THE PRISON JOURNAL
Struckman-Johnson
/ SEXUAL
/ December
COERCION
2000
SEXUAL COERCION RATES
IN SEVEN MIDWESTERN
PRISON FACILITIES FOR MEN
CINDY STRUCKMAN-JOHNSON
DAVID STRUCKMAN-JOHNSON
University of South Dakota at Vermillion
Sexual coercion rates in seven prison facilities for men in midwestern states were
assessed. Anonymous written surveys were distributed to the total population of 7,032
inmates and 1,936 security staff in the facilities. Usable surveys were returned by
1,788 inmates (25%) and 475 staff (25%). Results showed that 21% of the inmates had
experienced at least one episode of pressured or forced sexual contact since incarcerated in their state, and 16% reported that an incident had occurred in their current
facility. At least 7% of the sample had been raped in their current facility. Seven percent of the sample had experienced sexual coercion, and at least 4% had been raped
during the most recent 26 to 30 months. Factors that appeared to increase sexual coercion rates were large population size, racial conflict, barracks housing, inadequate
security, and having a high percentage of inmates incarcerated for a crime against
persons.
The prevalence of sexual coercion of men in prison—defined here as the
occurrence of pressured or forced sexual contact against one’s will—is perhaps one of the most illusive statistics in the criminal justice field. There is
general agreement that sexual coercion is a contributing factor to prison violence (Lockwood, 1980), tension and anxiety in the prison environment
(Smith & Batiuk, 1989), medical trauma to victims (Lipscomb, Muram,
Speck, & Mercer, 1992), emotional trauma to victims and suicide
(Donaldson, 1993), and the spread of infectious diseases and HIV(“Breaking
the Silence,” 1995). However, after decades of research, social scientists
have yet to agree on what percentage of incarcerated men experience coercive sexual contact (Dumond, 1992, 1999). Thus, corrections authorities and
policy makers are faced with remedying a problem of unknown dimensions
(Cotton & Groth, 1982).
A majority of the research suggests that less serious incidents of sexual
coercion, such as genital fondling and failed attempts at intercourse, are comTHE PRISON JOURNAL, Vol. 80 No. 4, December 2000 379-390
© 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.
379
380
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
mon in men’s prison facilities but that completed rapes (defined here as
forced oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse) are infrequent. One early study by
Lockwood (1980) revealed that 28% of 89 male inmates interviewed in a
New York state prison had been the target of sexual aggression, but only one
inmate (1.3%) was reportedly raped. Nacci and Kane (1983) interviewed 330
male inmates in the federal prison system and found that about one third had
been the target of sexual aggression, but less than 0.3% had experienced a
completed rape. According to Cooley (1993), only 1 of 55 inmates in five
Canadian federal prisons reported a sex-related victimization in a year’s
time. More recently, Hensley (2000) reported that 14% of 174 male inmates
interviewed in an Oklahoma prison had been sexually threatened, but only 2
(1.1%) had been raped.
However, many researchers have noted that sexual assault is likely to be
underreported by male inmates because of fears of reprisals, unwillingness to
be a “snitch,” and fear of being labeled a homosexual or weak (Cotton &
Groth, 1982; Eigenberg, 1994). At least two studies suggest that when
inmates are given the opportunity to report sexual-assault experiences in an
anonymous way, the rates are significantly higher. In 1982, Wooden and
Parker found that 14% of a sample of 200 male inmates in a California
medium-security prison reported in an anonymous survey that they had been
pressured into having sex against their will. The sexual-assault rates varied
by sexual orientation: 41% for homosexuals, 2% for bisexuals, and 9% for
heterosexuals.
Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson, Rucker, Bumby, and
Donaldson (1996) conducted an anonymous written survey of sexual assault
in the Nebraska state prison system in 1994. The survey was distributed to the
total population of 1,700 male inmates in three facilities. Results showed that
12% of 486 men who responded to the survey had been forced to engage in
sexual intercourse at least one time since incarceration. Another 10% had
experienced less-serious incidents of sexual coercion (e.g., attempts at contact, acts of pressured sex).
What can explain the finding of prison rape rates as low as 1% to as high as
14%? According to Saum, Surratt, Inciardi, and Bennett (1995), the disparities may be due to differences in methodologies, definitions of sexual assault,
and types of facilities studied. Differences in time periods when the studies
were conducted may also be a factor. The present study was undertaken to
overcome many of these limitations. We planned to replicate our study of
sexual coercion of Nebraska inmates in several other state prison facilities.
Inmates in each facility would be assessed with the same survey instrument
and research procedures during the same time frame. The major objective
Struckman-Johnson / SEXUAL COERCION
381
was to find consistencies in the results that could help establish estimates of
“true” sexual-assault rates. Another purpose was to determine if characteristics of prison facilities and/or their inmate populations influenced sexual-assault rates.
METHOD
SELECTION OF FACILITIES AND SAMPLE
We sent out proposals to the Department of Corrections (DOC) in 14
states requesting their participation in a sexual-assault survey. We guaranteed that the identities of participating facilities would be kept anonymous.
Six departments declined, three requested that we make our request at a later
time, and five agreed to participate. Of these, four departments offered the
participation of seven men’s facilities. (Three women’s facilities were also
made available, but only the men’s facilities are the subject of this article.)
The total population of inmates and security staff in a facility were sampled. Facility 1 was a maximum-medium-minimum facility that provided a
sample of 1,770 men from the maximum-security unit and 517 staff members. A sample of 1,650 inmates and 395 staff members were obtained from
Facility 2—a maximum-medium-minimum security facility. In Facility 3, a
maximum-medium-minimum security facility, surveys were sent to 1,150
inmates in the maximum-security unit and 370 staff members. Facility 4 was
a maximum-medium-minimum security facility that provided 890 inmates
and 220 security staff members for sampling. Facility 5 was a maximum-security long-term segregation facility with 952 inmates and 280 security staff members. Five hundred inmates and 154 security staff members
were surveyed in Facility 6—a maximum-medium facility. A sample of 120
inmates was available from Facility 7, a minimum-security facility. (Staff
members were not sampled.) The total sample size was 7,032 male inmates
and 1,936 security staff members.
INSTRUMENTS
The inmate and staff questionnaires were shortened versions of the
Nebraska survey instruments. The inmate and staff surveys each had sections
for demographic data; perceptions of the prison environment; and opinions
about, and remedies for, sexual coercion. Only the inmate survey had a section for actual sexual coercion experiences. The relevant questions from the
inmate and staff surveys are described below.
382
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
Sexual coercion rates. In the inmate survey, the statewide sexual coercion
rate was assessed by the question, “Since the time you have been in a (name
of state) prison, has anyone ever pressured or forced you to have sexual contact (touching of genitals, oral, anal, or vaginal sex) against your will?” The
facility sexual coercion rate was determined by a follow-up question: “If yes
or not sure, list all of the (name of state) facilities where it happened, how
many times it happened in each facility, and the years you were in each
facility.”
Worst-case incident and rape rates. Inmates were asked, “If you have
been pressured or forced to have sexual contact while in prison, please
describe what happened in the rest of the questions. If you have been forced
or pressured to have sexual contact more than once in prison, describe the one
time that was the most serious or harmful to you.” Questions followed about
the number, gender, race, and relationship (e.g., inmate or prison staff) of the
perpetrator(s) and the year in which it occurred. Inmates were requested to
write a description of the incident.
Inmates were asked whether the incident was brought about by pressure
(persuasion, bribery, blackmail, threat of love withdrawal, or use of alcohol
or drugs) or force (threats to harm or hurt, physical intimidation, physical
restraint, physical harm, and use of a weapon). They also indicated the sexual
outcome—attempts at touch; genital touching; and oral, anal, or vaginal sex.
Sexual coercion estimates and facility protection level. Inmates and staff
were asked, “In the prison you are in now, about what percentage of inmates
do you think have been pressured or forced to have sexual contact against
their will? Circle your best guess.” The numbers ranged from 0%, 1%, 5%,
10%, and upward to 100% in 10% increments. Inmates and staff also were
asked, “In the prison you are in now, do you think that the prison system protects inmates from pressured or forced sexual contact? Circle one number.”
The 7-point scale ranged from definitely no to definitely yes.
PROCEDURES
Following approval from the university Human Subjects Committee, the
investigators and their undergraduate research assistants prepared packets
that contained a consent form explaining the anonymous and voluntary
nature of the survey, the questionnaire, and a postage-paid, return-addressed
envelope. Between February and July 1998, the packets were boxed and
delivered to DOC officials at the participating facilities. Prison staff then distributed packets to all of the inmates and security staff in the facilities.
Struckman-Johnson / SEXUAL COERCION
383
RESULTS
RETURN RATES
A total number of usable surveys returned was 1,788 for inmates (25%
return rate) and 475 from security staff (25% return rate). The actual return
rates were 2 to 3 percentage points higher when all returned responses were
considered. About 140 inmate surveys could not be used because they were
incomplete, prankish, or grossly inconsistent. Many inmates sent back a letter instead of a survey. According to a handwriting screen of surveys from
inmates claiming sexual coercion, two inmates sent in five duplicated surveys. About 40 staff surveys could not be used, usually because the respondent was a new employee who could not answer the questions.
See Table 1 for the number of inmate and staff returns for each facility
(rows 1 and 2). The return rate for inmates ranged from as low as 21% from
Facilities 5 and 7, to as high as 35% in Facility 6. The number of staff returns
varied from as low as 15% in Facility 2, to as high as 37% in Facility 6 and
39% in Facility 3.
SEXUAL COERCION RATES
Statewide and facility sexual coercion rates. Of the 1,788 respondents,
375 (21%) indicated that they had experienced at least one incident of pressured or forced sex while incarcerated in their state. As shown in row 3 of
Table 1, the statewide sexual coercion rates for the seven men’s facilities varied from 16% to 26%. Two hundred eighty-five inmates (16%) had been sexually coerced in their current facility. The facility rates for the seven men’s
facilities ranged from 4% to 21% (row 4). The facility rates were, of course,
lower than statewide rates because some inmates experienced sexual coercion in prisons or jails other than their current facility.
Facility worst-case incident rates. Two hundred fifty-four inmates (14%
of 1,788 respondents) provided information about a worst-case incident that
happened in their present facility. Rates ranged from 4% to 17% in the facilities (row 5). The worst-case rates were lower than the facility rates because
many inmates chose to write about an incident that took place at another
facility, even though they had experienced sexual coercion in their present
facility. Also, some inmates reported that an incident took place in their present facility but declined to provide information about a worst-case incident.
Therefore, the worst-case incident rates were a low-end estimate of the actual
number of incidents that took place in a facility.
TABLE 1:
Summary of Sexual-Assault Rates and Estimates for Midwestern Prison Facilities
384
Facility
Characteristic
1
1. Sample size—inmates
461
2. Sample size—staff
109
3. Inmates reporting a pressured- or forced-sex incident in any
prison/jail in the state (%)
24
4. Inmates reporting a pressured- or forced-sex incident in this facility (%) 18
5. Inmates reporting a worst-case incident in this facility (%)
16
6. Inmates reporting a worst-case incident in this facility between
1996 and early to mid-1998 (%)
9
7. Inmates reporting a worst-case incident
of rape in this facility (%)
8
8. Inmates reporting a worst-case incident of rape in this facility
between 1996 and early to mid-1998 (%)
4
9. Inmate estimate of how many inmates are pressured/forced
into sex in this facility (0-100%)
27
10. Staff estimate of how many inmates are pressured/forced into
sex in this facility (0-100%)
18
11. Inmate rating of sexual-assault protection level in this facility (1-7)
2.4
Low
12. Staff rating of sexual-assault protection level in this facility (1-7)
13. Percentage of incidents that involve staff
14. Percentage of survey respondents incarcerated for a crime
against persons
2
3
4
5
6
7
430
59
270
143
232
46
196
61
174
57
25
—
21
19
17
26
21
15
16
14
14
18
4
4
16
14
14
16
4
4
8
8
7
3
5
4
11
9
6
0
7
4
6
4
3
0
2
4
41
24
13
17
12
7
29
2.1
Low
12
2.8
Low
4.8
4.2
Medium- Medium
High
20
21
80
56
5.7
High
22
71
18
11
4
—
3.0
3.9
4.6
4.6
Low- Medium Medium- MediumMedium
High
High
5.0
6.2
6.0
—
High
Very
Very
High
High
15
—
28
—
59
70
60
20
NOTE: 1= maximum-medium-minimum facility for men (survey focused on maximum unit); 2 = maximum-medium-minimum facility for men; 3 =
maximum-medium-minimum facility for men (survey focused on maximum unit); 4 = maximum-medium-minimum facility for male felons; 5 = primarily maximum facility for men that holds long-term segregation offenders; 6 = maximum-medium facility for male felons; 7 = facility for male felons, misdemeanants, and first offenders.
Struckman-Johnson / SEXUAL COERCION
385
Facility worst-case incident rate for 1996-1998. The worst-case facility
rates included sexual coercion cases that had happened as far back as the
1960s. To determine rates in recent years, we estimated the number of
worst-case incidents that had occurred in a facility from 1996 until the time in
1998 when the survey was conducted. Depending on the facility, the end date
was either early or midyear of 1998. Thus, the estimates were for a 26- to
30-month period. The number of inmate cases in this category was 130 or 7%
of the total sample. The rates ranged from 4% to 9% for the facilities (row 6).
Facility worst-case incident rate for rape. To estimate the number of incidents that would meet a legal definition of rape, we counted only the facility
worst-case incidents that were brought about by a force tactic and resulted in
oral, anal, or vaginal sex. The number of inmate cases for this category was
131 or 7% of the total sample. As shown in row 7, the rates for facility
worst-case incidents of rape ranged from 0% to 11% in the facilities.
1996-1998 facility worst-case incident rate for rape. The estimated number of inmate cases of rape that had occurred from 1996 to 1998 was 67 or 4%
of the total sample. Rape rates for the past 26 to 30 months ranged from 0% to
6% in the facilities (row 8).
Estimates of sexual coercion rates. As shown in Table 1 (rows 9 and 10),
inmate estimates of the sexual coercion rate in their facility were usually
close to the reported statewide sexual coercion rate, but somewhat higher
than the reported facility rate for their institution. Staff estimates tended to be
lower than the statewide or facility rates. In Facility 4, inmate and staff estimates were within a few percentage points of the actual facility rate. Facility 2
was unusual in that both inmate and staff estimates were substantially higher
than the reported statewide or facility rates—an outcome that will be discussed later.
Ratings of facility protection level. As shown in Table 1, row 11, inmates
in the larger men’s facilities (1, 2, and 3) gave low ratings for their facility
protection level. A medium rating was given by inmates in Facility 5, a highsecurity, long-term segregation facility. A medium-high rating was given by
inmates in Facility 6, a relatively small prison, and by inmates in Facility 7, a
small minimum-security prison.
Staff ratings for the prison protection level (Table 1, row 12) were much
higher than inmate ratings in all of the facilities. However, those facilities that
had the lowest inmate ratings for protection also had the lowest staff ratings
for protection (Facilities 1 and 2). Facilities with the highest inmate protec-
386
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
tion ratings had some of the highest staff ratings for protection (Facilities 5
and 6). Thus, inmates and staff generally agreed on whether protection levels
were relatively low or high in their facility.
Alleged staff involvement. As shown in Table 1, row 13, about 20% of the
inmates from the larger facilities indicated that a male or female staff member(s) participated in their worst-case sexual coercion incident. The percentages for the other facilities are not shown because they were based on a small
number of incidents.
DISCUSSION
We integrated all of our data to produce facility profiles that could help
explain the variable sexual coercion rates in the seven facilities. The facilities
are discussed in order of highest to lowest sexual coercion rates. We judged
Facility 2 as having the worst sexual coercion climate of the seven facilities
surveyed. It had one of the highest facility sexual coercion rates (19%) and
the highest rape rate (11%). The primary cause appeared to be the use of barracks housing, where 50% of the sexual coercion incidents reportedly
occurred. Another problem was racial conflict. White inmates complained
that Black sexual aggressors routinely preyed on young White inmates. Our
data showed that the targets in 60% of the incidents were White, whereas the
perpetrators in 74% of the incidents were Black.
A third factor was lax security. Both inmate and staff respondents complained about poorly paid, unmotivated staff who failed to complete basic
rounds. Many inmates also complained that some homosexual and /or Black
staff tended to be permissive about sexual coercion. Numerous inmates
alleged that a few high-level officers had for years demanded sexual favors
from inmates.
The inmate responses suggested that a climate of fear about sexual assault
dominated the prison. Supporting evidence was the unusually high estimates
of sexual assault and the low protection-level ratings given by both inmates
and staff. Although the reported sexual coercion rate (19%) was not as high
as the inmate estimated rate (41%), inmates did have a basis for their fears.
Some of the most brutal and recent rapes reported in our study came from this
facility. One security officer wrote that he had witnessed a “young boy”
brought to the infirmary after being raped by seven Blacks. The inmate was
crying, bleeding, and hurt badly inside. Showing no compassion, the infirmary staff “patched him up” and sent him back to the same barracks where he
Struckman-Johnson / SEXUAL COERCION
387
had been attacked. Many other surveyed staff agreed that there was a need for
more staff, better pay, and training.
Facilities 1 and 3 had the highest statewide sexual coercion rates (24% and
26%), and high facility rates (18% and 21%). However, both facilities had a
lower rape rate (8% and 9%) than Facility 2. The high sexual coercion rates in
both facilities appeared to be related to having a large inmate population size
(above 1,000) in conjunction with understaffing. As evidence, inmates gave
their facilities low protection-level ratings. Responding staff gave higher
protection-level ratings to their facilities but expressed the need for more
staff and tighter security.
Racial dynamics contributed to the problem in both facilities. For example, in Facility 1, 72% of the incidents involved White targets, whereas 71%
of the incidents involved Black perpetrators. Many older inmates in these
facilities wrote that gang rapes were not as frequent as they were in the “old
days.” Modern-day rapes, in their opinion, were caused by racial conflicts,
gang politics, and a new breed of violent young offenders.
Facility 4 had a medium level of sexual coercion—a 16% statewide rate, a
14% facility rate, and a 6% rape rate. The lower rates in Facility 4 most likely
reflected its smaller population size (less than 1,000 inmates) and its racially
homogeneous population (primarily White). Compared with Facilities 2 and
3, Facility 4 had a smaller percentage of violent offenders. In addition, Facility 4 had recently undergone several months of “lockdown”—a procedure
that limits sexual coercion opportunities. Despite the lower rates, several
inmates reported serious gang rapes in recent years. A contributing factor
appeared to be inadequate or lax security by the staff. Inmates gave a low to
medium protection-level rating to the facility. Surveyed staff perceived the
protection level as high, but many noted that there was a need to hire more
guards.
Facility 6 had very similar rates of sexual coercion to Facility 4. It shared
similar features of having a small population size, being racially homogeneous, and having a lower proportion of inmates who had committed crimes
against persons. Nonetheless, several inmates had reported serious rapes in
recent years. The administration could not understand how rapes could be
occurring because their prison had a reputation for good management and
few problems with violent inmates. This was supported by the favorable protection-level ratings given by inmates and staff. One likely explanation was
that the prison had recently begun to import violent offenders from other
states for financial reasons. According to several survey respondents, some
of these transfer offenders were raping the local inmates.
388
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
Facility 7 had one of the lowest facility rates for sexual coercion (4%).
Only 1 of 25 respondents reported being raped (4%). The low rates were a
reflection of the facility’s small population size (100) and the low proportion
of violent offenders present in this minimum-security unit. Good security
was also a factor, as inmates gave a medium-high rating to the protection
level of the facility.
Facility 5 was unusual in that it had a very low 4% facility rate and a 0%
rape rate, even though it was a maximum-security unit with a population of
about 1,000 inmates and had a high proportion of offenders who had committed a crime against persons. The 24-hour lockdown procedures routinely
used in the facility appeared to have eliminated nearly all opportunities for
rape of inmates by other inmates. The small number of incidents that were
reported had minor sexual outcomes. The majority of perpetrators were male
and female prison staff.
LIMITATIONS
We cannot be sure that a sexual coercion rate reported by only 25% of the
total population of inmates in a facility reflects the “true” sexual coercion
rate. We know that the return sample for Facilities 1, 3, and 5 had an overrepresentation of better educated inmates and a moderate underrepresentation of
Black inmates. It is possible that these characteristics may be related to sexual coercion rates. For example, because Whites are more likely to be victims
of sexual coercion than Blacks, the rates for these facilities may be overestimates. However, if less educated inmates are more likely to be sexually
coerced than inmates with more education, the rates for these facilities may
be underestimated.
The study is also limited in that the results were based on anonymous written surveys that could be falsified. Although we screened the surveys of target inmates looking for inconsistencies and duplications, it is likely that
some falsified surveys were analyzed. However, we believe that the results
from Facility 5 support the credibility of our data. Although 18% of the
inmates from this facility said that they had been sexually coerced in another
facility in their state, not one reported being raped in their current facility.
Thus, they were not using the survey as an opportunity to make their facility
“look bad.” In our opinion, inmates were generally truthful in reporting
incidents.
Struckman-Johnson / SEXUAL COERCION
389
CONCLUSIONS
About 21% of 1,788 male inmates who responded to the survey reported
at least one incident of sexual coercion in their state prison system. Sixteen
percent had experienced an incident in their facility, and 7% had been raped
in their facility. Seven percent said that their worst-case incident had happened in the past 2½ years. Four percent of all male inmates said that they had
been raped in the past 26 to 30 months.
Many of the results were similar to the findings of the Nebraska prison
study (Struckman-Johnson et al., 1996). For example, the statewide sexual
coercion rates for inmates in the largest facilities in the present study ranged
from 21% to 26%. The statewide sexual coercion rates for two Nebraska
facilities with the same custody levels were 22% and 23%.
Sexual coercion rates varied among the facilities. Factors that appeared to
be related to higher rates of sexual coercion were having an inmate population size greater than 1,000, the existence of conflict among Black and White
inmates, the use of barracks housing, and having a greater proportion of
inmates who have committed a crime against persons. The presence of a sufficient number of motivated security staff and tight security measures
appeared to limit sexual coercion among inmates. For example, we found
that a facility that used lockdown procedures had a zero rape level. Finally,
our study suggested that a substantial portion of sexual coercion incidents
(about 20% in larger prisons) involved prison staff perpetrators.
REFERENCES
Breaking the silence on prison rape and AIDS. (1995, July). Corrections Compendium, 20, 14.
Cooley, D. (1993). Criminal victimization in male federal prisons. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 35(4), 479-495.
Cotton, D. J., & Groth, A. N. (1982). Inmate rape: Prevention and intervention. Journal of
Prison and Jail Health, 2(1), 47-57.
Donaldson, S. (1993). Prisoner rape education program: Overview for jail /prison administrators and staff. Brandon, VT: The Safer Society.
Dumond, R. W. (1992). The sexual assault of male inmates in incarcerated settings. International Journal of Sociology and the Law, 20, 135-157.
Dumond, R. W. (1999). Inmate sexual assault—The enigma which endures. Public Service Psychology—(APA) Division 18 Newsletter, 24(3), 8-9, 18.
Eigenberg, H. M. (1994). Rape in male prisons: Examining the relationship between correctional officer’s attitudes toward male rape and their willingness to respond to acts of rape. In
390
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
M. C. Brasswell, R. H. Montgomery, Jr., & L. X. Lombardo (Eds.), Prison violence in America (2nd ed., pp. 145-165). Cincinnati, OH: Henderson.
Hensley, C. (2000, March). Consensual and forced sex in male Oklahoma prisons. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, New Orleans, LA.
Lipscomb, G. H., Muram, D., Speck, P. M., & Mercer, B. M. (1992). Male victims of sexual
assault. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267, 3064-3066.
Lockwood, D. (1980). Prison sexual violence. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.
Nacci, P. L., & Kane, T. (1983). The incidence of sexual aggression in federal prisons. Federal
Probation, 47(4), 31-36.
Saum, C. A., Surratt, H. L., Inciardi, J. A., & Bennett, R. E. (1995). Sexual assault in prisons:
Exploring the myths and realities. The Prison Journal, 75(4), 413-430.
Smith, N., & Batiuk, M. E. (1989). Sexual victimization and inmate social interaction. The
Prison Journal, 69(2), 29-38.
Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., Rucker, L., Bumby, K., & Donaldson, S.
(1996). Sexual coercion reported by men and women in prison. Journal of Sex Research,
33(1), 67-76.
Wooden, W. S., & Parker, J. (1982). Men behind bars: Sexual exploitation in prison. New York:
Plenum.
Journal of Interpersonal
Violence
http://jiv.sagepub.com/
A Comparison of Sexual Coercion Experiences Reported by Men and
Women in Prison
Cindy Struckman-Johnson and David Struckman-Johnson
J Interpers Violence 2006 21: 1591
DOI: 10.1177/0886260506294240
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/21/12/1591
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children
Additional services and information for Journal of Interpersonal Violence can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/21/12/1591.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Oct 25, 2006
What is This?
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
A Comparison of Sexual
Coercion Experiences
Reported by Men and
Women in Prison
Journal of Interpersonal
Violence
Volume 21 Number 12
December 2006 1591-1615
© 2006 Sage Publications
10.1177/0886260506294240
http://jiv.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Cindy Struckman-Johnson
University of South Dakota, Vermillion
David Struckman-Johnson
University of South Dakota, Vermillion
Comparisons were made between self-reports from 382 men and 51 women
who had experienced sexual coercion while incarcerated. Victim data were
obtained from a sample of 1,788 male inmates and 263 female inmates who
responded to an anonymous written survey distributed in 10 midwestern prisons. Men reported that their perpetrators in worst-case incidents were
inmates (72%), staff (8%), or inmates and staff collaborating (12%). Women
reported that their perpetrators were inmates (47%) and staff (41%). Greater
percentages of men (70%) than women (29%) reported that their incident
resulted in oral, vaginal, or anal sex. More men (54%) than women (28%)
reported an incident that was classified as rape. Men and women were similar in feeling depression; however, more men (37%) than women (11%)
reported suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts (19% for men, 4% for
women). Implications of results for prevention of sexual coercion in prison
are discussed.
Keywords: prison rape; prisoner rape; inmate rape; prison sexual abuse;
prison sexual assault; prison sexual violence
S
exual coercion of prisoners has long been a hidden form of interpersonal violence. Dumond (1995) described men and women who have
been sexually coerced in prison as “ignominious victims”—persons deemed
unworthy trapped behind walls with their sexual assailants. In past decades,
it was often assumed that prison rape was an unavoidable and perhaps an
appropriate part of prison life. There was no societal outcry for its victims.
According to a public opinion poll published in the Boston Globe (Sennot,
1994), one half of the respondents believed that most people were not concerned about victims of prison rape. French (1979) and Baro (1997) noted
1591
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
1592
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
that men and women in prison were typically perceived as bad people who
were deserving of what ever happened to them in prison—including being
sexually coerced.
Several factors have shifted public opinion on this topic. Foremost, the
antirape movement initiated by women’s groups in the 1970s and 1980s has
created a degree of public sympathy for all victims of sexual assault, including those in prison. Another influence has been lawsuits by prisoners who
have been sexually coerced (Bell et al., 1999; Man & Cronan, 2001/2002;
Springfield, 2000). Human rights groups have also sparked public reaction
by publishing reports of prisoner sexual abuse (e.g., Amnesty International,
1999; Donaldson, 1995; Human Rights Watch, 1996, 2001). In 2003, a
coalition of religious, human rights, and political groups passed a congressional act calling for an end to rape in American prisons and jails (Stop
Prisoner Rape, 2004).
Social scientists have played an important role in changing these public
attitudes. From the 1960s to 1980s, fewer than a dozen researchers had studied sexual coercion in prison (Dumond, 1992). Increasing access to prison
records and populations and a declining stigma against studying so-called
homosexual behavior led to a surge of research in the 1990s (StruckmanJohnson, Struckman-Johnson, Rucker, Bumby, & Donaldson, 1996). There
now exist more than 50 journal articles, books, and chapters that address some
aspect of sexual coercion in prison settings (see Dumond, 2000; Kunselman,
Tewksbury, Dumond, & Dumond, 2002). These works provide important
knowledge for a society poised to seek remedies for prison sexual coercion.
Some major findings of this literature are reviewed below.
Prevalence of Sexual Coercion in Prisons
Most studies on incidence of sexual coercion in prison have focused on
male victims (Hensley, Struckman-Johnson, & Eigenberg, 2000). In the late
1960s, Davis (1982) estimated that about 2,000 of 60,000 (3%) men were
sexually assaulted while jailed during the 26-month period of the study. In
the mid-1970s, Lockwood (1980) documented that 28% of 89 inmates
interviewed in New York state prisons had been the target of “sexual
aggression.” However, only one inmate (1.3%) reported a completed rape.
Similarly, Nacci and Kane (1983) found a sexual aggression rate of 11%
and a rape rate of less than 1% among 330 men in federal facilities.
Hensley, Tewksbury, and Castle (2003) documented a 14% rate of sexual
threats and a 1% completed rape rate among 173 men in Oklahoma prisons.
Other researchers have reported higher rates of sexual coercion. Wooden
and Parker (1982) found that 14% of 200 inmates in a California state prison
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson / Prison Sexual Coercion
1593
reported being pressured into having sex against their will. StruckmanJohnson et al. (1996) estimated that 22% of 486 men in Nebraska prisons
had experienced at least one incident of pressured or forced sexual contact.
Approximately 12% of these incidents were classified as rape in that they
involved forced oral or anal sex. Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson
(2000) found that 21% of 1,788 men in seven midwestern prisons had experienced pressured or forced sexual contact. Ten percent of these incidents
were classified as rape.
These contradictory prevalence rates may be due to survey techniques.
Lower rates were generally found in studies that used interviews (e.g.,
Lockwood, 1980; Nacci & Kane, 1983), whereas higher rates were found in
studies that used anonymous surveys (e.g., Struckman-Johnson et al., 1996;
Wooden & Parker, 1982). In addition, studies have used variable definitions of
sexual coercion and have been conducted in different time periods (Kunselman
et al., 2002). Most experts agree that more research needs to be done.
Surveys of the prevalence of sexual coercion among female inmates are
rare (Kunselman et al., 2002). In one early qualitative work, Kassebaum
(1972) noted that female inmates were sexually exploited by prison staff
and other female inmates. One case of violent gang rape by other inmates
was described. More recently, Butler (1997) reported that 2% of 132 women
in a New South Wales prison had engaged in nonconsensual sex. Hensley,
Castle, and Tewksbury (2003) found that 4% of 245 women in a southern
prison had been sexually coerced by another female inmate. Qualitative
data by Alarid (2000) suggested that sexual pressure and an occasional
sexual assault were part of prison life for women.
Struckman-Johnson et al. (1996) documented that 7% of 42 women in a
Nebraska facility reported an incident of sexual coercion. No incident qualified as a completed rape. In a study of midwestern prisons, StruckmanJohnson and Struckman-Johnson (2002) found that 27% of 148 women in
a maximum-security facility reported being sexually coerced, with 5%
being raped. In facilities with less violent populations, 9% of 79 women and
8% of 36 women reported being sexually coerced. Completed rape rates were
0%. The Struckman-Johnson research suggests that rates of sexual coercion
in facilities for women are variable and may depend on facility security
level. Completed rate rates reported by female inmates appear to be lower
(0%-5%) than rates reported by male inmates (10%-12%).
Effects of Sexual Coercion in Prison
Although there is debate over the prevalence of sexual coercion in prisons, most researchers agree about its profound negative effects on men and
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
1594
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
women. Lockwood (1980) was one of the first to document the severe
effects of sexual aggression on male inmates, including fear, anxiety, psychological disturbance, and suicidal ideation. Donaldson (1993), a prison
rape survivor and activist, wrote numerous nonempirical articles about men’s
reactions to rape. Drawing on the work of Burgess and Holmstrom (1974),
Donaldson described how incarcerated victims develop posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD). Male victims may succumb to myths including that they
have lost their manhood and that they are to blame for not fighting off their
assailant(s).
In a literature review, Dumond and Dumond (2002) described a cycle of
victimization that includes a primary phase of physical injury, pain and suffering, and emotional responses of fear, anxiety, terror, and hopelessness.
Secondary victimization includes the loss of status among the inmate hierarchy, loss of self-esteem, and alienation from staff. Failure to disclose the
incident can lead to depression and suicide. Sexually transmitted diseases
(STDs) and AIDS may result. All responses are intensified if the man is sexually assaulted again—a likely occurrence in the prison setting. The victim
may develop an inner rage that may manifest itself in aggression and violence
toward others in the prison system and in the community on release.
Struckman-Johnson et al. (1996) reported that a majority of 104 male victims felt distrust, nervousness around people, depression, and other symptoms
of post-traumatic distress PTSD. A Human Rights Watch report (2001) based
on qualitative interviews with 220 prisoners in 37 states unveiled consequences of prison rape that included bodily damage and sexual enslavement.
Victims reported intense feelings of fear, shame, anxiety, despair, anger, and a
desire for revenge. Some inmates reported attempts at suicide. The relationship between prison rape and suicide has been documented by several other
studies (e.g., Wiggs, 1989; Wooden & Parker, 1982).
The effects of sexual coercion on small samples of imprisoned women
were reported by Struckman-Johnson et al. (1996) and Struckman-Johnson
and Struckman-Johnson (2002). They found that most female victims experienced nervousness around people, distrust of people, and dislike of people
getting physically close. Symptoms related to PTSD such as flashbacks,
bad dreams, and depression, were commonly reported. A Human Rights
Watch qualitative report (1996) documented similar reactions of women
sexually exploited by staff in prisons in six states. This report details other
consequences such as unwanted pregnancies, persistent sexual harassment,
and denial of privileges. In another qualitative work, Baro (1977) described
the emotional vulnerabilities of female inmates exploited by staff in
Hawaiian prisons.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson / Prison Sexual Coercion
1595
Purpose of the Current Study
The purpose of the current study was to compare incarcerated men’s
and women’s sexual coercion experiences. To our knowledge, there are
no published data that offer this perspective. The data were collected in a
single study of 10 prison facilities in 1998.1 The current study yielded a
large sample of 1,788 male respondents from seven prisons in five midwestern states. The women’s sample of 263 was drawn from three prisons
in three midwestern states. These data provided a rare look at gender differences in the circumstances surrounding sexual coercion, the nature of
the sexual acts that took place, and the emotional and physical consequences of the event.
Method
Selection of Facilities and Sample Sizes
Because of the difficulty of gaining access to prison populations, we
used a blanket approach and sent out sexual coercion research proposals
to the Departments of Corrections in 14 states. The Departments in five
Midwestern states agreed to give access to seven facilities for men and
three facilities for women. Permission was contingent on the researchers
keeping the names of the state and the facilities confidential.
The population for men was 7,032 inmates—the total number of men
incarcerated in seven prison facilities. Four of the seven facilities for
men were medium–maximum security state penitentiaries. The populations from these units were 1,770 men in Facility A, 1,650 men in
Facility B, 1,150 men in Facility C, and 890 men for Facility D. A population of 952 men was obtained from Facility E, a maximum-security,
long-term segregation facility for violent offenders. A population of 500
men was available from a Facility F, a relatively small state penitentiary,
and 120 male inmates were accessed from Facility G, a small minimumsecurity facility.
The total population for women was 468 inmates incarcerated in three
prison facilities. A sample of 295 women was obtained from Facility
H–a medium–maximum security unit with a relatively high assignment
of violent offenders. Samples of 113 inmates and 60 inmates were
obtained from Facilities I and J, respectively. Both facilities were small
medium–maximum security units with a relatively low assignment of violent offenders.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
1596
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Instrument
The questionnaire was a modified form of an instrument used by
Struckman-Johnson et al. (1996). The survey began with demographic questions followed by a section on rating the prison environment. Inmates were
then asked: “Since the time you have been in a (name of state) prison, has
anyone ever pressured or forced you to have sexual contact (touching of
genitals, oral, anal, or vaginal sex) against your will?” Inmates who responded
yes were asked to name the state facilities where incidents happened, frequency, and what year incidents took place.
Inmates with sexual coercion experience were then asked about the
worst-case incident—either the only one that happened or the time that was
the “most serious or harmful to you.” Questions covered characteristics of
the perpetrator(s), tactics used, and what sexual acts resulted.
Inmates rated their reaction at the time the incident happened on a scale
from 1 (it was not upsetting) to 7 (it was very upsetting). They also rated the
lasting bad effects of the incident on a scale from 1 (it has had no bad effect
on me) to 7 (it has had a severe bad effect on me). Inmates checked what
emotional and physical consequences, if any, had resulted from the incident.
Final questions were about the location and reporting of the incident.
Procedures
Approval for the study was obtained from the University’s Internal
Review Board and the prisons’ research committees. All inmates in each
facility received a packet through prison mail that contained a questionnaire, a postage-paid envelope return-addressed to the researchers, and a
no-return consent form that explained that the survey was anonymous and
voluntary. Inmates who participated returned the survey through U.S. mail.
Results
Return Rates
The total number of usable surveys returned by male inmates was 1,788,
or 25% of the original sample. The number of returns was 461 (26%) for
Facility A, 430 (26%) for Facility B, 270 (24%) for Facility C, 232 (26%)
for Facility D, 196 (21%) for Facility E, 174 (35%) for Facility F, and 25
(21%) for Facility G. The total number of usable surveys from female
inmates was 263, or 56% of the sample. The number of returns was 148
(50%) for Facility H, 79 (70%) for Facility I, and 36 (60%) for Facility J.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson / Prison Sexual Coercion
1597
Table 1
Characteristics of Male and Female Inmate Victims
Male n = 382 Female n = 51 Total N = 433
Characteristic
n
Age
17 years and younger
18 – 25 years
26 – 36 years
37 – 47 years
48 – 58 years
59 years or older
Education level
Grade school
Some high school
High school degree or
General Equivalency
Diploma
Trade school
Some college
College degree
Race
White
Black
Native American
Hispanic
Asian
Other
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual
Bisexual
Homosexual
Transsexual
Crime type
Against persons
Drug related
Against property
Against public order
Most severe crime
Murder
Assault
χ2
p
4.673
ns
3.803
ns
38.090
.001
9.255
.026
68
24
30
14
5.805
.300
.868
.009
.016
ns
ns
ns
20
22
.185
.229
ns
ns
%
n
%
n
%
4
92
139
98
31
6
1
25
38
27
8
2
0
8
20
18
2
1
0
16
41
37
4
2
4
100
159
116
33
7
1
24
38
28
8
2
15
38
119
4
10
32
0
5
15
0
10
29
15
43
134
4
10
31
52
107
46
14
28
12
5
18
8
10
35
16
57
125
54
13
29
13
249
69
28
9
5
13
67
18
8
2
1
4
22
8
6
10
0
4
44
16
12
20
0
8
271
77
34
19
5
17
64
18
8
4
1
4
268
75
19
1
74
21
5
.3
30
11
8
0
61
22
16
0
298
86
27
1
72
21
7
.2
265
91
110
54
70
24
29
14
27
14
18
7
53
28
35
14
292
105
128
61
77
86
20
23
9
10
18
20
86
96
Note: Ns vary for each category due to missing data.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
1598
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Selection of Victim Sample
Of the 1,788 male respondents, 382 (21%) answered yes to the question
asking if they had ever experienced an incident of pressured or forced
sexual contact against their will while incarcerated in their state. Of the 263
female respondents, 51 (19%) answered yes to this question.
For men’s facilities, 111 victims were obtained from Facility A, 94 from
Facility B, 70 from Facility C, 38 from Facility D, 35 from Facility E, 30
from Facility F, and 4 from Facility G. For women’s facilities, 41 victims
were obtained from Facility H, 7 from Facility I, and 3 from Facility J.2
Characteristics of Male and Female Victims
Table 1 shows distributions of male and female victims for demographic
and crime-related characteristics. Differences between the distributions for
male and female victims were tested with the chi-square statistic. Male and
female victims were similar for age groupings. The average age was 33
years for men and 34 years for women. The male and female samples were
similar for years of education. More than 85% of respondents had at least a
high school education, and 40% had some college credits or a college degree.
The male and female samples differed in racial makeup. Although the
largest racial category for male and female victims was White, the female
sample had more Hispanic and Native American inmates. This difference
reflected the racial diversity of the state in which Facility H was located.
Most male and female victims identified as heterosexual; however, a higher
percentage of women (16%) than men (5%) identified as homosexual. About
one fifth of the male and female victims categorized themselves as bisexual.
More men (70%) than women (53%) had committed a crime against
persons. There were no gender differences for other crime types. The proportions of men and women who had ever committed murder and assault
did not differ. The average 28-year minimum sentence for men was significantly longer than the average 16-year minimum sentence for women,
t(1, 423) = 2.378, p < .02.
Frequency of Sexual Coercion
The results in Table 2 show the number of times male and female
inmates reported being sexually coerced in their current facility. This is a
conservative estimate because we did not factor in the number of times
inmates were coerced in other state facilities. There were no significant
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson / Prison Sexual Coercion
1599
Table 2
Number of Times Sexually Assaulted in the Present Facility
Reported by Male and Female Inmate Victims
Male n = 298
Female n = 40
Total N = 338
Frequency of Sexual
Assault
n
%
n
%
n
%
χ2
p
1
2–3
4–5
6 – 10
11 – 25
26 – 50
51+
81
84
38
45
35
13
2
27
28
13
15
12
4
.7
17
9
5
7
2
0
0
43
22
12
18
5
0
0
98
93
43
52
37
13
2
29
11
13
15
11
4
.6
6.997
ns
Note: Rows are mutually exclusive. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
gender differences among the frequency categories. Nearly 75% of the men
and 57% of the women were sexually coerced more than once. The average
number of reported incidents was 8.6 for men and 3.9 for women, a difference that approached significance, t(1, 343) = 1.847, p < .066.
Year of Worst-Case Incident3
Worst-case incidents reported by male victims had taken place over a longer
time period than those reported by women, χ2(4, 275) = 14.320, p < .006.
Thirty-seven percent of the men and 46% of the women reported that their
incident took place in the past year. About 20% of the men and one third of the
women said that their incident happened 2 to 5 years ago. About the same percentages of men (17%) and women (14%) reported that their incident happened 6 to 10 years ago. One large disparity was that 27% of the men but only
7% of the women said that their incident happened more than 10 years ago.
Perpetrator Characteristics
As shown in Table 3, most men (91%) and one half of the women (51%)
were victimized by male perpetrators in their worst-case incident. A small
percentage of men were victimized by a woman or by a group that included
at least one woman. Nearly one half of the women were exploited by another
woman (49%). Note that perpetrators could potentially include male and
female staff members, as well as same-sex inmates. In some prisons there
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
1600
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
n
150
58
51
40
32
8
n
Number of Perpetrators
1
2
3
4–5
6 – 10
11+
Relationship of Perpetrator to Target
Note: Rows are mutually exclusive.
112
96
47
29
44
8
0
16
320
15
17
Male
Female
Both
Inmate stranger only
Inmate known only
Inmate known and stranger only
Staff only
Staff and inmate only
Other staff involved combinations
Visitor only
Other or other combination
n
Gender of Perpetrator
n = 352
n = 339
32
27
13
8
12
2
0
5
%
44
17
15
12
9
2
%
91
4
5
%
Male n = 352
2
17
2
18
0
1
1
3
n
20
15
2
3
2
0
n
23
22
0
n
n = 44
n = 42
4
39
4
41
0
2
2
7
%
48
36
5
7
5
0
%
51
49
0
%
Female n = 45
114
113
49
47
44
9
1
19
n
178
73
53
43
34
8
n
343
37
17
n
N = 396
N = 381
29
29
12
12
11
2
.3
5
%
45
19
14
11
9
2
%
86
9
4
%
Total N = 397
63.421
12.312
94.750
χ2
Table 3
Gender, Number, and Relationship of Perpetrators in Worst-Case Sexual Coercion
Incidents Reported by Male and Female Inmate Victims
.0001
.31
.001
p
Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson / Prison Sexual Coercion
1601
was occasional mixing of male and female inmates, visitors, and workers
from the outside.
In worst case incidents, 44% of the men and 48% of the women were
victimized by a sole perpetrator (Table 3). More than one half of the incidents for both genders involved multiple perpetrators, with most of these
cases involving two to five perpetrators. There was no gender difference for
this comparison. The difference between the average number of perpetrators reported by men (2.8) versus women (2.0) approached significance,
t(1, 379) = 1.748, p < .08.
As shown in Table 3, more men (72%) than women (47%) were victimized by other inmates only (either acquaintance or stranger inmates).
Within this comparison, more men (32%) than women (4%) were victimized by a stranger inmate. More women (41%) than men (8%) were victimized by prison staff only. However, more men (12%) than women (0%)
were exploited by staff and inmates who collaborated as perpetrators.
There was a significant gender difference in perpetrator race for worst
case incidents (Table 4). Sixty percent of the men and 37% of the women
reported that their assailant was African American or that their assailant
group included African Americans. White assailants were involved in 45%
of incidents reported by men and 53% of those reported by women.
Location
The most common location for worst-case incidents reported by men were
the inmate’s own cell (31%), shower (13%), kitchen (6%), another inmate’s
cell (6%), yard/exercise area/gym (4%), and work area (4%). About 2% to
3% of victims each reported for the locations of closet and/or stairwell, laundry room, church and/or library, infirmary and/or hospital, and staff office
and/or area. The most common locations for women were inmate’s own cell
(29%), yard/exercise area/gym (10%), and laundry room (10%). The remaining locations of shower, kitchen, another inmate’s cell, work area, church
and/or library, infirmary and/or hospital, and staff area were each mentioned
by 4% of women. This analysis was inexact as about one fourth of men and
women mentioned locations that were “other.” No statistical tests were conducted because of the large number of location categories.
Tactics
Inmates typically reported that perpetrators used more than one tactic to
carry out the worst-case incident. As shown in Table 5, persuasion was the
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
1602
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
101
157
7
6
37
3
11
4
5
1
9
White only
African American only
Native American only
Hispanic American only
White, African American group
White, Native American group
White, Hispanic group
African American, Native American group
African American, Hispanic group
Native American, Hispanic group
Asian or Other race only
Note: Categories are mutually exclusive.
n
Race
30
46
2
2
11
1
3
1
2
.3
3
%
Male n = 341
18
9
0
10
3
1
1
0
1
0
0
n
42
28
0
23
7
2
2
0
2
0
0
%
Female n = 43
119
166
7
16
40
4
12
4
6
1
9
n
31
43
2
4
10
1
3
1
2
.3
2
%
Total N = 384
Table 4
Race of Perpetrator in Worst-Case Sexual Coercion Incident Reported
by Male and Female Inmate Victims
54.008
χ2
.001
p
Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson / Prison Sexual Coercion
1603
most common pressure tactic cited by male (35%) and female (43%) victims. This difference was not significant, nor were there gender differences
in the use of threats to withdraw love, bribery, and blackmail. However, a
higher percentage of men (18%) than women (2%) reported that perpetrators got them drunk or high.
For force tactics, similar percentages of men and women were scared by
the size or strength of their perpetrator (44%) and were physically held
down (38%). However, greater percentages of men than women received
threats of harm, were harmed during the incident, and had a weapon used
against them.
If inmates checked at least one force tactic, their worst-case incident was
categorized as forced. If inmates checked only pressure tactics, their worstcase incident was categorized as pressured. Based on this analysis, 76% of
men’s incidents were forced, compared to 65% of women’s incidents. This
difference was not significant (Table 5).
Sexual Outcome
Many inmates reported that incidents resulted in multiple sexual acts.
We categorized incidents according to the most serious sexual outcome
reported. Categories ranged from nothing happened (for those who avoided,
escaped, or fought off perpetrators) to anal plus vaginal intercourse. As
shown in Table 6, more women (46%) than men (14%) experienced genital touching as their most serious outcome. Similar percentages of men
and women (12%) reported oral sex as their most serious outcome. More
women (15%) than men (4%) reported vaginal sex as their most serious
outcome. (Note that male inmates victimized by female prison staff could
report vaginal sex as an outcome.) The greatest difference was that one
half of male victims but only a few female victims had to engage in anal
sex.
We categorized incidents as touch if the victim reported that nothing
happened or if genital touching had occurred. Incidents were categorized as
intercourse if inmates reported that oral, vaginal, or anal sex occurred. This
analysis revealed that significantly more male victims (70%) than female
victims (29%) had intercourse with perpetrators (Table 6).
We categorized incidents as involving rape if victims reported that perpetrators used at least one force tactic to obtain oral, vaginal, or anal sex.
This analysis revealed that more men (54%) than women (28%) reported a
worst-case incident that involved rape (Table 6).
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
1604
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
263
85
n
76
24
%
44
58
39
30
26
155
205
136
105
90
n = 348
34
5
18
15
15
%
121
17
62
52
53
n
Male n = 348
28
15
n
20
16
13
5
1
20
3
1
9
4
n
n = 43
65
35
%
46
36
30
11
2
46
7
2
20
9
%
Female n = 43
a. Percentages of tactics add up to more than 100 because most targets reported multiple tactics.
b. Categories are mutually exclusive.
Force used
Only pressure used
Use of Force
b
Pressure tactics
Persuasion – talked you into it
Threatened to withdraw love
Got you drunk or high
Bribe
Blackmail
Force tactics
Scared by size and/or strength of perpetrator
Threatened to harm or hurt you
Physically held down and/or restrained
Physically harmed
Used a weapon
Tactics Used by Perpetrator
a
291
100
n
175
221
149
110
91
N = 391
141
20
63
61
57
n
74
26
%
44
56
38
28
23
36
5
16
16
14
%
Total N = 391
Table 5
Tactics Used in Worst-Case Sexual Coercion Incidents Reported
by Male and Female Inmate Victims
2.199
.032
7.472
1.377
6.648
11.992
2.054
.312
6.938
.936
1.157
χ2
.099
ns
.006
ns
.010
.001
ns
ns
.008
ns
ns
p
1605
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
n
Intercourse Outcome
Note: Rows are mutually exclusive.
Rape occurred
Rape did not occur
Rape Outcome
175
151
n
234
102
54
48
42
15
172
5
Tried to touch – victim escaped
Touched genitals, sexual parts
Oral sex – Given or received
Vaginal sex
Anal sex
Anal and vaginal sex
Intercourse occurred (oral, anal, vaginal)
Only touch occurred
n
Most Serious Sexual Outcome
n = 326
n = 336
54
46
%
70
30
%
16
14
12
4
51
2
%
Male n = 336
11
28
n
12
29
n
10
19
5
6
1
0
n
n = 39
n = 41
28
72
%
29
71
%
24
46
12
15
2
0
%
Female n = 41
186
179
n
246
131
n
64
67
47
21
173
5
n
N = 365
N = 377
51
49
%
65
35
%
17
18
12
6
46
1
%
Total N = 377
9.046
26.271
48.941
χ2
Table 6
Most Serious Sexual Outcome in Worst-Case Sexual Coercion Incidents Reported
by Male and Female Inmate Victims
.004
.0001
.0001
p
1606
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Consequences
On average, men rated their level of upset at 6.12 on a scale where 7
indicated being very upset. Women’s average rating was similarly high—
6.20. Men and women also did not differ in ratings of the lasting bad effect
of the incident (5.38 for men and 5.49 for women where 7 indicated a
severe bad effect).
As shown in Table 7, similar percentages of male and female victims
reported 8 of 15 possible effects resulting from the worst-case incident. The
most commonly reported effects for all victims (60% to 75%) were feelings
of distrust of people, nervousness around people, discomfort with being
physically close to others, and worry that it would happen again. A majority of all victims reported depression, and 43% had flashbacks and bad
dreams.
Other results indicated that men experienced more negative consequences than women. Higher percentages of men than women were worried about their sex-role reputation, had thoughts of suicide, and made
suicidal attempts. More men than women reported fear of catching AIDS,
feelings of hatred, and being physically injured. There was a trend effect
for more men (36%) than women (22%) being violent as a result of the
incident.
Reporting of the Incident
More women (67%) than men (51%) told someone about their worstcase incident, χ2(1, 392) = 4.449, p < .035. As shown in Table 8, more than
one half of the women, but only one third of the men, told another inmate.
More than one third of the women, but only about one fourth of the men,
told family or friends outside the prison. We analyzed how many men and
women told either nonadministrative staff or prison administration about
the incident. Results showed that only 22% of the men and 34% of the
women reported their incident to prison staff. This difference approached
significance, χ2(1, 413) = 3.316, p < .069.
Summary and Discussion
The current study yielded information on the largest sample of male and
female victims of prison sexual coercion available to date in the literature.
Although we made comparisons of the demographic characteristics of
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
1607
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
261
245
224
205
170
150
204
129
66
153
14
74
163
125
20
n
75
71
65
59
49
43
59
37
19
44
4
21
47
36
6
%
35
35
24
30
15
20
23
5
2
7
0
4
14
10
1
n
76
76
52
65
33
44
50
11
4
15
0
9
30
22
2
%
Female n = 46
Note: Percentages add up to more than 100 because most targets reported multiple consequences.
Distrusts people
Nervousness around some people
Do not like people getting physically close
Worried about it happening again
Worried about reputation as a man and/or women
Flashbacks and/or bad dreams
Depression
Thoughts of suicide
Attempts at suicide
Worried about catching AIDS
Has caught a disease
Physical injury
Has made victim hate people
Has caused victim to be violent
There were no bad effects
Consequence of Incident
Male n = 348
296
280
248
235
185
170
227
134
68
160
14
78
177
135
21
n
75
71
63
60
47
43
58
34
17
41
4
20
45
34
5
%
Total N = 394
.026
.596
2.673
.672
4.303
.002
1.236
12.426
6.111
14.030
1.930
4.073
4.488
3.627
1.042
χ2
Table 7
Male and Female Inmate Victims by Consequences of Worst Case Sexual Coercion Incident
ns
ns
ns
ns
.038
ns
ns
.001
.013
.001
ns
.044
.034
.057
ns
p
1608
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
114
54
4
37
66
57
77
Another inmate
Clergy
A teacher
Medical person
Nonadministrative staff
Prison administration
Family or friends outside of prison
34
16
1
11
20
17
23
%
25
12
2
3
12
10
17
n
54
26
4
6
26
22
37
%
Female n = 46
Note: Percentages add up to more than 100 because respondents could check multiple categories.
n
Who Was Told
Male n = 339
139
66
6
40
78
67
94
n
36
17
2
10
20
17
25
%
Total N = 385
7.537
2.942
2.650
.839
1.098
.668
4.401
χ2
Table 8
Male and Female Inmate Victims by Whom Was Told of the Worst-Case Sexual Coercion Incident
.006
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
.036
p
Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson / Prison Sexual Coercion
1609
the male and female samples, we are not certain if the results are related
to sexual coercion. Some gender differences such as for race and crime
background more likely reflected facility geographic location and custody level.
The results for sexual orientation, however, deserve mention. Compared
to the male sample, the female sample had more inmates who self-identified
as homosexual. This difference may reflect the nature of women who are
incarcerated and may not be relevant to sexual coercion. However, we
found some evidence that men and women who identified as homosexual
were singled out as targets. While about 2% of the return sample for men
identified as homosexual, 5% of the male victim sample identified as
homosexual. For women, 11% of the return sample identified as homosexual compared to 16% of the victim sample. Bisexual men were also overrepresented in the victim group (20%) as compared to the return sample
(9%). The difference was less clear for women. About 20% of victims identified as bisexual compared to 17% of the return sample. Overall, these
results fit with other studies that have shown greater victimization rates of
gay and bisexual inmates (e.g., Hensley, Tewksbury, & Castle, 2003; Man
& Cronan, 2001/2002; Wooden & Parker, 1982).
The men in the current sample, compared to women, had committed
more crimes against persons and were serving longer sentences. However,
the women were not incarcerated for only minor crimes. Similar proportions of men and women had committed murder and assault. Donaldson
(1993) wrote that male victims of prison rape tend to be the nonviolent
offenders. Here we have evidence that male and female inmates who have
committed violent crimes are also targets for sexual assault. We speculate
that violent offenders who have long sentences to serve sooner or later
encounter predators who cannot be escaped.
The current study revealed an array of similarities and differences in
men’s and women’s experience of sexual coercion in prison. Men and
women were similar in that most had been victimized more than once. Men
said they had been victimized an average of nearly 9 times in their present
facility, while women reported an average of four incidents. This difference
only approached statistical significance because of variability of responses.
Men and women differed in the recentness of their worst case incident.
Women reported incidents that had happened relatively recently, with
nearly one half occurring in the past year. Men’s incident reports stretched
out over many years, with at least one fourth happening more than a decade
ago. One explanation is that men had been incarcerated longer than most
women and thus had been at risk to victimization for more years.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
1610
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Men and women were alike in that their worst-case incident typically
involved two or more perpetrators. Men and women differed by gender of
the perpetrator(s) in the worst-case incidents. Nine of 10 male inmates were
victimized by another man or an all male group. In the remaining cases, the
perpetrator was a woman, a group of women, or a woman who joined with
other men. In contrast, female inmates were about equally as likely to be
victimized by another woman (or groups of women) as by a man (or group
of men).
An analysis of the relationship of the perpetrators helped explain this
finding. Male inmates were most likely to be assaulted by other inmates
who were nearly always male. However, about one fifth of the men were
victimized by prison staff, who sometimes included female employees.
Female inmates were about as likely to be victimized by other inmates (48%),
who were nearly always female, as by staff (43%), who could be male or
female. These results underscore that men and women in prison can be victimized by almost any person—male or female, inmate or staff—who can
gain access to inmates.
Our findings suggest that this access can occur almost anywhere in the
prison. Although most incidents happened in cells, showers, and exercise
areas, many took place in unexpected places such as kitchens and laundry
areas, libraries, and hospitals.
Men and women differed for race of perpetrators in worst-case incidents.
Men were most likely to be assaulted by African American perpetrators
(60%). This is a common finding in the literature (e.g., Hensley, Tewksbury,
& Castle, 2003; Man & Cronan, 2001/2002) and supports the notion that
Black and White race relations and gang dynamics fuel sexual coercion in
male prisons. Women were most likely to be assaulted by White perpetrators (53%). Female victims in general reported a greater diversity of perpetrator race including Hispanic and Native American. The results for women,
however, may reflect the racial diversity of women’s facility H.
An important finding of the current study is that a similar majority of men
and women had at least one force tactic used against them in their worst-case
incident. However, men differed from women in that they had more serious
or harmful force tactics used against them. Compared to women, men were
more likely to be threatened with harm, to be physically harmed, and to have
a weapon used against them. In addition, more men than women reported
that they suffered physical injury as a consequence of the incident.
Another important finding was that men, compared to women, experienced more serious sexual outcomes in their worst-case incidents. A majority
of women (71%) reported that the outcome involved nothing more serious
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson / Prison Sexual Coercion
1611
than an attempt at sexual touching or an actual touch. A majority of men
(70%) reported that oral, vaginal (note that some male inmates reported
being coerced by female staff in the prison), or anal intercourse occurred.
An analysis determined that just more than one half of all male victims
who responded to the survey had been forced to engage in oral, vaginal, or
anal intercourse. The male rape rate of 54% was significantly higher than
the 28% rape rate for female victims.
Our results showed that men and women were equal in their strong negative reactions to sexual coercion in prison. They rated themselves as highly
upset at the time the worst-case incident happened. They gave moderately
high ratings to the lasting bad effect of the incident. Men and women were
alike in that most felt distrust of other people, nervousness around others,
and dislike of people getting close after the incident. Men and women were
equally likely to report symptoms related to PTSD such as flashbacks and
bad dreams and fears of repeat incidents.
Men differed from women in that they were more likely to be worried
about their reputation—evidence for Donaldson’s (1993) notion that male
rape victims experience loss of manhood. Men were also more likely than
women to report a fear of getting AIDS, a concern related to forced anal
intercourse. Men also were more likely than women to report feeling hateful toward others and acting violently toward others. These differences may
help explain why although equal percentages of men and women reported
being depressed by their worst-case incidents (at least one half), substantially more men had thoughts of suicide and attempted suicide.
In summary, these findings suggest that sexual coercion in prison is a
more violent situation for men than women. Men are more likely than
women to have greater levels of force used against them, to endure more
physical harm and injuries, and to experience more intimate acts of sexual
activities. As a consequence, we speculate that men are more likely than
women to respond with violence toward others and to turn the violence
inwards against themselves. This is not to minimize the experience of
sexual coercion for women in prison. Women were similar to men in that
they had experienced multiple incidents of sexual coercion. More than one
fourth of the female victims experienced an incident that qualified as rape,
often carried out by multiple perpetrators. Women were more likely than
men to be victimized by staff who wielded constant and complete authority over them. Women reported equally high levels of emotional upset and
most of the same emotional symptoms as did men.
These findings have implications for prevention strategies. In men’s
facilities, prevention efforts should focus primarily on inmate-on-inmate
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
1612
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
sexual coercion, with some consideration given to staff involvement.
Administrators should recognize that it is possible for staff and inmates to
collaborate as perpetrators in sexual assault. In women’s facilities, efforts
should be more equally focused on inmate-on-inmate assault and staff and
inmate interactions.
Administrators in men’s facilities should take into account racial dynamics of inmate-on-inmate assault. In particular, they should attend to situations that put White inmates at risk to Black perpetrators. However, it
should be recognized that men from all racial groups are potential targets
of sexual coercion.
In male and female facilities, administrators should design strategies to
manage predators who work alone, as well as predators who organize with
others to commit sexual coercion. All areas of a prison facility should be
considered as a potential location for sexual coercion. Prevention training
programs should be directed at female and male staff.
Treatment of the male victims should be directed toward physical injury,
AIDS and disease prevention, and, most notably, suicide prevention. Male
and female victims should be provided counseling and therapy to mitigate
the onset of long-term emotional effects. Finally, administrations need to
find ways to encourage male and female victims to report incidents of sexual
coercion to prison personnel.
Limitations
The strength of the current study is the information on the large number
of male victims (382) gathered from seven different prisons in five states.
The male victim data may be representative of prison populations in the
Midwest. The weakness of the current study is the comparatively small
number of female victims (n = 51). We could only gain access to three
women’s prisons in the current study. The small populations in women’s
prisons, coupled with the relatively low rates of sexual coercion in some
prisons, makes it difficult to obtain large victim samples. Although a sample size of women was adequate for comparisons in the current study, there
are limitations to the generality of the results.
The current study is strengthened by the high return rate for female
respondents (50% – 70%). The current study is weakened by the relatively
low return rate from male respondents (25%). Hensley (personal communication, November 14, 2004) reported that rates of 20% and below are typical for male prison studies. Our return rates, then, may be above average. The
question is do our return samples for men reflect the total prison population
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson / Prison Sexual Coercion
1613
at large. In a study of Nebraska prisons (Struckman-Johnson et al., 1996),
we found that the return sample was similar to the total population for many
demographic characteristics. We determined that our return samples from
men’s prisons in the Midwest underrepresented African American respondents and overrepresented inmates with higher education (StruckmanJohnson & Struckman-Johnson, 2000).
The current study is also limited in that the data are based on self reports
from a population that is not always viewed as credible. We carefully
reviewed and eliminated a small number of surveys that were inconsistent,
atypical, and possibly contained fraudulent data. In general, we believe that
the anonymous nature of the survey and mailing procedures encouraged
honest and accurate responses. It has been demonstrated that reporting of
sensitive behaviors that is anonymous is more accurate than reporting with
guarantees of confidentiality (Ong & Weiss, 2000). Anonymous reporting
in a prison setting allows inmates to disclose sexual victimization without
fear of being stigmatized as a snitch or bait.
The validity of our data is best supported by the similarity of results for
sexual coercion rates found in 10 men’s prisons (Struckman-Johnson &
Struckman-Johnson, 2000; Struckman-Johnson et al., 1996). Future research
will be required to determine the validity of results for women who report
sexual victimization in prison.
Notes
1. Limited data on a subsample of male victims have been previously published
(Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 2000). Data from a subsample of the female victims have been previously published (Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 2002).
2. The number of victims is slightly higher here than reported in prior publications
(Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 2000, 2002) because victims sexually coerced in
any in- or out-of-state facility were counted. In previous publications, only victims whose
worst-case incident occurred in their current facility were described.
3. Approximately 35 to 40 inmates (mostly men) did not complete or only partially completed the section on worst-case incidents. The tables for these data generally show smaller n
than reported in the demographic table.
References
Alarid, L. F. (2000). Sexual assault and coercion among incarcerated women prisoners:
Excerpts from prison letters. The Prison Journal, 80, 391-406.
Amnesty International. (1999). United States of America: Not part of my sentence—
Violations of the human rights of women in custody. New York: Author.
Baro, A. L. (1997). Spheres of consent: An analysis of the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of women incarcerated in the state of Hawaii. Women and Criminal Justice, 8, 61-84.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
1614
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Bell, C., Coven, M., Cronan, J. P., Garza, C. A., Guggemos, J., & Storto, L. (1999). Rape and
sexual misconduct in the prison system: Analyzing America’s most “open” secret. Yale
Law and Policy Review, 18, 195-223.
Burgess, A. W., & Holmstrom, L. (1974). Rape syndrome. American Journal of Psychiatry,
131(9), 981-986.
Butler, T. (1997, November). Preliminary findings from the inmate health survey of the inmate
population in the New South Wales Correctional System. Corrections Health Service
(NSW Department of Health Report 365/66 09944 Butler, pp. 83-86). Sydney, New South
Wales: New South Wales Corrections Health Service.
Davis, A. J. (1982). Sexual assaults in the Philadelphia prison system and sheriff’s vans. In
A. M. Scacco, Jr. (Ed.), Male rape: A casebook of sexual aggressions (pp. 107-120).
New York: AMS Press.
Donaldson, S. (1995). Rape of incarcerated Americans: A preliminary statistical look (A newsletter of Stop Prisoner Rape, Inc., 7th ed.). Ft. Bragg, CA. Available at www.spr.org/docs/
stats/html
Donaldson, S. (1993). Prisoner rape education tapes: Overview for jail/prison administrators
and staff. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
Dumond, R. W. (1992). The sexual assault of male inmates in incarcerated settings. International
Journal of the Sociology of Law, 20, 137-157.
Dumond, R. W. (1995, August). Ignominious victims: Effective treatment of male sexual
assault in prison. Paper presented at the 103 annual conference of the American
Psychological Association, New York.
Dumond, R. W. (2000). Inmate sexual assault. The plague which persists. The Prison Journal,
80(4), 407-414.
Dumond, R. W., & Dumond, D. A. (2002). The treatment of sexual assault victims. In
C. Hensley (Ed.), Prison sex: Practice and policy (pp. 67-87). Boulder, CO: Lynn Rienner.
French, L. (1979). Prison sexualization: Inmate adaptations to psycho sexual stress. Corrective
and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and Therapy, 25(2),
64-69.
Hensley, C., Castle, T., & Tewksbury, R. (2003). Inmate-to-inmate sexual coercion in a prison
for women. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 37(2), 77-87.
Hensley, C., Struckman-Johnson, C., & Eigenberg, H. (2000). The history of prison sex
research. The Prison Journal, 80, 360-367.
Hensley, C., Tewksbury, R., & Castle, T. (2003). Characteristics of prison sexual assault targets in male Oklahoma correctional facilities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(6),
595-606.
Human Rights Watch. (1996). All too familiar: Sexual abuse of women in U.S. state prisons.
New York: Author.
Human Rights Watch. (2001). No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. New York: Author.
Kassebaum, G. (1972). Sex in prison. Sexual Behavior, 2, 39-45.
Kunselman, J., Tewksbury, R., Dumond, R. W., & Dumond, D. A. (2002). Nonconsensual
sexual behavior. In C. Hensley (Ed.), Prison sex: Practice and policy (pp. 27-47). Boulder,
CO: Lynn Rienner.
Lockwood, D. (1980). Prison sexual violence. New York: Elsevier.
Man, C. D., & Cronan, J. P. (2001/2002). Forecasting sexual abuse in prison: The prison subculture of masculinity as a backdrop for “deliberate indifference.” Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology, 92-127.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson / Prison Sexual Coercion
1615
Nacci, P. L., & Kane, T. (1983). The incidence of sex and sexual aggression in federal prisons.
Federal Probation, 47(4), 31-36.
Ong, A. D., & Weiss, D. J. (2000). The impact of anonymity on responses to sensitive questions.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1691-1708.
Sennot, C. M. (1994, May 17). Poll finds wide concern about prison rape. Boston Globe, p. 22.
Springfield, D. (2000). Sisters in misery: Utilizing international law to protect United States
female prisoners from sexual abuse. Indiana International & Comparative Law Review,
10, 457-486.
Stop Prisoner Rape. (2004). Stop Prisoner Rape annual report 2003–2004. Los Angeles, CA:
Author.
Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (2000). Sexual coercion rates in seven midwestern prison facilities for men. The Prison Journal, 80, 379-390.
Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (2002). Sexual coercion reported by
women in three midwestern prisons. Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 217-227.
Struckman-Johnson, C. J., Struckman-Johnson, D. L., Rucker, L., Bumby, K., & Donaldson, S.
(1996). Sexual coercion reported by men and women in prison. Journal of Sex Research,
33, 67-76.
Wiggs, J. W. (1989). Prison rape and suicide. Journal of the American Medical Association,
262(24), 3403.
Wooden, W., & Parker, J. (1982). Men behind bars: Sexual exploitation in prison. New York:
Plenum.
Cindy Struckman-Johnson received her doctorate in social psychology from the University
of Kentucky at Lexington in 1978. She is presently a professor of psychology at the University
of South Dakota where she teaches courses in social psychology, sex roles, sexuality, and prejudice. She and her partner Dave Struckman-Johnson have received national recognition for
their research on sexual coercion in prisons. She was appointed in 2004 by Congress to serve
on the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission.
David Struckman-Johnson received his doctorate in psychology from the University of
South Dakota in 1973. He is currently a Professor of Computer Science at the university,
where he has taught courses in statistics, research methodology, evaluation research, human
computer interaction, and computer programming. His current research interests include
sexual aggression, program evaluation in the area of child abuse and neglect, and traffic safety.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at American University Library on February 6, 2012
JOURNAL
10.1177/0886260505276069
Hensley
et al.
OF/ INTERPERSON
CHARACTERISTICS
AL VIOLENCE
OF MALE
/ June
SEXU
2005
AL ASSAULT
Examining the Characteristics of
Male Sexual Assault Targets in a
Southern Maximum-Security Prison
CHRISTOPHER HENSLEY
Morehead State University
MARY KOSCHESKI
Pulaski Technical College
RICHARD TEWKSBURY
University of Louisville
Studies concerning inmate-on-inmate sexual assaults within male correctional facilities are sparse in the sociological and correctional literatures. Only a few studies
have specifically examined the characteristics of male inmate sexual assault targets.
The current research sought to address this gap by providing an examination of factors related to victimization likelihood. Using data gathered in March 2000 from 142
inmates (18% return rate) in one Southern maximum-security prison, the authors
examined demographic and behavioral characteristics of male inmate sexual targets. Based on inmates’ self-reports of sexual victimization—threatened and/or
forced sexual assault encounters—correlates of victimization were identified. Approximately 18% of the inmates reported inmate-on-inmate sexual threats, and
8.5% reported that they had been sexually assaulted by another inmate while
incarcerated.
Keywords:
sexual assault; prison rape; maximum-security prison; profile of inmate
sexual assault targets
The study of prison sexuality actually began in the 1930s (Fishman, 1934).
A former inspector of U.S. federal prisons, Fishman (1934) wrote, “The
voluminous literature concerning American prisons is not only sparse when
it comes to deal with this [the] important subject of sex, but has evaded its discussion as much as possible” (p. 5). This statement still continues to have
validity 70 years later. In fact, the issue of prison sexuality has largely been
Authors’ Note: All correspondence should be submitted to Dr. Christopher Hensley, Director, Institute for Correctional Research and Training, 114 Rader Hall, Morehead State University,
Morehead, Kentucky 40351; e-mail: [email protected]
JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE, Vol. 20 No. 6, June 2005 667-679
DOI: 10.1177/0886260505276069
© 2005 Sage Publications
667
668
JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / June 2005
disregarded by social scientists, correctional administrators, and society
alike. Tewksbury and West (2000) went so far as to say that
research on sex in prisons is controversial, often neglected, and fairly scarce in
the field of criminal justice, because sex in prison is not a “clean,” “easy,” or
“safe” topic . . . such an approach, however, is misinformed and potentially perilous for the continued theoretical and substantive development of the discipline. (p. 368)
Ignoring prison sexuality also has serious consequences for inmates,
especially in relation to sexual violence within prisons. Although described
as a cancer [that] has gone untreated, prison sexual violence has been the
focus of very few sociological or correctional studies in the past 70 years
(Kunselman, Tewksbury, Dumond, & Dumond, 2002, p. 27). Sexual assaults
in prisons have been associated with increased institutional violence (Cotton
& Groth, 1982; Fleisher, 1989; Lockwood, 1980), health risks (Blumberg,
1989; Cotton & Groth, 1982; Gido, 1989), and victims that become victimizers (Chonco, 1989; Lockwood, 1980; Smith & Batiuk, 1989). Unfortunately,
although some of the classical works devote time to describing characteristics of sexual assault targets (see Donaldson, 1993), few of the empirical
studies on prison sexual assaults have examined the microlevel (demographic and behavioral) correlates of these victims (i.e., sexual assault targets). It is important to understand which inmates are at a greater risk of being
sexually threatened and/or assaulted by other inmates. By understanding these characteristics, correctional administrators have the necessary
knowledge to protect possible victims from this predatory behavior. Therefore, the goal of the current study was to extend and update the current knowledge on inmate sexual assault targets by examining their demographic and
behavioral characteristics in hopes that it will shed new light on this continuing problem.
LITERATURE REVIEW
One of the first studies of male inmate sexual assault was conducted by
Davis in 1968. He supervised a 26-month study of inmate sexual assault in
the Philadelphia jail system. In addition to inmate interviews, Davis conducted comprehensive reviews of inmate records and administered polygraph tests to inmate victims and witnesses to such attacks. Of the 3,304
inmates interviewed, 97 reported being sexually assaulted, either while
incarcerated or during transport to and from court. A total of 156 documented
attempted or completed sexual assaults were reported by the victims. Davis
Hensley et al. / CHARACTERISTICS OF MALE SEXUAL ASSAULT
669
(1968) postulated that these numbers were only the tip of the iceberg (p. 11).
In fact, he believed the actual number of sexual assaults during the research
period was closer to 2,000. With this estimation, Davis concluded that 60%
of those interviewed had actually been sexually threatened or assaulted but
neglected to report these incidents to either corrections officials or to the
researcher.
Through observation, Carroll (1977) attempted to assess the demographic
and social correlates of sexual assault, specifically the victims’ and perpetrators’ race, of 200 male inmates in a prison. Although Carroll did not personally observe any acts of sexual assault, interviews with 21 inmate and staff
informants revealed an estimated 40 interracial sexual assaults per year.
Carroll attributed this violence to the legacy of slavery and racism. He postulated that Black perpetrators on White victims were acts of revenge and retaliation for the countless years of oppression by the White male-dominated
society. Carroll (1977) further believed that Black rage against the White
male-dominated correctional system increased the incidence and prevalence
of sexual assaults. His research laid the foundation for other social scientists
to examine the interracial nature of prison sexual assaults, which later
became one of the most strongly established correlates of prison sexual
assaults.
By randomly interviewing 418 inmates from five separate maximumsecurity prisons, Toch (1977) also found that Blacks were more likely to be
the perpetrators of sexual assaults and Whites were more likely to be the victims. Similar to Carroll (1977), Toch also attributed these Black-on-White
sexual assaults to White domination and oppression. However, Toch (1977)
argued that regardless of race the perceived strength or weakness of a sexual
target could determine if an inmate became a sexual assault victim.
Rather than focus on inmates’ self-reported sexual assaults, Moss,
Hosford, and Anderson (1979) interviewed correctional officers regarding
this topic at a federal correctional facility that housed 1,100 inmates. The
respondents revealed that only 1% (12 inmates) were sexual aggressors. All
of the assailants were either Black or Chicano with all but two of their victims
being White. It was noted, however, that in all cases of sexual assault, the
aggressor and victim were of different races.
In 1980, Lockwood (1980) further extended the study of demographic
characteristics of potential sexual assault targets. By using inmate records, a
random survey, and by any means possible, Lockwood (1980) identified 107
inmates considered so-called sexual targets who were housed in three male
New York State prisons (p. 2). Of the targets, only one of the interviewed
inmates reported being sexually victimized. However, 28% of the entire sample reported being a target (i.e., sexually threatened) at least once during their
670
JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / June 2005
incarceration. Fifty-one incidents of sexual assault and 97 incidents of less
aggressive behavior were disclosed by the 30 inmates who self-identified as
targets. Approximately one half of the self-identified targets were White,
while about one fifth were Black and one fifth were Hispanic.
Although race has been a significant correlate in sexual assault studies,
sexual orientation has also been a characteristic that researchers have identified as important. By conducting a study of prison sexuality within a California medium-security prison for men, Wooden and Parker (1982) were two of
the first researchers who examined homosexual victims of inmate sexual
assault. Of the 200 inmates who responded to questionnaires, 14% indicated
that they had been sexually assaulted while incarcerated. In all, 2% of the
bisexuals, 9% of the heterosexuals, and 41% of the homosexuals reported
being sexually assaulted by other inmates.
Nacci and Kane (1984) also examined the relationship between sexual
orientation and sexual assault by randomly surveying 330 inmates from 17
federal correctional institutions. Results revealed that 70% of homosexual and bisexual inmates had been sexual assault targets. The researchers
believed that since homosexual/bisexual identification and insertee roles are
associated, the target must be perceived as one who is (or may be) willing to
occupy passive female roles (Nacci & Kane, 1984, p. 47). Targets were also
more likely to be White, young, and reside in their current facility less than 1
month prior to their attacks.
Using a descriptive case study of 40 inmate sexual assault victims and sexual assault perpetrators housed in a midwestern state prerelease center,
Chonco (1989) reiterated previous research that had presented Black inmates
as aggressors and added that homosexual inmates could also become sexual
assaulters. However, Chonco contended that victims of sexual assault often
exhibited behaviors associated with female stereotypes, while at the same
time also arguing that all inmates were equally vulnerable to sexual assaults
within the facility. Sexual assault victims tended to be younger, attractive,
members of prison gangs, perceived as weak by other inmates, and fearful.
In 1989, Tewksbury focused on the fear of inmate sexual assault. His
study included 150 male inmates in an Ohio correctional facility. More than
7% of the inmates reported that someone had approached them in a sexually
threatening manner. However, no inmate reported being sexually assaulted.
Forty percent of Whites and 25% of non-Whites were sexually threatened.
Targets were also younger than age 30 years and smaller in stature.
Recent studies have limited their focus to the rate of sexual assault occurrences in prisons. Saum, Surratt, Inciardi, and Bennett (1995) examined the
sexual activities of 101 Delaware inmates in a male medium-security prison.
Inmates were questioned about their own experiences of sexual assault as
Hensley et al. / CHARACTERISTICS OF MALE SEXUAL ASSAULT
671
well as those that they had knowledge of or had witnessed in prison. One
inmate reported being sexually assaulted during a previous incarceration,
while an additional 5 inmates reported that another inmate had attempted to
sexually assault them while incarcerated. Three percent of the sample
reported witnessing a sexual assault, and 1% reported witnessing two sexual
assaults.
By surveying 474 male inmates, Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson,
Rucker, Bumby, and Donaldson (1996) examined the incidence rates of sexual coercion in the Nebraska state correctional system. Of the sample, 22%
had been forced or pressured to have sex with another inmate (i.e., sexually
coerced). Victims reported encountering sexual confrontations an average of
nine times during their sentence and ranged in age from 26 to 36 years. White
inmates accounted for 80% of the sexual targets but constituted only one half
of the prison population. Bisexual inmates and sex offenders were also
overrepresented in the target sample as compared to the general population.
In 2000, Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson conducted the largest sample study of sexual coercion in correctional facilities. Data gathered
from 1,788 male inmates in seven midwestern prisons revealed that 21% of
inmates had been sexually pressured or sexually assaulted at least once (i.e.,
sexually coerced). The majority (60%) of the sexual targets were White. Of
those who admitted to being sexually assaulted in their current facility, 4%
had been raped within the most recent 26 to 30 months of incarceration.
In the most recent study of inmate sexual assault, Hensley, Tewksbury,
and Castle (2003) examined the characteristics of sexual assault targets in
three male Oklahoma correctional facilities. Roughly 14% of the 174 inmates
interviewed reported that they had been sexually targeted by other inmates.
Concerning race, 58% of the targets were White as compared to only 44% of
the interview sample. Of the targets, 29% were African American as compared to 39% of the interview sample. Almost two thirds of the targets were
single as compared to 50% of the sample. It is interesting to note that 42% of
the targets described themselves as heterosexual as compared to 78% of the
interview sample. Inmates who had committed Type I offenses (Federal
Bureau of Investigation, 2004) were more likely to be represented in the target group than the interview sample. On average, targets were incarcerated
for almost 5 months before their first threatening sexual approach. The racial
makeup of the perpetrators was White (38%), African American (58%), and
Hispanic (4%).
Sexual assault is a concern for prison inmates and, as previously discussed, should be an important issue for debate among social scientists, correctional administrators, and society. Unfortunately, the dearth of data prevents our understanding of this significant topic. The purpose of the current
672
JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / June 2005
study is to uncover and update the demographic and behavioral characteristics of male sexual assault targets so that we can provide corrections officials
with useful and current information that may be key to maintaining the order,
safety, and security of the inmates within their prisons. In addition, this is the
first study of sexual targets that actually examines male inmates’ sexual orientations prior to and during incarceration as correlates. This issue may be
crucial in understanding the sexual dynamics of prisons and how threats of
and completed sexual assaults influence an inmates sexual identity.
METHOD
Participants
In March 2000, all inmates housed in one maximum-security Southern
correctional facility for men were requested to participate in a study of sexual
behaviors. Of the 800 inmates incarcerated at that time, a total of 142 agreed
to participate in the study, yielding a response rate of 18%. Table 1 displays
the characteristics of the prison population and the sample. A comparison of
the prison population and the study group revealed some differences. Black
inmates were underrepresented in the sample as compared to the prison population; whereas, inmates who described themselves as other (American
Indian, Asian, and Hispanic) were overrepresented in the sample. Statistical
analyses revealed significant differences between the prison population and
sample for respondents who indicated that they were Black or other. Therefore, caution should be taken when interpreting the results. The mean age for
the sample was 33 years as compared to 32 years for the prison population,
indicating no significant difference.
Survey Instrument
A 46-item questionnaire was constructed, in part, using a combination of
previous researchers questions and scales regarding consensual inmate sex
and inmate sexual coercion (Hensley et al., 2003; Saum et al., 1995;
Struckman-Johnson et al., 1996; Tewksbury, 1989). For the purpose of the
current study, demographic information including age, race, marital status,
and sexual orientation prior to incarceration (i.e., Before you were incarcerated, how would you characterize your sexual orientation?) and during incarceration (i.e., How would you characterized your sexual orientation today?)
was collected. Respondents were also asked what type of offense (personal,
property, sex, or other) that they had committed. Finally, information was
Hensley et al. / CHARACTERISTICS OF MALE SEXUAL ASSAULT
673
TABLE 1: Population and Sample Characteristics
Prison Population
Characteristic
Race
White
African American
Other
Mean Age:
Sample
N
%
n
%
552
220
28
69.0
27.5
3.5
96
29
17
67.6
20.4
12.0
32 years
33 years
collected on whether respondents had been sexually threatened and/or sexually assaulted (i.e., Since you have been incarcerated, has another inmate
threatened to sexually assault you? and Since you have been incarcerated,
has another inmate sexually assaulted you?), with additional information
requested on the length of time after respondents were incarcerated that they
were first sexually threatened and/or assaulted, the race of the perpetrator,
and the number of times it occurred. If an inmate admitted to being sexually
threatened and/or sexually assaulted, he was categorized as a target of sexual
assault. Of the 26 inmates who had been sexually threatened, 12 reported that
they had been raped.
Procedures
After obtaining approval from the state Department of Corrections and
traveling to the facility, inmates were assembled in the main area of their
respective units by correctional staff so that the researchers could explain
the contents of the surveys. Correctional counselors then distributed selfadministered questionnaires to each inmate for completion at a later time.
Inmates were asked to return their completed questionnaires in a stamped,
self-addressed envelope within 2 weeks of distribution. Inmates were told it
would take approximately 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire. In addition, the cover letter reiterated their anonymity while participating in the project. No incentives were given for completion of the survey.
RESULTS
Of the 142 inmates who responded to the survey, 26 inmates (18.3%)
reported being sexual targets and 12 inmates (8.5%) were also victims of sexual assault during their incarceration. According to Table 2, the mean age for
674
JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / June 2005
the sexual assault targets was 34 years, while the sample’s mean age was 33
years. Concerning race, 73.1% of sexual assault targets were White as compared to 67.6% of the sample. Slightly more than 23% of targets were African
American as compared to 20.4% of the sample. According to chi-square
tests, significant differences did not emerge between the study sample and
targets of sexual assault with regard to race.
Regarding marital status, approximately 58% of targets were single as
compared to 57% of the sample. Again, chi-square analysis revealed no significant differences between the sample and the targets with regard to marital
status. Roughly 50% of the targets described themselves as heterosexual
prior to incarceration as compared to more than 78% of the sample. In addition, self-identified bisexuals prior to incarceration made up 15.5% of the
sample but made up 38.5% of the sexual targets. Significant differences
between the sample and targets of sexual assault emerged with regard to sexual orientation prior to incarceration (χ2 = 16.17, p .01, df = 2). When asked
their sexual orientation during incarceration, 69% of the sample identified
as heterosexual; however, only 42% of the targets identified as heterosexual. Furthermore, self-identified bisexuals during incarceration constituted
26.0% of the sample but made up 46.2% of the sexual targets. Again, significant differences between the sample and targets of sexual assault emerged
with regard to sexual orientation during incarceration (χ2 = 11.04, p .01, df =
2). Respondents who had committed personal crimes were also more likely
to be represented in the target group than the interview sample. According to
chi-square tests, significant differences did not emerge between the study
sample and targets of sexual assault with regard to type of crime committed.
Targets were incarcerated an average of 2 months prior to their first sexual
encounter. The majority (92.3%) of targets reported being threatened only
once, with two inmates reporting two sexual threats. The racial makeup of the
alleged 27 perpetrators was White (25%) and African American (75%).
DISCUSSION
Similar to previous research, the rate of sexual victimization reported in
the current study shows that a significant minority of inmates are targeted for
sexual threats and assaults, and approximately one half of those sexually
threatened are, in fact, sexually assaulted by another inmate. However, the
current study’s results offer an important advance over previous assessments
of prison sexual assaults in that rather than simply focusing on the incidence of sexual assaults and descriptive statistics summarizing the characteristics of victims and/or aggressors, we offer insights regarding personal char-
Hensley et al. / CHARACTERISTICS OF MALE SEXUAL ASSAULT
675
TABLE 2: A Comparison of the Sample (N = 142) and Targets of Sexual Assault (n = 26)
Study Sample (%)
Race
White
African American
Other
Marital status
Single
Divorced
Married
Sexual orientation
prior to incarceration
Heterosexual
Bisexual
Homosexual
Sexual orientation
during incarceration
Heterosexual
Bisexual
Homosexual
Type of offense
a
committed
Personal
Property
Sex
Drug
Other
(n)
Targets of Sexual Assaults (%)
(n)
67.6
20.4
12.0
96
29
17
73.1
23.1
3.8
19
6
1
57.0
26.8
16.2
81
38
23
57.7
30.8
11.5
15
8
3
78.9
15.5
5.6
112
22
8
50.0
38.5
11.5
13
10
3
69.0
26.0
5.0
98
37
7
42.3
46.2
11.5
11
12
3
47.1
13.0
13.0
5.1
21.7
65
18
18
7
30
61.5
15.5
11.5
3.8
7.7
16
4
3
1
2
NOTE: a. Four missing cases.
acteristics, including self-identified sexual orientation prior to and during
incarceration, associated with an increased risk of being sexually targeted by
other inmates.
What stands out in these results is the fact that sexual orientation is clearly
an important factor in an inmates risk of being targeted for sexual approaches
and/or assaults. Fully one half of the sexual targets so identified in the current
study identified as bisexual or homosexual prior to entering prison, and 57%
of targets so identified during their incarceration. Previous studies have
strongly suggested that perceived vulnerability is a major predictor of possible sexual targeting. This position is supported in these findings. In the
hyper-masculine environment of a maximum-security Southern prison, an
identity other than fully heterosexual is perceived as a sign of femininity and
weakness. As such, it should be expected that bisexual and gay self-identified
676
JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / June 2005
inmates would be at a greater risk of being targeted for sexual approaches and
assaults. This idea is yet further supported by the finding that targeted
inmates were first approached in a sexually threatening manner after being
incarcerated an average of only 2 months. Weakness and vulnerability are
assessed on arrival in prison, and clearly these inmates were quickly identified and selected for targeting.
Chi-square analyses revealed that significant differences were present
between the study sample and targets of sexual assaults with regard to sexual
orientation prior to and during incarceration. Eigenberg (1992) suggested
that sexuality, especially in prisons, is fluid, and sexual orientations may
change at different times and in different circumstances. Sagarin (1976) discovered that the 4 inmates he interviewed who had been sexually assaulted
and subdued into homosexuality in prison continued the pattern and
pursued it in their post-prison years (p. 254). Thus, it is important for correctional administrators and staff to understand the sexual dynamics of prison
life (see also Hensley, Wright, Tewksbury, & Castle, 2003).
It is also interesting to note that the longstanding findings in the literature
of interracial targeting for sexual assaults remain nearly 25 years after the initial presentation of most inmate sexual aggressors being African American
and most targets being White. This finding is even more notable considering
that the population of the institution in question and the research sample is
two thirds White.
These findings present some clear policy and practical implications for
corrections officials. Specifically, inmates who enter prison with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual should be provided with resources to
enhance their abilities to avoid or resist sexual threats. These resources may
come in a variety of forms, including education, classification, and housing
assignments geared to minimize opportunities for encountering potential
aggressors in vulnerable situations. In addition, psychosocial supports (from
staff, volunteers, and/or other inmates) are needed to enhance self-esteem
and/or interactional skills should be provided to navigate potentially dangerous situations.
Although the current study has clear policy implications, it is not without
its limitations. First, the findings are based on an 18% response rate and must
be interpreted with caution. It is possible that selection bias could have well
influenced the respondents willingness to complete the survey. Therefore, it
is theoretically conceivable that a larger number of inmates were sexually
threatened or assaulted than found in the current study. Future researchers
should use a combination of face-to-face interviews and questionnaires
to more accurately assess the rate of sexual assault. Personal interviews,
for example, typically result in underreporting of sensitive information
Hensley et al. / CHARACTERISTICS OF MALE SEXUAL ASSAULT
677
(Struckman-Johnson et al., 1996) but allow for enhanced rapport with the
respondents. Anonymous surveys protect the respondents, potentially allowing more accurate reporting of sexual victimization (Eigenberg, 1994), but
restrict the strategies to obtain greater participation (Struckman-Johnson
et al., 1996).
In the end, it is the responsibility of all corrections officials to provide a
safe and humane environment in which all inmates are housed in environments where they are free from criminal and violent victimizations. Sexual
violence is only one form of assault for which corrections officials need to be
aware and work for elimination. However, sexual violence may also be the
most serious form of violence to which inmates may be exposed, and the
form of violence that may carry with it the most serious and long-lasting
implications.
REFERENCES
Blumberg, M. (1989). Issues and controversies with respect to the management of AIDS in corrections. The Prison Journal, 69, 1-14.
Carroll, L. (1977). Humanitarian reform and biracial sexual assault in a maximum security
prison. Urban Life, 5, 417-437.
Chonco, N. R. (1989). Sexual assaults among male inmates: A descriptive study. The Prison
Journal, 69, 72-82.
Cotton, D. J., & Groth, A. N. (1982). Inmate rape: Prevention and intervention. Journal of Prison
and Jail Health, 2, 47-57.
Davis, A. J. (1968). Sexual assaults in the Philadelphia prison system and sheriffs vans. TransAction, 6, 8-16.
Donaldson, S. (1993). A million jockers, punks, and queens: Sex among male prisoners and its
implications for concepts of sexual orientation. Retrieved February 29, 2004, from http://
www.spr.org
Eigenberg, H. M. (1992). Homosexuality in male prisons: Demonstrating the need for a social
constructionist approach. Criminal Justice Review, 17(2), 219-234.
Eigenberg, H. M. (1994). Rape in male prisons: Examining the relationship between correctional
officers attitudes toward male rape and their willingness to respond to acts of rape. In M. C.
Braswell, R. H. Montgomery, Jr., & L. X. Lombardo (Eds.), Prison violence in America (2nd
ed., pp. 145-165). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2004). Uniform crime reports. Available at www.fbi.gov/
ucr.htm
Fishman, J. F. (1934). Sex in prison: Revealing sex conditions in Americas prison. New York:
National Library Press.
Fleisher, M. (1989). Warehousing violence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gido, R. L. (1989). A demographic and epidemiological study of New York State inmate AIDS
mortalities, 1981-1987. The Prison Journal, 69, 27-32.
Hensley, C., Tewksbury, R., & Castle, T. (2003). Characteristics of prison sexual assault targets
in male Oklahoma correctional facilities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 595-606.
678
JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / June 2005
Hensley, C., Wright, J., Tewksbury, R., & Castle, T. (2003). The evolving nature of prison argot
and sexual hierarchies. The Prison Journal, 83(3), 289-300.
Kunselman, J., Tewksbury, R., Dumond, R. W., & Dumond, D. A. (2002). Nonconsensual sexual
behavior. In C. Hensley (Ed.), Prison sex: Practice and policy (pp. 27-47). Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Lockwood, D. (1980). Prison sexual violence. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.
Moss, C. S., Hosford, R. E., & Anderson, W. (1979). Sexual assault in prison. Psychological
Reports, 4, 823-828.
Nacci, P. L., & Kane, T. R. (1984). Sex and sexual aggression in federal prisons: Inmate involvement and employee impact. Federal Probation, 48, 46-53.
Sagarin, E. (1976). Prison homosexuality and its effect on post-prison sexual behavior. Psychiatry, 39, 245-257.
Saum, C. A., Surratt, H. L., Inciardi, J. A., & Bennett, R. E. (1995). Sex in prison: Exploring the
myths and realities. The Prison Journal, 75, 413-430.
Smith, N. E., & Batiuk, M. E. (1989). Sexual victimization and inmate social interaction. The
Prison Journal, 69, 29-38.
Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (2000). Sexual coercion rates in seven midwestern prison facilities for men. The Prison Journal, 80, 379-390.
Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., Rucker, L., Bumby, K., & Donaldson, S.
(1996). Sexual coercion reported by men and women in prison. Journal of Sex Research, 33,
67-76.
Tewksbury, R. (1989). Fear of sexual assault in prison inmates. The Prison Journal, 69, 62-71.
Tewksbury, R., & West, A. (2000). Research on sex in prison during the late 1980s and early
1990s. The Prison Journal, 80, 368-378.
Toch, H. (1977). Living in prison: The ecology of survival. New York: Free Press.
Wooden, W. S., & Parker, J. (1982). Men behind bars: Sexual exploitation in prison. New York:
Plenum.
Christopher Hensley is the director of the Institute for Correctional Research and Training and an associate professor of criminology/sociology in the Department of Sociology,
Social Work, and Criminology at Morehead State University. He received his doctorate
from Mississippi State University in 1997. His most recent publications appear in The
Prison Journal, the American Journal of Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Studies: A
Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society, Sexuality & Culture, and the International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. He is also the editor of
Prison Sex: Practice and Policy (2002) and coeditor of Sexual Deviance: A Reader
(2003). Furthermore, he is the editor of the American Journal of Criminal Justice. His
research interests include prison sexuality, inmate and student attitudes toward correctional issues, and serial homicide.
Mary Koscheski is an instructor of criminal justice at Pulaski Technical College in Little
Rock, Arkansas. She received her master’s degree in sociology with an emphasis in criminology from Morehead State University in 2001. Her most recent publications appear in
the Criminal Justice Review, The Prison Journal, and Sexuality & Culture. Her research
interests include prison sexuality and attitudinal differences among students.
Hensley et al. / CHARACTERISTICS OF MALE SEXUAL ASSAULT
679
Richard Tewksbury is professor of justice administration at the University of Louisville.
He holds a doctorate in sociology from Ohio State University. His most recent publications appear in Deviant Behavior, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, and the American Journal of Criminal Justice. He is also the coeditor of Deviance and Deviants (2000),
Sexual Deviance: A Reader (2002), and Controversial Issues in Research Methods
(2004). His research interests include correctional institution culture and programming,
men’s studies, and issues of sex and gender identity.
The http://tpj.sagepub.com/
Prison Journal
The Evolving Nature of Prison Argot and Sexual Hierarchies
Christopher Hensley, Jeremy Wright, Richard Tewksbury and Tammy Castle
The Prison Journal 2003 83: 289
DOI: 10.1177/0032885503256330
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/83/3/289
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Pennsylvania Prison Society
Additional services and information for The Prison Journal can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://tpj.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/83/3/289.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Sep 1, 2003
What is This?
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
ARTICLE
THE PRISON
10.1177/0032885503256330
Hensley
et al. /JOURNAL
PRISON ARGOT
/ September
AND2003
SEXUAL HIERARCHIES
THE EVOLVING NATURE OF PRISON
ARGOT AND SEXUAL HIERARCHIES
CHRISTOPHER HENSLEY
JEREMY WRIGHT
Morehead State University
RICHARD TEWKSBURY
University of Louisville
TAMMY CASTLE
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Prison argot and sexual hierarchies have consistently been found to be present in U.S.
correctional facilities. However, recent years have seen very few studies that focus
specifically on argot labels and sexual hierarchies that exist in prisons. Using data
collected from 174 face-to-face structured interviews with male inmates in
multisecurity-level correctional facilities in Oklahoma, we found many similarities
and differences with previous research on the issues of argot labels and the sexual
hierarchy. For example, inmates who engage in same-sex sexual activity continue to
be labeled based on the sexual role they portray in the institution. However, the findings of the present study suggest that the nature of these sexual relationships is
changing.
Keywords: prison argot; prison sexual hierarchies; prison sex
The rapid and continued growth of U.S. prison populations in the last 2
decades has brought with it increasing attention and concern about whether
and how U.S. society can afford (financially, politically, and culturally) to
maintain the correctional industry. However, although a great deal of attention has been directed toward these macrolevel issues, attention to microlevel
issues, such as programmatic operations and inmate culture, have been
largely neglected. This is clearly a shortcoming of the penological literature.
All correspondence should be submitted to Dr. Christopher Hensley, Director, Institute for
Correctional Research and Training, 114 Rader Hall, Morehead State University, Morehead,
Kentucky 40351; 606-783-2254; e-mail: [email protected]
THE PRISON JOURNAL, Vol. 83 No. 3, September 2003 289-300
DOI: 10.1177/0032885503256330
© 2003 Sage Publications
289
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
290
THE PRISON JOURNAL / September 2003
Without a thorough understanding of how institutions operate on a day-today basis, it may not be possible to fully and adequately address larger scale
issues, such as finances and the place of prisons in the political and social
structure of society.
Understandings of the microlevel operations of correctional institutions
are the world of the prison inmate. Inmates, obviously, live lives very different from their counterparts in free society; prison inmates live in a “total institution” (Goffman, 1961). Total institutions are closed, single-sex societies
separated from society socially and physically. Inhabitants of total institutions have essentially all decisions about the structure and content of their
daily lives made for them, and they share all aspects of their daily lives within
these types of institutions. However, one area in which occupants of total
institutions do retain some degree of control is in their individual and collective abilities to develop unique values, norms, and means for exercising
social control over such. Central to this cultural construction is the delineation of specific social roles, which are accompanied by rigidly proscribed
behavioral expectations. These distinct values and behavioral roles are
referred to as the prison subculture.
Newly arriving inmates in a correctional facility who seek to ease their
social transition must learn the values, attitudes, and behavioral expectations
that structure the operations of the institution. According to Einat and Einat
(2000), “The norms and values of the inmate code form the core of an inmate
subculture, providing its members with informal means to gain power and
status and, thereby, a way to mitigate their sense of social rejection and compensate for their loss of autonomy and security” (p. 309). When the new
inmates have accepted the prison lifestyle and criminal values, they have
been “prisonized.” Any inmate whose behavior violates the values, behavioral codes, and traditions faces the likelihood of sanctions from other
inmates, staff, or both. Official sanctions imposed by staff range from verbal
chastisement to time in solitary confinement and loss of earned good time.
However, for most inmates, the more serious forms of sanctions are those that
come from other inmates. Peer-imposed sanctions range from ostracism to
physical and sexual assault and occasionally death. The inmate code is one of
the most important aspects of their new culture that inmates are expected to
adopt, and which can indicate acceptance of institutional values as well as the
ability to avoid accidental affronts to others (via incorrect use of language).
Prison researchers who have studied male prison life have found that
inmates use a special type of language or slang within the prison subculture
that reflects the “distorted norms, values, and mores of the offenders”
(Dumond, 1992, p. 138). As such, the vocabulary and speech patterns of
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Hensley et al. / PRISON ARGOT AND SEXUAL HIERARCHIES
291
prison inmates—what is known as prison argot—are largely distinct from
those of noninmates. Language, as is well known, provides the parameters of
understandings—and possibilities—for constructing a social and cultural
milieu. Perhaps nowhere is this clearer than in correctional institutions,
where inmates live, think, and function within the framework defined by the
argot (Bondesson, 1989). Thus, the argot is centered on the functions that it
serves for inmates. Einat and Einat (2000) document six functions of argot
roles:
•
•
•
•
•
•
the need to be different and unique
alleviation of feelings or rejection and refusal
facilitation of social interactions and relationships
declaration of belonging to a subculture or social status
a tool of social identification leading to a sense of belonging to a group
secrecy (pp. 310-311)
One critical component of correctional institution culture, building on
argot roles, is the prison sexual hierarchy. Sexual behavior among inmates
does occur, although the sexual activities of individual inmates and with
whom one engages in sex is governed by a hierarchical system of roles and
relationships. Within this structure the roles, activities, and actors involved in
sexual activities are assigned unique, institutionally specific labels. According to Dumond (1992), “While the terms may have changed somewhat over
the decades, prison slang defines sexual habits and inmates’ status simultaneously, using homosexuality as a means of placing individuals within the
inmate caste system” (p. 138). These sexual scripts define an inmate’s position within the prison society. Dumond (1992) also found that argot roles
“help to define the treatment which an inmate is likely to receive from other
inmates and corrections officers” (p. 138). Labels, then, are central elements
in the structuring of social interactions.
Previous research has attempted to describe the inmate subculture, including sexual argot roles and the prison sex hierarchy. However, inmates in
prison today face a myriad of new challenges, many of which are at least indirectly related to sexuality issues. Overcrowding, fears of contracting HIV,
and widespread influence of gangs are just some of the issues inmates confront as they enter and become integrated into the prison subculture. Understanding the prison subculture is not only important but also necessary to
inmates’ survival while incarcerated. Recent years, however, have seen very
few studies focusing specifically on argot labels and the sexual hierarchy that
exists in prisons. The purpose of this study is to describe the sexual roles and
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
292
THE PRISON JOURNAL / September 2003
hierarchy that exist in prison, with special emphasis on sexual argot, at the
start of the 21st century and to assess how these factors have transformed
prison subcultures (see also Hensley, 2002).
LITERATURE REVIEW
In 1934, Joseph Fishman, a former inspector for federal prisons, conducted one of the first ethnographies on sex in male prisons. Fishman found
that homosexuality was an offense in many communities, and men were
arrested and sent to prison for this offense. The Penitentiary at Welfare Island
in New York was a prison where men were commonly sent for offenses such
as attempting to corrupt a minor, indecent exposure, and soliciting members
of the same sex for money. Men convicted of these offenses who came into
prison were often passive and known by other inmates as “punks,” “girls,”
“fags,” “pansies,” or “fairies.” These inmates had feminine characteristics
and often wore makeup. Other inmates, known as “top men” or “wolves,”
took advantage of these homosexuals. These sexual argot roles marked the
passive prisoners as appropriate targets for sexual assault.
Research in the last 40 years, built on the foundation laid by Fishman, has
expanded, yet largely reiterated the basic finding of victimized and victimizing inmates in prisons. Donaldson (1993), Sagarin (1976), Kirkham (1971),
and Sykes (1958) studied social roles in male prisons and found that inmates
engaging in homosexual activity were divided into three categories. The first
category consisted of those inmates who played an active, aggressive (i.e.,
masculine) role in same-sex sexual relations. Inmates referred to these men
as wolves, “voluntary aggressors,” or “daddies.” Inmates in the second and
third categories played a more passive and/or submissive (i.e., feminine) role
and were referred to as punks and fags.
In large part, adoption of a wolf role may be attributed to the strong
emphasis in correctional institution culture on the maintenance of masculinity. To prove their masculinity to themselves and others—and therefore avoid
being sexually victimized—some men may opt to be (sexually) aggressive.
In essence, to avoid being a sexual victim it may be necessary to sexually victimize others. Wolves assumed an aggressive role and often preyed on other
inmates, relying on either violence or coercion as their methods of sexually
displaying their masculinity. Even though wolves engaged in same-sex sexual behavior with fags (often via force), the goal for wolves in these encounters was nothing more than physical release and enhancement of a social reputation. Raping punks reinforced the wolves’ masculine identity, thereby
solidifying the wolves’ high position in the institutional status hierarchy.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Hensley et al. / PRISON ARGOT AND SEXUAL HIERARCHIES
293
Through this aggressive behavior, wolves managed to escape the stigma of
being labeled a homosexual, although they were engaged in sexual activities
with other men (Donaldson, 1993; Kirkham, 1971; Sagarin, 1976; Sykes,
1958).
Fags adopted the same role in prison as they are assumed to have adopted
in the free community. The fag fulfilled the stereotype of the homosexual and
was viewed by other inmates as playing a natural role. Fags engaged in sex
with men because they were born that way. The fag was known by his exaggerated feminine mannerisms, often wearing makeup and dressing in
women’s clothing. They were considered gender nonconformists and posed
little threat to the masculinity of other inmates. In fact, fags provided the feminine counterpart against which wolves could construct their masculinity.
Fags were defined as having “pussies,” not “assholes,” and wore “blouses,”
not “shirts” (Donaldson, 1993). Although fags, “effeminates,” or “queens”
were accorded significantly less respect than wolves (because of their femininity), the fact that these inmates were fulfilling their “natural role” did
accord them some degree of respect. Fags occupied a status below wolves,
but above that of the most despised, the punks (Donaldson, 1993; Kirkham,
1971; Sagarin, 1976; Sykes, 1958).
The label of punk or “jailhouse turnout” was assigned to those inmates
who engaged in sexual activities with another inmate (almost always a wolf)
because of coercion, force, or rape. Punks were viewed as cowards who were
morally weak and unable to defend themselves in prison. In short, a punk was
a male who did not fulfill his role as a man. Unlike the fags, punks did not display feminine characteristics. However, because of their displays of weakness (physical) punks were often targets of sexual attacks. Donaldson (1993)
found that punks had some common characteristics. These included being
younger in age, inexperienced first-time offenders, middle class, White, and
physically smaller in size. Punks were viewed as having forfeited their masculinity as a result of submitting to a more aggressive inmate. Punks were
considered slaves, and wolves used them as commodities for protection or
goods and services. Kirkham (1971) expanded on this idea, identifying
inmates who declined to adopt a feminine role yet traded sexual activities for
goods and services (i.e., prostitutes) “canteen punks.” Universally, researchers have reported that punks occupied the lowest rungs on the institutional
cultural hierarchy.
The idea that there is an important distinction between true homosexuals
and those who engaged in sexual activity due to situational forces (situational
homosexuality) has been a common theme throughout 20th-century prison
sex research. Buffman (1972) focused on this distinction, further identifying
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
294
THE PRISON JOURNAL / September 2003
two categories of inmates who engaged in situational homosexuality: victims
and rapists. Victims were referred to as made homosexuals and were stigmatized as effeminate men. Rapists were referred to as “jockers.” Jockers
remained consistent with their masculine role; thus they were seen as maintaining their masculinity and therefore escaped stigmatization in prison.
Another variation on the approach to argot sexual roles emerged with
Wooden and Parker’s (1982) suggestion that argot roles were adopted based
on the simple distinction between sexually engaged inmates based on one’s
role as an insertor or insertee. The group that took the role of insertee was the
homosexuals and vulnerable heterosexual “kids.” These inmates were perceived and defined as feminine and encouraged (or forced) to present themselves with (often exaggerated) feminine characteristics. These inmates were
commonly referred to as “broads,” “bitches,” “queens,” and “sissies.” The
homosexuals usually conformed to this role and adopted feminine names.
However, when this role was imposed on those who were not true homosexuals, these inmates were labeled as having been “turned out.”
The dominant partner (the insertor) who maintained his masculine identity was known as the jocker, “stud,” or “straight who uses.” The jocker’s sexual behavior with another male was viewed as situational, and therefore
acceptable. The jocker exploited the vulnerable homosexual or heterosexual
inmate in prison and treated his sexual partner as a surrogate female. In this
way, jockers were attempting to replicate normal sexual roles outside of
prison.
Wooden and Parker (1982) also added to the literature arguing that
inmates tolerated sissies because they maintained their natural role. Heterosexual kids were tolerated as long as they did not attempt to change the role
specification and accepted the scripts of the inmate subculture. However,
submissive men were not respected or seen as real men. They were strictly
commodities that jockers often used to satisfy a need, whether sexual or
economic.
Most recently, Fleisher (1989) reported that a wide range of terms were
used to designate effeminate homosexuals at the U.S. Penitentiary at
Lompoc, California, including: “skull-buster,” punk, queen, fag, “homo,”
bitch, “faggot,” “fruiter,” broad, kid, and “ol’ lady.” However, four dominant
categories and associated argot roles were found at the prison. These
included fags, “fuck-boys,” “straights,” and turn-outs.
Fags and fuck-boys were the female sex-role players in the institution.
Both groups claimed homosexuality and were described as homosexual by
other inmates; however, some differences were evident between the two.
Fags were effeminate homosexuals who were often distinguishable by their
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Hensley et al. / PRISON ARGOT AND SEXUAL HIERARCHIES
295
gait, dress, hair, and speech. Fuck-boys, on the other hand, were not distinguishable by these traits.
Straights and turn-outs were the male sex-role players in the institution.
They did not consider themselves homosexual, nor did the other inmates
define them as homosexual. Straights used fags for sexual gratification,
although some straights developed long-term sexual relationships with other
straights. When these relationships did develop they were very carefully
guarded and remained very private. On the other hand, turn-outs took a passive strategy by seducing inmates with commissary privileges or other items.
What stands as a major gap in the research on prison culture is that during
the last decade there have been essentially no studies on the role of argot and
the prison sex hierarchy in male correctional facilities. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to shed new light on an integral part of the prison subculture, argot roles and the prison sex hierarchy.
METHODOLOGY
The data for the present study were gathered between August 1998 and
May 1999. A total of 300 inmates (100 inmates from a minimum, medium,
and maximum security facility in Oklahoma) were randomly selected and
invited to participate in the study. However, only 58% (n = 174) of invited
inmates elected to participate. Data were gathered during face-to-face, structured interviews with inmates from all three security-level institutions (minimum = 52, medium = 61, and maximum = 61).
Inmates who agreed to participate were informed that a voluntary interview would be administered. They were informed that the nature of the
research was sensitive and they might experience some emotional discomfort
during the interview process. Furthermore, inmates were told not to provide
their name or any identifiers during the interview to maintain confidentiality.
Institutional authorities, however, did impose two important restrictions on
the research process. Interviews were limited to a maximum of 30 minutes
each, and audio recording of interviews was prohibited. This meant that analysis was restricted, and direct quotes from inmates were unable to be
included. The purpose of these interviews was to collect data on all aspects of
prison sexuality, including prison argot and sexual hierarchies.
A comparison of the general population of the prisons and the research
sample reflected some differences. For example, White inmates (38.5%)
were underrepresented in the sample of minimum security inmates compared to the general population of the institution (52.4%). Native Americans
(19.2%) were overrepresented in the sample of minimum security inmates
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
296
THE PRISON JOURNAL / September 2003
compared to the general population of the facility (7.7%). White inmates
(47.5%) were underrepresented in the sample of medium security inmates
compared to the general population (53.9%). In addition, White inmates
(45.9%) were underrepresented in the sample of maximum security
inmates compared to general population (55.3%). The mean age of the sample was 39 years for minimum, 36 years for medium, and 33 years for maximum security institution. These very closely approximate the mean age for
each institution (37, 36, and 33 respectively). Fully one half of the sample
had never been married, with only 22.4% of the sample currently married.
More than 27% of the sample was legally divorced or widowed.
RESULTS
Interviews revealed that the three traditional sexual roles outlined by previous research (i.e., wolves, fags, and punks) were still present in the prison
subculture in all three security-level institutions. However, results also show
some important differences from previous research, especially in the structure of the institutional sexual hierarchy and in additional refinement of the
traditional roles.
One of the primary differences uncovered in this study is the identification
of two subcategories within the wolf and fag roles. Whereas previous
research has presented these roles as rather unified, inmates in the present
study detailed two distinct subcategories of the wolf category: the “aggressive wolf” and the “nonaggressive wolf.” Aggressive wolves were depicted
as inmates of African American descent who were considered physically and
verbally tough. These inmates entered prison with a heterosexual orientation
and maintained their masculinity by sexually assaulting younger, weaker
inmates (punks). Masculine identification is also reinforced by restricting
sexual involvement to only active roles (i.e., receiving oral sex from punks
and inserting during anal sex). However, inmates also make clear that aggressive sexual interactions—such as raping punks—although providing a sexual
release, had more to do with status and power than sex. When asked about
their current sexual orientation, all of the self-described aggressive wolves
maintained their heterosexual identity.
Nonaggressive wolves (or “teddy bears”), on the other hand, typically did
not report sexually assaulting their sex partners. Rather, these inmates sought
other inmates (“fish” or “closeted gays”) who were predisposed and willing
to voluntarily participate in sexual activities with another male while in
prison. Nonaggressive wolves more often than not were Caucasian men who
entered prison with a heterosexual identity. These inmates, similar to their
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Hensley et al. / PRISON ARGOT AND SEXUAL HIERARCHIES
297
aggressive counterparts, were also able to maintain their masculine role by
participating in active roles during sex. However, when asked about their current sexual orientation, more than one half of the nonaggressive wolves indicated that they now identified as bisexual. Thus, many of these inmates—
because of the lack of heterosexual sexual opportunities in prison—had modified their self-concepts regarding their sexual orientation.
Just as the traditional category of the wolf has been refined into two more
specific categories, so too has the category of the prison fag been more
closely distinguished. Fags, in the present study, have been distinguished as
either fish or closet gays. Fish (a term previously reserved to refer to newly
arriving inmates) is now a label for referring to (typically African American)
inmates who present themselves with a feminine appearance and enacting a
stereotypically feminine role. Although violating institutional rules and regulations, these inmates wore makeup, displayed female mannerisms, and
took on female nicknames. Fish entered into prison life with a homosexual
identity and maintained this identity by assuming a passive role during sexual
activity (i.e., performing oral sex and playing the insertee role during anal
sex). Some fish also sold themselves for canteen goods and cigarettes, while
others sought out relationships with nonaggressive wolves.
A closet gay is an inmate, typically Caucasian, who is believed to enter
prison with a hidden homosexuality identity. Closet gays are perceived as
having the ability to take on either an active or passive role during sexual
activity. Such inmates, however, strive to maintain masculine appearances
and mannerisms. They typically sought other closet gays in hopes of forming
a “true love” relationship.
As evidenced in previous studies, there is a clearly defined prison sexual
hierarchy with wolves on top, fags in the middle, and punks on the bottom.
However, this study suggests that this ranking system may be being replaced
with a newly defined hierarchy. Inmates in the present study reported that the
status of fags had progressed upward to now be relatively equal to that of the
wolves. Fish and aggressive wolves were the most respected and feared
groups within the prison sexual hierarchy. Many inmates feared fish because
they were known for their aggressive, albeit in nonsexual ways, behavior. For
example, two incidents of fish killing other inmates because the other
inmates had referred to them as punks were reported by the inmates in the
maximum security facility. In addition, fish were also known for their jealousy; consequently, a number of inmates reported that they were scared to
engage in sexual activities with the fishes’ sex partners.
Closet gays and nonaggressive wolves typically occupied positions of relatively equal status. However, both of these groups of inmates were slightly
lower in the institutional ranking system than the fish and aggressive wolves.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
298
THE PRISON JOURNAL / September 2003
Punks, however, remain at the bottom of the prison sexual hierarchy. All
other inmates continued to view punks as cowards who were physically and
morally weak. Punks often sold themselves for protection. Therefore,
inmates saw them as inferior to other inmates within the correctional facility.
DISCUSSION
Inmates in correctional institutions develop an institutional subculture,
with a code of conduct, roles, behavioral expectations, and an institution-specific language at the core. The code of conduct consists of norms and values
that, in turn, structure the informal patterns of life among inmates. According
to Einat and Einat (2000), “[This] code is directly linked to the process of
socialization and adaptation to prison life” (p. 309). In other words, the
inmate code has universal elements that cut across all correctional facilities
because the normative society, its attributes, and its delegates are inherent
opponents of prisoners. The language (argot) that characterizes institutional
subcultures is one of the principal elements of prisonization, as well as the
development and perpetuation of the inmate code.
Similarities between the early research regarding sexual argot roles and
the present study are clear. Inmates who engage in same-sex sexual activity
are labeled based on the sexual role they portray in the interaction. The findings of the present study on sexual argot roles and the prison sexual hierarchy
in male facilities suggest that the nature of these sexual relationships is
changing. In male facilities, wolves originally held the highest status in the
prison sexual hierarchy. However, this study indicates that the status of fish is
now gaining equality with the status of aggressive wolves. Nonaggressive
wolves and closet gays maintain statuses of relative equality with each other,
falling in the middle of the sexual hierarchy. The punks continue to remain on
the bottom of the sexual hierarchy. Although the prison subculture is changing, punks continue to be the most despised inmates in the prison.
In conclusion, sexual argot roles in prison reflect and reinforce the
organization, language, and status hierarchy of the prison subculture. To
survive in prison, inmates must learn to reject the norms of free society
and adopt the new normative order. It is also important for correctional
administrators and staff to understand the organization of the prison subculture. Learning the language and normative codes help staff maximize
the efficiency of the prison, as well as the safety of staff and inmates.
According to Dumond (1992), “Such information may be particularly helpful in assisting prison administration . . . in defining and managing the prison
ecosystem/environment” (p. 138).
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Hensley et al. / PRISON ARGOT AND SEXUAL HIERARCHIES
299
REFERENCES
Bondesson, U. (1989). Prisoners in prison societies. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Buffman, P. (1972). Homosexuality in prisons. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
Donaldson, S. (1993). A million jockers, punks, and queens: Sex among male prisoners and its
implications for concepts of sexual orientation. Available from www.igc.apc.org/spr/docs/
prison-sex-lecture.html
Dumond, R. W. (1992). The sexual assault of male inmates in incarcerated settings. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 20(2), 135-157.
Einat, T., & Einat, H. (2000). Inmate argot as an expression of prison subculture: The Israeli
case. The Prison Journal, 80(3), 309-325.
Fishman, J. (1934). Sex in prison: Revealing sex conditions in American prisons. New York:
National Library Press.
Fleisher, M. (1989). Warehousing violence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other
inmates. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Hensley, C. (Ed.). (2002). Prison sex: Practice and policy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner
Publishers.
Kirkham, G. L. (1971). Homosexuality in prison. In J. M. Henslin (Ed.), Studies in the sociology
of sex (pp. 325-349). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Sagarin, E. (1976). Prison homosexuality and it’s effect on post-prison behavior. Psychiatry, 39,
245-257.
Sykes, G. (1958). The society of captives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wooden, W., & Parker, J. (1982). Men behind bars: Sexual exploitation in prison. New York:
Plenum.
Christopher Hensley is director of the Institute for Correctional Research and Training
and associate professor of sociology in the Department of Sociology, Social Work, and
Criminology at Morehead State University. He received his doctorate from Mississippi
State University. His most recent publications appear in the American Journal of Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Review, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Journal of Correctional Health Care, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, Women and Criminal Justice, and Corrections Compendium. He is also
the editor of Prison Sex: Practice and Policy (2002) and coeditor of Sexual Deviance: A
Reader (2002). His research interests include prison sex, sexual deviance, and serial
murder.
Jeremy Wright holds a bachelor’s degree in sociology with an emphasis in criminology
and a master’s degree in sociology with an emphasis in criminology from Morehead
State University. His publications appear in the International Journal of Sexuality and
Gender Studies, the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, and the Journal of Men’s Studies. His research interests include serial murder
and consensual homosexual behavior in male correctional facilities.
Richard Tewksbury is professor in the Department of Justice Administration at the University of Louisville. He holds a doctorate in sociology from Ohio State University. His
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
300
THE PRISON JOURNAL / September 2003
most recent publications appeared in Deviant Behavior, Women and Criminal Justice,
Criminal Justice Review, International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, and the Journal of Correctional Health Care. His research
interests include correctional institution culture and programming, men’s studies, and
issues of sex and gender identity.
Tammy Castle holds a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a master’s degree in sociology with an emphasis in criminology from Morehead State University. She is currently a
doctoral student in criminology at Indiana State University of Pennsylvania. Her most
recent publications appear in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, the International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, and the International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies. Her research and publications center on serial
murder and prison argot in correctional facilities.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
AIDS PATIENT CARE and STDs
Volume 17, Number 8, 2003
© Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
Rape Among Incarcerated Men:
Sex, Coercion and STDs
JAMES E. ROBERTSON, J.D., M.A., Dip. Law
ABSTRACT
Male inmates fear being raped most of all. Criminologists have yet to reach consensus on the
prevalence of male inmate-on-inmate rape. The leading prevalence studies found that 7–12%
of the responding male inmates had been raped an average of nine times. With a national jail
and prison population of 2 million at mid-year 2002, the United States likely exposes tens of
thousands of male inmates to rape, and consequently, to HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The release of inmates from jails and prisons—estimated at 11.5 million persons in 1998—transforms the consequences of male rape from a correctional matter
into a public health crisis. The quest for dominance and control over other inmates—not sexual release—best explains male custodial rape. Prison sexual predators are typically heterosexual. Their victims, however, involuntarily assume female roles in the prison sexual system. Moreover, they experience stigmatization by inmates and staff as well as physical and
mental trauma. Civil rights litigation on behalf of victims rarely succeeds and damage awards
are usually small. In 2003, Congress provided $13 million for the study and prevention of rape
in jails and prisons. Preventing custodial rape and treating its victims will require a sustained
commitment by government.
A youthful inmate can expect to be subjected to
homosexual rape his first night in jail, or, it has been
said, even on the van on the way to jail. Weaker
prisoners become the property of stronger prisoners or gangs, who sell the sexual services of the
victim. Prison officials either are disinterested in
stopping abuse of prisoners by other prisoners or
incapable of doing so. . . . United States v. Bailey,
444 U.S. 394, 420 (1980) (Blackmun, J. dissenting).
INTRODUCTION
“W
I BE RAPED ?” That question more than
any other haunts men awaiting incarceration.1 And for good reason: “New convicts are
almost instantly sized up as dominant and subILL
missive, penetrator or penetrated.”2 Targeted
inmates must “fight, fuck, or flee.”3
A jail or prison rape can impose an “unadjudicated death sentence” 4 because of the risk
of contracting HIV/AIDS. A March 2002 report
by the National Commission on Correctional
Health Care (NCCHC) estimated that 0.5% of
inmates confined in state and federal prisons
in 1996 had AIDS, 5 times the prevalence in the
U.S. population.5 The NCCHC estimated a
much higher incidence of HIV infection (nonAIDS): 2.3%–2.98% of all state and federal prisoners, 4 times the prevalence in the U.S. population.5 Between 1995 and 2000, the prevalence
of HIV-positive prisoners ranged from 2.3%–
Department of Sociology and Corrections, Minnesota State University, Mankato, Minnesota.
423
424
2.1% for males and decreased from 4.0% to
3.4% for females.5 Other sexually transmitted
diseases (STDs) found among state and federal
prisoners in 1996 included syphilis (2.6%–4.3%
of all prisoners); chlamydia (2.4% of all prisoners); gonorrhea (1.0% of all prisoners); hepatitis B (2.0% of all prisoners); hepatitis C
(17.0%–18.6% of all prisoners); tuberculosis disease (0.04% of all prisoners); and tuberculosis
infection (7.4% of all prisoners).5 Similar rates
were reported for inmates confined to local
jails, with the exception of HIV infection
(1.2%–1.8% of jailed persons).6
An unprecedented number of inmates are
threatened with rape and its collateral consequences. At mid-year 2002, the nation confined
just over 2 million people in its jails and prisons.7 The incarceration rate reached a record
702 persons per 100,000 U.S. residents, a 53%
increase since 1990.7 The custodial population
remained disproportionately male, black, and
under age 40.7 While the rate of population
growth among female inmates has outpaced
their male counterparts since 1995, males comprised 93% of all inmates and were 15 times
more likely than women to be imprisoned.7
Black non-Hispanic males between the ages of
20 and 39 numbered nearly 600,000.7 At the
close of 2001, black non-Hispanic males of all
age groups constituted 43% of the prison population, compared to 36% white non-Hispanic
prisoners and 16% Hispanic prisoners.8
The growing numbers of inmates released
from jails and prisons—estimated at 11.5 million persons in 19985—transforms the consequences of male rape from a correctional issue
into a public health crisis. The NCCHC estimated that jail and prison inmates released in
1996 accounted for an estimated 13.1%–19.3%
of all HIV cases; 17% of all AIDS cases; 12.4%–
15.5% of all hepatitis B cases; 28.9%–32.0% of
all hepatitis B cases; and 35% of all tuberculosis cases.5
This paper provides the reader with a primer
on male inmate-on-inmate rape. Rape in this
context denotes oral or anal intercourse. Although female inmates experience sexual abuse,
the distinctive prison experience of male inmates as well as other considerations dictate
that I solely address their victimization. Once
“shrouded in dead silence,”9 male inmate-on-
ROBERTSON
inmate rape imperils a vast jail and prison population and the communities that eventually
receive large numbers of undiagnosed and untreated former inmates.
LIFE BEHIND BARS
The contemporary prison operates as a
“human warehouse with a jungle-like underground.”10 Daily life for most inmates consists
of “deadening routine punctuated by bursts
of fear and violence.”11 Over the past four
decades a reign of terror has descended over
many of the nation’s prisons. Murder and assault rates may be several times higher than the
national average.12
While “doing time” appears highly regimented, inmates encounter a sub-rosa environment resembling an urban slum.13 Here one
finds powerful gangs; an illicit economy fueled
by drugs; outnumbered and sometimes corrupted correctional officers, who accommodate
inmate desires in exchange for “surface” order;
and a fragmented inmate population largely
composed of uneducated, impoverished, young
men.14
Criminal statutes and prison regulations overlay the prison subculture. Both prohibit male
rape.3 Prosecutors, however, rarely bring
charges against accused prison rapists.4 Indeed,
they can usually ply their aggression with impunity. The nation’s crowded prisons, replete
with multiple occupancy cells and communal
bathing areas, render many rapes undetectable.15
Correctional officers hold ambivalent attitudes
about male prison rape. While most officers will
protect inmates from sexual assault, many erroneously regard subtle forms of coerced sex—
such as exchanging sex for protection from
gang rape—as consensual.16 Officers frequently
fault targeted inmates who failed to vigorously
defend themselves.3 Allegations abound that
prison staff set up rapes to either pacify aggressive inmates or punish troublemakers. 17
FREQUENCY
Anecdotal accounts of custodial rape almost
invariably describe it as commonplace.4 How-
425
RAPE AND INCARCERATED MEN
ever, social scientists vigorously debate its frequency.18 Just over half of U.S. states fail to collect data on rapes occurring in their jails and
prisons.17 Consequently, determining the national rate remains elusive.
Prison records greatly undercount sexual
assaults because inmates infrequently report
their victimization.15 Raped inmates fail to notify prison workers out of shame, fear of retaliation by their assailants, adherence to an inmate
code that labels such conduct as “snitching,”
and concern that staff will disbelieve or ridicule
them and/or do nothing.16
Disparate findings emerge from prevalence
studies. In 1968, Davis18 conducted the first
major study of male custodial rape. He interviewed 3304 male inmates housed in Philadelphia’s jails and concluded that 3% had been
raped.18 In 1978, Lockwood’s interviews19 with
some 100 randomly selected inmates revealed
that 28% had been targets of sexual aggression
but only 1.3% experienced coerced anal or oral
copulation. By contrast, 14% of the 200 California inmates responding to an anonymous
survey during 1979–1980 reported being “pressured into having sex against their will.”20
The three major studies conducted over the
next 14 years found a low incidence of rape. In
1983, Nacci and Kane21 reported a rape prevalence of 0.3% upon surveying 330 male inmates
in 17 federal prisons. Five years later, Tewksbury22 anonymously queried 150 male inmates
in an Ohio prison and received no reports of
rape from the 137 respondents. In face-to-face
interviews with 106 inmates confined to a
Delaware prison in 1994, Saum et al.23 reported
a prevalence just under 1%.
Later in the 1990s, Struckman-Johnson et al.24
undertook the two most rigorous and generalizable surveys to date of male custodial rape.
Approximately 30% of 1708 men in two medium
security and one minimum security prisons in
Nebraska returned anonymous surveys in the
first of the studies.24 Twenty-two percent of the
respondents reported coerced sexual contact
and 12% reported coerced anal or oral sex during their confinement in Nebraska correctional
facilities.24
In 1998, Struckman-Johnson et al.25 surveyed
7032 male inmates in seven midwestern states.
Twenty-one percent of the respondents re-
ported coerced sexual contact during confinement in their state prison system. 25 Seven percent of the respondents reported coerced oral
or anal sex in their current prison.25 Among the
several prisons, the prevalence of coerced sexual contact ranged from 4%–21% and the incidence of coerced oral or anal sex ranged from
0.0%–11%.25 The largest prisons, with over 1000
inmates, had the highest rates. One of every 5
respondents confined to the largest prisons reported staff involvement in a sexual incident.25
Commentators have attributed the disparate
findings of the aforementioned studies to several methodological limitations. They include:
(1) small, unrepresentative samples; (2) high
rates of illiteracy among surveyed inmates; (3)
respondents’ underreporting of victimization,
especially in personal interviews; and (4) dissimilar management practices, some of which
tolerant rape.26
Moreover, these studies assumed a meaningful distinction between coerced and consensual sexual acts. Inquiries into consensual
sex have reported participation rates ranging
from 25%–65%.27 Sexual practices that are
outwardly consensual, however, are usually
bounded by fear, threat, and intimidation. Coercive techniques include the threat of harm,
the presence of a weapon, and the size and
strength of the aggressor. 24 For instance, a
common tactic involves extending credit for a
day at an interest rate of $2 for every $1 loaned.
When the “mark”—usually a naive, drugaddicted inmate—cannot make good on his
debt, he will be given the option of “servicing”
the debt through copulation or face repeated
beatings.28
ETIOLOGY
The etiology of custodial rape resembles that
of female rape: both are more about power and
control than sexual release. 29 Indeed, the prisoner subculture regards the rape of a fellow inmate as one of the premier forms of masculine
domination. Accordingly, most inmate sexual
aggressors view themselves as heterosexual. 4,17
“Turning out” an inmate (prison argot for
raping him) assigns assailant and victim to socially constructed, hierarchical gender roles.
426
The assailant becomes a “pitcher,” a respected
masculine role.30 The victim assumes one of
several female, “catcher” roles. They include
the “fags,” who are the “natural” gay inmates.30 Below them reside the “punks,” the
“made” homosexuals, so named because they
initially resisted sexual advances but eventually fell victim through force or intimidation.30
These roles and their hierarchical rank originate in the several value systems influencing
inmates. Prior to their confinement, most males
had embraced Western gender norms, including the notion that masculinity must be aggressively acquired by controlling people and
resources.31 The inmate subculture has exaggerated these gender norms; the ideal type,
“the real man,” evinces hypermasculinity.
Some scholars attribute this exaggerated concern for masculinity to the lower class background of many offenders.32 This social stratum contains a predominately black subculture
of violence, which embraces aggression and
domination as manly virtues.32
Once imprisoned, male offenders experience
an authoritarian, punitive environment that assails their sense of competency and worth. The
many official rules governing when to sleep,
eat, bathe, and other aspects daily life threaten
the offender’s self-image as a competent, autonomous adult male.33 Moreover, confinement in the single-sex prison deprives men of
an important referent—women: “The inmate is
shut off from the world of women which by its
very polarity gives the male world much of its
meaning.”33 In response to their demeaning
circumstances, inmates strive to become the hypermasculine “real man.” Sexualized aggression provides the means for achieving this ideal
type.34
For the disproportionate number of African
American pitchers and non-Hispanic white
catchers,32 sexualized aggression has additional significance. One explanation posits that
African American inmates target Caucasians
because they symbolize white oppression:
“Punking [prison argot for raping] whites,”
wrote one black inmate, “is just one way of getting even.”35 However, some commentators
assert that blacks simply find whites to be inviting targets because of their perceived feminin-
ROBERTSON
ity, naiveté about prison life, and reluctance to
retaliate when one of their own is victimized.36
SEQUELAE
Male custodial rape inflicts “pervasive, devastating, and global” consequences. 37 These
consequences have social, physiological, and
psychological dimensions, which are delineated below.
Social
News of a custodial rape spreads quickly.
Having embraced the rape myth that “real
men” fend off sexual assaults, inmates will
blame the victim and describe him in gender
animus terms, such as “pussy.”38 In turn, his social identity will be altered; as two Louisiana inmates observed, “The act [of rape] defines him
as “female” in this perverse subculture. . . .”39
Victimization also becomes a calling card for
predators: the raped inmate is likely to be raped
repeatedly by his original assailant and others.
A leading study found that on average a victim
of rape will experience nine sexual assaults.24
Attacking his assailant constitutes the victim’s
only honorable recourse in the inmate subculture. Nearly half of the targeted inmates in one
study responded in this manner.19 Many struck
preemptively.19 The resulting battles were potentially lethal: a study of prison homicide
found that 30% of single-assailant murders
arose from sexual targeting.40
Already defeated, injured, and humiliated,
many victims “hook-up” with a sexual partner—a “daddy” (also known as a “jocker” or
“booty bandit”)—to exchange sex for protection from other predators.41 This arrangement
will cost the victim dearly: his newfound
“daddy” may rent, sell, or auction him off to
other inmates.41 Also, his “daddy” may rename
him as a woman and require his use of lipstick
and other female cosmetics.4 A one-time
“punk” described these relationships as “survival driven”: “From the typical punks point of
view, none of his passive sexual activities are
truly voluntary, since if he had his own way,
he would not need to engage in them.”41 None-
427
RAPE AND INCARCERATED MEN
theless, such arrangements are often accepted
by correctional officers as consensual.42
Retreating to protective custody, a form of
solitary confinement for at-risk inmates, constitutes the victim’s final option. 43 Entrance,
however, can come at a high price. Prison staff
may not admit him unless he identifies his assailant and thus becomes a “snitch.”15 Upon
admission to protective custody, staff and inmates alike stigmatize the victim as a “nonman.”44 Moreover, protective custody offers
few programs or other diversions from solitary
confinement. 45
Physiologic
Human Rights Watch observed that “[r]ape
in prison can be almost unimaginably vicious
and brutal. Gang assaults are not uncommon,
and victims may be left beaten, bloody and, in
most extreme cases, dead.”4 One-third of the
victims of custodial rape in Nebraska reported
being restrained and nearly an equal number
had been injured.24 Just over 25% indicated that
their assailant used a weapon. 24
Penile penetration can result in transmission
of HIV/AIDS and other diseases.4,26 Three factors enhance this risk. First, a victim will likely
suffer multiple rapes. Nebraska victims reported, on average, 9 incidents, with 33% of the
victims reporting 1 incident; 24% reporting 2
incidents; 14% reporting 4–5 incidents; 15% reporting 6–10 incidents; 4% reporting 11–20 incidents; 6% reporting 21–50 incidents; and 4%
reporting 51–100 incidents.24
Second, sexual assault victims reported on
average 4 perpetrators, with 50% of the victims
reporting 1 perpetrator; 30% reporting 2–3 perpetrators; 10% reporting 4–5 perpetrators; 6%
reporting 6–10 perpetrators; and 4% reporting
11 or more perpetrators. 24
Third, the prevalence rate of confirmed AIDS
inmates (0.52%) exceeded that of the U.S. population (0.13%) by four times at the close of
2000.6 The percent of confirmed AIDS inmates
varied dramatically by region: 4.9% in the
Northeast; 1.1% in the Midwest; 2.2% in the
South; and 1.0% in the West. 6
The plight of sexually assaulted inmates is
compounded by the failure of many jails and
prisons to adequately respond to HIV, syphilis,
and other STDs. 5 Few institutions provide comprehensive HIV education, screening, and prevention.5 Only 5 states test all inmates and but
4 test at time of release for HIV.6 While 41 states
test inmates after an “incident,”6 most rapes
will not be detected or reported. 15
Psychological
Of inmates targeted in several New York
prisons, Lockwood 46 described the psychological consequences as “devastating and debilitating.” Fifty-five percent of the targeted men
spoke of their extreme fear of future assaults.46
One inmate explained, “My fear was so heavy
that I kept thinking about it. Day and day and
day. And I couldn’t get this fear out.”46 Onethird of the victimized inmates spoke of feeling great anxiety, including shaking and crying.46 Approximately 1 in 4 targets sank into
what Lockwood called “crises” (i.e., “situations
which individuals are unable to handle”).46 In
addition, 38% made suicide gestures, with targets being 17 times more likely to attempt suicide than nontargets.19
A study of custodial rape targets in Nebraska
obtained similar findings. When asked about
the psychological impact of their victimization,
77% of the targets marked the highest scale on
the survey instrument. 24 Over half reported
depression and 36% experienced “thoughts of
suicide.”24
“Virtually all” raped inmates experience
rape trauma syndrome (RTS).47 Inmates afflicted by RTS manifest feelings of vulnerability, such as “extreme fear, pain, acute anxiety,
an intense urge for flight,” and yet they are expected to defend themselves in a prison environment where self-help measures are the
norm. 48 Also, RTS inmates believe that their
masculine identity has been compromised by
virtue of being sexually penetrated.47,48
DISCUSSION
The Supreme Court in 1994 stated that “being violently assaulted in prison is simply not
part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay
428
for their offenses against society.”49 Similarly,
the United Nations Convention against Torture
has banned the rape of inmates.50 Nonetheless,
custodial rape continues. Why? The answer lies
in the politics of male custodial rape.
Inmates have become the untouchable caste
of American politics.51 Conviction and imprisonment has spoiled their social identities. For
a significant segment of the body politic, inmates are unworthy of respect and regard—
even when confronted with the dangers of custodial rape. When asked if “society accepts
prison rape as part of the price criminals pay
for their wrongdoing,” half of the queried registered voters said yes.26
Similar to other stigmatized groups, inmates
have turned to the federal courts for protection.
For the most part, judicial intervention has improved the lives of inmates.52 Victims of custodial rape, however, encounter an ill-advised legal standard. It originated in the Supreme Court
ruling in Farmer v. Brennan.49 The Supreme
Court held that prison officials violate the
Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and
unusual punishment when they are deliberately
indifferent to a high risk of rape.49 This standard excuses prison staff who fail to protect inmates out of ignorance, even if their ignorance
arises from negligent conduct.49 Consequently,
only the rare custodial rape lawsuit succeeds.4
When victims do secure damage awards, they
tend to be small.4
To make matters worse, the United States has
engaged in a policy of mass incarceration with
little regard for its impact on public health.
Since 1973 the number of inmates has grown
by more than 5-fold; comprising 5% of the
global population, the U.S. now confines 25%
of the world’s prisoners.53 Mass incarceration
has led to practices conducive to rape including: (1) overcrowding; (2) understaffing; (3)
and housing violent offenders with the sexually vulnerable, especially youthful white inmates of slight stature.24
Nonetheless, the politics of custodial rape
took an expected turn in 2001 with the release
of a Human Rights Watch report. No Escape:
Male Rape in U.S. Prisons described the various
harms visited upon the male victims of custodial rape and the frequent indifference of cor-
ROBERTSON
rectional authorities to their plight.4 The report
led to an unprecedented degree of sympathetic
media coverage about the victims of custodial
rape. It also spawned a coalition against custodial rape that included both politically left and
right-leaning organizations.
In 2002, this coalition urged congressional
passage of the Prison Rape Reduction Act.54 It
mandates the following: (1) annual studies on
the prevalence of rape; (2) rape prevention programs; and (3) model standards for the prevention and treatment of custodial rape.54 In
March 2003, President Bush signed an appropriation bill that included $13 million for funding rape prevention programs.55 Preventing
custodial rape and treating its victims will require a sustained governmental commitment.
REFERENCES
1. Jones RS, Schmid TS. Prisoners’ conceptions of prison
sexual assault. Prison J 1990;69:53–61.
2. Holmberg CB. The culture of transgression: Initiations into the homosociality of a Midwestern state
prison. In: Sabo D, Kupers TA, London W, eds. Prison
Masculinities. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Press, 2001, pp. 78–92.
3. Robertson JE. “Fight or f . . .“ and constitutional liberty: An inmate’s right to self-defense when targeted
by aggressors. Indiana L Rev 1995;29:341–363.
4. Human Rights Watch. No Escape: Male Rape in U.S.
Prisons. 2001. Online document available at: www.
hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report.html Accessed
January 27, 2002.
5. National Commission on Correctional HealthCare.
The Health Status of Soon-to-be-Released Prisoners:
A Report to Congress, Vol. 1. 2002. Online document
available at: www.ncchc.org/pubs_stbr.html Accessed February 11, 2003.
6. Maruschak LM. HIV in Prisons 2000. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 2002.
7. Harrison PM, Karberg JC. Prison and Jail Inmates at
Midyear 2002. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
2003.
8. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Sourcebook of Criminal
Justice Statistics—2001. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002.
9. Fishman JF. Sex in Prison: Revealing Sex Conditions
in America’s Prisons. New York, NY: National Library Press, 1934.
10. Toch H. Studying and reducing stress. In: Johnson R,
Toch H, eds. The Pains of Imprisonment. Project
Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1988, pp. 24–44.
429
RAPE AND INCARCERATED MEN
11. Morris N. The contemporary prison. In: Morris N,
Rothman DJ. The Oxford History of the Prison. New
York, NY: Oxford Univ Press; 1995, pp. 227–262.
12. Silberman M. A World of Violence. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth, 1995.
13. Johnson R. Hard Time, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadworth/Thompson Learning, 2002.
14. Austin J, Irwin J. It’s About Time, 3rd ed. Belmont,
CA: Wadworth/Thompson Learning, 2001.
15. Robertson JE. A clean heart and an empty head: The
Supreme Court and sexual terrorism in prison. North
Carolina L Rev 2003;81:434–482.
16. Eigenberg HM. Prison staff and male rape. In: Hensley C, ed. Prison Sex. Boulder, CO: Lynne Renner Publishers, 2002, pp. 49–66.
17. Mann CD, Cronan JP. Forecasting sexual abuse in
prison: The prison subculture of masculinity as a
backdrop for deliberate indifference. J Crim Law
Criminol 2001–2002;92:127–185.
18. Davis AJ. Sexual assaults in the Philadelphia prison
system and sheriff’s vans. Trans-Action 1968;6:8–16.
19. Lockwood D. Prison Sexual Violence. New York, NY:
Elsevier, 1980.
20. Wooden WS, Parker J. Men Behind Bars. New York,
NY: Plenum Press, 1982.
21. Nacci PL, Kane TR. Inmate sexual aggression: Some
evolving propositions, empirical findings, and mitigating counter-forces. J Offender Counseling Serv Rehab 1984;9:1–20.
22. Tewksbury R. Measures of sexual behavior in an Ohio
prison. Sociol Soc Res 1989;74:34–39.
23. Saum C, Surratt H, Inciardi J, Bennet R. Sex in prison:
Exploring myths and realities. Prison J 1995;75:413–430.
24. Struckman-Johnson CJ, Struckman-Johnson DL, Rucker
L, Bumby K, Donaldson S. Sexual Coercion reported by
men and women in prison. J Sex Res 1996;33:67–76.
25. Struckman-Johnson C, Struckman-Johnson D. Sexual
coercion rates in seven Midwestern prison facilities
for men. Prison J 2000;80:379–390.
26. Dummond R. The Impact and Recovery of Prison
Rape. 2001. Online document available at: www.spr.
org/en/doc01rts.html Accessed February 11, 2003.
27. Hensley C. What we have learned from studying
prison sex. Humanity Soc 2000;24:348–360.
28. Hassine V. Life Without Parole, 2nd ed. Los Angeles,
CA: Roxbury Publishing, 1999.
29. Cotton DJ, Groth AN. Inmate rape: Prevention and
intervention. J Prison Jail Health 1982;2:47–57.
30. Dummond RW. The sexual assault of male prisoners
in incarcerated settings. Intl J Sociol Law 1992;20:
135–157.
31. Lipman-Blumen J. Gender Roles and Power. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984.
32. Robertson J. Cruel and unusual punishment in United
States prisons: Sexual harassment among male prisoners. Am Crim Law Rev 1999;36:1–51.
33. Sykes G. The Society of Captives. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1974.
34. Bowker LH. Victimizers and victims in American cor-
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
rectional institutions. In: Johnson R, Toch H, eds. The
Pains of Imprisonment. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1982, pp. 63–76.
Carroll L. Humanitarian reform and biracial sexual
assault in a maximum security prison. Urban Life
1977;5:417–437.
Chonco NR. Sexual assaults among male prisoners: A
descriptive study. Prison J 1989;69:72–82.
Dummond RW, Dummond DA. The treatment of sexual assault victims. In: Hensley C, ed. Prison Sex.
Boulder, CO: Lynne Renner Publishers, 2002, 67–88.
Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir 1999).
Rideau W, Sinclair B. Prison: The sexual jungle. In:
Scacco AM, ed. Male Rape: A Casebook of Sexual Aggression. New York, NY: AMS Press, 1982, pp. 3–29.
Sylvester S, Reed J, Nelson D. Prison Homicides. New
York, NY: Spectrum Publications, 1977.
Donaldson S. A Million Jockers, Punks, and Queens:
Sex Among American Male Prisoners and its Implications for Concepts of Sexual Orientation. 1993.
Online document available at: www.spr.org/en/
doc01rts.html Accessed February 11, 2003.
Eigenberg H. Correctional officers’ definitions of rape
in male prisons. J Crim Just 2000;28:435–449.
Donaldson S. Administrative Policy and Prisoner
Rape. N.D. Online document available at: www.spr.
org/en/doc01rts.html Accessed February 11, 2003.
Toch H. Living in Prison: the Ecology of Survival. Revised ed. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association, 1992.
Robertson J. The Constitution in protective custody.
Univ Cincinnati Law Rev 1987;56:91–143.
Lockwood D. The contribution of sexual harassment
to stress and coping in confinement. In: Parisi N, ed.
Coping with Imprisonment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications, 1982, pp. 45–64.
Donaldson S. Prisoner Rape Education Project:
Manual/Overview for Jail/Prison Administrators and
Staff, 2nd ed. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press, 1993.
Peeples EH, Scacco AM. The stress impact study technique: A method for evaluating the consequences of
male-on-male sexual assault in jails, prisons, and
other selected single-sex institutions. In: Scacco AM,
ed. Male Rape: A Casebook of Sexual Aggression.
New York, NY: AMS Press, 1982, pp. 241–278.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994).
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Online
document available at: untreaty.un.org/English/
Treaty Event2001/7.htm Accessed February 11, 2003.
Robertson JE. The jurisprudence of the PLRA: Inmates
as “outsiders” and the countermajoritarian difficulty.
J Crim Law Criminol 2001–2002;92:187–210.
Branham LS. Cases and Materials on the Law of Corrections, Sentencing, and Prisoners’ Rights. St. Paul,
MN: West Group, 2002.
Gottschalk M. Black flower: Prisons and the future of
incarceration. Ann Am Acad Political Soc Sci 2002;
582:195–223.
430
54. The Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2002, H.R. 4943,
107th Congress; The Prison Rape Reduction Act of
2002, S. 2619, 107th Congress.
55. Stop Prison Rape. Press Release: $13 Million Approved for the Study of Prison Rape. March 5, 2003.
Online document available at: www.spr.org/en/
pressreases/2003/0305.html Accessed March 25,
2003.
ROBERTSON
Address reprint requests to:
Professor James E. Robertson
113 Armstrong Hall
Minnesota State University
Mankato, MN 56001
E-mail: [email protected]
The http://tpj.sagepub.com/
Prison Journal
Masturbation Uncovered: Autoeroticism in a Female Prison
CHRISTOPHER HENSLEY, RICHARD TEWKSBURY and MARY KOSCHESKI
The Prison Journal 2001 81: 491
DOI: 10.1177/0032885501081004005
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/81/4/491
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Pennsylvania Prison Society
Additional services and information for The Prison Journal can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://tpj.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/81/4/491.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Dec 1, 2001
What is This?
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
THE PRISON
Hensley
et al. /JOURNAL
MASTURBATION
/ December
IN A
2001
FEMALE PRISON
MASTURBATION UNCOVERED:
AUTOEROTICISM IN A FEMALE PRISON
CHRISTOPHER HENSLEY
Morehead State University
RICHARD TEWKSBURY
University of Louisville
MARY KOSCHESKI
Morehead State University
The topic of male and female masturbation both in free society and in prison has
received very little academic attention. In fact, no study has been conducted on female
masturbatory practices in correctional facilities. The present study examined the
amount and frequency of masturbation in a Southern female prison. In addition, the
authors uncovered predictor variables associated with female masturbation in
prison. The most salient variable associated with female inmate masturbation was
homosexual behavior (partnering with another female inmate) while incarcerated.
Factors such as age and religious affiliation (which have consistently been found to
have a significant relationship with masturbation in free society studies) did not have
an effect on female masturbation in prison.
Throughout history, the subject of sexually transmitted diseases has been
of great concern. From the past epidemics of gonorrhea and syphilis to the
present-day HIV crisis, methods of prevention have been of concern to both
medical and correctional professionals. Some media and selected religious
and sex education classes have taught that abstinence was the preferred mode
for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. For others in free society
and behind prison walls, other outlets of sexual expression had to be
explored. With correctional policies levying severe ramifications and penalties for persons involved in sexual activities (both coerced and consensual),
the obvious yet misinterpreted and understudied alternative is masturbation.
Only a few pioneer researchers have ignored the stigma of prison sex
research and delved into this forbidden topic. Tewksbury and West (2000)
All correspondence should be submitted to Dr. Christopher Hensley, Director, Institute for
Correctional Research and Training, 114 Rader Hall, Morehead State University, Morehead, KY
40351; e-mail: [email protected].
THE PRISON JOURNAL, Vol. 81 No. 4, December 2001 491-501
© 2001 Sage Publications
491
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
492
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2001
noted that most sex research conducted in prisons has had obvious political
overtones. Only when evidence was needed to provide support for an advocated or proposed social policy would researchers be allowed to enter a
prison. Under the guise of studying sexual activities, the only arenas studied
were those specified by prison officials. Even today, prison sex research continues to be discouraged not only by general society but by academic
researchers and prison administrators. Tewksbury and Mustaine (2001 [this
issue]) reported that only 0.1% of all articles published during the 1990s in
the five leading corrections journals were concerned with the issue of sex in
prison. In addition, only one of the five journals contained any information
about sex in prison during the 1990s.
When the topic has been studied, penologists have typically documented
the extent, the dynamics, and the roles of prison sex (Tewksbury & West,
2000). For example, males have been stereotyped as being more sexual and
in constant need of a sexual outlet. Due to this mindset, the scant research
available has focused primarily on the sexual behaviors of male inmates and
on sexual assaults and presumed coerced sexual behaviors. Consensual sex,
including autoeroticism, has only rarely been studied in male prisons (see
Tewksbury, 1989; Wooden & Parker, 1982).
The small number of sex researchers who have studied incarcerated
females has, in contrast to the work on male inmates, focused their research
on consensual same-sex sexual behavior and the establishment of pseudofamilies within the prison subculture. During Ward and Kassebaum’s (1965)
landmark study of female sexuality in prison, Iverne R. Carter, superintendent of the California Institute for Women in Frontera, California, pointed
out that “women’s prisons had not been the subject of research” (p. vii). For
example, the study of masturbation in female prisons is nonexistent. However, masturbation studies in society have existed for several decades.
One of the first researchers to study masturbation in society was Alfred
Kinsey. His groundbreaking studies on both males and females in the late
1940s enlightened the public about attitudes and behaviors regarding sexuality. It was not only an avenue for those involved in the study to discuss and
answer questions about different aspects of their sexuality, but it was also an
opportunity for members of society to realize that their ideas, beliefs, and
activities were shared by others. Kinsey brought to light the influence of age,
education, rural-urban background, and religion on masturbation. Kinsey
and his associates found that 62% of the 5,940 females studied had masturbated at some point in their lives (Kinsey, Martin, Pomeroy, & Gebhard,
1953). The study also revealed that more mature females (ages 35 to 45) masturbated at a 38% higher rate than younger females (ages 5 to 30).
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Hensley et al. / MASTURBATION IN A FEMALE PRISON
493
It was 24 years later before another major study of sexuality was conducted. The Hite Report (Hite, 1976) dealt only with the subject of female
sexuality. The data revealed that out of the 1,844 women surveyed, approximately 82% masturbated. The results of the next significant sexual research
project, The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior (Janus & Janus, 1993), revealed
that of the 1,384 female respondents, 38% were frequent masturbators, and
67% viewed masturbation as a natural part of life. An age comparison of
females who masturbated at least once a month revealed that masturbation
was most common for women in their late 20s, 30s, and 40s. Specifically, the
reported percentages of women who masturbated were 27% between the
ages of 18 and 26, 47% between the ages of 27 to 38, 47% between the ages of
39 to 50, 36% between the ages of 51 and 64, and 27% for those aged 65 and
older. This was similar to Kinsey et al.’s (1953) findings.
In 1994, Davidson and Moore conducted a study of 647 never-married
female undergraduate students in a midwestern residential state university.
The study revealed that 16.3% of respondents had engaged in masturbation.
Also in 1994, Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, and Kolata wrote Sex in America.
This study, conducted through the National Opinion Research Center at the
University of Chicago, drew on a random sampling of more than 3,400
respondents to assess a wide range of sexual information including sexual
histories and beliefs. Several assumptions about masturbation were explored
in this study (Michael et al., 1994). First, the researchers found that masturbation among females is not rare. Forty percent of the females in the survey
were found to have masturbated at least once in the past year. Adding the age
differential, the data revealed that among females, fewer than 4 out of 10 aged
18 to 24 had masturbated, fewer than 3 out of 10 older than the age of 54 had
masturbated, but nearly half the women in their 30s had masturbated (Michael
et al., 1994). Again, these results were consistent with previous findings.
The explanation for variations across age categories is usually linked with
explanations about sexual development and partner availability. More specifically, “the rates of masturbation rise and fall with the availability of sex
partners, suggesting that each individual has a given level of sex drive that
needs to be expressed in one way or another” (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, &
Michaels, 1994, p. 80). The assumption that masturbation is more common
when one has a partnered sexual outlet was clearly advocated by these
authors. Nearly 45% of the women who were living with a sexual partner
reported that they had masturbated within the past year. The study concluded
that White, college-educated women who were living with a partner and sexually experimental had higher rates of masturbation. Young women who did
not masturbate typically were sexually inexperienced and often virgins. Afri-
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
494
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2001
can Americans, both men and women, tended to be more conservative and
conventional about sexual behavior and were less likely to masturbate. The
researchers observed “that the practice is so strongly influenced by social
attitudes that it becomes more a reflection of a person’s religion and social
class than a hidden outlet for sexual tensions” (Michael et al., 1994, p. 168).
As previously mentioned, studies on masturbation—the misunderstood
stepchild of sex research—are rare both in free society and correctional facilities. In addition, research on female sexuality in prison is both marginal and
centered primarily on consensual homosexual activity and pseudo-families.
By combining these two arenas, the present study joins two subjects that are
frequently overlooked by both penologists and sex researchers.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE
The two competing theoretical foundations applied to explain masturbation in correctional facilities are the deprivation and importation models. The
deprivation model contends that the inmate culture is a collective response to
the deprivations imposed by prison life (Sykes, 1958). When correctional
administrators deny inmates heterosexual outlets, they often turn to alternative outlets such as homosexuality and masturbation.
Boredom, forced association, and lack of privacy are additional pains of
imprisonment (Sykes, 1958). Intimate relationships with both family and
loved ones are often diminished. These pains of imprisonment felt by women
tend to differ from those felt by men. Because sex and companionship are
needs of all human beings, women cite their absence as among the most painful aspects of incarceration. Often, women respond to this deprivation (lack
of companionship) by forming ties within the prison to substitute for the
former familial bonds (Pollock, 1997). Thus, the conception of the pseudofamily and myths of rampant homosexuality were created.
In contrast, the importation model explains that the characteristics and
actions of individuals that predate confinement are critical factors in determining modes of inmate adjustment. This model argues that inmate conduct
is an extension of the cultural and structural differences in individuals beyond
the prison walls. Men and women behave differently in society and have different value systems. These socialized gender differences are brought into
the prison system (Irwin & Cressey, 1962). In simple terms, sex roles, expectations, and needs from the outside affect one’s behavior on the inside.
Women who are still dependent on family roles (wife, mother, daughter,
etc.) as a part of their self-identity are those most likely to become involved in
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Hensley et al. / MASTURBATION IN A FEMALE PRISON
495
pseudo-families. Talking and worrying about children and/or family on the
outside can be shared and understood with the inside family. The female
inmate can function in basically the same capacity that she did in free society
(conveying previous family values, ideas, and norms). This does not displace
or curtail sexual urges but rather is theorized to provide acceptable and familiar types of outlets for sexual needs.
In addition, the emotional and physical sexual needs that females import
into prison may differ greatly across individuals. Those who have previously
adopted a homosexual lifestyle on the outside can be expected to continue
this behavior once incarcerated. Many women, however, resort to homosexuality to sustain the needs and emotions that remain with them after being
imprisoned. What about the women who do not participate in these activities
as outlets for sexual release? For some women, remaining faithful to an outside partner is a decisive priority. Many women in prison choose celibacy as
an alternative sexual lifestyle. Is masturbation their answer? This study was
conducted to address this issue.
METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
In March 2000, all inmates housed in a Southern correctional facility for
women were requested to participate in the current study. Inmates were
assembled in the main area of their respective units by correctional staff
members so that the researchers could explain the contents of the surveys.
The lead researcher and a graduate assistant then distributed self-administered questionnaires to each inmate. Inmates were told it would take approximately 30 minutes to complete the 46-item questionnaire. In addition, they
were informed of their anonymity and confidentiality while participating in
the project. No incentives were given for completion of the survey. Inmates
were asked to return their completed questionnaires in a stamped selfaddressed envelope within 2 weeks of distribution. Of the 643 inmates incarcerated at that time, a total of 245 agreed to participate in the study, yielding a
response rate of 38%.
Table 1 displays the characteristics of the prison population and the sample. A comparison of the prison population and the study group reveals some
slight differences. For example, Blacks and inmates in medium security are
underrepresented in the sample. Inmates describing their race as other and
maximum-security inmates were overrepresented in the sample.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
496
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2001
TABLE 1: Population and Sample Characteristics
Prison Population
Characteristic
Race
White
Black
Other
Security level
Minimum
Medium
Maximum
Average age
n
394
247
2
%
61.3
38.4
0.3
241
37.5
393
61.1
9
1.4
35 years
Sample
n
150
82
11
%
61.2
33.5
4.4
92
40.2
121
52.8
16
7.0
34.4 years
MEASURES
Inmates were asked two questions concerning their masturbatory behavior while incarcerated. First, inmates were asked, “Have you masturbated
since being incarcerated?” Response categories were dichotomized so that a
response of no was coded as 0, and an affirmative response received a score
of 1. They were then asked, “How often do you masturbate?” Originally,
eight response categories existed. These categories were recoded so that
infrequent masturbators (less than once a month) were coded as 0 and frequent masturbators (more than once a month) received a score of 1. Both
items served as dependent variables.
Demographic characteristics (age and race) were recorded for the study
group. Data were also collected on religion (Protestant vs. non-Protestant),
time served (less than 1 year, 1 to 5 years, 5 to 10 years, and more than 10 years),
security level, type of offense committed, engaging in homosexual behavior
while incarcerated (touching the genitals of another female inmate while
incarcerated), and education (high school or less vs. some college or more).
RESULTS
Of the 245 female inmates who responded to the questionnaire, 66.5%
had masturbated while incarcerated. Of the 161 who reported masturbating,
7% had not masturbated during the past year. More than 22% of the respondents masturbated once or a few times in the past year, and 7% masturbated
every other month. Approximately 13% masturbated once a month or two to
three times a month, whereas 10% of the respondents masturbated once a
week. An additional 18.6% masturbated two to three times per week. Only
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Hensley et al. / MASTURBATION IN A FEMALE PRISON
497
TABLE 2: Zero-Order Correlations Between Independent and Dependent
Variables
Age
Race
Religion
Education
Amount of time served
Security level
Type of offense
Homosexual behavior
Masturbation
Since Incarceration
Frequency
of Masturbation
–.04
.05
.17*
.06
.26*
.11
–.13*
.29*
–.04
.17*
.06
.12
.10
.40*
–.20*
.33*
NOTE: Coding is as follows: age (0 = younger than 34, 1 = 34 or older), race (0 =
non-White, 1 = White), religion (0 = Protestant, 1 = non-Protestant), education (0 = high
school or less, 1 = some college or more), amount of time served (0 = less than 1 year,
1 = 1 to 5 years, 2 = 5 to 10 years, 3 = more than 10 years), security level (0 = minimum,
1 = medium, 2 = maximum), type of offense (0 = personal crime, 1 = other crime), and
homosexual behavior (0 = no, 1 = yes).
*Denotes statistical significance at the .05 level.
3.6% of the female inmates reported masturbating once a day. Finally, 2.9%
reported masturbating more than once a day.
To examine relationships between the independent and dependent variables, correlational analysis was conducted. Table 2 presents the zero-order
relationships between the independent and dependent variables. The most
salient variable is whether the inmate engaged in homosexual behavior while
incarcerated. Inmates who engaged in homosexual behavior while incarcerated were more likely to report masturbating while in prison. In addition,
they were more frequent masturbators than those who did not engage in
homosexual behavior while incarcerated. Inmates who committed a personal
crime were also more likely to masturbate (and be frequent masturbators)
than those who had committed a property or drug offense. Inmates who had
served longer sentence times were also more likely to masturbate than
inmates who had served shorter sentence times. Protestants were less likely
to masturbate than non-Protestants. White inmates were more likely to be
frequent masturbators compared to non-Whites. In addition, inmates in
higher security levels were more likely to be frequent masturbators than
inmates in lower security levels.
Intercorrelations between the independent variables are not presented
here to save space. The strongest correlation existed between amount of time
served and personal offense (r = .46). No multicollinearity was found
between the independent variables.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
498
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2001
TABLE 3: Summary of Logistic Regression Beta Weights (n = 190 and 130,
respectively)
Masturbation
Since Incarceration
Age
Race
Religion
Education
Amount of time served
Security level
Type of offense
Homosexual behavior
Pseudo R 2
0.50
0.52
0.54
0.06
0.44
0.28
0.19
1.46*
0.19
Frequency
of Masturbation
–0.64
1.11*
0.47
0.51
–0.52
1.84*
–0.42
1.40*
0.40
*Denotes statistical significance at the .05 level.
Because both dependent variables are dichotomous, a series of logistic
regression analyses was performed to test if the predictor variables had an
effect on the dependent variables. The most salient variable in both models
was homosexual behavior in prison. Table 3 indicates that inmates who engage
in homosexual behavior while incarcerated are more likely to masturbate
(and be frequent masturbators) than inmates who do not engage in homosexual behavior in prison. In other words, inmates who were sexually active
while incarcerated were more likely to masturbate while in prison. White
inmates and inmates in higher security levels were also more likely to report
engaging in frequent masturbation. Interestingly, race and security-level
variables were not found to have an effect on whether the inmate has masturbated while in prison. Based on previous literature, we expected that age,
education, and time served would have an effect on female masturbation in
prison. However, these variables were not significant predictors of either
dependent variable.
DISCUSSION
Research on human sexuality both in free society and in prisons has typically focused on the sexual behaviors of males. Notably, prison sex research
has emphasized the topics of coerced and consensual sex among male
inmates. Free society sex research is more common, yet some topics are
clearly marginalized. Perhaps the most obvious of these topics is masturbation. In prison-based sex research, this marginalization is even clearer.
Previous studies on masturbation in free society have consistently found a
significant relationship between age and masturbation. However, the present
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Hensley et al. / MASTURBATION IN A FEMALE PRISON
499
study did not find such a relationship. Although prisons have been defined as
microcosms of society, prison culture is remarkably different from free society. Clearly, this includes differences in sexual activities of citizens and
inmates. For example, female inmates are deprived of certain sexual outlets
while incarcerated. Thus, it appears many turn to masturbation for sexual
release. Previous literature has reported that women in their late 20s to 40s
have the highest rates of masturbation; the women in this study have a mean
age of 34 and do report high rates of masturbation. And, age does not appear
to be a significant predictor of masturbatory activities or frequency among
these female inmates. Most interesting, however, is the proportion of females
reporting that they do masturbate is nearly twice the proportion of free society women so reporting in previous research. This should not be surprising,
however, given the unique cultural contexts and deprivations of prison life.
The results of this investigation also suggest that religious affiliation is not
a predictor of female inmates’masturbatory practices. Again, this contradicts
the research on female masturbation in free society. In fact, as Michael et al.
(1994) argued, in free society, religion may be the most significant predictor
of masturbation. However, among this incarcerated sample of women, religion has no statistically significant effect. Again, it appears that the institutional culture outweighs other factors.
Where this research does agree with the existing literature on female masturbation is in terms of the effects of having a sexual partner. Whereas in free
society the literature typically presumes that a woman’s partner is from a heterosexual relationship, in prison this becomes a same-sex partner. Women
who had homosexual experiences while incarcerated were more likely to
masturbate than women who did not engage in homosexual activity while in
prison. In addition, these same women were more likely to be frequent masturbators. Thus, it may be that there are no differences in the motivation or
nature of masturbation for incarcerated and nonincarcerated women but only
differences regarding on whom motivation has an effect. As suggested by
previous literature, individuals who are sexually active with partners are
more likely to masturbate; this also holds true for incarcerated women but
cuts across age and religious categories.
As previously stated, masturbation in prison is almost always a rule
infraction. However, it provides inmates an alternative outlet to release pentup frustrations and stresses. It may also possibly reduce the amount of consensual and coerced homosexual behavior behind bars. We must recommend
to prison administrators that masturbation is a natural part of life. In addition,
masturbation in prison, unlike consensual and coerced sex, prevents the
spread of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS for both male and
female inmates. Therefore, it is important for correctional administrators and
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
500
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2001
policy makers to reconsider the definition of masturbation as a violation of
institutional rules. Most important, the justification and rationale for
instructing inmates that autoerotic activities are wrong need to be revisited
and reconsidered. To do so, however, it is important that policy makers first
understand the motivations, dynamics, frequencies, and characteristics of
practitioners of masturbation in prison. It is our intent to provide the first
important steps toward this understanding.
Research of this nature is not only important for correctional administrators but also sex researchers in general. Sex researchers must continue to
explore these forbidden topics. We must continue to open the eyes of correctional administrators and staff members. According to Tewksbury and West
(2000),
Refusal or reluctance to acknowledge that sex in prison [including masturbation] exists is one thing, but refusal or reluctance even to devote research attention to the issue is detrimental to the study of corrections, to the discipline, and
to society as a whole. (p. 377)
Finally, we must strive to make changes in correctional policies that have the
potential to make our prisons safer.
REFERENCES
Davidson, J., & Moore, N. (1994). Masturbation and premarital sexual intercourse among college women: Making choices for sexual fulfillment. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 20,
179-199.
Hite, S. (1976). The Hite report: A nationwide study on female sexuality. New York: Macmillan.
Irwin, J., & Cressey, D. (1962). Thieves, convicts, and the inmate culture. Social Problems, 10,
145-147.
Janus, S., & Janus, C. (1993). The Janus report on sexual behavior. New York: John Wiley.
Kinsey, A., Martin, C., Pomeroy, W., & Gebhard, P. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human
female. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Laumann, E., Gagnon, J., Michael, R., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Michael, R., Gagnon, J., Laumann, E., & Kolata, G. (1994). Sex in America: A definitive survey.
Boston: Little, Brown.
Pollock, J. M. (1997). Prisons: Today and tomorrow. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
Sykes, G. (1958). The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Tewksbury, R. (1989). Measures of sexual behavior in an Ohio prison. Sociology and Social
Research, 74, 34-39.
Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2001). Where to find corrections research: An assessment of
research published in corrections specialty journals, 1990-1999. The Prison Journal, 81,
419-435.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Hensley et al. / MASTURBATION IN A FEMALE PRISON
501
Tewksbury, R., & West, A. (2000). Research on sex in prison during the late 1980s and early
1990s. The Prison Journal, 80, 368-378.
Ward, D., & Kassebaum, G. (1965). Women’s prison: Sex and social structure. Hawthorne, NY:
Aldine.
Wooden, W. S., & Parker, J. (1982). Men behind bars: Sexual exploitation in prison. New York:
Plenum.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
The Prison Journal
http://tpj.sagepub.com
Sexual Assault and Coercion Among Incarcerated Women Prisoners: Excerpts From Prison Letters
Leanne Fiftal Alarid
The Prison Journal 2000; 80; 391
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/80/4/391
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Pennsylvania Prison Society
Additional services and information for The Prison Journal can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://tpj.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV LIBRARY on February 7, 2007
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
THE PRISON
Alarid
/ SEXUAL
JOURNAL
ASSAULT
/ December
AND COERCION
2000
SEXUAL ASSAULT AND COERCION
AMONG INCARCERATED WOMEN
PRISONERS: EXCERPTS FROM
PRISON LETTERS
LEANNE FIFTAL ALARID
University of Missouri–Kansas City
There are few existing studies that address sexual misconduct of women offenders toward other women prisoners. This qualitative study examined themes of sexual coercion and sexual assault among women offenders that surfaced in letters sent by one
woman offender from prison during a period of 5 years. Four themes emerged from the
data: (a) female apathy toward sexual coercion and sexual assault, (b) the femme as
the sexual aggressor, (c) insight into one female rape situation, and (d) institutional
factors contributing to sexual coercion. To prevent incidences of sexual assault by
other offenders, policy suggestions specific to the study included a staff focus on identifying and consistently curbing sexual coercion and installing monitored cameras in
restriction dorms.
Countless acts of sexual assault, including acts of coerced sex that may
appear consensual, have occurred in U.S. prisons. Sexual assault and coercion jeopardizes both individual safety and institutional security. Although
not all sex in prison is coerced, it is estimated that in 1995, there were approximately 359,000 male victims and 5,000 female victims who were sexually assaulted while doing time in U.S. prisons (Donaldson, 1995). Incidents of coerced sex in prison and jail are related to individual and group
violence, offender adjustment problems, and health complications (StruckmanJohnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1999, 2000; Tewksbury, 1989a; Wooden &
Parker, 1982). There is a clear need for more research in this area so that
administrators can better understand the nature and effects of prison sex.
Increased understanding may lead to enhanced staff awareness, improved
institutional control, and a decrease in uses of force.
The author wishes to thank Velmarine Oliphant Szabo for sharing her personal experiences
and observations from prison during the past 5 years and for bringing to the criminal justice community an awareness and better understanding of female sexual coercion.
THE PRISON JOURNAL, Vol. 80 No. 4, December 2000 391-406
© 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.
391
Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV LIBRARY on February 7, 2007
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
392
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
Previous lines of inquiry have focused either on sexual assault in the community (e.g., Bevacqua, 2000; Odem & Clay-Warner, 1998; Russell, 1984;
Schwartz & Dekeseredy, 1997; Scully, 1990; Searles & Berger, 1995;
Stanko, 1985) or male sexual assault inside male correctional institutions
(e.g., Chonco, 1989; Cotton & Groth, 1982; Dumond, 1992; Eigenberg, 1989;
Groth & Burgess, 1980; Jones & Schmid, 1989; Lockwood, 1985; Nacci &
Kane, 1983, 1984; Saum, Surratt, Inciardi, & Bennett, 1995; Smith & Batiuk,
1989; Tewksbury, 1989a, 1989b; Wooden & Parker, 1982). Both bodies of
literature have ignored the prevalence and nature of sexual assault of incarcerated women.
Academic experts in the area of female prisoner subcultures have only
recently acknowledged the possibility of female prisoner sexual assault
(Bowker, 1981, 1982; Pollock-Byrne, 1990). Since the 1960s, previous studies have found that many women prisoners participate consensually in play
families, intimate (nonsexual) dyads, and /or same-sex couple relationships
(for a review of these studies, see Alarid, 1996). Most recently, Owen (1998)
described involvement in play families and nonsexual friendships as a way to
avoid “the mix.” The mix is defined as “any behavior that can bring trouble
and conflict with staff and other prisoners,” which includes reduction of good
time, restriction of privileges, or solitary confinement (Owen, 1998, p. 179).
The three overlapping behaviors of the mix that most often led to trouble
were involvement in homosexuality (“playing around”), drugs, and fighting.
Most women interviewed by Owen did not admit to currently being in the
mix, only that they used to be involved or that they strongly advised staying
out of the mix. Exploitative relationships of an economical and/or emotional
nature were found to exist among women prisoners involved in the mix.
However, there was little mention of sexual coercion and sexual assault associated with the “homosexual mix” (Owen, 1998).
Outside of academic circles, increased attention has been paid to female
offenders who were sexually coerced or sexually assaulted by correctional
staff (Amnesty International, 1999; APBnews.com, October 10, 1999; Human
Rights Watch Women’s Rights Project, 1996; Smith, 1998; U.S. General
Accounting Office, 1999). Women prisoners are more likely to be sexually
abused by correctional staff than are men prisoners (Donaldson, Dumond,
Knopp, Struckman-Johnson, & Thompson, 1995).1
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
There are few existing studies, however, that address the prevalence and
nature of sexual coercion and sexual assault of women offenders by other
Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV LIBRARY on February 7, 2007
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Alarid / SEXUAL ASSAULT AND COERCION
393
incarcerated women. Two known studies were conducted by Cindy and Dave
Struckman-Johnson in 1994 and 1998. The first study was conducted statewide in three men’s prisons and one female prison in Nebraska. The study
found, via anonymous mail surveys, that 22.0% of men and 7.7% of women
reported that they experienced being “pressured or forced into sexual contact
in a state prison facility” (Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson, Rucker,
Bumby, & Donaldson, 1996, p. 74).2 Of this number, only 29% of prisoners
actually reported the incident to prison staff.
A follow-up study was conducted in 1998 with 2,051 inmates and 518
staff members at seven men’s prisons and three female prison units in other
midwestern states. The researchers found that the sexual coercion rates
reported by female inmates (those who reported at least one incident of sexual coercion) varied among the three facilities: at 6%, 8%, and 19%
(Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1999, 2000). A second major
finding was that between 55% and 80% of all sexual coercion in the three
women’s units was committed by other women offenders, which is notably
more than that committed by correctional staff. Incidents described by the
women offenders were defined and classified by the researchers. The sexual
coercion ranged from “pressure tactics” and genital touching to “force tactics” such as gang rape. Rape rates for women varied from 0% to 5% of the
female offender population. Thus, most of the sexual coercion incidents were
committed by other women offenders who fondled, seduced, or somehow
pressured women inmates into oral and/or vaginal sex. These studies suggest
that sexual coercion rates of women prisoners varied by institution. Institutional factors included institutional size, housing type, and type of of- fender.
Female institutions that were larger, had barracks or dorm-style housing, and
housed offenders who were convicted of crimes against persons were more
likely to have higher rates of sexual coercion (Struckman-Johnson &
Struckman-Johnson, 1999, 2000).
METHOD
Sexual misconduct among women inmates is particularly sensitive and
difficult to study by outside researchers. Barriers to studying prison sexual
coercion and assault include inmates’ fears of the subculture, which prohibits
offenders from disclosing misconduct by other inmates, the stigma of admitting involvement in the mix, lack of sensitivity from correctional officers, a
researcher’s limited institutional access, and resistance from prison administrators (Alarid, 1999; Eigenberg, 1989; Struckman-Johnson et al., 1996).
Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV LIBRARY on February 7, 2007
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
394
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
The present research attempts to overcome some of these barriers by using
a qualitative case study approach to examine situations and behaviors underlying sexual coercion and sexual assault among incarcerated women. Surveys were initially disseminated to women in a large urban county jail in the
South. The surveys asked women about a variety of attitudes and behaviors
relative to the institutional subculture, the inmate code, play families, and
sexual and economic behaviors (see Alarid, 1996, for detailed methodology).
The survey data unexpectedly uncovered information that suggested that
sexual harassment and sexual coercion were present among women offenders in the jail. To further investigate this question, a random group of 25
women offenders who had previously participated in the survey were asked
to mail back additional information on sexual coercion. Contact with most of
the women was eventually lost as they were transferred or released from jail.
One woman, Velmarine,3 maintained weekly contact through the mail for 5
years, as she transferred between four or five different female units.
Velmarine conducted observations of all aspects of the prison subculture and
recorded them in written letters she mailed on a weekly basis. Velmarine is a
41-year-old African American mother of three children, who is serving a
25-year prison term for her third felony conviction. Although Velmarine has
been attending college and trying to keep to herself, she has admitted
involvement in the mix. Velmarine detailed her own experiences of sexual
coercion and rape, as well as observations of others inside various prison
units as they occurred. These experiences and observations were later indexed by the author according to certain themes that emerged and compared to
the existing literature.
In this study, sexual assault is distinct from the definition of sexual coercion. Sexual assault is forced sex, and it ranges from unwanted genital touching to oral, vaginal, and /or anal sex. Sexual coercion is pressuring another
to have sex, ranging from verbal harassment to extortion to obtain sex
(Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1999, 2000).
FINDINGS
The data indicate an association between involvement in the mix and sexual coercion, in that the chances of sexual coercion and sexual assault seem to
increase during the time women are involved in the mix. Although many
women are approached for sex or sexually harassed when they first come to
prison, the pressure eventually subsides for unaffiliated women or “prison
Christians” who “don’t play.” However, the vast majority (75% to 80%) of
Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV LIBRARY on February 7, 2007
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Alarid / SEXUAL ASSAULT AND COERCION
395
women in jails and prisons have been or are currently “in the homosexual
mix,” in that they experiment with, or are involved in, coupling or relationships that include sexual favors. Many of these women are involved in both
play families and sexual liaisons. Women of all races and ethnic backgrounds
who are involved in sexual liaisons most often prefer the “femme”4 role,
whereas the outnumbered “stud”5 role is occupied primarily by African
American women. Identified lesbians are obligated to play the stud role
because most prisons have a low supply of studs compared with the high
number of femmes.
Four themes emerged from the data of observations and experiences, relative to sexual coercion and sexual assault among women offenders. The
themes were (a) apathy toward sexual coercion and sexual assault, (b) the
“jailhouse turnout femme” as the sexual aggressor, (c) insight to one rape situation, and (d) institutional factors contributing to sexual coercion.
APATHY TOWARD SEXUAL COERCION AND SEXUAL ASSAULT
The data excerpted from the letters indicate first that the official (reported)
sexual assault rate among women prisoners is fairly low in women’s prisons.
In other words, sexual assault occurs between prisoners, but it is not reported.
The reasons for the low reported rate may be that women inmates may be
desensitized to definitions of coerced sex. Due to women offenders’ past history of molestation, sexual assault, or various other sexually demeaning relationships that many have had as a child or as an adult with previous partners,
these women may be overlooking the fact that they have been coerced into
committing various sexual acts or have been victims of sexual assault.
Most [women here] have no concept of a healthy relationship to begin with,
and thus do not recognize coerced responses. This I’ve ascertained via conversations with other women. The saddest component . . . is the female prisoner
basically accepts these relationship behavioral problems in prison, as well as
out in society, as “okay.” (August 21, 1997)
A second reason why forced sex may be lower among women prisoners is
illustrated by another one of Velmarine’s observations: “If it were not for the
fact that most female inmates capitulate with coercion, there would be more
forced sex acts or threats of violence, thereby causing recognizable rape to be
a more common occurrence among women prisoners” (8/21/97). In other
words, the letters suggest that some of the more passive women inmates
reluctantly submit to subtle or blatant verbal coercion by getting involved in
Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV LIBRARY on February 7, 2007
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
396
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
relationships of a sexual nature. The passive women may not wish to be
involved in the relationship but do so for two reasons. Many incarcerated
women hold a strong desire to belong to some sort of group. This need for
belonging is not for protection, like in men’s prisons, but for companionship
and to combat loneliness, which makes doing time seemingly less painful.
The problem with women in this situation is that they tend to give in to peer
pressure more easily, which can cause more difficulties for them later on.
A second explanation for why women become involved in sexual relationships is that they may be intimidated by threats of violence, property destruction, or “setups.” An example of a common setup is while the victim’s dorm
cubicle is unoccupied, the perpetrator hides contraband (a shank, bleach,
etc.) and then reports the contraband to a staff member. The more passive
woman, then, is trying to avoid a physical confrontation and possible fight
with the perpetrator, having her own property stolen or destroyed, or losing
privileges and good time for receiving a disciplinary report. In their reluctance to become involved, the issue of consent may become blurred for these
women.
Throughout the past 5 years, Velmarine documented many cases of sexual
coercion in which she was victimized and that she witnessed happening to
other inmates. For some women, being a target of sexual coercion by a few
female perpetrators was a daily experience. Common incidents of sexual
coercion included loud verbal sexual harassment, genital exhibition, and
masturbation. It appeared that some forms of sexual coercion, if ignored by
the target, escalated to other forms of violence: “My first alert to rape danger
was when one of my bunkmates began sexually propositioning me, via genital exhibition, then making threats of bodily harm . . . calling me a ‘punk’
while threatening to ‘kick my ass’” (9/9/96).
Sometimes the escalation of sexual coercion did not always involve
bodily harm. The letters were full of incidents where one woman destroyed
another inmate’s property.
Velmarine discusses a second incident that illustrates the importance of
learning how to deal with sexual coercion:
Women were waking me up out of good, deep, sleeps to see if I was “ready” or
interested [in having sex]. Of course this angered me, but I’ve learned over the
years that there’s a thin line to tread to avoid fights or getting “ganged” when
rejecting the sexual overtures of incarcerated women. I used to tactlessly speak
my mind, not caring how my words made them feel as long as they left me
alone. The results were usually derision in return and physical group attacks in
retaliation. (January 14, 1998)
Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV LIBRARY on February 7, 2007
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Alarid / SEXUAL ASSAULT AND COERCION
397
THE “JAILHOUSE TURNOUT FEMME”
AS THE SEXUAL AGGRESSOR
In this study, the heterosexual “jailhouse turnout femmes”6 were more
often sexually aggressive than studs. One cause of jailhouse turnout aggression was the perception that studs should always be involved with someone.
Thus, studs should not ignore sexual advances from femmes. An example of
the effects of unreciprocated love follows:
I felt pressured to select a black sexual “playmate” to avoid pressure from such
women as “Carolyn,” an unattractive, odious, obese and tall, black woman. . . .
In all of her vulgarity, Carolyn would openly begin masturbating whenever she
thought that I may have been looking in her general direction. . . . Carolyn stood
a good 5’10” and weighed over 300 pounds. . . . She threw a cup of hot coffee at
me, and luckily missed. I believed that there’s some things that we just don’t
back down from in life especially in jail. My acceptance of this treatment from
Carolyn in front of the entire dorm would have labeled me as a coward to have
anything done with, and to, that anyone might have wished. My commissary,
“head” (oral sex), and nothing else would have remained mine to control. . . . As
Carolyn raised her left arm and made a fist, she lumbered towards me. I picked
up a sharpened pencil from my mattress. As Carolyn swung down, I sidestepped her and jumped up onto her massive body. . . . I drove the pencil deeply
into the flesh of her left upper arm before I felt the pencil snap. . . . Due to the
fact that the Warden had actually seen what occurred. . . . I was allowed to
explain why and how Carolyn had come to a peak of bullying based upon sexual coercion because they hadn’t fully understood the reasons for what they’d
seen via the two-way mirror. (January 20, 1998)
Sometimes, verbal threats and sexual harassment by femmes can lead to
physical altercations (e.g., property destruction, scalding with hot liquid,
assault) of a stud. One of the results of this situation is that studs, perceiving
the need to uphold their reputations, may spend more time in a restriction
dorm or solitary confinement for fighting. These situations occur, in part,
because effeminate-looking heterosexual women may be favored by correctional staff over other women perceived to be gay or masculine looking
(Eigenberg, 1989). In any case, it appears that femmes currently have many
advantages over studs, as indicated by Velmarine:
Forceful persuasion is used by the femmes against the “studs” for participation or sexual favors if the stud is unwilling. Currently, femmes tend to attack
their studs for suspected infidelity or what they term as disrespect, e.g., flirting with other femmes. I’ve often observed the “stud” (often but not in all
Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV LIBRARY on February 7, 2007
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
398
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
cases) back away from the femme that turns her attentions to another “stud.”
(February 8, 1997)
Studs who ignore femmes who express sexual interest in them means rejection in the form of personal disrespect. As a result of the perceived disrespect,
some femmes unite as a group and in retaliation, they become involved in
sexual extortion—fabricating stories to correctional officers that a stud is
causing them problems. The stud broad might receive a disciplinary report.
The extortion would continue until the stud broad “agreed” to be sexually
involved in a relationship. Velmarine writes,
There’s a prevalent perverse idea [by the officers and inmates] that if a lesbian
gets involved with an obsessive woman who wishes to continue to harass after
the involvement has ended, then that obsessive behavior [by the perpetrator] is
alright. In other words, if a feminine-looking woman is physically attacking a
tomboyish or masculine-looking woman, that is seen as alright because she
[the femme] only wants the sex that the other should never have offered.
(August 2, 1996)
In sum, sexual pressuring, unreciprocated love, and jealousy are the basis of
most female prison violence. These were the same reasons for many incidents of male prison violence (Nacci & Kane, 1983).
Like most male offenders, some women attempt to ward off sexual victimization by emphasizing toughness and de-emphasizing characteristics that
are considered weak or feminine. A display of kindness or caring through
giving away commissary is considered weak and tends to open up oneself to
being seen as a target (Smith & Batiuk, 1989). Velmarine remembers one
example:
When “Roberta” [a femme] first entered the dorm [transferred from another
unit], she made a pass at me and every stud (which I don’t consider myself) in
the dorm. I was given the privilege of rejecting her first. After she made her
rounds, she came back with a sympathy “poor me” ploy. . . . After I rejected her
offer of cunnilingus, Roberta developed a nasty attitude with me . . . so I called
her to the square (challenged her to a physical fight). She backed down and left
me alone. (August 21, 1997)
Homosexual alliances were often formed by studs as a form of protection
from sexual advances and assaults. Most of these relationships were destructive and short-lived:
Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV LIBRARY on February 7, 2007
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Alarid / SEXUAL ASSAULT AND COERCION
399
Some stud broads reacted to the harassment by disrespecting their femme during the short-term relationship. After using them for sex, some stud broads
would go to great lengths to rid themselves of the femme in hopes that they seem
less appealing to other potential harassers. Verbal abuse in public was the most
common form of disrespect between feuding partners. (September 12, 1998)
For the most part, female studs seem to deal with femme harassment in isolation. Studs do not form play families as protective liaisons against femme
harassment.
The reluctant sexual submission of women offenders to other, more aggressive women inmates while in prison mirrors past experiences of coerced
relationships with men outside of prison. Furthermore, the lesbian target and
the female heterosexual aggressor observed in this study were similar to the
roles found in Wooden and Parker’s (1982) study of domineering male heterosexual “jockers” who targeted gay men for sex.
INSIGHT INTO ONE RAPE SITUATION
Based on the data obtained during the 5-year period, rape occurred at a
much lower rate than other forms of sexual behavior. However, when rapes
did occur among women offenders, there were multiple perpetrators rather
than a single female offender. Davis (1968) found that many male sexual liaisons developed after inmates were threatened with gang rape or following a
gang rape incident. This does not appear to be the case for women. In this situation, it is likely that gang rape was used as the instrument to express feelings of resentment and anger that other inmates had toward their target. The
following situation depicts the events that preceded Velmarine’s rape, the
trauma of the rape itself, and the aftermath:
Back in July of 1991, the . . . jail was extremely overcrowded. There were three
women crammed into cells designed to house one or two women. I was sharing
a cell with two Hispanic women, “Valerie” and “Anna.” Valerie was more feminine and Anna, her lover, was more masculine. Nonetheless, Anna had made it
clear on several occasions that she was attracted to me. I decided to give a little
attention to “Sherylynn” a woman in the cell next to ours who had been subtly
flirting for quite a while. . . . In spite of Anna’s quiet protest, I moved into
Sherylynn’s cell that same night just before our doors were racked.
After one fantastic night with Sherylynn, I made out my commissary list
using most of my allocated order spaces on her. What I had not counted on was
Sherylynn being one of the women that has been in such abusive relationships
with men that they can’t accept someone loving and being kind to
Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV LIBRARY on February 7, 2007
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
400
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
them. . . . Sherylynn had to have mates fighting over her to make herself feel
worth something. Once Sherylynn had the commissary I’d purchased for her,
she . . . pitted Anna against me and threw me out [of her cell]. Sherylynn wasn’t
getting [the reaction] that she wanted from Anna, so she began playing back up
to me. Anna caught on to what Sherylynn was doing and quickly made amends
with me. . . . [Anna] let me move back into the cell with her and Valerie. The
next week, when I couldn’t make store, Anna would spend on me like I was
accustomed to doing for others.
One night after Anna latched on to my hand in her sleep, I found myself
allowing Sherylynn to join me in the shower. Anna was so infuriated that she
called 15-20 women in the tank to observe Sherylynn and I, while Anna threw
my belongings out of my cell. . . . I moved into a cell with an older harmless
Caucasian woman.
Three days later . . . while I was standing at the bars of the dayroom, [and
Valerie and two other inmates left to go to the law library], a stocky black
woman named “Joniqua” (a friend of Sherylynn’s) grabbed me from behind.
When I began to struggle, Sherylynn and one other woman grabbed my arms.
Anna was directing them to “Bring her into my cell, c’mon hurry, bring her in
here!” I felt the weight of three more women pushing me into the cell. Joniqua
got my panties off and threw them into the dayroom. I realized then that this
was no practical joke or game. I was stripped of my bra and county dress (all
women wore one piece dresses in the County Jail at that time). While four
women were holding me down, Anna ordered one grotesque female to sit on
my face and to force me to perform an act of cunnilingus. When I refused to
cooperate, and threatened to bite her if she tried, they moved me to a smaller
cell. As I struggled on the floor of Cell #7, I felt fists pummeling my legs and
thighs. When I relaxed under the blows, Anna straddled my face while begging
me to “just stick your tongue out a little bit.” If I would have complied with
Anna’s pleas, (I found out later) that Sherylynn and Joniqua would have forced
as many women to try to have me in the same manner. To add to my humiliation, Anna had secreted vaginal fluids all over my nose and mouth, which
seemed to appeal to the animalistic frenzy these women had worked themselves into.
The girl who was in Cell #7 was ordered out, and it was given to me. When
my grievance about the rape incident was completely ignored [by staff], I
began to be asked to be racked in my cell all day except for meals and showers
to keep Anna, Sherylynn and Joniqua from fondling me whenever they felt the
safe urge. Everytime I’d come out for a shower, I’d get fondled or dragged out
naked to the dayroom. After about two weeks of this living hell, a nurse came to
my rescue. I was in the shower, and Sherylynn and Joniqua were fondling my
nipples, when the nurse wheeled in the medicine cart. I suddenly got brave and
shouted: “Get your hands off my tits!” Sherylynn and Joniqua didn’t see the
nurse, and began to assault me. The nurse wheeled her cart out of the vestibule
as if escaping a fire. The nurse ran straight to a Deputy and said “There’s an
inmate about to be raped in there!” I was moved out of the tank [the same day].
Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV LIBRARY on February 7, 2007
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Alarid / SEXUAL ASSAULT AND COERCION
401
When I got transferred to prison [from the County Jail], Sherylynn was
there and laughingly told me how she and Joniqua charmed the Deputies at the
disciplinary hearing and only received 10 days loss of privileges (no commissary or visits), with no segregation or loss of good time. Anna’s excuse later
given to me [for the rape] was: “None of this would have ever happened if you
hadn’t been bragging about how good you were.” (August 2, 1996)
This incident demonstrates that continued sexual harassment and fondling
occurred weeks after the rape, until Velmarine saw an opportunity to obtain a
transfer to a different part of the jail. These incidents seem to follow offenders
to prison, where victimization is likely to continue.
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS
CONTRIBUTING TO SEXUAL COERCION
As previously mentioned, Velmarine did time in at least five different
prison units in a period of 5 years, and she was therefore able to compare various institutional environments. The data in the letters indicated that there
were two main institutional factors that contributed to increasing incidences
of sexual coercion and sexual assault among women prisoners: (a) open dormitory-style housing and (b) correctional staff ignoring or encouraging
offender sexual behavior.
Institutions with a greater proportion of open dormitory-style housing
seemed to have more incidences of sexual coercion and sexual assault than
areas with one- or two-person cells. In addition to having open dormitory
housing, there were some prison units that had entire areas with dorms or
cubicles for women on “restriction.” The restriction dorm is the place where
women are housed for temporary loss of privileges for prison rule violations.
Velmarine pointed out that more inmate rapes occur in the restriction dorm,
where the deprivation factor is temporarily intensified for all inmates, due to
no television, no outside recreation time, no scrabble/cards/dominoes, or
other activities. Below is an example of one such witnessed incident:
On the date of 9/1/96, I observed two Black “stud broads,” one White “stud,”
and four black femmes grab a Hispanic femme and half carry, half drag, her off
into a corner of Restriction Dorm where there was no camera coverage, nor
were the Officers able to view the scenario from the outside of the dorm.
After they stripped her out of her clothes, one of the Black stud broads vaginally penetrated the Victim with her fingers, the other Black stud administered
passion marks to the victim’s neck while the White “stud” continued to help
hold the victim down. Several femmes looked on and gave loud blow-by-blow
descriptions of what was transpiring. After about five minutes of this commo-
Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV LIBRARY on February 7, 2007
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
402
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
tion, the victim was called out by Officers amid yells from the dorm inmates to
“cover up her neck. The victim . . . screamed and hollered “no” every step of the
way. This leads me to believe that an involuntary sexual act had taken place
with force, which equals rape irregardless of how the victim later explained it
to inquiring staff. The inmate chose not to tell (for good reason), came back
into the dorm trying to smile or “grin it off,” although she still appeared a bit
shaken. So ends another episode of sexual exploitation among women. It saddens me to realize that these victims are not always able to recognize the fact
that they’ve been victimized. The same Black “stud” that gave the “hicky” to
that inmate was the same one that grabbed my buttocks a few mornings later
while I was returning from breakfast.
Had I tried to go to any Officer about some of the stressful things I was experiencing in Restriction Dorm (a.k.a. the Butt Naked Club—called that by Officers and Inmates alike), I would have been laughed away from their presence.
(September 6, 1996)
The actions (or inactions) of some correctional officers have been shown
to contribute to the problem of offender sexual coercion in men’s prisons
(Eigenberg, 1989). This problem seems to be present in women’s institutions
as well. The correctional officers who are part of the problem tend to be
undereducated about sexual coercion and sexual assault, less rigid and less
consistent about rule enforcement, and may even encourage unruly behavior
to “have fun” or to “play” with inmates. For example, sexually victimized
inmates who attempt to prevent an incident are sometimes stigmatized
through laughter and name-calling by correctional officers, even in the presence of inmates. A more serious form of officer misconduct is encouragement from correctional officers and other inmates to engage in sexual behavior. Velmarine writes about an incident in which another inmate [“Yvonne”]
is attempting to coerce her into sexual activity:
With the CO’s [correctional officers] joking around with Yvonne, and telling
her she is doing the right thing, [and with] inmates telling Yvonne that I’ll come
around, I don’t have a chance in hell of deterring Yvonne’s attempted affections or threats.
Correctional officers who are advocates of prisoners’ welfare are held in disdain by other correctional officers (Lockwood, 1980). The same situation
seems to hold true in women’s prisons. Velmarine offers a suggestion that
would likely decrease sexual coercion and assault:
CO’s who perform their jobs well are often resented by inmates, but they’re
respected. The officer’s rigid adherence to the rules eradicates most otherwise
Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV LIBRARY on February 7, 2007
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Alarid / SEXUAL ASSAULT AND COERCION
403
intended criminal behavior during their assigned work area and shift with simply their visibility, as these officers are known for their zero tolerance for rule
infractions. I presume that a good officer’s presence would counter . . . coerced
and consensual sexual acts among women. (August 21, 1997)
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
This qualitative study examined themes of sexual coercion and sexual
assault among women offenders that surfaced in prison letters sent by an
incarcerated woman during a 5-year period. One caveat is that this study was
not meant to represent all situations of sexual misconduct behind bars—only
the situations that were directly experienced or observed by one offender.
Experiences of women targets in prison varied among small samples of
women in other studies (Struckman-Johnson et al., 1996).
This study found that sexual pressuring and sexual harassment were much
more prevalent than sexual assault in women’s prisons. Although many
women prisoners experienced sexual coercion at some point while in prison,
women who participated in homosexual liaisons, particularly in the masculine role of the stud, were more likely to experience repeated incidences of
sexual coercion.
A related finding was that sexual-pressure tactics may be a related factor
in later incidences of physical violence and sexual assault among women
offenders. These findings suggest that to prevent incidences of sexual assault
among offenders, correctional staff may wish to focus on identifying and
curbing sexual coercion. Ignoring or encouraging sexual coercion may contribute to volatile and potentially violent situations.
A third finding was the dynamics between sexually aggressive heterosexual
femmes and their targeted studs. Femmes seem to have become more sexually aggressive because there are few current restraints on their behavior.
Heterosexual women possessing feminine qualities do not seem to be perceived by officers as an institutional threat. This situation might be prevented
by correctional-staff education and consistent reprimand of all parties
involved.
Because sexual coercion in women’s prisons is an underresearched topic,
the implications of the data were meant to suggest new ways for researchers
to further examine the nature and prevalence of sexual coercion and sexual
assault in women’s jails and prisons. Social learning theory has been suggested as an explanation of women’s sexual aggression. Using social learning theory, Anderson (1998) found that college women who had been sexually abused in the past and/or who viewed sexual relationships as adversarial
Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV LIBRARY on February 7, 2007
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
404
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
were more likely to be sexually aggressive than nonabused, nonadversarial
women. Allgeier and Lamping (1998) suggest methods of measuring sexual
coercion that might be applied to women in prison.
The role that correctional institutions and prison administrators have
played regarding prevention, intervention, and prosecution of sexual assaults
has been slowly improving. Identifying and segregating targets from perpetrators has been suggested as a prevention tactic. Segregation has resulted in
increased institutional safety for some targets, such as gay and bisexual men,
but incidents of sexual coercion still occur in protective custody (Alarid,
2000). Others have suggested that to prevent sexual coercion, facilities may
wish to increase surveillance in vulnerable areas where assaults have been
know to occur. These areas include “transportation vans, holding tanks,
shower rooms, stairways and storage areas” (Cotton & Groth, 1982, p. 54).
This study suggests that in vulnerable areas, such as restriction dorms, prison
administrators should install and make regular use of more cameras.
Finally, prosecuting perpetrators of pressured or forced sex has drawn
increased attention. It has been suggested that facilities should inform new
inmates of the probability they may be sexually assaulted while incarcerated.
Information should be given to new inmates about how to avoid becoming a
target and what medical, legal, and/or psychological help is available if
someone is targeted (Cotton & Groth, 1982; Dallao, 1996; Lockwood, 1985).
NOTES
1. On March 4, 1999, Amnesty International launched a campaign to pass laws to criminalize
the sexual misconduct of prison staff in 13 states. As a result of their efforts, six states enacted
laws. As of June 2000, seven states still did not have any laws against sexual misconduct in
prison: Alabama, Kentucky, Minnesota, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin (Amnesty
International, 1999).
2. In 1999, there were approximately 138,000 women behind bars (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999). If we assume that 7.7% of women in prison are sexually assaulted, there would be
more than 10,600 women victims.
3. All participant names and places have been changed to fictitious names to protect the confidentiality of individuals. Written permission was granted to use Velmarine Oliphant Szabo’s
real name.
4. A “femme” is a slang term used by prisoners for a female inmate who plays the feminine
role in the sexual/courting relationship (Alarid, 1996).
5. A “stud,” “butch,” “little boy,” or “mac daddy” are slang terms used for female inmates
who speak, dress, and play a masculine role in a sexual/courting relationship. Studs may initially
coax a femme with commissary to become interested in a sexual liaison. Once the two become a
couple, the stud then demands goods (commissary) and services (clean the cell, wash clothes)
from the femme. The stud may threaten to deny sex or physically abuse the femme in some way if
the stud does not get what “he” wants (Alarid, 1996).
Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV LIBRARY on February 7, 2007
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Alarid / SEXUAL ASSAULT AND COERCION
405
6. A “jailhouse turnout” or “douche bag” is a woman who experiments with homosexual sex
for the first time while in jail or prison. A jailhouse turnout chooses either a femme or a butch
role, and may move between both roles.
REFERENCES
Alarid, L. F. (1996). Women offenders’ perceptions of confinement: Behavior code acceptance,
hustling, and group relations in jail and prison. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sam
Houston State University, Huntsville, TX.
Alarid, L. F. (1999, November). Understanding women prison subcultures using the case study
approach. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, Canada.
Alarid, L. F. (2000). Sexual orientation perspectives of incarcerated bisexual and gay men: The
county jail protective custody experience. The Prison Journal, 80(1), 80-95.
Allgeier, E. R., & Lamping, J. C. (1998). Theories, politics, and sexual coercion. In P. B. Anderson &
C. Struckman-Johnson, (Eds.), Sexually agressive women (pp. 49-75). New York: Guilford.
Amnesty International. (1999). Not part of my sentence: Violations of the human rights of
women in custody. New York: Amnesty International USA. (may be accessed on the
Amnesty International Web site at http://amnestyusa.org/rightsforall/women/index.html)
Anderson, P. B. (1998). Women’s motives for sexual initiation and aggression. In P. B. Anderson &
C. Struckman-Johnson (Eds.), Sexually aggressive women (pp. 79-93). New York: Guilford.
APBnews.com. (1999, October 10). Sex with guards rampant at women’s prison. Retrieved January 30, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.apbnews.com/cjsystem/behind_bars/
1999/10/10/guards
Bevacqua, M. (2000). Rape on the public agenda: Feminism and the politics of sexual assault.
Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Bowker, L. H. (1981). Gender differences in prisoner subcultures. In L. H. Bowker (Ed.), Women
and crime in America (pp. 409-419). New York: Macmillan.
Bowker, L. H. (1982). Victimizers and victims in American correctional institutions. In R. J.
Johnson & H. Toch (Eds.), The pains of imprisonment (pp. 63-76). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999). Women offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice.
Chonco, N. (1989). Sexual assaults among male inmates. The Prison Journal, 68(1), 72-82.
Cotton, D., & Groth, A. N. (1982). Inmate rape: Prevention and intervention. Journal of Prison
and Jail Health, 2(1), 47-57.
Dallao, M. (1996, December). Fighting prison rape: How to make your facility safer. Corrections Today, pp. 100-106.
Davis, A. J. (1968, December). Sexual assaults in the Philadelphia prison system and sheriffs’
vans. Trans-Action, pp. 8-16.
Donaldson, S. (1995). Rape of incarcerated Americans: A preliminary statistical look. Retrieved
June 22, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.sspr.org/docs/stats.html
Donaldson, S., Dumond, R., Knopp, F., Struckman-Johnson, C., & Thompson, L. (1995).
Training Americans to rape: The role of our jails, prisons, and reformatories. Retrieved June
22, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.spr.org/docs/usatoday.html
Dumond, R. (1992). The sexual assault of male inmates in incarcerated settings. International
Journal of the Sociology of the Law, 20, 135-157.
Eigenberg, H. (1989). Male rape: An empirical examination of correctional officers’ attitudes
toward rape in prison. The Prison Journal, 68(2), 39-56.
Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV LIBRARY on February 7, 2007
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
406
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
Groth, N., & Burgess, A. (1980). Male rape: Offenders and victims. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(7), 806-819.
Human Rights Watch Women’s Rights Project. (1996). All too familiar: Sexual abuse of women
in U.S. state prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch.
Jones, R. S., & Schmid, T. J. (1989). Inmates’ conceptions of prison sexual assault. The Prison
Journal, 68(1), 53-61.
Lockwood, D. (1980). Prison sexual violence. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.
Lockwood, D. (1985). Issues in prison sexual violence. The Prison Journal, 62, 73-79.
Nacci, P., & Kane, T. (1983). The incidence of sex and sexual aggression in federal prisons. Federal Probation, 47, 31-36.
Nacci, P., & Kane, T. (1984). Sex and sexual aggression in federal prisons: Inmate involvement
and employee impact. Federal Probation, 48, 46-53.
Odem, M. E., & Clay-Warner, J. (1998). Confronting rape and sexual assault (Worlds of Women
Series, No. 3). Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources.
Owen, B. (1998). In the mix. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Pollock-Byrne, J. M. (1990). Women, prison and crime. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Russell, D. (1984). Sexual exploitation: Rape, child sexual abuse, and workplace harassment.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Saum, C. A., Surratt, H. L, Inciardi, J. A., & Bennett R. E. (1995). Sex in prison: The myths and
realities. The Prison Journal, 75, 413-430.
Schwartz, M. D., & Dekeseredy, W. S. (1997). Sexual assault on the college campus: The role of
male peer support. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scully, D. (1990). Understanding sexual violence. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Searles, P., & Berger, R. J. (1995). Rape and society: Readings on the problem of sexual assault.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Smith, B. (1998). An end to silence: Women prisoner’s handbook on identifying and addressing
sexual misconduct. Washington, DC: National Women’s Law Center.
Smith, N., & Batiuk, M. (1989). Sexual victimization and inmate social interaction. The Prison
Journal, 68, 29-38.
Stanko, E. (1985). Intimate intrusions: Women’s experience of male violence. New York:
Routledge Kegan Paul.
Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (1999, November). Pressured and forced
sexual contact reported by women in three midwestern prisons. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Society for the Study of Sexuality and the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors, and Therapists, St. Louis, MO.
Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (2000, March). Sexual coercion rates in ten
prison facilities in the Midwest. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of
Criminal Justice Sciences, New Orleans, LA.
Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., Rucker, L., Bumby, K., & Donaldson, S.
(1996). Sexual coercion reported by men and women in prison. The Journal of Sex Research,
33, 67-76.
Tewksbury, R. (1989a). Fear of sexual assault in prison inmates. The Prison Journal, 69, 62-71.
Tewksbury, R. (1989b). Measures of sexual behavior in an Ohio prison. Sociology and Social
Research, 74, 34-39.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1999). Women in prison: Sexual misconduct by correctional
staff. Washington, DC: Author.
Wooden, W. S., & Parker, J. (1982). Men behind bars: Sexual exploitation in prison. New York:
Plenum.
Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV LIBRARY on February 7, 2007
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
The http://tpj.sagepub.com/
Prison Journal
The Changing Nature of Interpersonal Relationships in a Women's Prison
KIMBERLY R. GREER
The Prison Journal 2000 80: 442
DOI: 10.1177/0032885500080004009
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/80/4/442
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Pennsylvania Prison Society
Additional services and information for The Prison Journal can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://tpj.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/80/4/442.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Dec 1, 2000
What is This?
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
THE PRISON
Greer
/ RELATIONSHIPS
JOURNAL /IN
December
A WOMEN’S
2000 PRISON
THE CHANGING NATURE OF
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
IN A WOMEN’S PRISON
KIMBERLY R. GREER
Minnesota State University, Mankato
It is generally assumed that the subcultures experienced by men and women in prison
are diametrically opposed. Previous research indicates that incarcerated women create more stable interpersonal relationships. Thirty-five women imprisoned in the
Midwest were interviewed, and their comments suggest the subculture found in
women’s prisons might be changing. While their observations support the notion that
prisons for women are generally less violent, involve less gang activity, and do not
facilitate the racial tensions evident in men’s prisons, the respondents indicated their
interpersonal relationships may be less stable and less familial than in the past. Specifically, participants discussed the high degree of mistrust inherent in their friendships with other female inmates. In addition, they reported numerous reasons women
engage in sexual relationships; however, they believe the primary motivation involves
economic manipulation. Finally, respondents did not report a significant or formal
enactment of familial networks. Factors which might influence such changes are
considered.
As of December 1999, approximately 1.4 million individuals were under
the jurisdiction of state and federal correctional institutions (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999). Of that number, 87,199 were women inmates (www.
ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct/htm, July 2000). Currently, women represent
about 6% of the total prison population (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999).
However, the number of female inmates increased 5.5% during a 12-month
period preceding June 1999 (www.ojp.usdon.gov/bjs/correct/htm, July
2000). Upward trends in the incarceration rates of women are attributed to a
combination of the new mandatory sentencing guidelines and the country’s
policy regarding intensified sanctions for drug charges (Bloom,
Chesney-Lind, & Owen, 1994; Nagel & Johnson, 1994). Women in prison
are more likely than their male counterparts to be incarcerated for offenses
involving drugs. Thirty-three percent of women in prisons in 1991 were conTHE PRISON JOURNAL, Vol. 80 No. 4, December 2000 442-468
© 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.
442
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Greer / RELATIONSHIPS IN A WOMEN’S PRISON
443
fined for drug offenses, whereas only 21% of male inmates were imprisoned
for drug charges (U.S. Department of Justice, 1991).
In 1996, women were convicted in state courts for 13,509 violent felonies,
69,536 property felonies, and 59,027 drug felonies (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999). Female and male inmates differ not only in terms of the crimes
they commit but also in the backgrounds and personal histories they bring to
the institution. Women are three times more likely to have suffered some type
of abuse than male inmates; almost 60% of incarcerated women report prior
physical and sexual abuse (U.S. Department of Justice, 1997). Female
offenders are more likely than male prisoners to have had members of their
families imprisoned (Pollock, 1998). In addition, women in prison more
often had primary caretaking responsibilities for their children than male
inmates. Approximately 7 in 10 women in prison have children under the age
of 18 years (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999). Therefore, approximately 1.3
million minor children have mothers who are incarcerated in a correctional
setting (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999). When men are incarcerated,
approximately 90% report that their children are in the custody of the mother
(U.S. Department of Justice, 1991). On the other hand, when women are confined in prison, only 25% indicate that their children are living with their
fathers. Instead, children of incarcerated mothers are more likely to be placed
in the custody of grandparents. Furthermore, about 6% of the female inmates
enter correctional institutions pregnant (U.S. Department of Justice, 1991).
Although prior research has explored the effect of incarceration on prison
inmates, most examinations have focused on male offenders. Female offenders now are receiving increased scholarly consideration, but a thorough
understanding of the perceptions and experiences of these women is still
lacking. Much of the information relevant to female offenders involves possible explanations for their criminality, new criminal trends, sentencing decisions, adjustments to imprisonment, or the differential treatment they receive
while confined (e.g., Boritch, 1992; Chesney-Lind, 1991; Fogel, 1993; MacKenzie, Robinson, & Campbell, 1989; Maher & Daly, 1996; Morash, Haarr, &
Rucker, 1994; Pollock, 1998; Steffensmeier, 1993).
In addition, earlier studies provide a better understanding of such topics as
the history of female penitentiaries and reformatories, possible explanations
for increased criminality on the part of women, and the inappropriateness of
specific rehabilitative programs for female offenders (e.g., Chesney-Lind,
1991; Morash et al., 1994; Nagel & Johnson, 1994; Rafter, 1990). Although
these examinations certainly address important issues related to women in
prison and have raised the consciousness of the public with regard to the
needs of female offenders, these explorations do not address the interpersonal relationships among female inmates that will be discussed in this study.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
444
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
Previous research provides a wealth of information related to the description of typical female inmates and treatment issues related to their incarceration. Although there have been several excellent ethnographic examinations
of prisons for women, there still seems to be a void in understanding the personal experiences of female inmates and how their perceptions shape their
interactions within the prison subculture.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The questions this research seeks to answer are as follows:
1. How do women construct the social culture in this particular institution?
2. In what ways might perceptions influence social interactions in the prison?
3. What factors influence relationships in prison?
OUR PREVIOUS UNDERSTANDING
OF RELATIONSHIPS IN WOMEN’S PRISONS
Women prisoners are still frequently referred to as forgotten offenders
(Chesney-Lind, 1986; Feinman, 1983; Fletcher, Shaver, & Moon, 1993; Goetting & Howsen, 1983; Morash et al., 1994; Pollock-Byrne, 1990; Simon &
Landis, 1991). The typical female inmate has never been married, is a woman
of color, is 25 to 29 years of age, and is a single parent with one to three children being cared for by her mother or grandparent (Fletcher et al., 1993;
Goetting & Howsen, 1983; Merlo & Pollock, 1995).
In addition, these offenders typically have been easily manipulated by
their peers, runaways from home, sexually abused as children, high school
dropouts, and arrested multiple times for property crimes (Chesney-Lind &
Rodriguez, 1983; Fletcher et al., 1993; Goetting & Howsen, 1983; Owen,
1998). Approximately half of the women in prison are African American,
even though only one in eight women in the United States is African American (Pollock, 1998).
Despite the recent advocacy for gender-responsive services for adolescent
girls and adult women offenders, institutional policy regarding the treatment
of female offenders has not followed a well-studied or consistent plan. A
review of the literature suggests women offenders receive less appropriate
programs and services than male inmates (Chesney-Lind & Rodriguez,
1983; Culbertson & Fortune, 1984; Genders & Player, 1991; Goetting &
Howsen, 1983; McCarthy, 1980). Bell (1976) noted that confinement in
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Greer / RELATIONSHIPS IN A WOMEN’S PRISON
445
prison may be a more difficult experience for women than men because they
are more likely to find the social isolation insufferable. Similarly, women do
not as readily become part of an inmate subculture and do not adhere as rigidly to an inmate code (Bell, 1976).
Sykes (1958) chronicled the “pains of imprisonment” (p. 63) suffered
by male inmates and provided a description of the subcultural roles men
adopted in prison to cope with such stressors and pressure. Research
revealed that men in prison experience numerous deprivations, and to deal
with these personal losses, they often develop and assume specific subcultural roles (Sykes, 1958).
Women inmates also experience pains of imprisonment (Faith, 1993;
Pollock, 1998). Faith (1993) cites a lengthy list of personal agonies encountered by women in prison (pp. 151-153), a few of which include the stigma of
incarceration, the claustrophobia of confinement, anxiety about one’s children, physical and emotional problems that accompany withdrawal from
alcohol and street drugs, insensitivities and abuses of power both by staff and
other inmates, and cognitive dissonance from not knowing how or whether to
express their feelings.
Whether women adopt prison subcultural roles is a question somewhat
open for debate. Giallombardo (1966) and Ward and Kassebaum (1965)
were some of the first researchers to study subcultures in prisons for women.
However, until recently, there have been very few studies examining the subcultures in prisons for either men or women (for more current research
involving female offenders, see Girshick, 1999; Owen, 1998; Pollock, 1998).
Early research (Giallombardo, 1966; Larsen & Nelson, 1984; Leger, 1987;
Propper, 1982, Ward & Kassebaum, 1965) identified the existence of
“pseudofamilies” that were kinship networks established by women to fulfill
lost familial roles such as daughter, wife, father, cousin, and grandmother.
Homosexual relationships were also discussed by these prior studies and
were found to form a significant aspect of the prison subculture for women.
Intimate relationships brought with them social structure demonstrated by
marriages and divorces as well as jealousy and power struggles (Pollock,
1998).
Although women do “form affectional ties that have some similarity to
familial relationships,” questions remain as to how pervasive and extensively
defined these kinship networks might be (Pollock, 1998, p. 38). There has
been some speculation that these types of prison relationships have diminished in recent years (Pollock, 1998). Those women who are alleged to be
involved in the prison subculture are described as “being less inclined to
introspection and continue to involve themselves in relationships, drugs, and
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
446
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
other distractions to divert their attention away from looking at their own
behavior” (Pollock, 1998, p. 39).
In her new book, Barbara Owen (1998) discusses relationships formed by
women in prison. Her interviews and observations revealed that female
offenders still participate in “play family” and form dyadic sexual relationships (p. 134). Obviously, relationships formed in prison, whether they are
friendships among inmates, sexual encounters, or interactions with correctional officers, are quite complex (Owen). Girshick (1999) found mixed reactions; some women still engage in forming kinship networks, but other individuals strongly disapproved of such relationships. Therefore, respected
scholars writing as late as 1998 report somewhat contradictory findings (see
Owen, 1998; Pollock, 1998).
Although the initial goals of this research focused on obtaining a thorough
understanding of how women in prison manage both their identity and emotions while in prison, I was informed by several women who participated in
exploratory (pilot) interviews that the one thing my interview schedule omitted was questions related to the intimate relationships between women in
prison. These respondents advised me that whether a woman was involved in
a sexual relationship with another inmate or not, she would be influenced by
the environment that such interactions create in the prison world. Therefore, I
added several questions inquiring into the perceptions of respondents related
to such relationships. As it turned out, the data generated by these additional
questions ultimately resulted in interesting results. The observations of these
respondents indicate that the nature of interpersonal relationships between
women inmates may be changing.
METHOD
A total of 35 female inmates from a midwestern state correctional institution participated in an in-depth, semistructured interview. To ensure correct,
as well as continuous and uninterrupted, data gathering, the research protocol
required that all interviews be tape-recorded using a microcassette recorder
(Patton, 1990). Taping the interviews was less obtrusive and provided more
accurate data gathering than taking notes based on the responses of female
offenders or relying on field notes compiled after the interaction (Lofland &
Lofland, 1995; Maxwell, 1996; Patton, 1990). Verbatim transcription of the
interview data occurred simultaneously with continuous data collection, thus
allowing for constant and ongoing comparisons of themes being discussed
during the interviews.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Greer / RELATIONSHIPS IN A WOMEN’S PRISON
447
DATA ANALYSIS
Following transcription of the interviews, the data were then read and analyzed by performing content analysis (see Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Lofland &
Lofland, 1995; Maxwell, 1996; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 1990;
Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). As Patton (1990) noted, “Content
analysis is the process of identifying, coding, and categorizing the primary
patterns in the data” (p. 381). This analysis reflected a continuous process
that began after the first interview had been conducted and was not completed
until long after the last interview had been concluded (Maxwell, 1996). The
average length of each transcribed interview was approximately 33 pages,
resulting in a total of 1,149 pages of data to analyze.
DESCRIPTION OF THE RESPONDENTS
Thirty-five women participated in interviews during the fall of 1997. At
the time this study was being conducted, a total of 238 women were incarcerated at this midwestern state correctional facility. In the interest of conserving space, Appendix A provides a comparison between the characteristics of
the sample and prison population, and Appendix B portrays descriptive
information for respondents related to age, race, type of crime committed,
and length of time served.
THE CHANGING NATURE OF SOCIAL
ENVIRONMENTS IN A WOMEN’S PRISON
During interviews, respondents painted a picture of the interpersonal
environment inside the walls of the institution that can best be described as
one based on manipulation and mistrust. The women discussed several different types of relationships: (a) friendships among female offenders, (b) sexual relationships among inmates, and (c) lack of kinship networks. All
aspects of their interpersonal environment are tainted with perceptions of
dishonesty, paranoia, and hostility. Most of the respondents preferred to view
themselves as “loners”; however, as the interviews revealed, avoiding any
type of interactions with other inmates or correctional officers is nearly
impossible in a closed environment.
FRIENDSHIPS AMONG FEMALE OFFENDERS
One type of relationship discussed by female inmates involved friendships with other inmates. There were several different aspects of the friend-
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
448
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
ships described by the women at this correctional facility. However, the pervasive attitude held by the respondents regarding prison friendships was that
any individual who engaged in this type of interaction did so at her own risk.
Most of the women I talked with wanted to demonstrate a rather rigid stance
against prison friendships. Twenty-one respondents voluntarily described
themselves as “loners” at some point during our conversations. Conversely,
there were those individuals who talked about forming intense friendships
with other women incarcerated at this and other facilities. Phyllis made the
following statement while discussing the differences between friends “on the
street” and friendships formed in prison: “It is based purely on feelings in
here. Out there, you know you run into each other, you are friends, you talk.
In here it just, you get dependent upon each other emotionally.”
Many respondents believed they had not formed close relationships with
any of the other women who were also incarcerated at this institution. They
indicated that this lack of friendship was the result of conscious decisions and
behaviors on their part. Repeatedly, women referred to “associates” when
asked whether they had formed any friendships in prison. One respondent
after another appeared to use the distinction between friend and associate to
distinguish the important difference they perceived between “real” friends
and people with whom they simply interacted. For example, Kimberly had
this response to a question about friendships:
I have no friends; I have associates . . . even my MOOR [religion] sisters . . . or
my Islam sister . . . even them are not my friends and that is sad to say . . . it is
very conscious on my part because I am conscious of the other moves, snake
moves. . . . I feel deprived because I know that somewhere you can have a good
friend. But at the same time it is okay with me because I know where I am at. I
know my surrounding. And I know that I can’t really trust anybody here fully.
Explaining why she so strongly distrusts the other women who are incarcerated with her, Kimberly continued,
You deal with a bunch of people every day with different attitudes and different
thoughts. You don’t know how they going to be today, you don’t know how
they going to be tomorrow. Today they’re fine, tomorrow they’re not. . . . You’re
really taking a chance on whether you can have a relationship with someone
here and I don’t want to take that chance.
Preoccupation with the motives and intentions of other women prisoners
caused respondents to forego establishing close relationships with others.
Although they might express regret for this forced sense of isolation, they
nonetheless thought abstaining was the wisest choice.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Greer / RELATIONSHIPS IN A WOMEN’S PRISON
449
Besides the element of mistrust, an additional factor that influenced hesitation at forming friendships had to do with the transitory nature of relationships developed in prison. Respondents indicated that forming friendships
takes time, and after an individual leaves the correctional institution, often
interpersonal contact is severed. Joan explained why she had chosen not to
develop friends in prison:
I don’t have any friends in prison. . . . I been here for a while so I have met a lot
of women. Some of the same ones come and go, three or four times . . . and they
say, “I will write you as soon as I get out.” But you never hear from them . . . so
they want to be your friend while they are here. You are a friend inside, but
probably never see them again and never hear from them again unless they
come back through and you are here.
Because these relationships are perceived as being temporary, respondents
may attempt to avoid close friendships in an effort to avoid negative feelings
associated with those times in which one person or the other is released.
Many respondents mentioned the sadness evoked when a friend was either
released or transferred to another institution. Also acknowledging the temporary nature of these alliances during her interview, Brenda commented,
I don’t think friendships inside could compare with friendships outside . . . if
you want to be an acquaintance or whatever, you might as well do it now
because once you walk out them gates . . . you have to get your life back on
track again. Maybe you might call this person once or twice but eventually it
just fades out.
Although the experiences these women share in prison could possibly
serve to form tight bonds, the mutual problems that bring them to this facility
can also contribute to complicated relationships. As Paula noted in the following remark, women prisoners often share similar backgrounds and perceptions, which logically might forge a strong bond. However, those common experiences can prove simultaneously problematic to healthy, sustained
relationships in the real world. While discussing this precarious bond, Paula
stated,
I am okay with them [friendships] to a certain extent because I have formed
relationships before in prison with women and like I say, most of us that are in
prison are some type of users, or addicted to something and when we depart
and go back on the street, if I am doing good, they are not doing good. If they
are doing good, I’m not doing good . . . it really hurts to see that when the other
one is doing good and you aren’t.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
450
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
A few respondents indicated that although they were very selective about
the individuals with whom they chose to develop friendships, they nonetheless did allow one or more people in their lives they felt were good, trustworthy companions. While describing her current friends, Molly stated,
The only friends I have now are the friends I have made since I have been down,
which is a handful. They are not actually criminals by trade [laughs] . . . they
just made some bad choices. Some of them are out now, got their lives pretty
well together and we write and we keep in touch. And as far as a really good
friendship when I get out, that, time will tell. You don’t make a friend overnight
and you don’t make a friend on this side of the fence either and expect it to be
the same out there.
An even smaller number of women discussed relationships in which the
friends were portrayed as extremely significant persons in their lives. On the
basis of the rather positive interpretation of her friendship, Molly proceeded
to reflect on how forming a relationship in prison made her feel:
Everybody has to have someone that they can trust to talk to about certain
things in here and well, you know as well as I do that you can’t talk to one person about everything. You have one friend that you can talk to about this and
you have another friend that you can talk to about that; you just can’t talk to one
friend about everything because they probably wouldn’t understand. You have
different friends who fulfill different roles for you definitely, and that makes me
feel pretty good in here.
A few women disagreed with popular institutional wisdom regarding a
need for remoteness in interpersonal relationships. Barbara was one respondent who seemed to have a fairly strong resistance toward the majority’s perception about the negative repercussions that prison friendships can create
for an individual. However, she seemed to find this attitude difficult to accept
based more on pragmatism rather than some more complicated interpersonal
need. While discussing the predominant attitude toward prison friendships,
Barbara reported,
A lot of people say you don’t have friends in the penitentiary . . . you don’t
come here to make friends. Well, I didn’t come here to make friends but it is
inevitable. You are living with 300 and some women, it is not easy being alone.
So you cannot tell me that you will go and spend your whole day not having one
friend in this whole institution. I can’t see it.
The primary theme that emerged from the conversations about friendships
in prison focused on the women’s distrust of close interpersonal relationships
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Greer / RELATIONSHIPS IN A WOMEN’S PRISON
451
with other female offenders. Whether their misgivings were based on personal experiences or observations of other interactions is unknown. Comments made by respondents suggested inmates frequently mention the carelessness inherent in allowing other people to know too much about oneself.
Although these women appeared to perceive their peers as being manipulative and self-serving, the majority nonetheless reported having at least one
person whom they considered a friend. Those who did not develop friendships had what they described as associates or individuals with whom they
interacted with on a superficial basis. Based on the remarks of respondents, it
seems doubtful that very many of these friendships survive transfer to other
institutions or release from custody altogether. However, comments made by
the women often appeared contradictory in that they discussed the apprehension they have about forming friendships, yet they appeared to establish
some form of relationship with at least one other female inmate. Such discordant remarks may simply reflect the existence of conflict between attitudes
and behaviors. For instance, although they perceived the social environment
of the institution as manipulative and dysfunctional, most respondents still
did not prevent themselves from developing friendships. Skeptical attitudes
held about prison friendships were also consistent with those sentiments
expressed about the sexually intimate relationships between women inmates.
SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS AMONG INMATES
All but three women either described their attitudes toward and participation (or lack thereof) in sexual relationships with other female prisoners. This
was a subject that most women felt strongly about, either positively or negatively. However, 28% of respondents reported experiencing relatively neutral
feelings toward participation in sexual relationships by other women. These
respondents indicated that although they did not wish to become involved in
intimate relationships with other women, they did not judge harshly those
individuals who did choose to engage in such activity. Interestingly, although
most respondents described sexual relationships among women as being
extremely prevalent (one woman even guessed the participation level as
being as high as 90% of all female inmates), only 10 of 35 women admitted
ever having been involved in a sexual relationship in prison. At the time interviews were conducted, 5 respondents reported currently being sexually
involved with another inmate. In addition, 2 women identified themselves as
lesbians, and 1 woman reported she was bisexual. Of these 3 women, 2 indicated they chose not to participate in sexual relationships in prison because of
the manipulative nature of the relationships.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
452
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
Information provided by these respondents suggests that the nature of
sexual relationships in prison may be slowly changing. Burkhart (1973),
Giallombardo (1966), Hawkins (1995), and Ward and Kassebaum (1965)
concluded that incarcerated women chose to form homosexual relationships
with other inmates as one technique for lessening the pains of imprisonment.
According to Giallombardo (1966), “The vast majority of inmates adjust to
the prison world by establishing a homosexual alliance with a compatible
partner as a marriage partner” (p. 136). Although it might have been true that
the “vast majority” of inmates at Alderson prison participated in sexual relationships to ease the physical and psychological discomfort of imprisonment
by selecting personally compatible partners, that may not presently be the
primary motivation. According to responses made by women in this study,
homosexual relationships are a fairly significant aspect (both for those who
do participate and those who do not approve of such behavior) of the prison
culture, but there were a number of respondents who indicated that they have
chosen not to participate. Therefore, involvement in these relationships may
not be as pervasive as previously discovered and when formed, may be initiated for different reasons. Findings from this study also suggest that these
respondents believe sexual relationships are based primarily on manipulation rather than on any perception of compatibility or genuine attraction
between partners.
The reactions toward homosexual relationships fell along a continuum,
from attitudes that were very accepting to comments indicative of very intolerant perceptions. For instance, Elaine volunteered, “After my divorce . . . I
was in a relationship with a female on the street and I have been in one since I
was here and it was for 13½ months.” Conversely, an example of intolerance
was provided by Joan, who stated:
It makes me sick. In the bathrooms, you might be going to take a shower and
you . . . open the curtain and you get shocked . . . if you happen to be in the
room . . . like a ten-man room and it goes on at night time . . . so you kind of stop
up your ears and face the wall . . . and pray that you don’t hear it.
Of course, there were a number of women who reported feeling fairly neutral
or nonjudgmental about these types of sexual involvement. For example,
Paula commented, “I don’t have anything against it. I mean if that’s their
choice then that is their choice. I am not here to judge them.”
Throughout the course of this study, these women discussed a number of
motivations they considered possible impetuses for participation in sexual
relationships. On the basis of their comments, seven categories of motivations emerged from the data: economic motivation, sincere relationship,
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Greer / RELATIONSHIPS IN A WOMEN’S PRISON
453
loneliness, curiosity, sexual identity, peer pressure, and other (sexual release
and diversion from the boredom). See Appendix C for a display of respondents’ perceptions related to possible explanations for this type of interpersonal relationship.
Economic manipulation. One element of homosexual relationships that
may have changed since the earlier examinations of women’s prisons is
related to the issue of clearly delineated sex roles. Earlier research (Burkhart,
1973; Giallombardo, 1966, p. 136; Ward & Kassebaum, 1965) strongly suggested that women who became involved in sexual relationships did so by
adopting “overtly assumed” sex roles. Such roles have commonly been
referred to as femme and stud broad. Previous scholarly works (Burkhart,
1973; Giallombardo, 1966; Hawkins, 1995; Ward & Kassebaum, 1965) note
that inmates even conform their physical appearance to stereotypical
assumptions about sex roles. Although I did not specifically ask women
whether they played these types of roles, responses did not reflect that these
were commonly assumed ways of behaving.
Most respondents did not seem to be trying to portray overly feminine or
masculine qualities. During their reflections about the nature of homosexual
relationships and the impact these associations have on institutional life, only
a couple of women ever referred to other inmates according to clearly defined
roles (i.e., “bulldagging”). Giallombardo (1966) thought by adopting either
male or female sex roles and establishing sexual relationships, women in
prison were reconstructing a “substitute universe” to adapt to the loss of the
roles they performed in the real world (p. 103). However, these women did
not seem to be involved in trying to recreate alternative social worlds. If anything, these women reported being focused on not forming any close,
long-lasting relationships within the institution walls.
My respondents would adamantly disagree with the thought that “mate
selection is based upon romantic love” (Giallombardo, 1966, p. 141), as it
relates to sexual relationships in prison. Based on the comments obtained by
these incarcerated women, the notion that women become involved with
each other in prison on the basis of some concept of romance is erroneous in
today’s correctional institutions for women. Similarly, opinions furnished by
respondents would not support the assertion made by Ward and Kassebaum
(1965) when they reported, “The process of turning out thus seems to represent socialization of the new inmates into practices which provide support,
guidance, and emotional satisfaction during a period when these are lacking”
(p. 78).
Although respondents observed that there are numerous motivations for
beginning and maintaining a sexual relationship, 25 women (71%) specu-
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
454
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
lated that the primary reason involved what they described as economic
manipulation. Repeatedly, female inmates described the element of dishonesty as being pervasive in all prison relationships, but most especially those
that involved sexual intimacy. Many women could think of several different
reasons why women would pursue or participate in these intimate activities,
but foremost in their minds was the issue of unequal access to money and
material goods.
Women consistently referred to “canteen whores” or “commissary
whores” when describing those inmates who participated in sexual relationships simply to improve their economic standing. All inmates are required to
work if they are not in school, but this does not necessarily result in an equal
distribution of income. Different job assignments receive varying amounts of
financial compensation. The least amount of money an inmate could receive
each month was $7.50, and the most was approximately $20.00. This money
is credited to an inmate account and can be used by the women to purchase
items from the commissary (canteen) or materials can be ordered from
approved catalogs. In addition, some inmates have family and friends who
send money to their inmate accounts; this money can also be spent by the
inmate at the commissary, on catalog orders, or electronic possessions such
as televisions and radios that can only be purchased from the state.
As in free society, the inequalities in economic status contributed to power
differentials. Women prisoners who have more money are perceived as being
more influential in the correctional facility than those individuals who have
less monetary support. For example, while discussing possible positive and
negative results of sexual relationships between inmates, Joan described how
prisoners look for outward signs of financial status before selecting a possible
partner. She stated,
It is canteen for women who don’t have money. . . . They always find someone
that has got money. . . . Everybody knows when someone has money, and they
will sit and watch who has the big bags that comes from the store and who goes
to the store every week.
Voicing her agreement that the inequality in terms of what inmates have to
spend on the discretionary items within the correctional institution influences relationships, Sarafina remarked, “Some people . . . go to the store and
don’t have a girlfriend. They try to use people . . . you don’t even know this
person but you are doing that because you know they got money on the
books.”
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Greer / RELATIONSHIPS IN A WOMEN’S PRISON
455
Inmates who receive financial support from significant others may find
themselves having more discretion as to whether they become involved in
sexual relationships with other women. Sarafina credited her family’s economic support with allowing her to not become sexually involved when she
commented,
I am not rich; I am not wealthy, but I’m well looked out [for]. Certain people do
certain things around here, that get their little hustle along, have their little cigarettes or buy soap, whatever, because they don’t have people looking out for
them, and that is hard.
Echoing the consistent concern that these relationships are inherently dishonest and manipulative, Barbara, who had been involved sexually with
another inmate, described the majority of women’s motivations as being
related to this inherent economic inequality when she said,
A lot of people do it for money. Here it is a money thing. It is not about people’s
feelings or it is all [a] game really and so, people when you are broke and only
get $7.50 a month and somebody may get $250.00 a week or month . . . it begins
to be attractive to you.
The fact that money plays a significant role in the perpetuation of at least
the more temporary and manipulative sexual relationships did not seem to
come as a surprise to any of the women. Although none of these respondents
admitted ever being involved in a sexual relationship because of money, they
certainly had no compunction about pointing their fingers at their peers.
Women who participated in the research indicated that this focus on the
exchange of material goods is not a well-kept secret, yet this knowledge evidently does not deter the deceptive behavior. Nor does it prohibit individuals
from being taken advantage of during their involvement with others.
Respondents indicated that often women take advantage of each other on
more than one occasion. They described instances where one woman will
indicate a desire to be with someone else sexually only around the time when
canteen orders can be placed. After she has provided the material items, the
woman with the money may not see nor hear from her friend until the next
time she can place an order at the canteen.
Loneliness and companionship. The economic factor may explain why
some women engage in sexual relationships with other inmates, but it surely
cannot explain all the possible reasons for such relationships. Eighteen
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
456
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
respondents (51%) perceived that loneliness and the need for companionship
provided an incentive for some women to participate in sexual activities. For
one respondent, it was important that she make it clear that she did not need
anyone and preferred not to be involved with anyone; however, she did recognize that some women initiate or succumb to relationships because they need
the companionship of others to survive incarceration. Sarafina, who advised
me that her prior employment involved stripping and running an escort service, concluded,
I’m not looking for a relationship. Some people they do look for relationships
and they want, they need someone to spend time with. I’m not saying that I
have never been with a woman because when I was, it was business and not
pleasure. They get into relationships because they have people that have more
time and they need to do their time with somebody.
Indicating that individuals may engage in sexual relationships because of
a profound need for belonging, Kimberly noted that the desire these women
are acting on may have developed prior to their imprisonment. While discussing why women become sexually involved with other female inmates,
Kimberly reflected, “Love, they didn’t have that when they was coming up
[growing up] and they try to find it here. It be false love, but to them it’s basically all they’ve ever had, so they hold on to it.”
Somewhat related to the issue of loneliness is the idea, consistent with previous research (Burkhart, 1973; Giallombardo, 1966; Girshick, 1999; Ward &
Kassebaum, 1965), that sexual relationships assist women in serving their
prison time with the least amount of psychological discomfort. Phyllis stated,
Women [who] have never done it out on the streets and will never do it again,
they usually do it in here and it is a lonely thing and it is also that little dance you
do when you fall in love with somebody . . . that good feeling that you get over
somebody pursuing or whatever. They get that charge and they miss that.
Thus, the excitement one may experience when initiating a new love affair
can serve to distract one’s attention away from the harsh realities of the correctional facility and provide a rationale for engaging in a homosexual relationship. Pressure to conform exists inside a prison as well. Several respondents listed curiosity and the desire to “fit in” as other possible explanations
for women’s sexual involvement with other inmates. The idea of wanting to
fit in suggests a normative aspect to sexual relationships in this prison and
many women did suggest that these types of interactions are prevalent.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Greer / RELATIONSHIPS IN A WOMEN’S PRISON
457
Sincere couples versus dibbling and dabbling. For most of these respondents, the nature of prison relationships revolves around deceit, deception,
distrust, and manipulation. These qualities were also evident in their
thoughts on sexual relationships in the correctional facility. However, there
were relationships, including their own, that they could describe more
positively.
Women who were perceived as being involved in sincere, long-lasting,
committed relationships were accorded a special status by respondents. In
the eyes of these women, there was a tremendous difference between those
individuals who “play games” with each other for canteen privileges and
female inmates who nurture stable, monogamous, and caring relationships
with each other. Only 9 of the 35 women (26%) interviewed mentioned genuine affection as being a possible explanation for sexual relationships. While
discussing these rare but more respected relationships, Brenda reflected,
“There is some that they are in a relationship because they care . . . probably
five or six couples on this grounds that have been in a relationship for some
years.” Several respondents noted specifically that lesbians (those who identified themselves as such before they were imprisoned) sometimes formed
the most stable relationships in prison or chose not to participate whatsoever
for the duration of their imprisonment. Ashley, who identified herself as
bisexual, believed there was a noticeable difference in the behaviors of
women who had homosexual experience prior to incarceration and those
individuals whose first encounters occur in prison. She commented,
With a lot of them, they come in . . . and they start participating and . . . they
don’t really know what they are doing anyway so they really get used because
they go from individual to individual to individual. But the ones that have been
doing it for awhile or had did it before they came to the penitentiary, you can tell
it because they might be with one woman for the next six years. You can tell the
difference.
While contemplating the nature of relationships among women, Jade
reflected on the difference between temporary and long-lasting interactions.
After informing me that she was not a lesbian or homophobic, Jade reported,
There are some women here who have been together almost 10 years. To me,
they are real and they are going to do 10 or longer together. They have got 30,
they have got life, and if I was in that position, I would probably do the same
thing and I would find a companion.
Inmates who are able to maintain caring, sincere interactions are accorded
a certain degree of respect. Paula, who indicates she has nothing against indi-
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
458
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
viduals who participate in sexual relationships, reported that she can see both
positive and negative aspects to their involvement:
I see both sides . . . because I see the ones that are real about it, that don’t play, it
is not just a prison game thing. It is a person that is truly a lesbian that truly has a
real lover . . . and there is no dibbling and dabbling, you know it is just them
two. Now the negative [side], them are the ones that move from one to the other,
playing all kind of games in prison.
One of the unfortunate outcomes of intimate relationships mentioned by
several women reflected the importation of domestic violence into the correctional facility. Although none of them reported having experienced violence at the hands of intimate others in prison, several women commented on
having seen abuse within the prison walls. Some respondents explained that
attempts to control others serve as an incentive not to become involved in intimate prison relationships. While describing the downfalls of sexual relationships that often revolve around jealousy and mistrust, Jade asserted,
They fight . . . and it is jealous like . . . hollering at her, “you don’t do this, you
don’t talk to her, you don’t give her nothing, you don’t take nothing, you do
what I say, I am here for you.” I don’t think so. You know, I mean personally, I
ate enough shit off men [not] to have a woman check [control] me. It is not
going to happen.
Throughout the course of these interviews, none of the respondents
seemed surprised or offended by the inclusion of questions related to sexual
behavior. Obviously, some women were more eager to explore and explain
the nature of these relationships than were others. On the basis of their comments, I gathered that intimate personal relationships still are a significant
aspect of the interpersonal prison environment. However, rather than being
generally neutral or positive strategies to address the harshness of confinement, these relationships are perceived as being interpersonally risky behavior. The unease with which women view these relationships may help explain
why there appeared to be a lack of what has previously been described as
pseudofamilies in women’s prisons.
LACK OF KINSHIP NETWORKS
Observations made by the respondents in this study suggested that
changes in the experiences of female inmates have obviously occurred during
the past 34 years (since Giallombardo’s early research). For instance,
although previous research, as well as these respondents, noted that one of the
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Greer / RELATIONSHIPS IN A WOMEN’S PRISON
459
goals of those imprisoned is to do “easy time” rather than focusing on the
experiences of friends and family members in the real world, they differ in
how that time may be completed with the least amount of psychological grief
possible. According to Giallombardo (1966),
The inmates’ psychological transition of self from civil society to the prison
world may be considered complete when the individual reacts neutrally to
events in the outside world, even when these events concern crucial matters
pertaining to close family members. (p. 135)
There may exist a misconception that very few inmates actually maintain
contact with their friends and family members once incarcerated. However,
respondents indicated through their interview comments that they do perpetuate fairly consistent interaction with family members. Very few women
reported consistent visitation with children and family for various reasons.
However, through mail and telephone contact, they do remain current on
what is taking place with significant others.
Giallombardo (1966) found that among the women at Alderson Federal
Women’s Prison, same-sex relationships served to form the foundation of the
pseudofamily networks. The kinship ties that revolve around the couple help
to create barriers around individuals who are not available for the sexual relationships and provide stability and emotional support to these individuals.
Giallombardo speculated that without kinship ties, the prison environment
could become tremendously chaotic. In addition to determining which individuals are off-limits as romantic interests, family networks can also be
advantageous to groups of women by providing a sense of protection, companionship, and mutual aid (Giallombardo, 1966; Hawkins, 1995).
Contrary to much of the early research examining the experiences of
women in correctional institutions, these respondents described an individualistic approach to doing time rather than a kinship structure that developed
in other facilities. Whereas Burkhart (1973), Giallombardo (1966), Hawkins
(1995), Owen (1998), and Ward and Kassebaum (1965) discussed the existence of family kinship networks and same-sex relationships, the findings
from this research suggest some subtle changes in the manner in which
women in prison go about doing their time.
In her classic study of a women’s prison, Giallombardo (1966) explained
that women experience similar “pains of imprisonment” (Sykes, 1958, p. 63)
as encountered by male prisoners. However, she concluded that women create a “separate universe” (Giallombardo, 1966, p. 103) from which they can
maintain an identity or sense of self that is relevant to the outside world. This
perception led Giallombardo to recognize that women in prison established
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
460
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
relationships with other prisoners that were consistent with, as well as familiar to, relationships they had with significant others outside of prison. In
essence, female inmates recreate familial and sexual relationships based on
the same cultural expectations of women in the larger society.
Kinship networks might also help provide a larger group of individuals
from whom the inmate could receive emotional support and socialization
into the role of prison inmate (Giallombardo, 1966). In explaining the existence of pseudofamily relationships, Giallombardo (1966) stated, “The family group in the female prison is singularly suited to meet the internalized cultural expectations of the female role. It serves the social, psychological, and
physiological needs of the female inmates” (p. 185). Giallombardo elaborated that these needs may arise from several different sources, such as the
prison environment itself (deprivation model), women’s personalities, and a
sense of dependence based on the cultural expectations of women. In other
words, women experience a need to form relatively close familial relationships, even in a correctional facility, because of previous socialization experiences and gender expectations.
The 35 women interviewed for this research did not relate examples of
similar types of prison relationships. In a few occasions, respondents discussed very loosely established familial acknowledgments, but none of these
relationships approximated the rather structured and stable kinship networks
described by Burkhart (1973) and Giallombardo (1966). Most women either
did not refer to these types of relationships based on their experiences and
observations or, when asked, responded directly that those kinds of interpersonal interactions really did not occur at this institution. However, a few
women discussed knowing women in the prison whom they referred to by
some term of endearment such as “Mom,” “Grandma,” “Sister,” or “Cousin.”
For example, Destiny commented,
I do that myself [referring to playing family roles]. The trouble is, it’s kinda
funny because there is this one Black lady, she is like in her 50s and I call her
mom. And she, I go “mom” and she comes up to me and gives me a hug and all
that stuff. I mean, everybody looked at me, like that ain’t your mom is it? I said,
“sure.” And I got them to believing it and started laughing, and I said, “No, she
is just, she is like a mother role in my life here.
This respondent was one of the youngest women interviewed, and she looked
even younger than her chronological age. Therefore, the fact that she would
want to be mothered was not surprising. During her interactions with correctional officers, she also conducted herself in a rather childlike manner. While
she was describing the nature of what she perceives to be a family-like rela-
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Greer / RELATIONSHIPS IN A WOMEN’S PRISON
461
tionship, her remarks indicated that other women found her calling another
woman “Mom” confusing. If the establishment of kinship networks were
widespread and pervasive within the institution, others would not be surprised at the use of such titles. Respondents suggested that structured or formal family roles were not performed in this prison even though some older
women might be perceived as behaving in a motherly fashion.
Hence, even kinship networks suffer from the perception that no one in the
institution can be trusted. Again, the overwhelming theme of manipulation
and mistrust seemed to permeate all interpersonal interactions inside the
walls of this facility. One of the more open and trusting women to participate
in this study acknowledged the tug of family bonds. Ashley commented,
Like I got a roommate and nearly everybody calls her Mom because she is
elderly. We got a older White lady and everybody calls her Grandmother. Me
and my roommate calls each other sisters all the time. I treat her like my baby
sister.
Rather than being highly structured and important responses to the pains
of imprisonment, family roles do not appear to play a significant part in the
day-to-day lives of respondents. Even for those women who admit referring
to others as, or considering someone, a family member, the expressions they
make toward each other are more representative of respectful terms of
endearment rather than acknowledgment of more formal kinship roles.
Respondents do not perceive clearly defined family relationships as part of
their interpersonal environment.
DISCUSSION
Themes that emerged during analysis of these data were similar to findings reported previously in literature related to contemporary men’s prisons
(Irwin, 1980; Irwin & Austin, 1997; Johnson, 1996). Because of changes in
the diversity of persons being committed to correctional institutions, as well
as the move away from rehabilitation toward a more custodial function for
prisons, there no longer exists a singular inmate code or subculture (Irwin,
1980; Irwin & Austin, 1997; Johnson, 1996). Instead, male prisons have
become much more volatile and less cohesive institutions than those represented during the 1950s (Irwin, 1980; Irwin & Austin, 1997). Responses provided by these women suggest that similarly, changes in female prison subcultures may also be occurring. Rather than forming pseudofamilies and
relatively caring dyadic relationships, these women demonstrate through
their comments a fear of forming close relationships with other female pris-
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
462
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
oners. “Doing time” was perceived as being a solitary process, especially if
one wanted to avoid as many problems as possible. Therefore, respondents
really were hesitant about developing friendships with other prisoners. The
prison subculture encountered by these women certainly appears different
from the one experienced by women incarcerated in the 1960s, 1970s, and
1980s.
In some ways, the reactions of respondents were comparable with the
experiences of their male counterparts. Like these women, Irwin (1980)
noted that withdrawal also was one technique employed by some male
inmates wishing to avoid conflicts in their unstable prison environments.
Male prisoners increasingly choose to avoid the more communal areas of the
correctional institution and limit their personal interactions to a few trusted
friends in an effort to survive their confinement (Irwin, 1980).
Where the interactions among this group of women differ from findings
in male prisons was in the area of racial and ethnic tensions, as well as
reported gang activity (see also Owen, 1998). Again, literature involving
contemporary prisons for men describe the interactions between racially
and ethnically diverse groups as being extremely violent and contributing
to the demise of a singular, cohesive inmate subculture (Hassine, 1996;
Irwin, 1980; Irwin & Austin, 1997; Johnson, 1996). Gang activity is intimately tied to the various racial and ethnic identities represented in men’s
prisons and also is a significant factor influencing the perception among
male inmates that the prison subculture is stratified along lines of power and
violence (Irwin, 1980; Irwin & Austin, 1997; Johnson, 1996).
Although a few respondents commented they believed a portion of the
correctional officers and other female inmates were prejudiced, overwhelmingly racial differences were not discussed by the women. Only during conversations about whether the two racial groups express their feelings differently did respondents report variations between the two groups of women.
Respondents described friendships and sexual relationships involving
women of different races. Where pseudofamilies have been found to exist,
often “prison families cross racial lines” (Alarid, 1997). Similarly, women
portrayed this institution as being relatively free of any gang activity. A few
respondents believed there were a small number of women in the prison who
might qualify as “gang wannabes,” but there was not any recognized gang
membership. Only three respondents acknowledged having been members
of a gang on the street.
These findings suggest that in some ways the experiences of women in
prison coincide with those of their male counterparts. Specifically, the diversified and stratified contemporary prison subcultures present frightening,
unstable living environments for both groups of offenders. However, racial
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Greer / RELATIONSHIPS IN A WOMEN’S PRISON
463
conflicts and gang activity have affected women’s prisons less than correctional institutions for men.
In summary, comments made by respondents suggest changes in the interpersonal environment of women’s prisons. Because this study involves a
small sample derived from a single correctional institution, the findings may
not be generalizable to other prisons for women. However, based on the
results of this examination, future research that further examines the prison
relationships of women (and the factors that influence social interaction)
might prove fruitful. The overall interpersonal environment was depicted by
respondents as being one that is manipulative and distrustful. Intimate sexual
relationships are formed primarily on the basis of game playing and economic manipulation. Strong kinship networks previously observed in
women’s prisons were essentially nonexistent in this facility.
There may be several possible explanations for why the experiences of
these respondents differed from those reported by earlier researchers
(Burkhart, 1973; Giallombardo, 1966; Ward & Kassebaum, 1965). One factor that may account for the lack of cohesiveness among inmates is the
change in the physical environment of women’s prisons. Early studies were
conducted in the 1960s and 1970s when many women’s facilities were built
around the cottage system, wherein women were assigned to homelike
dwellings. Giallombardo (1966) noted that cottages were remnants of the
reform movement during which time the emphasis was placed on rehabilitating fallen women. Reformers believed these women might be more easily
rehabilitated if they were incarcerated in facilities that were reminiscent of
home. Perhaps living in a cottage setting facilitated the formation of dyadic
homosexual relationships based on more positive motives than economic
manipulation.
Likewise, a homelike environment might be more conducive to the formation of family networks than cells or dormitory settings. Individual living
rooms, kitchens, and dining rooms would be more conducive to facilitating a
family-like environment than more institutional contexts. The prison where
this research was conducted used a series of dormitories to house the inmates,
with one centralized kitchen and dining room used by all the women. Some
of these dormitory rooms held up to 10 women, and the smallest rooms had at
least 4 women per room. Perhaps this kind of living arrangement is not conducive for the development of intimate relationships or kinship networks.
Variation in prison sentences might influence the nature of prison relationships. I am not aware of the average length of incarceration of the
Alderson Prison women, but perhaps differing periods of time in prison can
have an impact on the development of intimate or kinship relationships.
Giallombardo (1966) commented that short sentences may contribute to
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
464
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
individuals choosing not to participate in homosexual relationships (p. 128).
However, these respondents had served an average of 7.08 months at this particular facility and had been in custody for an average of 28.5 months at the
time interviews were conducted.
Another plausible explanation for the change is related to the passage of
time itself. Early research suggested that the reason for the formation of sexual and kinship relationships was a cultural expectation regarding women.
Giallombardo (1966) speculated that by forming these kinds of relationships
in prison, female inmates were simply responding to these cultural expectations about gender roles. Perhaps female inmates incarcerated in the 1990s
are responding to different cultural expectations for women in general. Perhaps female inmates bring with them alternative perceptions about acceptable roles for women. On the basis of the comments of respondents, one
might question whether these individuals additionally are not as strongly tied
to their various social roles as might be expected. These respondents did not
seem to be strongly invested in any particular social roles, including those
related to gender. Although Owen (1998) is correct in suggesting that scholars must remember the pressures associated with a patriarchal society and the
gendered nature of all social roles, these particular women indicated they
were much more invested in their personal identities (individuality) rather
than social identities (those roles that place them socially). Perhaps this focus
made it difficult to create supportive interpersonal relationships and contributed to the prevalent feelings of social withdrawal.
The contradictory nature of relationships experienced in various women’s
prisons around the country may reflect the complexity of such interpersonal
interactions, the social histories that accompany the women, and the changing cultural expectations influencing the subculture of women’s prisons. Perhaps changes in the larger society are imported within the walls of the institution and are reflected in the changes described in intimate relationships.
Importation of societal attitudes and changes in cultural expectations may
provide insights into the altered interpersonal environment of this women’s
correctional institution (see also Girshick, 1999).
Perhaps the most promising explanations involve the changing nature of
prisons in general. As noted previously, the social environment described by
the women in this prison is similar in nature to that portrayed in literature pertaining to male correctional institutions. Contemporary prisons are more
open systems rather than the stereotypical “total” institution considered representative of all correctional facilities in the past. Inmates are no longer
completely closed off from the rest of society. Male and female prisoners can
maintain contact with significant others and continue to be influenced by the
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Greer / RELATIONSHIPS IN A WOMEN’S PRISON
465
larger culture through television, radio, movies, correspondence, literature,
and visits with family members.
Moreover, the inmate culture has become more complex and complicated
due to the importation of various lifestyles and backgrounds by a divergent
inmate population. The influences male and female prisoners bring with
them to the correctional institution are now considered to be more significant
than the indigenous deprivations associated with prisons. Such social influences have contributed to the demise of a singular prison subculture. Both
male and female inmates may come to perceive withdrawal and social isolation as the best techniques for adjusting to prison life. Obviously, such a modification in the subculture of women’s prisons would not necessarily be viewed
as a positive change. Although feminist criminologists have been advocating
equality in services for women offenders, creating male-based programs and
environments has not been the goal. Supporters of gender-responsive services for adolescent girls and adult women offenders recognize the
neccessity of designing institutional programs and environments that address
the unique gender and cultural needs of the women confined therein.
APPENDIX A
Comparison Between Sample and Population Based on
Age, Sentence, Length of Time Served, and Race
Characteristic
Sample
Age
Sentence
Time served
Time served here
Race
Prison Population
33.05 years
6.68 years
28.5 months
7.08 months
Caucasian = 54%
African American = 43%
Other = 3%
33.35 years
5.86 years
19.76 months
4.98 months
Caucasian = 45%
African American = 55%
Other = 0.0%
APPENDIX B
Description of Respondents—Age, Race,
Type of Crime, Length of Time Served (N = 35)
Characteristic
Number
Age
25 years or less
26-39 years
40 years and older
Total
Race
7
21
7
35
Percentage
20
60
20
100
(continued)
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
466
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
APPENDIX B Continued
Characteristic
Caucasian
African American
Other
Total
Type of crimea
Violent
Property
Substance abuse
Total
Length of time served
Less than 1 year
1 to 5 years
5 or more years
Total
Number
Percentage
19
15
1
35
54.29
42.86
2.86
100.01
13
16
11
40
32.50
40.00
27.50
100
19
13
3
35
54.29
37.14
8.57
100
a. Four women committed crimes that involved more than one criminal category. Therefore, the total number will exceed 35 and the total percentage will exceed 100 for this
characteristic.
APPENDIX C
Possible Motives for Involvement in Sexual Relationships
Motivation
Economic manipulation
Sincere relationship
Loneliness/companionship
Curiosity
Sexual identity
Peer pressure
Othera
Number
Percentage
25
9
18
3
6
3
4
71.43
25.71
51.43
8.57
17.14
8.57
11.43
a. Other included motivations related to sexual release and diversion from boredom.
Respondents provided their thoughts on possible motivations for their own relationships
as well as the involvement of other women. Many women offered more than one explanation; therefore, totals for number of responses and percentages will exceed 35 and
100, respectively.
REFERENCES
Alarid, L. F. (1997). Female inmate subcultures. In J. W. Marquart & J. R. Sorensen (Eds.), Correctional contexts: Contemporary and classical readings (pp. 134-139). Los Angeles:
Roxbury.
Bell, R. R. (1976). Social deviance. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Bloom, B., Chesney-Lind, M., & Owen, B. (1994). Women in California prisons: Hidden victims of the war on drugs. San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Greer / RELATIONSHIPS IN A WOMEN’S PRISON
467
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education (2nd ed.). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Boritch, H. (1992). Gender and criminal court outcomes: An historic analysis. Criminology, 30,
293-321.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999). Prison statistics. Retrieved July 27, 2000, from the World
Wide Web: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm
Burkhart, K. W. (1973). Women in prison. New York: Popular Library.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1986). Women and crime: The female offender. Signs, 12, 78-96.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1991). Patriarchy, prisons, and jails: A critical look at trends in women’s
incarceration. The Prison Journal, 71, 51-67.
Chesney-Lind, M., & Rodriguez, N. (1983). Women under lock and key: A view from the inside.
The Prison Journal, 62, 47-65.
Culbertson, R. G., & Fortune, E. P. (1984). Women in crime and prison. In R. G. Culbertson
(Ed.), Order under law (2nd ed., pp. 240-254). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Faith, K. (1993). Unruly women: The politics of confinement and resistance. Vancouver: Press
Gang.
Feinman, C. (1983). An historical overview of the treatment of incarcerated women: Myths and
realities of rehabilitation. The Prison Journal, 62, 12-24.
Fletcher, B. R., Shaver, L. D., & Moon, D.G. (1993). Women prisoners: A forgotten population.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Fogel, C. I. (1993). Hard time: The stressful nature of incarceration for women. Issues in Mental
Health Nursing, 14, 367-377.
Genders, E., & Player, E. (1991). Women lifers: Assessing the experience. The Prison Journal,
70, 46-57.
Giallombardo, R. (1966). Society of women: A study of a women’s prison. New York: John
Wiley.
Girshick, L. B. (1999). No safe haven: Stories of women in prison. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Goetting, A., & Howsen, R. M. (1983). Women in prison: A profile. The Prison Journal, 62,
27-45.
Hassine, V. (1996). Life without parole: Living in prison today. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Hawkins, R. (1995). Inmate adjustments in women’s prisons. In K. C. Haas & G. P. Alpert
(Eds.), The dilemmas of corrections: Contemporary readings (3rd ed., pp. 103-122). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Irwin, J. (1980). Prisons in turmoil. Boston: Little, Brown.
Irwin, J., & Austin, J. (1997). It’s about time: America’s imprisonment binge (2nd ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Johnson, R. (1996). Hard time: Understanding and reforming the prison (2nd ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Larsen, J., & Nelson, J. (1984). Women, friendship, and adaptation to prison. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 601-615.
Leger, R. (1987). Lesbianism among women prisoners: Participants and nonparticipants. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14, 463-479.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
MacKenzie, D. L., Robinson, J. W., & Campbell, C. S. (1989). Long-term incarceration of
female offenders: Prison adjustment and coping. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 16,
223-238.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
468
THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2000
Maher, L., & Daly, K. (1996). Women in the street-level drug economy: Continuity or change?
Criminology, 34, 465-491.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
McCarthy, B. R. (1980). Inmate mothers: The problems of separation and reintegration. Journal
of Offender Counseling, Services, and Rehabilitation, 4, 199-212.
Merlo, A. V., & Pollock, J. M., (1995). Women, law, and social control. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morash, M., Haarr, R. N., & Rucker, L. (1994). A comparison of programming for women and
men in U.S. prisons in the 1980s. Crime & Delinquency, 40, 197-221.
Nagel, I. H., & Johnson, B. L. (1994). The role of gender in a structured sentencing system:
Equal treatment, policy choices, and the sentencing of female offenders under the United
States sentencing guidelines. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85, 181-221.
Owen, B. (1998). In the mix: Struggle and survival in a women’s prison. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Pollock, J. M. (1998). Counseling women in prison. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pollock-Byrne, J. (1990). Women, prison, and crime. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks / Cole.
Propper, A. (1982). Make-believe families and homosexuality among imprisoned girls. Criminology, 20, 127-139.
Rafter, N. H. (1990). Partial justice (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Simon, R. J., & Landis, J. (1991). The crimes women commit, the punishments they receive.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Steffensmeier, D. (1993). National trends in female arrests, 1960-1990: Assessment and recommendation for research. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9, 411-439.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sykes, G. M. (1958). The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1991). Women in prison: Survey of state prison inmates. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1997). News release. Washington, DC: Author (http://www.ojp.
usdoj.gov).
Ward, D. A., & Kassebaum, G. G. (1965). Women’s prison: Sex and social structure. Chicago:
Aldine.
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at AMERICAN UNIV on February 6, 2012
Criminal Justice and
Behavior
http://cjb.sagepub.com/
Lesbianism among Women Prisoners : Participants and
Nonparticipants
ROBERT G. LEGER
Criminal Justice and Behavior 1987 14: 448
DOI: 10.1177/0093854887014004003
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/14/4/448
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
Additional services and information for Criminal Justice and Behavior can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://cjb.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Citations: http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/14/4/448.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Dec 1, 1987
What is This?
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
from the SAGE Social Science Collections. All Rights Reserved.
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on February 7, 2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Page 1 of 26
Sexual coercion reported by women in three
Midwestern prisons.
Author:
Geographic Code:
Date:
Words:
Publication:
ISSN:
Struckman-Johnson, David
1USA
Aug 1, 2002
9562
The Journal of Sex Research
0022-4499
The sexual coercion of women in prison, defined here as the experience, of being
pressured or coerced into unwanted sexual contact while incarcerated, has been
described as one of America's "most open secrets" (Bell et al., 1999). According to several
legal scholars, women who are incarcerated in American prisons face extensive problems
with sexual harassment, molestation during strip searches, coercive sexual fondling, and
pressured and forced sexual intercourse, most likely perpetrated by prison staff. This
information has been revealed in an increasing number of court cases in which inmates
have sued prisons for sexual exploitation (Bell et al., 1999; Springfield, 2000). Human
rights groups have recently launched investigations of this problem. Human Rights Watch
(1996) documented numerous cases of sexual abuse of imprisoned women by male
correctional officers (custodial sexual abuse) in 11 state prison systems. A report by
Amnesty International (1999) listed documented cases of custodial sexual misconduct for
every state.
Although sexual coercion of women in prison is increasingly recognized as a serious social
issue, the topic has received-scant attention from social and sex scientists (Kunselman,
Tewksbury, Dumond, & Dumond, 2002). A modest number of studies have been
conducted on coercive sex in prison, but most have focused on male victims (Hensley,
Struckman-Johnson, & Eigenberg, 2000). Between 1960 and 1990, there were about a
dozen studies conducted in men's prisons (see Dumond, 1992), but we could find only two
that included female inmates. In one early work, Kassebaum (1972) commented that many
women in prison were vulnerable to sexual exploitation by prison staff and other female
inmates. He described an incident in which a 16-year-old girl was beaten by five other
inmates for refusing sexual advances. Bartollas and Sieverdes (1983) found that 9.1% of
561 adolescent offenders in six coeducational corrections facilities for juveniles had been
sexually victimized, a measure based upon inmate attitudes and staff observation of "sex
games". Victimization rates for males and females were said to be equal, although the
number of participants was not provided. The authors noted that one female juvenile was
raped.
It was not until the mid-1990s that this topic was investigated in depth by social scientists.
Baro (1997) wrote about the chronic problems of custodial sexual abuse in a small
women's prison facility (population of 45 - 50) in Hawaii. As a participant observer working
at the prison, Baro interviewed female inmates and collected court and prison records of
abusive practices. She found that between 1982 and 1994, Hawaii had 38 officially
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Page 2 of 26
acknowledged cases of custodial sexual abuse. Thirty of the cases involved men and eight
presumably involved female perpetrators. Alleged abuses included forced intercourse,
unwanted pregnancies, and even service as prostitutes in a hotel near the prison. Baro
concluded that many female inmates, vulnerable due to past histories of sexual abuse and
drug addiction, were easy targets for male prison staff.
Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson, Rucker, Bumby, and Donaldson (1996)
surveyed a small women's facility (population of 90) and found that 3 of 42 (7%)
respondents had been sexually coerced. Two victims had been sexually fondled (one by a
group of staff and one by a female inmate) and one had been groped by a group of
inmates. The authors found much higher coercion rates in three men's facilities that were
surveyed (16% to 22%). The lower rate for women, they speculated, reflected the smaller
size of the women's facility, the less violent criminal history of female inmates, or perhaps
women's general disinclination to initiate sexual coercion. One other study that assessed
prevalence of sexual assault in adult female prisons was conducted by correctional and
health agencies in New South Wales (Butler, 1997). The survey involved an intensive
interview of 132 female inmates, or 40% of the total female population. Only 2 females
(2%) reported engaging in non-consensual sex while in prison. However, 23 women (17%)
reported awareness of sexual assaults occurring in prison in the previous 12 months.
More recently, Alarid (2000) published a qualitative analysis of one female inmate's
observations and experiences of sexual assault over a 5-year period of incarceration.
Although the study did not provide rates of sexual coercion, it suggested that female
inmates regularly encountered sexual pressure in their daily interactions with other female
inmates. The inmate observer gave an account of her own violent rape by other female
inmates. Alarid wrote that rapes were the least common form of sexual behavior. When
they occurred, they generally involved multiple female perpetrators who were
seemingly expressing anger or resentment toward another inmate. Greer (2000)
interviewed 35 female inmates in a Midwestern prison about their interpersonal and sexual
relationships. Although sexual assault was not the topic of the interviews, inmates reported
that most of the sexual interactions among inmates were brought about by game playing
and economic manipulation.
This spare literature stands in contrast to the hundreds of studies conducted on sexual
coercion of women in campus and community settings (see Muehlenhard, Harney, &
Jones, 1992). Why have social and sex scientists neglected this provocative and important
issue for women in prison? One explanation is that there is a long-held belief that female
inmates do not coerce each other into sexual contact. Several early studies of women's
prisons (e.g., Selling, 1931) suggested that women in prison met their needs for
intimacy and sexuality by forming make-believe families with other inmates. Thus, it has
been argued, there was no need for force or subjugation to occur (Hensley, 1999).
Tewksbury and West (2000) posited that the sexuality of female offenders has been
studied less than male offenders because women are generally considered less sexual
than men are.
Baro (1997) wrote that social science scholars have abandoned the study of sexual abuse
of women in prison, perhaps because they believe that it is an isolated phenomenon and
not suitable as a topic. She also charged that prejudice is part of the problem. According to
Baro, women in prison are viewed as "bad girls" because of their crime backgrounds and
probable connections to prostitution. Because they have presumably granted sexual
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Page 3 of 26
access to men in the past, they are perceived as willing to consent to sex in general.
Therefore, female inmates who complain of sexual abuse lack credibility and are denied
legitimate victim status.
A major hindrance to research has been the difficulty in gaining access to inmate
participants, male or female (Struckman-Johnson et al., 1996). Traditionally, prison
administrations have been reluctant to allow research on coercive sexuality (Alarid, 2000;
Ibrahim, 1974). Baro (1997) adds that incidents of custodial sexual abuse are typically
buried deep in the personnel files. Prison administrations may discourage research
because discovery of sexual assault cases may damage their reputations or may cause
legislative bodies to demand expensive and impractical reforms. Obstacles may also be
raised by community and prison Internal Review Boards who are wary of sex research.
Despite the many barriers, we believe there is much to be gained from research on this
topic. Foremost, it would expand our knowledge of the influence of environmental and
social variables on sexual aggression. In campus and community settings, sexual coercion
typically involves a female victim and a male perpetrator who is known by and possibly in a
relationship with the victim. Reports of sexual coercion of women by other women in the
community are rare (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994). These dynamics may
differ when a cohort of women is forced to live in close proximity in an institutional setting
under the near total authority of a small number of supervisors. One can speculate that
these unique conditions foster same-sex sexual coercion, as well as sexual exploitation by
persons in authority positions.
There is also a compelling humanitarian justification for this research. Given that the
female prisoner population in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1990 and stood at
over 9,600 in the year 2000 (Beck & Harrison, 2001), the number of incarcerated women
at risk for sexual coercion may be substantial. Prevention and protection efforts will be
enhanced to the extent that researchers can describe the dimensions of the problem.
Therefore, the present study was undertaken to provide descriptive information about
sexual coercion of women in prison.
Research Objectives
Our primary purpose was to estimate the incidence of sexual coercion of women in prison.
In our review of the legal, journalistic, and social scientific literature, we could find few
estimates of the prevalence of sexual coercion among adult female inmate populations.
While the level of sexual abuse in prison has been described as "rampant" (Bell et al.,
1999), and "extensive" (Springfield, 2000), there are almost no data on how many women
are affected. The 7% sexual coercion rate found by Struckman-Johnson et al. (1996) is
occasionally cited, but this rate was based on only one small women's facility.
Prison records of sexual coercion rates are also rare. Many corrections agencies do not
keep records or are reluctant to publish them (Baro, 1997). For example, in a recent
survey by the National Institute of Corrections (2000), only 36 of 54 state and federal
departments of corrections (DOCs) were willing or able to provide data on substantiated
incidents of sexual misconduct involving prison staff and female inmates for 1998. Of the
36 DOCs, 14 reported no incidents, 17 had between one and five incidents, and 5 reported
more than five cases. These numbers suggest that sexual coercion rates are low.
However, experts caution that statistics released by prison authorities may be serious
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Page 4 of 26
underestimates because of the difficulties female inmates have in reporting and
substantiating incidents (Baro, 1997; Springfield, 2000).
Therefore, we planned to use anonymous self-reports to estimate what percentage of
female inmates had experienced at least one incident of sexual coercion (broadly defined
as pressured or forced sexual contact) while incarcerated. We assessed a variety of
incidence rates. Because inmates tend to accumulate sexual coercion experiences as they
are transferred among facilities, we estimated the rate for all of the statewide facilities in
which inmates had resided. We also assessed how many inmates had been sexually
coerced in the facility in which they currently resided. To determine the seriousness of
reported incidents, we derived "rape" rates. We also calculated rates for a recent time
period.
Another objective was to obtain inmates' and prison staff's perceptions of the sexual
assault climate in a facility. We asked inmates and staff to guess how many inmates in the
facility had experienced sexual coercion to see if perceived rates were similar to reported
rates. In addition, we assessed how inmates and staff perceived the level of protection
against sexual assault offered by a facility. One overriding objective was to look at the
relationship between sexual coercion rates and qualities of the prison facilities and inmate
populations.
Another goal was to describe the characteristics of women who were the targets of sexual
coercion and what happened in their worst-case incident. We were especially interested in
finding out who perpetrated incidents of sexual coercion. While the legal and human rights
literature referred almost exclusively to prison staff, the social scientific literature indicated
that other female inmates as well as staff were involved. We asked about the tactics used
and sexual outcome of incidents in order to determine if they involved rape. We also
assessed inmates' emotional and physical reactions to incidents. Finally, we wanted to
know how many women reported the incident to authorities.
METHOD
Selection of Facilities and Samples
The present study was part of a survey of multiple prison facilities for men and women.
Due to past difficulties in obtaining permission to study prison populations, we sent out
research requests to the DOCs in 14 states. We guaranteed that the identity of the
facilities would be kept confidential. Five DOCs agreed to participate. We were given
access to three women's facilities and seven men's facilities, all located in Midwestern
states. Only the procedures and results of the women's facilities are presented in this
study.
Surveys were administered to the total inmate population and security-related staff of the
three facilities. Facility 1 was a maximum-medium-minimum security facility with 295
female inmates and 100 prison staff. Facility 2 was a maximum-medium-minimum security
facility with 113 inmates and 26 staff. Facility 3 was a maximum-medium-minimum security
facility with 60 female inmates and 154 staff who were responsible for male and female
inmates.
Instruments
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Page 5 of 26
Inmate survey. The inmate questionnaire was a modified version of an instrument used in
a prior study (Struckman-Johnson et al., 1996). The inmate survey had sections for
demographic data and crime background, perceptions of the prison environment, and
opinions about sexual coercion. These led into more sensitive questions about
experiences with sexual coercion. The first of these measured the statewide sexual
coercion rate: "Since the time you have been in a (name of state) prison, has anyone ever
pressured or forced you to have sexual contact (touching of genitals, oral, anal, or
vaginal sex) against your will?" The facility sexual coercion rate was assessed by a followup question: "If yes or not sure, list all of the (name of state) facilities where it happened,
how many times it happened in each facility, and the years you were in each facility."
The item for perceived sexual coercion rate read: "In the prison you are in now, about what
percentage of inmates do you think have been pressured or forced to have sexual contact
against their will? Circle your best guess." The choices were a row of percentages ranging
from 0%, 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, and so on to 100%. Inmates were also asked to rate the
facility protection level: "In the prison you are in now, do you think that the prison system
protects inmates from pressured or forced sexual contact?" The scale ranged from 1
(definitely no) to 7 (definitely yes).
Respondents with sexual coercion experience were asked about one worst case incident-either the only one that happened or the one time that was the "most serious or harmful to
you." They answered questions about the number, race, and relationship of the
perpetrators, the type of tactics used, and the sexual outcome. Respondents were asked
to write a brief description of the incident.
The emotional reaction to the worst-case incident was measured by two items. One was a
rating of the upset at the time the incident happened on a scale ranging from 1 (it was not
upsetting) to 7 (it was very upsetting). The other asked if the incident had any lasting
negative effects on a scale ranging from 1 (it has had no bad effect on me) to 7 (it has had
a severe bad effect on me). Respondents then checked any bad effects the incident had
caused from a list of emotional and physical consequences. Finally, respondents were
asked what types of persons, if any, were told about the incident. See the tables in the
Results section for the wording of the worst-case items.
Staff Survey. The staff survey had sections for demographic data and work history in
corrections, perceptions of the prison environment, and opinions about sexual coercion. As
in the inmate survey, staff answered questions about the perceived sexual coercion rate
and facility protection level.
Procedures
The study received human subjects approval from the university institutional review board
and from the research review boards of the three prison facilities. It was agreed that
inmates and staff would receive a consent form with their questionnaire that would explain
the purpose and the voluntary and anonymous nature of the survey. Consent to participate
was indicated by returning the survey. No signatures or personally identifying information
were collected.
A consent form, questionnaire, and a return postage-paid envelope addressed to the
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Page 6 of 26
researchers were placed in packets and distributed through the prison mail system to the
inmates and staff (primarily correctional officers) of the three prison facilities. Respondents
were instructed to return completed surveys through the prison mail service. They were
told in the consent form that prison administrators would not open sealed surveys. A
reminder postcard was distributed one week later.
RESULTS
Return Rates
In Facility 1,148 inmates (50% of the sample) and 30 staff (30% of the sample) returned
usable surveys. In Facility 2, 79 of the inmates (70% of the sample) and 13 staff (50% of
the sample) sent back usable surveys. Thirty-six inmates (60% of the sample) and 57 staff
(37% of the sample) in Facility 3 returned usable surveys.
Demographics
Table 1 shows the distribution of female inmates by facility for demographic and crimehistory variables. The results revealed that respondents in Facility 1, compared to those
from the other two facilities, were older, more racially and ethnically diverse, and more
likely to be bisexual or homosexual. Facility 1 respondents also had a more serious crime
background. Facility 3 was distinct from the other two facilities in that it had a substantial
number of Native American inmates.
The 30 staff respondents from Facility 1 were 12 men (40%) and 18 women (60%) who
were primarily Caucasian (73%) and Hispanic (20%). Twenty-five staff (80%) were
correctional or security officers. In Facility 2, the 13 staff were 5 men (38%) and 8 (62%)
women who were Caucasian (100%). Ten (77%) were correctional or security officers. In
Facility 3, the 57 staff respondents (all correctional officers) were 44 men (77%) and 13
women (23%) who were Caucasian (98%).
Sexual Coercion Rates and Climate
Facility 1. As shown in Table 2, a substantial percentage of inmates from Facility 1 (27%)
had been sexually coerced while incarcerated in their state prison system. Nineteen
percent had experienced an incident while residing in Facility 1. Eighteen percent of the
respondents gave information about a worst-case incident that took place in Facility 1. Five
percent of the respondents' worst-case incidents were classified as rape in that they
involved a force tactic and an outcome of oral, vaginal, or anal intercourse. In the 30
months before the survey, 12% of the respondents had experienced their worst-case
incident, while 3% had been raped.
Inmates guessed that 21% of the women in the facility had been pressured or forced into
sex, an estimate that was lower than the statewide rate, but very close to the facility rate.
Staff, however, guessed that only 10% of the inmates had been sexually coerced. Inmates
generally disagreed and staff generally agreed that their prison system protected them
from sexual coercion.
Facility 2. Sexual coercion rates in Facility 2 were substantially lower than in Facility 1.
Only 9% of responding inmates said that they had been sexually coerced while
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Page 7 of 26
incarcerated anywhere in their state, and 6% said that an incident had happened in Facility
2. None of the worst-case incidents that took place in the facility were classifiable as rape.
Most of the worst-case incidents had happened during the 30-month period preceding the
survey.
The inmate guess of an 11% sexual coercion rate was several points higher than the
reported statewide and facility rates. The staff guess of 2% was much lower than the
reported rates. Inmates generally agreed and staff strongly agreed that that the prison
system protected them from sexual coercion.
Facility 3. Sexual coercion rates were very similar to those in Facility 2. The statewide and
facility sexual coercion rates were 8%. None of the worst-case incidents that happened in
the facility qualified as rape. All of the worst-case incidents reported by inmates happened
in the 30 months preceding the survey.
The inmate guess of a 13% sexual coercion rate was several points higher than the 8%
report rate, while the staff guess was lower (4%). Inmates generally agreed and staff
strongly agreed that the facility protected inmates from sexual coercion.
Worst-Case Incidents
Facility 1. Twenty-seven of the 28 women who had been coerced in Facility 1 gave
information about a worst-case incident. As shown in Table 3, half of the targets were
Caucasian, while the rest were Black, Hispanic, and Native American. Targets were
predominantly heterosexual and about one fourth were bisexual or homosexual. Nearly
70% of the targets had committed a crime against persons, compared to 45% of all
respondents in this facility.
Over one third of the targets said that they had been assaulted by one person, while over
40% had been accosted by a group of two to three persons. One half of the perpetrators
were women and one half were men. Most perpetrators were Caucasian, although many
were Black and Hispanic. About half of the incidents were perpetrated by inmates, while
45% of the incidents involved one or more staff persons.
As shown in Table 4, the perpetrator(s) used only a pressure tactic in 37% of the cases,
usually persuasion and bribery. The most commonly reported force tactics (used in 63% of
the incidents) were threats of harm and intimidation by size. One third of the targets were
physically restrained and 11% were harmed. Most of the incidents resulted in sexual
touching as opposed to completed inter course. About a fourth of the targets were raped in
that they were forced into oral, vaginal, or anal intercourse.
Targets' written descriptions clarified the dynamics of sexual coercion in Facility 1. Most of
the inmate-perpetrated incidents involved forceful sexual touching. For example, a
perpetrator would block the door to a woman's cell and try to fondle her as the woman
tried to escape. Or, a perpetrator would push a woman up against the wall and attempt to
rub her body. There were more serious incidents when one or more inmates would
isolate and trap a target and force her to submit to a variety of sexual acts. Some
verbatim descriptions of incidents perpetrated by inmates follow.
She would come up behind me & grab my breasts & run her body next to mine &
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Page 8 of 26
I'd start pushing her away--She would say "come on baby let me turn you
out." I'd say I'd die first. And I mean that too.
She told me I wasn't her friend if I didn't agree then started kissing me
locked the door pushed me on the bed and ripped my panties off she then
pulled up her nightgown. She didn't have underwear on and started fucking
me putting her pussy on mine moving up & down all over. I actually had an
orgasium. But I was horrified, ashamed and bruised and battered. I wanted
to kill her.
2 girls came in my room just playing at first. I thought it was funny. Then
when I said no--because it was going to far--they threatened me. One played
with my breast while the other one fingered me & made me finger the one
playing with my breast.
We were friends and were horse playing then got pinned down while they
touched me then one of them removed her pants & underwear and the other one
keep my head between her legs while the one without clothes moved back &
forth and then made me lick her all over.
Was tied down and everytime they would burn me if I didn't submit. They
used different things.
The staff-perpetrated incidents at Facility 1 typically involved a male staff person who
would sneak up on female inmates at work or in their cells and attempt to fondle and kiss
them. Most of the targets were able to escape the situation, but they feared that the officer
would repeat the attempt. One officer bribed and pressured two female inmates to have
sex while he watched and masturbated. Some verbatim descriptions of staff incidents
follow.
I went to the shed several times to get clothes for new arrivals and he
creeped into the shed with me. He rubbed himself across my rear end and got
him off of me by hitting him with all of my might with a trash can lid and
I told him that I'd gladly kill him if he tried it again. He sent me home
for the day.
Was asleep in my cell when an officer opened my cell & rubbed his penis on
my face. While I wouldn't perform oral sex on him, he threatened me--I'll
never get out, & trump up charges. You'll go to "the hole" etc. He
constantly made sexual remarks & asked for sexual favors, grabbed at my
private part. The other officer tried to rip my clothes off while in the
hole. He was only escorted out of my cell then yelled at.
I was taking a shower and an officer came into the shower room and made
sexual comments to me about my breast. She described to me how good she
could make me feel. I told her I would report her for harassing me
sexually. She got angry and grabbed my left breast and squeezed it until I
screamed with pain and fear. I tried to get her off but she is a very--and
strong woman. Finally, I gave in and she began to suck my breast and rub my
vagina. I started to cry loudly and another inmate came into the shower and
she backed off. She told me that noone here would believe me if I ever
report her. I reported this officer and I was ignored ... I am still
currently being harassed by this officer.
Tried to talk me into cooperating. Said "no" then grabbed and constantly
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Page 9 of 26
touched me & cornered me & took out his penis & wanted sex--forced oral sex
on me held me down, etc. We need help, lot of this going on--4 officers
walked off property over sexual misconduct in last 2 years Help US!
All targets experienced at least one bad effect of the incident (Table 5). The most reported
effects were nervousness around people, distrust of people, and worry that it would
happen again. Half of the targets experienced flash backs and depression. Three targets
(11%) reported physical injuries including an inmate who had permanent bum scars from
the episode described above. The female inmates reported very high ratings of upset at
the time the incident happened. Ratings of the lasting effects were in the high range. About
60% of the targets told someone about the incident, but only 30% reported it to the prison
administration.
Facility 2. Only five women at Facility 2 reported a worst-case incident that had happened
at their facility. Therefore, the percentages reported for the variables in Tables 3 through 5
are not reliable. Over half of the targets were Caucasian and heterosexual. A majority of
the perpetrators were Caucasian female inmates. One incident involved a prison staff
person.
No incidents were classifiable as rape. According to written descriptions, most of the
targets encountered a single, sexually aggressive female inmate who attempted to fondle
and seduce them. In the one reported staff incident, a male officer subtly propositioned the
woman. The targets reported high levels of upset and numerous bad effects from the
incidents. Only one target told a prison administrator.
Facility 3. Only two women at Facility 3 reported a worst-case incident that had happened
at their facility; therefore, the percentages reported in Tables 3 through 5 are not reliable.
The targets were Caucasian and Hispanic heterosexuals. Neither target was raped.
According to written descriptions, one woman was forcefully held down and touched by
another female inmate. The other was forcefully restrained and sexually touched by a
female staff member during a strip search. The targets were very upset by the incidents
and reported numerous bad effects. They did not report the incidents to the prison
administration.
DISCUSSION
Our study revealed that sexual aggression does take place in women's prisons, but that
the frequency of the behavior may depend upon the characteristics of the facility and its
inmate population. When we started this project, we anticipated that the sexual coercion
rates would be somewhere close to the 7% rate found by Struckman-Johnson et al.
(1996). The facility rates of 9% for Facility 2 and 8% for Facility 3 were expected. However,
the 27% statewide rate and 19% facility rate for women in Facility 1 were surprising. These
rates were comparable to those reported for several men's prisons in the
Midwest (Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 2000.)
Our data suggested that Facility 1 was a vastly different place than Facilities 2 and 3.
Facility 1 could be described as a rough prison where nearly half of the inmates had
committed serious crimes against persons. The inmate population was racially and
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Page 10 of 26
ethnically diverse and relatively large (n = 300) for a Midwestern women's facility. In
addition, the facility appeared to have security and management problems. The inmates
gave an unusually low rating to the protection level offered by the prison system. Many
respondents cited problems with inadequate surveillance, predatory staff, noncaring and
unresponsive staff, and policies that protected rather than punished staff and inmate
sexual predators. Research on men's prisons shows that these factors which existed in
Facility 1--inmate crime severity, large inmate population size, racial diversity, and low
security--appear to contribute to higher sexual coercion rates (Struckman-Johnson &
Struckman-Johnson, 2000).
Facilities 2 and 3, by contrast, were not rough prisons. Both facilities held a relatively small
number of female inmates (n < 120) who, for the most part, had not committed crimes
against persons. The inmates of Facility 2 and 3 were predominantly Caucasian and not
as racially diverse as Facility 1 inmates. Also in contrast to Facility 1, the inmates of
Facilities 2 and 3 generally had a favorable view of their prison's security level and
management policies. Inmates in both facilities frequently commented that their staff
watched out for them. Facility 2 inmates, in particular, praised their prison administration's
"zero tolerance" policy for sexual coercion. However, there were dissenters in both
facilities who alleged that staff covered up sexual coercion incidents.
Our findings about worst-case incidents are tentative because of the small sample size of
targets (n = 34). We found that most targets were in their thirties, an age similar to the
other inmates in the facilities. Female targets were most likely to be heterosexual and
Caucasian, but women from all racial groups reported victimization. Although we expected
that targets would have nonviolent crime backgrounds, most of the targets in Facility 1 had
committed a crime against persons. Perhaps these women associated with other women
with aggressive tendencies in the prison system and were more likely to be victimized. Or
possibly the women tended to attract perpetrators--inmates or staff--because of their
toughness or crime reputation. One target inmate wrote that she was "singled out" by a
staff perpetrator because he wanted to prove that he was tougher than she was.
One of our most important findings was that nearly one half of the incidents of sexual
coercion were carded out by female inmates. Incidents ranged from casual sexual grabs to
injurious gang rapes. This finding contrasts with the assertion that same-sex sexual abuse
in women's prison is rare (e.g., Human Rights Watch, 1996). We conclude that prison
conditions can potentially foster female sexual aggression. We speculate that many
women who go to prison are more aggressive than the typical woman, as evidenced by
their crime background. Their aggressive tendencies may translate into sexual aggression
in the confinement of a prison setting. The harshness and demands of prison life most
likely contribute to sexual coercion among female inmates. According to Greer (2000),
some women's prisons are becoming more like men's prisons in that many inmates meet
their needs through manipulation and exploitation of other inmates.
Our study does support the claims in the literature that custodial sexual abuse is a serious
problem. Almost half of the incidents reported by female targets were perpetrated by staff.
Typically, a male staff member would corner an inmate in an isolated area and forcefully
fondle her. However, a number of incidents involved female staff who used similar
strategies to victimize women. We note this finding because so much of the literature
presumes that male staff are the sole perpetrators of custodial sexual abuse. According to
our findings, both men and women working at the prison used their authority to bribe,
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Page 11 of 26
blackmail, and force inmates into sexual contact.
Another important finding of our study is that most of the incidents involved forceful
fondling of genitals and breasts, but not forced oral, anal or vaginal intercourse. About one
out of five incidents qualified as rape. The women had strong negative reactions to all
types of incidents, including nervousness around people, fear that it would happen again,
and depression. Two women said that they attempted suicide as a result of a sexual
coercion incident. Many women came to hate their assailant(s) and one in five said that
they were moved to commit violence. Our impression is that much of this trauma occurred
because victims could not avoid the perpetrators. Many women said that their assailants,
whether they were staff or other inmates, found ways to track them and harass them
almost daily in the confines of the prison. One woman wrote that she wanted to cut her
own face in order to make people leave her alone.
Finally, we found that women were not likely to report. Only about a third of the women
told a prison administrator about the incident. When asked why they did not report,
inmates typically responded that they feared retaliation from the perpetrators, especially
staff who could make prison life very difficult for them. Also, targeted women anticipated
that no one would believe them. The bad girl syndrome discussed by Baro (1997) exists in
that these victimized women maintained their silence because they felt they had no
credibility.
Limitations
There are several limitations to the results of our study. Our information about sexual
coercion was based on anonymous written self-reports that could not be verified through
other means. However, we believe that the anonymous nature of the survey encouraged
honest and accurate responses. It has been shown that reporting of sensitive or
stigmatized behaviors is significantly increased under conditions of anonymity as
compared to a promise of confidentiality (Ong & Weiss, 2000). In the prison setting, it is
particularly important to use anonymous self-reports so that inmates can privately disclose
sexual victimization without fear of being stigmatized as a "snitch" or "bait" to others.
Another potential problem is deceptive reporting. Some inmates may have falsely reported
sexual coercion to us to impugn the reputation of the prison administration system or
individual perpetrators. Although we have previously detected false reports of sexual
coercion in other data sets, we did not find any suspicious answers in the screening of the
women's data. Respondent descriptions of incidents were consistent, detailed, and high in
face validity. In addition, we think that if inmates were motivated to give false reports to
make their prisons look bad, we would have received a greater number of sexual coercion
reports from Facilities 2 and 3.
The study is limited in that we do not know how representative the female inmate samples
were of the total inmate populations of the three facilities. Although we made requests, the
administrations of the three women's facilities did not provide us descriptive data of the
total prison populations. We did receive demographic data for the total inmate populations
for three men's facilities that were surveyed at the Same time as the female prisons. The
male return samples were similar to the their respective total populations for age
categories, but had higher proportions of White and better-educated inmates (StruckmanJohnson & Struckman-Johnson, 2000). These differences may apply to the return samples
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Page 12 of 26
from the three women's facilities.
A related concern is whether the sexual coercion rates reported by our respondents were
representative of the rates of the total population of the facilities. Our high return rates
(50% to 70%) gave us confidence in the accuracy of our results. However, it is possible
that women who were victimized were more interested in and thus more likely to respond
to the survey than non-victims. If so, then our estimates of the sexual coercion rates are
too high. However, it is also possible that some victims did not report their incidents to us
because they feared that their surveys would be opened by nosy staff or other inmates, or
they felt it was no one's business, or because they had trouble reading and answering the
survey questions. In the final analysis, we think that under-reporting of sexual coercion
was more of a problem than over-reporting. As evidence, we learned that a correctional
officer at Facility 2 was put on trial for raping two female inmates at about the time we
conducted the survey. However, we did not receive any survey reports of rape from this
facility.
Conclusion
In summary, our study revealed a serious problem with sexual coercion in one prison
facility for women and minor to moderate problems in two other facilities. This finding does
not support the sweeping conclusions appearing in much of the literature that sexual
abuse is extensive in women's prisons. Our recommendation for future research is to
assess sexual coercion on a facility-by-facility basis because rates may be highly variable.
We also recommend that future research recognize female sexual aggression in prison
settings. We have learned in past research that women are not viewed as potential sexual
aggressors because of their supposed gentle nature, low sexual interest, or inability to
physically overpower another person (Struckman-Johnson & Anderson, 1998). However,
over half of the incidents reported in this study were committed by women.
We strongly encourage social and sex scientists to conduct further research on this topic.
It would be interesting to find out why certain women are chosen as targets. To what
extent does physical attractiveness, passivity, toughness, or sexual orientation contribute
to their victimization? For example, Facility 1 in the present study had a relatively high
number of women who reported a homosexual or bisexual orientation. Does this factor
contribute to the higher rates of same-sex sexual coercion in a facility? It would also be
important to learn the characteristics and motives of inmate and staff sexual predators. Is
their behavior motivated by sexual desire and fantasies, misdirected quests for intimacy
and romance, or needs for power and dominance? To what extent does race influence
these interactions?
We found that sexual coercion has strong negative effects on victims. It would be valuable
to explore what happens to these women when they leave prison and reenter or form new
social-sexual relationships. Further research on questions such as these will not only add
to our theoretical understanding of sexual aggression, but may enhance society's ability to
provide protection and treatment for women in prison.
Table 1. Inmate Demographics for Women's Prison Facilities
Facility
1
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Sample size
Total inmates surveyed--estimated
Acceptable returned surveys
295
148 (50%)
Age
17-25
26-36
37-47
48+
Missing
Average
17
68
50
8
5
35
Race
White
Black
Hispanic
Native American
Asian/Other
Missing
67 (45%)
36 (24%)
27 (18%)
11 (7%)
5 (3%)
2 (1%)
Education
Grade school
Some high school
High school / GED
Trade school
Some college
College degree
Missing
5
19
41
19
45
17
2
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual
Bisexual
Homosexual
Missing
89 (60%)
30 (20%)
22 (15%)
7 (5%)
Crime for present incarceration (a)
Drug related
Against property
Against persons
Against public order
54
37
66
21
(36%)
(25%)
(45%)
(14%)
Crime type ever committed (a)
Murder
Rape
Assault
Robbery
Sex contact with child
Possession of a controlled substance
Forgery, fraud
Larceny, grand theft
Damage to property
DWI
26
0
29
9
3
41
29
13
10
11
(18%)
(0%)
(20%)
(6%)
(2%)
(28%)
(20%)
(9%)
(7%)
(7%)
Average time in present facility
Average maximum sentence
Page 13 of 26
(12%)
(46%)
(34%)
(5%)
(3%)
years
(3%)
(13%)
(28%)
(13%)
(30%)
(12%)
(1%)
2.9 years
18.1 years
Facility
2
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Sample size
Total inmates surveyed--estimated
Acceptable returned surveys
113
79 (70%)
Age
17-25
26-36
37-47
48+
Missing
Average
23
29
19
5
3
31
Race
White
Black
Hispanic
Native American
Asian/Other
Missing
61 (77%)
4 (5%)
6 (8%)
2 (3%)
4 (5%)
2 (3%)
Education
Grade school
Some high school
High school / GED
Trade school
Some college
College degree
Missing
0 (0%)
11 (14%)
33 (42%)
4 (5%)
25 (32%)
6 (8%)
0 (0%)
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual
Bisexual
Homosexual
Missing
63 (80%)
10 (13%)
4 (5%)
2 (3%)
Crime for present incarceration (a)
Drug related
Against property
Against persons
Against public order
19
46
18
8
Crime type ever committed (a)
Murder
Rape
Assault
Robbery
Sex contact with child
Possession of a controlled substance
Forgery, fraud
Larceny, grand theft
Damage to property
DWI
3 (4%)
0 (0%)
7 (9%)
2 (2%)
1 (1%)
10 (13%)
29 (37%)
16 (20%)
4 (5%)
2 (2%)
Average time in present facility
Average maximum sentence
Page 14 of 26
(29%)
(37%)
(24%)
(6%)
(4%)
years
(24%)
(58%)
(23%)
(10%)
1.8 years
9.9 years
Facility
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Page 15 of 26
3
Sample size
Total inmates surveyed--estimated
Acceptable returned surveys
60
36 (60%)
Age
17-25
26-36
37-47
48+
Missing
Average
16
16
4
0
0
28
Race
White
Black
Hispanic
Native American
Asian/Other
Missing
20 (56%)
3 (8%)
1 (3%)
11 (30%)
0 (0%)
1 (3%)
Education
Grade school
Some high school
High school / GED
Trade school
Some college
College degree
Missing
0
5
14
4
10
0
3
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual
Bisexual
Homosexual
Missing
30 (83%)
4 (11%)
2 (6%)
0 (0%)
Crime for present incarceration (a)
Drug related
Against property
Against persons
Against public order
15 (42%)
12 (33%)
13 (36%)
2 (6%)
Crime type ever committed (a)
Murder
Rape
Assault
Robbery
Sex contact with child
Possession of a controlled substance
Forgery, fraud
Larceny, grand theft
Damage to property
DWI
4
0
4
3
0
7
10
0
1
5
Average time in present facility
Average maximum sentence
(44%)
(44%)
(11%)
(0%)
(0%)
years
(0%)
(14%)
(39%)
(11%)
(28%)
(0%)
(8%)
(11%)
(0%)
(11%)
(8%)
(0%)
(19%)
(28%)
(0%)
(3%)
(14%)
1.4 years
11.4 years
(a) Percentages total more than 100 because respondents could
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Page 16 of 26
check multiple categories.
Table 2. Sexual Coercion Rates and Estimates for Women's Prison
Facilities
Facility
1
Sample size--inmates
Sample size--staff
Inmates reporting a sexual coercion
incident in any prison/jail in the state
Inmates reporting a sexual coercion
incident in this facility
Inmates reporting a worst-case incident in
this facility
Inmates reporting a worst-case incident in
this facility in the last 30 months
Inmates reporting a worst-case incident of
rape in this facility
Inmates reporting a worst-case incident of
rape in this facility in the last 30 months
Inmate estimate of how many inmates are
pressured/forced into sex in this facility
(0-100%)
Staff estimate of how many inmates are
pressured/forced into sex in this facility
(0-100%)
Inmate rating of sexual assault protection
level in this facility (1-7)
148
30
40 (27%)
28 (19%)
27 (18%)
18 (12%)
8 (5%)
5 (3%)
21%
10%
3.00
Low-Med
Staff rating of sexual assault protection
level in this facility (1-7)
5.10
High
Facility
2
Sample size--inmates
Sample size--staff
Inmates reporting a sexual coercion
incident in any prison/jail in the state
Inmates reporting a sexual coercion
incident in this facility
Inmates reporting a worst-case incident in
this facility
Inmates reporting a worst-case incident in
this facility in the last 30 months
Inmates reporting a worst-case incident of
rape in this facility
Inmates reporting a worst-case incident of
rape in this facility in the last 30 months
Inmate estimate of how many inmates are
pressured/forced into sex in this facility
(0-100%)
Staff estimate of how many inmates are
pressured/forced into sex in this facility
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
79
13
7 (9%)
5 (6%)
5 (6%)
3 (4%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
11%
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Page 17 of 26
(0-100%)
Inmate rating of sexual assault protection
level in this facility (1-7)
2%
5.5
High
Staff rating of sexual assault protection
level in this facility (1-7)
6.70
Very High
Facility
3
Sample size--inmates
Sample size--staff
Inmates reporting a sexual coercion
incident in any prison/jail in the state
Inmates reporting a sexual coercion
incident in this facility
Inmates reporting a worst-case incident in
this facility
Inmates reporting a worst-case incident in
this facility in the last 30 months
Inmates reporting a worst-case incident of
rape in this facility
Inmates reporting a worst-case incident of
rape in this facility in the last 30 months
Inmate estimate of how many inmates are
pressured/forced into sex in this facility
(0-100%)
Staff estimate of how many inmates are
pressured/forced into sex in this facility
(0-100%)
Inmate rating of sexual assault protection
level in this facility (1-7)
36
57
3 (8%)
3 (8%)
2 (5%)
2 (5%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
13%
4%
5.2
High
Staff rating of sexual assault protection
level in this facility (1-7)
6.0
High
Note. All three facilities were of maximum, medium, minimum security
levels. Staff from Facility 3 served both female and mal e inmates.
Table 3. Target and Perpetrator Characteristics for Worst-Case
Incidents
Facility
1
Number of targets
Age of target
17-25
26-36
37-47
48+
Missing
Average
27
3
8
12
3
1
37
(11%)
(30%)
(44%)
(11%)
(4%)
years
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Race of target
White
Black
Hispanic
Native American
Asian/Other
Missing
14
3
5
4
1
0
Sexual orientation of target inmates
Heterosexual
Bisexual
Homosexual
Missing
19 (70%)
4 (15%)
3 (11%)
1 (4%)
Crime background of target inmates (a)
Drug related
Against property
Against persons
Against public order
Average maximum sentence
5
9
18
1
21.0
Page 18 of 26
(52%)
(11%)
(18%)
(15%)
(4%)
(0%)
(18%)
(33%)
(67%)
(4%)
years
Year incident happened
1970-1985
1986-1990
1991-1995
1996-1998
Missing
0 (0%)
3 (11%)
5 (18%)
18 (67%)
1 (4%)
Number of perpetrators involved
1
2-3
4-5
6-10
10+
Missing
Average
10 (37%)
12 (44%)
1 (4%)
1 (4%)
0 (0%)
3 (11%)
2.0
Sex of perpetrator
Male
Female
Both
Missing
13 (48%)
13 (48%)
0 (0%)
1 (4%)
Race of perpetrator
White
Black
Hispanic
Native American
Black with others
White, Native, Hispanic mix
Missing
11
5
5
0
2
1
3
Relationship of perpetrator
Inmate--stranger only
Inmate--acquaintance only
Inmate--stranger and acquaintance
Staff only
Inmate and staff only
Other staff-involved combination
1 (4%)
11 (41%)
1 (4%)
11 (41%)
0 (0%)
1 (4%)
(41%)
(18%)
(18%)
(0%)
(7%)
(4%)
(11%)
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Other visitor-involved combination
2
Page 19 of 26
(7%)
Facility
2
Number of targets
Age of target
17-25
26-36
37-47
48+
Missing
Average
5
1
1
3
0
0
36
(20%)
(20%)
(60%)
(0%)
(0%)
years
Race of target
White
Black
Hispanic
Native American
Asian/Other
Missing
3 (60%)
0 (0%)
1 (20%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (20%)
Sexual orientation of target inmates
Heterosexual
Bisexual
Homosexual
Missing
4 (80%)
1 (20%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Crime background of target inmates (a)
Drug related
Against property
Against persons
Against public order
Average maximum sentence
2
4
1
1
8.0
(40%)
(80%)
(20%)
(20%)
years
Year incident happened
1970-1985
1986-1990
1991-1995
1996-1998
Missing
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2 (40%)
3 (60%)
0 (0%)
Number of perpetrators involved
1
2-3
4-5
6-10
10+
Missing
Average
2 (40%)
3 (60%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1.6
Sex of perpetrator
Male
Female
Both
Missing
1 (20%)
4 (80%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Race of perpetrator
White
Black
Hispanic
Native American
Black with others
White, Native, Hispanic mix
Missing
4 (80%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (20%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Relationship of perpetrator
Inmate--stranger only
Inmate--acquaintance only
Inmate--stranger and acquaintance
Staff only
Inmate and staff only
Other staff-involved combination
Other visitor-involved combination
0
2
1
1
0
0
1
Page 20 of 26
(0%)
(40%)
(20%)
(20%)
(0%)
(0%)
(20%)
Facility
3
Number of targets
Age of target
17-25
26-36
37-47
48+
Missing
Average
2
1 (50%)
0
(0%)
1 (50%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
34 years
Race of target
White
Black
Hispanic
Native American
Asian/Other
Missing
1
0
1
0
0
0
Sexual orientation of target inmates
Heterosexual
Bisexual
Homosexual
Missing
2 (100%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
Crime background of target inmates (a)
Drug related
Against property
Against persons
Against public order
Average maximum sentence
Year incident happened
1970-1985
1986-1990
1991-1995
1996-1998
Missing
(50%)
(0%)
(50%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
0
(0%)
2 (100%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2.5 years
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2 (100%)
0
(0%)
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Number of perpetrators involved
1
2-3
4-5
6-10
10+
Missing
Average
1
0
1
0
0
0
Page 21 of 26
(50%)
(0%)
(50%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
-
Sex of perpetrator
Male
Female
Both
Missing
0
(0%)
2 (100%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
Race of perpetrator
White
Black
Hispanic
Native American
Black with others
White, Native, Hispanic mix
Missing
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
(50%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(50%)
(0%)
Relationship of perpetrator
Inmate--stranger only
Inmate--acquaintance only
Inmate--stranger and acquaintance
Staff only
Inmate and staff only
Other staff-involved combination
Other visitor-involved combination
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
(0%)
(0%)
(50%)
(50%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(a) Percentages total more than 100 because respondents could
check multiple categories.
Table 4. Tactics and Sexual Outcomes for Worst-Case Incidents
Facility
Number of targets
Perpetrator tactic (a)
Persuasion
Bribe
Blackmail
Love withdrawal
Got victim drunk
Threatened harm
Scared with size
Physically held down
Physically harmed
Used a weapon
Other
Missing
Pressure tactic only used
At least 1 force tactic used
1
2
27
5
11
6
3
3
0
11
12
9
3
0
8
1
l0
17
(41%)
(22%)
(11%)
(11%)
(0%)
(41%)
(44%)
(33%)
(11%)
(0%)
(30%)
(4%)
(37%)
(63%)
4
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
4
0
3
2
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
(80%)
(20%)
(20%)
(0%)
(0%)
(20%)
(20%)
(20%)
(0%)
(0%)
(80%)
(0%)
(60%)
(40%)
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Sexual outcome
Touching only
Intercourse (oral, anal, vaginal)
Rape (forced intercourse outcome)
Page 22 of 26
19 (70%)
8 (30%)
7 (26%)
5(100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Facility
3
Number of targets
Perpetrator tactic (a)
Persuasion
Bribe
Blackmail
Love withdrawal
Got victim drunk
Threatened harm
Scared with size
Physically held down
Physically harmed
Used a weapon
Other
Missing
Pressure tactic only used
At least 1 force tactic used
Sexual outcome
Touching only
Intercourse (oral, anal, vaginal)
Rape (forced intercourse outcome)
2
2
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2 (100%)
1 (50%)
1 (50%)
1 (50%)
1 (50%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2 (100%)
2 (100%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
(a) Percentages total more than 100 because respondents could check
multiple categories.
Table 5. Consequences and Reporting for Worst-Case Incidents
Facility
1
Number of targets
Consequences (a)
No bad effects
Nervous around people
Don't like people getting close
Don't trust people
Worry about reputation
Worry it will happen again
Flashbacks, bad dreams
Depression
Thoughts of suicide
Attempted suicide
Have physical injuries
Worry about AIDS
Have caught a disease
Made me hate people
Caused me to be violent
Other
27
0
22
15
19
10
19
13
14
4
2
3
3
0
9
6
7
(0%)
(82%)
(56%)
(70%)
(37%)
(70%)
(48%)
(52%)
(15%)
(7%)
(11%)
(11%)
(0%)
(33%)
(22%)
(26%)
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Missing
Average rating of first upset (1-7)
Average rating of lasting effects (1-7)
Reporting (a)
Number who told anyone
Told another inmate
Counselor-clergy
Teacher
Medical person
Prison staff--not administrative
Prison administrators
Friends, family outside of prison
Other
Missing
Page 23 of 26
1 (4%)
6.6
(Very High)
5.8
(High)
16
12
7
1
1
7
8
8
5
1
(59%)
(44%)
(26%)
(4%)
(4%)
(26%)
(30%)
(30%)
(18%)
(4%)
Facility
2
Number of targets
Consequences (a)
No bad effects
Nervous around people
Don't like people getting close
Don't trust people
Worry about reputation
Worry it will happen again
Flashbacks, bad dreams
Depression
Thoughts of suicide
Attempted suicide
Have physical injuries
Worry about AIDS
Have caught a disease
Made me hate people
Caused me to be violent
Other
Missing
Average rating of first upset (1-7)
Average rating of lasting effects (1-7)
Reporting (a)
Number who told anyone
Told another inmate
Counselor-clergy
Teacher
Medical person
Prison staff--not administrative
Prison administrators
Friends, family outside of prison
Other
Missing
5
0 (0%)
2 (40%)
3 (60%)
3 (60%)
3 (60%)
1 (20%)
1 (20%)
2 (40%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (60%)
0 (0%)
6.2
(High)
5.2
(High)
4
3
2
1
1
2
1
2
0
0
(80%)
(60%)
(40%)
(20%)
(20%)
(40%)
(20%)
(40%)
(0%)
(0%)
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Page 24 of 26
Facility
3
Number of targets
Consequences (a)
No bad effects
Nervous around people
Don't like people getting close
Don't trust people
Worry about reputation
Worry it will happen again
Flashbacks, bad dreams
Depression
Thoughts of suicide
Attempted suicide
Have physical injuries
Worry about AIDS
Have caught a disease
Made me hate people
Caused me to be violent
Other
Missing
Average rating of first upset (1-7)
Average rating of lasting effects (1-7)
Reporting (a)
Number who told anyone
Told another inmate
Counselor-clergy
Teacher
Medical person
Prison staff--not administrative
Prison administrators
Friends, family outside of prison
Other
Missing
2
0 (0%)
2(100%)
1 (50%)
2(100%)
1 (50%)
1 (50%)
2(100%)
1 (50%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
7.0
(Very High)
6.0
(High)
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
(50%)
(50%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(50%)
(0%)
(50%)
(0%)
(0%)
(a) Percentages total more than 100 because respondents could check
multiple categories.
Portions of this paper were presented at the joint annual meeting of the Society for the
Study of Sexuality and the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors, and
Therapists in November, 1999, St. Louis, MO, and at the annual meeting of the Academy
of Criminal Justice Sciences in March, 2000, New Orleans, LA.
We give our grateful thanks to our secretary Lois Norling and our undergraduate students
Kathy Bates, Gabriel Champagne, Jason Christenson, Shannon Cleberg, Elisa Cruz,
Kelly Erickson, George Johnson, Shannon Kelly, Jamie Kuper, Teresa Lenling, Jackie
Meloy, Wendy Wetherall, and Deanna Zent for their invaluable assistance with the survey.
REFERENCES
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Page 25 of 26
Alarid, L. F. (2000). Sexual assault and coercion among incarcerated women prisoners:
Excerpts from prison letters. The Prison Journal, 80, 391-406.
Amnesty International. (1999). United States of America: Not part of my sentence-Violations of the human rights of women in custody (AI Index AMR 51/19/98). Retrieved
July 2001 from http://www.amnestyusa.org/ rightsforall/women/report/women.html
Baro, A. L. (1997). Spheres of consent: An analysis of the sexual abuse and sexual
exploitation of women incarcerated in the state of Hawaii. Women & Criminal Justice, 8,
61-84.
Bartollas, C., & Sieverdes, C. M. (1983). The sexual victim in a coeducational juvenile
correctional institution. The Prison Journal, 58, 80-90.
Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2001). Prisoners in 2000. Bureau of Justice
Statistics Bulletin (NCJ 188207, pp. 1-15). Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice.
Bell, C., Coven, M., Cronan, J. P., Garza, C. A., Guggemos, J., Storto, L. (1999). Rape
and sexual misconduct in the prison system: Analyzing America's most "open" secret. Yale
Law and Policy Review, 18, 195-223.
Butler, T. (1997, November). Preliminary findings from the inmate health survey of the
inmate population in the New South Wales Correctional System. Corrections Health
Service (NSW Department of Health Report No. 365/66 09944 Butler, pp.83-86). Sydney:
NSWCHS.
Dumond, R. W. (1992). The sexual assault of male inmates in incarcerated settings.
International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 137-157.
Greer, K. R. (2000). The changing nature of interpersonal relationships in a women's
prison. The Prison Journal, 80, 442-468.
Hensley, C. (1999, September). Attitudes toward homosexuality from behind bars. Paper
presented at the meeting of the Southern Criminal Justice Association, Chattanooga, TN.
Hensley, C., Struckman-Johnson, C., & Eigenberg, H. (2000). The history of prison sex
research. The Prison Journal, 80, 360-367.
Human Rights Watch. (1996). All too familiar: Sexual abuse of women in U.S. state
prisons. New York: Yale University Press.
Ibrahim, A. I. (1974). Deviant sexual behavior in men's prisons. Crime and Delinquency,
20, 38-44.
Kassebaum, G. (1972). Sex in prison. Sexual Behavior, 2, 39-45.
Kunselman, J., Tewksbury, R., Dumond, R. W., & Dumond, D. A. (2002). Nonconsensual
sexual behavior. In C. Hensely (Ed.), Prison sex: Practice and policy (pp. 27-47). Boulder,
CO: Rienner.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons.
Page 26 of 26
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T, & Michaels, S. (1994). The social
organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Muehlenhard, C. L., Harney, P. A., & Jones, J. M. (1992). From "victim precipitated rape"
to "date rape": How far have we come? Annual Review of Sex Research, 3, 219-253.
National Institute of Corrections (2000, May). Sexual misconduct in prisons. Law,
remedies, and incidence. Special Issues in Corrections (NIC Information Center, pp. 1-12).
Longmont, CO: LIS, Inc.
Ong, A. D., & Weiss, D. J. (2000). The impact of anonymity on responses to sensitive
questions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1691-1708.
Selling, L. S. (1931). The pseudo family. American Journal of Sociology, 37, 247-253.
Springfield, D. (2000). Sisters in misery: Utilizing international law to protect United States
female prisoners from sexual abuse. Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, 10,
457-486.
Struckman-Johnson, C., & Anderson, P. (1998). Men do and women don't: Difficulties in
researching sexually aggressive women. In P. B. Anderson & C. Struckman-Johnson
(Eds.), Sexually aggressive women: Current perspectives and controversies (pp.9-18).
New York: Guilford.
Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (2000). Sexual coercion rates in seven
Midwestern prison facilities for men. The Prison Journal, 80, 379-390.
Struckman-Johnson, C. J., Struckman-Johnson, D. L., Rucker, L., Bumby, K., &
Donaldson, S. (1996). Sexual coercion reported by men and women in prison. The Journal
of Sex Research, 33, 67-76.
Tewksbury, R., & West, A. (2000). Research on sex in prison during the late 1980s and
early 1990s. The Prison Journal, 80, 368-378.
Cindy Struckman-Johnson and David Struckman-Johnson University of South Dakota
Address correspondence to Cindy Struckman-Johnson, Ph.D., Department of Psychology,
University of South Dakota, 414 East Clark St., Vermillion, SD 57069; e-mail:
[email protected].
COPYRIGHT 2002 Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, Inc.
Copyright 2002, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=94130318
2/6/2012