53 that her family (her uncles in particular) had negotiated the payment of the lobola for the marriage and had not objected to her removal to Cape Town. [93] In the initial heads of argument filed on behalf of the appellant on appeal, his counsel quoted an excerpt18 from an article by visiting Yale University student Ms N Karimakwenda titled “Today it would be called rape: a historical and contextual examination of forced marriage and violence in the Eastern Cape by Nyasha Karimakwenda 2013 Acta Juridae 339 (at 352T) in support of his contention as to the content of the practice. Karimakwenda argues that violence was always a part of the traditional form of ukuthwala and explored the continued prevalence of violence in the present day practices and more generally the use of violence in relationships. However the appellant’s reliance on this insightful piece of research in order to justify his conduct is, in our view, misplaced. Counsel for the appellant also referred to an article of K Wood “Group rape in the post-apartheid South Africa” (2005) 7(4) Culture, Health & Sexuality 303 at 313-31419: ‘the act of penetration – violently enacted or not – was one crucial part of the process of turning a girl into a wife, and thus enabled her attainment of an adult status (assuming her prior virginity), and this could not be equated with … rape, which had no decent intention. The act of sexual union marked the woman as belonging to the man: if the girl returned to her home after ukuthwala, the implication was that she was disgraced and “damaged” by the man’s sexual marking and “owning” of her – a marking without substance.’ 18 19 Appellant’s heads of argument paras [20] – [25] p 588. Appellant’s heads of argument para [29] pp 588 – 589.