Fear of Homosexuality and
Modes of Rationalisation in
Male Prisons
Katy Richmond
Senior Lecturer in Sociology
La Trobe University
While homosexual
jokes
are
a
normal
part of Australian bar culture, it is often
not
recognised that homosexuality as a general
topic of conversation dominates the cultural
atmosphere of a male prison. Inmates joke
with one another, playfully touch one
an
another
in
affectedly homosexual
manner, plan escapades to cause embarfriends, tease one another
in front of visitors in the hope of causing
a ’scene’ with a wife or girl-friend, and
even joke about homosexuality with prison
officers. Homosexual jokes and references
also form a major part of the gossip content
of prison newsletters, and stories about
drag-queens and pack rapes in the ’yards’
or among the young boys’ dormitories form
the basis of ’cultural myths’ which are told
to newcomers by the old-hands. Prisoners
who dislike one another enjoy the other’s
discomfiture when they are caustically derided about their supposed or actual
homosexual activities, and thus the weapon
of the label ‘poof’ is a major negative
sanction in the prison social system.’
rassment to their
Sociology of Prison Sexuality
sociologists discuss prison life,
homosexuality generally receives cursory
attention. The major part of male prison
sociological literature ignores homosexuality,
The
Yet when
and the few references therein discuss it in
the context of ’adaptations to prison life’
and the deprivation of heterosexual outlets.
Sykes (1958: 72), in one of the major
sociological texts on prisons, sees homosexuality on the part of an inmate generally
’not as a continuation of an habitual
pattern but as a rare act of sexual deviance
under the intolerable pressure of mounting
physical desire, (with consequent) psychological onslaughts on his ego image ’.2
Kirkham see the ’homosexual problem
in male prisons’ as ’the attempt of a relatively small number of men to secure
substitutive sexual gratification’, and he
finds
a
values,
oriented system of
argot and statuses’ inextric-
’homosexually
norms,
ably interwoven with, though analytically
separable from, the larger inmate social
structure ( 1971: 348, 330). A number of
writers relate homosexual behaviour to the
inmate social system only in so far as they
connect this behaviour with means of
acquiring power and status.’ Cohen and
Taylor, in a study of the deprivations suffered
by long-term prisoners, take a more microcosmic view of homosexual behaviour,
viewing it as a cause of tension in overcrowded and too public total institutions
and as ’an important and even disturbing
element in all their lives’ (Cohn and
Taylor, 1972: 80-4). Akers et al., in research
which tests the levels of homosexual
and drug behaviour in treatment- and
custodially-oriented prisons, conclude tersely
that ’the extent to which convicts are
engaged in these two kinds of deviant
behaviour during the time of their incarceration is more a function of the type of
prison which holds them than they are
reflective of the social characteristics which
they bring with them from the outside’
(1974: 421). Mathiesen, who is a rare
exception in talking about the fear of
homosexuality in a context removed from
the simple fear of homosexual assault,
nevertheless passes over the topic in a few
paragraphs which describe the psychological
uncertainties induced by an unpredictable
sexual situation (1965: 128-9). In viewing
homosexual behaviour in prison in terms
of deprivation, tension and psychological
uncertainty and the search for power, it is
clear that, for most sociologists, homosexuality is an interesting if aberrant
deviation, but certainly a side issue so far
as the study of the wider inmate social
system is concerned.
The sociology of female prisons is, however, altogether different. Here the centrality
of homosexual relationships to the total
Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
51
social system is recognised: the
theme is not only that there is a
great deal of homosexual behaviour in
female prisons, but that it is organised along
marriage and kinship lines in a quite
clear-cut and obvious way.’ (See, e.g., Ward
and Kassebaum, 1965; Giallombardo, 1966:
Giallombardo, 1974; Heuernan. 1972: Burkhart, 1973).
Explanations for the family-oriented
context of homosexual behaviour among
female prisoners refer to the probability
that women’s self-conceptions are based far
more firmly on familial roles (as wives,
mothers, daughters, girl-friends) than are
men’s self-conceptions, and to the likelihood
that, before coming to prison, the women
were
dependent both financially and
emotionally on men (Ward and Kassebaum.
1965: 70, ll4). In addition, the severance
of ties with children is likely to be more
complete (and possibly is felt more deeply)
among imprisoned women than among
imprisoned men, since children of female
prisoners will very likely be dispersed
among relatives, foster-parents and state
homes, whereas the children of male
prisoners have some chance, at least, of
staying in an intact family situation with
their mothers. Faced with such crucial
disruption of their family lives, it is not
unexpected to find that incarcerated women
frequently recreate a fantasy of their family
circles in prison.
In accounting for the greater amount and
visibility of homosexual behaviour in female
prisons compared with male prisons, Giallombardo makes reference to the fact that
women in western society may demonstrate
affection, both verbally and physically, with
ease, whereas demonstrations of affection
between men are culturally disapproved
(1966: 15, 185). Though the amount of
homosexuality in female prisons might not
be as high as the work of Giallombardo
and others suggest,&dquo; and in any case is
probably dependent on the length of
institutional stay, the fact that homosexual
behaviour is more readily admitted to by
female prisoners than by male prisoners
remains. This is, of course, a major reason
why it is a phenomenon studied in depth
by sociologists of female prisons and yet
has been so neglected by sociological research of male prisons.
Yet sociologists have erred in imagining
thatt the amount of actual homosexual
behaviour is crucial in distinguishing
between patterns of homosexuality in male
and female prisons. Sociologists too often
stress actual behaviour rather than searching
prison
major
for more difficult, but
evidence of overt and
behaviour.
no
significant.
attitudes to
Prisoners’ Expressions of Concern
About Homosexuality
In the case of homosexuality in male
it is not the amount of homosexual
behaviour which prisoners admit to or know
about which is the crucial variable for
analysis, but the amount of concern demonstrated by prisoners about homosexuality,
shown in conversations and play behaviour.
Whereas homosexuality in female prisons
evinces little apparent concern from the
inmates (except from a minority), attitudes
towards homosexual behaviour in male
prisons demonstrate quite a considerable
degree of anxiety and uncertainty among
the men. Evidence of concern can be gauged
from three aspects of prison life: one,
patterns of ostracism; two, assertions of
heterosexual status; and three, gaol humour
(both ’play’ behaviour and verbal joking).
Ostracism has many dimensions in
prisons, but the patterns which concern us
here are those relating to alleged or actual
homosexuality. The general pattern does
not differ greatly from prison to prison.
Those men who manage to successfuly avow
their ’masculine’ (insertor) role in homosexual acts manage to escape the label
’homosexual’ entirely, and are not ostracised
at all for this behaviour; their status in the
prison is medium to high (Johnson, 1971:
90). The exceptions are some of the men
who take the ’masculine’ role with ’queens’
of low status. Despite the fact that ’hocks’
are not ostracised for their ’masculine’ role
in homosexual acts, it is still true that
prisoners in general dislike being put in cells
with known homosexuals. This is indicated
by the fact that in some gaols prisoners are
put in these cells as a form of punishment
(Sommer, 1976: 55).
With men who take a ’feminine’ (or
insertee) role in acts of homosexual inter-
prisons,
course,
two
status
positions
are
possible
and in only one of these cases does ostracism regularly occur. On the one hand,
’queens’, who are generally homosexual in the
outside world, and who dress as women m
far as they are able, have medium to high
status in prison according to the degrees to
which they are aligned with men of status
and power. This alignment is associated
with such personal characteristics as ’good
looks’, and personality. There is no indication that ’queens’ are ever ostracised for
their homosexuality.&dquo; On the other hand,
Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
52
less
covert
the second category of men who take a
’feminine’ role in homosexual acts are not
regarded as ’true’ homosexuals (that is.
homosexuals in the outside world) and are
despised as ’cats’ or ’punks’: they have a
very low status. These men are invariably
called homosexuals, however, from the
moment of their first act of intercourse
(which is often in an overtly coercive, or
even rape, situation ).7 Their ostracism iF
that of a despised caste.
The rigidity with which these roles are
found in prisons all over the world, the fact
that the argot labels vary so little from
country to country,’ and the obvious
stereotyping and role-pluying which occur
to a degree quite markedly different from
homosexual behaviour in the outside community (Sonenschein, 1968: 225: Haist and
Hewitt, 1974) together suggest that the fear
of the homosexual Iabe1 is a major dimension of prison culture. Rigidity and lack of
tolerance of ambiguity in social situations
are clear indications of precarious coping
mechanisms and generalised insecurity.
The constant assertions by each and every
prisoner of their heterosexuality is also an
indication of the fear which the label
’homosexual’ holds for them. Even the
degraded and firmly labelled ’cats’ (or
’punks’) do not admit to being homosexual.
The only exceptions are ’queens’ who
readily describe their ’love’ for their current
sexual partner, and are called ’she’ by
everyone in the gaol.’’
Patterns of ostracism, and prisoners’
repeated assertions of their heterosexual
status, combine with the character of gaol
humour in affirming not only the deep fear
that the label ’homosexual’ holds for male
prisoners, but also the ways in which this
label can be avoided at the same time as
restricted forms of homosexual behaviour
can be permitted to occur without sanction,
at least for the aggressive partner.
Gaol humour in relation to homosexuality
is of two sorts: first, play-acting, and
second, verbal joking. While some attention has been given to homosexual play
among inmates in youth prisons, it has not
been recognised that exactly the same sorts
of play-acting occur constantly in adult
male prisons. For example, the game Irwin
refers to as ’grab ass’, where ’in aggressive
play-acting each makes mocking homosexual
advances towards the other’, is a very
common one in male prisons (Irwin, 1970:
28; Barthollas et ~/.. 1974: 88).
The content of jokes is a good source of
knowledge about predominant cultural items
in any culture, but especially so in all-male
circles, where joking is the usual form of
conversation and anything ’serious’ is kept
for dyadic relationships among close friends
in private. Though Mathiesen recognises the
value of analysing the social relationships
of prisoners who tell jokes to one another,
he makes no mention of the relevance of
analysing their content (Mathiesen, 1965:
86, 147-9). Jokes are particularly important
sources of information in prison, because
’serious’ conversation is often dangerous in
a deprived setting, and
a lot of serious
comment is deliberately phrased in a joking
manner to avoid conflict, and to allow the
possibility of a strategic retreat if the
comment causes trouble. Nevertheless, as
in joking behaviour in the wider community,
jokes are often tinged with hostility, particul~irly when they refer to individuals not
present.
While prisoners joke endlessly about the
’joys’ of making fun of prison officers while
they are subject to close confinement in
punishment sections of gaols, and constantly
tell what are meant to be riotously funny
stories about fellow prisoners’ murders and
other acts of violence,&dquo;’ the bulk of prison
humour is concerned with homosexuality
(Johnson, 1971: 92). Analysis of the content of these prison jokes reveals that the
humour is confined to certain aspects of
homosexuality, for example, jokes about
the absurd public and semi-public positions
in which anal intercourse occurs,&dquo; the
mock-ownership of ’young boys’ by some
of the older prisoners, the changing homosexual partnerships, and the sexual pleasures
involved in purportedly innocent massaging
of one prisoner by another.
It is interesting to consider what aspects
of prison homosexuality are omitted from
normal joking behaviour. Acts of gang rape
on young boys are discussed with anger
and horror, and are never joked about.
More surprisingly, the pseudo-feminine
appearance and behaviour of ’drag-queens’
is also not often a topic for joking. In
this respect, the whole tone of Jim McNeil’s play, How Does Your Garden Grow,
is very much in keeping with the general
tenor of prison culture. One of the main
characters in the play is ’Brenda’, a male
prisoner who has taken on the role of a
woman in the manner of a drag queen.
’Her’ relationship with two other prisoners
is the subject of the play; one prisoner who
has ’owned’ Brenda for the last few years
of his prison sentence has agreed that another prisoner, to whom he owes a number
of favours, should be allowed to take over
the relationship with ’Brenda’. The interest-
Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
53
ing thing about the play is that ’Brenda’s’
behaviour and physical appearance is never
made fun of, and the play ends with the
second prisoner putting his arm around
her, the transition to the new relationship having been completed without conflict.
with another prisoner, who, however, takes
New South Wales
prisoner of many years experience, comments in the introduction to the play that
they are commonly regarded as being
’genuine’ though deviant in their sexual
Les
Newcombe,
a
How Does your Garden Grow touches on
an aspect of prison life that is generally
spoken of in whispers, ignored or glossed
with embarrassment, or used for
over
sensationalism by press and public alike.
Despite denials, homosexuality is practised
in the majority of prisons. The fact of
its existence, however, is less important than
the author’s insight into the true nature of
the relationships he depicts. This is a gentle
play and makes a more striking contrast to
the more famous Canadian play of prison
life, Fortune And Men’s Eyes, which shows
everything penal, particularly the homosexual problem, as violent (Newcombe, in
McNeil, 1974: 5).
Les Newcombe concurs, then, that McNeil’s play is a realistic presentation of
one sort of prison homosexual relationship,
the ’true love’ between a known homosexual
and another prisoner. Yet this sort of
homosexual relationship is not often the
subject of gaol humour.
Why do prisoners joke about some
aspects of homosexuality and not others’?
The answer lies, I think, in the degree to
which certain sorts of homosexual relationships threaten prisoners’ visions of ’true
masculinity’. Among men in the outside
world, and even more so in a prison
environment, men are meant to be
sexually normal, robust, potent, aggressive
(Mathiesen, 1965: 128-9, Sykes, 1958: 70-2).
While homosexual acts of any description
threaten men’s concept of their own masculinity, within a prison context certain
sorts of homosexual relationships are more
tolerable than others. The most difficult
relationships to cope with, in terms of the
degree to which they arouse guilt, fear, and
lowered self-esteem, are those which are
fully emotional relationships between two
prisoners, neither of whom is a known
homosexual, and neither of whom takes on
a
conspicuous ’drag-queen’ role. To be
engulfed by such a relationship is viewed
by most prisoners as nothing short of
disaster, and these relationships, when they
occur, are kept secret, particularly in the
more deprived maximum security prisons .12
Homosexual relationships which arouse less
fear are those where a ’drag-queen’ has a
temporary
or more
permanent
relationship
a fully masculine and aggressive role in the
relationship. Though fighting for the favours
of drag-queens are the subject of prison
humour, the actual appearance and be-
haviour of true homosexuals is not, and
interests.
The target of prison jokes, then, is to
outlaw and deny the emotional element in
homosexual relationships, and the content
of the jokes continuously refers to the
physical and transient nature of these re-
lationships.
Three ’stories’ in a gaol newsletter
illustrate the way in which prisoners joke
about the ’ownership’ of young boys and
the finding of sexual partners for a special
occasion.
We have heard on the grapevine that Snorty
has a secret admirer who has been eyeing
him off over the past few weeks while he
has been serving in the kitchen. Snorty
waited until Mick got out of the way, didn’t
you,
Snorty.
Joe the tamperer was chatted by Simpson (a
senior prison officer) last night for trying to
get onto some youngies. We heard that Bill
was very jealous, and he reckons that all the
young ones are in his territory. Don’t worry
too much, Bill, as Joe was caught red-handed.
How about this. Two officers who will remain nameless heard that it was Stripey’s
birthday the other day and offered to
arrange a suck for him as a present. You
wouldn’t have to be too clever to work out
who.
These sorts of jokes function to reassure
prisoners that while they are involved in
homosexual behaviour from time to time,
their emotional involvement in such relationships is nil, and that their aggressive
masculinity need be in no way threatened
by transient and highly physical encounters.&dquo;
Fear of Homosexuality among Prisoners
and among Men in the Outside Community
Many of the attitudes towards homosexuals and homosexual acts are duplicated,
of course, in the outside male culture.
Homosexual jokes are probably among the
most common of all jokes and bantering
behaviour in all-male groups, yet the joking
is tinged with fear and hostility, as the
occasional case of poofter-bashing makes
clear. However, though the situation in male
prisons mirrors the general culture of the
outside community, attitudes to homosexuality are ’writ large’ in prison and
surrounded with even more fear, for three
Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
54
reasons. One is the general precariousness
of masculine self-image among the sort of
men who inhabit prisons, the second is the
lack of heterosexual outlets in prison, and
the third is the fear of emotional involvement among men in prison because of the
loss of personal control it is seen to bring
in its train.
It can be argued that a male prison
population is more likely to exemplify a
precarious sense of masculinity than a
random group of men in the community,
for the following reasons. First, in late
adolescence and early adulthood, men have
reached full sexual maturity without,
generally, having secured stable heterosexual relationships (Pleck, 1976: 160) and
at a time, also, when their occupational
achievements are low. This is likely to be
particularly true of young men in prison,
who generally have little education, even
less occupational satisfaction, and almost
by definition, an inability to delay
gratification-characteristics accentuated by
their general lack of marriage partners, and
their poor prospects of a good occupational
future (Pleck, 1976: 160). Secondly, this
precarious sense of masculinity is likely
to be emphasised by some specific characteristics of gaol life. Gaols are in
fact dependency-creating institutions, where
decisions are made for the prisoners, and
the men have few opportunities to be
assertive,
take
express normal
initiatives, or otherwise
aspects of the male role.
Again, whereas men have traditionally been
socialised to see the fulfilment of their
masculinity in the satisfactory performance
of work roles, gaols have organised only
nominal work lives for the inmates
(Mathieson, 1965: 143, 145).
In a normal community situation, men
their
can
assert
heterosexuality and
demonstrate the genuineness of their masculinity by boasting about their exploits
with women, or the way women ’fall’ for
them, but with men in prison opportunities
for successfully demonstrating one’s heterosexual capacities is denied. Men in prison
are reduced to asserting their masculinity
in a variety of less convincing ways, by
asserting their physical prowess, their power
over prison officers and other prisoners,
their physical strength, by drooling over
hard-porn magazines, recollecting their
masturbation experiences and the accompanying heterosexual fantasies, or by
sighing over television actresses, dancers
and singers (Berrigan and Lockwood, 1972:
49). Where men in prison are involved in
homosexual activity, they have only a
limited number of choices if they are to
retain their masculine image. One is to deny
their homosexual involvements. The second
alternative is to assert the physical nature
of the act. the force and power, or cunning,
behind their seduction of their partner, their
total lack of emotional involvement, and
their participation as the active, rather than
the passive partner. Kirkham goes so far
as
to say:
The more violence that surrounds his sexual
acts, the closer the ’jocker’ comes to actually
engaging in an emotionless act of rape, thereby escaping both homosexual anxiety and the
imputation of queerness by his peers (1971:
343).
It is reasonable to argue, therefore, that
the rigid stereotyping of homosexual roles
in prisons stems from what Blumstein and
Schwartz have described ass ’elaborate
vocabularies of rationalisation ... evolved
to insulate the heterosexual identity from
assault’ (1976: 335).
Women,
on
the other hand, lose little
of their
’femininity’ if they ’fall in love’ in
prison. Homosexuality is less threatening,
probably, among women than among men,
and emotional involvement is seen as part
of a woman’s role, not as something alien,
as it is with the stereotype of the ’true’ male
(Fasteau, 1974: 16, Steffensmeier, 1974: 62;
Pleck, 1976: 156). And close personal
relationships are something to which women
are socialised from birth (Chodorow, 1974:
55). Whereas the goal of homosexual
encounters in female prisons is emotional
involvement (Giallombardo, 1966: 125, 149;
Ward and Kassebaum, 1965: 192-3), by
contrast, the avoidance of emotion is the
approved goal of homosexual encounters
in male prisons.
The third reason for the especially great
fear of homosexuality among men in prison
lies in the loss of control which emotional
involvement among prisoners is seen to
entail. As a prisoner in a New South Wales
gaol has said,
Here (in gaol) one learns that it is dangerous
to be honest, dangerous to let one’s guard
drop, dangerous to have or to display
emotions, dangerous to be a non-conforming
male in any way (Gregory See Kee, 1975).
In the deprived circumstances of most gaols
(even in many minimum security institu-
tions),
basic
among
prisoners
commodities are bartered
to raise survival levels
beyond a minimum level of existence. Not
only are material goods bought and sold
on the prison ’market’, but information too
is a commodity. Information about other
prisoners, their past lives, their future plans,
Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
55
their family relationships, their friendships
with other prisoners and even with prison
officers, all these ’facts’ are available for
barter (Cloward, 1960: 38-9: Mathiesen.
1965: 124-6).
In these circumstances, close friendships
(and close friendships are always seen as
involving homosexual relitionships) are
seen as a loss of control. From the prisoner’s
point of view, the worst thing he can have
in gaol is a close friend, someone to whom
he might find himself talking ’too much’,
someone for whom he cares, and on whose
behalf he is vulnerable should circumstances
of conflict with other prisoners and prison
officers arise. To survive long sentences in
a maximum security gaol is only possible if
one cares about nothing or no-one. Though
this maxim is rarely followed completely,
an
as
ideology it pervades the whole
atmosphere of a prison (Mathiesen, 1965:
129-133; Cohen and Ttylor. 1972: 75-8).
Therefore, when homosexual behaviour
occurs, to the degree it occurs at all, it is
likely to be portrayed by all concerned as
primarily a necessary sexual release of men
acting under severe deprivation (the rationalisation of the aggressors), and secondarily
as the result of a calculated and coercive
use of power and physical strength (the
rationalisation of the passive partners).
Conclusion
The prison atmosphere has been described
as a place where the inmates seem more
bored, more callous, more rigid and more
afraid than inmates of any other social
institution (BunTum. 1972: 7). In this context, the fear of the label of homosexual is
another factor, and an important factor,
in limiting peer solidarity, and encouraging
prisoners to attempt to deal with the
deprivations of prison life largely in isolation.
Thus there are two consequences of the
prisoners’ fear of being labelled homosexual.
On the one hand, prisoners see (and
probably encourage) violence, intimidation,
and degradation in sexual encounters. The
aggressor proudly displays his manliness and
physical prowess and stifles his affectionate
feelings.
The
passive partner experiences
what one Australian prisoner has described
a sort
as his ‘final moral disintegration
of moral 11lIri kari
self-loathing, moral
abnegation and totul surrender’ (Thurston,
1971: 17).
On the other hand, the capacity of
prisoners to maintain, let alone increase,
their sense of emotional well-being is con...
...
stantly and persistently eroded, and with it,
the capacity for successful re-entry into the
ordinary community.
FOOTNOTES
These incidents were described by prisoners,
observed by the author, or outlined in
twenty gaol newsletters acquired by the
author. In a three year period the author
spent 100 hours in an unstructured classroom
situation in a metropolitan gaol, 50 hours
in the same gaol visiting prisoners at plays,
debates and other occasions, and another 100
hours visiting prisoners at two medium
security gaols. The prisoners (and a small
group of ex-prisoners known also to the
author) are not a random group, being
almost all long-term prisoners in
their
twenties and thirties, with above average
intelligence. In addition the author made use
of personal notes, letters, essays, diaries and
fictional stories written by the prisoners and
ex-prisoners, conversations with, among
others, two prison education officers and one
and
feedback
from
prison
governor,
prisoners on an earlier draft of the paper.
This
of
sources
most
range
compares
favourably with the kinds of information
used by other sociological writers on prisons.
2. This
sort
of
interpretation of prison
homosexuality is limited not only in its lack
of consideration of the need male prisoners
evidently have to re-create a ’female caste’
and achieve status by the humiliation of
others, but also by its neglect of the emotional dimension. One prisoner wrote in an
on
essay
homosexuality: ’It is patently
obvious that homosexuality in prison is a
result of something far deeper than sexual
deprivation. If the prisoner’s only aim was
orgasm, then this could be done by masterbation. Homosexuality in prison can be
attributed to
factors other than
sexual
deprivation and fear of physical assault. It
can be attributed to a search for love, the
search for a way of expressing emotion ....
See also Jim McNeil’s play, How does your
Garden Grow.
3. Huffman (1960), Gagnon and Simon (1968),
Bell (1976: 374-8), Kirkham (1971), Scacco
(1975), Brownmiller (1976), Sagarin (1976)
and Rinaldi (1977).
4. Note, however, that Ward and Kassebaum
(1965: 138-140), distinguish between marriage
(conjugal) relationships and wider kinship
1.
relationships
5.
(consanguine
Out’ (1977). Yet other evidence is cited by
these and other writers which suggests that
homosexual behaviour in the sense of being
physical encounters aimed at achieving
orgasm occurs with far less frequency than
Giallombardo and Ward and Kassebaum
would have us believe.
6. Kirkham (1971: 335). Adamson and Hanford
(1974: 31-32)give an excellent description of
the power situation of queens in New South
Wales prisons. ’The richest and toughest
(prisoners)
get the best queens. Desirable
queens have extra tobacco and a lot of
influence in prison affairs, through their boy
friends.
can
even
an
They
develop
independent sort of power’.
7. The
literature
on
prison homosexuality
abounds with descriptions of men humiliated
in forced homosexual encounters and thenceforth labelled homosexual and given a very
low status. See especially Adamson and
Hanford
(1974), Sagarin (1976), Huffman
(1961), Johnson (1971: 89), Sykes (1958: 97)
and Kirkham (1971: 331, 345). However, this
...
Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
56
ties), especially
of the mother-daughter kind.
As is the case with male prisons, any precise
figure defining the amount of actual homosexual involvement is largely a matter of
conjecture. Giallombardo (1974: 3) says ’the
vast majority of inmates in this prison are
engaged in homosexual relations’ and elsewhere (1966: 140) she refers to the rejection
of inmates who do not engage in homosexuality. See also Ward and Kassebaum
(1965: 78, 90); Heffernan (1972: 2); ’Coming
8.
9.
10.
perspective of the ’passive’ prison homosexual invariably being awarded low status
must
be
modified
by recognition that
sometimes name-calling has a degree of
’ritual’
in it which belies its sincerity
(Scacco, 1975: 40). One prisoner wrote ’The
passive partner is prepared to give up his
masculinity as he realises that signs of being
despised are generally only superficial and
are replaced by genuine affection’.
In prison argot, the aggressive partner is
called a ’hock’ in Australian prisons, a
’jock’, ’jocker’ or ’wolf’ elsewhere. The
passive partner is called a ’punk’ or a ’cat’
(the latter is the Australian term). The
’queen’ is universally known by that name.
As the ’queens’ are defined as women, and
are literally seen as women in prisons, it is
perfectly acceptable for them to express
’love’ Their partners too can talk about
love, on the same grounds, i.e., that ’true’
men can
love ’true’ women. ’Queens’ are
are called
’she’ not only by prisoners, but
also by at least some of the staff.
One prisoner wrote an essay (unsolicited) on
’Black Humour and In-Jokes’ describing the
serves in
come to terms with
and others’ violent acts.
11. Dillon (1971:
117). The author has heard
Australian
(and read)
by
descriptions
prisoners of instances similar to the one
quoted by Dillon. It is obvious that the
sheer public nature of many of these acts is
not simply a matter of necessity, but a
device to demonstrate the masculinity and
lack of emotion of the aggressive (if not also
the passive) partner.
12. One ex-prisoner maintained (very defenthat
all
between
relationships
sively)
prisoners which can be called ’emotional
attachments’ involve actual sexual encounters, but to the author’s certain knowledge
this is not true. There are close and deep
attachments between prisoners which exist
(though uncommon) but are kept secret for
fear of the stigma that one or both would
gain as a ’homosexual’. Sagarin (1976: 247)
in fact doubts that there are any sexual
alliances of an affectionate nature in male
functions which macabre humour
to
prison
their
help prisoners
own
describes the function of jokes as
’consisting in lifting internal inhibitions’ and
he refers to a technique which is particularly
relevant to gaol humour, namely, displacement — ’the selection of ideas which are
sufficiently remote from the objectionable
one for the censorship to allow them to pass’
(1960: 130, 171).
Freud
Inside Prison American
Random House.
Style. New York:
Fasteau, M.
1974 The Male Machine, New York: McGraw Hill.
Freud,S.
1960 Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
J. H. and P. Simon
1968 ’The
Social
Meaning of Prison Homosexuality’. Federal Probation, 32.
Giallombardo, R.
1966 Society of Women. New York: Wiley.
Giallombardo, R.
1974 The Social World of Imprisoned Girls. New
York: Wiley.
Haist, M. and J. Hewitt
1974 ’The Butch-Fem Dichotomy in Male Homosexual Behaviour’. Journal of Sex Research,
10.
Heffernan, E.
1972 Making It in Prison. New York: Wiley.
Gagnon,
Huffman, A.
Deviation
1960 ’Sex
in
a
Prison
Community’.
Social
and
Corrective
Psychiatry and
Journal of Behaviour Technology, 6.
Huffman, A.
1961 ’Problems
precipitated
by Homosexual
Approaches
Corrective
Journal of
on
Youthful
First
Offenders’.
and
and
Social
Psychiatry
Behaviour Technology, 7.
Irwin, J.
1970 The Felon.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Johnson, E.
1971 ’The Homosexual in Prison’. Social
and Practice, 1.
Theory
Kassebaum. G.
1972 ’Sex in Prison’. Sexual Behaviour.
Kirkham, G.
1971 ’Homosexuality in Prison’. In J. Henslin
(ed.), Studies in the Sociology of Sex. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
McNeil, J.
Chocolate Frog and the Old Familiar
Juice. London: Eyre Methuen.
McNeil, J.
1974 How Does Your Garden Grow. London:
Eyre Methuen.
Mathiesen, T.
London:
of
the
Weak.
Deferices
1965 The
Tavistock.
Adamson, R. and B. Hanford
1974 Zimmer’s Essay. Sydney: Wild and Woolley.
Akers, R. et al.
and
1974 ’Homosexual
Drug Behaviour in
Prison’. Social Problems, 21.
C.
et
al.
Bartollas,
1974 ’Becoming a Scapegoat: Study of a Deviant
Career’. Sociological Symposium, 11.
Bell, R.
Deviance.
Rev. ed.
Pleck, J.
1976 ’The Male Sex Role: Definitions, Problems,
and Sources of Change’. Journal of Social
Issues, 32.
REFERENCES
1976 Social
Psychological Survival: the Experience of
Term
Middlesex:
Imprisonment.
Long
Penguin.
1977 ’Coming Out’. New Society, 11 August.
Dillon, V.
1971 ’Love in Prison’. In R. J. Minton (ed.),
1972
1973 The
prisons.
13.
Cohen, S. and L. Taylor
Illinois:
Dorsey
Press.
Berrigan, D. and L. Lockwood
1972 Absurd Convictions, Modest Hopes. New
York: Vintage Books.
Blumstein, P. W. and P. Schwartz
1976 ’Bisexuality in Men’. Urbanlife, 5.
Brownmiller, S.
1976 Against Our Will. Middlesex: Penguin.
Buffum, P. C.
1972 ’Homosexuality in Prisons’. U.S. Department
of Justice
Burkhart, K. W.
1973 Women in Prison. New York: Doubleday.
Chodorow, N.
1974 ’Family
Structure
and
Feminine
Personality’. In M. Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere
Culture
and
(eds.),
Women,
Society.
California: Stanford University Press.
Cloward, R. A.
1960 ’Social Control in the Prison’. In R. A.
Cloward et al., Theoretical Studies in the
Social Organisation of the Prison. U.S.A.:
Social Science Research Council.
Rinaldi, F.
Australian
1977.
Prisons.
and
M.
Effect
on
F.
Canberra:
Publishers.
Sagarin, E.
1976 ’Prison Homosexuality and Its
Post-Prison Sexual Behaviour’.
39.
Psychiatry,
Scacco, A.
1975 Rape in Prison. Springfield: C. C. Thomas.
See Kee, G.
1975 ’Masculinity Inside’. Males Against Sexism
(special conference Edition) n.d., (about
Melbourne:
Males
June
1975).
against
Sexism Collective.
Sommer, Robert
1976 The
End
of
Imprisonment.
New
York:
O.U.P.
Sonenschein, D.
1968 ’The Ethnography
of Male Homosexual
Relationships’. Journal of Sex Research, 4.
R.
Steffensmeier, D.
1974 ’Sex Differences in Reactions to Homosexuals’. Journal of Sex Research, 10.
Sykes, G. M.
1958 The
of
Princeton:
Society
Captives.
Princeton University Press.
R.
Thurston,
1971 ’The Moral Capitulation of the Prisoner’.
Iconoclast Behind Bars. Department
of
Sociology, University of New South Wales.
Ward, D., and G. Kassebaum
1965 Women’s Prison: Sex and Social Structure.
London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
57