Key Social Norms Take-aways Social norms around gender and respectability strongly shape adolescent dating practices, positioning boys as initiators with greater power while expecting girls to uphold chastity and respect. However, girls actively negotiate relationships, demonstrating agency, particularly in early stages and around sexual health decisions. Importantly, norms shift across spaces: public spaces allow more visible negotiation and expressions of affection, while private spaces often reproduce unequal power dynamics and enable sexual coercion. The study highlights that social norms are not static—they are contested, negotiated, and sometimes resisted by adolescents.

Objectives The study aims to examine how adolescents in a rural KwaZulu-Natal community in South Africa experience and navigate heterosexual dating and intimacy within the context of gendered socio-cultural norms, with particular attention to how these norms shape relationship dynamics and agency.

Methods The study uses a qualitative design grounded in participatory visual methodology (PVM), involving drawings, cellphilm-making, and focus group discussions with 22 adolescents (aged 18–19). Data were co-constructed and analyzed thematically using an inductive approach, with participants actively contributing to interpretation. Social norms are explored through participants’ narratives, visual representations, and discussions, particularly focusing on gender norms, expectations of respect (ukuhlonipha), and community attitudes toward adolescent sexuality.

Results Findings show that adolescent dating is a complex, gendered process structured by socio-cultural norms. Boys are typically expected to initiate relationships and often hold more power, including driving sexual interactions, sometimes resulting in coercion. At the same time, girls exercise agency by negotiating relationship terms, including consent, HIV testing, and contraception. Dating unfolds across both public and private spaces—public spaces (e.g., trees, roads) legitimize relationships socially, while private spaces (e.g., rented rooms) facilitate intimacy but also heighten risks of coercion. Adolescents challenge dominant narratives of risk by emphasizing love, desire, and emotional connection, although unequal power relations persist.

Conclusions The study concludes that adolescent dating in this context cannot be understood solely through a risk lens; instead, it reflects a dynamic interplay of gender norms, power, agency, and socio-cultural expectations. While entrenched gender norms continue to produce inequalities—especially in private intimate spaces—adolescents, particularly girls, actively negotiate and sometimes resist these norms. Interventions should therefore address gendered power imbalances while supporting adolescents’ agency and promoting equitable, respectful relationships.