The Glow of White Women

What were the ways in which sexuality and race policed during the apartheid era?
Sexuality was controlled through race which was the main signifier of difference and the basis of separate development in apartheid South Africa. The main sexualities focused upon were those of the white woman and the black man because the ideas of their sexuality stood in stark contrast to each other. The white woman was pure and passive with the black man was oversexualized and active (Segal; 1997: 222, McEwan: 5). These qualities (race and sexuality) were controlled by the law which sought complete separation of the races.
There were physical barriers that separated races as space became highly politicized. In the film, the narrator refers to a railway line that separated the whites and non-whites in Nelspruit. Sexuality was controlled socially through stereotypes and stigmas and then through laws such as the Immorality and Mixed Marriages Acts which allowed the police to search homes and arrest offenders. White women’s sexuality was also controlled through fear, a fear of the black man, and only the white man could protect them against through the measures of apartheid. Not only was their sexuality controlled, but so was their autonomy and freedom (Pharr; 1997: 14).
What possibilities were closed down?
South Africa’s apartheid regime silenced the discussion of sexuality through repressive state laws and censorship such as the Immorality Act which were put in place to maintain the interests of the white privileged society. This was done through prohibiting sex across racial boundaries in addition to thriving colonial anxieties regarding the nature of black sexuality, which contributed to maintaining barriers which prevented sex from entering public discourse-restricted racial sex to the domestic sphere (McEwen, H. 11). However, this is in contradiction with the state of the human anatomy as Segal states: “…isn’t it (sexuality) our anatomy, after all, our destiny?” (Segal: 1997:184); therefore it is practical to ask what race has to do with the boundaries of sexuality. The way in which sexuality was controlled during this time shows how “sexuality plays a privileged role” and thus its boundaries were dictated according to the Act (Segal: 1997: 184).

Intimate relationships that occurred between black men and white women were seen as just about sex or sexual encounters. The way in which white women and black men viewed each other was as exotic encounters, these experiences were not about social harmony but merely a sexual encounter. The differences between black men and white women were seen as exciting but problematic. Kinsey argued that sexual satisfaction should be seen as acceptable in whatever form it is manifested (Segal, L. 1997: 194). The Immorality Act prohibited interracial relationships because they were viewed as taboo.
These interracial relationships were closed down during the apartheid era because black men were stereotyped as sex addicts, thieves, monsters or serial rapists. Some women in the film said “black men are worse, perhaps dirty”. Nude published photographs of white women were banned or censored out of a fear of being raped. This film illustrates how white women’s sexualities were played out by their husbands while at the same time still trying to protect their purity. The rigidity of the gendered symbolism of the sex act remains one of key factors which can rob women of a sense of sexual agency while at the same time encouraging men’s sexual coerciveness of their masculinity (Segal, L. 1997: 221). The incident of the Yeoville rapist who targeted white women made other white women in interracial relationships feel scared and uncomfortable. Accusations against black men resulted in a lack of trust which brought out these women’s insecurities.
The possibility of white men being rapists was closed down during the apartheid era. White men felt threatened by black men because of the size of the penis “black men have bigger ones and are taking our women”. This shows white people’s obsession with black men’s penises both from a perspective of fear as well as fascination and curiosity. The body and its pleasures are the target of surveillance; the body is thus disembodied, becoming merely unstable or empty space around which discourse of sexuality has been framed. This is subject to external manipulations of power, cultural or institutional frames such as apartheid (Segal, L. 1997: 212). The cultural construction of sexuality was a means in which men brought out their power and control over women’s bodies and pleasures (Segal, L. 1997: 185).

The overpopulating black body, during the apartheid era, was presented as hypersexual and was propagated in various forms of media through articulations or ‘racial’ otherness and difference. His sexuality was closed down by creating images of him as an uncontrollable sexual animal. Thus his ability to engage in consensual sexual relations with a partner of choice was ruled out by his expected behavior. It was as understood that he acted only on primal instinct and raw lust. His sexuality was also controlled by the white woman who was dominant over the black gardener working for their family. She found her power through her sexuality and there lay a desire to further conquer the black man by having intercourse with him (McEwan: 6).
There was an obsession of racial difference even though the whites did not see themselves as a race. The racial dimensions of sexuality and its social regulation during the apartheid era highlights the historic acceptance of subordinated ethnic groups. The discursive investment in the definition of non white bodies as bestial resulted in interracial affairs during the apartheid era as never a private affair but always under pubic scrutiny (Segal, L. 1997: 188)
Categories in the apartheid era were highly essentialized because of racial differences. In the film a white woman talks about having an affair with a senior officer of the ANC, but his bodyguards constantly showed him other Zulu women and would compare Zulu women to the white woman. Zulu woman were seen as ideal as they had large breasts and buttocks. This racialized ideologies structured relations among men and women, which shows how South Africa during the apartheid era was defined or articulated by race. This shows how sexuality is socially scripted behavior. Social aspects instead of physical aspects are said to generate arousal and organize action (Segal, L. 1997:207). Black women were left out of the dominant femininity during the apartheid era which consisted of blonde, white women with blue eyes.

What possibilities were being opened up?
According to Segal (1997) sex has always been a complex and contested domain; it is also a fictional unity, which is the key site for social regulation and control in modern times.
According to the film, the dominant femininity is characterised as ‘white, blonde and blue-eyed’. Given that this is during the apartheid era, white women’s sexuality is interpreted as superior and fairer, as compared to a black woman’s. This elevated their status as citizens in South Africa. They appear on prominent magazines such as Fairlady, the opportunity to express white female sexuality was more open and acceptable than it was for black or coloured women.
Sex was an activity that was free of apartheid; it brought men and women of different racial backgrounds together, especially after the introduction of the Immorality Act. The reaction to this act was a great desire to experience what was considered taboo. White women could go to any bar and pick up a black man to ‘hook up with’. This illustrates white women’s obsessions with black men’s highly sexualized bodies. The manner in which relationships between black men and white women were policed led to black men’s obsession with white women as they were denied white women. Thus the possibilities for interracial relationships were opened up even though it was not about social harmony or the struggle; it was about breaking rules and fulfilling desires. The sexual act itself was used as an opportunity for the inferior i.e. black man to confirm his manhood by sleeping with a white woman. The ability to pleasure a white woman was equated to a confirmation of being human and equal.
Race and sexuality were used as markers for access to resources; therefore white individuals had better opportunities in terms of housing and employment, as compared to resources in the townships. Social spheres such as cinemas were racially divided, whites sat at the front and a wall divided them from the blacks that sat at the back but separation created opportunities for non-white men to engage in otherwise condemned behavior such as masturbation in public spaces.
Bans that were imposed on sexual relations, for example the Immorality Act (Section 16) that even dictated sexual relations and behaviour in the private sphere; exposed the ills of the apartheid system. This opened it up to criticism and led to an increase in negativity towards the apartheid system. Aspects such as this brought the opportunity for its abolishment and change.

Whose interests are at stake?
“Patriarchy is the enforced belief in male dominance and control - is the ideology and sexism system that holds it in place” (Pharr: 1997: 8). The patriarchal system in combination with racial segregation that defined apartheid South Africa’s policies situated the white male at the very top of the social order with all the power. Thus the interests at stake were his and those similar to him. Although it seemed as though the interests of white women and the white population of apartheid South Africa are also at stake, it was just the need of the white man to control all of those around him. It is a matter of his pride that needs to be preserved as well as his position on top of the gender hierarchy.
Men need to protect their pride. By denying white women access to the “hypersexualized” black man, who could guarantee pleasure with their substantially bigger penises, higher sex drive and greater stamina, white men could maintain their sexual dominance (McEwan: 6,18). The film features a stand-up comedy piece by Evita Bezuidenhout in which she use two cactuses to represent the white rule of apartheid and the black rule of democracy. The cactus from apartheid was short and fat, while the cactus from the new democracy was thinner but long, strong and straight with a bulb like top. These are phallic symbols for the white and black man. They signify impotency and virility respectively which explains the fear and necessity that the white man has to control the black man. Thus as long as the white woman is ignorant of what she is missing the white man willing remain in sexual demand and can continue to feel masculine. They fear that once their women have experienced the black man they will not want to return to the white men (McEwan: 6). Here is illustrated the stereotype of women’s uncontrollable sexuality.
Women on the other hand needed to be protected against these dangerous men. They needed to maintain their purity which a black man would undoubtedly taint with his repulsive body and mentality. This is the white woman who has been placed upon a pedestal as the symbol of all that is pure, feminine, beautiful as highlighted in magazines that showed of what femininity entailed by displaying their bodies through the media. White women that were involved in pornography found this as a means or opportunity to make money although they never felt exploited. These publications as well as magazines gave black men access to white women and maintaining their obsession. White women’s sexuality was used to both entice black men, as well as to reinforce his inferiority because he was not allowed to engage with her. If white women were seen in sexual poses showing too much skin it might cause the black man to physically harm the woman because he was incapable of understanding sentimental and loving relationships. The Yeoville rapist confirmed these myths about the savage black man.

The understanding held by the white population was that their race needed to be protected from contamination of black DNA, in order to maintain their superiority and purity as a race. If black and white were allowed to procreate it would not only undermine the purity of the white race, but it would also entitle the black man to think that he was a human because he was allowed to touch the white woman (McEwan; 11). By engaging in sexual intercourse with her he could confirm his manhood and humanity. Therefore he had to be contained and reminded that he is inferior which allows him to let himself be dominated by the white man. People’s identity was limited in accordance with their racial space, hence there was also a limited sexuality and self identification: “dynamics of gender, tied with heterosexual imperatives (or our resistance to them), provide the foundations of our sense of self”; (Segal: 1997: 185).

Conclusion
During the apartheid era sexuality was controlled through race. The racial hierarchy awarded those higher up, sexual power over those lower down. Because the interracial sexual encounters between white woman and black men meant nothing, it would have no effect on the hierarchy. If anything these sexual liaisons served to further entrench the sexual stereotypes such as white obsession with a black man’s sexuality, the black man’s animalistic sexual nature and lack of humanity. He allowed himself to be controlled through his sexuality and was inevitably seen as nothing more than an object to pleasure the white woman.
White women’s sexuality was also closed down as she confirmed through her actions with black men that she had an uncontrollable sexuality, she as lustful and dangerous.
References:
McEwan, H. (In Press) “Fauna, Flora and Fucking: Female Sex Safaris in South Africa” in Steyn, M. E. and Van Zyl, M. On/off the Edge: Shaping Sexualities Vol. 2
Pharr, S. (1997) “Chapter 1” in Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism. Berkley, CA: Chardon Press
Segal, L. (1997) “Sexualities” in Woodward, K. (ed.) Identity and Difference. London; Sage.