A bizarre, if not idiotic, ruling today by South Africa’s Constitutional Court, found that non-consensual anal penetration of a male did not constitute rape, but that non-consensual penile penetration of a female, anal or vaginal, did.
The case resulted from a challenge brought by Fanuel Sitakeni Masiya, 44, who was charged with raping a nine-year-old girl on March 16, 2004.
Despite pleading not guilty to the charges, the original ruling found him guilty, despite the fact that evidence revealed that the child had been anally, but not vaginally, penetrated.
Prior to today’s ruling, South Africa’s common law definition of rape only constituted non-consensual vaginal sexual intercourse.
Had the little nine-year old been a boy, Masiya’s act would not have constituted a rape, but merely an “indecent assault.” Justice Bess Nkabinde, who can’t possibly have any young sons among her four children, held that “extending the definition to include penetration of a man encroached on legislative terrain.” What? Only, perhaps if she was operating within a gender-biased paradigm to begin with.
In addition, Nkabinde found that the definition could not be applied retroactively, and remanded Masyia’s case back to Pretoria’s regional court for sentencing, under the charge of indecent assault rather than rape. Rape of a minor carries a minimum sentence of life imprisonment, whereas indecent assault has no prescribed sentence.
Try as I might, I cannot find any logic in basing a violent non-consensual act on gender. Not only in the context of children, but even male-on-male rape committed against adults.
South African males, children and adults alike, should really thank Ms. Nkabinde. So should their mothers and sisters. They’ve just officially been declared South African Ass Candy, free for the taking.
