, under patriarchy, is not earned through ethical conduct but through recognition by other men. It is, in this sense, a profoundly homosocial enterprise.

The implications of this claim are severe. If masculinity is constituted through male approval, then violence against women, queer people, and socially marginalised men is not an unfortunate deviation from patriarchy but one of its organising logics. Gender based violence, gang violence, rape, and queerphobia are not excesses. They are rituals of recognition. They are performances staged before an imagined male audience.

Homosociality refers to social bonds between men that are not primarily sexual but are deeply affective, hierarchical, and disciplinary. It is not the presence of desire that defines homosociality, but the presence of judgment. Men live under the gaze of other men. They are evaluated for strength, dominance, sexual conquest, emotional restraint, and conformity to masculine scripts. Failure is punished not through formal sanction but through ridicule, exclusion, or violence.

This male gaze differs fundamentally from how men imagine women’s judgment. Women’s approval is treated as optional, secondary, or instrumental. Male approval, by contrast, is existential. A man without recognition from other men is not merely unpopular; he is unmanned. This is why masculinity is so fragile. It is always revocable.

Crucially, homosociality does not contradict heterosexuality. It underwrites it. The most aggressively heterosexual performances are often the most homosocial. They are declarations directed less at women than at men who are watching. The conquest of women becomes a currency through which men transact status with one another. Women’s bodies are not desired so much as they are displayed.

To understand masculinity as homosocial is to shift the analytic lens away from women as the primary interlocutors of male behaviour. Patriarchy is not sustained because men hate women, though misogyny is ubiquitous. It is sustained because men need other men to confirm that they are men. This need produces a system in which domination becomes proof and vulnerability becomes liability.

Patriarchal societies intensify homosociality by formalising male power while privatising male insecurity. Men are promised dominance over women but are offered no protection from one another. Patriarchy is thus a regime of internal competition disguised as external supremacy.

In such societies, masculinity is not simply normative. It is scarce. There are real men and there are failed men. The latter category includes not only women and queer people but also men who are poor, unemployed, emotionally expressive, disabled, or insufficiently violent. Patriarchy produces a hierarchy of men long before it produces a hierarchy between men and women.

This is why patriarchal cultures are obsessed with initiation, discipline, and testing. Circumcision rituals, military service, gang initiation, and prison hierarchies all function as trials through which masculinity is proven. These trials are not designed to cultivate ethical subjects. They are designed to produce compliant ones. Pain becomes pedagogy. Silence becomes virtue. Cruelty becomes competence.

Importantly, patriarchy relies on the myth that male authority is natural. Yet the sheer volume of masculine policing betrays this lie. That which is natural does not require constant enforcement. Masculinity requires relentless surveillance precisely because it is unstable.

South African masculinity cannot be understood outside the violent histories that produced it. Colonialism, apartheid, and racial capitalism systematically stripped Black men of land, autonomy, and political agency while simultaneously holding them to patriarchal expectations of provision and authority. This contradiction has never been resolved. It has merely been displaced.

Under apartheid, Black masculinity was criminalised and infantilised. Men were denied the ability to be providers while being judged as failures for not providing. Post apartheid South Africa inherited this unresolved contradiction. Political liberation did not produce economic liberation. Masculine expectations remained intact while masculine means collapsed.

In this context, homosocial masculinity becomes particularly dangerous. When men cannot access dignity through work or social recognition, they seek it through dominance. Violence becomes compensatory. Control over women, children, and queer bodies becomes a substitute for structural power denied elsewhere.

South Africa’s extraordinarily high rates of gender based violence are not incidental. They are symptomatic of a masculine economy in crisis. Men are still judged by other men according to patriarchal standards they can no longer meet through legitimate means. The result is a turn toward illegitimate means that nonetheless secure recognition within male peer groups.

Rape in South Africa is often discussed as an expression of sexual desire or moral pathology. This framing is inadequate. Rape is not primarily about sex. It is about power and, more specifically, about recognition by other men.

Many acts of sexual violence are narrated among men as achievements, jokes, or warnings. Silence around rape does not indicate shame. It indicates complicity. The imagined male audience is always present, even when physically absent. The act is performed for that audience.

Gender based violence functions similarly. Abuse is often intensified in public or semi public contexts where male peers are aware of it. Violence becomes a language through which men communicate dominance to other men. The woman’s suffering is secondary. The primary audience is male.

Gangs are perhaps the most explicit institutionalisation of homosocial masculinity. They offer young men what broader society withholds: recognition, hierarchy, belonging, and a clear path to masculine status. Violence is not a byproduct of gang life. It is its organising principle.

Gang initiations are trials. They demand pain inflicted and pain endured. Loyalty is measured through willingness to commit violence. Masculinity is quantified through brutality. Importantly, gangs reproduce patriarchal logics even as they exist on the margins of the state. They are not counter cultures. They are intensified patriarchies.

Queerphobia within patriarchal societies is not primarily fear of sexual difference. It is fear of masculine contamination. Queer men represent a refusal of homosocial rules. They disrupt the economy of masculine recognition by exposing its arbitrariness.

Violence against queer people thus serves a disciplinary function. It reassures the male jury that boundaries remain intact. It signals allegiance to patriarchal norms. The queer body becomes a site upon which masculine anxiety is expelled.

South African prisons represent the most distilled form of homosocial patriarchy. They are spaces almost entirely governed by men, structured through violence, and organised around rigid hierarchies of dominance and submission.

In prison, masculinity is not symbolic. It is material. Status determines access to food, safety, and survival. Sexual violence in prison is not a breakdown of order. It is a form of governance. Rape becomes a mechanism through which hierarchies are enforced and identities fixed.

The prison gang system formalises the male jury. Masculinity is adjudicated through rituals, punishments, and rewards. There is no appeal. There is no privacy. The gaze of other men is constant and unforgiving.

What prison reveals is not a deviation from normal masculinity but its logical extreme. Outside prison, patriarchal norms are softened by legal constraints and social pluralism. Inside prison, they are unmediated. This should trouble any attempt to treat prison violence as exceptional. It is not. It is masculinity without restraint.

If masculinity is constituted through male approval, then appeals to men’s better nature will always be insufficient. Patriarchy does not survive because men are ignorant. It survives because men are rewarded.

The task, then, is not to persuade men to be kinder within the existing masculine economy, but to dismantle the economy itself. The male jury must be disempowered. Recognition must be decoupled from domination. Masculinity must cease to be a trial.

This requires more than legal reform. It requires cultural heresy. It requires making violence shameful among men, not merely illegal. It requires disrupting homosocial bonds that reward cruelty and replacing them with forms of solidarity that do not depend on exclusion.

Until then, South Africa will continue to prosecute women, queer people, and marginalised men for crimes they did not commit. The verdict will always be the same. And the jury will remain comfortably male.

Part Two of this article will shift from theory to experiment. Having established that South African masculinity is less a private identity than a public performance staged before a male jury, the next instalment will ask a more dangerous question: what happens when that jury is deliberately destabilised.

I will explore an already documented prison intervention as a point of departure, before constructing a South African prison scenario in which hierarchy remains intact but the masculine standard at the top of the pyramid is strategically dismantled. It will examine how violence can be broken not by removing powerful men, but by emptying their symbolic authority. Central to this inquiry is Subject X, the feared and admired apex masculine figure, and the systemic methods through which other men are induced to stop seeing him as the measure of manhood.

The discussion will then turn to homosociality itself, not as a pathology to be eradicated, but as a social force capable of redirection. It will consider how male approval can be re-coded away from brutality and toward forms of recognition that stabilise rather than destroy communities. Within this analysis, metrosexuality will be treated not as lifestyle or fashion, but as aesthetic insurgency: a quiet sabotage of patriarchal signifiers that confuses the male gaze and fractures inherited masculine hierarchies.

I will also return to South Africa directly, locating these dynamics within prisons, gangs, and everyday male social worlds, and asking what it would mean to repurpose masculinity for social repair rather than social harm.

If masculinity is a trial, then Part Two asks who controls the courtroom, who sets the standard, and what happens when the verdict no longer rewards violence.

Follow this page to be notified when Part Two drops.

Signed off by

Your favourite law student