Sociologists rarely have the opportunity to study sexuality within a closed environment. Inevitably, this presents complications when it comes to understanding sexuality. Is our sexuality something determined by biology, or is it something that can be learned? Currently, there is strong support for the biological determination of sex, given that a majority of people do not switch whom they are attracted to on a dime. But, there are studies of specific conditions and experiences, which point to sexuality being more fluid. Correctional facilities have produced one of the most well know sexual narratives in recent sociological work, that of adapting one? s sexuality while confined. Thus, prisons offer a unique environment from which sexuality can be studied. Unfortunately, the sex-research community has largely ignored sexuality in prisons, because society feels dedicated to punishing its inmates (Money, Bohmer 258). But, recently interest in inmate sexuality has increased due to the Prison Elimination Act. Prisoner behavior is largely constructed by the limitations, violence and other hardships that their confinement places on them. Granted, certain studies that have been conducted are limited in their understanding. For instance, Ward and Kassebaum offer interesting insight into the mindset female prisoners, but they argue that many women have played a dependent role in society and are therefore unequipped for prison life. This implies that men are more adept at survival and speaks to concepts of sexuality that were popular during the 1960 and 1970s(Ward, Kassebaum). This is proof in and of itself that more research needs to be devoted to understanding prison sexuality.
Official prison records now identify 19% of inmates as homosexual. Yet, surveys of prison staff would suggest that, ??between 30 and 70% of inmates have affairs while in prison? (Ward, Kassebaum 166). Therefore, sex behind bars often involves otherwise heterosexual prisoners, who practice homosexual acts. So, are these inmates truly straight? Or, are they bisexual? And, to what extent are the behaviors of female prisoners different, or similar to male prisoners due to preexisting physical, legal and social roles in society? Prison represents an instance when sex and sexuality are crafted in response to values that are different from regular society. But, the willingness of prisoners to adapt their sexuality to environmental pressures hints at our sexuality being more fluid than is typically accepted.
Prison subcultures evolve to meet specific needs of the inmates, whether they are physical or emotional in nature. For new inmates, prison is met with fear and anxiety; they have come to expect prison to be a violent, and even deadly place. It is this emotional deprivation and lack of experience in fending for oneself that combine in women?s prison society to promote homosexual participation (Ward, Kassebaum 166). ?Ward and Kassebaum argue that separation from one?s family, or children is particularly difficult for women. What?s more is that the emotional distress experienced by prisoners only magnifies over time (Ward, Kassebaum 166). Turning to homosexual relationships is then a compulsive response in the presence of these emotional strains, which appears to be the case for both women and men.
But, even within this enclosed environment, there are distinct relationship developments. Any number of women could be having sex while in prison. But, how many of these women considered themselves to be gay? The answer to this question inevitably shapes how women treat relationships and sex in prison. Researchers and inmates have come to distinguish ?true? homosexuality from those who ?turn-out?. A jailhouse ?turn-out? is introduced to homosexuality in prison, while ?true homosexuals? are women who arrived at the institution having already had sex with women. It is then hypothesized that ?true homosexuals? would continue to do so after prison (Ward, Kassebaum 167). These categories are further broken down by Ward and Kassebaum to define to women by their sexual, and gender roles in a relationship. Like many stereotypes in free society early sociologists paid particular attention to the physical characteristics of the women in prison. The more aggressive, active sexual partners were considered ?masculine?, while the more traditional, emotional partner is a ?femme? (Ward, Kassebaum 169-170). While these standards of behavior are very generalized, because this information was gathered via prison interviews, it is feasible that homosexual relationships of women, and men take on different forms. Like heterosexual men and women, there are standards of masculinity and femininity that neither heterosexual, nor homosexual partners fully lives up to.
The ability of an otherwise straight woman to practice homosexual acts in turn effects the sexuality of their ?true? homosexual partners. A number of lesbian women feel that they hold relationships in prison to a greater standard than their ?turned-out? counterparts. These women see their relationships as positive, even loving relationships, while the turned-out seem to only want protection, security and emotional support (Ward Kassebaum 167). These ?true homosexual? women will allegedly lose the affection of the women who turned-out. In turn, these women will rationalize their actions by maintaining that they are bisexual, not homosexual (Ward, Kassebaum 174). Turning-out is a process of socialization, implying that sexuality is fluid given certain circumstances and individual sexual and gender identification.
Homosexuality in prisons is treated as something that develops from within; a straight woman, or man is convicted, does time and meanwhile takes on a gay identity in order to survive. What Ward and Kassebaum, and for that matter many sociologists from the 1960s and 1970s, forget is that people do not enter prison as a blank slate. Rather, inmates come from diverse cultural, religious, racial, sexual and financial backgrounds, which may shape how an individual approaches their sexuality in prison. Beginning in the early 1960s some sociologists proposed that inmate culture should be thought of as something imported, and not just the product of disorientation (Kunzel 128). In fact, the best way to predict a woman?s participation in homosexual acts while incarcerated is to determine whether or not she had previous sexual experiences with another woman (Kunzel 131).
Male Homosexuality has always been treated differently than female homosexuality, this is because lesbianism has not been perceived as a threat to heterosexuality; homosexual or bisexual dalliances are treated as schoolgirl crushes (Kunzel). Society expects men to be randy, overtly sexual and unable to control their sexuality. Male sexuality can also be associated with danger and violence, more so than women. ?Male effeminacy, and openly gay men fail to align neatly with ?normal? forms of sexuality (Kunzel). It?s no wonder that accounts and surveys from prison staff, and sociologists attempt to understand homosexuality in prison in terms of men having an insatiable need to have sex. Incarceration strips the heterosexual and homosexual man of his normal sexual expression (Money, Bohmer 259). Conceivably, gay inmates could continue (and often do) to have sex despite the prison staff?s attempts to penalize sexual acts. But, this points to an underlying problem within prisons; administrations have poor records of prosecuting sex cases, even concerning rape (Money, Bohmer 259). ??Many of the staff?turn their heads the other way as one of the various non-conforming people is being harmed?? (Goring 186). Prison sexuality and gender cannot be fully understood without taking into account the effect that violence has in shaping relationships. In male institutions, relationships are often characterized in terms of power, or hierarchies. Sex can be used as a form of control, or a way to avoid victimization. These dynamics are primarily crafted by a prisoner?s experience and his physicality. ?Among prisoners, the lowest man in the pecking order is the man who gives up his body?those who willingly and cheerfully submit are viewed as sissies, sometimes to be protected, often to be considered suitable cell partners? (Money, Bohmer 259). On the other hand, someone who is raped is scorned for not putting up enough of a fight? (Money, Bohmer 259). This points to a unique facet of male sexuality, the need to protect and establish one?s ?masculinity?.
Men who do not fit into gender norms typically experience abuse, rape and at the very least the outward, and often vulgar displays of affection from more ?masculine? inmates. Yet, homosexual activity in prison and the stigmas attached to it often contradict each other. As often as ?straight? males defend their sexuality, and victimize those who threaten it, there are many that choose to couple with other men regardless. The more positive relationships form like those of homosexual female partners. In which case, ??cellmates have become more intimate than comrades, through the real necessity for sexual expression? (Money, Bohmer 260). This kind of relationship is not based around aggression, but a trust that has developed over years of incarceration. Often, once these men are released they will return to heterosexual activity (Money, Bohmer 260). But, this does not undermine the concept of sexual fluidity. ?Prison underpins and produces not just state power, but also?gendered, national and sexual social formations? (Dillon 179). The majority of men and women who enter prison are ?heterosexual?, or at least, mostly heterosexual. Regardless of their preexisting sexual identity many will couple with member so the same sex. For whatever the reasons, this serves as proof that sexuality is fluid, formed not just by our biology but also strong institutional pressures.
?
?
?
Work Cited:
Dillon, Stephen. ?The Only Freedom I can See?. Captive Genders: Trans Embodiment and the Prison Industrial Complex. Baltimore. AK Press, 2011. 169-184. Print.
Goring, Clifton. ?Being an Incarcerated Transperson?. Captive Genders: Trans Embodiment and the Prison Industrial Complex. Baltimore. AK Press, 2011. 185-187. Print.
Kunzel, Regina. ?The Deviants are the Heterosexuals?. Criminal Intimacy: Prison and the Uneven History of Modern American Sexuality. Chicago and London. The University of Chicago Press. 111-148. Print.
Money, John and Carol Bohmer. Prison Sexology: Two Personal Accounts of Masturbation, Homosexuality, and Rape. The Journal of Sex Research. Vol 16., 1980. 258-266. Website.http://www.jstor.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/
Ward, David and Gene G. Kassebaum. Homosexuality: a Mode of Adaptation in a Prison for Women. Social Problems , Vol. 12, No. 2. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.159-177. http://www.jstor.org/stable/798979.Website.
?
?
?
?
Source: http://mkopas.net/courses/soc287/2012/08/06/final-paper-prisons-and-sexual-fluidity/
rondo suspended bay bridge raul ibanez downton abbey season 3 presidents day band of brothers presidents
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.