Why Zimbabwe must confront the reality that women can rape men and boys

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

A recent case before the Harare regional court, in which a woman stands accused of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old boy, has reignited an uncomfortable but long-overdue national conversation about rape, consent, and the glaring double standards entrenched in Zimbabwean law and social attitudes.

To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08

While the matter remains before the courts and the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence, the public debate it has triggered exposes a deeply flawed assumption that has for decades denied justice to men and boys: the belief that a woman cannot rape a male because sexual penetration requires an erection, and an erection is assumed to signal consent.

Under Zimbabwean law, rape is defined in a manner that effectively limits perpetrators to males and victims to females.

When women sexually violate men or boys, even where force, coercion, or penetration is alleged, the offence is downgraded to sexual assault or aggravated indecent assault.

This discrepancy is not merely semantic; it reflects a profound misunderstanding of male biology and psychology, one that trivialises male suffering and quietly legitimises abuse.

It reinforces the myth that men and boys are always willing participants in sex, incapable of being violated by women.

The assumption underpinning this injustice is scientifically wrong.

Medical science has long established that erections and ejaculation are not governed solely by sexual desire or conscious willingness.

They are largely controlled by the autonomic nervous system and spinal reflexes.

According to urologists and neurologists, an erection can occur as a reflexive response to physical stimulation, fear, panic, anxiety, or stress.

It does not require attraction, consent, or emotional readiness.

This is the same nervous system that causes involuntary reactions such as sweating, increased heart rate, or flinching under threat.

Research published in respected medical and psychological journals has consistently shown that male victims of sexual assault may experience involuntary erections or even ejaculation during an assault.

Clinical psychologist Dr. Michael Seto, who has written extensively on male sexual victimisation, notes that these responses are “automatic physiological reactions” and are “frequently misinterpreted as evidence of consent, when in fact they are entirely involuntary.”

The American Psychological Association has similarly warned that physiological arousal during sexual assault is not uncommon and must never be confused with desire or willingness.

This phenomenon is not unique to men.

Decades of research into female sexual assault demonstrate that women can experience lubrication or even orgasm during rape, despite intense fear, resistance, and trauma.

This has been documented in forensic medicine and trauma psychology for years. The World Health Organization has explicitly stated that bodily responses during sexual violence are reflexive and “do not imply consent or pleasure.”

Society has largely accepted this reality in relation to women.

The failure to apply the same understanding to men reveals not a scientific gap, but a gendered bias.

Indeed, the shame and confusion caused by these involuntary responses are well documented.

Studies of male rape survivors published in journals such as Archives of Sexual Behavior and Journal of Interpersonal Violence show that many victims delay reporting abuse for years, or never report it at all, precisely because they are confused by their body’s reaction and fear they will not be believed.

Many report being told, by peers or even authorities, that they must have “wanted it” or “enjoyed it” because their bodies responded.

Social science research on what are known as “male rape myths” shows how widespread and damaging these beliefs are.

Studies conducted in the United Kingdom, United States, and Australia consistently find that large segments of the public believe a man cannot be raped by a woman, or that erection automatically equals consent.

These beliefs have been shown to influence police attitudes, prosecutorial decisions, and jury reasoning.

Male complainants are more likely to be doubted, ridiculed, or dismissed, especially when the alleged perpetrator is female.

This is eerily similar to another myth that once dominated public thinking: the belief that a woman could not fall pregnant through rape because stress would supposedly prevent conception.

That claim was used for decades to discredit rape survivors and shield perpetrators.

Medical science eventually demolished it, and society was forced to confront the cruelty and ignorance behind the assumption.

Today, few would dare argue that pregnancy proves consent.

Yet we continue to cling to an equally baseless belief when it comes to male victims and erections.

The case currently before the courts underscores why this myth is so dangerous.

A 16-year-old boy alleges that he was overpowered, restrained, tied, and forced into unprotected sexual intercourse.

Yet because the alleged perpetrator is a woman, the charge is aggravated indecent assault rather than rape.

The implicit message is that what happened to him is somehow less violent, less traumatic, and less deserving of the law’s full condemnation.

That message does real harm, not only to this complainant but to countless silent victims watching from the shadows.

Sexual violence is not solely about physical strength.

It is about power, control, fear, and coercion.

Women can and do exercise power over men and boys through age differences, authority, manipulation, threats, restraint, or exploitation of vulnerability.

Research into adolescent male victimisation shows that boys are particularly vulnerable to abuse by older women, yet are least likely to be believed or supported.

When the law itself seems to doubt their victimhood, silence becomes the safer option.

Zimbabwe cannot claim to be serious about combating sexual violence while maintaining laws and attitudes that deny male victims full recognition.

Rape must be defined by the absence of consent, not by the gender of the perpetrator or the physiological response of the victim.

Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and magistrates must be trained in the basic science of sexual response and trauma.

The public must be educated that erections and ejaculation are not proof of consent, but reflexes that can occur even in terror.

Men and boys deserve a voice.

Their pain is real, their trauma legitimate, and their right to justice equal.

Until we dismantle the myths that silence them and reform the laws that marginalise them, we will continue to protect perpetrators and betray victims.

A society that truly condemns sexual violence must do so without gendered blind spots.

Anything less is not justice — it is discrimination dressed up as tradition.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/