Financial and material exchange as a motivating force underlying sexual relationships is a well-recognised dynamic in the HIV pandemic, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa(
Luke, 2003). Often referred to as transactional sex, it is a motive for women to have sex in situations where they might otherwise refrain(
Hunter, 2002;
Jewkes, Vundule et al., 2001;
Kaufman & Stavrou, 2004;
MacPhail & Campbell, 2001;
Meekers & Calves, 1997;
Nyanzi, Pool et al., 2001;
Wood & Jewkes, 2001), and has been noted as a potential source of women's vulnerability to gender-based violence and sexual exploitation (
Dunkle, Jewkes et al., 2004a;
Luke, 2003;
Nyanzi, Pool, & Kinsman, 2001;
Wojcicki & Malala, 2001). Research in a number of sub-Saharan African contexts has conclusively demonstrated that exchange of sex for material resources is common practice, and that the vast majority of women who engage in such transactions do not identify as sex workers(
Hunter, 2002;
Leclerc-Madlala, 2003;
Luke, 2003;
MacPhail & Campbell, 2001;
Matasha, Ntembelea et al., 1998;
Nyanzi, Pool, & Kinsman, 2001;
Nzyuko, Lurie et al., 1997;
Silberschmidt & Rasch, 2001;
Wojcicki & Malala, 2001;
Wood & Jewkes, 2001). However, research on the origins and implications of this behaviour remains limited. In South Africa recent research has shown self-reported participation in transactional sex to be associated with HIV serostatus, underscoring the importance to public health of understanding such exchanges(
Dunkle, Jewkes, Brown et al., 2004a;
Pettifor, Kleinschimdt et al., 2005).
Some observers have historically suggested that transactional dynamics are essentially ubiquitous in sexual relationships within sub-Saharan Africa, arising and deriving from the practice of
lobola (bride price) and the concomitant – and compared to Western attitudes, relatively unstigmatised – tendency to view women's sexuality as instrumental and open for commoditisation (
Caldwell, Caldwell et al., 1989;
Helle-Valle, 1999). More recent literature on transactional sex, however, suggests that while economic exchange as a key dynamic in sexual relationships is indeed common, it is far from universal. Furthermore, transactional sexual relationships fundamentally differ from
lobola as they do not involve formal negotiation and exchange between families.
Studies from across Africa report prevalence estimates for the exchange of sex by young women for money or gifts ranging from 5% to 78% (
Luke, 2005a;
Matasha, Ntembelea, Mayaud et al., 1998;
Meekers & Calves, 1997;
Nyanzi, Pool, & Kinsman, 2001;
Nzyuko, Lurie, McFarland et al., 1997). In South Africa, a study by Jewkes
et al in Cape Town found that 21.1% of pregnant and 18.8% of non-pregnant teenagers reported having sex for money or presents (
Jewkes, Vundule, Maforah et al., 2001), while a more recent study of women attending antenatal clinics in Soweto found that 21.1% of participants reported having ever had sex with a non-primary male partner in exchange for material goods or money (
Dunkle, Jewkes, Brown et al., 2004a).
Transactional sex among women is often motivated by basic survival and subsistence needs (
Hunter, 2002;
Leclerc-Madlala, 2003;
Luke, 2003;
Wojcicki, 2002) but young women whose access to resources is circumscribed may also use transactional sex to help advance their education, gain employment or business opportunities, or simply achieve higher status in youth cultures which prioritise conspicuous consumption (
Hunter, 2002;
Kaufman & Stavrou, 2004;
Leclerc-Madlala, 2001;
Luke, 2003;
Nyanzi, Pool, & Kinsman, 2001;
Silberschmidt & Rasch, 2001). Of particular concern is the way in which financial or material need can introduce an explicit power imbalance into sexual relations. In qualitative research women often assert that accepting financial or material assistance from a man means accepting sex on his terms, which very often means without condoms (
Hunter, 2002;
MacPhail & Campbell, 2001;
Meekers & Calves, 1997;
Wood & Jewkes, 2001). Women may also face rape and physical violence from men who anticipated that financial outlay would be reciprocated by sex (
Wood & Jewkes, 2001), and women often tolerate physical or sexual violence in order to sustain relationships which provide critical income (
Wood & Jewkes, 2001).
Most research on transactional sex to date has focused on women, particularly younger women in relationships with older men (i.e. “sugar daddies”).(
Luke, 2003,
2005a). As a result, we have little information on transactional sex from men's perspective, and almost no data on younger men. A synthesis of data from Demographic and Health Surveys in nine sub-Saharan African countries shows that between 7.4% to 42.8% of unmarried (generally younger) men and 3.4% to 18.3% of married (generally older) men reported giving or receiving money, gifts, or favours for sexual relations in the last 12 months (
Luke, 2005a). A study of men aged 21 to 45 in Kisumu, Kenya found that three-quarters of non-marital sexual partnerships involved transfer of money or goods to the female partner in the past month (
Luke, 2005b) and another study in Ondo Town, Nigeria found that men gave material transfers in 70% of non-martial partnerships in the last year (
Orubuloye, Caldwell et al., 1992). The Kenyan study also found that the likelihood of condom use at last sex with a given non-marital partner was lower when the value of a man's financial and material contributions over the last month was higher (
Luke, 2006).
Standard survey questions have generally defined transactional sex only in terms of giving money or gifts to a sexual partner, and few have distinguished exchanges within primary relationships (which may be non-marital) from those with casual or concurrent partners (
Luke, 2005a). Most quantitative work on transactional sex also fails to distinguish between financial or material transfers which function as gifts, or even entitlements (e.g. child support), and those which function as transactions. We define gifts as material or monetary transfers whose primary intention is to express affection or otherwise solidify and enhance affective dimensions of a relationship. Transactions, in contrast, are primarily motivated from the giver's side by a desire to secure or maintain sexual access (or other services) and from the receiver's side by a desire to generate resources. Of course, gift and transaction motives can coexist and overlap, and there may not always be a shared understanding between the parties involved as to the meaning of a particular transfer (
Carrier, 1991;
Luke, 2005a). Nonetheless, the distinction between gifts and transactions is critically important because while gifts often form an integral part of courtship or expressions of care and affection within relationships, they may not be a critical motivating factor underpinning the existence of the relationship or motivating a particular sexual encounter (
Hunter, 2002;
Kaufman & Stavrou, 2004;
Luke, 2005a). It is important to ascertain the extent to which a given transfer – or the existence of a given relationship involving regular transfers – is understood by either party to be fundamentally transactional rather than gift-based as this has potentially important implications for understanding the power dynamics surrounding sexual decision making.
Qualitative research has addressed these issues with more nuance than quantitative work has yet achieved, and has consistently demonstrated that exchange of money and material resources takes on different meanings in different kinds of relationships. In many cultural settings, and certainly within South Africa, casual and secondary sexual relationships seem far more likely than main partnerships to be driven explicitly by transactional motives. While the balance of financial and economic power may of course impact the dynamics of sexual decision making within main partnerships, these negotiations are perforce also influenced by considerably more complex relational discourses including love, trust, commitment, and childbearing (
Hunter, 2002;
Kaufman & Stavrou, 2004;
Leclerc-Madlala, 2003;
Luke, 2005a;
Meekers & Calves, 1997;
Wood & Jewkes, 2001).
To address some of the gaps in previous quantitative work on these issues, we drew on baseline data from the Stepping Stones study, an HIV behavioural prevention trial in the rural Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. These data offer a rich opportunity for secondary analysis. We assessed young men's participation in transactional sexual relationships with both causal partners and main girlfriends using a culturally-tailored measure based on local ethnographic data (
Dunkle, Jewkes, Brown et al., 2004a;
Authors, 2006), We here examine the prevalence and predictors of transactional sex with casual partners and, separately, transactionally-motivated relationships with main girlfriends. We also compare men giving resources to female partners to men getting resources from female partners, an activity which has so far been described in only a very limited way through qualitative research (
Kaufman & Stavrou, 2004;
Matasha, Ntembelea, Mayaud et al., 1998;
Meekers & Calves, 1997). We first explore predictors of each of these four behaviours, and then consider potentially correlated behaviours, including substance use, number of sexual partners, and perpetration of gender based violence.
We use our data to test two hypotheses regarding gender and power dynamics associated with transactional sex. First, if explicit transaction is indeed a normative and relatively ubiquitous dynamic in primary partnerships in South Africa, we would expect little to no variation in gender-based violence perpetration in relationships with main partners which are identified as transactionally motivated compared to those which are not. Secondly, if material transfers are in fact a male strategy for controlling women and their sexuality, then we would expect men who give resources to main or casual female partners to exhibit other controlling and violent behaviours. In contrast, if giving resources to a sexual partner is inherently a source of power regardless of gender, then men who obtain resources from their female partners might be expected to report lower levels of controlling or violent behaviour.