Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Homosexuaf
ity
Myth and Reatity
+Ji*":,#;.fiiooo"'
LexingtonBooks
D.C.HeathandCompanv
Lexington,Massachuietts
I oronto
Contents
Acknowledgments xl
Direct Importation 79
Copyight @ 1981 by D.C. Heath and Company Indirect Importation 84
MeasuringIrnportation Variables 86
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or Importation VariablesasPredictorsof
transmitted in any form or by any means, electtonic or mechanica.l,
iacluding photocopy, recording, or any information storage or retdeyal Homosexuality 95
system,without permissionin wdting from the publisher. PreprisonHomosexuality Accounts for
Institutional Differcncesin l,evelsof
Publishedsimultaneouslyin Caflada Homo sexuality 99
Other Studies l0l
Printedin the United Statesof America
Summary 105
Intemational StandardBook Number: 0-66943628-5
Figures
Tables
2-l of SampledInstitutions
Characteristics
Selected 31
+4 of Homosexuality
Analysisof Covariance with
Scores
PreviousHomosexualityas CoYariate 100
tx
PrisonHomosexualitY
6-1 and
HomosexualityScoresby Self-Descriptions
PreviousHomosexualitY 140
G2 Zero-OrderCorrelations Homosexual
of Previous
Experiencewith PrePrison andSelf-
Characteristics
Descriptions t46
x
The Theoreticaland
EmpiricalSetting
Prison homosexuality has been a topic of much speculation and very little
research.More has been written about this topic than about any other aspect
of inmate subculture, but the descriptions and explanations are often con-
tradictory and some of the best information is in unpublislledsources.
This book summarizes the most important of these writings and shows
that many ftagmented explanationscan be subsumedunder more'generalsocial-
psychological and crirninological theodes that generate new irsights into the
causesof prison homosexuality. The theoretical controversy about the relative
importance of prepdson aad prison variableswas empirically tested in a com-
parative investigation of tluee coed and four all'fernale taining schools. These
findings are usedto createa new explanationof prison homosexuality.
The study began ten yearsago aspart of a large-scalestudy of U.S. juvenile-
justice agenciesunder the auspices of the University of Michigan. My fi$t task
was to visit correctional agenciesand determhe what was important to admin'
istrators.staffs. and inmates.
The field rcsearch for this book began in the spring of 1971 when I began
studying the juvenile-justicesystem by Yisiting courts, detention centers,$oup
homes, training schools, and by attending conferences.The visits included a
fourteen-day stay at a Midwestern state tmining school for 180 girls averaging
fourteen-and-one-halfyears of age. I introduced myself to staff and inmates
ard told them that I was working with the National Assessmentof Juvenile
Corections (NAJC), that we were plarning a large study of young people who
had been in trouble witll the law, and that I would like to know what they
thought was important about living and working in such a place.
Many interviews with staff and girls and reviews of minutes of staff meet-
ings indicated thal crushing, the institution's term for a physical and erotically
tinged emotiona.l attachment between girls, was an imPortant preoccupation.
Most crushing seemedto involve exchanginglove letters, called raps, in which
crushers expressedlove ard concern with the fragi[ty of the relationship.
Some of these crushers admitted to more'overt sexual contact like french
kissing, breast fondling, "finger fucking," and some said that others practiced
cumilingus, but few girls spoke of these forms of sexual contact explicitly
PrisonHomosexuality The Theoreticaland EmpiricalSetting
Crushing usually inyolved a dyadic relationship reflecting the male arld female
gender roles of the larger corununity. A girl adopting the male role was called
a stud, young man, or man; was frequently referred to by the personalpronoun
&e; and simulated the male role in alominance and appearalce by avoiding
dresses,skirts, earrings, and the shaving of legs or underarms. A gid adopting
da'e
the female role was called a femme, young lady, or lady. She pmcticed tadi-
tional feminine grooming and showed passivity, dependence, and obedience
to the male partner. There appeared to be more femmes than studs. Most
a
femmes wele monogamous,but studs sometimeshad a wife and severalgid-
friends. Crushing marriages usually took place at rccreation, school, or church.
In tJre past, they almost always involved a peer priest or minister, a judge, arld
witnesses. They were formalized in their beginning by marriage certficates and
in their end by divorce cedificates. So tlut staff would not know the identity
oo t\e --- \\ o{
H*L
u €( e ! i lrrecL "."n tI. f V,..f
1
'":-ru
of girls mentioned in these certificates or in crushing raps, the girls usually used
pseudonl.rns.I was told these formal documentshad been more common in the
il\'s \... "{ Ot. LucL 1-- N
past. At the time of my yisit, mardages and divorces were more cofltmonly
arranged simply by mutual agreement. D
Figures 1-1 and 1-2 illustrate the style and content of the mariage and
divorce certificates. Their original spelling and format is retained.
\)rllileSS
L
r^,'rt .r ess
The content ald style of the raps wdtten by lovers is illustrated by the
following excerpts, which are from letters the participants showed ald loaned
R
to me so that I might copy them. Thesewere sent by a femme namedJeanjust
a few days before she was to leave the tTaining school. They express Jean's
\o 5r,.r, \o-\t q. \\r rs ..r.rovnen-
5
deep emotional involvement, her jealousy, and her hopes for the continuarce !o bs 1oo. \-*,{tr\ *"AA "& "-r.{e T
of the relationship. They were sent to a stud named Laurie, who called herself -:i,'il--'.- \" \"\A..' \o \..'s\ , Qo. ber*ec, \o< h
George laPierre Smith, Sr. When Jear married Laurie they became Mr. and Mrs. r,Xs''
George La?ierre Smith. The original spelling in the letters has been retained, \)or5e- 1 {oc cic-\er \ +oc \oocei \N N
but I have added punctuation to indicate the beginning and end of sentences.
The names of people ald places have been replaced by pseudonyms tfuoughout
\e"-\\\ 1is gfck^1.55 {<, c\ecrs\
p
this book asa precaution to protect respondents. 1- ti\ tre.-+\,,d. 1o.'. Q-.t
" I
To Baby n f{ s. S'\t.,
FI
G
Today is Monday the l6th so I thought maybe I should start this le[er.
. . . Don't think that I will forget you. . . Don't worry about Mike. He
was just a passingthing for me. yggtmy Futu and will be For A Long
1 \u sb crl &
Time JUST ASLONG AS THERE'S STARS IN THE SKY. . . . I want
you to be good and stay out of trouble so you can hurry up and get out
d
of herc. LaPiere you are the best husband a woman could ever haye
and . . . I'm not ashamedfor people to seeme with you becausei'm
proud. . , . It really is hurting me to leave you here baby. . , . Laprerre
s\
I giye you my heart and soul. You have everything that i have in other
words. Im offe.ing you my life thats how much i care for you. . . .
Baby dont worry about Linda. She can't get me evenif shetries. She's
nothirg in my life but a girl i met in tlle juvenile home. . . . LaPierre r Figure 1-1. SampleHomosexualMarriageCertificate
-7
know in your mind you have a few doubts about me such as going
do$'n to the damn Mike [after] acceptingyou as my husband but. ' '
dont worry. , . . Thesemen couldn't do nothing for me nothfuigthat
you couldnt. . . I acceptedyou asmy husbandand...feelgood about
it. If anyone asks me who im going with im going to say nobody im
maried . . . to my George LaPiere Smith Sr. ...I think the future
Ce*ri{icqi'od holds many beautiful things for us . . . I know its kind of hard to think i
really love you as much a8i argue but baby i guessthe reason is because
i want to love you at all times and i cant. . . . Im going to missyou so
rnuch George [but] . . . it will be for only about 3 or 4 months. No
matter how long it is George your wife angelfacewill be waiting for
O* t\rs f.1 you. I'm going to end baby
Dear Georue
. . , I've fallen in love with you. Say there young man would you take
Figure 1-2. Sample Homosexual Divorce Certificate the wings from the bids knowing he can't fly. Would you take a bottle
PrisonHomosexuality The Theoreticaland EmpiricalSetting 7
from a baby knowing he's going to cry. Would you take the fish out of trouble. Studs often ca.lled one another brothers becauseof tleir commorr
the water knowing the little fellow's going to die. Would you take a roles and affection for one alother. I met one mother who formalized aclop_
cane from a blind man and you know he ain't got flo eyes.Would you
talcea sail from a ship knowing I ain't going to move. Darling are you tion of her inmate sons and daughtersby devisinga btth certificate. This
cer-
taking your loye from me and you know without it I won't goove. . . . tificate recorded the date, the sex and race of the child, the names of the child,
mother, father, and judge.
I dream of holding you tight and . . . that things will be all dCht. . . .
Good thjngs come to those that wait! So maybe sweetheartif I wait Crushing had many manifestations beyond tlre emotions and behavior of
patienfly you'll come on home where you belong. So do what you got the padicipants-most notably, the important role it played in how the institu-
to do . . and when your finished playing gamesand rcady to settle tion was run. For example, communion at church serviceshad been discon_
down I'11be ready to make loye to you "freakish cat"
Dear George
I'm talking about the broken head you had tonight. . . . When you told
me how you really felt about me I really felt bad . . . You askedme was
I proud to seeyour tears fall from your beautiful eyes.Well I,m going
to tell you no I wasn't ptoud but . . . I was saying to myself LaPrerre
really does loye me . . . Georgeonce again I'm going to tell you I will
lg19l TAKE MY LOVE . . . also . . . I'm sorry for walking arvayfrom
you. From now on baby I'm going to bide by your rules ok? Just like
a good wife should.
You say you ti,onder how its going to be on the outside???Beautiful
baby its not going to be nothirg like in here . . . The malr reasonsome-
times cause I act like this is becauseI need love and you're not able
to give it to me becauseof the housemothers.Out there we won't have
any interruptions. Georgepleasebelieve me I try so hard to satisfy you
causeI'm scaredsomeoneor somethingmight take you away from me.
LaPiere I will do anything for you . . . your wish is my command. If
I had to proye my love by stripping I would. I wouldn't do that for
anyone but you . . . Without you I feel as though I am nobody . .,
Like the records say "I'm builidng my world around you" so please evening.The other was requted to stay in her room. Each girl had her
own
don't let me down. . . . room, and visiting in another girl's room was not permitted. The girls were to
I love you LaPierre . . , as my father, brother, and most of all my loy- be dressed in a housecoat or suitably modest attire whenever out of tir"i.r U"O-
able husband. Love and kisses.This is a X and therc is O from me to rooms, and until about five months previous to my visit, they were not allowed
you. to comb one another's hair. Borrowing or exchanging items of clothing
or
personal care such as makeup was prohibited. One counselor
Mr. and Mrs. LaPierre Smith, like many of ihe girls involved in crushing told me such
borrowing was dangerous,becausestaff thought it could be used to bdbe in_
marriages, also have make-believe families with brothe$, sisters, in-laws, and
children. My impression was that crushing was practiced by most girls playing
spouse and male faaily roles but not by most of the sisters and daughters.
The families were of varying importance to the members, with some regarding
their role very seriously and others considering it just a game. Many families
appeared to be fluid, with memberships changhg when crushing marriages first step toward perversion, and considerable tirne and energy was spent in
between one set of padners were dissolved and new marriages with other part- devising and maintaining rules to prevent it.
ners were established. It appeared as if initiation into a family was usually Thus, the preliminary inyestigation showed that homosexuality was
verbal ard unmarked by ceremony. One girl suggested that another be her regardedas a social problem and that it influenced institutional po.licies.The
daughter becauseshe did not want anyone "messing her over," or giving her literature helped me define the tleoretical controve$ies, but it ;ffered little
PrisonHomosexuality The Theoreticaland EmpiricalSetting 9
data on the prevalence and causes of homosexuality and quasi kinship among Fishman says that the practice of allowing men to shower in large open
men and women. rooms was discontinued in an attempt to decreasehomosexuality:
gratification end. The boys in these two pro$ams attended local community
reduce the acute senseof statusdegadation generatedby the pains of impdson- schools every day and went home every weekend, whereas all the other five
ment and protect their self€steem by "rejecting the rejecto$" (McCorkle and institutions \vere more total since boys stayed there most of a twenty-four.
Kom 1954, pp. 88-89). Inmates were said to create a social system that would hour day. Giallombardo maintains that the scanty descriptions provided in the
mitigate their lossesof liberty, feelingsof moral wortl, matedal goods, auton- Street, Vinter, and Perrow analysis show that the institutions were essentially
omy, security, and heterosocial contact' Proponents of the depdvation per- more alike than unlike.
spective suggested that inmates could reinstate positive self-images tfuough a Giallombardo's (1974) study is, however, subject to the samesort of criti-
homosexualrelationship becausethe homosexual partner would Provideneeded cism. Her "custody," "intermediate," and "treatment" classificationof three
support, positiye feedback, and comfort in an otherwise harsh and inhumane institutions for delinquent girls is inconsistent with her statements that inmates
environment. Becausedepdvation theory was developedfrom studies of Par- faced similar problems while incarcerated and that the three institutions "not
ticipant observation, it relied heavily on the explanations tlat inmates gave for only resemble each other but are similar to all other institutions of this type
their homosexual activity. Inmates commonly say tlat they are ddven to homo- in that they arc ctntacleized. by conflicting and competing goals" (p. 13).
sexuality becausetley are bored, because homosexuality makes them feel fume of Giallombardo's other descriptions are also inconsistent with her classif-
better about themselves,and becausethe opposite sex is not available.In coed ications. For example, she describesone institution (called Central) as "indis-
institutions, the justifications focus on the presence of the opposite sex ard the tinguishablefrom that of an ordinary private boarding school for girls" (p.22).
frustration that this creates.Thesereasonable-sounding explanationsaccount for
This description suggestsit should be classified as strongly trcatment or gratifr-
some of the theory's populadty, but no conclusiveempirical evidenceexists to cation odented, yet Giallombardo inexplicably gives it an intermediate
support this rather imprecisely stated theory, and severalstudies suggestthat dassification on a depdvation-gatifrcation continuum. She classified the
the inmate system is as likely to be a source of victimization ald exploitation as Western school as the most treatment odented, yet it had some characteristics
to provide relief from tJre pains of imprisooment. An investigation of a boys' that suggestedit was the most depdving atd custody odented. All tfuee institu-
institution by Bartollas, Miller, and Dinitz (1976) found that the material and tions had separate maximum-security units, but the Westem school also had
sexual exploitation of weaker inmates was considered "cool" and that tlte rwo secudty rooms in each cottage, referred to as thinking rooms or holding
major tenets of the inmate code included warnilgs to "exploit whomever you rooms, that were immediately available for rule violators. This school also
can," "don't tust anyone," and "everybody for himse1f."Numerous examples had more symbols of security like windows that could only open a few inches
of violence and exploitation can be found among boys in boarding schools and a glass-walledsecurity office that allowed the twenty-four-hour male secur-
(Millh"*, Bullock, and Cherrett 1975) and training schools (Rubenfeld and ify staff to view the inmates' movements around the cottage living units. It was
Stafford 1963) and among adult men in prison (Cresseyand Krassowski1957- completely enclosedwith brick-ald-mortar security fences,whereasthe institu-
1958; Davidson 1974). tions classifiedasintermediateand custody oriented were more open.
More-recentformulations of the deprivation perspectiYehave assumedthat The many possible sources of depdvation make it difficult to make valid
the more-punitive and -degradingfeaturesof a custodial setting present a more designations of levels of institutional deprivation based on administrative state-
seyereenvirooment than the treatment-oriented setting. Thus, their research ments of goals or on the type of architecture or the designed security level of
designs have attempted to test the prediction that inmate attitudes and values the prison. Smith and Hepburn's (1979) study of six male prisons,for example,
would be more antisocial in deprivating conditions (see, for example, Akers, found that official designations of security level did not correspond to actual
Hayner, and Gruninger 1974, 1976,1977a, 19776 Npert 1978, (1979a; Berk levels of coercion ald deprivation. The heatment and custody staffs in the
1966: Cline and Wheeler1968;Giallombardo 1974;Grusky 1959;Mitche 1969; three minimum-security prisons were signilicalfly more punitive toward inmates
Smith ancl Hepburn 19?9; Street, Vinter, and Perrow 1966)' The lesults were than were staffs in the two medium-security prisons and the maximum-secudty
not conclusive,in palt becausethe so-calledobjectivemeasuresof classification, prison. The authors suggest that inmates confined at the minimum-security
which relied on offrcial proclamations of goals and differences in prison archi- camps and ranches may also suffer more feelings of relative, subjective depriva-
tecture and regulations,may not have been consistentwith inmates'perceptions rion because they confront daily the paradox of being unable to leave a relatiye-
of depdvation. ty open and unstructured envirooment. Furthermore, being subject to the
In some cases, the classification of institutions seems hapProprrate' arbitrary enforcement of ambiguously defined rules may be more of a hardship
Giallombardo (1974, pp. 10J1), for example, rightly questions why Street, than receiving uniformly harsh punishments for clearly specified rules. The
Vinter, and Perrow (1966) included two reeducation/developmentProgramsin constant threat of being transferred to an unfamiliar and more secure prison
the micldle of a gadflcation-deprivation continuum rather than at the
16 PrisonHomosexualitv The Theoreticaland EmpiricalSetting 17
is a further hardsldp. Thus, furmatesin minimum$ecurity prisons may feel as The stressful effects of encounters with the free world also affect inrnates
depdved as inrnates in maximum-security prisons. who do not have visitors. These i nates become upset when they compare the
Cline and Wheeler (1968, p. 181) also commented on the difficulty of bappy faces of those going for visits with th€ fact that they are requted to
measudng institutional levels of deprivation in tleir study of fifteen Scandi- ;ontinue wiilr work "because nobody out there gives enough of a sldt about you
nayian pdsons. They say it is more dif{icu1t to construct measures for the :o come seeyou once in a wbile" (Schroeder1976,p.137).
depdvation model tlan for the direct-importation model becausemany different Explanations based on relative deprivation must be yiewed as interesling
kinds of deprivation exist. The possible deprivations irclude things such as the hypotheses tlat still require proof because none of the proponents of relative
paucity of penonal amenities like tobacco, coffee, and toilet a icles; the loss deprivation actually measured inmates' p€rceptions of deprivation levels. In
of freedom to make decisions and go where one wishes; the perceptions of addition, Cline and Wheeler's(1968) indicato$ of deprivation are problematic
rejection by guardsand other inmates;and the absenceofheterosexual contacts. because the existence of rules alrd policies regulating communication with the
Cline and Wheeler devised an index of social deprivation based on objective outside world may not have adequatelyreflected the amount of inmates,actual
criteria that included the length of time permitted with visitors, the frequency expedence and contact with family and friends. Our heldwork showed that
of furloughs, the number of lette$ that inmates were permitted to send or mary youths had little wdtten or personal communication with outsiders even
receive, the opportunity for interaction among inmates, the proportion of rlLough they were confrned in places with liberal policies regarding home visits
furmatesassignedto single cells or rooms, and the proportion of inmates who ald correspondence.
ate mealsalone in their cells or rooms. Deprivation tleorists need to acknowledge that the inmates' subjective
Cline and Wleelert data showed that inmate attitudes toward staff were ieelhgs of deprivation may have a larger impact on inmate behavior aad norms
most positive in institutions with high levels of social depdvation. These data fian the institutional conditions that researchersassumeare depriving and also
are irconsistent with depriyation-theory predictions that inmates are more rhat the inmates' subjective feelings and the researchers' operationalizations
negative about staff where high levels of institutionai deprivations edst. These of deprivation may not coincide. The Thomases'famous and succinct dictum
Fsearchers suggest the results can be explained by the concept of relative applies, "If men define situations as rcal, they are real in their consequences',
deprivation. Perhapsihe increasedcontact with the outside world leads to its (Thomasand Thomas 1928, p. 572). Thus, if individualsfeel deprived,whether
increased use as a reference point and makes the prison world seem more or not they are in reality deprived, they will act in a way commensurate with
depriving when compared to it. Unfortunately, Cline aad Wheeler did not rheir perception. The works of Mead (1934) and Bergerand Luckman (1966)
actually measure inmates' perceptions of deprivation, thus their explanation similarly remind us that members of organizations do not simply respond to
still has the status of an interesting hypothesis. outside forces in the rnanner of robots. They are also influenced by previous
Cohen and Tzylor (1974, p. 71:72) ald Schroeder (1976) also suggest socialization, by interaction with others in the organization, and by tleir needs
that some inmates find prison less stressful when they cut off contact with the ro justify their behavior .
free world, tlereby insuring that the absenceof visitors or lettefi is not a recur-
rcnt worry. Schroeder's observations while serving an eight-month term in the
British Columbia pr.isonsystemled him to conclude that: hnportation Theory
It's unquestionably a mixed blessing, this businessof visits. Visits The failure to find consistent relationships between iffnate values and behavior
probably cost an furmatethree times as much as they're wodh;a single 3nd the custody or treatment orientation of the institution could indicate that
one-hour visit is often enoughto throw a man irto a frenzy for a week; inmates' perceptions of deprivations are not radically altered by the differences
a regular weekly visit can keep aII inmate unsettled through his entire
in architectue or ihe kinds of treatment offered. Cline and Wheeler report .,a
term. . . .
)asic similadty in the degree to which a prison is likely to be perceived as a
The trouble with visits is that they won't let you forget. The more alive Jepriving experience from the perspective of the inmates" (cited in Wheeler
you keep your memodes of the Straet, the worse things look and feel
1969, p. 1015). The inmates in their sample of fifteen institutions felt the
to you Inside. The less you know about what you'r€ missingon the
Street, the easierit is to imagine you're not missing anything at all. nost significant aspectsof being in pdson were that (1) they had little contact
In order to shakeeasy time Inside you have to rid yourself of all Out- q,ith the outside world, (2) employment would now be more difficult, (3) they
side voices,Outsid€ problems (which you can't resolvein any case)and .'ould no longer be acceptedby the armed forces, ald (4) it would causeutem
Outside comparisonswith Inside lifa. Ipp. 135-136] 3mbarrassment in the cofiununity, Specific events and vadations in conditions
18 PrisonHomosexuality The Theoreticaland EmpiricalSefting 19
Irwin and Cressey conclude that the o gins of inmate conduct cannot be ex-
plained solely by conditions of imprisonment. Prisons are open systems that
rcceiye input from outside sources, and it is difficult to empirically disen-
tangle preprison from prison influences becauseso many inmates have a history
of previousincarceration.
Becker and Geer similarly observe, "People carry culture with them; when
they leave one group setting for another they do oot shed the cultural prem-
ises of the fust setting" (1960, p. 305). The previous or latent a)ltlrral expefi-
ences are related to background variables like race and social class and to
previous expedences artd membership groups. They are distinguished from
nwnifest clullure, which arises as a response to situational inlluences. The latent
social identities affect how current experiences are understood, and when
people with a similar latent culture come together, they will share understand-
ings that will have the potential for affecting both individual and collective
behavior in a new group.
Becker and Geer hypothesize fiat latent culture is most likely to have an
subculture. impact in socializing settings in which the situational influences are not so
Irwin and Cressey's (1962) now classiccritiqueof the inadequacyof the strong as to prevent the enty of previousroles.Wheeler(1966) agreeswith this
behavior a very
proYides
depdvationistposition asa sole explanationfor inmate hypothesis and suggeststhat a higher correlation betv,/eenpast and present
clearstatementof the importationperspective: will be found in more-open pdson settings that allow the geatest amount of
free interaction time. Their theory implies that inmates with prior homosexual
experienceswould be more [kely to repeat them in a more-openpdson setting,
but this hypothesis was not supported in Mitchell's (1969) comparative study
of prison homosexuality. Mitchell found the sarne relatioruhip between prior
homosexuality and prison homosexuality in a teatment-orienteal prison and a
custody-orientedprison, eyen though the treatment.odented p son pemitted
not peculiarto prisonat all. [p. 142] morc inrnate interaction than the hig|:Iy restuictive custody.oriented pdson.
Criminologists have shown concern witlr the evidence of high levels of
recognized
kwin and Cressey Clemmer(1940)'
that otherresearchers-including nonconventional and antiadministration values among inmates who have been
confined for the purpose of fostering prosocial values. Deprivation theorists
are likely to attribute the origins of these antisocial values to an oppressive
prison environment, whereas importationists see inmates' antagonism toward
authority and conventional values prior to their imprisonment as the primary
cause. Alpert (1979b), for example, emphasizestle influence of oppressive
conditions in the free world in creating an irunate ideolos/ that opposescon-
previousinstitutionsaadalsofrom outsidepdsons: ventiona.lnorms:
of
Further, many mmates come to any given Pdson with a record Prisonersare most often from th€ lowest stratum of society and have
PrisonHomosexualitY The Theoreticaland EmpiricalSetting
and
hip between prison homosexuality
Thus' \otes
ts that they are usually unrelated'
ln
a ftst step toward homosexuality
1. Although the data are not dfuectly comparable because of rlifferent
,efinitions and time periods, they suggest the possibfity that women ate as
aely to be raped outside prison as male inmates are to be mped in prison.
father-son, and marriage relationships Criminal-victimization studies have shown that, "If the risk were equally divided
prison families are analoBous to wil -'nong all the women in the neighborhood, one in every eight urbar American
societies outside prison, both in Not romen could be expectedto be sexuallyassaultedduring her lfetime" (Bowker
throughout the world' -918, p. 112). Rape-victimizationrates are even higher than the one-in€ight
FinallY , chaPter 8 summatzes so -:reragefor women who are divorced,separated,nevermarried, poor, and young
and realities of prison homosexualit ,L.S. Departmentof Justice1979,pp. 13-17).
of the causesof prison homosexualitl Kirkpatdck ald Kanin's (1957) survey of female college-studentrespond-
need
One of these implications is the :ns found that 6.2 percent repoded that they had been offended at least
of the waYs that cruel Punislments
:nce during the academic year by aggressively forceful attempts at sexual
and treat Youths. A bdef exceryt ,:rercourse, which employed menacingthreats or coerciveinfliction of physical
justice providesone illustration:
;ain. In the 1957 study, 55.7 percent of the respondentsreporteil being of-
:lnded by some level of physical sexual contact during the acaalemic year.
ln a comparablestudy asking about the 197l-1972 academicyear (Kanin and
Prrcell 1981), 50.7 percent of the university women repo ed being offended
--; somelevel of physicalsexualcontact.
2. Clemmer does not name tlle prison, but it is widely known to be Menard
Srate Pdson in Southem Illinois becauseClemmer was a sociologist there during
PrisonHomosexuality
The Research
The frst paft of this chapter explains why certain terms were used in the study
ard provides a summary of tlte researchmethods employed. This summary rs
followed by a detailed account of the sample selection, questionnaire design
and administration, response rates, afld data analysis. Some procedures for
researching a s€nsitiye topic like homosexuality and for deriving information
ftom large numbers of respondents with reading difficulties are discussed.
Some of these procedurescontributed to the high 93 percent overall response
rate for questionnairecompletion by inmates.
To help future researchers improve the quality and quantity of respondents,
rcsponses,I include a discussionof some of the problemsI encounteredin plan-
ning arld implementing the research. This deviation from the usual convefllon
of repo ing only the way the research ideally and usually took place hopefully
will help other researchersavoid similar problems.
Terminologr
\\len youths from any of the three secure facilities had recreation, a staff
which they would send gftls "to get well." It was seen as a last resort to use
rember would stard outside the fenced-in area with a mdio truck ayailable
when other forms of teatment had failed. The three most common reasons
: case someoneattempted to run. We visited one maximum-security cottage
girls were kept in this detention unit included running away, disrupting a class
ihere approximately 60-75 percent of the youths were on room restriction.
or other program activity, and not participating in the guided'group-interaction
Tley were let out each day only for two one-hourrecreationperiodsof playing
(GGI) and educationa.l-treatment Programs.Records showed that girls had also
iolleyball or street hockey. The major reward in theseplaceswas the opportun-
been put in the unit for lending clothes, sleepingin, lying to their GGI group,
::) to watch television and stay in the dayroom rather than being locked in
being upset, stealing, fussing, arguing, fainting, refusing to run in gym class,
rne's room. Incoming and outgoing mail nas inspected, read, and censored
planning to go AWOL, talking back to a houseparent,actirg like a houseparent,
r the maximum-security cottages. In the cottageswith a GGI program, the
failing to do their work assignment, smoking marijuana, kissing, "finger fuck-
rail was only inspectedfor contraband, not read. Inmates in the GGI program
ing," and telling a girl she was a lesbian and trying to make out with her- The
aere pressured into preventing AWOLs by punishing the entire GGI group
records showed that one girl spent five days in the unit for almost fighting'
, c hich is an entire cottage)if one occurred.
arguing,trying to slip a letter out of the cottage, aod attempting to go AWOL;
All the state training schools we studied had some provision for solitary
that same month she spent another seven days in the unit for fighting;the next
--onfinement, which they euphemistically called adjustment centers, thinking
month she spent another three days there for being hostile and disrespectful to
:Joms, or seclusionrooms. An eighty-inmateprivate school also had three such
staff and not doing her work detail. A report submitted by the physicaleduca-
:ooms, but the two private schools were more likely to use dorm or room
tion instructor recommended tlis same girl be put in the unit for five days
iolation as punishment. They may have felt less need for special solitary-
becauseshe refused to run five laps when requestedto do so and becauseshe
:onfinement facilities becausetley were able to tmnsfer tleir chargesto a
had refused to particiPate and had been disruptive repeatedlyin tlte past. The
rare schoolin the system.
instuctor further recommended that the girl run for an hour a day at a time
These few examples of the way the training schools operate illustrate
convenient to the instructor-and that one day be added to her stay each time
re misleadingnature of labels in the freld of correctionsin which adolescent
she would not do so. I found no follow-up report on how many days this girl
:mates are called students, adult convicts are called residentsand clients, and
actually spent in the unit. The records frequently showed stays of two days
:risons are called homes, reform schools,industrial schools, training schools,
(only rarely one day) with no written record of the reason for the stay in
:evelopment centers, correctional centers, reformatories, and therapeutic
solitary confinement.
-'orrectional communities (El1tot L952, p. 702; Goldfarb 1975, pp.319-322;
At Yankee Coed, a standard punishmeot was to restdct youths to their
\titford 1973, p. 6; Ross and McKay 1979, pp. 1-2). The authors of Struggle
own rooms for a couple of hours. Longer periods required a written rePort 't Justice were correct about the deception of using such labels: "Call ihem
and authorization from an administrator and were often spent in one of three
. . . what you will, if human beings are involuntarily confined in them, they
cel1swith barred doors in one of the two maximum-secudty cottages or in one
:re prisons" (AFSC 1971, p .23).
of the sevencells in the adminjstration building. The reception and diagnostic
@nter was also a highly secure facitty. We were told that rule breakers were
kept in the basement of the administration building for a period of seven days
Summary of the Essential Background
and that the beginning of the confinement was marked by severedeprivation-
namely, with only a blanket and no mattress. Inmates only gradually received
Ihis study is the first to empirically study and compare homosexuality ard
a mattress and other items to make their stay more comfortable. Although
:-uasi kinship in coed and female institutioos. Its large scopewas possiblebe-
tlre seven cells in the administration building had not been used much around
:ause the information was collected in conjunction with a larger project by the
tlle time of our visit, the three ceus in the maximum-securitycottagewere used
\adonal Assessmentof Juvenile Couections (NAJC).r I have also extensively
frequently. A youth who went AWOL was automatically placedin a maximum-
:rcorporated the work of other scholars in order to determine how far the
secudty cottage for thirty days and removed from the regular program. Youths
:rnpirical results should be generalizedald to analyze some major theoretical
could stay in a maximum-security cottage permanently if they decidednot to
3nd empirical issues.
participate in the GGI program carriedout in the other cottages.The institution
The major sourcesof data for this study were self-administeredstaff ques-
was not fenced, but steps were takeo to prevent escapes.When youths were
jonrafues, group and selfadministered questionnafuesto girls, and numerous
marched two by two from one of the maximum-secudtycottagesto t]Ie gym'
nteryiews and conversationswith staffs and youths. An add-on questionnate,
nasium, they were supervisedby staff and accompaniedwith a radio truck'
PrisonHomosexuality The Research 31
of the youth questionnaire. After retuning from the advance visit, the NAJC
staff wrote a detailed report describing the progam, physical facilities, and
their negotiations.
This report was read by the higbly qualified field-worker teams of four
to ten men and women of different races and ethrric backerounds who later
"Game," the argot term for homosexuality:
visited the institution.6 The advance staff also met with th:e team for a half
day prior to the visit to tell the team what they knew about the program and
We will not tolerate th€ "Game" under any condition, regardlessof
who you are or who you think you arc. EffectiYe now . . . thoughs to recommend which personnelshould be interviewed, appropdate attire, time
[sic] studentscaught: schedules,refreslments, and proceduresfor the staffs' and youths' question-
nate administration .
l. Kissingother students
2. In the locker room together I explained the importance of investigating homosexuality ard make-
3. In the shou'erstallstogether believe families to our field staff at these formal briefing sessionsand during
4. Pulling swim suits down many informal interactions. I also provided some descriptive background by
5. Pulling pants down relating some of the ftndings of my early fieldwork, by summarizing available
6. Pulling dressesuP literatue, ard by providing each field-worker with a copy of articles by Selling
7. Threateningother students
8. Writing [sii] and or exchangingletters with any other student will (1931)ard Novick (1960).
result in immediate action by staff and we ain't just kidding. we Typically, a visit began with the NAJC's research team meeting with the
meanbusiness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The oonsequences can be the following administrutors, taking a formal tour of the grounds, and being briefed on the
l. First offense will result in being locked irl your own room a mln- institution's goals and actiyities. The researchersthen separatedanal spent a
imum of thrce daysor [sic] in the secudty room in cottage#6 or on day or two introducing themselvesald the project to inmates and staff, explain-
top floor. ing their research role, obsewing, and scheduling interview and questionnaire
2. Secondoffensewill result in five dayslock up. administrations. To increase rapport and cooperation, the field-workers spent
3. Third offensewill result in your returning to court
a lot of time in frienclly conversation with staff and inmates, explaiaing the
THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
project's scope, auspices,goals, procedures, and our dependenceupon staffs
and inmates to obtain accurate information because they knew better than
anyone what these places were really like. We emphasized the national scope
Data Collection
of tlle project and its goal of studying a variety of different types of correc-
tional programs in order to determine which most helped youths in trouble
Gaining Acces to the Institution' Initial contact with the public institutions
with the law, school, or their families. We clearly stated that this information
was made via discussions with officials in tlle state central juvenile-justice
might help other people sometime in the future but that there was little chance
agency. Once appropriate clearanceswere obtained from these offic'ials, the
it would directly benefit them. We explained that becausewe could not go to
administrators of specific institutions were contacted Programs under private
eyery state ald program in the county, we had used a scientific method to
auspices were contacted dtuectly. The frst contact briefly explained the NAJC
select programs in sixteen states and that we were studying their institution
project and how the institution came to be selected for study, and assured
becauseit was selectedby this method.
executives that all paticipation was voluntary and confidential.
The NAJC held-workers explained that questionnafueswere a good method
This contact was usually followed up by an aclvanct visit by one or two
for getting everyone's opinions about a lot of the same things. We also said
hained staff who furtler clarified the nature of tlre research project, the pro-
that it was impodant to answer honesfly and that it was all right to leave some
cedures,and the kind of participation and cooperationthat would be requested
questions unansweredbecausethey were not requted to answer any of the
from the staff and youtl6' If the superintendent ageed to collaborate in the
questions at all. We also assured tJrern that no one would find out what they
wrote since confidentiality was guararteed. The NAJC project would never
use anyone's name without first requesting his or her permission,
The guarantees of confidentiality and tlre voluntary nature of everyone's
participation were afhrmed in wdting on all questionnafues and documents
36 PrisonHomosexuality The Research 37
used in tlle data-collection process and again verbally when the questionnaires administeringthe questionnaireasked youths to write tleir namesand addresses
were distuibuted to staffs ard youths (see appendix D). We explained that any on the last pageif they wanted to receivea surrmary of the study's findings and
reports of the study would be about vrhat groups of people said, rather than were willing to be contacted in the future. We expectedrespondents'voluntary
about what any particular person told us. Someinformation about what groups identification to have little effect on the accuracy of their rephessince under-
of people said would be given to tlre administratorsof the institution as feed- starding and believing in the confidentiality of their answers is probably far
back, but most would be usedin determiningnational policy on juvenile correc- more important than anonymity. Kulick, Stein, and Sarbin's (1968) study of
tions. high school (N = 245) and delinquent (N = 137) boys found little difference
in disclosure of delinquent behavior on questionnairesunder conditions of
Development and Administration of the Youth Questionnafue. A rather lengthy anonymity and nonanonymity. The boys were only slightly more guarded in
forty-one-pagequestionnaireentitled "What Do You Think?" was constructed admitting misbehaviomin conditions under which they might be identified,
to be administered to all the participating youths. Many questionsfrom prior but the change in candor was more pronounced for slight infractions than for
studies v/erc included and many were original. The final wording and format more-seriousviolations.lo
were the result of severalrevisionsthat incorporated advicefrom a readilg con- Al effort was made to administerthe questionnairesat times when inmates
sultant ald the experienceof extensivepretesting.T would not be deprived of their leisure activities and when the ongoing routine
This questionnafueconsistedof sevendistinct sections,eachabout different of the program would not be disrupted. Usually, this meant using school time.
aspectsof institutional life.E Thesesectionsincluded questionsabout: Potential respondentsassembledin groups of about eight (the rangewas one to
twenty) in cottages,dining rooms, auditodums, or classrooms.They were asked
Opinions on how to get along arrd self-reportedparticipation in delinquent to sit at a desk or table, far enough away from otlers so that answerswould
behavior at the institution: rcmain priyate. No institutional staff entered tlese rooms or was presentdudng
the questiomatue administration. Wh:ile the goup was assembling, the field
Friendsinside and outside the institution; staff chatted with youths ald answeredtheir questions. Some girls expressed
Perceptionsof staff's expectationsand goals; anxiety and resistancetoward taking such a long "test,"rr and others indicated
they had heard from girls who had already completed the questionnarethat it
Availability of doctors, dentists, lawye$, probation officers, and after- was about "fumies" or "fumy bunnies" or some other such local term for
care or court workers; nature of censorship,discipline procedures, per' lesbianism.We assuredthem that they were not being tested. Rather, we told
ceivedpains of impdsonment, and community and heterosexualcontact; tlem we wele asking about their valued opinions, which had no right or wrong
Erzluations of treatment programs and staff/youth interaction, peer rela- answers,that their participation was entirely voluntary, and that the questions
tionships.and homosexualexperience: about homosexuality and make-believefamflies constituted only a small part
of the questionnaire.We asked them to cross out questionsthey did not x,ish
Personalattributes and past-offensehistory; to answer so that we would know these were not omitted unintentionally.lz
Family backgroundand relationshipsand future goals. They could answer none, pa , or all of the questionnaireas they wished and
were free to leavethe room at any time without reprisals.
Eight pages of questions on make-believefamilies, male roles, ard homo- Confidentiality was explained in severalways. We told youths that we
sexuality were staped in for female respondentsonly at the end of NAJC'S wanted them to complete the questionnairesby themselveswithout looking
major questionnairein coed and fernale institutions only.e There were sevetal at or asking others about their answers.No one olher than the researchers
reasons for placing this add-on questiomaire after the major inshument. One would ever see any individual's answe$, and this would be insured by locking
rcason was that this was the best way to insure that all respondents completed the completed questionnaire booklets in the trunk of our car immediately
tlle major questionnaire under similar conditions. Also, we did not want to take following their completion.
the chance that we might offend them with questions on homosexuality and We explained that we were asking questions on make-believe families and
possibly lose their cooperation before they completed the major questionnatue, romantic and sexualrelations betweengirls becausesomepeople saidthesewere
which was NAJC's priority. an impodant part of life in cofiectional programs but that we knew very little
The only part of the major questionnairethat followed the add-on portion about them. The NAJC field-workers tried to convey by their frank replies
was the request for the youth's name and future address.The NAJC staff and nonjudgrnental,casualmanner that it v/as appropriate to talk about sex.
38 PrisonHomosexuality The Research 39
We anticipated occasionaltension and giggling about these questionsand told raluable procedure for enhancing the quality of tlre data, but there was some-
the girls it was a natural responseto being asked such unusual questions in goup tlnes not enough time to complete the procedure and respondents were
settings. sometimes impatient with the time it requted since they had already spent
Many inmates said they were aware of a widely held belief that homosexual- considerabletime completing the questiornaire. Whenever possible, I tried
ity was pervasivein institutions, but occasionallysome said it was insulting to ro improve the quality of the responses on quasi kinship and homosexuality
accuse them of such behavior on the questionnaire. When this happened, NAJC by further editing and by interviewing girls who had written their names on
staff explained that asking differed from accusing and that our intercst was m the questiomaire .
hnding out whether or not make-belieYefamilies and romantic or sexual rela- When I first suggestedusing tliis editing procedure at Delta Coed, both
tions betrveengids were a part of life there. Spacewas provided for respondents male and female NAJC field-workers asked respondents to clarify illegible,
to say if these things did not happen or if the inmate personally }vas not incomplete, or unansweled questions. This procedure was modified when a
involved. Most gfuls attemPted to complete the questions on quasi kinship and Magnoliainmate speculatedthat some girls may not have reported their homo-
make-believe families even though they followed forty pages of other questions sexual experiencebecausethey had crusheson the attractive NAJC men and
and boih they and the administrators were showing some fatigue thought it could reduce their chances for a potential romance with them.ru
We attempted to maintain the respondents'enerry and create a pleasant, After this, only female lleldworkers looked at the girls'responsesdudng editing.
relaxed atmosphere by offering girls soft drinks and a choice of snacks and In the four female institutions, 95-100 percent of the inmate population
arranging for them to be permitted to smoke while they filled out the ques- answeredthe questionnaire.The responserate for Yankee Coetlwas 93 percent,
tionnaire.r3 Those inmates who attempted to answer fie questiomaire were and for Delta Coed it was 86 percent. The only low responsemte, 70 percent,
given very attractive certificates of appreciation with their names clearly printed was at Bayside Coed. Here, six of the forty-three respondentsdid not answer
on them. This official-looking document was embossedwith the gold seal of any part of the questioffnte, and seven mole answeled most of the question-
the Unive$ity of Michigan and had a gold framelike border. It said that this naire but did not complete the section about homosexuality and make'belieYe
"Certificate of Appreciation" was "awarded to" (name of respondent was families.
printed in felt pen) "for contributing to social'science research sponsored by Some girls did not answer the questionnaire becausethey preferred other
t}le U.S. government and conducted under the auspicesof tlle Univefiity of activities or were on home visits. In a few caseswe did not provide enough
Michigan." The girls were usually proud of these certificates and often hung assistance to those with reading difficulties, and girls dropped out before
them on their bedroom ald living room walls to be admired. answering all the questions.rs Some girls might have stayed away becausethey
The questionnaire was desiSnedto be self-administercd,but in order to had heard the questionnaire asked about homosexuality. My guessis that the
assist those with reading difhculties, the usual procedure was for one field- exclusion of some nonrespondentsmay have resulted in decreasedrates of self-
worker to read it aloud while one (or sometimestwo others) circulated around reported homosexuality but that it had little effect on the rates of make-
the room answering any inquiries and checking to see that resPondents were believe-familyparticipation.
following the corect procedurein anwering questions.Becausewe wanted to
keep the questionnaire fiom becoming very wordy, we provided lengthy in' Development and Administration of Staff Questionnafues. A twenty-six-Page
structions verbally. The administrator read these from a manual along with the booklet entitled "A Study of Staff Perspectivesin Juvenile Corrections" was
written questions. Some of the definitions and instructions were given only designedto inquire about much ofthe sameinformation asdid the youth question-
when respondents asked for clarilication or interpretation or displayed be- naire. In addition, staff memberswere askedabout their views on delinquents,
wildered expressions.Others were standard. Some girls prefered to 8o faster actual and ideai organizational goals, experiences in working with youths and
thal the reader and were allowed to do so, being encouragedto raisetheir hand other staff, staff roles, and personal attributes. Four pages of questions on
for assistancewhen they encountered difficulty. Most took from seventy-five make-believe famfies and homosexuality were stapled in at the end for staffs
to ninety minutes to answer the questiomafue. The range of requfued time was in coed and female institutions. The staffs' responseswere analyzed prirnarily
from less than tlrirty minutes to two-and-one-half hours. to compare some of their percePtionswith those of the girls' and to provide
When respondents hnished the questionnaire, the NAJC field-workers some additional descriptive information. They were not used to test major
asked their permission to edit their responses for legibility, clarification of hypotheses.
apparent inconsistencies,veriflcation that difficult questionswere understood, The staff questionnaire was a selfadministered instrument that staff was
and to insure ttat no questions v/ere unintentionally skipped. This was a asked to answer at times convenient to them. As in the youth questionnaire,
PrisonHomosexuallty The Research 41
iew male treatment staff working at these placesincluded two social workers,
one psychologist, and one chaplain at Magnolia; one chaplain at St. Anne's;
cne chaplain, one social worker, and one pad-time psychiatdst at St. Mary's;
3nd one part-time psychiatdst, one part-time psychologist,one social worker,
3nd two part-time chaplainsat Hillsdale. We did not collect accumte informa-
rion on the sex of treatment staff working with girls in the coed institutions.
Fifty-four of the seventy.four academicand.vocational teachersand pdn-
;ipals answeredour questionnaires.Most were women. The only men working
in these jobs were two teachersat Magnolia, one teacher at St. Anne's, and
orte academic supervisorand two teachersat Hi]lsdale. The sex of education
sraff who worked with girls in the coed institutions is not known.
The superintendents or chief administratofi of all five iastitutions under
public auspiceswere men. The two private institutions had female administra-
tors.
In addition to the questionnatues giyen to the entire staff population, a
sixteen-part,183-pageserviceunit questionnairewas eitJrergiven to the execu-
dve dudng tfle advance visit or sent to each institution prior to the full freld
data collection. These data provided descriptiyeinformation about the institu-
tion's physical plant and facilities; neighborhood; budget; youth and staff
composition; intake and assessmentprocedures; educational, medical, and
ueatment seffices; daily routines and schedules;family contact and yisitation;
ard discipline, review, and releaseprocedules. We askedthat this information
be provided either by the executive or administrators with responsibility and
knowledge about these specific program components, and we attempted to
rctrievecompletedsectionsduring our visit to the institution.
Systematic and Informal Interviews. The data from staff and youth question-
naireswere supplementedby information obtained in pdvate postquestionnaire
interyiews with a 10 percent stratified raldom sample of girls at Delta Coed
ard Magnolia, the flrst two institutions visited. Most of the information col-
lected in interviews forms a background for the interpretation of the staffs'
and girls' responsesto questionnaires.To obtain additional information and
maintain inter€st, the semistuctured interviews asked for different informa-
tion than the questionnate sought.
The interviews also provided a check on the reliabfity of self-reported
homosexuality by asking about homosexual actiyity in a novel context- To
deqease the likelihood that respondentswould try to give information con-
sistent with their earlier questionnaire responses,no refelence was made to
questionnaireresponsesduring the inte iews. I had originally plalned more
interviews with such randomly selectedrespondentsbut abandonedthis plan
when I discoveredthat a[anging meeting times with specificrandomly selected
respondentswas very time consumingand not very fruitful in terms of getting
PrisonHomosexuality The Research 43
42
and for writing and sharing his or her observations with the team coordinator,
more information about the meanings of prison homosexuality or reputed
participarts. Respondentswith homosexual expedence had far more of this who then integrated the information into a naratiye report that elaborated
sort of infomation . on official responses giyen in interviews ald on the seffice unit questionnafue,
It seemed wiser to use my limited time at the institutions to improve addressedinconsistenciesbetween obseNations and reports, discussedsalient
questiomaire data by providing individual administrations to respondents features of the institution, and summarized any unusual features of the held-
and by asking those who had voluntarily identihed themselves io clarify in- work. This material provides some background information for the interpre-
complete or inconsistentresponses.I also spoke to girts reputed to be involved Etions in this book.
in homosexuality arld make-believe families and had numerous conversations
with available and willing respondents.
Most girls were pleasedto talk to us and had no objection to my taking Data Analysis
notes during interviews and conversations.They understood that notes pro-
vided a more-accurateand detailed record of what they said, and they could After the completion of each site visii, the NAJC field-workers met and com-
seeconqete evidenceof protecting confidentiality since all records of previous pared information at our project headquartersin Ann Arbor and provided
conyersationswere carefully hidden by starting a new pagefor eachrespondent. the coding staff with a translation of the local argot into standard language.
Most of the girls seemed to appreeiate my conscientious effort to accuately Each questionnaire was coded by two different trained persons.Open+nded
record their statementsin detail. Becausethey could see some of what I was responses,comments, and answersnot fitting into a standard code category
writing, occasionally an inmate noticed I had not recorded something that she were written on cards and analyzed separately.A tlftd pe$on compared the
consideredimportant and suggestedI should wdte it down. responsesof the first two coders and noted any discrepancies.At this stage,
Interviews with executiye and treatment staff were conducted privately, intercoder reliabfity between the two code$ was above .95 for open-ended
and the NAJC field staff usually took notes during these interviews. Information questions and above .99 for closed+nded questions. All discrepaacies were
obtained from custodial staff was usually wdtten up later becausesome mem- then resolved by going back to the original data source, thus guamnteeing
bers were reluctant to talk \ rith us and to have their statementsrecorded. In almost perfect coding reliability. The coded questionnai.reswere then key-
pad, their reluctance nras due to the conversations' being held while they were punchedand verifred,and the odginal questionnairewas destroyed.
on duty and the possibility that youths or other staff might interupt. In a large study of seven institutionai units, it is necessary to develop
sound ways of reducing the unwieldy mass of available data to manageable
Obseryation, Participation, and Nanative Reports. At each institution, an proportions. Our test of the two major explanatory models required summar-
NAJC field-worker filled out a standardized form that recorded visible features izing a number of questionnate-item responsesinto composite indexes. In
of the condition and designof cottages;individual rooms ald furnishings;dining, chapters 4 and 5, the impodation and deprivation theories are examined
living, aad seclusionrooms; recreation ald medical facilities; extent and quality separately using similar methods of statistical analysis. Questionnaire items
of interaction between staff and inmates;quality of meals;variationsin inmates' believed to representvariables subsumedby each theory were identified, and
clothing and hairstyles; and the nature of shared facilities and activities by male multiple indicators of a variable were combined into scalesor indexes. The
and female inmates in coed institutions. Many of these dimensionswere also items were identified on the basis of face validity and then entered into a factor
covered in the service unit questionnafue that was answered by institutional analysis to reaffirm their common dimension. The method of principal axis
staff. factoring with iterative communality estimation and vadmax rotation was
The NAJC fteld-workers made many observationsald learned a lot about used to determine which grouping of variablesgo together or form a factor
the program while eating with inmates; attending recreational eYents, goup- such that variables within it "sholv relatively small variance among themselves,
therapy meetings,staff meetings,and academicand vocationalclasses;inspecting while showinglargevariation from other groupings"(Eber 1975, p. 555).
discipline rooms; and examining inmate files and reports on disciPlinary actions Pearson'scorrelation coefficients were then computed for the responses
and staff meetings.In addition to weekdays,we tried to uork asmany weekends on questionnaire items best representing each factor, and Cronbach's alpha
as possibleto observedifferencesbetween weekday ald weekendprogams ald (a) coefficient of reliability was computed for each of the composite indexes
to take advantageof the $eater oppodunity for priYate,informal convenations from the item variancesand covariances,Cronbach's alpha is a measure of
during the less-structuredweekendperiod. internal consistency,varying from zero to one in value, that indicateswhether
Each field-worker was responsiblefor observingsomeaspectof the program it would be appropdate to measure an underlying factor by sumnin8 several
PrisonHomosexuality The Research 45
Notes
items into a single scale. The numerical value of alpha tells us what percentage
of the rariaacein the index, equally weighted on all items, is due to the common
l. Rosemary Sarri and Robed Vinter were project codirectors for the
factor amongthe items. Its computational formula is
duration of the project. David Street was also acting as a codirector at the time
I securedpermission to collect extm data on homosexuality and quasi kinship
"r\l *l ftom the girls in the female and coed institutions. Boys were not included in
my sample becauseextending the study to a male population was not enough
of a priority to the NAJC project to warrant the additional time, money, and
where 2o?, equalsthe sum of the variancesof item scotes,tt is the number of personnel that would be required. Further, the existing literature gave us the
tlre items, and of is the sum of the variancesofthe total scale(Cronbach 1951, impression that homosexuality and quasi kinship were more important among
p. 299; Bohmstedt1969,p.89). female inmates . This impression influenced the decision to limit the study to
Indexes with conceptual meaning were tlen constructed by additively incarcerated girls, although it is really more of a hyPothesis than an empirically
combiaing items of similar scale lengths that formed factors. Mean item scores substantiatedfact.
were substituted for missing data on items in the index. Where the number of 2. I stayed at MagnoLiafor five extra days, at St. Anne's for sevenextra
categoriesvaried for the items used in constructing the scale,the distribution days, at St. Mary's for one extra day, and at Delta Coed for three extra days.
was standardizedby a Z-scoretransformation using the formula: During these extra days, as well as when working with the team, I was usually
at the institution for about thirteen hours and spent another two to four hours
daily examiniag questionnaires,completing notes, and planning the next day's
'=E', activities.
3. The namesgivento all the institutions are pseudon),ms.
4. More-detailed and -comprehensivestatements of the researchgoals,
where X is the value of the variable being standardized,X is the mean of that sampling procedures, and datatollection techniques of rhe NAJC are avail-
variable, and .SDis the standard deviation of that vadable. able in the Research Design Statement (1972), Gdchtingt (1973) report on
The four items measuring the dependent variable of homosexuality were sampling,and Vinter's Time Out (1976)-
also combined into an index. The index was based on the interrelationshiP The sixteen states selected at the fust stage were California, Colorado,
between four indicators of homosexual behavio$ using Guttman scalogram Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts,Montana, Nebraska, New Hamp-
analysis.Zero-order correlations and Cronbach'salpha coeffrcient of reliability shire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,Tennessee,
confumed the appropriatenessof summingscoreson the items in the index. and Wisconsin.
Linear multiple-regession tecbniques were used to determine the relative 5. Institutions were only selected from fifteen of the original sixteen
contribution of each of the independent Yariablestoward explaining the variance states becausea census of progams was not availablefrom one state at the
in levels of institutional homosexuality, as well as to detemine the proportion time of sampling. The population or sampling frame for the selection of these
of variation in the dependent variable accounted for by the total of the variables twenty institutions was 230 serviceunits that were identilted by state officials
representing each theoretical persPective.These results were checked with and communicatedto us from April 1971 to May 1972.
oosstabulations of each of the twenty€ight independent variablesand scores 6. The selection of NAJC field-workers for the study of female and coed
on the homosexuality index using tests of significanceand measuresof associa- institutions was sometimesproblematic since it required working with one or
tion designed for ordinal data. This check supported the interpretations and two people who would have prefefied not to administerthe questionson homo'
conclusionsderived from the regressionsummaries. sexuality becausethey were resentful of the extra work it required, they did
Before testing the theoretical models of depdvation and importation in not think such information was necessary,or they found it embafiassingto
chapters4 and 5, the incidence of homosexual behavior in the seveninstitu- ask the questions.
tions and the construction of a homosexuality index is describedin chaPter A11freld-researchstaff u/ere trained ard basedin Am Arbor. This was an
3. advantagesince local people might have caused greater concern about the
PrisonHomosexuality The Research 47
confidentiality of the information gathered at tlle institutions. Also. tlle con_ :r-,ljcy with regard to smoking and hall and bathroom movement during the
tinuity of field staffers enabledus to better compareimpressionsand judgments - restionnaireadministration.
acrossplograms. 14. Most investigators feel that interyiewer effects could produce biased
7. Questionswere printed on both sides of the page to reduce the bulk ::id unreliable results @enny, fuesman, and Star 1965;Hardt and Bodine 1965,
of the questionnairebooklet. The pages(Bb" X ll") and print size were large, i 23; Hedblom 1973). Hyman (195a,p.137) is one of the few who has sug-
ald a lot of spacewas left between the questionsfor possibleresponses.This ,resredthat an interviewer effect, although probably smaller,may also be present
format made the questions easier to read and allowed youths to finish a page :n questionnaireadministrationswhere no inteffiewer is present.
quickly, thus feeling satisfied with their accomplishment. If any tendency existed to underreport homosexuality becauseof the male
8. The format of numbering items for eachlettered sectionfrom one to a :uestiomaire administrators,it was probably becausethey had a combination
maximum of twenty-six was intended to give youths a senseof accomplish- Jf qualities that the girls found attractiye. Most were good-looking and likable
ment. l oung Ph.D. students(approximately 20-24 years of age)who were empatretic
9. These questions had been pretested on fifty girls in a state training iisteners,with good sensesof humor and some musical talent. One brought his
schoolin the Midlvest. guitar to St. Anne's and led sing-alongs.There may not havebeenany interviewer
10. Hardt and Bodine (1965), in a conferencereport basedon the experr- effects,however, since respondents'perceptionsare not always accumteindica-
ences of researchersusing self-report techdques, suggestthat little difference rors of reality. Unsolicited comments by about one-third of Ward ald Kasse-
in responsesmay be found betweensignedand unsignedquestionnafues raum's (1965, pp. 242-244) inte iewees indicated that they found male
Haberman et al. (1972) conducted a study in which about 1,000 students hterviewers more tolemnt, undefftanding, and easier to talk to about homo-
were asked about drug useon questionnaireswith varying degreesof anonymity. sexuality dlan were female interyiewers. Yet, when Ward and Kassebaum
One version was totally anonymous,another version containeda coded number iompared the proportions of women admitting homosexuality to a female
basedon the respondent'sname and birth date, and the third ve$ion contained nterviewer and to a male interviewer,they found no important differences.
tlle respondent'sname. The group with complete anonymity reported the least 15. At Delta Coed, the first institution visited, we lost some respondents
drug use. The authors conclude, however, that there was no evidence that in the first questionnaire administration because we tried to administer
identification of the tespondent either produced concealment or exaggeration questionnairesto approximately frfteen youths. This group was too large
of drug use since they found nearly identical rates of self-reportedmadjuana because several girls had serious reading difficulties, and the one circulator
use reported in interviews two weeks after the initial questionnaireadministra_ assignedcould not adequately assist all those who needed help. Some girls
tion. preferred to be at school with their boyfriends rather than answedngquestions
In our study, confidentiality was improved by designingquestionsso that with us. More circulators were assignedto later cottage administrators to correct
each required a wdtten response.This format prevented other inmates in a rhe first problem, however one other group administation at Delta Coed rc-
goup questionnate administuation from dnwing conclusionsafter observing mained a problem. The group consistedof girls and boys from severalcottages
that a girl did not answer a particular questior. If we had asked only the re- who had missed the original questionnaire administration in their living unit.
spondents who reported passionatelykissing to provide specific details about This group was frequently interupted by other youths who came into the
the experience(as in questions 9b and 9c in appendix A), then others could large auditodum where they assembledto visit friends and try to get some
have inferred that inmates answering the questions had kissed another girl macks and cigarettes. These i[terruptions may have resulted in some dishonest
and that inmateswho skipped them had not kissed. resPonses.
11. We learned that some staff at St. Mary,s and Hillsdale told girls they 16. Numbers of staff and estirnatesof responserates iue approximate,
were going to take a test. both becauseaccumte staff lists were unavailableand becausewe tded to esti-
12. It might be thought that such an instruction would greatly reduce the mate the numbers of staff who worked primarily with girls. In the coed
responserate on sensitivequestions,but this did not happen. Irss than I per, programs,many of the staff worked with boys and girls so we multiplied the
cent chose the option of crossing out any particular questions about make- tota.l numbem in the cottage, treatment, and education categodesin the institu-
believefamilies or homosexuality. tion by the proportion of girls in the inmate population.
13. We usually used rooms where girls were normally permitted to smoke
to administer the questionnaires. Care was taken to observe institutional
The Incidenceof
Homosexualityand
Its Effects
Defining Homosexuality
49
50 PrisonHomosexuality Incidenceof Homosexualityand lts Effects 51
inrnatesmaintain a heterosexualidentity while havinghomosexualexperiences, rariety of interpersonal relationships including having a close asexual friendship
but little researchis availableto determinehow manyhaveovert homosexualex- or make.believe family; having an erodc emotional crush; writing love letters;
periencesor what distinguishesinrnateswith homosexualexperiencesfiom those having limited physical contact such as light kissing, hand holding, or embracing;
without. Our goal,therefore,wasto find out moreaboutthesetwo questions. or having overt sexual relations such as tongue kissing, touching of breasts or
Since meaningful estimatesof incidencerequire clear and explicit definitions genitals, body-rubbing, cunnilingus, or anilingus.
of ambiguousterms like homosexualily and homosacualrelations,we defiied An NAJC field-worker introduced the questions about quasi kinslLip arrd
homosexualityas one or more of (1) going with or beingmarried to another homosexuality to girls with the following verbal instructions:
girl, (2) passionatelykissing another girl, (3) writing love letters to another
grrl, and (a) having sex beyond huggingand kissingwith anothergirl. Respon- This next section has some questions about make-believefamihes
dentswere not askedwhetherthey considered tltemselvesto be gay,lesbian, among the girls here. By make-betevefamilies we mean that girls get
together and pretend they are mothers, sisters, wives, daughters,
or homosexual.Our four indicators were intended to exclude asexualsocial fathers, brothers, husbands,or sonsto one another. We call them make-
and atlletic contact but to include sexual or erotically-tinged relationships believe families so you won't think we are asking about your real fam-
such as courting and going steady;long, deep,frenchor tonguekisses;and ilies back home.
breastfondling and genitalcontactbet$,eenpeopleof the samesex.The wording There are also some questions about romantic and sexual rclations
attempted to give respondentsin different institutions and geogaphicalloca- among the girls here. We are askilg girls all over the country to answer
tions a cofirnon frame of referencefor the reporting of homosexualexperi- these questions so that we can find out how important these things
ences. are in your life.
Our definition of homosexualitywas intentionally specific since a wider Perhapssome of these things don't happen here or you have not been
rangeof behaviormay be labeledhomosexualin prisonsthan outside.Prisoners personally involved. If this is the case, there is a place for you to say
frequently complain that permissiblefree-world behavioris often regardedas this. The information that these things don't happen is a.simpodant
deviantand problematicin institutions. For example,prison staffshaveimputed to us aslearninghow much they do happen.
homosexualityto femaleinmateswho engagein inappropriatelooking or "reck-
less eye-balling"(Hampton 1972; Strachanand Cowan 1972), have asexual If girls asked if mate-beteve families meaat homosexuality, the NAJC workers
friendships(Hammer1965;Moyer 1979;Nelson1974),buy sometlingfor a were instructed to reply that having make-believe families was not necessadly
friend (Moyer 1979),prefer masculinestylesof dressor hair (Burkhart1973; tle same as having sexual relations. They then repeated the definition of make-
Mitchell 1969;Toigo 1962),comb another'shair, hold handsor put their arm believe families. If girls requested a definition of romantic ald sexual relations,
aroundanotherwoman,or hug or lightly kiss@urkhart1973;Cbandler1963; NAJC workers were instructed to say that "romantic and sexual relations are
Hampton1972;Heffernn 1972). going with another girl, writhg and receiving love letters, passionately kissing,
The inmatesand staff alrnostalwaysrefer to romantic artd sexualrelation- and having sex with arother girl."
ships in the institution by argot terms ltke mtshing. Previousstudiesrefer to The wording of our questions about homosexuality was designedto indicate
that we would not be surprisedif girls had such experiences.Instead of asking
"girl stuff' and "goingtogether"(Halleckand Hersko1962);"playing,""tum-
ing out," "makingit," or "beingtogether"(WardaadKassebaum 1964);"play- whetler or not a girl had a particular experience, we asked the race of their
partner, when they fust kissed, and how many gids they had sex with. Kinsey,
ing," "having husbands and wives," "being in the life," "bulldogging,"
"housekeeping"(Heffeman 1972\ "fy:u|.l in," "homey relationships," "being Pomeroy, and Martin (9a8,p.53) suggestthat this approach elicits geater
married" (Heffernan1972)i "Ihe doll racket" (Sullivan1956);"darls" (Taylor admissions of deviant sexual behavior tlran would be achieved by asking whether
1965); "making it," "having people" (Giallombardo196S);"chick-vot" rela- or not they had had a particular experience. It does not give overestirnates of
tionslrips(Bertcher1966; Holyoak 1972); "$rl business"(Lamberti 1963); particular behaviors because subjects do not falsely admit to participating in
"chick business"(Robbins 1953; Rochelle 1965); and "having honies" forms of sexual behavior in which they werc not actually involved. The approach
simply yiekls more-valid reponses because the respondent feels less pressure to
@ochelle1965).
Theseterms probably function to indicate somesort of specialrelationship deny any homosexual experiences.
betweenv/omen that is distinguishedfrom a long-termcommitment to homo- The questionnaire asked about homosexual experiences in several different
sexuality, but the exact nature of tfiat relationshipis probably intended to be conlexts to check on the consistencyof respondents'self-reports.A respondent
impreciseand variable.A particularargotterm can be usedto refer to a wide was classified as a self-reported participant or nonparticipant only if she gave
PrisonHomosexuality Incidenceof Homosexualitvand lts Etfects 53
52
.:ltd men's shoes. Two or tfuee girls at Magnolia had male nicknames such as
Fred or Jim to indicate their male status.?
S.o
There was no evidence that the male role involved more polygarny than the
lt) :imale role. When asked, "Altogether, how many girls . . . are you writing loye
tstten to, and going with, and married to now?", half of the thirty-two girls
loing so at the time of the questionnaire administration said they were involved
*ith only one gAl. The other half said they were involvetl with two to twenty-
z :our girls. Dstributions were similar for inmates taking male arrd female roles.
The homosexual dyads tllat existed at the time of ihe questionnaire admin-
iuation were somewhat more frequently between different cottages than
*ithin the same cottage. Fifteen gir.ls reported going with or being maried to
I ;irls in another cottage, ten repoded such a relationship with someone in their
:ryn cottage, ard eight rcported having such relationships with girls both in
ieir own and in another cottage.
Sometimes the sex-role differentiation designated a paltem in lovemaking
rtivities. At Magnolia, one girl told me that the man sucks the tongue of his
() *-omal while lovernaking. Others said that there rvas no difference between
* SiFOr
:ale and female lovemaking techniques but that the man usually seduced the
P .,: k
a-oman or initiated the rclationship. At St. Mary's, girls who reported acting
J<e a guy explained this meant that they took the initiative in seducing their
rrtner and "did work" in lovemaking. A similar interyretation of the male
= e :ole was given by a white girl at Delta Coed who rcpo ed acting like a guy
'{ \R
{ -n the questionnaire. In an interview, she told me that she only acted like a
.r.r1 in lovemaking with another white girl; with black girls she acted like a gkl.
-
-\cting Like a guy in lovemaking meant that she felt her white lover's brcasts
n md genitals and "finger fucked" her but did not allow her white lover to touch
-r body. She dehned black lovers astaking the male role becausethey touched
Pr :Er body. I did not ask whetler shealso touched the bodies of her black lovers.E
Characterizing the male role as actively initiating erotic and physical actiyity
:oes not appear to be an idiosyncrasy. In their report on a California women's
\e ;nson, Ward and Kassebaum(1965, p. 179) estimate tlat in about one.thtud
rt the homosexual dyads, the butch "does work" by fondling the femrne's
>b :{easts and clitoris and "giving some head" (cunnilingus) but refused to let her
b€
FX tciprocate. When denying her own sexual satisfaction, the butch is said to
.s -give
6- n s up work."e One reasonfor doing so is that she is better able to maintain
:re illusion of maleoess. This gives her more of tlle power and status associated
gF *irh the male role and may reduce the femme's guilt since her role more closely
cyb
-sembles that in her heterosexual experiences and better enables her to define
9()
o6 -9
-rself as nonlesbian. I nates thought "giving up the work" contributed to the
d+-
.89 6 rrtch's power and status in other ways too. She gained a senseof power and
6- X =lJ:worth by being able to arouse the femme sexually and having the femme
-' a 9r e :epend upon the butch for sexual pleasuring. All the while she guarded against
:9 E
3r own dependence ald emotional commitrnent by not getting as aroused
FZ E
56 PrisonHomosexuality Incidencrof Homosexualityand lts Effects 57
or inyolved. The femme often cooperated in maintaining this arrangement, mphatically denied it, saying the man simply "blew me a few times, but we
particularly if she was new to homosexuality and either unwilling or self_ :idr't have any sex." Benjamin and Master (1964, p. 293) say the customen
consciousabout touching another woman. -rust pay more if they are to use tleir own penisesto ejaculate.This makesno
The power/dependencyrelationshipsexpressedin touching are also charac, :ense economically sincehustle$ could servicemore customersif they were to
tedstic of nonverbal communication in the free world.. Touching appearsboth rring their customers to orgasm, mther than to ejaculate themselves. The be-
to reflect and to maintain a dominance hierarchy. Just as the bor, put u :avior only makes sensewhen we understaad that the male prostitute,s self-
"-
hand on the worker, the master on the servant,the teacheron the student, :dentification as heterosexualrequires resistanceto the womanly and inferior
the
businessmanon the secretary, so men more frequently put their hands on :ratus of "getting fucked" or "sucking cock" or if the prostitute is getting
:exual pleasure from the homosexual actiyity and finds fewer negative sanc-
ions when he justifies engaging in sex only for the money thal when he says
:s enjoysit or that he doesit becausehe rbhomosexual.
PJssionateKissing
Even when there is mutual touchilg between two people, it is most
likely to be i tiated by the higher status person. In a datiag relarron- Kissing is behavior that can be either erotic or an innocent greeting, Among
ship it is usually the male who ftst puts al arm alound ol begtns :eterosexualsit often occurs flst as an act of farewell. Since it resemblesthe
holding handswith the female. [Henley and Thorne 197,7,p.2lS] :ronerotic geetings and farewellsof family members,it is able to appearimo-
:ent even when the kisser's goal is an erotic relationship.roThe samepattern
lay occur in homosexual relationships. Thus, we attempted to distinguish
ronerotic friendly farewells and geetings from erotic sexual kissesby inquiring
=ecifically about Wssionate kissing. The girls who were classfied as self-
=ported participants indicated how long tley had been at the institution before
irst passionatelykissing a girl and whether they had been married or in some
:rher make-believe-family relationslfp with tleir flrst kissing padner. Estimates
-.; t}te incidence of kissingbased on the girls' self-reportswere then compared
iirh estimates by girls aad staff who were asked to "think about the gfulsnow
-:.ing in your cottage or liying unit. About how many do you thinft have pas-
ronately kissed another girl in this program?" The girls, selJ-reportsand the
rrls' artd staffs' estimateswere very similar for the overallpropordons of those
the ejaculateas subordinate...Beingfucked,,'being a.,cock sucker,',or..getting ;ho had passionatelykissed. The estimatesof passionatekissing for all seven
screwed" are seen as being conquered ard thus as low status ald womanly, :rograms combined are 10 percent when basedon 380 self-reports,13 percent
Several studies report that whether a male takes the inserter or insertee role ;her based on 352 girls' estimates,ald 14 percent when based on 46 staff
often dependsupon whether he or the partner is consideredmore masculine. rembers' estimates.
On all three indicators, tlle highest estimatesof passionatekissingwere at
)elta Coed (21-29 percenl). The next-highest estimateswere reported at St.
\lary's (15-17 percent) and Magnolia (13-16 percent), and the lowest estimales
..ere reported
at Bayside Coed (2-7 percent), Hillsdale (5-6 percent), Yankee
ioed (4-10 percent), and St. Anne's (3-5 percent). AJl three indicators show
may not even think of themselvesas having participated in a homosexualact if -]at the incidence of passionate
kissing is as high in coed as ir all-female insti-
---.rtions.1r
only they, and not the customers,ejaculate. Lloyd (1976, p.34) tells of an
example in which an adult had confessedto eight separateincidents of fellatio Of the thirty-nine girls who admitted passionately kissing another girl,
on a boy, yet when the boy was asked if he had had sex with the aclult, he :-r percent said they had been at the institution less than two weeks before
lncidenceof Homosexualitv
and lts Effects
58 PrisonHomosexualitY
receiving them. Of the 350 who did not write love leiters, only 17 percent
doingit for the f[st time,23 percentsaidit hadoccurredaftertwo weeksto one receivedthem,
month, 18 percentsaidit had happenedafter oneto threemonths,18 percent
saidrfuee to hve montls, and 28 percent said they had beenat the institution
more than hve months before frst passionatelykissing another girl there. Ses beyond Hugging and Kissing
Thesedata provide little suppod for the hypothesisthat inmatesare likely to
get involved in homosexualityduring their fust fev/ daysof incarcerationwhen The incidence of a fowth type of homosexual activity was estimated from
they are likely to feel most deprivedand to experiencethe geatest pains of girls'responsesto the question, "Altogether, how mary girls at this program
impdsonment(Ward arld Kassebaum 1965, p. 18). Erotic relationships may have you had sex witl, beyond hugging and kissing?" Those who indicated
start soon after incarceration,but apparentlypadicipation in an oved homo- they had sex with at least one ofrer girl were classifiedas self-reportedpar-
sexualactivity suchaskissingtakessomewhatlonger. ticiparts. Twenty of the twenty-nine girls who reported having sex said they
had one or two partnen, four said they had three to five partners, one said
she had six to ten partners, and four said they had more than ten partne$.
All four who reported sex with more than ten partnefi were at Delta Coed.
Witing Love Letters
Estimates by both girls ald staffs were based on numerical responsesto
the request to "think about the girls now living in your cottage or living unit.
Another possibleexpressionof homosexualactivity is the writing of love letters. About how many have had sex, beyond hugging and kissing, with another
We calculatedestimatesbasedon self-reports from the girls'responses to the girl in the progam?" Staffs' estimates were only available for Magnolia, St.
question,"About how many gfulsin this programhaveyou written love letters Arne's, and Delta Coed. Estimatesbasedon self-reportswere similar to staffs'
to?" Estimatesby both girlsand staffswerebasedon tleir numericalresponses and girls' estimatesat St. Anne's and Delta Coed. At Magnolia,the estimates
to our request that they "think about the girls now living in your cottageor basedon self-reports(7 percent) were identical to the girls' estimates,but both
living unit. About how many do you tlink have ever written love letters to thesewere only half the staffs' estimates(15 percent).The estimatesfor having
anothergirl in the program?" sex, beyond huggirg and kissing, for all seven institutions combined are 7 per-
In all institutionsexcept Magnoliaand YankeeCoed, staffs' estimates cent based on 390 self-reports and 9 percent based on 376 gids'estimates.
are sliglrtly higher than gtuls'estimates,which in tuln are slightly higher than The staffs' overall estimate lacks validity becausein four of the sevenprogmrns
girls' self-reports.The estimatesof writing love letters for all seveninstitutions few staff membersresponded.13
combinedare 10 percentbasedon 387 self-reports,15 percentbasedon 359 A comparison of estimates based on self-repo s and the girls' estimates
girls'estimates, and 19 percentbasedon 61 staffmembers'estimates. shows that Delta Coed has the highest proportion of participants (22 percent
On all tluee indicatoru, the highest estimatesof the proportions of girls and 25 percent, respectively). St. Mary's (10 percent and 15 percent) and
writing love letters are reportedat YankeeCoed(L9-24 petcett) and Delta Magnolia (7 percent and 7 percent) appear to have one-third to one-half as
Coed(15-28 percent),and the smallestproportionis at St. Anne's(1-11 per' many participants as Delta Coed. The lowest estimateswere reported at Hills-
cent).In betweenareMagnolia(12-17percent),BaysideCoed(12-21percent), dale (5 percent and 6 percent), Bayside Coed (3 percent and 5 percent), St.
St. Mary's (8-22 percenl), and Hillsdale (6-22 percent).The data suggestthat Anne's (l percent and 3 percent), and Yankee Coed (0 percent and 3 percent).
coedinstitutionsdo little to reducetlle incidenceof eitherpassionate kissing Again, the data give no support to the common belief that coed institutions
or writingloveletters.r2 reducehomosexuality.
Some data suggestthat a few girls wrote love letters to severalothers.
Of the thirty+evengids who reportedwdting love letters, 65 Percentsaid
they wrote to one or two gfuls,19 percentwroteto tfueeto five gtuls,3percent A Homosexuality Index: Comparing Institutional
wrote to six to ten gi s, and 13 percentwrote to more than ten girls.This ard Individual Yariations
pattern may explain why only 10 percent of the total respondentssaid they
had written love letters and 25 percentreportedreceivingthem. Somegirls We attempted to rank institutions on the incidenceof homosexualityand found
may alsohavebeenmorewilling to report receivingthan wdting love letters. the ranking was different for each of the four indicators. We therefore con-
The girls who wrote love letten were more likely to receivethem. Of the structed an index of self-reported homosexuality that incorporated all four
thfuty.sevenwho reported writing love letters, 97 percent also reported
60 PrisonHomosexualitv
and lts Effects
Incidenceof Homosexuality 61
yariables.This was done by scoring oonparticipation on each indicator as zero
and participation as one and then summing the scoresof the four indicators:
The resulting index score rangesfrom zero to four and indicatesthe number of
different homosexualexperiencesreported, It also reflects the probablekind of
expe ence since a Guttman scalogramanalysisshowed an empirical pattern of N
progressionfrom going with or being married, to passionatekissing,to wdting
love letters, and then to having sex with other girls. Respondentswho reported
later experiencesin the progressionalso tended to repo all the pteceding P
experiences although the order of kissing and writing love lette$ was a weak \s
point in the scalebecausethey were reported by almost identical proportions
of respondents.Overall, however, girls who had sexual relations with another
s TR
girl had also usually written love letters, passionatelykissed, and gone with
another girl in the institution.la h F
The scalogram analysis was instructive since the empirical ordering of
writing love letters slightly after passionatelykissingwas contrary to my original 6R
U)
subjective ordering of the items and that of seyera.lcolleaguesand friends. On
reflection, however, it makes sensebecausewriting a love letter usually involves
geater initiative, more time, and more-consciousdeliberation than does a
s
passionatekiss. One must either trust its receiyer to keep its content pdyat€ SS
or be preparedto deal with the effects of its' becomingknown to others. 6i 'i
\s
Institutions could be compared by cornputing an averagehomosexuality-
index score for each institution. Table 3-2 ordersthe institutions by descending
scores.The left side of the table shows the mean and the variation. A one-way
analysis of variance showed small, but statistically significant, differences
between the homosexualityscoresof the seveninstitutions (eta2 = .O4;p 1 .O5).
Dfferences among institutions accountedfor only 4 percent of the variancein
\k
the homosexua.lityindex. The other 96 percentwas due to individual differences r*
and error variance. The right side of the table shows the proportion of girls
with each of five levels of homosexuality scores.Overall, 83 percent of the
respondentshad a score of zero on the irtdex, indicating no self-reportedpar-
ticipation in homosexual activities, and 17 percent had scoresof one or more,
indicating self-reported pa icipation in at least one of tlle four homosexual
activities. The percentagereporting at least one homosexua.lexperienceranged r'F
from 6 percentat St. Anne's to 29 percent at Delta Coed. C4Q F
We attempt to account for these variations in chapters4 and 5, in which
we view homosexuality as a dependent variable shaped by preprison charac-
teristics and actual and perceived deprivations.We began with attempting to \aaaa.lq
c;
z
account for the large variation in levels of homosexual activity among indi-
viduals, then returned to an organizational level of analysis to explain the
$nall amount of varianceamong itstitutions. Before we get to this explanatory
analysis, we will view homosexuality as an independent variable that influ-
encesone's attitudes, relationships,and future behavior. .4E g .s ef;r!!* c ' e
890
s ii;_!Ei
89;BJE; E
PrisonHomosexuality Incidenceof Homosexualityand lts Effects 63
Homos€xuality as an Independent Variable question asking inmates, "Do you think there are times when it is all right for
a girl your age to have sex witl another girl?" Their responsesshowed that
We expectedthat someperceptionsabout the nature of homosexualityv/ould be their predomiaant attitude was disapproval.Overall,83 percent said no. This
affected by homosexualexperience.We therefore attempted to compareinmates level of disapprovalseemsquite similar to that of gfulsoutsideprisons.Sorenson
v/ith and without homosexual expedence on whether they thought there was (19'13, p.289) found that 60 percert of thirteen- to nineteen-year-oldfree-
too much homosexuality in the institutions, their attitudes torvard homosex, world girls disagreed with the statement, "Two girls having sex together is all
uality, and theft perceptionsof whether friendshipswere likely to be labeledas right if both want it," and 77 percent agreedthat "two girls having sex together
homosexual.rs We asked how they felt about their homosexual expenences is abnormal and unnatural."
and whether they expectedto have future homosexualrelationships. Kinsey et al.\ (1953, pp. 479481) study of women outside prison found
that those with homosexual experiencewere more likely to approve of homo-
sexual activity for others and to say they would keep male and female friends
Too Much Homosexuality ? if they learned their friends had had a homosexualexperience.A similar pattem
of more.positiveattitudes among those with homosexualexperiencewas found
We asked gfuls whether it was true or false that "There is too much homosex- here. In every institution, those who reported homosexualexperiencewere more
uality here?" Their responsesshowed that about 40 percent of the 371 respon- acceptingof homosexuality. Overall, 50 percent of those who .repodedat least
d€nts said true, but the proportions rangedfrom 0{9 percentdependingon the one homosexual experience approyed of homosexuality under some circum-
institution. In every institution, the percentageswho said too much homo- stances,and only 10 percentof those without homosexualexperiencesometimes
sexuality existed in the institution were higher among those without homosexual approved.
experience.Overall, 43 percent of those with no homosexual experiencesaid
too much homosexualityexisted,but only 31 percent of thosewith homosexual
experiencefelt this way. Are Fiendships Labeled as Homosexual?
The self-reported prevalence of homosexuality showed a positive relation-
ship with the likelihood that inrnates would think there was too much homo- The literature contains several references to inmate compaints about staff
sexuality. At Delta Coed, Magnolia,and St. Mary's-where 62{9 percent of the mistakenJyinterpreting asexual ftiendships as being homosexual.For example,
inmates said there was too much homosexuality-staffs' and gids' estimates many inmates at the State Industrial Farm for Women in Goochland,Virginia,
suggestedthat between 1.2-32 percent of girls have passionately kissed and that told Moyer (1979,p. 12) that women were commonly separatedto limit their
somewherebetween 7-25 percent have had sex with another girl. At St. Anne's, oppo unity for irteraction and that "you can't have a friend here becauseif
Ilillsdale, Bayside Coed, and Yankee Coed-where less than 12 percent of the you sit with another woman or buy somethingfor her at the canteen,the staff
rcspondents said there was too much homosexuality-self-reports and staffs' frinks you're homosexua.ls."BurKnrt (1973) repots that the Ohio Reforma-
and gkls' estimates suggestedthat only 2-10 percent had passionatelykissed tory for Women had oppressive rules prohibiting inmates from touching and
another girl and that 0-6 percent had had sex with another girl. Apparently, from combing each other's hair. An inmate complained, "You can't talk to
the majority of inmates beganto seehomosexualityas too prevalentwhen more another inmate twice or you are brandedasa homosexual.They tlink everyone
t1lal 10 percenthad passionatelykissedor more than 5-6 percenthad sex.l,ower is homosexual"(p. 69).
proportions seemedto be acceptable. I also describesome of the extreme methods of control I found in my early
ieldwork in a girls' training school in the lust chapter of this book. Although
rhe NAJC field team did not observe such extremes in the seven sampled insti-
Norms about Sexual Relationships between Two Girls tutions, many girls worried that their friendships might be labeled as homo-
sexual.Fifty-one percent said yes in responseto the question,"Are there times
The inmate subcultureis popularly assumedto consist of a whole new complex when you don't feel free to make friends here becausesomeonewill think you
of values, attitudes, and behaviors-a radically different life-style and orienta- are having sex with the girl you are friendly with?"
tion from those of people outside institutions. In addition to new attitudes In all six institutions, girls with homosexual experience were more likely
toward sex, staff, and peers,inmates are assumedto have changedtheir betefs ro perceive that frienddrip may be labeled as homosexual.Overall, 70 percent
toward homosexuality. To empfuically test this assumption, we included a of those with and.47 percenl of those without homosexual expedence reported
64 PrisonHomosexuality lncidenceof Homosexualitv
and lts Effects 65
times when they felt inhibited from making friends with another girl because feelings of sin or doing something wrong or unnatural, ajld the fear was often
someone-either staff or girls-would think they were having sex. of discovery by family or friends. Men were far more likely to express guilt
At Delta Coed, where homosexual experiencewas also very prevalent, or fear about homosexualrelationsthan were women, probably becausesocietal
?3 percent of the fifty-five respondentsreported feelingiohibited about making reaction is more negative toward male homosexuality (Steffensmeier and
friends. However, even at St. Arne's, where homosexualexperienceswere rare, Steffensmeier1974).
a substantialproportion (37 percent) of the Population reported sometimesnot Guilt or fear about heterosexua.lactivity is also age and sex related, being
feeling free to make friends. I was surprisedto find the proportion this high at more common among young people and girls (Burgessand Wal1in1953; Kinsey
St. Anne's becausethis was a place that permitted the expressionof alot of et al. 1953; Reiss 1967; Sorenson1973), probably becausegirls are more likely
physical affection. One inmate said there was so much hugging, kissing, and to exceed the limits of tJreir more-conseryative standards about premarital sex
hand holding that, "If we acted like this on the outside,peoplewould think we and to \yory about the possibility of preganancy. The feelings of guiit and fear
were queer." It seems that prison homosexuality was not increasedby the typically lessen as their pariicipation in sex increases, as they get older, and
physical expression of affection at St. Anne's becauseit had the lo\Yestrate probably as they begin to use effecdve contraceptivetechniques.
of prison homosexuality.r6 However, this low rate possibly occurred because One of the factors Kinsey thought was important in determining if indi-
St. Anne's sometimestransferredthose caught in homosexualacts to t]le state viduals would have future sexual experience is the satisfactory or unsatisfac-
training school. tory natue of the first homosexual or heterosexual experience (cited in
Yankee Coed was the only irstitution where a 1ow proportion of girls Pomercy 1972, pp.75-76). If the lust experiencewas pleasurable,individuals
(22 percett) said they did not think they had been deterred from developing looked forward to repeatingit, but they were reluctant to repeatnonpleasurable
same-sexfriendships for fear they might be labeled as homosexual. The preva- experiences.We are unable to test this hypothesis becauseour data do not
lence of homosexual suspicionscould account for the estimatesof inciilence measurethe quality of the fint homosexual experience specifically. Hovever, we
by staff members and inmates being higher than those based on self-reports were able to examine how inmates' feelings about haying kissed or had sex with
The tendency to oversexualizefriendships operatesat some cost becausethe another girl were related to whether they anticipated homosexual relationships
p€rceived potential for sexual experience appearsto inhibit same-sexfriend- after leaving the institution. Table 3-3 shows a strong relationship. Nine (69
ships in institutions in much the same way as it inhibits friendship across sex percent) of the thirteen girls who reported predominately positive feelings
lines between women and men in the free world. Restdctions are placed on expectedfuture homosexualrelationships.Only two (18 percent) of the eleven
interaction and the free exprcssionof affection in both situations becauseof who repo ed equa.lly good and bad feelings ard none of the twenty-six girls
the perceivedpotential for erotic and sexualactivity.r?
Table 3-3
Feelings about Having Passionately Kissed or Had Sex witfr Another Girl and
Perceived Effects and Probabilit, of Future Reported Likelihood of Future Homosexual Relationships
Homosexual Expeiences
Feelifigs about Previous Relationships
Likelihood
We asked those girls who had passionately kissed or had sex with another girl More Good Good and More Bad Never Kissed
how they now felt about those experiences.Of the fifty girls who reported Relationships ThanBad Bad Equally Than Good or Had Sex Total
having kissed or had sex, about half (52 Percent reported more bad than good
Deflnitely yes 3rqa 9% 07a o%a t%a
feelings,one-quarter(26 percent) had more good than bad feelings,artd another Probablyyes 38 9 0 12
qlarler (22 percent) said they felt equally good aad bad. This level of guilt is hobably no 1E 12
probably higher than one filds among more-experienced adults who have Definitely no 8 64 88 96 92
strongersupports and facittating belief systems.In Kinsey et al.'s study (1953, Total 100va 1.00% 10070 lIDVo
pp. 477 478),1ess than 30 percent of lhe 142 women with the most extensive
Number of
homosexual experience indicated regetting tleir experience. Saghir and Robins rcspondenls l1 26 322
(1973, pp. 61, 231) found that feelingsof guilt and fear were age related and
decreased with time. The guilt was of a moral and religious nature, involving N o t e :x r = 2 1 1 p < . 0 0 1 ; 0 2 = 5 7 .
Incidenceof Homosexuality
and lts Effects 67
66 PrisonHomosexuality
upon leaving prison, would not continue to have (perhaps sporadically) homo-
who reported predominantly negative feelings expected homosexual relation- sexual relations in addition to heterosexualrelations" (p. 170). There is little
ships in the free world. Almost all those who thought they might have future Iikelihood that the more-accepting attitudes and satisfying relationships they
homosexual relationships had higher scores on the homosexuality irdex- Nine experienced in prison would be entirely erased. A true homosexual at the
had scoresof tluee or four, one had a scoreof two, one had a scoreof one, and Frontera Prison for Women in California believes that inmates are unaware
of the strong likelihood of long-term effects when they begin prison experi-
ences:
a homosexualexperienceindicates one is a homosexual.Girls in severalinstitu- and material security, but they are also repelledfrom it becauseit is so strongly
tions told me that they had gone AWOL after exPeriencingan erotic attraction stigmatizedby society. Eventually one pressureor the other predominatesand
or homosexual experiencewith another girl in order to test if they were still determines whetler or not people will initially have a homosexual experience
normal or if they had turned lesbianor "funny " They proved they were normal aad whether they will continue to have such experiences.
by having sex with a male. One inmate told Burkhad (1973, p.418) that she What scattered pieces of information we have on the effects of homo-
bore five children becauseshewanted to demonstrateher heterosexualityto the sexuality suggestthat many men and women filst try homosexuality expecthg
'See,I'm an isolated experienceor two, but this incidental experiencesets the ground-
world by "walking down tle street pregnant with a big belly-saying,
normal!' " 19 work for future inyolyement should the coffect combination of circumstances
Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin (1948) believedthat the effects of adolescent be present.Thesecircumstancesmight include being propositionedby a persua-
pdson experience may be stronger than that of adult experience because sive homosexual, having an unsatisfying heterosexual relationship, or being
jsolated from the potential criticism of significant others.The later homosexual
adolescenceis a critical period for the developmentof sexualidentity. Young
people are more impressionableand lessinculcatedwith all the taboos surround' involvement would have been impossible without the earlier incident. In part,
ing homos€xualactivity. Thus: this is because tlre earlier experience involves leaming justifications for homo-
sexualactivity that can be invoked in appropriatepostreleasesituations.
If these adolescentyears are spent in an institution \a'herethere is little An interestingcharacteristicof sexualbehavioris that people often continue
or no oppodunity for the boy to develophis individuality, where there it in spite of unsatisfactory initial expedences.Even forced and coercive en-
is essentiallyno priYacy at any time in the day, and where all his com- counters might result in long-term homosexual preference. Sagrin (1976a)
paniols are other males,his sexuallife is likely to becomepermanently inte iewed severalhomosexualsin bars who had initially been forced into
stamped rvith the institutional pattern. Long-time confinement for a homosexuality in prison by threats, cajoling, and rape. Thesemen had heard of
younger male is much more significantthan a similar period of confine-
ment for an older adllll. |p.2241 latent homosexuals and begal to think ihe term describedthem, wondering,
"Maybe they were dght. Maybe I was one of them all along. I don't know. But
An adult inmate at tle Statesville-Jolietpenitentiary expresseda similar view I came out in pdson. I know that" (p. 253). Their aggressors encouragedthis
when he told Huffman (1960, p. 172) thal most Prison homosexuality was view, claiming that kids who were a "nice piece of ass" really wanted to have
caused by juvenile recidivistswho had been repeatedly exposed to homosex' sex all along. They justified their threats and beatings by claiming tleir victims
uality in juvenile homes,jails, and reform and training schools.In his opinion. did not fight 1}tem off becausethe punks really wanted sex and would eventually
the true homosexual had far lessinfluence upon "the surgingtide of sexuality come around, voluntarily beggingfor more.
that ebbs and flows within the walls of a large prison." Just as inmates carry Bartollas, Miller, and Dinitz (1974) also studied casesin a boys'training
their free-world experiencesinto prison, and their juvenile experiencesinto school where rape victims found their initial experiences psychologically dis-
adulthood, so do they carry their pdson expedencesinto the free world.2o gusting and physically painful, yet tley continued homosexual activity without
protest. They seemed to acconmodate to their sexual yictimization and its
Homosexualexpedencesoften begin as a m€ansto emotional and material
security and as a substitute for heterosexualexperience,and then they con- accompanying low status in the prison stratification system by finding some
tinue becausethe experienceshave come to be an end in themselves.2rWhen positive benefits in being there. An interview with one of the punks illustrates
that his adaptationwas not witlout ambivalence:
"what was a meansto an end has become an end in itself, it becomesfunction'
ally autonomous" (Alport 1937, p. 201). The processwhereby behaviorsexist
If you're a punk and you've been a punk for a long time and you want
independently of their original causesis one common to all behaviors.Allport to stop, it's very hard becauseyou've got so mally deshesin you. If
gives the example of a student who initially undertakesa course becauseit is you enjoy what you was doing before and then after you do it, you get
offered at a conyenient time, becauseit is prescribed,or becauseit pleaseshis a guilty feeling-you don't know wherc to turn. Like you say,I want to
parents-only to flnd that he becomesso interested that he continues to study stop and then you get to the point where it's just like you need a
woman, you get horny or something Like that. It gets to the point
it throughout the course of his life. The course of life is a dialectical process
where you want to do it again, and you don't know what to do. You
of pressuresto act in some way and counterpressures againstsuch action, which
say you want to stop, but therc's somethirg in you that wants to keep
eventuallyresult in somesynthesisofthe conflicting forces.The applicationofthis going.[p. 9l ]
dynamic model of behavior to homosexuality emphasizesthat people are
attracted to homosexuality becauseit is able to fulfill needs for emotional The boys may move to a new institution hoping to leave their past behind,
70 PrisonHomosexualitv Incidenceof Homosexualitvand lts Effects 71
but once their peers learn they were punks, persistentpressuresare placed on tion to think that no one is converted to homosexuality in prison.22 Some
tlem to continue: people leam a long-tem pattem of homosexualityin juvenile and adult prisons-
even if they do not like the teacher and do not volunteer for classes.
Few youths with a history of sexual encountersare able to tesist the Homosexual experience, like any other prison experience, affects the
penistent pressur€srecaived from the sexually deprived. Finally sub-
inmates' self-concepts in vadous ways. Some inmates define and experience
mitting to the continued harassment,theseyouths sometimesbecome
committed to homosexuality as a lifestyle before leaving the institu- homosexuality as a situational responseto imprisonment and as a temporary
tion. IBartollas, Miler, and Dinitz 19'16,p.73'l meansof attaining affection, prestige,and material benefits that will end when
heterosexual opportunities again become available. Others begin by thinking
Haga y's (1979) semiautobiographicalnovel also suggeststlre possibility tleir homosexual activity is a temporary means to emotional and material
of long-term effects when his friend Randy recounts the cirq.rmstancesleading secudty but find that it becomes an end in itself. They come to value homo-
to his frst real homosexual experience. Raldy started playing the masculine sexuality for its own sake ruther than for the other aspects that originally
role, letting kids "blow" him, then later "screwin'them in the ass." It seerned gave it reinforcing value. Apparently, both overt experiencesand definitions
like a lark, something to do to relieve the boredom of doing time. However, of the situation by oneself and others affect inmates' choice of sexual partners.
doing time also contributed to Randy's difficulty in communicatingwith women
after his release:Randy explains, "For one thing, they could never understand
how I talk. Everytime I \yanted to say something, I'd have t'stop and think of Summary
how to say it in proper English rather than in joint slang. I felt like a real
oddity" fu. 159). Randy goeson to do more time and eventually finds himself Estimatesof the proportion of inmates with homosexualexpedencedependon
having sex with guys aad taking the homosexual role. The frst such experience the definition of homosexual experience.Overall rates, based on self-reports,
probably would not have been possible prior to his ea ier activities in the for each specific indicator were 14 percent for going with or being marded,
masculinerole. As Randy tells it: 10 percent for passionatekissing, 10 percent for writing lore letters, and 7
percent for sex beyond hugging arrd kissing. In total, 17 percent reported at
It was at Westgatethat I had my first leal homosexual experience. least one such homosexual experience.This percentagevaded from 6-29 per-
There was this cute little queen on my tiei and I sort of put the arm cent dependingon the institution.
on her. She didn't haye tits like someof thesequeensthat come in now- To facilitate comparisonsamong institutions and individuals,we construc-
adays,but she was cute and I really liked her. . . . Her name was Suzi ted a homosexuality index. The processinvolved scoring nonpa icipation on
and I ended up falling irr love with her. No shit! Anyhow, one Saturday
each indicator as zero ald participation as one artd then summing the scores
afternoon during the summer, everybody else on the tier went to yard
and Suzi and I were left alone. . . . By then we'd bin goin't'gether for on the four indicators. The resulting score ralged fiom zero to four and indi-
about four months. She started puffin' me lpedorming fellatio] and cated the number of different homosexual experiences reported. It also
sudden.ly,I had this desie to tum her o\. I mean,up to now it had reflected the probable kind of experience since a Guttman scalogam analysis
been a completely one-sidedaffair, but now I wanted to tum her on, uncovered a pattem of progression from going with or being married, to
so I erded up goingdown on her . . . . [pp. 159-160] passionatekissing, to writing love lette$, and then to having sex with other
girls. Respondentsreporting one of the later experiencesin the pro$ession
Johmon (1971, p. 72), a one-time inmate at San Quentin, saysthat there tended also to report all the preceding expedences.An analysisof vadance
was a saying that "today's pitcher was tomorrow's catcher." the sayingrecog- showed that institutional vadations on the homosexuality-index scores
nizes the pattem ofprogression that beginswith a v/illingnes or y to participate accounted for only 4 percent of the vadance in those scores, while differences
if one can be in the familiar male role of ejaculating when having sex. lzter, amongindividuals and error varianceaccountedfor 96 percent of the variance.
when homosexual acts become more acceptable,men are more willing to plea- Our attempt to explain these yadations by testing hypotheses derived from the
sure thefu padnefi and bring them to orgasm. importation and depdvation theories of inmate subculture is explained in
Unfortunately, these few piecesof scatteredevidencerepresentthe sum of chapters4 and 5.
our knowledge about the long-term effects of pdson homosexuality. Serious In this chapter, our interest was in describing attitudes toward homosex-
study of the question has been hampered by the financial and time constraints uality and some of the ways girls said they were affected by actual homosexual
of longitudinal follow-up, but the eyidence $,e haye suggestsit is a misconcep- experiencesard by other people's expectations about their homosexuality.
PrisonHomosexuality andlts Effects
of Homosexuality
Incidence 73
72
Notes
and the questiorulaire,that they had had no homosexualexpedenceseither in feminized males and masculinized females, often refered to as inve s, is sum-
the institution or previously. One said she had had homosexualexPedences, marized in Johrr Money's a icles in the NIMH Tnk Force Report on Homo-
both in the institution and prior to her arrival, in both the interview and the sexuality (1972) and in Money and Anke Ehrhardt's Man & lltoman, Boy &
questionnaire . Girl (19'12). Schofield (1965a, pp.163-167) provides an excellent overview of
At Delta Coed,I interviewedeight ghls by randomlysamPlingtwo from investigationsinto possible genetic differencesbetween male homosexualsand
eachof four cottages.Two of thesegidsadmittedpassionately kissinganother
heterosexuals.
girl both in the interview and the questionnaire.One of the girls told me in the
8. Although little good empirical evidence supports their view, many
interview that shehad sexwith anothergirl. Shechosenot to answerthe ques- writers have noted a pattem of black inmates' plalng the male role and white
tionnafuebecause shewaslookingforwardto beingreleased in a coupleof days
inmates' playing the female role in both female (Abel1942,1943;CNIer 1973;
and had other things sheprefeffed to do. Another told me in an interviewthat Gagnon and Simon 1973) and male institutions (Carroll 1974; Huffman 1960;
shehad hadno homosexual experiences, but thisgid hadrepodedseveral homo-
Robinson 1971; Rubenfeld and Stafford 1963; Scacco f975). Davis's (1968)
sexual experienceson the questiormaire.This girlh questionnaire responses
data showing 85 percent black aggressorsare sometimescited to indicate that
were probably more vatd sincetfuee of this girl's peerstold me shewashomo-
a disproportionatenumber of black aggressonexists, but this is a questionable
sexually involved. Four girls said, in both the interview and questionnaire,
conclusion since 80 percent of the population was black. No casesof whites'
that they hadhadno homosexual experiences. Thissmallsampleof comparisons
raping blacks appeared in this situation since whites were a small minority'
suggeststhat the gfuls' interyiew ard questionnairercsponsesare fairly consis-
Blacks tended to favor whites as their victims, however.Thus, 56 percent of the
tent. Ratesof homosexualitybasedon the questionnahe reponsesmight be
homosexual attacks involved black offenders arrd white victims. Bartollas,
underestimated, howevet,becausesomeof tlte seven(ll percent)noffespon'
Miller, and D:r;lilz (1977) also found disproportionately high numbers of white
dentsat Delta Coedwho did not answerthe questionnafue werereputedto have
victims being sexually assaulted in the maximum-security Fairheld School for
homosexual experiences by their peers.
Boys, where 51 percent of the L92 inmates were black. Of the sixteen cfuonic
6. The numberof staff respondents on the questionsaskingfor estimates
sexual victims, thirteen (81 percent) were white. No black were sexually
of the number of girls involved in vadoushomosexualactivitiesis particularly
exploited by whites, although some black "soul brothers" exploited weaker
low because only the unit staffswereaskedto answerthe questions, andmany
blacks.
irdicated they did not haveenoughinformationto providean estimate.Selo
9. For further examples of "giving up the work," see Jackson (1972,
(19?9),usingthe samedata base,also found low staff response rateson staff
p. 126),Jay and Yolll;'g(L979,p.319),analMartin and Lyon (1974,p.72).
estimatesof severaltypes of misconduct(including feigningillness,illegal drug
10. The theme of sexual activity requiring the disguise of ifiIocence runs
use,intemal theft, propertydamage, fighting,assaults on staft. Thus,it is not
throughout Morris's Intimate Behaviour(1973).
just the questionson homosexuality that hadlow staffresponse rates.
11, The various sourcesof percentageestimatesof Passionatekissingu/ere
?. For moreon the sex-roledifferentiationin institutionsfor women,see
calculatedon different denominators,The denominatorsof the estimatesbased
Abel L942, 1943; Colebrook1968; Giallombardo1966, 1974; Halleck and
on self-reportswere the number of girls who gaveconsistentaoswersto ques-
Hersko 1962; Heffernan 1972:' Howad 1962; James1969; Karlen 19'7l:,
tions 9b, 9c, 13a, 14, and 15 in particular institutions (Magnolia = 124, St'
Kosofskyand Ellis 1958; Rochelle1965; Van Worrner1978;and Wardand =
Anne's = 80, St. Mary's = 40, Ilillsdale = 33, BaysideCoed = 29, Yankee Coed
Kassebaum 1965.
26, Delta Coed = 48). The number who provided consistentanswersin all seven
The physiciansat Frontera,the Californiainstitution studiedby Wardard
institutions combinedwas 380.
Kassebaum (1965, p. 104), reportedno differenctin termsof sizeof clitoris,
The numerators for the inrnates' estimateswere derivedfrom the responses
distdbutionor abundanceof body hair, or any other anatomicalfeatureto
of 352 respondentsto question 9a. The denominatorsused in calculatingper-
distinguish the butches from other female inmates in prison. Honever, at
c€ntage estimates for particular institutions were the female-inmate Population
Magnolia,one of the gtulswho reporteda malerole wasreputedto havean
(Magnolia = 133, St. Anne's = 80, St. Mary's = 41, Hillsdale = 37, Bayside
elongated,visibleclitoris, which was called a sparetongue.Someobservers
Coed = 43, Yankee Coed = 29, ar.d Delta Coed = 65). The population for all
(Flynn 1963, p. 105; Ward and Kassebaum1965, p.32) haveclaimedthat
seveninstitutions combinedwas 428.
butches tend to have skin disordersor weight problemst}Iat make them un-
The numerators for the staffs' estimates wer€ derived from the responses
attractive.I, however,did not observesucha pattern.
of forty-six respondentsto question ld. The denominatorsused in calculating
Evidenceoutside pdsons on biological predispositionsin producinghigltly
percentag€estimatesfor each particular institution were the sum of the female-
76 PrisonHomosexuality and lts Effects
Incidenceof Homosexuality 77
inmate populations of cottage units in which at least one staff member provided a numerical estimate to question 1c. Becausethere were no staff respondents
a numerical estimate to question ld. Becausethere were no staff respondents for sixteen of the thirty cottage units, the overall percentage for the seven
for hve of the thtty cottage units, the overall percentagefor the seveninstitu- institutions was basedon a denominator of only 208 inmates.
tions was basedon a denominator of only 366 inmates.Further details on the Further details on the calculations of all three tyPes of estimates for par-
calculations of all three types of estimates for particular cottage ruLits and for ticular cottage units and for tlle entire sample of seven institutions is available
tlle entire sampleof seveninstitutions is availablein table 5-3 in Propper (1976, in table54 in Proppet(1976, pp.130-131).
pp. t26-127). 14. The Guttman analysis indicated the scale was acceptablyunidimen-
12. The yarious soutcesof percentageestimatesof writing love letters were sional and cumulative (coefficient of scalabfity = .70, co€fficient of reproduci-
calculatedon different denominato$. The denominatorsof the estimatesbased bihty = .97, minimum margin reproducibilil
on self-reportswere the number of girls who gaveconsistentanswersto ques- .06). Other indications that it was appropdat(
tions 6b, 14, and 15 ir particular institutions (Magnolia= 124, St. Anne's = 78, each of the four indicators of homosexuality
St. Mary's = 40, Hillsdale = 35, BaysideCoed = 29, Yankee Coed = 27 , Delta reasonably high correlations rvith one anotb
Coed = 54). The number who provided consistentanswersin all seveninstitu- Cronbach's alpha (.88) indicated high interl
tions combinedwas 387. retain the thirty-four caseswhere responden
The numerators for the inmates' esiimates were derived from the replies or answered questions inconsistently, the particular ildicator was recoded to
of 359 respondentsto question 5a. The denominatorsused in calculatingper- its mean value. An index score was only calculated if a self-report was available
centageestimatesfor particular institutions were tJIe female-inmatepopulation on at least one of the four componentindicators.
(seenote 11 for details). More-detailed explanations and further examples of Guttman scaling are
The numerators for the staffs' estimates were derived from the replies availablein Nie et al. (1975).
of sixty-ole respondentsto question 2c. The denominatorsused in calculating 15. It would be mole accurate to say that we are comparing the views
percentageestimatesfor each particular institution were the sum of the female- of those who rcport a homosexual experiencewith those who do not report
inmate populations of cottage units in which at least one staff member pro- an experience.I have chosen an abbreviatedway of labeling the groupsbeing
vided a numerical estimateto question 2c. Becausethere were no staff respon- compared but recognizethat reporting is not identical with actual homosexual
dents for six of the thirty cottage units, the overall percentage for the seven activity.
institutions was basedon a denominator of only 362 inmates. 16. A N€w York psychiatrist (UPI 1980) found that 22 perc€nt of his
Further details on the calculations of all tfuee types of estimates for par' female respondentsadmitted an intense need to be hugged. When they are
ticular cottage units and for the entire sample of seven institutions is available deprived of hugging, they substitute sex and food. Sex with men was less fre-
in table 5-2 in Propper (1976, pp. I23-I24). quent among women who got enough huggmg. Huggng could presumably
13. The various sourcesof percentageestimatesof sex between girls were alsoreducethe need for overt homosexuality.
calculatedon different denominators.The denominatorsof the estimatesbased 17. For a discussionof pressuresagainst cross-sexfriendships in the free
on self-reports were the number of girls who gave consistent answeff to ques' world, see R. Bell (1975). Nelson (1974, p. 142) suggeststhat the ambiguous
tions 12b, 13a, 14, afi, 15 in particular institutions (Magnolia = 127, St. defirftions of homosexuality and the tendency to define platonic relationships
Alne's = 79, St. Mary's = 39, Hillsdale = 35, Bayside Coed = 29, Yankee as homosexual could also increase tlre likelihood of actual sexual relationships
Coed = 27 , Delta Coed = 54). The number who provided consistent answers in prison as inmates tend to conform with the homosexual label that others
in all sevel institutions combinedwas 390. imposeon them.
The numeratorsfor the inmates' estimateswere derivedfrom the responses 18. Sykes and Matza (1957) coined Ihe term techniquesof neutralization
of 376 respondentsto question 12a. The denominatorsused in calculatingper- to describethe way people rationalize socially unacceptablebehavior to make
centage estimates for particular institutions were the female-inmate population it justifiable in their eyes and those of others. The negative evaluations of the
(seenote 11 for details). behavior are rliminished, or neutralized, by explanations of the behavior's
The numerators for the staffs' estimateswere derived from the replies of zuitabiJity in a particular situation. Scott and Lyman (1968) also Provide a
twenty-six respondentsto question lc. The denominatorsused in calculating useful analysisof the socially approvedvocabulariesof excusesand justifications
percentag€estimatesfor each padicular institution were the sum of the female- that neutralize an act or its consequenceswhen one or both are brought into
inmate populations of cottage units in which at least one staff member provided question. In Scott and Lyman's terms, pdson tumouts admit tlat the act is bad,
7A prisonHomosexuality
blt they deny full responsibility since the opposite sex is unavailable. They cleny
that anyoneis injured by their behaviorby sayingit is temporary. lmportation
19. I heard no unsolicited stories of these tests' resulting in a lesbian
identity, but presumablythat could alsohappen.Blumstein anclSchwartz(i974,
Perspectiveson
p. 285) tell of similar tests outside prison in which women selectedmen as PrisonHomosexuality
sexual partners to test and reaffirm their lesbian identity.
20. Other fiterature that suggests that some men voluntarily continue
_
homosexual activity after prison includes Benjamin and Master 1964; Block Irnpodation theorists think that differences in the attitudes and behaviors of
1955;Cory 1964; Cmft 1966; Duffy 1965;Jersild1956;Karpman1948;Kasse. inmates within the same setting can best be exPlained by variations in preprison
baum 1972; Ktkham 1971; Pattersonand Conracl1950; Schofield 1965a; and experiences,values, social identities, and roles external to the immediate situa-
Westwood1952. tion in which the inmates find themselves. They also suggestwe look carefully
at tle selection factors that result in different types of inmates going to dif-
ferent types of prisons when investigating prison differences in behavior. We
often tend to incofiectly attribute undestable behavior to harsh prison condi-
tions when such behavior may actually result from the fact that more€xperi-
enced,harrlenedcriminalsare sent to thesetypes ofprisons.
The importationists do not dispute the deprivationists' claims that the
pressuresand deprivationsof impdsonment foster homosexuality, but they see
.this reasoning asoversirnplistic because it does not explain the fact that similarly
situated iffnates adapt arld behave differently. The importationists believe that
long-standing personality pattems and socialization experiences imported into
the correctional setting betier explain why inmates behave differently irr similar
conditions of confinement-that is, sometling in their earlier lives determines
how they will react to imprisonment.
Dfuect Importation
relationshipsand resumed sexual relationshipswith girls after the homosexua.l ilfluence of drugs. Most padicipants did not define themselvesas true homo-
expe ence had ended. Their resistanceeventually broke down, however, and sexuals,eventhough they had had prior homosexualexPeriences.
they developedrationalizationsfor resuminghomosexualactivity. The only other study tlat contains data on both preprison and pdson
The homosexual activity, which initially began as a means of meeting homosexuality and that examinesthe relationsldp betweenthe two is Mitchell's
emotional needs,was later renewedwith other partners to meet emotional and (1969) study of two adult women's prisons. It also supports the direct-
other needs.Greco and rN fltt (1944, p.306) saw this as ..an excellentillustra- importation model.l Overall,28 percent ofher ninety-four respondentsreported
tion of Allport's 'principle of functional autonomy, relatiye to the motivating prison homosexuality, aad 58 percent of these women also rePoded prepdson
powers of traits, i.e., where a trait or habit which was formerly a means to an homosexualexperiences.Only 15 percent of the sixty€ight respondentswho did
end becomesan end in itself' (p. 306). not participate in prison homosexuality had had prior homosexualexpedence.
Greco and Wright also alert us to the dangersof assumiagthat inmates, The data suggestthat direct importation of prior homosexual experiencehas
accounts of why they engagein homosexual experiencesare accurate. Their some effects but that the pdson environment is also influential. Whether the
sample of homosexual boys did not attribute their homosexual Dreferenceto pdor experienceof the inmates was impoded from other prisons or from the
the early seduction. They blamed prison conditions instead. saying that they outside community is not specified. Either is possible becausemary of the
were forced into homosexualassaults,that their homosexualpartner protected women had se ed previous sentencesin adult and juvenile prisons, and the
them from the assultsof others, that they had witnesseda homosexualact or data indicated that women who had served time in such placeswere more likely
heard erotic talt by others, or that they were participating in order to receive to participatein homosexuality dudng their cufient incarceration.
material goods like candy and cigarettes.Greco and Wright argue that these Both Tripp (1975, p. 22) and Gagnonand Simon (19?3, p. 245) summarize
justifications did not representthe true reasonsfor the boys' homosexuality some unpublished data from the Institute for Sex Researchthat is interpreted as
sincethe heterosexualboys had similar experiences.The preinstitutional seduc- evidencethat a very small proportion of participants it prison homosexuality
tion that distinguished the heterosexual boys and the chronic hornosexua.ls have no prior experience.However, their particulal estimatesof tlle prevalence
was not recognizedas a causalfactor by the homosexuals. of prison homosexuality differ-Tripp says71 percent of long-terminmateshave
Little empirical evidence addressesthe validity of the theory.of direct experience,and Gagnon arrd Simon say 35-50 percent have experience.Both
agreethat only a small proportion (4-10 percent) of participantshad no homo-
sexual experience pdor to incarceration-but no one at the lnstitute for Sex
Researchhas yet published the cross tabulation betweeo preprison and prison
homosexuality that would show the nature and strength of the relationship
betweenthe two vadables.
Gebhard's (1972) published data from the Institute for Sex Research
economic status more than previous homosexuality. Only two unpublished show higher estimates of preprison homosexuality and suggest that prisoners
thesescontain data on preprison and prison homosexuality and their relation_ have more homosexual experience than the general population. He found
ship. Both provide strong support for the direct-importationmodel. tlrat 60{5 percent of pdsonefi and 37 42 percent of nonprisonersreported
Hopper\ (i980) data, for example, suggestthat sexual depdvation may overt homosexual expedence outside prison. One must interpret these data
not have been as important as preprison homosexualexperiencein determ.ining with caution, hov,/ever,sincethey appearinconsistentwith Kinsey,Pomeroy,and
whether female inmates at the Lowell prison in Florida participated in homo- Martin's (1948, p.664) statementthat 25-30 percent of inmateshad had a homo-
sexual activity. Forty-nine percent of the 172 questionnairerespondentsin this sexualexpeliencebefore admission.Furthermore, in both reports, the high pro-
study admitted prison homosexuality. Hopper did not report on the prevrous portions of prisoners who reported homosexual experiencemay reflect biased
homosexualexpedenceof the 51 percent who did not participate.However,she sampling.Gebhardet a1.(1965, p. 33) admit there wasno samplingplan and that
does say that 75 percent of the eighty-four inmateswho reported prison homo_ the inmate groups included I 11 white inrnatesin Z wing of Soledad"where all
sexuality also reported some homosexual expedence prior to imprisonment. males who appearedobviously homosexual or who proved to be problems be-
When askedabout the developmentof their prison homosexuality,only 26 per- causeof their homosexualitywere segregated."
cent of the participants blamed the institutiona.l settrng,2g percent said it Importart consequencesflow from our failure to recognize that Pdor
evolvedfrom a friend or roommate situation, ald the other 45 percent offered homosexuality influences prison homosexuality and that inmates may have
miscellaneousrationalesincluding emotional bonds, physicalattraction, and the more homosexual experiencethan the generalpopulation. The result has been
PrisonHomosexuality lmportationPersDectives 83
system, ard they, too, have no good evidenceto suppod their claim, although
they offer statistical estimatesthat have been uncritically acceptedand popu-
lanzed by people like deRahm (1969). Bluestoneand his colleaguesestimated
that 90 percent of the female inmates had previous homosexual experience and
that they came to prison searching for a one-sex milieu because they are hap-
In the 1965 report of homosexuality among white men in and out of
p.iest among other women in a sfuctured environment. In the homosexual
prison, Gebhard et al. found that homosexual behavior, like most sexual be-
world of the prison, women receive health care, food, pleasant surroundings,
havior, fust occurred in adolescence. About ha.lf of those with a homosexual
a rich social life with staff and inmates, and structured work, study, and recrea-
tion. They hypothesize that such women move willingly toward homosexuality
in pdson because they were initially inclined toward it.3 This interesting
hypothesis seemsinconsistent with available negative inmate evaluations of their
prison experience,but an investigation of their hardshipsoutside prison might
reveal even worse conditions in the free world.
The Bluestone group's hypothesis that much prison homosexuality is
imported from the community deservesempirical investigation. However,
their own data offer no support for this claim becausethey show that much of
the prior homosexuality that these researchels attribute to "the community,"
was actually initiated or exacerbated in other institutions. Their account of five
on long-term effects discussedin chapter 3.
typical case histories shows that all five women had their fust homosexual
High iates of preprison homosexuality were also obtained in Clemmer,s
(1958, p. 384) study of adult-male felons incarcerated at the Menard State urges, oved expedences,or increased "acting out" in either state hospitals
Prison in Illinois. He interviewed 240 of the lgOO inrnates and found that or correctional prograns for youths.
By 1953, the researchersat the Institute for Sex Researchhad become
aware that "sexual behavior outside prison displayed by persons previously
or subsequently imprisoned differed from the sexual behavior of persons never
imprisoned; consequently, persons with prison experience have since been
treated separately" (Gebhard et al. 1965, p. 33). The data presentedin the
1953 volume, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, prrposely excluded the
sexual case histodes of 915 former ifinates becausetheir sexual experience
was very different from women who had not been in prison and to have in-
cluded thern "would have seriously distorted the calculations on the total
sarnple" (Kinsey et al. 1953, p. 22). Unfortunately, the data on the impri'
wams against inaccurately concluding that pdsons are hotbeds of sexual arousal
soned women was never published. Thus, the specific nature of the differences
is not known. Other studies have shown that girls in training schools are more
likely to be nonvirgins than the general population (Short and Nye 1958b,
p. 298) ald that homosexuality seemsto be more prevalent among nonvirgins
(Sorenson 1973, p. 432). We would thus expect the proportion of inmates
with homosexual expedence also to be higher than that of the general popula-
tion.
Johmon (1971, p. 95) suggestedthat ratesof recid.ivismamongmale homo_
Two recent studies suggest that adult-female inmates have dispropor-
sexualswere high becausetley were drawn to the pdson where they had better
tionately high levels of homosexual experience prior to impdsonment, but
status and security thaa in the community. However,he presentedno evidence
neither study investigated the relationship between previous homosexuality
to support this hypothesis. Bluestone, O'Malley, and Connell (1966) made a
and prison homosexuality. In Nelson's (1974) study of two women's state
similar claim about female homosexuals coming into the New yoik prison
prisons, 44 percent of the 119 questionnairerespondentsreported that they
84 PrisonHomosexualitv lmportationPerspectives 85
had "sexual relations rvith another woman before they came to prison." Ward, Giallombardo's books also advocate the importation perspective, but
Jackson, and Wald's (1969) examination of prison records found tlat about she suggests that more homosexuality exists in female than in male prisons
one-fifth of the women in a California pdson had homosexual involvements becausewomen are more dependentupon an erotic identity and becausedemon-
or homosexual tuaits. Of the women corunitted for robbery, 40 percent had strations of verbal and physical affection between women are more acceptable.
records of homosexual involvement prior to imprisonment. These high mtes She claims that women join homosexual dyads and quasi-family groups in order
of preprison homosexuality could indicate that the influence of previous homo. to fild protection from other women who they believe are untustwodly and
sexuality on prison homosexuality has been inadequately recognized. seltlsn-"
One of the best ways of confirming the validity of the importation theory is
to find signilicant associationsbetween preprison homosexuality and institu-
tional homosexuality. The complicating factor in terms of measurilg the
relative impact of importation and deprivation variablesis that much of the 8 \s
o,q)6ss
preprison homosexuality odginates in other institutions. Thus, the original
cause of the homosexuality might be institutional conditions and not social-
zation outside correctional institutions. Although our tendency might be to v
attribute homosexuality to assumeddeprivations in the prior itcarceration,
it is possible that the positive aspectsof living and sharingclosely with same-
8 s
sex friends might just as stongly exert pressurestoward prison homosexuality.
Brendan Behan, for example, rejoiced in the company of the corrmon cdm-
inals and was acceptedby them:
If we'd had girls in Hollesley Bay I'd have applied to spendthe rest of
I \s
oorre
s
my life thete. Nowhere else have I met an almost classlesssociety. a
Nowherc was I loved so well, or respectedso higl y. I've my letters F.l
home to proye that I thought that at that time too. I loved Borstal
boys and they loved me. Homosexuality(of our sort) is not a substitute
for [ormal sex. It'$ a different thing, rather similar to that of which tR
oo.n\o:
T.E. Lawrencewdtes in ?ie Se1)en Pillarr. . . . Our lads sawthemselves
as beautiful and had to do somethingabout it. About a trird of them
did. Another third, not so influential or lessgood looking, would have
liked to. [Cited by Kearney 1917, p. 85 from BrendanBehan'sunpub-
Ushed manuscdpt, now in the Morris Library, Southem Illinois Uni- i \R \s
versityl €
simply stop when the cufient incarceration begins but rather continue to operate Fowteen percent reported stays of tluee to six months; l0 percent,
along with the effects of the new situation. Our data reflect lhe reality that betweensix monthsand oneyear;8 percent,betweenoneandtwo years;4 per_
many inmates are recidivists and that the justice system is set up so that cent,betweentwo and threeyears;and 7 percent,over tfuee years.Thus,in
offenders are usually in detention c€ntersand jails, and often in group homes, total,43 percenthadlivedin suchagencies
for overthreemonths.
before they get to prison. Since excluding the effects of all criminal-justice.
system influences was an empfuicalimpossibility, we tded instead to measure
the system'seffects.
the older Kinseyet al. (1948; 1953) found many classdifferencesin sexualstylesand
The agefactor was examinedbecause,on the one hand, we lhought
experience homosexuality On-the other motives,but tlle pattem with respectto homosexualexperienceshowedfew
dtft *oulO havemole opportunity to
il*d, if young", youths ate lesscommitted to heterosexualnorms' they could marked and consistentdifferences.No linear relationshipappearedbetween
parentalsocialclassand homosexualcontactto orgasmamongwomen-Both
havea greaterpredispositiontowardhomosexuality'
time was Kinsey(1953) ard Davis(1929)found tlat better€tlucated womenweremore
Tlie gtls wete askedto report their birth date' Their ageat the
then codJtl to the nearestwhole year. Their agesranged from 13 to 19 years likely to be involved in homosexualcontacts.Kinsey found that lhe relation-
wiflr the rneanbeing 15.9 yearsfor tlte sampleas a whole' The age distribution ship betweeneducation arld homosexualcontact only existedfor women over
wassimilarin the seveninstitutions- twenty yearsof age,however.Before the ageof twenty, the relationshipwasin
the revelsedirection.Among men, there was a tendencyfor thosein lower
classes(measuredby their own and parentalsocialclass)to havea higher inci
Race denceof homosexualexperience(Kinseyet al' 1948).However,homosexual
relationshipsoccurred most often in the goup that went into high schoolbut
not beyond-andleastoften in the groupthat went to college.Thosewho went
only to gade schoolwerein between.
In the questionnaire,the girlswereaskedto usetheir ownwordsin rePort-
ing their father'sand their mother'soccuPations. Many girlsleft the question
blank either becausethey could not write well enoughto fill in a response,they
did not know their parents'occupation,or they may havebeenashamedto
reportunemploymentor lower-status or illegaloccupations. Still other answers
werearnbiguous or illegibleand could not be coded.The questionsthus pro-
duceda fairly low proportion of usuableresponses (66 Percentfor father's
occupationand 75 percentfor mother'soccupation). Wewereableto construct
94 PrisonHomosexuality lmportationPerspectives 95
Table 4-3 shows the social classfor the girls in each institution. Over half of
all the girls studied (58 percent) came from fami.Lieswith working.class or un-
s N \s employed parents, ald this was true in all seven institutions. The low socio-
*
economic status of most gfuls was confumed by responsesto 1JIequestion,
"Does your family receive welfare or social security?" Of 397 respondents,
34 percent answeredyes, 50 percent answeredno, arld 16 percentsaid they did
not know.
"d
s s \R \a
11 &
Is
dd SEStF E€}=Bi;SEE€ analysis:
Perspectives
lmportation 97
PrisonHomosexualitV
Thus, all fifteen importation Yariables simultaneously account for 32 percent sex in aoother coed or all-girls' correctiona] program.Even this relatively young
of the variance in prison homosexuality, but previous homosexuality alone inmate group includesmany recidivists.
accountsfor 29 percent ofit. If prison does increase tlre likelihood of an offender's homosexuality, it
Table 4-5 shows tlre important relationship betweenpreprison and prison would also increase the proportion of inmates entedng their current Prison term
homosexuality in a cross-tabulation.Only 12 percent of the 354 girls who with homosexualexperiencesince a largeproportion are recidivists.Gagnonand
Fport no previous homosexual experiencereport pdson homosexuality. They Simon (1973, p.249) believe that male prostitutes in adult prisons were often
also repod a lower level of involvement (8 percent witl scoresof only one or homosexually seduced during a prior incarceration in another prison or in a
two on lhe homosexuality index) tharl those who report Pdor homosexual training school, and males who were attached to a single partner (and who did
experience.In contrast, ?1 percent (N = 25) of the thirty-frve girls who report not charge for their seffices) may continue with other male partners during
prior homosexuality also report at least one exPerience during their current future sentencesor they may become prostitutes. Brown (1977, pp. 64-65)
term of incarceration and higher levels of involvement (51 percent with scores studied the New Jersey Correctional Institution for Women in Clinton and
of three or four on the homosexualityindex). reports that all her respondents said prison homosexuality was likely if one had
The ilata offer strong support for the importation perspective, but the more thal one jail experienceor a long sentence.Most women reported being
nature and degree of that support must be carefully qualified since most inmates introduced to homosexual experiencesat Clinton, in city or county jails, or at
report that their lust homosexual experience occurred in the training school the State Home for Girls, zuggestingthat homosexualexperiencescan be moti-
where we questioned them. Sixty-three percent of the sixty-seven respondents vated by prison conditions but also that they can have long-term effects so that
who reported prison homosexuality rePoded no previous experience' While the experiencesmay be repeated in subsequentincarcerations and the free
some pdson homosexuality is undoubtedly due to pdson conditions, some world.
probably would have taken place in the outside community had the girls never
been sent to prison. We would need to know what proportion of a similar
population had their hrst homosexual experience outside Prison during the Preprison Homosexuality Accounts for Institutional
same time period in order to determine the strength of the impact of prison Differences in Levels of Homosexuality
conditions on prison homosexuality,but suchinformation is not available.
The otler important qualification is that many of the Previous homosexual The small but significant differences between homosexuality scores that we
experiences occurred in other correctional institutions. About half of our observed when discussing the differences between institutions (table 3-2,
respordents reported fust writing love letters, passionatelykissing, or having etaz = -O4) can largely be explained by institutional differences in tlte pro'
portions of residents repo ing previous homosexuality. Table 4{ summarizes
an analysis of covariance in which previous homosexuality was introduced as a
Table 4-5 covariate ald its effect on institutional differences in homosexuality scores
Girls with Various Homosexuality Scoresby Previous llomosexuality during current incarcerationwas examined.
The numbers in the first column are the means of cufient homosexuality
Homosexuality Previous scoresfor each institution expressedas deviations from the grand mean. The
Inilex Score Homosexuality Homosexuality numbers in the second colurm inalicate tlre mean values on the homosexuality
28.6% 82.870 scores,again expressedas deviations from the grand mean, adjusted for pre-
0 88.t%
1 8.6 6.2 vious homosexuality. Initially, the range of mean homosexuality scores among
2 i 1.4 3.1 institutions was 0.72 (from {.32 to 0.40). Since most of this difference was
3 2.0 4.1
1.1 2s.1 3.8 due to the confounding effects of previoushomosexuality, especiallyat Delta
Coed, the range in mean scoresamong institutions was reduced to 0.27 (from
Total IO0.O% ro0I% IO0.07o
4.22 to 0.05) when the effects of previous homosexuality were controUed.
Number ofrespondeflts J5 389 When consideredalone, institutional differencesaccounted for 4.4 percent of
tlre variance(eta2 = .044; p < .05) in the homosexuality index. Once previous
Note: p ( .0001: x' = 113.98; df = 4. Indicator of previoushomosexualityis, "The very
fust time, where did you wdte love lette$, Passionately kiss, or have sex vith anotler homosexuality was controlled, there were no longer any statistically significant
etl? " differencesamonginstitutions (beta2 = .017;p ).05).
rll
lmportation PersPectives 101
100 PrisonHomosexualitv
becausehe does not know how to look, he understandsvery little. rf the deprivation tleory. Howeler, her explanations are problematic. She
He does not know the rules that regulate the game, An orEar.ized s.rggeststhat more homosexuality existed in the trcatment{riented prison
way of viewing is essentialto a1l objectiye unde$tandfug, [pp. 71- -.ecauseit provided geater opportunities for privacy and less-severe sanctions
721 .\ould inmates be caught in physical contact.le These exPlanations overlook the
igniflcance of other data that show that a higher proportion of inmates entered
-J.retreatment-oriented prison with prior homosexual experience(31 percent
I had also overlooked the impodance of prepdson homosexuality when I first
read Mitchell's study. When I saw its overwhelming importance in this study, .enus 21 percent) ard that inmatesin the two prisonsreported alnost identical
however, I rctumed to examine her data more carefully so that I could under- -evels of prison homosexuality once the effects of prior homosexuality were
standwhy shehad not emphasizedits relevance. 3ken into account.
Mitchell had purposively selectedone treatnent-oriented and one custody- Previous homosexuality was the only one of several other importation and
oriented pdson so that the contrasting goals and organizational differences :eprivaflon vadables examined that showed a strong and statistically significant
between the prisons would provide a sound base for examining the effects of --elationship with both past and curent prison homosexual relationships within
different organizational environments. Both prisons had similarly small popu- ::ch of the two prisons.2oOther importation variables-including education,
lations of sixty-one and sixty{ix inmates. Thus, the selection was ideal for -e, marital status, commitment to juvenile institutions, commitment to jail,
testing the deprivation-tleory prediction of more homosexuality in the custody- -rd commitment to other adult prisons-were not consistently significant in
odented pdson. :oth prisons, nor were the two deprivation variables length of cuuent prison
-.irm and attitudes toward prison staff.
Subsequentfieldwork confumed that the treatment-oriented prison was
less depriving than the custody-oriented prison on several indicators. For exam- Table 4-7 shows the relationship between prior and curent homosexuality
ple, it had more staff per inmate, staff-inmate relationshipswere more positiye, :idrin each of tJle two prisons. Mitchell's (1969, tables 6, 7) numerical cross-
and staff was not readily distinguishablefrom inmates becauseboth groups -culations have been converted to percentagesto show that the small differ-
wore their own clothes. The grounds and cottagelike surroundingswere more ::ces in rates of homosexuality between the tleatment- and custodyoriented
pleasant;the prison'slocation near a large city madeit easierfor family members .iisons are not significant once previoushomosexualityis controlled.
and others to visit; and a.llinmates were engagedin some type of work, either Most of the twenty-five respondentswho reported homosexualrelationships
in the institution or in the community. :.irsiCe prison also repoded past and cufient prison homosexualrelationships.
These conditions contrasted with the more-depriving custody-oriented -:e proportions reporting past (60.0 percent and 60.0 percent) and current
prison in which there were fewer staff per innate, staff-inmate relationships -'33 percent and 50.0 percent) prison homosexuality were similar in the
were more negative, and inmates wore cotton dressesand the matrons wore :s3tment- and custody-orientedpdsons.
white uniforms and white shoes. The U-shaped architecture of the two-story Fewer of the seventy4ne respondentswith no previous homosexuality
custodial pdson resembled that of a maximum-security pdson, and visitofs =lorted prison homosexuality, and although the proportions with past and
were required to clearwith armed guardsin the towers of a nearby men's prison. :-nent homosexual relationships were higher in the treatment (21.2 perce[t
Most of the women stayed in their rooms the geater part of the day and had =,J 20.5 percent) than in the custody (11.1 percent and 5.4 percent) pdson,
-:: differenceswere not statistically significant.zl This could indicate that no
fewer contacts with the outside world becauseof the institution's location in an
isolatedrural environment. :J differences existed between the featment- and custody'o ented prisons.
Mitchell canvasedthe total inmate population of the two prisons to deter- r rhat the small differences that occurred between previously inexpedenced
mine tlre incidence of homosexual relationships both prior to and durilg tlLeir :i:rates were not significant becauseof the small sample size. In either case,
-:,-' data are inconsistent with present formulations of the deprivation theory
prison term. To measure the incidence of homosexual relationships,inmates
---,:t suggest custody-oriented prisons cause higher rates of inmate devialce
were askedto reply either yes or no to the statements,"In the past I have par-
---.n treatment-orientedprisons.
ticipated in homosexual relationshipsin this institution," and "I am currently
participating in a homosexual relationdrip in tlis institution." A significantly The data from Mitchell's comparative study of two women's ptisons ate
higher proportion of women in the tTeatment-(37 percent) than in the cus- :.:.ristent with our data ftom gfuls in three coed and four all-girls' juveoile
tody-oriented prison (21 percent) reported past or curent homosexual rela- r-iritutions in showing that no significant institutional differences in rates of
tionshipsin the prisons(Z = 1 .79 p ( .05).1E ;rson homosexuality occurred once the strong effects of prior homosexual
Mitchell correctly concludesthat these data seriously challengethe validity :i--rience were taken into account. In both studies, institutional differences
PrisonHomosexuality lmportation Perspectives 105
2. Gagnon(1977) sayshe reanalyzedthe original data and estimatesthat; 5. SeeGiallombardo (1966, p. 186) for similar statements.The frequency
with which I observe men hug and put their arms around each other's shoulders
at social and sporting events,slap each other's behinds, and tousle each other,s
hair leads me to question the assumption of geater touching permitted between
women. Empirical studiesby Henley (1973), Jourard (1966), and Maines(1977)
have found that touching between \ryomenis about equal to touching oerween
men.
The assumption that women are more likely than men to view their peers
as untTustworthy is also questionable since men probably suffer more tfueats
It is difficult to know how much confidence to place on these estimares smce and actual physical yiolence at the hands of their inmate peers.
they differ from other data collected by the Kinsey Institute and publishecl by 6. The girls' responses to tle question asking where they wrote loye
Gebhard and Jobnson (1979, p. 428). They created a less_biased letters, passionately kissed, or had sex with another girl the fust time were
data set by
eliminating respondents belonging to goups with known sexual bias from their cross tabulated with a question from the major questionnaire that asked them
computations (for exarnple, members of the homosexual Mattachine Society, about how many times they had had homosexualrelations at sDeci{iclocations
all individuals convicted of any offense otJrer than a traffic offense, and prosti- (institutions or elsewhere). Of the 324 gtuls who indicated they had never
tutes employed by a famous madam).
10. Cronbach'salphasfor both the lust (a = .84) and the second(o= .7?) 16. The importalce of previous homosexuality and the relative inability
factor are sufficiently high to warant summing scores for the items clustered of number of times in goup or foster homes to predict prison homosexuality
in each factor to form an index, was conf[med when these variableswere cross tabulated with current homo-
11. Only one black girl at Delta Coed reported that her parents were sexual experience. The dependent variable was dichotomized, and scores of
farmers. four or higher on the number of times in group or foster homes were com-
12. Multiple regressionemploys the principle of least squaresto produce a bined in a cross tabulation ttrat confirmed that inmates with previous homo-
prediction equation enabling us to weight and sum scoreson the independent sexuality were more likely to report pdson homosexuality. This relationship
variablesto obtain the best possibleprediction equation of homosexualexped- held at all levels of previous experiencein group or foster homes. When we
ences dudng current incarceration. It is used here primarily as a deyice for control for previous homosexuality by examining the relationships between
estimating the amount of variance in the dependent variable that the entfue set prison homosexuality with number of group- or foster-homeexperiencesamong
of independentvariables(representingeachof the two theories)can account for, inmates who reported previous homosexuality and those who did not, the
ald also for eyaluatingthe relative contdbution of eachvariableindependently. relationshipswere not significant-that is, number of times in goup or foster
13. Statistical significancehas been used only as a crude rule of thumb in homes has little utility as a predictor of prison homosexuality when we fint
determining a variable's predictive impodance. No variableswere rejected as remove all tlle variation in previous homosexuality. It accounts for a small
unimportant in predicting homosexuality stdctly on the basis of statistical proportion of variancein prison homosexuality when the homosexualityindex,
significance since the magnitude of their effects was small when the variables rather than the dichotomized variable, is employed and only when control
were not statistically significant. within regressionis utilized.
14. Becauseeach of the independentvariablesvrashypothesizedto affect 17. Analysis of the fioss-tabulationsfor the ordinal- and nominal-variables
homosexuality, one could legitimately report an equation with allthe predictor produced similar conclusions as the regressionanalysis.When pdson homo-
variablesentered. Such equationswere €stimated,and their results were similar sexuality was dichotomized into participants and nonparticipants, gamma
to those reported. valueswere *.02 for previous length of stay in corectional programs, .23 for
15. This was a consewative estimate of the proportion of variance ex- prostitution, .08 for race, and -.01 for social class. None was statistically
plained because"going with or being married to another girl" is part of the signifrcantusing Goodman and Kruskal's (1963) test (p > l3).
homosexuality index but not of the indicator of previoushomosexuality.Thus, 18. Mitchell says that 37.7 percent reported pdson homosexuality in the
the definition of homosexuality for the homosexuality index (during current teatment pdson, but if nineteen of hfty-one respondentssaid they had been
incarceration)wasbroader than our measureof previoushomosexuaLity, involved in homosexual behavior, the accurate percentage is 37.3 percent,
One possible interyretation of the strong relationship between prevrous which becomesthe 37 percent reported in tlis text when rounded. Although
homosexuality and prison homosexuality is that those who had reported homo- Mitchell never actually reports the total number of respondentsused for this
sexuality at one time in their Life were more willing to report it at another time. calculation, she apparently used the responserate for the overall questionnaire
This hypothesis treats the variancesharedbetween previoushomosexuality ald in the treatment- (/y'= 51) and custody-odented(/y'= 52) prisons.
prison homosexuality as an indication of willingnessto report. One reasonfor 19. No convincing evidenceto demonstratethat there is more opportunity
rejecting this altemate hypothesis of methodological bias as a total explanation for privacy ir the treatment-oriented prison is provided. On the contrary,
for the shared variance is that 52 girls reported homosexuality on one variable inrnate activity may be more closely monitored by staff in the treatment-
but not on the other. Forty-two of the 354 girls reported only prison homo- oriented prison becausethe staff-inmate Iatio there is thee times as high as in
sexuality, and 10 of the 25 who reported previoushomosexuality reported no rle custody-orientedprison. Mitchell's statement that inmates at the custody-
prison homosexuality. Thus, while some of the sharedvariancemay be due to oriented prison were more distrustful about the anonymity of their replies
rcporting bias,much reflectsthe real lint betureenpast and presentbehavlor. also raises questions about the validity of her explanation. Since all physical
Such a link was also found by Thomas and,Cage(1977, p.201) in their ;ontact at the custody-odented prison was absolutely prohibited and inmates
study of male felons confined ir a medium-security,custody-orientedfacility. were put into isolation for as long as a month for passinga note to another
Of the 60 inmates (22 percent of the sampleof 2?3) who reported drug usein ,orisorl€r,more women there had reasonto concealtheir homosexualactivity.
prison, only 4 reported their first drug use in prison-that is, 93 percent of 20. The relationship between prior homosexuality and pdJl prison homo-
those inmates reporting drug use within the prison also reported drug use prior sexuality was high in the tueatment-orientedprison (Q = .68;p 1.01) and in
to their confmement. Thus study is, however, subject to the samemethodolog- .-he custody-oriented prison (Q = .84, p 1 .0001). The relationship between
ical criticism. ? or homosexuality and.current prison homosexuality was also high in both
112 PrisonHomosexualitv
113
'114 prisonHomosexuality DeprivationPerspectives 1 15
and the political enemies of the private-school system. The result is that head- contact was more difficult to control than heterosexual contact, and some
masters and staffs try to ignore homosexuality. If asked about it, they will residents ihought staff was more tolerant of homosexual than heterosexual
say it is "a temporary aberation with no lasting effects." Gftls as well as boys relationships. A female inmate told Wfuon she believed the coed environment
are regardedas forbidden sexual objects ald "schoolboys have been flogged for actually stimulated homosexuality. A couple of male inmates at Delta Coed
talking to gtls." sindlarly told me that they got "homy" with girls but had sex with guys be-
Accurate data about homosexuality in the U.S. Army ald Navy are unavail- causethey were too closely watched when with the girls.
able because the orgalizations formally announce their opposition ro u, Smykla\ (1979) study of t]Ie federal correctional facility at Pleasanton
discharge those who are discovered in homosexual acts, ald use psychiatrists on in California similarly reports that inmates "felt staff condemned heterosexual
selection boards to assist in eliminathg anyone with a history of homosexuality relations but ignored homosexual relationships." ln this institution, the policy
(Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin 1948; Tripp 1975; West and Glass1965;Williams and statement on physical contact allowed only hand holding and arm-in-arm con-
Weinberg 1970a, 1970b, 1971). Under these circumstances,one would expect tact. Smykla suggests that the direct importation of homosexuality from a
rates to be lower than in Israel. where authorities are said to sendmetinto lhe previous term in a one-sex pdson environment accounts for some of the homo-
army when they come acrossa caseof homosexuality (Schofield 19652,p.197). sexuality at Pleasaaton. He feels that staff suweillance and negativ€ sanctions
A common suggestion for decreasing homosexuality in single-sex settings are ineffective detelents because inmates place a bigher value upon demon-
is to allow more furlougfusand conjugal visits for adult inmates(Burstein 1977; strating affection than upon the threat of punislunent, friends will stand guard
Reid f979) and to replace single-sex institutions with coed facilities (Cataliao to protect their pdvacy, and staff is incapable of watching all inmates all the
1912; Jtnes 1969; Robbins 1953; Ross et a1. 1978; Ruback 1975). Imple- dme. He hesitatesto make an estimate of the prevalenceof pdson homosex-
menting the latter policy has probably directly involved far more inmates than uality becausehis intereiews showed that inmates used a diversity of definitions
any conjugal-visit programs, but no evidence exists showing that having men and and held a wide range of attitudes about its acceptability in a coed prison.
women imprisoned together decreaseshomosexuality. To my knowledge, ours Vary women excused their participation by saying they were locked up
is the only study that has compared rates of prison homosexuality in coed and together with their own sex for so long that "something" usually happened.
single-sexinstitutions, and it found identical rates of pdson homosexuality in Ross and Heffernaa's (1977, p. 27) interviews in ten coed programs revealed
coed and female pdsons once the effects of preprison homosexualitywere con- fiat female inmates sometimes "play the men for suckers to get them to buy
trolled. ihings," which the women later share urith 'their people" (other women) at
Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin (1948, p.357) report that about 40 percent the cottage(seealso Ruback 1975, p. 325). The reducedoppodunity for hetero-
of men have at least incidental hornosexual relations during the period they are -xual contact in the evening hours along with high numbers of known male-
actually in the army, navy, merchant marine, and other such organizations. homosexualinmates led to similar behaviorpatternsof "relating to the opposite
This figure is somewhathiglrer than Clemmer's(1958) findings of 32 percent of sexby day and the samesex by night" arnongsomemale inmates.
male inmates admitting a homosexual experience during their current iocarcera- The comments made by one of the staff members at Pleasanton suggest
-hat homosexualbehavior might be
tion. Some investigators tend to blame all this sexual actiyity upon the organi- more acceptedin a coed prison where it is
zation, but some of these people would have had these experiences at home :nown that one or both of the women involved had a romantic relationship
even if they had never been in the armed forces or in prison. To know how much rith a man (called coedlzg at Pleasanton):
of the homosexuality can be attributed to tJre one-sexmiteu, we would need
to know comparable rates of homosexuality among men of the same age and Yes, they (2 female inmates) sit yery close, kiss. and embrace.But I
social class, during the same time period, in the free world. A coed setting can wouldn't say they're homosexuals. Karen seems happily ma[ied
with a boy and Laura coeds i]l here. I thiak the forced co[finement
have higher rates of prison homosexuality if morc inrnates enter it with pre- draws them together. . You can't get excited over that. lcited in
vioushomosexualexperience. Smykla1979,p. 401
Other less-systematic investigations confirm that homosexuality is not
eliminated in a coed prison, but they offer no data on its prevalenceand no Ihe same overt displays of affection miglrt be categorLed as homosexual if they
empirical support for the explanationsthat they offer. W.ilson(1930, pp. 158- -\€urred in a one-sexpdson. Homosexuality might also be tolerated more in a
160) studied a minimum.security coed prison with a higher proportion of male -',J€d prison because staffs are more reluctant to transfer inrnates involved in
inmates (approximately 50 women and 400 men) and a stringently enforced :omosexual than in heterosexualrelationshipsto a single-sexprison (Rosset al.
rule against physical contact of any sod, including holding hands. Homosexual -978,p.28).
116 PrisonHomosexualitv Deprivation
Perspectives 117
Many wdters saythat the homosexualityseemslessprevalentamongmen in cause.Deveureuxand Moos thought that the social isolation and stigrnaof
coed pdsons,but no one presentsany dependable estimatesof its incidence imprisonment were far more.important becausethese conditions made lhe
(Alrny ei al. 1975,p. 1471' Carnpbell1980,p. 92; Ruback19?5,p. 325;Smykla prisoners"in some respectssocially dead" arrd tlrerefore no longer bound by
1979,pp.4345). Any studyof sexdifferences in prevalence andcomparisons of the norms of the socially "living." They thought feelingsof isolation would
one-sexand coedfacilities would needto take selectionfactorsinto the different make prisonersmore likely to engagein a variety of deviantbehaviorsinclud-
prisonsettingsinto account.Coedsettingsareoftenrestrictedonly to menwho ing homosexuality and that prison sex compensatedfor depdvationssuch as
have good behavior records and who are dose to release,and tlese iffnate the sameness of the daily routine; the absenceof thrills, new experiences,and
characteristicsmay make a geater contribution to any rcductions it sexual pleasurableactivities like baseballand movies; and the lack of oppo unity
coercion than the coed setting. The difficulty of evaluatingthe impact of a for spontaneity.
coed-pdsonenvironment is also complicated by ihe diffrculty of isolating If depriving conditions were actually responsiblefor inmates' deviance,
its effects from accompalying variables like high community involvement then we might expect more homosexualityin the harshly Spartanconditions
andfrequentfurloughs(Smykla1980,p. 174). of a custodyoriented prison tharr in a treatment-orientedsetting. Alailable
The usualassumptionthat the presenceof the oppositesexis more gratify- evidencedoesnot supportthis prediction,however.rMitchell\ (1969) study
ing tharl beinglocked up with inmatesof the samesexis not true for everyone. found that a higher proportion of women iomates admitted homosexuality
Srnykla(1979,pp. 4748) talkedto two marriedwomenwho werebotheredby in a treatment-oriented (37 percent)than in a custody.oriented (21 percent)
the sexualharassment of "theselittle bastards.They'reso fresh.. . . Whatis it prison: this could not be predictedfrom deprivationtheory. The reanalysis
with them?They're just kids. . . . I'd rather be in prison with all women." The of Mitchell's data in chapter 4 showedthat the institutional differencescould
women were pressuredby staff to help the men act maturely, but tlre women be explainedby the fact that preprisonhomosexualitypredictedprison homo-
preferred having nothing to do with them. Femaleinrnatesfrequently com- sexuality and that a higher proportion of inmates entered the treatment.
plained about the immaturity of male inmates, and they resentedattempts orientedprisonwith homosexual experience.
to pressue them to take on the responsibility of try.ing to solve the mens' Adherents of deprivation theory might claim that the pdsonersexperi-
problemswhen they werehavingenoughtrouble solvingtheir own problems. enced similar amounts of deprivation in both prisons, which is possible.In
Heffemanand Krippel (1980, p. 114) found that 70 percentof the resi- chapterI we reviewedseveralstudieswhich suggested that expresionsofgood
dents of Fort Worth thought the coed setting wasa good tling but that about intent that charactedzeteatment-oriented institutions may not actually result
19 percent had mixed feelings.The stongly negativefeelingscenteredaround .in inmates' experiencingthem as less depriviry. In addition, Nelson (1974)
the restdctionson physicalcontact. The so-callednormal relationshipsbetween reports that her initial judgrnent about which was the most depriving of two
womenand men at Fort Worthwerenot normalenoughfor them: "Its a bad statewomen'sprisonslater provedto be wrong.Shebeganher research with
scene,man! The women are like the flowers out in the yard-for decorative the assumptionthat "different institutions exhibit varying degeesof totality"
purposes onlyl" Cr. 114).In the coedhospitalstudiedby Tittle (1972),oneof (Wallace1971,p.2), ard that the most total institutionswould be the most
the inmates aptly explainedsimilar problemscreatedby the presenceof the depriving.Then she classfied the Pennsylvaniaprison as more total than ihe
opPo$tesex: ),lew Jerseyprison becauseit placed Feater restrictions on movementwitlin
the institution's gounds and on visitiju and it was more isolated from the
inmates'home communities.She found, however,that from the ifinates'per-
Havingwomen in the samejoint leadsto too much frustration.It's spective,the less-totalinstitution was not necessarilyless depriving.Prisoners
like hayinga pieceof cakeand not beingable to eat it. It would be
a lot easierto do time if therc werc no womenherc. The conflicts remed equallyunhappyat botl places.However,because the sourcesof their
and problemscreatedby their presence i8 morethan a guy with time deprivationdiffered, they criticized different things. In New Jersey,they were
oughtto put up with. [p. 4l ] unhappywith the food and the poor attitudes and pettinessof staff. In Penn-
sylvania, they were unhappy about discrimination against blacks, wages,
Deveureux ald Moos(1942)andFislman(1934)areamongthe few researchers inequitiesin furloughs,and the operation of anhonor systemthat requirednew
whosewritings indicate they would probably not be surprisedby the frnding iDmatesto weara specialdress,to be escortedat all times,andto haverestricted
that the prevalenceof homosexualrelationshipswas not reduced in a coed privilegesald activities until a tfuee-monthperiod of cooperationmadethem
institution. They concededthat the unisex population of most prisonsis a pre- .ligib.le to becomeso-calledhonor girls with more privilegesand a changeof
cipitating condition of homosexuality,but they did not view this as the major Jress.Although neither placewas called a prison and neither had a surrounding
118 PrisonHomosexualitv DeprivationPerspectives 1 19
wall or fence, both were experienced as pdsons becausefumates were not curlicue-School for Girls. The few fences in evidencewould be con-
allowed the freedom of coming and going as they wished. sidered commonplace in any public school. Visitors repeatedly
My own obsewations of several juvenile institutions suggest that more- confusedthe local high school with . . . the training school.There was
a singular, stark exception: a building not easily seen by the casual
campuslike architecture and the elimination of perimeter fences may actually
observer. This was the maximum security unit rvhich confined
function to restdct inrnates' freedom within the institution more than the high thirty-two intractable twelve- to sixteen-year-oldgirls ill an oppres-
walls of a custody-oriented prison. All prisons and training schools place a high sive atmosphereof locked doors, wire-meshgrilledwindows, steelbars,
priority on preventing escapes. The lack of secure perimeters i1l treatment- and cells. . , . Girls who had beell stdpped, searched,and placed tur a
orientedprisonsmakesthem look free, but it qeates the need for greatercontrol solitary confinement cell (variously and euphemisticallyrefered to as
a "dissociation unit," "thinking room," "blue room," "cooling off
of inmates within the perimeter and the more-frequent imposition of punish-
room") with little else thao a hospital style nightgown and a mattress
ments like sottary confinement and extended sentencesfor attempted or would frequently ard consistently astound the staff by managingto
successful escapes. The existence of high walls often results in geater freedom mutilate themselyes.. . . The staff had made them hide tleir scarsby
for inmates on tlle pdson grounds since the walls reduce the necessity of con- weadng extra clothing. They had punished them for carvilg by reduc-
stant staff monitoring and of locking inmates in their rooms overnight. ing th€ limited number of privilegeswhich they had, or by disallowing
i Juvenile institutions have the same shortcomings as adult prisons and visito$, or by assigningextra work, or by delaying thair releasefrom
the institution. If there is any substanceto the reports communicated
probably have even more brutality, intimidation, and homosexual coercron
to us, at one point in the institution's history a standardtreatment of
(AFSC 1971, p. ll4). Ross and McKay (1979) report being horrifrecl by the carvingwas the application of salt dtuectly to the wound with a tooth-
distinct and persistent military ambiance they found in the late 1960s at the brush![Rossand M cKay 1919,pp.l-31
Grandview School for Girls in Ontario, Canada. The girls there lived in bare
and sterile rooms painted in dull battleship glay or institutional green and wore Visitors are often not permitted into training schoolsand detention centers
drab uniforms. They were forced to march fiom one place to another and to sit on the grounds that tlre youths' identities must be protected, but this policy
silenfly, during the evening, in alphabetical order around a large common room also allows many practices to go unquestioned. Wooden (1976) found that
either knitting, crocheting, staring off into space, or chewing their nails. Speak- houseparents who cared for youths in such places were not always kind. Some
ing was forbidden and crying was punished: lnd devised ingenious punishments like "the peel"-that is, the child was forced
to bare his back, put his head between the guard's knees,then subject himself
Even the passingof secret messages by an elaborategesturallanguage to blows on his bare back. "Rundng in place" was when tJre youth was required
that the ever yigilant matrons could never understand proyided only
to put his head in the same position while the guard runs in place to create
transient retef from the oppressiveatmosphere.This was discipline
ia its most DickensianseNe; disciplire fashionedafter some distorted severe friction, resulting in burning and severe headaches. Some guards gave
Victorian notion that persisted in the progam, it the selection of youths large dosagesof tralquilizers like tiorazine and then forced them to keep
pe$onnel, in the innumerable rules and rcgulations . , . We wete dis- awake while silenfly facing a wall al1 day. A girl, four months pregnant, was
given the option of taking ten small pills and exercising or of spending time in
the "Special-Treatment Cottage" (solitary confinement). She aborted four days
later but was not seenby a doctor until a month later, Heterosexualand homo-
sexual relationships were punished by placing boys in solitary as long as lifteen
clays for writing a letter to a girlfriend, twenty-two days for "talking about"
This picture was quite different from the impression that a more-casual visitor kissing another boy, sixteen days for kissiag, and over twenty days for
would get from viewing only the outside. Vjsitors would seewhat appeared to attempted and/or completed sodomy.
be a wealthy private girls' school in what seemed to be an idyllic setting on the An NBC News White Paper on Juvenile Justice (1971) called "This Child
periphery of a small town: Is Rated X," revealedmany more examples of cruelty perpetuatedunder the
formally stated institutional goal of rehabilitating and treating youths. The fact
Nestled in a wooded glade,enrichedby grassyfields,it bore not a single that the people in charge are called houseparents rather than guards and that
gxterior trapping of detention or restraint. There were no towers; no the people who are involuntarily confined are called students or residents
ominous conctete, brick, or mortar walls; no baJbedwte; or pattolling rather than iffnates does not change the fact that tlese so-called schools are
guards. A sign at the entrance announced its purpose fui sedate
essentially prisons. They are designed to keep children in and visitors out.
PrisonHomosexuality DeprivationPerspectives 121
120
No pain equalsan injury inflicted under preten$e of just punishment
(or rehabilitation).[Bartollas,Miller,andD'antz1976,p.2731
0.22, inmatesu/ent home only once every fourand{ne-half montls. Inmates Contactwith Boys
at YankeeCoed(0.53),St. Mary's(0.55),Magnolia (0.66),ard Hillsdale(0.70)
visited home about once every six to eight weeks.The most home visiting was Becausethe absenceof heterosexualrelationshipsis thought to be one of the
doneat St. Anne's,wherethe average (1.14)wasonevisiteverythreeweeks. most releva[t deprivations for causingprison homosexuality,we asked the
The linear corelation between the averagenumber of montbly home inmateshov,/ often during the previous month they had been alone with a
visits and distancefrom family arrd friendswas negative(r = -.34), indicating young personof the oppositesex. The responses showedthat very few had
a slight decreasein the averagenumber of home visits with increasingdistance had the opportunity to be alonewith a boy the previousmonth andthat Bayside
betweenthe girls'homes and the institution. Transportationtime ard cost Coedwaslike the girls'programswith respectto the frequencyofheterosexual
undoubte<llycontuibutedto the infrequencyof home visits. But they werealso contact.Overall,46 percentreportedneverhavingbeenalonewith a boy in the
limited by generalinstitutional regulations,the pmctice of curtailing visits to last month. The proportions who had neverbeenalonewith a boy werehiShest
punish inmateswho were unableor unwilling to corform to staffs' expectations at Magnolia(64 percent),St. Anne's(49 percent),aad BaysideCoed(44 per-
of appropriatebehavior,and sometimesby the parents'reluctanceto havetheir cent),and lowestat St. Mary\ (39 percent),YarkeeCoed(3? percent),Hills-
childrenhome. dale (29 percent)and Delta Coed (21 percent).The similarity betweenSt.
Mary'sandIlillsdaleand the coedprograrnsprobablyoccursbecause thesetwo
girls' institutions allowedthe mosthomevisits.
Contactwith MotherandFather
PerceivedPainsof Imp^onment
We askedthe girls two analogousquestionsabout how often they had beenin
touch with each parent during the past montl. Verbal instructions specified
that the question was asking about their rcal mother and father, not foster Because actualdeprivationsdo not necessarily parallelperceiveddeprivations,
parentsor stepparents, and thai "in touch" meantby phone,letter, institu- we askedthe girls a seriesof ftfteen true-false(T-F) questionsabout their percep-
tional visits,or homevisits. tions of various pains of imprisonment. The following summary orders the
More of the inmateshad a mother andwerein touch with them more often fifteen itemsby the proportion of overallcomplaints:
than fathers. In total, 9 percent said they did not havea mother, and another
16 percent said that they had neverbeenin touch with her during the previous l . The food hereis usuallyasgoodaswhat I'm usedto F 84%
month. This compareswith 18 percentwho said they did not havea father and 2 . Mostof the timeit's bodnghere T 78
arr additional 35 percent who said tley had never been in touch with him 3 . Thereare too many ruleshere T 72
during the previousmonth. In the month precedingour questionnateadmini' I canbe in touchwith boysandmenenoughat thisplace-[The
istration,33 percentrcportedone to threecontactswith tlrcir mother,and 25 proportions\yith this complaintwerehigherin the girls' (46-82
percentrepofied one to three contactswith their father. Forty-two Percentsaw percent)thanin the coedinstitutions(26-39percent).] F 60
their mother once a week ot mote, and only 22 percett saw their father at 5 . I cantakepart in communityactivitiesenough F 5',?
leastweekly.2 6 . I caabe in touch with my friendsenough F 55
The correlationsbetweenthe numberof montl y contactswith eachparent 7 . I carlbe alonewhen I want F 55
and lhe distancebetweenthe institution analthe girls' home wele low (r = .13) 8 . Wecanusuallyget snackswhen we arehungry F 53
for contacts with mothers and r = .02 for fathers), perhapsbecauseinmates 9 . The Dunishments hereare too hard T 52
wercin touch morc by mail thart by face-to-facevisiting. 10. Peoplethink ofme ascriminalbecause I'm here T 51
Fatherswere contactedles than mothersat all institutions, partly because 11. I canbe in touchwith my familyenough F 42
there were fewer falhers and parfly becausethe gkls had better relationships 12. I canwearboth my hair andclothesthe way I n'ant F 40
with their mother. Seventy-ninepercent reported getting along very or fairly 13. Thereareenoughstaffof my own racehere F 25
well with their mother, but only 65 percent reported getting along very or 14. Peoplethink of me asmentallyill because I'mhere T 19
fairly well with their father. 15. I canhaveenoughof my own thingshere F 18
126 PrisonHomosexuality DeprivationPerspectives 127
Five factors resulted when the responsesto the fifteen items in this list again after you leave?", only 6 percent of the 403 respondentssaid none,20
were factor analyzed with items scored zero if no deprivation was reported percent said not many, 39 percent said some, 20 percent said quite a few,
and one if deprivation was reported. I used only the two with items loading and 15 percent said almost all.
higher than .5. One factor was called perceiYeddepdvation of contact with In response to t}Ie question, "How much of the time do you think rnost of
family and friends and included items 6 and 11 from the preceding list. The the youths really stick together and are loyal to each other?", only 6 percent
other was called perceived boredom and restrailt and included reports of of the 398 respondentssaidnever, 19 percent saida lttle of the time, 37 perc€nt
whether there were too many rules and punishmentsand too much boredom said someof the time, and 38 percent saidmost or all of the time.
(items 2, 3, and 9 in the precedinglist). Cronbach'salphas(a = .69 and a = .64) The third questionasked,"How many of the youth here are closefriends of
yours?" Only 7 percent of the 401 respondentssaid none, 19 percent said one
for both factors were sufficiently high to warant computing an index for each
factor by summingthe item scores. or lwo,42 percent said three to nine, and 32 percent said ten or more. These
young women seem to haye more close friendships with more i nates than
The scoresfor the perceived-depvation-of-contact-with'friends-and-family
either the young adult rnen studied by Wheeleror the adult women studiedby
index ranged from zero (low) to two (high). The mear score for the sample as
Heffeman. Wheeler(1961, p. 703) found that only 43 percent of men in prison
a whole was 0.97 (N = 406). Differences among institutions were statistically
significant (eta2 = -!4; F = 11.25; p ( .001), with averagescoresas follows: reported three or more close friends, and Heffernat (1972, p.203) found that
37 percent of women in pdson reported three or rnore closefriends. Thesedata
St. Arne's (1.47), St. Mary's (1.23), Delta Coed (1.02), BaysideCoed (0.95),
do not support the stereotypesof women's having great hostility torvard one
MagnoLia(0.81), Yankee Coed (0.56), and Hillsdale(042).
index ranged from zero another and males' inevitably having a udder network of frienrlships than
The scoresfor the perceived-boredom-and-restaint
(no complaints) to three (complaints on all tfuee items). The ovetall mean females. Opportunity for interaction may be more important than sex as a
determinant of peer relationships.Some support for this hypothesisis provided
score of 2.02 (l/ = a06) reflects a high proportion of complaints. Differences
by Mitchell\ (1969, p.45) data showing that women in a treatment-oriented
betweenthe institutions were significant (eta'z= .i0; F = 7.12; p ( .001), with
institution had more-positive attitudes toward peers than those in a custody-
averagescoresas follows: Bayside Coed (2.37), St. Ame's (2.31), Delta Coed
(2.15), St. Mary\ (2.13), Magnolia (1.99), Yanftee Coed (1.37), and ltllsdale orientedinstitution.
A qualityof-peer-relationshipsindex was constructed from standardized
0.33). distdbutions of the responsesto these tfuee items. The standardizedmean
score is 0; the scoresrange from 5.88 (negatiye)to -4.33 (positive).3 A one-
way analysis of variance showed srnall but staiistically significant differences
Qtality of Relationship with Peers
betweeninstitutions (eta'z = .06; F = 338; p ( .001). The worst peer relation-
One might suspectthat good peer relationshipswould causemore homosexual' ships were reported by girls at Hillsdale (1.0a) and St. Anne's (0.49). Index
ity, but Giallombardo (1966; 1974) instead hypothesizesmore homosexuality scoresat BaysideCoed (0.07), St. Mary\ ( 0.06), Delta Coed (-0.09), and Mag-
when inmates regard peers as untustworthy, sneaky,and unpredictably vicious. nolia (-.34) cenlered around the mean; and scoresat Yankee Coed (-1.07) in-
She assumes that girls, beginning at about age twelve, require validation of dicated better-than-averagepeer relationships.These data do not support the
their feminine identity by attmcting boys and that this encouragescompetition, view that unrestrainedcompetition for a boyfriend is a major causeofpe asive
rivalry, and "predatory interpersonal pattems of behavior" which continue distrust among girls. Competition for boys must surely be greaterin a coed than
into adulthood and into prisons.This rivalry for boys somehow becomestrans- in al all-female training school, yet distrust, dislike, and rivalry were no more
lated into tJre motivation for irnprisoned girls and women to form small groups evident amonggirls in coed institutions.
of homosexual dyads and make-believe families. Their purpose in forming these
groups is ostensibly to shut out others who rnight steal their friends' If the
hypothesiswere true, inmates with the worst peer relationshipswould be most Perceptjons of Staff
likely to havehomosexualrelationships.
The quality of peer relationships was measured by asking girls three ques- Severaltheorists have suggestedthat homosexuality would be lessprevalentif
inmates fomed closer relationshipswith staff and respectedthem more. The
tions. Their responsesoffer no support for the view that the furnate subculture
reflects a societalnorm of distrust among girls. For example,in responseto the conflict of interest between officials and inmates is said to propel inmates
question, "How rnany of the youths you have met here would you like to see toy/ard their peers for emotional support. Halleck ald Hersko's (1962) study
124 prisonHomosexuality DeprivationPerspeciives 129
of juvenile ghls in a lvisconsintaining schoolled them to concludethat homo- 2. If you tell too much about yourself tq staff here, ihis information will
probablybe usedagainstyou.
- Strongly agree - Agree - Mildly a$ee
- Miklly disagree - Disagree - Strongly disagree
Psychological Suspensionof Ties with the Outside World nominal and ordinal yariables.The deprivation theory predicts that a negative
rclationship will occur between homosexuality and the number of home visits
At the Federal Penitentiary for Women at Alclerson, West Virginia, ifinates told and that a positive relationship will occur between homosexual involvement
Giallombardo(1966, p. 94) that it was easierto do time if they stoppedthinking and all otler deprivation variables. The following list describeshow tle thirteen
of family and friends outside and instead formed quasi mariages in the prison. riables were coded for the regression analysis, which is summarized in table
Presumably, iamates who have stopped tbinking about family arrd friends shift J-l:
The zero-order corelation coefficients in table 5-1 show that the relationships
between the dependent variable and the independent variables were uniformly
weak, with the largest being only .11. Even when all the variableswere entered
Since no a priori basiswasused for determining which types of objective and simultaneouslyin a regression,the coefficient R'z indicated that together they
perceiveddeprivations,have the greatestimpact on homosexualityin pnson, our would explain only 2.6 percent of the variancein levels of homosexualexperi-
strategy was to examine each variable as a separatepredictor in a multiple ence.
regession analysis.Using regressiontechniques enabled us to determine both The data provide only limited support for hypotheses derived from the
the relatiye impo ance of specific deprivation variables and the amount of deprivation theory, alihough some evidence exists of weak relationships between
lariation in homosexuality levels that could be explained by the total set.a prison homosexuality and distance from the respondent's home, perceived
The results were confirmed by cross tabulations and appropriate tests for deprivation of contact with family and friends, and infrequency of contact with
132 PrisonHomosexualitv DeprivationPerspectives 133
and typically they felt somewhat isolated from their friends and family. Rela_ influences are very difficult to untangle,the evidencefrom bo r siudies sug-
geststhat somethitg aboutinstitutions encourages homosexuality.
tionsbjps with peers were essentially positive, and staff were perceived as
Out failure to uncov€r empirical support for hypothesesderived from
concemed with order and discipline and as both punitive and caring. Most
disagreedwith the statement that it \Masa good idea not to think of family and
friends.
Daily pdvate contact with boys occured more frequently among girls in the
coed programs,but over half (5? percent) the girls in all programshad not been
alone with a boy in the previousmonth, and two-thirds reported that they could
not be in touch with boys and men enough.
Approximately tfuee-fourths complained of boredom, poor food, and too
Further, these data and others suggestthat inmate's behavioris relatively un-
many rules. About half complained that they could not take part in cornnunlry affected by differencesin levels of perceiveddeprivationsamong individual
activities enough, tlat they could not be in touch with friends anrl family
mmates.
Perhaps,the only way to rescuedepdvation theory is to focus on differ-
enough,and tlat punishmentswere overly severe.About half think that people
€ncesbedeen prisonsand the free world. Comparing prisoners andcomparable
believethey are criminal becauseof their placement.
groupsof peoplein the free world will giveus a better idea of how much prison
Institutional variations on the indicators \ryerenot consistent; thus, we could
behaviorcan be explained by prison conditions and how much is carried over
not classify some tmining schools as morc depdying than others and use an
from the free world. While availabledata suggest that prisons encourage homo-
aggegate level of analysis. Instead, our approach was to detemine which vari our
sexuality, the lack of data on comparable free-vor1d populations lessens
knowledgeabout the degreeof their imPact. Thus, the extent of pdson inllu-
encesrcmainsa guess.
they had infrequent contacts with their mother. Thus, the break from primary_ Notes
group relationships appe&s more impodant than depdvations such as not
getting along with peers,not having contact with the opposite sex, and having 1. I am alvarethat Akers et al.'s (19?4) study of sevenmen'spdsonsis
negative attitudes torvard staff in determining whether or not inmates will have often cited as supportingthe depdvationperspective.It would be more accurate
a homosexualexp€riencein prison. to say, however,that their data show that iffnates in custody-orientedprisons
know more other inmateswith homosexualexperiencethan do thosein treat-
ment-oriented prisons.The respondents werenot askedabouttheir ownhomo-
sexual experienceseither in prison or prior to entering it. Rather, they were
asked,"How many ifinates do you know for surehaveparticipatedin homo-
sexualrelationsin this institution at least once ir the pastyear?"
Inmates in custody{riented Prisons may have known more about the
sexuality to be more prevalent in a treatment{riented than in a custody_
homosexualactivities of their peers for a variety of reasons-for example,
oriented prison, and that evidenceis in dtect contadiction to the early formu_
perhapsbecause padicipalts were more-visibly sanctioned by beingsegregated
lations of deprivationtheorists.
or becauselessopportunity existedfor privacy in suchplaces. It wasnot possible
Both Mitchell's study and mine show that preprjson homosexuality is a
to link inmates' participation in homosexual activities to the intensity of their
better predictor of prison homosexuality than the deprivation variables that
felt deprivationswith the data from this study.
were examined, but mine also showed that much previous homosexuality
was initiated in prison. Mitchell did not ask where tlre previous homosexual
2. The lowest proPodions reporting at least weeHy contact witr iheir
experiencestook place, but her data show a relationship betweenprison homo_
mothel wereat St. Ame's (23 percent),DeltaCoed(27 percent),andSt' Mary's
(28 percent),alld the highesiproportionswereat Magnolia(55 percent)'Hills-
sexuality and previous incarceration in juvenile institutions, jails, and adult
facilities. Thus many of tlese inmates could have had previous homosexual
dalels6 percent),BaysideCoed(56 percent),andYankeeCoed(82 percent)'
experiences in other institutions. Although importation and deprivation
The lowest proportions repoding at least weekly contaci with their father
DeprivationPerspectives 137
136 PrisonHomosexualitv
were at Hillsdale (26 percent), Bayside Coed (22 perc*nt), Delta Coed (17 6. An analysisof crosstabulationsbetweenprison homosexualityand the
percent), St. Ame's (14 percent), and St. Mary's (10 percent), and the highest ordinal-levelvariablesproduced similar conclusionsas the regressionanalysis.
proportions \vereat Magnolia(47 percent) and Yankee Coed (44 percent). When prison homosexuality was dichotomized into participants and nonPar'
3. The coding of items was arrangedso that a low scoreindicatesmore. ticipants,gammavalueswere.14for distancefrom respondent's home,.16for in-
positive, and a high score more.negatiye, peer relationships. For the first frequency of contact with father, -'06 for infrequencyof last month's pdvate
question, responsechoiceswere coded 1, almost all of them; 2, quite a few of mniact witl boys,-.10 for negativepeerrelationshiPs, and .07 for psycholog'
them; 3, some of them; 4, not many of them; and 5, none of them. The mean ical suspensionof ties witl the outsideworld. None of theserelationshipswas
for the 403 respondents answering the question was 2.8. statistically significant using Goodman and Kruskal's (1963) test (p > .14).
For the second question, rcsponsechoices were coded 1, all of the time; Whether or not the girls reported a homosexualexpedencein Prison had a
2, most of the time; 3, some of the time;4, a litfle of the time; and 5, never. moderately stong relationshiP \.vith infrequency of contact with mother
The mean for the 398 respondentswho answeredthe questionwas 2.8. Gamma= .25,p<.05).
For the third question, tJle coding was 1, ten or morc; 2, eight or nine;
3, six or seven;4, four or five; 5, tfuee; 6, two; 7, one; and 8, none. The meal
for the 401 respondentsansweringthe questionwas 3.7.
The zero-order correlation coefhcients for these tfuee items were quite
low. Number of close friends and deste to continue contact were more-highly
correlated with each other (/ = .37) than loyalty of youth was to number of
closer friends (r = .28) or desire to continue contact (r = .2D. Cronbach's
alpha (a = .48) was sufficiently high to sum scores of the three items in com-
puting an index of peer rclationships.Becausethe responsecategoriesfor items
in this index were of different scalelenglhs, their distributions were staadardized
before total scalescoreswere calculated.
4. Multiple regressionemploys the principle of least squaresto produce a
prediction equation enabling us to weight and sum scores on the independent
variables to obtain the best possible prediction equation of homosexual experi-
enc€ aludng current incarceration. It is used here pdmarily as a device for esti-
mating the amount of yadance in the dependent variable that the entire set of
independent variables (representing each model) could account for simultan-
eously and also for evaluating the relative contribution of each vadable within
the set independently. For this particular analysis, standardized partial regression
coefficients or beta weights are more{onvenient descriptions of the variables'
relationships than are nonstandardized coeflicients because the units in which
the variablesare measuredare often not interpretable and becausethe depriva-
tion model does not make predictions about the irtercept. tsetaweightsusually
range in value from -1.0 to +1.0 and measurehov/ many statdard deviation
units the dependent variable will change giyen one standard deviation unit
change in the independent variable while controlling for the other variables
in the regession equaiion. Since all the vadablesin the equation are expressed
in standard deviation units, beta weights can be directly compared to assess
their impact on the dependent variables.
5. I have assumedthat the past month's heterosocialcontact was typical
of the usual amount of contact while incarcerated. Inmates \r,ere asked only
about the last month since they could probably rememberit more accurately
tharl the number of heterosexual contacts oyer their entire Drison ten.
The Relationshipof
PrisonHomosexuality to
and
Self-Descriptions
Gorrelatesol Previous
HomosexualExperience
andPrisonHomosexuality
Self-Descriptions
139
140 PrisonHomosexuality 141
andPrevious
Self-Descriptions Experience
showedno signihcantrelation-
religious,and not rcligious at all. Religiousness
slrip to levels of homosexualexperience(t = 5.57; d'? =.01). Thus, the
hypothesis wasnot supportedby the data.
d] -1
Qualig of Relationdrip with Each Parent. Homosexuality has sometimes
\q v?
been viewed as a way of compensatingfor tlrc loss of good parentalrelation'
ships and sometimesas a way of compensatingfor poor parentalrelationships.
Wardand Kassebaum (1965)areamongthoseresearchers who havesaidthe loss
of good parental contdbutes
relafionships to homosexuality :
_le
.ol Many women who have been suppo ed and protectedby parents,
l* husbands,and lovers ir the free world find in the homosexualaffair
the ansu,erto the problem of adjusting to the lonely and frightening
atmosphere of the prison.[p. 74]
;
-la
F]l
(.| \o
Kosofsky and Ellis (1958) place a greater emphasison the poor quality of
Q +il
* lx oo c'\€ familial relationships.In an article analyzingthe content of love letters, they
,i OF
$ggest that gLls arc attempting to get "the kind of love and security which
theyoftenmiserablyfailedto achievein their actualfamilies"(p. 159).
We examinedthe quality of parentalrelationshipsby askingtwo analogous
g ..le
6 oil
s- c'- questionsabouthow the girls get a.longwitlr eachparent:
.: t il*
I oo 60
co
How well do you get alongwith your father or other personwho is
like a fatherto you?
Not too Not well I don't
Very well Fairly weu well at all have one
* * *l{ 39 3: 3= () () () () ()
€sl : s ;3 33 €€
Ed
The two categodesnot too well analnot well at all werecollapsedfor the cross
lN
tabulationswith levels of homosexuality.Prison homosexualityhad no signif-
icarrt relationslripto either the quality of mother-daughterO( =7.99 Q?=.92')
or father-daughter relationships(1'?=6.27;42 = .O2).
I Elg
this theory is coffect, then homosexuality will be more preva.lentamong male Dominance. One of the factors that may attract some ghls to the rnale role is
and female inmateswho are oriented toward marriageand children. its associationwith dominanceand secudty. Homosexuality also aPpearsto be
A less-popularview among sociologistsand criminologists,but with advo_ related to leadershipand power (Blos 1969; Simmons 1975). In this study we
cates among the generalpublic and psychologists,is the belef that homosexual- asked if the statement, "I can usually get other gtulshere to do what I wart,"
rty representsa rejection of traditional defrnitions of femininity. Blos (1969, was true or false. Table 6-1 showsthat inmateswho had been involved in pdson
p. 104) suggeststhat guls with homosexual inclinations become dissatistied homosexuality were far more likely to report such Power and dominance.This
with the female role becausethey want to be a boy in order to exerr grearer rclationship occured among the groups with and without previous homosexual
control over their girlfriends and to be loved by them. Maslow (1942) studied expenence.
a normal population of collegewomen and found that women with ,.masculine,, Most accounts of homosexuality among male inmates acknowledge the
important role of desiresfor power, dominance, and masculineidentifrcation.
Now we know that these attributes are also imPortant determhalts or effects
of homosexuality among the female prisoners in this study. The nature of
their relationship to homosexuality merits further investiSationbecauseother
srudieshavefound similar reiationships.
In a study of 205 adults in the GoochlandPrison for Women,Moyer (1979,
prisons. For example, they suggestthat some young lesbianstry pp. 15-19) found that women who were designatedas true homosexualsu/ere
to look and
act like men so they can be identified by other lesbians.Masculinemamerisms also more likely to be consideredleadersand desirablecompanions.They were
ald appearalce might also be a way of showing hostility to people outspoken ard assedive in a positive way and able to achieve institutional
who
denigrate their rejection of heterosexual behaviorsand try to force them
to chalges that were valued by other inmates.They were chosenby their peen as
conform by having sex with men or not at all. people who would be nice to live with, to work with, and to spend free tim€
The associationbetween lesbianism and masculinity can also increasethe with. In addition, they tended to be black women who had been incarcerated
liklihood of inyitations to sharea homosexualexperiencefor women who have for "masculine" offensessuch asburglary and robbery
Van Wormer's study of inmates at the Julia Tutwej.lerPrison for Women in
Alabama also found that inmates reputed to be involved in homosexuality
tended to assumeleadership roles by voicing complaints for the group and
getting what they wanted. They were also more likely to have committed a
violent offense and to display "masculine" behaviors like cursing, arguing
aggressively, roughlousing, and hitthg and taking things from others- It is
difficult to reconcile these data with theories that attribute prison homosex-
uality to women's odentations toward traditional passivefemale roles, and to
marriageand cbildren.
likelihood that she would receive homosexualinvitations. And if an inyitation
came from an attractiye woman with a winning approach_at a time when she Desires for Marriage and Chiklren. Mosi of these girls wanted to get maried
was susceptible-shemight acceptit and have children, but these goalshad no relationshipto prison homosexuality.
Overall, 85 percent of the girls indicated that the statement,"I would like to get
married someday," was true. However, tleir homosexual experienceswere
the same as those of girls who did not wish to get married (12 = .47; Q2 =
.00). Eighty-sevenpercent agreed urith the statement, "I would like to have
chjldren someday." Table 6-1 shows the nonlinear relationship between levels
of homosexual expedence and desire to have chjldren. Gids with low scores
A similar relationship was found between previous homosexuality and the on the homosexuality index were most likely to want children. This relationship
rejection of female roles. Forty-sevenpercent of girls with previoushomosexual existed atnong those with and without prior homosexual experience.When
expedencewished they were boys, but only 16 percent of those with no data for the two groups were combined,the relationshipwas statisticaly signifi-
such
experiencereported occasionallyhaving suchwishes. cant(Y2 = 6.69 12 = .02;P < O5).
144 prisonHomosexuality Self-Descrigtions
and PreviousExperience
One of the things that has often mistakenly been associatealwith homosexuality
among female inmates is their practice of calling each other by reciprocal family
terms like sister-sister and mother-d.aughter Several studies have shown that
participation in quasi families provides inmates with friendship, respect, in-
dividuality, and emotional support and that sexual relationships have only a
minor place in the overall function of such ties (Brown 1977; Hopper 1980;
LeShanna 1969; Rochelle i965; Selling 1931; Van Wormer 1978). Homo-
sexuality seemsto be a part of quasi-husband-wife relationships, but these roles
are rare. One of the goals of this researchwas to deterrnine the prevalence of the
various possibleroles among the girls we studiealand to gain a better apprecia-
tion of why such quasi families exist by analyzing such families among otler
women ald men in one-sexand coed prisonsand outside prison.
Outside prison a wide variety of quasi-kinship roles are createil between
people who act as godparentsand asif they were aunts,uncles,sisters,brotlers,
mothers, or fathers in order to reinforce existing mutual rights ancl obligations
witl others and to encourage new ones. Often prefixes like step, foster, adopted,
half, ar'td rzJaw distinguish the quasi rclatives, who are bound by voluntary
agreement or c.ustom, from legal or biological relatives. Inmates often similarly
refer to memben of their pdson family by using a basic kinship term such as
sister or mother, preceded by a modiher such as stdle or make-believeto dis-
tinguish these achieved bonds from legal marriage and blooal relatives. In this
book, these families are called quasi kin sincequdsi means"as if' ald expresses
the fact that inmates acteil as if they had family but makes no assumptions
about the origins and purpose of such relationships (as is implied with terms
like homosexualor substitute) mdhas no connotation of infedority to blood or
legal kin relationships (as with teffis like pseudo, ersatz, artificinl, fantasy, frc-
tive, ar,rdsurrogate). The term quai hu been used by anthropologists stualying
family-litce forms in various parts of the world and is found in most dictionaries.
In the questionnaire, we called these families make-believe familes because
this expressionis better unde$tood by respondents.We also clearly specified a
variety of quasi-kin roles so that t.he incidence ofparticipation in each role rnight
be determined anal its rclationship to homosexuality could be examined. The
data showed (1) the incidence of participation in quasi-kin roles was as high in
coed as in female institutions, (2) make-believe families were not unique to
f50 PrisonHomosexuality OuasiKinshio 151
female inmates since male inmates rvere included h the families in the coeal are more likely to have homosexual relationshiPs than the general Population
institutions and since females arrd rnales form ouasi families outside Drison. is (seechapter4 for details).
(3) homosexual marriageswere rare, (4) most make-believefamfies consisted However, the girls we studied dtowed a strong preferencefor asexualsister-
primarily of asexual sister.sister and mother-daugfrter ties, and (5) participation sister and mother-daughter relationsltips. The sister rclationships are appropriate
in make-bel-ievefamilies was not associated with a greater likelihood of homo- for expressing equalitarian relationdrips among girls of similar age and status anil
sexual experience. Since quasi-kin roles were noi usually homosexual, it was they and tle mother-daughter relationships arc particularly appropriate ways
necessaryto look for some other explanation for their existence. of expressing the desire for stability anil the illusion of having attained it since
The concept of quasi kinstrip was a useful analytic tool for this purpose the inmates' experience outside prison has probably been that these are among
because it provided an altemative to a mideading overemphasis of the homo- the most stable of family relationships. The less-stablehusband-wife roles were
sexual aspects of prison families among women. An analysis of quasi-kin roles far less suitable for expressing their wish for relationships characterized by
adopted by men in pdson, arrd by men and women outside prison, demon- equality, cooperation, durability, enduringlove, ard unspecifiedreciprocity. Or,
strated that quasi kinship is prevalent among all kinils of people in all kinds of as the sociologist would say, the sister-sister and mother-daughter roles more-
cultures and that the assumption that prison faniites are unique to female in- effectively expressed and encouraged diffuse gemeinschaft solidarity in total and
mates has led to some misleading explanations of their caus€ and structure. enduring primary relationships involving collective social obligation. Husbancl-
Inmates are familiar with many quasi-kinship forms before coming to prison and wife relationsbips were rare and far more likely to exprcss romartic or ove
probably import &eir knowledge of these practices into the pdson and use it as homosexual relationships tlan tlre more-frequently adopted sister'sister and
the basis for forming similar prison families. North American women may have mother-daughterroles.
a slighfly greater need for all sorts of farnily ties than men, but men also use
kinship terminology to encourage and reinforce close bonds. When such termin-
olory expressesthe existenceof a closebond amongpeople,it acts as a depend- Incidence of Participation in Quasi Kinslfp
ent variable; when the creation of a quasi-kin bond strengthens existing relation-
In the questionnaires, quasi kinship was defined as when girls "get together and
ships, it acts as an independent variable.
pretend they are mothers, sisters,wives, daughters,fathers, brothers, husbands,
For many people, these desiresfor close and durable relationshipsoutside
or sons to one another." We explained that we were calling them make-believe
the bonds of legal or biological ties are expressealin the language of kinship.
fanilies so that the girls would not tlink we were asking about their real families
The language of kinship also makes us feel that we have achieved some of tlese
back home.
desirable relationshipsand createssome expectations for reciprocal affection,
mutual aid, artd social interaction. People in and out of prison haye needs for On our first visit to a coed institution, \\,e found that boys at Delta Coed
security, companionship, affection, attention, status, prestige, and acceptance also commonly participated as brothers and husbands and occasionally as
that cafl only be filled by having primary-group relationstrips. Friends fill many fathers artd sons. We therefore changed one items on the girls' questionnaire
of these needs, but the family better represents our ideal or desire for tlese when we administered it in coed institutions.l The question originally read:
things in a stable relationship.
In prison, a greater need may exist for using such techniques to foster If you are in a make-believefamily now,how are you related to other girls in your
familylike relationships and to create the illusion of having stable familylike family here? (CHECK AS MANY AS APPLY)
relationships because many structural facton of pdson prevent rlurable rela- - a wife - a husband
tionships. Such factors include high population tumover and rules restricting in- - a mother - a father
teraction between inmates both during and after confinement. The inmates' - a daughter _ a s o n
contact with legal and biological datives and with friends outside is also re- _ a $srer - a brother
stricted by rules. Thus, there are many, many pressuresto form the semblance - an aunt or some other kind - al uncle or some other kind
of family relationships with inmates who are in closer geographical proximity. of female family member of male family member
In one-sex and coed pdsons, quasi.kin bonds more frequently involve people - I'm not part of a make-believe family here now
of the same sex because access to the opposite sex is far more limited than
outside. Prison families probably also involve more overt homosexuality than In the coed institutions, the word Szils was changed to students. We also asked
quasi-kin bonds outside prison becauseayailable eyidence suggeststhat prisoners some respondents how many boys and girls were in their rnake-believe families.
152 prisonHomosexuality OuasiKinshio 153
Including themselvesin the count of female kin, most said their families had two This point of view . . implies that the make-believe family is only a
to four girls and zero to two boys. product of an al1-gir1environment that offers a homosexual medium
About half (48 percent) of the 382 respondentsreported taking a make- for meeting sexual drives. I do not conaur \i'ith this point of view.
believe-family role at the time of the questionnaireadministration.2 The coed Coeducational acuvities do not automatically eliminate the make-
believefamily. [p.56]
Our data have also shown that coed training schools do not necessarily
eliminate homosexuality and male roles. Similady low proportions of girls
adopted male family roles in the coed (4-10 percent) and the girls' training
schools (0-3 percent). In all settings, the girls demonstrated an overwhelming
prefercnce for female roles. Of the 382 respondents,45 percent reported only
female roles, 2 perceflt reported only male roles, and 2 percent reported takin8
both male and female roles concurently at the time they answerealthe question-
naire.a Fifty-one percent took no family roles at all.
The sister role was most common in all institutions, Thirty-one percent of
our 382 respondentswerc sisters.Since only five girls reported brother roles,
most sibling relationships were between girls who considered themselves sisters.
Brother-sister siblings were found primarily in the coeil institutions in which
male inmatestook the brotier role.
Mother and daughter roles were less corrmon, Eighteen percent of our
respondentsreported daughter roles, and 13 percent reported mother roles.
Becausemale inmates werc not given the questionnaire, vr'edo not know whether
boys or girls were more likely to adopt the reciprocal parent and child roles.
My imprcssion is that gids occupieal most parent and child roles in both coeil
and girls' training schools. A few exceptions appearedat Delta Coed, where
boys adopled father or son roles. One girl explained that she acquired her in-
' Ross and Heffeman's (1977, p. 2?) study of ten federal coed institutions mate father after leaming of her real father's deatl. A later interview witl the
for adults left them with tle irnpression that participation in quasi families did boy confirmed that he in tum regardedher as a daughter.This sufiogatefatler
not decrcaseafter the introducdon of men to an all_femaleinstitution. ln at was protective toward his daughter,listened to her problems and concems,anil
least one institution they visited, the fanily network became more extendeal ald showed a keen interest in her welfare. Another girl said she had a "tight" rela-
visible
'Krippelafter male inmates were introduced. A later report by Heffeman and tionship with a boy whom she called Dad but that using the term was'lust
(1980, p. 116) reports that protective-uncleand mothe.ing-aunt rela- bullshit" and not of much significance. A tlird said that she considered her boy-
tionships existed between older men and younger women at the fedeial medium. fiiend's male friend asher son and that they did favors for one another.
minimum-security coed prison at Fort Worth. In part, this may have reflected Only nineteen of the 382 respondentsrcported I'ife roles, and only four of
the imbalanced age structure: 17 percent of the men and only g percent of the these were in girls' training schools where their husbands would necessarily
women werc over fifty.In arrearlierreport, Heffeman and Krippel (1975,pp. 39, be other girls. The other lifteen wiveswere in Yankee Coed and Delta Coed and
42) also reported the existence of mothering roles arrd big_brother,big_sister, most probably harl male spouses.The smallnumber of respondentswho reported
and penitentiary-spouserelationshipsbetweenmale and femaleinmates, spouseroles indicates that homosexual dyads are not the basisof make-believe
The evidence shows families exist in adult and juvenile facilities and that families. Sister-sisterand mother-daughterdyads were far more common. Very
they include men and rvomenin coed facilities. Thus, Novick (1960) was corect few inmates took spouseor extended-farnily roles.
in predicting that coed activities and coed institutions would not eliminate Rochelle (1965) also saysshe did not find any evidence for higltly structurcd
make-believe families : arrd extended families based on homosexual dyads in her study. Although 89
percent of girls in a training school with 268 girls reported using family names
The statement is often made that coeducational activities or even a with someone in her cottage, only 2 percent were in husbantl-wife relationships.
coeducationalschool uould tend to eliminate the make_believe family. As in this study, mother-daughterand sister-sisterroles were most coffnon.
154 PrisonHomosexuality ouasi Kinshio 155
LeSharna (1969 p. 80) found very similar pattems in her study of adult difference appeared betlYeen those who had and had not had a homosexual
women at the Ohio Reformatory for Women. Forty-eight percent of the ques- encounterin prison.
tionnaire respondents said they took a family role. Almost all identified their Giallombardo's (1966) participant observation at Alde$on Federal Peni-
most important role as that of a sister, daughter,or mother, and the majority tentiary led her to conclude that the nonspouse kinship network had the im-
assumedmore than one of these family roles. Very few adopted a male role. portant function of allowing inmates to have close friendly relations that would
Relating to the other women made them feel special to someone, and the not be inte4)reted as homosexual. "To escapethe suspicionof homosexuality,
v,/omen reported that mothe$ and sisters gave them he.lpful support and advice. these inmates may find it nec€ssaryto defme their interaction more rigidly by
kShanna's data arc inconsistent with hypotheses that suggestwomen form kinship bonds" (p. 160). Apparently a lot of nonsexualinteraction Y,ras labeled
quasi-kin rclationships because they are oriented to a traditional family role. as homosexuai since women thouglrt their peers would suspectthem of homo-
If this were true, nonparticipants would be more likely to be carcer odented, sexuality if they were to play cards with the same inmat€s each evening.
and participants would be more likely to be homemaking oriented. ln fact, the Participation in make-believe families seemsto be less motivated by a desire
same proportion (41-42 percnnt) of nonparticipants and participants preferred for sexual gratification than by a need for security, companiolrship,affection,
a careerto being a homemaker. attention, status, prestiSe, and accePtance.Responsesto questions about the
perceivedeffects of being in a family suggestthat at least somegirls satisrythese
needs by participating in a make-believe family.
Relationship between Self-Reported Participation
in Homosexuality and Make-Believe-Farnily Roles
Perceived Effects of Being in a Make-Believe Fanily
In our study, only the infrequently adopted male and spous€roles showed strong
conelations with levels of homosexual experience.No sigrificant differences We asked the girls which of several things had ever happened becausetley werc
appearcd between the mean homosexuality scoresof inmates not in families in a make-believe family in their program (see question 3a in aPpendix A). To
(mean = 0.23;N = 198) arrd the make-betieve-familyparticipants who adopted ayoid confusing the effects of being in a make-believe family with the effects
nonconjugal sister,motler, aad daughter roles (mean = 0.48; r'r'= 152), but sig- .of taking a male role, we eliminated girls who reporteil male family roles and
nificantly higher scorcswete rcported by those adoptingmale roles(mean= 3.01; .basedthe analysison the 147 respondentswho reported taking female roles in a
,l\r'= 6) and by wivesin girls' institutions (mean = 2.30;ir' = 4). make-believefamily. The most common responses(34 percent) \.vercwritten
The cofielations between the four homosexualexperiencesand being in a in the open-endedcategory of "something else happened" and indicated that
make-believe family were weak and negative, suggesting that homosexual ex- therc were either no effects or that staff never found out they were in a make-
periences are just as likely for those not in families.s The correlations were .27 believe family. Another 5 percent did not check any items, perhapsbecause
( / = 380) for going with or being married to a girl; -.20 (|r' = 372) for passion- none of tlle responsechoices adequately expressedtheir perceptions of the
ately kissing; -.2O (N = 379) for v/riting love lette$; and -.18 or' = 382) for results of being in a quasi family. Marly who reported no effects went on to ex'
having sex beyond huggingand kissing. plain that they were mothers or sislers in a family ald tlat there was no reason
Pa icipation in quasi families does not appear to be a first step toward - for staff to punish or control them since this was perfectly natural. The second
homosexual activity. On the contrary, it might more often representan arEmpr, most common rcsponse (19 percent) indicated some positive effect such as
though not always successful, to define rclationships with relatives as asexual. feeling that they had a real family; feeling loved, wanted, or needed; or be-
Certainly most of the first homosexual kisses did not occur with a family mem- 'coming
better friends with their family members. This, too, was a wdte'in
ber. Of the thirty-eight kissers,twenty-six reported that the fint passionatekiss category.
v,'as with someone who was not in their make-belieye family at the time. Only A few inmates also reported somenegativeeffects ofbeing in a make-believe
three reported being married to the girl they fust kissed,and only nine reported family. Some (l? percent) said the staff indicated disapproval,and some (12
that the kisseewas a family member other than her husbandor wife. percent) said that their relationshipswith staff were hindered. A few (7 percent)
Hopper (1980, p. 55) also found that participation in a prison play family werc not in touch with people outside the place as much, a few (6 percent)
was independent of having a homosexualexperiencein prison. She found that went on fewer home visits, and a few (7 percent) stayed or were kept in the
45 percent of the adult-femalerespondentsat the Florida Correctional Institu- institution longer. We alo not know if staff was responsible for delaying their
tion at Lowell reported being a member of a play famity and that no significant release and limiting their contact with others or if these girls willingly chose to
156 prisonHomosexualitv
OuasiKinshio 157
Table7-2
Staffs' Responses
to the Questions,"Which ThingsDo Girls in Make-Believe Perceived C-zusesof Homosexuality and Make-Believe Families
FamiliesDo More ThanGirls Not in Make-BelieveFarnilies?"and "Which Things
Do Girls HavingSexualor RomandcRelationswith Other Girls HereDo More
The staffs were askedan open-endedquestionabout what they thought was "the
ThanGids Not llaving Sexualor RomanticRelations?"
most important reasonfor girls getting together in make-believefamilieshere?"
and an analogousquestion about the major "reason for girls having sexual or
Make-Believe
Re$pofiseChoices Families Eomosexuality romantic relationshipswith other girls here?" Their responsechoiceswere classi-
I
fied according to whether they best representedorganizational,imported, or a
Will have s€x with gids vhen they leave here
,ll Act immaturcly
8% 36%
30
miscellaneous-other categoryofpossiblecausesand tJrensummarizedin Table7-3.
Start fights with the other ghls here The only organizationalcharacteristicgiven much importance was the lack
Fight or algue witl staff 34 of contact with boys. Thirty-four percent of the staffs say that romantic or
Are leaders among the gfulshe-re 30 sexualrelations are causedby lack of contact with boys. None said romantic or
Run or go AWOL 18 25
Try to hufi thems€lves 2t 19 sexual relationshipswere primarily an attempt to compensatefor remoteness
G€t along well with tlle girls here 21 18 from their real families, and only l0 percent said this was the most-important
Withdraw from gtulsand slaff 1'7 t9 reason for participation in make-believefamilies. Few staffs mentioned other
Number of respondentsa 185 185 possible deprivations such as status de$adation; indeterminate or long stays;
restdctions of personal freedoms and material goods; or that youths might
aRespondents
include thosewho checkeda choiccfor the questionon make-believe
families want to anger,intimidate, reject, or upset staff whom they disliked.
or' i 154)or sexualor romarticrelalions(rV= 157)or who indicatedtley did not kllow Inadequacy of the gids' real families was mentioned more often than
= =
or' 31 for question3a;N 28 for question3b in appendixB. The totals aregreaterthan
100perc€ntbecauSe somerespondents gavemor€thanonercason. remotenessfrom their real families as a causeof participation in both make-
belieye families and romantic relations, but both indicators of family relation-
ships were viewed as more-important causesof make-believefamilies than of
homosexuality. Very few staffs reported prior homosexual experience or sex-
The item about which most staffs ageed was that they beheved make-
role confusion or dissatisfaction as the major cause of either make-believe
believe-family participants were no more likely than others to engagein homo-
farnilies or homosexuality, and only 6-7 percent said that girls participate
sexuality after release. Only 8 percent of the staffs predicted Postrelease
becauseof some psychologicalproblem such as poor self{oncept, immaturity,
homosexuality for girls in families, but 36 percent said it was more probable
inadequatesocialization,or emotional disturbance.
for girls with homosexualexperience.Their responsesshow that they recognize
The most commonly reported causefor participating in both homosexuality
the asexualnature of most participation in families and the increasedprobability
and make-believefamilies was the girls' need for security, companionship,affec-
of postreleasehomosexual experiencefor thosewith homosexualexPeriencesin but more staff membersreported
tion, attention, status, prestige,or accePtance,
odson.
160 PrisonHomosexuality OuasiKinship 161
who also used the languageof kinship as a symbol of expectedsolidadty. Orig- Brother. Billy "was greatly relieved, if not elated" when he learned that Earl
nally, ln Familia was allied with the,4ryan Brotherhood, analthey in turn were unde$tood his behavior and that he would not be expelled from the political
opposed by an alliance of another Chicano group called La Nuestra Familia nd family.
the Blnck Guerilla Farnily. The conllict between these warring clans v/as so great Charridre (1971, p. 250), in Papillon, acktrowledgedthe psychological
that tle California prison administration tried to control it by asking entering security that comes with quasi kinship when he offered brotherhood to a dying
Chicanos their gang affiliation so that they could separate the warring factions friend in a Guianesepdson who asked only for reassurancethat they were
and send Za Familit Io San Quentin aad Folsom and La Nuestra Familia to friends.
Soledadand Tracy. Other types of brotherly relationshipswere describedin Thomas's(1967)
A moretommon and less.sensational use of kinship ierminology occurs autobiography of his six-year prison term in New York. One brother was his
when men address each other as brothers. This form of addressis especially religious teacher and another was Tico, the small'framedkid brother of a friend
common among men sharingan ideology of oppression,and its meaning vades who required protection from potential homosexual attacks. Tico recognized
from expressinga relatively unimportant token of symbolic solidarity to a more- he was a likely victim and tried to ward off potential attackersby letting inmates
serioushonor requidng a consistentstandardof appropriatebehavior. know he had allies who would defend him. He protectealhimself by telling in.
Carroll (1974) provides an illustration of this ambiguity in the following mates that Piri Thomas was his cousir. Thomasacceptedthe role of guardianby
description: offering protection, advice, and confirmation of his dependability by telling
Tico, "We're more than cousins,kid, we're brothers."
In practice . . . a black inmat€ becomesa 'brother' through his member- While Thomas'sstory shows that quasi kinsbjp can be used to protect men
ship in the Afro-American Society. The organization thus has some- from homosexual attacks, other examples from several Canadian prisons show
thing of the characterof a family. The relationshipbetween 'brothers,' that it can also signify a public or private homosexual relationship between
however, need not be a deeply persoflal one. One need not know or
male inmates and that no incest prohibition between close kin exists. Hagafty
even like another black inmate to considerhim a'brother.'One may
evenbe suspiciousand mistrustful of a 'brother.' (1979, p. 160) reported a senseof being brothers soon after meeting an inmate
A husband was expected to provide the comforts of life for his homo-
sexual wife who, in turn, as$umedthe housekeepingduties and other
wifely responsibilities.. . . Homosexualwivesare notodous cariers for
illicit and dangerouscontraband-i.e., drugs and weapons.A reasonfor
this is that guardsare loathe to shakedown a ',woman.,' [p. 86]
Jobnson thought that homosexuals felt more secure in prison than outside was also odented to the conYictsubculture.
and that they had higher statusthere. He believedtlat some evenmay have com- Neese (1959), a convict who servedeight years at tlte men's maximum-
among
mitted c mes in order to go back to the security of prison and to be with their security Iowa State Pdson at Fort Madison is critical of quasi marriages
pafiners. male inmates :
Jackson (1974) describesa sixteen-yearprison marriagethat beganwith a
preprison ceremony performed by a justice of the peacewhen the wife was in
drag. A second couple planned to continue their seven-month-longjailhouse
marriage when released.This couple enjoyed exchanging gifts, reading each
ot}ter's mail, sharing money, and protecting each other. They viewed marriage
as a way of doing easier time and greatly appreciatedbeing in adjoining cells
becauseof the frequent opportunity for itteraction. An ioteresting character- of men. [P 52]
istic of tleir mardagewas that it never did involve overt sexualactivity- Having
sex was out of the question since they would risk being separatedif caught.
The wife explained, "I've had shacksin this place, but not with him . . . if we
were caught we would be separatedand we don't want to be separated.So I
have sex with other people instead." [p. 392]
Carroll (1974) says most "fags" are admitted homosexualswho are rn-
volved in a pseudomarriagewith an older long-term inmate. Only a minority of
I trtt PrisonHomosexuality OuasiKinship 167
Caldwell's (1956) study suggeststhat many prison marriagesare preceded The importance tlat both Black's and Charridre'sprison families placed
by courtship and dating. Marriagesthat are consummatedby an actual ceremony upon the sharing of food is significant. MacCullough (1909) is among those
may be quite common sinceCaldwell identified fifty married pairs in a medium- who tlink it may even be more essentialand basic to kinship than a blood
sized prison. His report provided no information about the specific population relationship:
size,how he operationally defined and measuredthe prevalenceof marriages,or
the prevalenceof a husband-wiferole differentiation in the marriages' Probably th€ idea that kinship meansblood relatiooship a relationship
which can be produced by the blood covenant-is not primitive. More
I would expect to find fewer marriagesbetweenmale prisonersthan between primitive is the idea that contact, eating and drinking together, ex-
female prisoners if one partner was exPected to act as a "gal'boy" or wife changeof names,garments,rveapons,arrd the [ke will produce a close
becausemaleswould probably resisttaking the low-prestigefemale role bond, whether involving identity or relationshipbetweentwo unrelated
persons.[p. 207]
Folks and People- Our knowledge of families among male inmates is sparse,but
these few availableaccountsclearly suggestthat severalprevalentroles might be The sharingand exchangingof food, friendship, enjoyable activities, ideas,
uncoveredin a systematicsurvey. Such researchmight even show tltat men use time, favors, and even problems are among the positive aspectsof quasikinship
kinship terminology alrnost as frequently as women, particularly if we accepted among male as well as female prisoners. Theseare also the positive aspectsof
Schneider's(1968, p. 21) recommendation that terms bke folks and people quasi kinship among women and men outside prisons.All quasifamilies expiess
ought to be regardedaskinshiP terminology. a wish for the ideals of durability, trust, depenalability, and emotional and
Jacobs(1974), in discussinghow inmate gangsat StatesvillePenitentiary in physical secudty .
Illinois are organized, said that the gangs provided an important source of
belonging and importance. When a young leader of the so-calledhtin Kings
arrived, he knew all but two of the Kings. "The first afternoon he receiveda QuosiKinship outside Prison
letter from the ranking chief welcoming him into the family" (p' 400) Many
men told Jacobsthey felt closerto gangmembersthan to membersof their own Overview. Most of us have,at sometime or other, extendedour families beyond
family: our biological and legal kin by using kinship terminology for nonrelativesin a
way that resemblesthe formation of quasikin by inmates.We form common'law
Gang members consistently explained that on the street and within the unions, informally foster and adopt children, and refer to and addressnonrela'
prison, it is the same the gang allows you to feel like a-mal; it ls a tives asbrotlefi, sisters,aunts,uncles,and cousins.The practiceis socommon that
iamily with which you can identify. Severalinformants soberly stated dictionariesprovide definitions of brothers, sisters,and cousinsthat define them
that ihe orgadzation is something, the only thing, worth dying for'
as countrymen, coreligionists,and members of religious orders, ethnic Sroups,
lp.401l
voluntary organizations, guilds, professions,unions, work groups, and gangs'
Sisterhoodand brotherhood are encouragedin movementsfor civil, homosexual,
Members of the Vicelords gang rewarded members who helped their brothers
aad women's rights and in fratemiti€s and sororities,and National Brotherhood
learn to read. A member of the Vicelords explains that belongng to the gang
Week is proclaimedto promote peaceand goodwill amongthe family of man'
was "like a religion. Once a lord, always a Lord. Our people would die for it"
As children, North Americans are often encouragedto call neighbors or
(p.
'- a0l).
"bestpeople"
to a penitentiary's
introduced their parents' closefriends "Uncle Walter" or "Auntie Kay" as a convenientway
Black(1927,pp.117-129)was
he had not
family" because of expressingthe closenessof first naming while sti1l expressinggenerational
and was inmediatelyacceptedinto the "Joh-nson
distance and its implied respect. However, the practice of using kinshiP termi-
nology is not limited to children.8 Ballweg (1968; 1969) found that 55-65
percent of eighteen-to twenty-one-year-oldcollegestudentsused quasi'kin terms
and that their use was only slightly more cornmon among femalesthan among
males.Aunt and uncle were the most frequently reported terms.Brother, sister,
mother, and.father wete tied for second place. Grandfather, gandmother, ar,d
tionship called gourbi. The word derivesfron gurbd, an Arabic word meaning
coasin werc usedfar lessfrequently.
relatiois or family,T utd rcfers to a familylike group who ate together,sharcd
in the Adults frequently refer to closeworking associates as their family. Authors,
money,and sometimes evenavenged a member'sdeathby killing enemies
for example, commonly acknowledgethe assistance of quasikin. Tfuee instances
offendingmurderer's gourbi.
168 prisonHomosexuality OuasiKinship 169
from my recent readinginclude Schaeffer's(1973) gratitude to ..dearestfamily, creating quasi-sisterand quasi-brotherbonds in placeslike Africa, New Guinea,
natural as well as chosen," Cole's (1972) thanks to his,.affinity family,,,and and Nepal, where the actual or symbolic ceremonialsharingof blood is often
Bunter's (1977) appreciation of "brothers-in and out.', Woodward and Arm- public.e Where blood is not exchanged,participants often slnre wine to repre-
strong (1979, p. 79) referred to the U.S. Supreme Court justices as ,.The sent blood, flsh to represent fertility, or saliva to represent attachment and
Bretluen" and to the "family" of current and former law clerks.A well-public2ed fidelity.lo Food, weapons,clothing, money, jewelry, names,or oaths are often
example of quasi kinship among co-workers occurred when sportswdters and exchanged,and the prospectivesiblingsare required to touch each other.
announcen referred to the Pittsburg Pirates as ,,The Family" dudng the 1979 In North American society, outside-prison quasi'kin bonds are usually
World Seriesand when the team used Sister Sledge's..WeAre Farnily', asa theme initiated without much ceremony or ritual.rr An exception is when bonds are
song. Their captain, Willie Stargell,said he referred to the pirates as family be- created and reinforced between godparentsand their godchildren and betnreen
causeof the team's closeness(Golla 1979, p. 55), and Daveparker, the All-Star the godparentsand the child's parents during baptism. The fact that this quasi-
right fielder, said he gaveStargell the nickname pops after some consideration. kin bond is formalized in a ceremony is no indication that it is more important
"I called him Pops because,like a father, he taught us how to take what comes than quasi-kin ties that involve no ceremony. GodParent relationships, like most
and then come back" (Time 1979b, p. 48). others, are difficult to cl1a:trlcle'izein terms of importance because the vada-
Although the creation of quasi-kinties is more voluntary than the formation bility is so large boih within and between cultural and national boundades.In
of ascribedrelationships,participants do not alwaysindepeodentlychoosetheir somecasesthe baptism is a dtual tradition without much real importance for the
quasi relatives. Others wishing to extend their own network of interpersonal participants. In other casesthe godparentsmay agree to act as parents if the
relationships often suggest that their primary-group associatesuse kinship natural parents strould die. The higher mofality rate in poor countries may
terminology for each other. A study by Ibsen and Klobus (1972) found that make this latter function more necessaryand contributes to the Sreaterimpor-
only 8 percent of those using kin terms had initiated their use.Almost half the tance of godparent-parentchildbonds in developingnations.12
usersindicated that one or both of their parentshad initiated use of the terms, Whether or not kinship terminology will be used for nonrelativesdePends
13 percent said the fecipient had suggestedtheir use, and the remaining29 per- on many factors including trust in and accessto the legal system,ethnic heritage,
cent that other family members,friends, or neighborshad suggestedtheir use. and the legality and secrecyof a goup's activities. Homosexuals,for example,
1 Although others may have initially suggestedusing the terms, apparently their
use functioned to encoumgestrongerbonds between participants becausemost
have no choice but to form common-lawunions becauselaws prevent their legal
marriage.l3 Criminal organizationsoften have a quasi'family structureto encour-
userssaid the terms expressedfeelingsof affection and closeness. agethe necessarysecrecyand trust for illegal activity.ra Blacks are more likely
Inmates are farniliar with these uses and techaiquesof forming quaslkin to informally adopt or foster children becausethe arangement is often tempo-
relationships and probably import and use this knowledge and experienceto rary and no one expects the chjld to sever ties with its natal parents. Such
create similar families with people in the prison. Both in and out of prison, a arrangementsare often madebecauselack of wealth meansthat no need for legal
wide range of variability exists in the importance of t"rious roles and bonds; adoption exists in order to settle disputesof inheritance and becauseadoption
their origins; the extent to which affection. mutual aid. and social interaction centersfot poor nonwhite children are unavailable.ls
are goals and realities;and how effectively they fulhll various functions. These
functions include attempting to createkin where none is available,creatingand
Quasi Kinship in Black Communities. The use of kinship terminology among
reinforcing relationships,institutionalizing mutual role expectations,material nonrelativesis especiallywell documented among black Americans,in part be-
and emotional shadng, specifying appropriate sexual partners, and mitigating cause the studies have often been done by anthropologists who have been
tensionsand strainsby providing a membershipgroup. trained in the recognition and analysis of quasi kinship and the collection of
In North America, formality and ceremony sometimes accompany the genealogies.The availability of their published reports is one reason why so
original bond. Fishel (1979) describesa secret ceremony in which young girl- many of my examples are about this cornmunity. Examples of quasi kinship
friends become so-calledblood sisteff after pricking each other,s index finger in black communities also illustrate the previous knowledge many inmates have
to make it bleed and then mixing their blood together. Since many such Nortlr with quasikinship sincea largeproportion of inmatesare black'
American ceremonies are secret, we know little about how they are used to The examples also serve to illustrate the overlap bet\ /een friendship and
create quasi-sibling bonds in groups like fratemities, sororities, motorcycle quasi kinship and the difhculties of being able to clearly distinguish between
gangs,Masons,and a variety of criminal and religious organizations.The litera- them since friends are describedas'lust like one of the family" (l-adnet 1972'
ture contains far more-numerousexamples of ritual and ceremonv used in p. 117); "like a cousin," "like sisters," or "as close as family" (Holloman and
17O prisonHomosexualitv OuasiKinship 171
Irwis 1978); and "play relatives" are "categoitzed as friendships,' (Aoyagi friendships. Becausethey typically experienced shoft, untrustworthy bonds,
1978, p. 309). Whites and blacks in the working class usually claim fewer these men often describedan acquaintanceof only a few weeks asar olal friend.
friends thaa those in the middle class and rarely entertain nonrelatives at home. They acted as if they anticipated the eventualend of the relationshipsand tded
Those coming to homes tend to be treated as family as a way of emphasizing to squeezeas much as they could out of them at the moment by romanticizing
ihat their friendship is not replaceable (Nlan 1979; Holloman and Lewis and upgradingthem-that is, by elevatingcasualacquaintancesto friends, friends
1978). to close friends, and closefriends to quasikin. At the sametime, they expressed
Quasikinship ties in black comnunities range in function from playfulness "a cynical denial that friendship as a system of mutual aid and respectexistsat
and politeness to more-seriousdghts and obligations. Aschenbrenner(1978) all" O. 180). By using kinship terminolory they expressedtheir wish to trans-
found that southern Illinois blacks referred to their quasi kin as their Dlav sister. form the reality of tleir brief, unstable friendships into an illusion of more-
play brother. play morher. or play father and that 65 percentreportedactive durable, kinlike relationships.The idiom of kinship usedin "going for brothers"
play-kin or godparent ties. Wlrere ties were between adults and children, the was a way of attempting to support tenuous relationshipswith the norms and
children received clothing and other gifts, and they in tum helped adults by valuesof dependablekinstrip.
running errands and doing household chores. Adult play relatives were often
neighborswho offered each other emotional and economicassistance. Although Gap between ldeal and Real Relationships. Among the men Liebow studied
the gifts were small, the servicesof a token nature, and the relationshipsreadily and among male and femaleinmates,the use of kinship terminology often repre-
severed,the play-kin relationshipsoften developedinto lasting friendshipsand sented a wish for the familial ideals of mutual aid and brotherly love, rather than
"lent a specialfeeling of obligation to a normally casualrelationship" (Aschen- the achievementof relationshipsconsistent with these ideals.This disjunction
brcnner 1973, p. 266). Wide variations in the stability, cohesiveness, and impor- between reality and people'sideals for interpersonalrelationshipshas alsobeen
tance of quasi kin were also observedby Holloman and Irwis (1928). At one noted in studies of quasikinship amonBAmedcan slaves(Gutman 1976); among
end of the continuum were cohesiveand stablebonds. At the other end were prison families (Ford 1929; Rochelle 1965; Seling 1931); in severalstudies of
shorter, though sometimesmore-intense,relationshipssimilar to those among South Amedcan compadrazgo (Foster 1953, 1961, 1967; Pitt-Rivers 1968;
Liebow's (1967) streetcornermen in Washington,D.C. Sayres 1956); and in reports of sibling rivalry, desertion, child abuse, wife
Notes
1. This changefor coed institutions was made after the first group question'
they were loved, wanted, or needed;that they had a real family; or that they had naire administration at Delta Coed,which involved about sixteen girls.
becomebetter friends as a result of being in a make'believefamily' 2. Only five girls were not in a make-believe family at the time of the
also
Quasi-kinshippractices are not unique to incarceratedwomen' They questionnaire administration, but they had been in the past.
exist amongmale inmates,and women and men outside prison almost universally
3. A girl was counted as a self-rePortedparticipant if shereported a current
use idioms of kinship to expressand encouragefamilial idealsof reciprocallove, family role (question 2b in aPpendix A) or if she hail ever been in a family in
economic cooperation, dependability, obligation, loyalty, and durability ln- that particular institution in the past (questions 3a and 3b in appendix A). A
mates are familiar with quaslkinship Practicesin their home communities out' mean estimate of the prevalenceof make-believefamiliesin eachinstitution was
calculated by ftst calculating a mean estimate for each cottage and then sum-
ming cottage means.Comparing the three indicators of rates did not result in a
consistent ranking of institutions in terms of the prevalenceof padicipation in
make-believe families.
'174
prisonHomosexuality OuasiKinshio 175
. 4. Reputational reports obtained in interviewsalso showedthat somegirls character2ed only a small minority of marriages. A survey by Jay and Young
took both male and female roles at the sametime. (1979) found that 40 percent of female and 25 percent of male rcsPondentscon-
5. Nonparticipation was coded aszero and participation as one on each of sider or have considercdthemselvesmarried in a homosexual relationdlip. The
the five variables. common practice of calling homosexual friends and even acquaintances families,
6. The proportion was slightly higher (two-thirds) at Delta Coed and brothers, and sistersis discussedin severalplacesin an earlier book by Jay and
slightly lower (one-third) at Yankee Coed. Young (1975).
7. From Grand Larcusse de Ia Langue Frangaise,vol. 3 (paris: Librairie 14. The President'sCommissionon Law Enforcementand Administration of
Larousse.1973),p. 2266. Justice (1967) rcports tlle existenceof twenty-four family groups(of 20 to 700
8. For a fascinating account of quasi kinship among literate nineteenth- men) controlling organizedcrime in Amedcan cities. Anderson(1965) providesa
discussion of quasikinship organization among the Mafia in nineteenth-century
Sicily and in the modem United States.Sedontein (1978) ptovides an account
of the ail-maleAfrikaner Broederbond-a secrct organizationthat influences all
levels of South African life-ihat rcquires a cercmonious and binding oath of
loyalty to fellow brotllers. Hoshino (1973) and Mugishima and Hoshino (1973)
9. For more-detaileddiscussionsofblood brotherhood, seeCohen (1961), discuss quasi kinship and its effects in Japanesecrimiral organization ard gargs.
Gibbs (1962), Hamilton4rierson (1911), Okada (1957), pitt_Rive$ (196Si, 15. For more on informal adoption or fostering, seeAoyagi (1978), Aschen-
and Reed (1975). Examples of ritual sisterhooclbetween women and men brenner(1975; 1978),Dougherty(1978),Goody (1969; 1971; 1978),Holloman
can be found in Dube (1974), Hamilton.crierson (1911), Mayer (1960), ancl and Lewis (1978), Jack (1978), kdner (1972), Powdermaker (1939), and
Reed(1975). Shimkin, Louie, and Fraie (1978).
10. Ishino (1953) reports that in Japan, construction workers have cere- 16. For more-detailed discussionsof the terminological distinctions be-
monies to form structured families that include a father (oyabun), his brothers ween social and biological parents in black communities, see Aschenbrenner
(ojibun), and chtldren (kobun) who consider the oTiban as uncles. The initiation (1975); Doughedy (1978); Goody (1978); I-adner(1972); Martin and Martin
I ceremony involves a symbolic sharing of blood by drinking wine into which salt
and a piece of fish have been added. The initiates are also given a symbolic
(1978); Shimkin, Louie, and Frate (1978); and Shimkin and Uchendu (1978).
17. For evidenceand discussionof the stability of same-sex-sibling ties, see
family name and a jacket (simulating a gift of baby clothes) showing their new Fishel (1979) and Allan (1979). Reed (1975) explainsthe historical importance
ritual name and status. of sister-brotherbonds, and Davenport (1961, p. aX) presentsa theory about
why rnother-child and same-sex-sibling ties are strongest.
18. Foster (1975,p.73) comparesdata from five studies and six different
institutions and concludes that higher rates of participation are found among
the inmates of the juvenile institutions than of the adult pdsons. The basisof
this conclusion.however. is based on an incorrect account ofdata from Wentz's
to 60-70 percent of the people in neighboring districts. Thus, each man used a (1965) thesis.For example, Foster saysthe participation rate at the Ohio Girls'
kinship term for at leasi 350 persons. School was 63 percent, or 161 of the 268 respondents.The calculation instead
12. For discussionof the compadrazgo,or dtual coparenthood or god- should be 60 percent, but a far more seriousproblem is that page44 of Wentz's
parent ties, in South America, see Anderson (1957), Davila (1971), Foster thesis shows this as the number who said they did not pafiicipate in a family.
(1953; 1961; 1967),Gudeman(1921), Keesing(1975), I_aguene(1978),Mintz Wentz doesnot specify which questionssheused to fird out how many respond-
and Wolf (1950), and Sayres (1956). I:guerre claims that godparenthood in ents were in the families of the two institutions she studied.Shemay have used
Haiti developed during the colonial period and that godparentstook care of argot terms that did not clearly distinguishbetween being in a family and having
children when the masterdecidedto sell a husbandand wife to differenr masrers. a homosexual experience.Wentz saysthat the term stTlteswas used by the girls
The godparentswere usually of higher status in the slavecormunity than the and staff to denote family membership and superficial involvement in homosex-
parents,aod somewere even free men. ual behavior that was distinguished from Participation in the "gay life ," yet "going
Sonenschein(1968) distinguishesbetweeninformal marriages(cohabita_ together" is describedas a common feature of the family. Wentz's data show
-13.
tion) and those characterized by ritual and ceremony. Cender anclroli clistinctions that 27 percett of her 268 respondentssaid they were in a family (or perhaps
176 PrisonHomosexualitv
they said they were in the "sillies"), and 13 percent said they were in the..gay
life." The family participation could be underreportedif respondentsinterpreted
being in the "sillies" as having had homosexualexperienceand overreportedif Conclusions
their participation in the gay life did not include a quasi-kinbond.
Foster saysGiallombardo(1966) reports that 3l percent ofthe 653 inmates
at Alderson were in a make-believefamily, but I was unable to find this data in
Giallombardo's book. In any case,since Giallombardois not explicit about how
homosexuality and make-believe-familyparticipation are defined and distin- This book summarizesthe availableresearchon prison homosexuality among
guished from one another, it would be difficult to interpret anv such statistic adult and juvenile populations of women and men and shows how the frag-
and useit in compantive analvsis. mented hypothesescan be subsumedunder the more-generaltheoretical frame-
works of importation and deprivation.It also determineshow well each of these
theories account for individual and institutional variations in homosexuality
amonggirls in three coed and four all-femaleinstitutions.
I titled this book Prison Homosexuality: Myth and Reality becausethe research
showed that many theories were being prematurely tueatedas if they had been
empirically validated. The summary listed in table 8-1 highfights ten of the
myths that are often stated as if they were facts in criminology and penology
textbooks. Each is followed by a referenceto the chapter that providesa detailed
discussionof the reality statement.
\
Incidence
One reality is that we do not know if ratesof prison homosexuality are higher in
male or female populations. Thus theoretical statementsbasedon the assump-
tion that ratesare higher among one sex or the other are of questionablevalidity.
Ratesof homosexuality dependupon how homosexualityisdefinedand how
estimatesare obtained. In this study, after establishingclear indexesofhomosex-
uality, we found that the overall self-reportedratesfor the seveninstitutions were
14 percent for going with or being married to another girl, 10 percent for pas-
sionately kissing, 10 percent for writing love letters, and 7 percent for having sex
beyond huggingand kissing.In total, l7 percent reported at least one such homo-
sexualexperience.This percentagevaried from 6-29 percent dependingon the in-
stitution. Estimateswere slightly higher when basedon girls' and staffs'estimates.
Innate Norms
177
Conclusions 179
174 PrisonHomosexuality
ernphasize its small role in comparison to other things they do. Many inmates
Table8-1
deny a preferencefor homosexual activity and emphasizethe situational pres-
SomeMyths and Realitiesabout hison Homos€xuality sures that causedthem to pafiicipate.
Myths Realities
1. The incidenceofhomosexuality is The one suryey thal used the sameindicator of Long-Term Effects
higher among female than among male male and female imates found they reported
mmales. the sarnerates(chapter l).
Although txnates emphasizethe temporary nature of their participation, u/hat
2. Most inmateshavea homosexual Availablesurveysfind that 17-69 percent of happens in reality is often different than what they expect so that many of
experiencein pdson. inmatesreport a prison homosexualexpe ence;
them will continue homosexual activity. The inmates are not alone in denying
most find lessthan 50 percent (chapters1 and
3). the possibility of long-term homosexuality. Corectional administratorsand the
general public are also more comfo able believing that prison homosexuality
3. Inmatesapproveof pdson IIl our stualy,infiates opposedhomosexuality
homosexuality. asmuch asyoung peopleoutsidehstitutions is temporary since this ideology absolvesthem of the blame for keeping inmates
did (chapter3). in so-calledrehabilitative institutions that contribute to lone-term homosexual
4. Peoplewho participatein prison We do not know how many continue,but some preference.
homosexuality will probably not con- do have homosexual experiencesirl the free
tinue when released. world (chapter3).
5. Preprisonhomosexualityis less Preprison homosexuality is the best knowl Relative Impoftance of Importation and Depivation Vaiables
impo ant than other prcpison and prcdictor of pdsofl homosexuality.Itaccounted
depdvation va.riablesin accounting for for differences between individuals and institu-
prison homosexuality. comparativestudies
tions in two large-scale The importation pe$pectiye, derived from studies of inmate subculturc and
(chapter4). from social-psychologicaltheory, arguesthat inmate behavior is a product and
6. Prisonhomosexualitywill be reduced Ratesof homosexualityin coed and female reflection of prior socializationand demographiccharactedsticsthat are carried
in coed institutions. prisons\veretJlesameonce the effect ofpre_ into the institutional setting. The model predicts that prison homosexualitywill
vious homosexualitywas taken into account
\ (chapter4). be affected by the direct importation of previous homosexualexperienceand
also that it will be affected more indirectly through preyiousdelinquent and cor-
7. Ratesof hofiosexuality are higher Mitchell found ratesof homosexualityhgher
iJra trcatment-odentedptison, but no diffe!_
rectional experiencesand backgroundcharactedsticssuch as age,race,and social
in custody-oriented than in teatment-
odented pdsons. encewasfound belweenratesin the two Pnsons class.
once the effectsofprevious homosexualex- In our analysis,the variableof previoushomosexualityhad a very important
periencewere takeninto accowlt (chapter4).
role in predicting prison homosexuality. It alone accounted for 29 percent of
8. Participation in quasi families leads Nonfamily participants are just aslikely to have the vadancein the individuals' scoreson the homosexuality index. Eighty-eight
to homosexualactivity. a homosexual experience. Only the infrequently
percent of the 354 girls who repo ed no pdor homosexuality also reported no
adoptedmale and spous€roles showedstrodg
retationships with prison homosexuality (chap' prison homosexuality, and 71 percent of the 35 girls with previoushomosexual
ter / r. experience also had homosexual experiencesin prison. About half of those
9. Homosexualdyadsale tlle basisof Severalstudies leport more sibling and parent- reporting a prior experiencesaid they fust wrote love letters, kissed,or had sex
quasi families in plison. child relationshipsthan homosexualdyads in a coed or all-femaletraining school, detention center, or group home. Thus,
(chaptet 7).
even among this relatively young group of inmates,much of the prior homosex-
10. Quasi families are found only Quasi families are a.lsofound among male in- uality appears to be imported from other correctional prograrnsrather than
amongimpisoned gfulsand women. mates and atnong men and women outside
prison (chapter?). from society outside prison. The variableof previoushomosexuality was not a
pure measureof importation free of the influencesof imprisonment, sincemany
prisoners have been incarceratedbefore. The effects of previous incarcerations
are difficult to unravel from effects of the free world.
their homosexual activity, they need io create v/ays of emphasizing their normal- Recognizingthe important role of prior homosexuality in predicting prison
ity and membership in mainstream society by justifying their behavior to them- homosexuality does not mean that institutional influences are unimPortant.
selvesand to others . The techniques they useinclude blaming their homosexuality Twothirds of those reporting prison homosexuality indicated that thefu first
on a shortage of the opposite sex, a deste for financial gain, or an ftrestibly experiencehad occurred in the training school at which we questionedthem. It
pe$uasiye partner. To diminish the stigma attached to homosexuality, inmates
180 PrisonHomosexualitv Conclusions 181
appearslikely, therefore, that the institutional setting would encouragemore variables. The resulting data showed that the seven inslitutions had a similar
homosexuality than the free-world environment. At this tirne, however, we
balance of gratifications and depdvations. Our analysis,therefore, focused on
cannot determine the strength of institutional effects becausewe lack compar- examining the relationships between prison homosexuality and the thirteen
able data on similar free-world populations.
indicators of depdvation in an individual rather than an institutional level of
The impodant role of previoushomosexuality in explaining scoreson the
analysis.
homosexuality index was further demonstratedby its ability to account for the Prison homosexuality was not related to most of the actual and perceived
small differenceir homosexuality scoresbetweeninstitutions. The coed.program deprivations we measured,but it had a weak to moderately strong relationship
with the highest rates of homosexuality also had the highest proportion of to infrequency of contact with mother, perceiveddepdvation of contact with
respondentsreporting previous homosexual experience.Of the fifty-thee girls family and friends, and distance from home. These particular indicatom suggest
who answeredboth our questions on prior and prison homosexuality, sixteen that the isolation of prisons contributes to prison homosexuality. Since all
reported at least one homosexual experience. Of these, fourteen reported pdsoners are isolated, however, these yadables are not strong predictors of
previous homosexuality elsewhere,and only two reported that their first homo- whether or not particular inmatesparticipate.
sexualexperiencehad occurredduring their cqrrent incarceration. The clear lack of support for deprivation in Mitchell's study and tlre limited
The data fail to support the widespreadbelief that homosexuality is more suppod for it in this study will not relegate deprivation theory to historical
prevalent in single-sexthan in coed institutions, perhaps becausethe belief
myth, but it should make us more willing to test alternativeexplanations.Since
reflects an inaccurate impression of the normality of coed environments.The theorizing is inevitably influenced by valuejudgments,many people assumethat
opportunity for heterosocialand heterosexualinteraction is probably lessthan bad behavioris causedby bad conditions. Homosexuality and deprivation,there-
that of youths with the strictest of parents in the free world. In the three coed fore, have a natural affinity. However, other more-positive organizationalfea-
programs sampled for this study, and in most other coed pdsons in North
tures like sharing meals, activities, affection, and conversation in close geo-
America, rules against most forms of body contact are strictly enforced. A11 graphical proximity could also promote prison homosexuality. Not everything
coed interaction is conscientiouslymonitored to ensure that it is not sexual. about prison is deprivingalJof the time.
In cofltrast to the importation perspective,the deprivation perspective
focuses on the negative aspectsof the institutional experiencein searchingfor
the causesof prison homosexuality. The depdvationmodel predictsthat people
and institutions with high pains of impdsonment are more likely to havehomo- Relntionship of Homosenrality and Quasi Kinship
sexual experience.Proponentsof this view also assumethat the harsh,depriying
conditions of custodyoriented, maximum-security prisons are more conductive
Analysis of youths' self-reportsand staffs' perceptionsabout the relationslfp of
to homosexuality than are treatment-oriented,minimum-security prisons. This
homosexuality and quasi kinship suggest that these were usually two distinct
prediction is in direct contradiction to Mitchell's (1969) fuding of more prison
aspectsof the inmate subculture.Homosexual dyads were not the basisof the
homosexuality in a treatment-oriented(37 percent) than in a custody-oriented family structure in these institutions since nonparticipants were as likely as
prison (21 percent). The difference between pdsons occurs becausethe treat- participants were to have homosexualexpedences.The only quasi-kin relation-
ment-odentedprison had more inmateswith prior homosexualexperience.When ships strongly associatedwith homosexual activity were spouseand male roles,
the effect of prior homosexualitywas taken into account,no statistically signifi- and these roles were mre. The majority of quasi-kinparticipantsreported taking
cant differences existed in rates of prison homosexuality between the two asexualsister-sisterand mother-daughterroles.
prisons.
Girls in coed institutions participated in quasi-kin relationships as much as
One possible interpretation of the sirnilar rates is that inmates experience girls in all-female institutions. In coed facilities, male inmates also participated
treatment-oriented and custody-odented prisons as equally depriving. Being in quasikinship.
involuntarily confned may result in levels of deprivation that are relatively
. The majority of staff was awarethat quasi-kinrelationshipswere not homo-
unaltered by particular variationsin prison conditioos. The difficulty of inferring sexual, but they thought participants were attracted to both foms of inrnate
deprivation levels from a prison's architecture or formally stated goalsor ploce- subculture becauseof their needsfor security, companionship,affection, atten-
dures requires that we measuredeprivations more directly when investigating tion, status, prestige, or acceptance.In addition, quasi kinship was seen as a
their relationship to pdson homosexuality. The presentstudy did this by asking responseto having an inadequate real family, and homosexuality was seenas
respondents to indicate degreesof actual and perceived hardship on several a responseto the depdvation ofboys.
142 PrisonHomosexualitY Conclusion 1g3
Inplications for Future Research8nd Theory Constr[ction fists up girls' vaginas.One suchincident had occurredin retdbution toward a sirl
who had cut her in a fight.
Free-llorld Influences
i:
The multicausal model proposes that prison homosexuality is affected by a
myriad of cultural, personality, and biological variables prior to imprisonment.
E:
Although we assume that free-world-socialization influences and sexual
behavior continue to have an impact on prison values and behavior, we do not
yet have an adequate scientific basis for stating the exact variables involved or
the strength of their influence upon p son homosexuality. Variations in sexual
behavior probably result from direct effects of differences in sexual experience
anal sociaiization and also from the indtect effects of nonsexual behavior and
socialization.
Previous homosexuality is included, although its influence is difficult to
separate from prior experiences in correctional progrirms, because this study cd
found that it had strong arld direct effects upon prison homosexuality. Our
EFa
correlations in chapter 6 suggestedthat people are more likely to have a previous 6lt
homosexual experience if they perceive themselvesashaving leadership qualities,
t
wish they were a nan, are not religious, arrd have a poor relationship with their
mother. Those who had been involved in prostitution and offenses against
a
othefi, who had long terms of incarceration,and u/ho had prior police arrests
and probation ard jail terms were also more likely to have a homosexual ex-
penence.
Homosexuality may be particularly attractive to people who have hail bad
E
heterosexual relationships and thes€ may be experienced by rnore women than
PrisonHomosexuality Conclusion 187
186
reasonsother than depdvation. People often transgresstheir usual moral stand-
ards when away from important referencegroups who might lean of the trans-
gression.Thus, even people who are away enjoying themselveson vacations
and at conyentionsfeel lessbound by their usual standardsof sexualmorality.
them to viewwomenas The increasedvisibility of homosexuality could also contribute to prison
Men are alsoharmedby culturalvaluesthat encourage
homosexuality becauseit gives irunates and staffs the impression that homo-
sexuality is more common than outside prisons where people enjoy the privacy
of their own homes and bedrooms. Visible participants, could also act as role
models that the uninitiated may imitate, and yeteranscan assistpotential partici-
pants in overcoming any feelings of inhibition and guilt by teaching them the
appropriate sexual scripts. Thesewould include learning about the benefits and
pleasuresthat homosexual acts and relationships can offer and the kinds of
justifications one can employ to make homosexuaLitycompatible with existing
moral values.
Whether or not these lessonswill be of interest and whether or not the
hornosexualrole models will be imitated dependsupon the attractivenessof the
hornosexually experiencedand whether the observerbelievessuch behavior is
rewarding. It also depends upon the observet's personality, values, previous
socializationexperiences,and curent needsand fears.
If several people with homosexual expedenceare thrown together, they
may form a subculture and offer their membersrewards such as status,belong'
Situational(Prison) Influe nces ing, excitement, removal of lonelinessand boredom, sexual gratification, love,
and being told they are beautiful. An inmate may attempt to be similarly re-
warded by associatingwith homosexuals and imitating their behavior.
Social-learningtheoriespoint to the fact that Peoplelearn to behavethrough
interaction with their social environment. We learn to define good and bad
through listening to others, and observingthe nature of the consequencesat-
tached to our own and others' behavior.Somebehaviorsare rewardedmore than
others, and which particular behaviors they are depend a lot upon one's asso'
ciates. A pluralistic society offen a wide range of definitions about various
behaviors.The particular definitions we will learn n'ill be influencedby the kind
of people with whom we interact and perhapsalso upon our accessand exposure
to various dehnitions in the media and literature. Peoplewho learn about the
benefits ofhomosexuality are more likely to engagein homosexualacts
Staffs can probably make a useful contribution to this social learning by
informing inmates that engagingin a homosexual act does not make them a
homosexual.This kind of information is important to counteract the tendency
for deviant acts to become master-statustraits and to play an overly important
role in determining people's identity. Participants who th.ink that they are
becoming homosexualbecauseof thet homosexualactivity should be supPorted
in any attempts to reject the label, even if they continue to haYehomosexual
experiences.
188 PrisonHomosexuality Conclusion 189
cooperation with staff. The goal should be to minimize the physical and psycho- AppendixA:
logical brutality atd victimzation that often accompany homosexual activity.
One possibility is not to interfere with inmates who expressno concem about
Girls'Add-on
homosexual inyolvement and to concentrate instead on helping those who Questionnaire
are unhappy or coerced into participating. Administraton can help staffs ac-
PART H: de.e are sore questio.s
cept such policies by personally proyiding a model for such humane rnter- an Eake-betjeve tanities, ronantic
and sexuaL relationships arang qirls bere.
vention, by systeratically evaluating its effects, and by rewarding staff who
treat inmates with humaneness,concern, caring, and love. Efforts should be 1. how many eirrs are now rivine in your cottaqe
#ciii}1:l hoj$cE,
made to recruit and train administratorswho are capableof such leadershipand
to provide organizationalstructuresconducive to the growth and rehabilitation
of clientele in an environment free fiom degradation,injury, or estnngement.
Only then can we hope to diminish the violence that results from. and then Girls sonetines get rogether in make_believe fanilies and
pretend they aj.e notners, rdives,
creates,so much fear and hatred. The pressingneed for more-enlightenedpe- sistej:s, ataughters, fatl]ers,
brothers, husbands, or sons. rnctude yourseti ir,t* Jo,t
nology is illustrated in Senator Birch Bayh's account of a girl who was sent to a the sirls no\i tivinq in your c"i-aq" o. tivi;; "no
uit. About
juvenile correctional facility : how nany do you think have ever been iD this kind of nal<G-
believe fanily at thas progran?
Susie,a l2-year-old girl who had run away from home to escapeher
stepfather'ssexualadvances,was sent by the juvenile court to a juvenile
coirectional facility as a "person in need of supervision."Once there,
If you are in a make-betieve fdily no!r'. ho\, are you retared
she became the victim of sexualassaultsby the older girls aswell as the to the orher qirls in your fmily here? (cHEcK As MANY As
counselols. When she fought back, she was put ilto soJitary confine- APP],Y)
ment in a strip cell for severalweeks.Shewas fed on a meagerration of
bread and water, given nothing to read and only thin pajamasto wear. _ a husband
As her anger increased,so did custodians'assessment of het unmanage- a nottte r
_
ability. She was eventually transfered to a state mental institutiol,
a daughter
wheresheis still in custody.ICitedin W ood.etl916,p.122-1231 _
_ a brother
Such practicesshould not be tolerated in the 1980s. _ an aunX ar sane other _ an uDcJe ar sone oxher
kirid of fena]e tanilg kiDd ot frale fanjJg
.....-..'.'_ r /as nct in tauch wixh people oursjde thas place as nuch
_ r went on fe@er tbne visits
193
194 PrisonHomosexuality AppendixA 195
At tlLe tire L\e thinqs in question 3a happened, vere you acting b) Atout hovr many gir]s in this progran hawe you wlitren love
like a qirl or a guy in the make-believe farnily? (CHEC( oNLY lettFrs to? T C H L C TO N ! j
ONE)
None One ar t-ao arhree ta tiwe Six to Xen ltore than cen
_ acting llke a girl (rcther, wite, sister, darghter, aurt, etc.)
_ sone Lhinqs happened when I was acxing like a gug &aI '/, a) Altoqether, hor{ nany girts in your cottage or living uiit are
others when I was acxjnq Tike a qttl you writine love letrers to, q;;; with, and narriee to now?
_ tlane at thase things happened to ne
which of these things have ever happened because you ather (wrixe in)
acted _
like a guy he!e? (CHECK AS MANY AS APPI-Y) L^ noc flriLing love letxers, or qoihg w7Lh, o! ndrrred to
_
elas not in taDch vith peopTe ouxside xhis prace as Ducn vlhich 9ir1 in this plogran do you tEust dd like the nost? (CHECK ONE)
_I
_ I went on tewer hone vasits A 9ir7 in gaw nalrc-befieve taniTg htho gau
_ are not narried xa
......,.'-_ t kas rovetl ta ahather fivinq unit
_ A 9it1 7ou ate narried xo, or writing Taee letters to. ot going vlEb
_J did not get dlonq as weJJ with stal{
,,1- -'. '.'' t,v,Jran.
staff
-..............* xald ne or stcved ne theg alidn't fike it
9. a) hclude yourself and think ahout tie grrls noq 1iving in you.
. - -- .- - jrg here cottage o! Iiving unit. About how nany do you think have
sonexhi.q else happened (write in what) passionatety kissed eother girl in this proqran?
- qjrlE
(nunber)
5. a) Include yoursetf and think about the girls now living in your
cctlage or livinq u.nit. About h@ nanw do you think hawe ever b) If you ha!€ eve! passaonately kissed a girl in this progran.
wrirlen -ove letLers to ar-TIr-r girt ir tlis prosyan? how long wele you here before you did thls the first tihe?
(CIIEC]< ONE )
- qirfs
Less xhan 2 weeks
_ 2 weeks ta I nanth
6. About how nany 9ir1s ln this progla.T have you received tove
fettels fron? (cHEcK oNE) _ I tuontlr xa 3 tunxhs
_ 3 nonths xo 5 nonths
Nane One or Xwo Three to five Six to te. aore thaD ten
_ More than 5 rcnxhs
_ or'er I boor
_ E)nrt kttow very first time, khere dio you wrire tove ,etrers,
:le passiohatetv
x1ss, or nave sex wlth aiother qirl? (cHFcKoNE)
11. a) Are there times here qhen you donrt feel free to nake friends
_ At tnjs place
here because someone vill tlink you are having sex with tne
girl you a.e friendly with? _ At anothef corrccxionaf jrstiturjoD, detentian cenxer or
gtoop hone for bath L,ogs a.d girts
_ At another correctjanal insxitutian, detention centet or
-No grcup hone for girts onlg
Do you think there are tines when its all right fo! a girt _ At anothet place [i te wherc)
your age to have sex qith dother girl? _ r have newer writxen love fexters, passionatetg kissed,or
had sex with another girL
a) Which quesLjons do you Lh-nt< gir]s hele rught not hdve been
able to dnswer honestty? {CHECK AS MAMV AS Appl.y)
L2, a) Include yoursetf and thinl about the 9i!1s now living in your qtestions
_The askinq if theg were in a nake_bejieve
cottage o! living unit. About how nany hawe had sex, beyond fanilg here
hugging andl kissing, with arother girl in this progran?
:rlhe questjons
.......'......_ asking if xheg acted like gDvs helje
The quesxions asking if theg wtaxe love tetters to
another girl here
Altogetier, how nany girls at this plogran have you had sex
_The qoestiots asking if theg had passionatefg
with, beyond hugging anid kissing? (CHECK ONE) kisseil
another gjtl here
None q1e or two Three to tlve xo ten _ rhe- guest.ions askiDq if theg had sex,
Six begonat kissinq
()()() and huggiDqt with anoxher qirt here
_?heg Fobablg anEvereal a_l.l rlese guestjons
r3. a) Fow do you feel nolr a.bout havinq pGsionately kissed or hadt trorest]g
sex v'ith another girL (e1the! here, or before you cane here)?
If
they lrere not being honest atrout some of the questions
lust nentioned in 15a, what ras the reason for not being
- More qoad than bad honest? (CHECK AS lrANy AS Appl-y)
() () ()()
198 PrisonHomosexuality
Hot{ far fron this place Perhaps sone of these things don't haPPen here. If this is the
b) are nost of your friends anil your real family?
case, that informaEion is equally inpoltdnL lo us.
_ 7D Ej]es or .iess
- 11 to 25 nLifes FOR CO4'IAGE AND UNIT STA!'F ONLY. CIIIIEFS PIEASE SKIP TO NEXT QUESTION
26 xa 50 nlJes I. First, can you tel1 us abow how ndy girls now in vour cottage or
_
living uit have done the fouoqing at this Prog.ain? (write zero
_ 51 Xo loA niles
101 xo 2OOniles NuE er lbn't Know
_
_ rtote than 2oo niTes a. Been in a nale-believe fanily
Drn'X laort b, Acted like guys when tbey \rent with
another 9ir1 or were in a nake-beliewe
fanity here
f8. W-here alo nost of your frienCls and real fanily live noi,r?
written love tetters to another girl here
d. Passionately kissed another 9ir1 here
:n-+har di r) hF.. f 2 34
199
Appendix B 201
200 PrisonHomosexuality
lihich thinqs dlo gir]s in 3b. Which things tlo gir]s having
nake-believe families alo sexual or ronantic relations !,rith
nore than girls not in .ther girls here do nore than
nake-believe f arnilies? girls not having sexual or
(CIIECK AS MANY AS APPI,Y. ) ronantic relations, (CEECKAs
MANYAS ArPtY.)
+
Are leadlers among the girls here
cet along welt lrith the qirls here
start fights lrith othe! girts heie
Fight o! algue with staff
wiehdrat/r fron girls and staff
Try to hurt rheftselves
_ 9- Run or 90 AItOL
_ h. Act inunaturc
4, what alo you think is the nost inporret reason for girts gerting
toqether in nal<e-believe fahilies he!e?
9lhat do you think is the most jrpoltet reason for girls acting
like guys here?
f. il
6. lihat alo you think is the nost irportant reason for gilts having
sexudl or roaanLic relationships witn oLher girts here? qB
'7,
Is nuch of the activity in hale-believe fanilies ronantic or sexual
!A
q9
202 PrisonHomosexuality
.............._.supererse anal @tch the gitTs carefzflg so xheg ato not qet
nore invoTved
_
sentl the girls
psgclbloqist,
Provide nofe
xo a Fofessionaf
psgchjatrisx,
re&eation
counsetor
cterqVnan)
TO.
Nane of Adninistlator
eaa..ss oi uniF-
our resea.ch protocol requires rhar $e inform you futly about att
aspects of the .esealch and rhen obrain you! applovat for paEticipation
by yourself, your staff, and the youth in this agency. tn al.t cases,
hosever, particrpation by any or aII persoDs is entilety voluntary.
I n s t i t u l el o r C o n t i n u i n gL e g a lE d u c a t i o na n d S c h o o l o tS o c i a t W o . k
203
204 PrisonHomosexuality
I AppendixD:
SampleIntroductory
i Statementto Precede
Questionnaire
Administration
Here is a sugSested standard introductory staLemen! covering the four
necessary topics: 1) Introduction of Self 2) Explanailon of Project 3)
Explanation of Volutrrary Participation in Study 4) Assurance of ConfidentialiLy
This does nor need to be menorized but lt should provide a frame of reference
for your oirn phrasing. Resardless of Lhe exacL words chosen by indivrdual
administrators, the substance of this introduction should be lhe same ror aIl
admlnastrators and in all programs. This inrroducrion should not be Loo long
t,lle hereby regtresr your approval for so as to avoid prenaLure boredom and irrelevant questions, but should definiLely
_ the Narional Assessment of
.ruvenrte Correctiors es representpd cover rhe necessary lLems (as nentioned above)
by
to coFplere freld resedlch dctivities '0ur ndnes d-e
i" your..e-y (*bj..i t" spe,-irr.
conungencres, phrch you may deen appropriare and which you have atrached Ve are parr of a research projecL calLed the NaLional AssessmenL of Juvenile
to this scatement).
Corrections, shich has its office in Ann Arbor, Hich. \te are studying pro-
grams atrd places for young people who have had problems -- for example -- airh
If you approve your agen.yts particrpdrjon, please siqr boLh Lhe taw, in school, or v'ith rheir fanilies fie are studying all kinds of pro-
copres ot this approval foEm. \,re wilt also sign both and will leturn half\ray houses, day treatmenL cenlers, probatton
one coPy to you for your fite. Srans such as ins!itutions!
rou, stgnature also indicates that our prograns, elc. \re want to find out phich kinds of programs help youn8 people
slaff have inforneat you about the procealures to be used in rhis research. and which do not.
Any q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o! continqencies that you nay wish to esrabtish shoutal
be attached in writing. Ite cannor go to every proSram in Ehe counrry, so by a scienrific meihod
\re have seLecied l6 states and certaln proSrams wilhin lhose sLares Thls is
one of those programs. Ar each program te sitl be asklnS the youth Lo fill ouL
questionnaires, asking staff to fiLl ouL a differenr quesLionnaire, and spending
some tlme aL the place Lo see hat it is like. Afrer,''e have collecled all our
information and analyzed i!, \te siLl be able Lo make recomendacions abouL abat
is helpful and $hat is not.
Il is imporlanr that you are irilling Lo ansqer the quesLionnaire tnd that
you anstrer rhe queslions honestLy Only you can !e11 us whaL iL is reallv like
to be in Lhe program. The most imPortani information vr1ll noL come from some-
one outside rhe progran LeLling us atl about it or fron our readltrg pamphleEs
and books abouL it. but \till cone fron you, the people sho are reallv in Lhe
proSrah. This is your chance !o telL it like it is. We wirl also be around
for awhile to rap with you abou! the program here and anvthing else Lhat comes
up.
He reatize tha! some of our quesLlons are very Personal and thar you mav
no! want oLhers here Lo see your ans\ters Therefore, se promise and guarantee
Lo you thaL t9 9!9 9!e he irilL see any of your anseers ontv oul research
staff elll see Lhen. Thls reans rha! no sLaff aenbers here, no Judge' no
police official, none of your farnily members will ever see vour anseF's So
you can feel free to anslter all quesiions honesLly and knoq the,\r \,i11 be k€pL
If for any reason you do noL \^,an!ro answer Lhe quesLionnajre you are free
Eo leave and \rill oot be in any Lrouble 'irh staff or anyone else. ALso, if
rhere are any particular questions you do noL sant Lo ansvier you are freF to
skip those. We do hope thoDgh, rha! you si]] be wi11in8 ro help us gdin tlLrs
important inforDation.
Please do noL discuss the questions ciLh anyone els€ unLil all have
flnished. Are lhere anv ouestions?"
205
BibliographicalIndex
Figuresin parentheses
refer to pagenumberin this book.
Abel, Theodora M. "Negro.WhiteInterpersonalRelationshipsamong Institu-
tionalized Sub-normalGirls." Ameican foumal of Mental Deficiercy 46
Q9a\s2s-339.
Qa,7s)
-. "Nego.\4rhite Interpenonal Relationshipsin a Limited Envirorunent."
Transactions of the New York Academyof Sciences5 (1943):97_105.
(74,75,123)
Abrahams,Roget D. DeepDown in the Jungle:Negro Nanative Folklore from
the Streetsof Philadelphia.
2d,rcv. ed.Ctucago:Aldine, l97Oa.(t7 t)
-. PositivelyBlack.Englewood Cliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall,
1970b.(t7t)
-. TalkingBkck. Rowley,Mass.:NewburyHouse,1976.(171)
AFSC.AmedcanFriendsServiceCommittee.Strugglefor Justice:A Repoft on
Oime and hnishment in Ameica. New York Hill arrdWang,1971.(29,
118)
Akers, Ronald L.; Hayner,NormanS.; and Gruninger,Wemer."Homosexual
and Drug Behaviorin Prison:A Test.of the Functionaland knportation
Modelsof the Iffnate System."Socialhoblems 21 (1974):411-422.(14,
lJ) |
-. i'pri5e1Inmate Roles:
Inter-organizationaland Cross{ulturalCompari-
sons." Internetional Joumal of Criminology and Penology4 (1976):365-
3 8 1 .( 1 4 )
-. '?risonizationin Fiye Countries:Type of Prison
and IninateCharacter-
istics."CYiminologlt14 (1977a):527-554.(14)
-. "Time Sewed,CareerPhaseand Prisonization:Findingsfrom Five Coun-
tries." Pp. 21G227 n R.G. LegerandJ.R. Strattori,eds..The Sociologyof
Conections.A Book of Reodings.New York: Wiley, 1977b.(14)
Allan, GrahamA. A Sociologyof Fiendship and Kinsftlp. London: Allen and
Unwrn,1979.(170, 175)
Allport, Gordon W. Penorulity: A PsychologicalInterpretqtion. New York:
Holt, 1937.(68, 80)
AImy, Linda; Bravo,Vikki; Burd, Irslie; Chin, Patricia;Cohan,Linda; Gallo,
Frark; Giorgiaruri,Anthony; Gokl, Jeffrey;Jose,Mark; Noyes,John. ",A.
Study of a Coeducational CorrectionalInstitution." Master'sthesis,School
of SocialWork,BostonUniye$ity,1975.(1 16)
Alpen, GeoffreyP.'?risons as Formal Organizations: ComplianceTheory in
Action." Sociologt ondSocid Research63 (1978):112-130.(14)
-. "Institutional Diversity arrd Prisonization: A Longitudinal Analysis."
Iounwl of the American Oiminal Justice Association42 ( 1979a\:31-39.
(14)
207
208 prisonHomosexualitv Bibliographical
Index 2Og
-. '?attens
of Charge in Pdsonization: A Longitudinal Analyis." Criminal Causesand Effects of the Suppressionof Prostitution. New York: Julian
Justice and Behavior 6 (1979b): IS9-174. (19, 121-l Pres, 1964.(57,78)
Anderson, Gallatin. "Il comparaggio: The Italian Godparenthood Complex." Benny,Mark; Riesman,David;and Star,ShirleyA. "Age and Sexifl the Inter-
Southwestemloumal of Anthropolog 13 (1957):32_53. e7a,S iew." Ameican Joumalof Sociologt62 (1956):1a3-152.(47)
Anderson, Robert T. "From Mafia to CosaNostra." I meican Joumtl of Soci_ Berg,Charles,and Allen, CLffod. Thehoblem of Homosexualiry. New York:
olog 7 1 (1965):302-310. (17 5) CitadelPress, 1958.(113)
Aoyagi, Kiyotaka. "Kinship and Friendship in Black Los Angeles:A Study of Berger,Peter, and Luckmann,Thomas.TheSocialConstructionof Reality. New
Migrants from Texas." Pp. 271-353 in Demitri B. Shimkin; Edith M. Shim_ York: Doubleday,1966.(17,20)
kin; and Denais A. Frate, eds. The Extended Family in Bhck Societies. Berk, BernardB. "Organizational Goalsand Inmate Organization." Ameican
The Hague:Mouton,1978.(170, 1?5) Joumal of Sociology7I (1966): 522-53a. Qa)
Aschenbrenner,Joyce. "Extended FamiliesamongBlack Arneicuts," Joumal of Bertcher,HarveyJoseph."Factorsthat Affect the Atittudes of Girls to'ward
ComparativeFamily Studies4 (1973):257-268. (lj}) Staff in a CorrectionalInstitution."Ph.D.dissertation,
Universityof South-
-. Lifelines: Black Fumilies in Chicago.New york: Holt. 1975. (171,175) ernCalifomia,1966.(50)
-. "Continuities and Variations in Black Family Structure.', pp. lg1_200 Black,Jack.YouCan't Win.NewYork: Macmillan,I92'l . (166, 167)
in Demitri B. Shimkin; Edith M. Shimkin; and Dennis A-FruIe, eds.The Block,HerbertA. "SocialPressures of ConfinementtowardSexualDeviation."
Extend.ed Family in Black Societies. The Hague: Mouton, 197g. (170, Joumalof SocialTherapy3 (1955):112-125.(73,78, 88)
17s) Blos,Peter."ThreeTypicalConstellations in FemaleDelinquency." Pp.99-110
Ballweg,Jolrn A. "Sex Differencesin the Use of Kinship Terms.,, Virginis Social in Otto Pollackand Alfred Friedman,eds.Family Drrumics andFemale
ScienceJoumal 3 (1968):81-88.(167) SexualDelinquency.Palo Alto, Calif.: Scienceand BehaviorBooks,1969.
-. "Extensions of Meaning and Use for Kinship Terms.,' .4merican Anthro- (142, 143)
wlosist 7l (1969)184-97. (16i ) Bluestone,Harvey;O'Malley,EdwardP.; and Connell,Sydney."Homosexuals
Barnes,Harry Elmer, and Teeters,Negley K- New Hoizons in Ctiminolog.2d. in Prison."Corrective Psychfutryand loumal of SocialTherapy12 (1966):
ed. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1951.(lO, 120) 13-24. (82-83)
Bartollas, Clemens;Miller, Stuart J.; and Dinitz, Simon. ..Becominga Scapegoar: Blumstein,Philip W., and Schwartz,Pepper."Lesbianismand Bisexuality."
Study of a Deviant Carcet."SociologicalSymposium 11 (1974):ga-97 . (56, Pp. 278-295in Erich Goodeand RichardTroiden,eds.SexualDeviance
6e) andSexualDeviants.NewYork: WilliamMottow, 1974.(49,73,78)
-.Iuvenile Victimization: The InstitutionoJ paradox. New york: Halsted -. "Bisexuality:SomeSocialPsychological lssues."Joumnlof SocialIssues
Press,1976.(14, 56,70,1,21) 33 (19't7)t3o-4s. (49)
-. cThe
White Victim in a Black Institution.,' pp. 97-108 in Marc Riedel Bohrnstedt, GeorgeW. "ReliabilityandValidity Asessment in AttitudeMeasure-
and Pedro A. Vales, eds. Treating the Offettder: hoblems and lssres. New ment." Pp. 80-99 in G.F. Summers,ed..Attitude Measurement. Chicago:
York: Praeger,1977. (56, j5)
Becker, Howard S., and Geer, Blanche. ..Latent Culture: A Note on the Theory Bowker,Lee H. Women,Crime,and the Oiminal Justire System.Irxington,
of Latent Social Roles." Administrative Science euarterly S (1960):304- Mass.:L€xingtonBooks,D.C.Heath,1978.(23)
3 1 3(.1 e ) -.Pisoner Subculfitres.I-€xington,Mass.:kxington Bools, D.C. Heath,
Bell, Alan P. "The Homosexualas Patient.',pp. 55-72 in RichardGreen,ed. 197',t. (24)
Human Sexuality:A Healthhactitioner,s Text. Baltimore,Md.: Williams Brim, OrvilleG., Jr., andWheeler,Stanton.Socialization Two
after Clhildhood:
andWilkins,1975. (73) .E'ssays. NewYork: Wiley,1966.(13)
Bell, Alan P., and \Yeinberg,Martin S. Homosexualities:
A Study of Diversity Brown,Jende Davis."A Field Studyof Two Subsystems in a Women'sPrison:
Among Men and luomen.New Y ork|.Simonaad Schuster, 197g. (73) knplicationsof Differences in ValuesandGoals."Ph.D.disse ation,Rutgers
Bell, Robert R. "Swinging:Separating pp. 150-
the Sexualfrom Friendship.,' UniYersity,1977. (99, 149)
168 in Nona Glazer-Malbin,ed,.Old FamilyfNew Family. New york: Vaa Browning, Roberl. Poemsof Robert Browning. L.ondon: Oxford UniYersity
Nostrand,1975. (77) P r e s s1,9 1 2(.1 7 1 )
Benjamin,Harry, and Master,R.E.L.Prostitutionand Morality: A Definitive Buffum, Peter C- Homosexualityin Prisons.Washington, D.C.: Govemment
Report on the Prostitute in ContemporarySocie\) and an Analysisof the PrintingOfhce,1972.(56)
21O PrisonHomosexualiw Bibliographical
tndex 211
Brmker,Edward.,4nimslFactorr. NewYork: VikingPress,19?7.(168) Clemmer,Donald..The Prison Communit!. 1940. Reprint.New york: Holt,
Burgess,Emest, antl Wallin, Pa,i. Engagement andMarriage.New York: Lippin- 1 9 5 8(.1 8 ,1 0 s ,1 1 4 )
-. (Some
cott, 1953.(65) Aspectsof SexualBehaviorin the prison Commvrlity."proceed-
Buklnrt, Kathryn Watte$on.llomen in Prison.New York: Doubleilay,1973. ings of the AmericanCoftectionalAssociatbn(195g):377_3g5. (10, g2)
(s0, 63, 68, r42) Cline,HughP., andWheeler, Stanton...TheDeterminants of Normativepattems
Burnstein, Jules Quentin. &niugal VNts in Prison: Psychologicaland.Social in CorrectionalInstitutions."Pp. 123-184in Nits Chistie, ed,.Scandinavian
Consequencu.IJxington, Mass.:LexingtonBooks,D.C.Heath,19'17 . (114) Studiesin Aiminology,vol.2. Oslo:Uniyersitetsfodaget ,196g. (14,16,17,
Buss,Allaa R. "The Trait-SituationContoversyand the Conceptof Interac- 18,12o)
Iion." Persorality and Socitl PsychologyBulletin 3 (1977):196-201. (24) Cohen,Paz. "A Double Standardof Justice:JuvenileCourts Treat young
Butts, William Marlin. "Boy Prostitutesof tlre Mettopolis." foumal of Ainical WomenDifferently."CivilRigh* Diges,l0 (1978):10-19.(121)
Psychopathology 8 (1946-1947):673-681. (49) Cohen, Stanley, and Taylor, Lautie. PsychologicalSunival: The Experienceof
Caldwell,Morris G. "Group Dynamicsin the PdsonCommunity."Joumalof Long TermImpisonment.NewYork: YintageBools, 1974.(16)
CYiminalLaw, Climinolog2and PoliceScimce46 (1956):648-657.(165) Cohen,YehudiA. '?attems of Friendship."Pp. 351-386in YehudiA. Cohen,
Campbell,CharlesF. "Co-corrections-FClFort Worth afier Three Years." ed,-SocialStructureandPersonality:A CasebookNew York: Holt, 1961.
Pp. 83-109 in John Ortiz Smykla,ed. Cod hison. New York: Human (174)
Sciences Prcss,1980.(116) Cole, Larry. Our C:ltildren'sKeepers:Inside Ameica's Kid Prisons.New York:
Caprio,Frank S. The SexuallyAdequateFemale.New York: CitadelPress, Grossman, 1972.(168)
1 9 s 3( 1 1 3 ) Colebrook,Joan-The CYoss of Lassitude:Portraits of Five Delinquents.London:
Carroll,Leo. Hacks,Blacksand Cons:RaceRelntiansin a MaximumSecurtt! Ardre Deutsch,1968.(74,182)
.H.ron. Irxington, Mass.:Irxington Books,D.C. Heath, 1974.(75, 162, Comfort, Alex. "Institutionswithout Sex." Social Work 12 (1967):107-108.
r64-16s) (113)
Carter, Barbara."Reform SchoolFamilies."Society 1l (1973)36-a3. Q5) Conway,Allan, and Bogdan,Carol."SexualDelinquency:The Persistence of a
Catal.ino,Anthony. "Boys and Girls in a CoealucationalTraining School Are DoubleStandard."Oime andDelinquency23 (1977):131-135.(121)
Different-Aren't They2" CanaditnJoumal of Oiminologt and Corrections Cory, DonaldWebster.TfteHomosexuqlin America:A SubjectiveApproach.
14 (1972): 120-131.(114) NewYork: Greenburg, 1951.(78, 113)
Chancller,EclnaWalker.Womenin Pn'son.Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill,1963. -. Ihe Lesbianin America.NewYork: CitadelPress,1964-(78, 1O9')
(s0) Craft, Michael."Boy Prostitutesand Their Fate." BritishJourrwlof Psychiatry
Chatidrc,Heni. Papilloz.NewYork: PocketBooks,1971.(163,166-167) 1,12(1966): | | | 1-1.114. (78)
Meda. "Judicial Enforcementof the FemaleSex Role: The
Chesney-Lind, Cressey, Donald,andKrassowski, Witold. "InmateOrganization andAnomiein
Family Court and the FemaleDelinquent."lsruer ltr Oiminology 8 (1973): AmedcanPrisonsand SovietLabor Canps." Socisl Problems5 (1957-
(121)
s1-s9. 1958):217-230. (14)
-. "Juvsnilg Delinquency:The Sexualizationof FemaleCi1rle." Psychology Cronbach,Lee J. "CoefficientAlpha and the Internal Structureof Tests."
Today8 (1974):43-46.(121) Psychometrica 16 (1951):297 -334. (44,136)
-. "Judicial Patemalismand the FemaleStatus Offender-Training Women Davenport,William. "The Family Systemof Jamaica."Socialand Economic
to Know Their Place;' Oime andDelinquenc,23 (1977)t121-13O. (121) Stltdies10 (1961')1420-454. (175)
-.'Young Womenin the Arms of the Law." Pp. 171-196in LeeBowker, Davidson,K. Theodore.ChicanoP^oners, TheKey to SanQuentin.New York:
ed. l4omen, Oime, and the Crimirul lustice System. Lexington, Mass.: Holt, 1974.(10, 14,161)
LexingtonBooks,D.C.Heath,1978.(121) Davila,Mario. "Compadrazgo: FictiveKinshipin Latin America."Pp.396-406
-..Guilty by Reasonof Sex: Young Womenand the JuvenileJusticeSys- h Nelson Graburn, ed. Readingsin Kinship and Social Structure. New
tem." in D. (ed.),llomen ond the Law: A Social-Histoical
Kelly Weisberg York: Harper& Row,1971.(174)
Perspectiue. Cambridge, Mas.: Schenkman, 1981.(121) Davis,Alan J. "SexualAssaultsin the Philadelphia PrisonSystemandShedffs
Clark, John P., ald Tifft, Larry L. "Polygraph and Interview Validation of Yats." Trans-action 6 (1968):8-17. (10,56,75)
Self-ReportedDeviart Behavior."AmericanSociobgicalReview31 (1966): Davis, Katherine B. Fsctors in the Sex Life of Twentt-Two Hundred Women-
5 1 6 - s 2 3( .s 2 , 7 3 ) NewYork: Harper& Brothers, 1929.(8,73,93,113\
212 PrisonHomosexuality Bibliographical
Index
213
Deacon,A. Bemard.Malekua:A Vanishing Peoplein theNewHebrides.London: -, Tzintzuntzan: Mexican peasants in a Changing lryorld.
Boston: Little
Routledge& KeganPaul,1934. (174) Brown, 1967.(171, 174)
deRahm,Edith. How Could She Do I'lwt? A Study of the Female Criminal.
NewYork: ClarksonN. Potter,1969.(83)
Deveureux, George,andMoos,MalcolmC. "The SocialStructuresof Prisonsand
the OrganicTension."Joumal of Climinal Psychopatholog 4 (1942):306-
324.(r0-1r, 116-117, 122)
Dougherty, Molly C. Becominga lloman in Rural Black Culture. New York: Gagnon,John H. Human Sexualities-Glenview,Ill.: Scott Foresman,1972.
H o l t ,1 9 7 8(.1 7 5 ) (82, 108)
Dube,l-eela.Socialogyof Kinship: An Analytical Surveyof Literature.Bombayi
PopularPrakashal,1974.(174)
Duffy, Clinton D., with Hirshbery,N. Sexand Oime. New York: Doubleday,
1e6s.(78)
Eber, Herbert W. "MultivariateMethodologies for EvaluationResearch."Pp.
553-570in ElrnerL. StrueningandMarciaGuttentage,eds.Handbookof
EvaluationResmrch.vol. 1. BeverlyHills: Sage,1975.(43) CsliforniaLqw Ret)iew 49 (1975):110-152.(183.)
Ehrmann,Wlnston.hemarital Dating BehavioLNew York: Holt, 1959.(73) Garflrnkel, Harold. 'Conditionsof Successful DegradationCeretnonies.,,Amer_
Elliot, Mabel. Oime in the ModernSociety.New York: Harper& Brothers, icanlourrul of Sociolog 6l (1956):420-424.(13)
1 9 5 2(.8 , 2 9 , 1 0 81, 1 3 ) Garrity, Donald L. "The Prisonas a RehabilitationAgency.,,pp. 358_3g0in
Ellis, Albert. "Questionnaire versusInterviewMethodsin the Study of Human Donald R. Cressey,ed. The Prison:Studiesin Instihltionsl Oryanization
LoveRelationships Review12 (1947):541-543
." Sociological . (73) andChange. NewYork: Holt, 1961.(18)
-. "QuestionnaireversusInteffiew Methods in the Study of Humar Love Gebhard,PaulH. "A Comparison of White-Black OffenderGroups."pp. 89-130
Relationslrips. II. Uncategorized Reponses." AmericsnSociologicalReview
in H.LP. Resnickand Marvin E. Wolfgang,eds.SexualBehavior:Social
13(1948):6t -6s. (73) Clinical,andLegalAspech.Boston:Little, Brown, 1972.(gl)
Ellis, Desmond;Grasmick,Harold G.; and Gilman,Bernard."Violencein Pris- -. "Prostitution."Pp. 75-81 n TheNew Encyclopaedia Bitannica, vol. 15.
ons: A SociologicalAnalysis."Americanloumal of Sociologt80 (1974): l5th ed.Chicago:WilliamBenton,19j6. (91)
1 6 - 4 3(. 1 0 ) Gebhard,Paul H.; Gagnon,Johrr H.; Pomeroy,WardellB.; and Cfuistenson,
Etzioni, Amitai. A ComparativeAnalysis of Complex Organizations.2d' ed'. CorneliaV. Sex Offenders:An Analysisof Tjpes. New york: Hamer&
NewYork: FreePress,1975.(13) R o w ,1 9 6 5(.9 .7 3 ,8 1 ,8 2 ,8 3 )
Feld, Barry C. Narfializing Intnate Violmce: JuvenileOffenden in Institutions. Cebhard, PaulH., andJohnson,Nat B. TheKinseyData:MarginalTabulations
Cambridge, Mass.:Ballinger,1977.(11, 189) of the 1938-1963 InterviexrsConductedb) the Institute for SexResearch.
Fishel, Elizabeth. Sisters:Love and Rivalry Inside the Family and Beyond. Philadelphia: W.B.Saunders, 1979.(82, 108, 147)
NewYork: Morrow,1979.(168,175) Celles.RichardJ. Family Violence. BeverlyHills: Sage,1979. (l7l)
Fishrnan,JosephF . Sexin Prison: RevealingSexConditionsin American Pris' Giallombardo,Rose.,locreryof lUomen:A Study of a l omen'sprison. New
ons.NewYork: NationalLibraryPress,1934.(8, 9, 10, 116) York: Wiley,1966.(l l, 14,24, 50,74, 85, l}g, 1Z2,123,126,13O,141,
Flynn, Helen G- 71rcAldernn Story: My Life as a Political Prisoner. New 1s5.176)
York: InternationalPublishers, 1963. (74) -.The Social llorld of Impisoned Grtls.New york: Wiley, 1974.(11,14,
Ford, CharlesA. "Homosexual Females" Joumnl
Pncticesof Institutionalized 1 5 , 2 4 , 6 ,77 4 , 8 5 ,1 2 0 ,1 2 6 ,1 4 1 ,1 5 6 , 1 7 2 )
of AbnormalPsychology 23 (1929):442-448.(l1l) Gibbs,JamesL., Jr. "Compensatory Blood-Broiherhood: A Comparatiye Analy-
Foster,GeorgeM. 'tofradia andCompadrazgo in SpainandSpanish America." sisof Institutionalized Friendshipin Two AfricanSocieties.', proceedings of
Southwestem Journalof Anthropology9 (1953):1-28.(171, 174) theMinnesota Acddemyof Science30 (1962)t67_7a.(]r74)
-. "Ihe Dyadic Contract:A Model for the SocialStructureof a Mexican Ginsburg,KennethN. "The lr4eatRack': A Study of the Male Homosexual
PeasantVillage." Ameican Anthtopologist63 (1961):1172-1192(171, Prostitute."Ameican loumal of psychotherapy 21 (1967):170_1g5. (49,
174) 78)
214 prisonHomosexualw
Bibliographicat
Index 2$
Goffman, Erving. "On the Charactedsticsof Total Institutions: The Inmate
World." Pp. 15-67 in Donald Cressey,ed. The prison: Stu(lies i.nInstitu-
tional Organizatbn and Change. New York: Holt, 1961. Repdnted on
pp. 3-74 in Ewing Goffman, Asylums: Essayson the Social Situation
of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Garden City, N.y.: Doubleday,
1 9 6 1 (. 1 3 )
Goldfarb, Ronald. "Ials; The Utimate Ghetto. Gafi.en City, N.y.: Double-
day, t97 s. (8, 22,29)
Golla, James. "lVorld SeriesComeback . . . Stargell Powers Bucs to Crown.,,
The GlobeandMai|18 October1979,p. 59. (168)
Goodman, Leo A., and Kruskal, William H. "Measuresof Association for Cross
ClassificationsIII: Approximate Sampling Theory." Ameican Statistical
AssociationJoumai 58 (1963):310-364. (1I1, 137)
Goody, Esther N. "Forms of Pro-Parenthood: The Sharing and Substitution
of Parental Roles." Pp. 331-345 in Jack Goody, ed. Kinship. Baltimore,
Md.: PenguinBooks, 19'7| . (17 5)
-. "Delegation of Parental Roles in West Africa and the West Indies.', pp.
447-484 n Demitri B. Shimkin; Edith M. Shimkin;and Dennis A. Frate,
eds. The Extended Family in Black Societies-The Hague: Mouton, 1978.
(17s)
Goody, Jack. 'Adoption in Crcss-CulturalPerspective.',Compsrstive Studies
in Society and History ll (1969)155-78. (1'15')
Grand Laroussede Ia Langue Frangaise,vol,3. Paris: Librairie Larousse,19?3.
/ ''741
Greco, Marshall C., and Wright, James C. "The Correctional Institution in the
Etiolos/ of Chronic Homosexuality.",4mericanJournd of Orthopsrchiatry
14(1944):29s-3o7.
(79-80,t0s)
Grichting, Wolfgang. Sampling Plans and Results.Ann Arbor, Mich.: National
Assessmentof Juvenile Corrections, University of Michigan, 1973. (45)
Grusky, Oscar. "Organizational Goals and the Behavior of Informal Leaders."
American fournal of SociologJt65 (1959):59-67 . Qa) NewYork: HumanSciencesPress,1980.(gg, 152)
Gudeman, Steyen. "The Compadrazgo as a Reflection of the Natural aad Henley,Nancy,and Thome,Barrie.,.Womanspeak andMaaspeak:SexDiffer-
Spiritual Person." I\oceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute of
GreatBitain and lrelancl (1971):45-71. (174)
Gutman, Herbert G. The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925.
New York: Pantheon,1976.(171)
Habermaa, Paul W.; Josephson,Eric; Zanes, Anne; and Elinson, Jack. "High
School Drug Behavior: A Methodological Repod on Pilot Studies." Pp.
103-121 in Stanley Einstein and Stephen Allen, eds. Proceedingsof the
First International Conference on Student Drug Surveys. Farmingdale,
N.Y.: Baywood, 1972. (46)
Haft, Marilyn G. "Women in Prison." Pp. 341-355 in Michele G. Harmann TheHague: Mouton,1978.(169-1,70, tj t, tTS)
and Marilyn G. Haft, eds. hisoners'Rights Sourcebook: Theory, Liti-
Holyoak,WilliamH. '?laying Out Family Conflictsin a FemaleHomosexual
'Family' Group (Chick-Vot)
gation, Practice.New York: Clark Boardman, 1973. (121) amongInstitutionalJuveniles:A Casepresen-
tation."Adolescence26 (1972)ttS3-168.(5O)
216 PrisonHomosexualiw Bibliographical
Index 217
Hooker, Evelyn. "Homosexuality."Pp. 222-233 in David L. Sills,ed..Inter- Jay, Karla, and Young, Allen, eds.After You're Afi: persorulExpenences
rutional Encyclopediaof the SocialScimcu, vol. 14. New York: Crowell of Gay Men and Lesbianllomen- New York: Linfts BoolG,1975.(175)
CollierandMacmillan,1968.(73, 78) --Ihe Gay Repoft: Lesbiansand Gay Men SpeakOut about SexualEx-
Hopper, Cathy. "A Study of Homosexualityarld SurrogateFamiliesin an peiencesandLifuryles. NewYork: SummitBooks,1979.(75,lj5)
Institutionfor Women."Master's thesis,Universityof SouthFlorida,Tampa, Jensen,Gary."Age and Rule-Breaking in Prison:A Testof SocioculturalInter-
1 9 8 0(.l i , 8 0 ,9 2 ,1 0 1 ,1 0 5 ,1 4 9 ,1 s 4 ) prctations." Oiminologlt 14 (1977): 555-568.(24)
Hoshino,Karrehiro."Fictive Kinship in Semi-NationalCriminalGangs."Reporls Jensen,Gary F., and Jones,Dorothy. .?erspectives on Inmate Culture: A
of theNationalResearch Instituteof PoliceScience14 (1973):13-27. (175) Studyof Womenin Pison." SocielForces54 (1976):590-603.(121)
Howard,StephenJarnes."Determinantsof Sex-RoleIdentificationsofHomo- Jerstld.,Iens.
Boy hostitution. Copenhagen: G.EC. Gad,1956.(49,78)
sexual FemaleDelinquents."Ph.D. dissertation,Universityof Southern Johnson, Edwin. "The Homosexualin Prison." Social Theory ond hactice
California,1962.Q4) I (1971):83-95. (a9,70,82, 164)
Huffman, Arthur V. "Sex Deprivation in a Prison Community." Joumal of Johnson, Robert. Qtlture and (}ish in Confinement.Llx:l;rgton, Mass.:IJx-
SocialTherapy 6 (1960):170-182. (56,68,75) ingtonBooks,D.C.Heath,1976.(l 1)
Hurnpbreys,Laud. TemoomTlade: ImperconalSex in PublicPWes.2d ed. Jourard, Sidney M. "An Exploratory Study of Body-Accessibility." Bnrr'sh
Chicago:Aldine, 1915. (49,78) Ioumo.l of Socialand Ainical Prycholog 5 (1966):221-231.(109)
Hyman, Herbert H. Interviewing in Social Research. Chicago: University of Kanin,EugeneI., andParcell,StanleyR. "SexualAggression: A SecondLook at
ChicagoPress,1954. (41) the OffendedFemale."Archivesof SexualBehavior6 (1977):67-76.(23)
Ibrahim, Azmy Ishak. "Deviant Sexual Behavior in Men's Prisons." Chme Kanter,Joha F., and Zelnick,Melvin."SexualExperience of YoungUnmarried
and Delinquency 20 (197ar38-44. (11) Womenin the United Slates."Family PlanningPerspectives 4 (1972):9-18.
Ibsen, CharlesA., and Klobus,Patricia."Fictive Kin Term Use and Social (e2)
Relationships:AltemativeInterpretations."Journnl of Marriageand the Karlen, Amo. SexualiA and Homosexuality:A New Vieyr-New York:
Family 34 (1972):615-620.(168) Norton,1971.(74, 109,113)
Irwin, John.Prsottsin Turmoil.Boston:Little, Brown,1980.(56,161) Karpman, Benjamin."Sex Life in Pison." Joumal of CYiminalLqw lnd Oimi-
Irwin, John, and Cressey,DonaldP. "Thieves,Convicts,antt the Inmate Ctrl- nology38 (1948):475-486.QB)
rjd;e;'SocialProblemslO (1962)1142-15 5. (18, 19, 165) Kassebaum, Gene."Sex in Prison:Violence,Homosexualityand Intimidation
Ishino, Iwao. "The Oyabun-Kobur:A Japanese futual Kinship Institution."
Are EverydayOccurrences." Sental Behaviorll (1972):39-45.(66,78,
AmericanAnthropologist55 (1953):695-707 . Q7a) t22)
Jack, I-enus,Jr. "Kinship and ResidentialPropinquityin Black New Orleans: Kates,ElizabethM. "SexualProblemsin Women'sInstitutions."Joumal of
The Wesleys."Pp.239-269 in Demitri B. Shimkin;Edith M. Shimkin;and SocialTherapy1 (1955):187-191.(190)
DennisA. Frate, eds. The ExtendedFamily in Black Societies.The Hag;r,i Keamey,Colbert. The Witings of BrendanBehan.Dublin: Gill arrdMacmillal,
Mouton,19?8.(1?5) 1977. (86, r44)
Jackson,Bruce.In the Life: Versionsof the Oiminal Experience. New York:
Keesing,Robert M. Kin Groupsand SocialStructure.New York: Holt, Rinehart
NewAmedcanLibrary,1974. (67, 164) andWinston,1975. (174)
Jackson, George. Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of GeorgeJackson. Kieser,Sylvan,and Schaffer,Dora. "EnvironmentalFactorsin Homosexuality
2d ed.NewYork: Bar:rtan,,1972. (75)
in Adolescent Girls." hychoarulyticReview36 (1949\:283-295. (88)
Jacobs,JamesB. "street Gangsbehind Ban." SocialProbkms 21 (1974)l Kinsey,Alfred C.; Pomeroy,WardellB.; andMartin, ClydeE. SexualBehavior
39s-4O9.(20, 166') in theHumanMale.Philadelphia: W.B.Saunders, 1948.(49,51,52,66,68,
-. "Stratification and Conflict amongPrison btmates."Joumal of CYiminal 73, 81, 82, 93, 114, 122)
Law andOiminology66 (197Q:a76-a91.(2O) Kinsey,Alfred C.; Pomeroy,WardellB.; Martin,ClydeE.; andGebhard, PaulH.
James,Howard.Childrenin Tiouble: A NationalScondalBoston:Chistian SexualBehaviorin the HumanFemale.Phlladelphia: W.B.Saunders, 1953.
Science PubiidringSociety,1969.(74, 114) (49, 63, 64,65, 83,93)
James,Jennifer. "Motivatiofl for Entranceinto Prostitution."Pp l'77-206 Kirkham, GeorgeL. "Homosexualityin Prison." Pp. 325-349 in JamesM.
in Laura Crites, ed. The Female Offender. I*xinglon, Mass.:I-exington Henslin,ed. Studiesin theSociolog of Sex.NewYork: Appleton{entury-
Books,D.C.Heath,1976.(109) Crofts,1971.(78)
214 prisonHomosexuality
Bibliographical
lndex 2.lg
Kirkpatrick, C1ifford, and Kanin, Eugene...Male Sex Aggressionon a University
Campul" American SociologicalReview 22 (1957):52-58. (23)
Kittrie, Nicholas N. The Right To Be Different: Deviance and Enforced Therapy.
Baltimore,Md.: Penguin,1971.(190)
Konopka, Gisela- The Adolescent Gtrl in Conflict. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall,1966. (144)
Kosofsky, Sidney, and Ellis, Albert. ..Illegal Conmunication arnongInstitution-
alized Female Delinquents." Social psychologt 48 (1958):155_160. (74,
141)
Kulik, James A.; Stein, Kenneth B.; and Sarbin, Theodore R. .,Disclosureof
Delinquent Behayior under Conditions of Anonymity and Nonatonymity.',
Joumal of Cnnsultingand Ainical psycholog 32 (1968):506-509. (37)
Ladner, Joyce A. Tomorrow's Tomotow; The Black l'|omnn. Totonlo: Double-
day, 1972.(169, 175)
Laguerre, Michel. "Ticouloute and His Kinfolk: The Study of a Haitian Ex-
tended Family." Pp.407-445 in Demitri B. Shimkin; Edith M. Shimkin;
ard Dennis A. Frate, ed,s.The Extended Family in Black Societies-Tlne
Annals of the American Academy of politicat and Social Science
Hague:Mouton, 1978-(1'74) 293
(19sa);88-98. (1a)
Lamberti, Armand. "A Type of Peer Relationshipin a Girl's Training School.,,
Mclntosh, Mary. "The HomosexualRole-" Socialproblems16 (196g):182_
Menninger C:linicBulletin 27 (1963):2O0-204.(50)
192.(49,73)
Lawrence, Thomas Edward. Seven Pillan of llisdom: A Tiumph. 5th ed..
Mead, GeorgeHerbe . Mind, Self and Society. Chicago:University of Chicago
Oxford: Alden Press,1976.
Press, 1934.(17)
LEAA. U.S. National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Sewice-Ail-
Messinger, Sheldon."Reviewof Societyof l,lomenby RoseGiallombardo and
dren in CUstody: A Report on the fuvenile Detentton and Conectional
lUomen'sPrison by David Ward aad Gene G. Kassebau m.,, American
Facility Cenns of 192. Washington,D.C.,1974.(t2t)
Sociological Review32 (1967):143-146.e4)
LEAA. U.S. Department of Justice. Littte Shtersand the Law. Washington,
Milgram,Stanley.Obedienceto Authority. New york: Harper& Row, 1974.
(12r)
D.C.,197'7. ( 1 1 ,1 8 8 )
Leshanna,Linda L. "Family Participation:Functional Responseof Incar-
Mtllet,Kate.Senul Politics.NewYotk: Doubleday,1969.(10)
ceratedFemales."Master'sthesis,BowlingGreenStateUniversity,1969.
Millham,Spencer;Bullock, Roger;and Cherrett,paul. ..A ConceptualScheme
(11, 149,rs4, 1s7)
for the Comparative Analysisof Residential Institutions.,,yl. ZOZ_ZZ+ n
Liebow, Elliot. Tally's Cnmer: A Study of Negro StreetcomerMen. Boslort'.
Jack Tizard;Ian Sinclair;and R.V.G. Clark, eds. Voietiesof Residential
Little, Brown,1967. (170)
Expeience.London:RoutledgeaadKeganpaul, 1975.(14)
pp. 201-215 in Albefi
Lindner,Robed. "SexualBehaviorin PenalInstitutions.,,
Mintz, SidneyW., and Wolf, Eric R. ,,An Analysisof Ritual Co-parenthood
Deutsch,ed. Sex Habits of AmericanMen: A Slmposiumon the KinsE,
(Compadrazgo)." SouthwestemJournal of Anthropologt 6 (195O):341_
R€polt NewYork: Prentice-Hall, 1948.(78)
368.(174)
Lipton, Douglas;Martinson,Robert; and Wilks,Judith. The Effectiveness of Mitchell,ArleneEdith. ',InformalInmateSocialStructurein prisonsfor Women:
Correctiorwl Treatment-A Sunet of TteatmentEvaluationStudies.Spr.dir|..-
A CompantiveStudy." Ph.D.dissertation, UniversityofWashington, 1969.
field,Mass.:Praeger, 1975.(189)
Reprint.San Francisco,Calif.: R & E Research Associates, 1gi|. (11, 14,
Lloyd, Robin.For Money or Love: Boy Prostitutionin America.New york:
1 9 ,2 1 , ,5 0 ,8 1 ,8 8 , 1 0 1 - 1 0 51, 0 7 ,1 11 _ 1 1 21, 1 7 ,1 2 . 71,3 4 ,1 7 8 ,1 8 0 _ 1 8 1 ,
VanguardPress,1976.(56, 12O')
189)
Lockwood,Daniel.hison SexualYiolence. NewYork: Elsevier,1980.(10, 183) Mitford, Jessica. Kind and Usualhtnishment:Theprison.Basln ess.New york:
MacCulloch,John Amott. "Covenart." Pp. 2O6-209in JarnesHastings,ed.
Knopf,1973.(29)
Encyclopaedis of ReligionandEthics,vol. 4. New York: Scribner,s,
1909. Money, John. "Sexual Dimorphismand HomosexualGenclerldentity.,' pp.
( 167)
42-54, 73-77 i\ National Institute of Mental Health TaskForce on
22O prisonHomosexuality
Biblioqraphical
Index 221
Homosexuality: Final Reryrt and Background Papers. Rockville, Md.:
Departmentof Health,Education,andWelfarc,1969.(75) Pe1l,Eve, ed,-Maximum Secuity: Letters from Pison. New York: Dutton,
Money, John, and Ehrhardt, Arke A. Man & lloman, Boy & Girl: The Differ 1972.(16r, 162)
entiation andDimorphismof Genderldentity from Conceptionto Maturity. Pitt-Rivers,Julian.'?seuilo-KinslLip." Pp.408-413in DavidL.Sills,ed.Intemt-
Baltimore,Md.: JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1972.('15) tional Encyclopediaof the Social Sciences,vol. 8. New York: Crowell
Moreno,JacobL. Ilho ShallSurvive?2d ed. NewYork: BeaconHouse,1953. CollierandMacmilln, 1968.(1'11,174)
(78) Ploscowe,Morris. 'llomosexuality, Sodomyand CrimesagainstNature."Pp.
Morris,Desmond. lntimateBehaeiour. NewYork: Bantam,19?3.(56, ?5) 394-406 in Donald WebsterCory, ed. Homosexuality:A Closs-Cultural
Moyer, Imogene."LeadershipStructuresin a Women'sPrison."Paperprc- Approach. NewYork: Julian,1956.(113)
sented at the Arurual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Plummer,KenteIh. SexualStigma:An InteractionistAccounl. London:Rout'
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1979.(5O,63, 143) IedgeandKeganPaul,1975. (73)
Mugislrima,Fumio, and Hoshino,Kanehiro."SystemBasedon FictiveKinship Pomeroy,WardellB. Dr Kinseyand the Institutefor SexResearch. NewYork:
in Serni.national CriminalOrganization-"Reportsof the NationalReseorch Harper& Row, 1972.(65,'13)
Instihtteof PoliceScimce14 (1973):t-12.(t7 5') Powdermaker, Hortense. After Freedom.New York: RussellaadRussell,1939'
NAJC. National Assessment of JuvenileCorrections.ResedlchDesignStatement. President'sCommissionon Law Enforcementand Administrationof Justice,
Ann Arbor,Mich.:NAJC,Univenityof Michigan,1972-(45') NicholasdeB. Katzenbach,chaiman. The Challengeof Oime in a Free
NBC. "This Child Is Rated X." NBC News White Paper on Juvenile Justice, .Socr?ry.Washington , D .C.: Govemment PdntingOffice, 1967. (1'l 5)
broadcast 2 May 1971.(22-23, ll9') Propper,Alice M. "knPofiation and Deprivation PenPectives on Homosexuality
Neese,Robert..Pnson Exposru. NewYork: Chllton,1959.(165) in CorrectionalInstitutions: An Empirical Test ofTheir Relative Efficacy"'
Nelson,CatherineI. 'A Study of HomosexualityamongWomenIffnates at Ph.D.disseflation, University of Michigan,1976 (76,'17)
'Two
StatePrisons."Ph.D. dissertation, TempleUniversity,1974.(50,66, Rechy,John.Aty oftry'lglrlNewYork: GrovePress,1963 (78)
77,83-84,92,117) Reed,Evelyn. Woman'sEvolution: From MatriarchalClan to PatrimchalFamily'
Nelson,Victor. PrisonDaysandNights. Boston:Little-Brorm , 1933.(9) NewYork:Pathfinder Press, 1975.(174,175)
Nice, Richard W. "The Problem of Homosexuality itt Conections-"Ameicqn Rees,Goronwy. "A Casefor Treatment:The World of Lytton Strachey"
lounml of Correction28 (1966):30-32.(8) Encounter 30 (1968):71-83. (113)
Nie, Norman H.; Hull, HacllaiC.; Jenkins,JeanG.; Steinbrenner, Karen;and Reid, Sue Titus. Oime and Criminology.2d ed. New York: Holt, 1979' (114)
Bent, Dale H. SPSS.',tratr'strbalPackagefor the SocialSciences.2ded. New Reimer,Hans. "socializationin the PrisonCommunity."Proceedings of the
York: McGraw-Flill, 1975. (7'1) AmeicanPrhonAssociation (1937)i15l -155. (I8)
NIWI- National Institute of Mental Heahh Task Force on Homosexuality: Reiss.Albeft J., Jr. "The SocialIntegrationof Peersand Qteers" SocialProb-
Final Report and Background Papels. Rockville, Md.: Department of lems9 (r961')tlO2-12O.(49, 78)
Health,Education,andWelfare,1969.(73) Reiss, Ira L. Premaital SexualStandardsin America: A SociologicalInvestiga-
Norbeck, Edward, antl Befu, Harumi. "Informal Fictive Kinship in Japan." tion of the Relative Socitl snd Cultural Integration of Ameican Sexual
Ameican Anthropologht60 (1958)t341-368.(174) Srundards. Glencoe, Ill.: FreePress. 1960.( l0l)
Novick, Abraham G. "The Ma.ke-Believe Family: Informal Group Structure -.The Social Context of PremdritalSexualPermissiveness New York:
among Institutionalized Delnquent Girls." Pp. 44-57 in CaseworkPapers Holt, RinehartandWinston, 1967. (65, 92)
from the National Conferenceon Social llelfare. NewYotk: Family Service Riedel,Marc, and Thornberry,Terence,P. Pp. 418-431 in BarryKrisbergand
Association ofAmerica,1960.(35, 152) JamesAustin, eds. The Childrenof Ishmael: Critical Percpectives on
Okada,FerdinandE. "Ritual Brotherhood:A CohesiveFactor in Nepalese IuvenileJustice.PaloA1to, Calif : Mayfield Press,1978. (18)
Sociely." Southwestem Joumalof Anthropology13 (1957)i212-222. Robbins,Michela."The lnside Story of a Girls' Reformatory '" Colliers,30
Otis, Margaret."A PerversionNot CommonlyNoted." Jourral of Abnonrul October1953,pp.74-79. (50,ll4)
Psychologt 8 (1913):112-l14. (8) Robinson,Billy "Hands." "Love: A Hard lrgged Triangle'"Blatk Scholsr3
Patterson,Haywood, and Coffad, Earl. Scottsboro,o1.,. Iondon: Victot (r9'71):28-a8.(7s)
Golancz,1950.(78) Robinson.James,and Smith, Gerald."The Effectiveness of CorrectionalPro'
grarns."Oime andDelinquency 17 (1971):67-80. (189)
222 prisonHomosexuality
Bibliographical
Index 229
Rochelle, Phyllis Ann. "A Study of the Social Systemof an Institution for
-.Ihe Sexual Behaviourof YoungPeople.London: Longmans,1965b. (113)
AdolescentGirls." Ph.D. dissertation,Universityof California,Berkeley,
196s.(50,66,74, 149,1s3,t56, 171,172) Schrag, Clarence. "Some Foundations for a Theory of Corections.,, pp. 309-
Ross,H. Laurence."The 'Hustler'in Chicago."Journalof StudentResearch 357 in Donald R. Cressey,ed. The Prinn: Sndies in Institutional Organiza-
tion and Change.New York: Holt, 1961. (18)
@ickinsonCollege,Carlisle, Pa.) | (1959):13-19.@9)
Ross,JamesG., and Heffeman,Esther."Womenin a Coed!ollirt.', euafte y Schroeder,An eas.ShakingIt Rough: A hison Memoir. Toronto; Doubleday,
Joumalof Conections4 (19j7)t24-28.(115, 152) 1976.(16,17)
Ross,J.G.; Heffeman,E.; Sevick,J.R.; and Johnson.F -T.NationalEvaluation Schwartz, Barry. '?re-institutional vs. Situational Influence in a Correctional
Progrmn:PhaseI Report: A$essmentof CoeducatiotulCoftections.Wash- Community." Iournal of Climirul Law, Oiminologt and Police Science
ington,D.C.: NationalInstituteof Law Enforcementand CriminalJustice, 62 (1971): s32-s42.(20)
-. '?eer versusAuthodty Effects
1 9 7 8(.1 1 4 ,1 1 5 ) in a CorrectionalComrnunity."Chm-
Ross,Robert Robertson,andMcKay,HughBryan.Self-Mutiktion.IJxington, inology11 (1973):233-257 . (20)
Mass.: IrxingtonBooks,D.C.Heath,1979.(29,118-119,190-191) Scott,Marvin,and Lyman,Stanley."Accounts."AmericanSociological Review
Ruback,Barry. "The SexuallyIntegratedPrison:A Legaland policy Evalua- 33 (196$:a2-62.Q'1)
tion." Americanfoumal of CrimiruI Law 3 (1975):301-330(114, 115, Seigel,Sidney.,iy'onparametricEtafisticsfor the BehavioralSqences.New York:
116) McGraw-Hill,1956.(112)
Rubenfeld,Seymour,and Stafford, John W. ,.An Adolescentlnmate Social Selling, Lowell S. "The PseudoFamily." Ameican loumal of Sociology 37
(1931)t2a7 -2s3.(3s, 149, r7 t)
System-APsychosocial Account;'Psychiatry26 (1963'):24I-256.(14,75)
Sagarin, Edward. Odd Man In: Societiesof Deviants in America. Clicaso: Selo,Elaine."The CottageDwellers:BoysarrdGirls in TrainingSchools."Pp.
Quadrangle, | 969.('18') 149-171 in Laura Crites, ed,. The Female Offender. Iexington, Mass.i
-.'?rison Homosexualityand Its Effect on post-prisonSexualBehavior.', LexingtonBooks,D.C.Heath,1976.(182)
Psychiat1)39 (1976z):245-257.(69) -. "IrunateMisconductin JuvenileCorrectionalInstitutions:'AComparative
-. "Thieves,Homosexuals arld Other Deviants:The High personalCost of Study."Ph.D.dissertation, Universityof Michigan,1979. Q4,121,182)
Y.learinga Label." Psychologt Today9 (1976b):25-28. (73, 1O5) Serfontein, LHP. Brotherhood of Power: An Exposb of the Seuet Afrikaner
Saghir,MarcelT., and Robins,Eli. MaleandFemaleHomoEexualit!. Baltimore, Broederbond. Bloomingtoo:IndianaUniversityPress,1978.(175)
Md.: WilliansandWill,jlns,1973.(49, 64) Sexton, Patricia Cayo. The Feminized Male: Clsssrooms,luhite Collars and
Sani, RosemaryC. UnderLock snd Key: Juvenilesin Jails and Detentrcn. theDeclineof Manhness.NewYork: RandomHouse,1969.(113)
Arm Arbor: Univenityof Michigan,NationalAssessment of JuvenileCorrec- Shimkin,Demitri B.; Louie, Gloria Jean: and Frate, DennisA. "The Black
tions,1974.(121) ExtendedFamily: A BasicRural Institution and a Mechanism of Urban
-. "JuvenileLaw: How It Penalizes Females."Pp. 67-81 in Laura Crites, Adaptation."Pp.25-117 in Demitri B. Shimkin;Edith M. Shirnkin;aad
ed,.TheFemtle OffendeLLgnr|'*on, Mass.:LexingtonBooks,D.C.Heath, DennisA. Frate, eds. TheExtendedFsmily in Black Societies.The Hague:
1976. (r21) Mouton,1978.(175)
Sayres,William C. "Ritual Kinship andNegatiyeAffect." AmericanSocialogical Shimkin,Demitri 8., and Uchendu,Victor. '?effistence,Borrowing,andAdap-
Review21 (1956):348-352. (17t, 174) tive Changesin Black Kinship Systems:SomeIssuesand Their Signifi-
Scacco,Aathony M., Jr. Rape in Prison.Springfield,I1l.: CharlesC. Thomas, cance."Pp. 391-406in Demitri B. Shimkin;EdithM. Shimkin;andDemis
1 9 7 s(. 1 0 ,s 6 , 7 5 ) A. Frate,eds.TheExtendedFamilyin BlackSocieties. TheHague:Mouton,
Schaefer,Irah Chat luomen and Sex: SexualExperienca and Reactionsof 1978.( 17s\
a Group of Thirlt llomen as Told to a Female psrchotherspist. New Short, JamesF., Jr., and Nye, Ivan F. "ReportedBehavioras a Criterionof
York: RaadomHouse,1973.(168) DeviantBehavior."Socillhoblems 49 (1958a):207 -213. (73)
-. "Extent of UnrecordedJuvenileDelinquency,TentativeConclusions."
Schneider, David.M. Ameican Kinship:A CulturalAccount.EnglewoodCliffs,
N.J.:Prentice-Hall, 1968.(166) Ioumal of Oimirul Law, Oiminology and Police Science49 (1958b):
Schofield,Michael.SociologicalAspectsof Homosexuality.Londo Longrnans, 296-302. (83)
1965a.(75, 78, ll4) Simmons,knogeneL. "InteractionarrdL,eadership amongFemalePrisoners."
Ph.D.dissertation,Universityof Missouri,Columbia,l9'15.(11, 143)
224 PrisonHomosexuality
Index
Bibliographical 225
Smith, Carol F.W., and Hepburn, John R. "Alienation in Prison Orgalizations: -.The Manufacitre of Madness:A Comparative Study of the Inquisition
A ComparativeAnalysis." Oiminolog) 17 (1979):251-262. (14,15)
and the MentalHealthMovement.NewYork: Harper& Row, 1970b.(190)
Smith-Rosenberg,Carol. "The Female World of Love and Ritual: Relations -,ed. The Age of Madness:TheHistory of Involuntar!MentalHospitaliza-
between Women in Nineteenft-Century Anrcica." Signs:Journal of Women
tion Presmtedin SelectedTexts.GatdenCity,N.Y.: Doubleday,1973.(190)
in Culture and Society | (1975):l-29. Q7a) - .T'he Myth of Mental lllness: Foundations of a Theory of PersonalCon-
Smykla, John Oftiz. Cocorrections: A Case Study of a Coed Federal Prison.
dacr.2d ed.NewYork: Harper& Row,1974.(l9O)
2d ed. Waslrington, D.C.: University Pressof America, 19'19. (115, 116,
Taylor, A.J.W."The Significance of 'Darls'or 'SpecialRelationships'for Borstal
rs2) Girls;' Bitish Joumalof Oiminology5 (1965):406-4i8.(50)
-. '?roblems with Researchin
Cocorrections." Pp. 172-180 in Johr Ortiz 'Kinsey's SexudBehaviorin the Hunan Male: SomeCom'
Terman,LewisM.
Smykla, ed. Coed Prison. New York: Human SciencesPres, 1980. (116)
mentsandCriticisms;' Psychological Buuetin45 (1948)1443-459(73)
Sonenschein,David. "The Etbnography of Male Homosexual Relationdrips." 'f,orrelatesof PrisonDrug Use: An
Ioumal of SexResearch4 (1968):69-a3. (174)
Thomas,CharlesW., and Cage,Robin J.
Evaluationof Two ConceptualModels." Oiminology 15 (1977):193'
Sorensen, Robert C. Adolescent Sexuality in Contemporary Ameica. New
York: World, 1973. (63 , 65, 83, 147) 2o7. Q0,1r0)
Thomas,CharlesW., and Petersen,Daid,l'/L-PrisonOrganization and Intate
Spencer, Metta. Foundations of Modem Sociology. 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs,
Subculfires.Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 19'17.(24)
N.J.: Prentice-Hall,1979. (20')
Stack, Carol B. All Our Kin: Sftstegiesfor Survival in a Blnck Community.
Thomas,Piri. Down TheseMeanStreets.New York: Knopf, 1967.(163' 164)
New York: Harper& Row, 1974.(170) Thomas,WilliamI., and Thomas,Dorothy Swaine.The Child in America New
Steffensmeier,Darrell, and Steffensmeier,Rende. "Sex Differencesin Reactions York: Knopf, 1928.(17)
Time. "Doing Ii tlis Way: TexasPreacher FavorsConYictionoverCompassion"'
to Homosexuals: Research Continuities and Further Developments."
Time, 25 hxrc 1979a,
P . 2l . (120)
Joumal of Sex Research10 (1974):52-67 . (65)
Steinmetz, Suzame K., and Straus, Murray A., eds. Violence in the Family.
-. "?ops' Go tlre Pirates:CaptainStargellLeadsHis Family to a World
Series Comeback." Time,29October1979b,pp.48-51(168)
New York: Dodd Mead, 1974. (171)
-. "Penitentiaries/CoverStory: We Have To Give Them Hope'" Time
Strachan, Hallie, and Cowan, Belita. "Women Prisoners."flersef Community
Canada, g Decembet1974,pp 8-16.(108' 163)
llomen's Newspaper| (19'12):5.(50)
Tittle, CharlesR. "Inmate Organization: SexDifferentiationand the Influence
Straus,Munay A.; Gelles,Richard J.; and Steinmetz,SuzanneK. Behind Aosed
of CrirninalSubcultures." Ameriaan Sociological Review34 (1969):492-
Doors: Violence in the Ameican Fanily. New York: Anchor/Doubleday,
1 9 8 0 (. l 7 l ) 50s.(182)
Straus,Murray A., and Hotaling, Gerald T., eds. T'heSocial CatsesoI Husband-
-.56gis\)'of Subotdinates:Inmate Organizationin a Narcotic Hospital
Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press, 1972.(10,53,85,116'182)
llife Violence. Minneapolis; University of Minnesota Press, 1980. (171)
Toch, Hans.Men in Cyisis: Human Breakdowns in Prison' Chicago:Aldine'
Street, David; Vinter, Robert; and Perrow, Charles.Organizationfor Treatment:
A Comparative Study of Institutions for Delinquents. New York: Free r97s. (121)
Press,1966.(14) Toigo, Romolo. "Illegitimate and IJgitimate Cultures in a Training School
Strouse, Jean. "To Be Minor and Female: The Legal Rights of Women under fot Gils:' hoceedingsof the Rip Van Winkle Ainic 13 (1962):3-29 (50)
Tripp, C.A. The HomosexualMatrix. New York: McGraw-[Ii1l ' 1975' (78' 81'
21." Ms 1 (1972)t'to-'1s,116.(121)
Sr.rllivan,Katharine. Girls on Parole. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1956. (50, 67) 114)
Sykes, Gresham M. The SocieD) of Captives: A Study of a Maxinam Secuit)) UPI New York. "Guys! WomenNeedHuggingMorc." Toronto Stal, 9 Decem-
.&?sor?. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Pres, 1958. (12,56) ber 1980,p. A6. (77)
Sykes, GreshamM., and Matza, David. "Techliques of Neutralization: A Theory U.S., Departmentof Justice'Oimiwl yictimizatbn in the |lnited States:A
of Delinquency." Ameican SociologicalReview 22 (1957):66a-670. (77) Descriptionof Tlendsfrom 1973 to 1977. Waslington,D'C': Govern-
Szasz, Thomas. Law, Libefty, and Psychiatry. New York: Macmillan, 1963. mentPdntingOffice,1979.(23)
(1e0) Van Wormer,KatherineS- SexRole Behaviorin a lloman'sPrison,An Etho'
logicalAnalysis.SanFrarcisco:R & E Research 1978 (74'89'
Associates,
--Ideology and Insanity. Gardet City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970a.(190)
143,149)
PrisonHomosexuality Bibliographicat
Index 227
Vedder,Clyde B., and King, PatriciaG. .Floblemsof Homosexualityin Cor-
rections.Sptitgfield, Il1.: CharlesC. Thomas,1967. (24)
Vidal, Gore.The City and the Pitlor.New york: Crosset& Dunlap,1948.(7g')
Vinter, Robert D., ed. Time Out: A National Study of luvenite Correctional
hogratnL Anr Arbor: NationalAssessment of JuvenileCo ections.Uni_
versityof Michigan , 1976. (32,45)
Wallace,Samuel,ed,-Total Institutions. New Brunswick.N.J.: Transacuon
B o o k s1, 9 7 1(.1 1 7 )
Ward, David A.; Jackson,Maurice;and Ward,RenedE. ..Crimesof Violence
by Women."Pp. 844-909in DonaldJ. Mulvihill;MelvinM. Tumin; and
Lynn A. Curtis, eds.Crimesof Yiolence:A Staff Report Submitted to the Wilson,Nanci Koser..,Stylesof Doing Time in a Coedprison:Masculine
National Commissionon the Cousesand hevention of Violence, vol. 13. and
FeminineAltematives.',pp. 150-l7l in John Ortiz Smykla,ecl-Coed
Washington, D.C.:Government PrintingOffice,1969.(84) .&ison.NewYork: HumanSciences press,19g0.(l 14, 1g2)
Ward,DavidA., and Kassebaum, GeneC. ,,Homosexuality: A Modeof Adapta_ Wooden,Kenneth. lueepingin the playtime of Others:America,sIncarcemted
tion in a Pfisonfor Women_"SocialProblems12 (1964)1159-1j7.(11,50,
e1)
-. Women'sPrison: Sexand SocialStructure.Chicago:Aldine, 1965-(47,
s3, s5, 56, 58,67,74, 85, 109,123,141)
Weinberg,lzn. The English Public Schools: The Sociolog) of Elite Education.
ceratedFemaleDelinquents."Paperread at the Annual Meetingof the
NewYork: AthertonPress,196'1.(113)
Societyfor the Study of Socialproblems.New york, August1926.(1g2)
Wellford,Charles."FactorsAssociated with the Adoptionof the kmate Code:
A Study of Normative Socialization." Joum.al of Oiminal Ltw, Oimi-
rclogy andPoliceScience58 (1967):197-203.(20)
Wenlz,DianaJ. "The Role of Incarcerated FemaleJuvenileDelinquents'Self-
Acceptance and Their Pa-rticipationin the Si.[ies and the Make-Believe
Family." Master'sthesis,BowlingGreenStateUniversity,1965.(67,144,
1s6,17s-176)
West,Louis Jolyon, and Glass,Albert J. ..SexualBehavioraIId the Mititary
Law." Pp. 250-272 n RalphSlovenko,ed,.SexualBehaviorand the Law.
Springlield,Ill.: CharlesC. Thomas,1965.(tt4)
Westwood,Gordon (MichaelSchofield).Society and the Homosexual-l_.ondon:
Gollancz,1942.(78, | 13)
Wheeler,Stanton. "Socializationin CorrectionalConmunities.',Ameican
Sociological Rettiew26 (1961):697-712. (12't)
-. The Structureof FormallyOrganized Socialization pp. 53-l 16
Settings.,'
in Orville G. Brim aad StantonWheeler,SocializationAfter Childhood: Two
-Essays.NewYork: Wtley,1966.(19')
-. 'rsocialization
in CorrectionalInstirutions."Pp. 1005-1023in David
Goslin, ed. Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research.Cllczgo:
RandMcNally,1969.(17, 18,24)
Whitehead,Paul C., and Smart,ReginaldG. .'Validity and Reliabilityof Self-
Reported Drug Use." CanadianJournal of Oiminolog and Coftections
A (1972'):1-6.(73)
SubjectIndex
Definition of the sittztiot, l'7, 66, 7 1, of victimless-offenses index, 9l; G a n g s2, 0 , 1 6 l - 1 6 2 , 1 6 6 prostitution,49,56-5'7,78'99 '
t8'7 thorcziate,119;use by girls in Goy, 50 , l'l 5 -l'l 6 ' See also Horrto' mariage betweenfemaleinmates,
Degradationceremonies,13 sampledinstitutions, 9 l-92 sexual;Homosexuality; Lesbian; 2-6, 24, 50, 5 5, 150-15 1 ; marriage
Delinquent behavior.SeeOffenses Duration of incarceration. ,SseLellgtlt True homosexual betweenmaleinmates,163-166;
Dep.ivationsof imprisonment, actual of imprisonment Gemeinshaft,151 marriageoutside Prison, 169,
ajrd perceived:amonggirls in Givingup the work, 55-56,'15.See l?4-l 75 ; roles, feminine and
sampledinstitutions,2 5-29, 122- Editing of questionnaires,38-39 aLroHomosexual,roles, feminine masculine, 2, 5-1O,24,49,53-5'1,
'7 5, 142, 16l, 164-166. Seealso
130; comparedto broader non- Effects of prisoDhomosexuality.See and masculhe; Touching, domi- 4-7
d epriving situational influences, Homosexuality,as an independent nanceand genderdifferences Argot for prison homosexuality;
1 1 ,2 0 , 8 6 , 1 0 6 ,l 8 l , 1 8 6 - 1 8 8 ; variable; Homosexuality,and Goals,of correctionalilstitutions, Love lette$; RaPe
compaled to frce-world depriva- increased[kelihood of future ex- and inmat€ subculture.See Homosexuality: advantagesof , 66-69,
'11
tions, 83, 135; and homosexuality, periences;Reactionsto homo- Homosexuality,its relationship , ' t g - 8 1 , 1 1 5 ,1 4 2 ,1 5 9 - 1 6 01' 6 3 ;
't a n da e e , 7 0 , 2 l , ' t3 , 8 2 , 9 2 , 9 3 '
3, 80, lo2-ro7, l r3-13't, 159- sexuality to institutional goalsand environ-
160, 178-l8l ; and i.ttmatenorms Euphemisms:lot ilr.mates,25-29,ll9 t ments; lnstitutioos, total, dif- 9 6-91 , lO3 , l4'l ; alid vlfiactr\e-
and behaYior generally, including for prisons,25-29; ll7-121i fot ficulty of classifying on depriva- ness,80, 140, 1,44-146,181|'an'd
homosexuality, 1 l-23 ; interactions solitary confinemenl, 2'7-29 , lt9 - tion-gratification continuum autonomy, 14,22, | 3l-132' 159,
amongdeprivation characteristiG, Seealso Argot lor prison homo- Goingfor brothers, 17O-l'11.Seeako and biology,73-75, 186;and
12, 184;hteractionsamongdepri- sexuality; Trainitrgschools,as borcdom,14,22,131-132, 181;
Quasikinship, outside Prison
vation and importation cha-racter- prisons Going for sirters,170. SeedLroQuasi and children,desirefot,22,68,
istics, 12, 24 , 68, l2l , l84 i an.d Ethnicity. See Raceand ethnicity kinship, outside Pnson 139-141, 143-146; ard church
quasikhship, I 59-l 60 ; relative G o i n gt o g e t h e r2, 1 , 5 0 - 5 5 , 6 0 , 7 0 , sereices, 7; aod class,93,96-97'
deprivation, 15-17, 121. Seealso Fag, 164-165 7 r, tl0,154,l'l'7 106, 146; and coed institutions,
Institutions, total, difficulty of Fe atio, 56-57,70, 80,82. Seeolso Group or foster home. ^geeJustice 5 3 - 5 4 ,5 7 - 6 1 ,8 5 + 7 , 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 ,
classifying on deprivation-gratifica- Sodomy system,expedencewith 1 0 6 - 1 0 7 I, l 3 - 1 1 6 , 1 8 0 ;a n d
tion continuum Fernme-SeeHomosexual,roles, Guided $oup interaction (GGI), 28' conjugalvisiting, I 14; and contact
Depdvation theory. SeeDeprivations feminine and masculine 29 with familYand friends,22,l3l-
of imprisonment Fictive kinship. SeeQuasikinship Gnrlt, 64-66. Seealso Justifications 1 3 4 ,r 3 7, 1 5 9 - 1 6 0 1, 8 5 - 1 8 6a; s
Detention, 19. Seedlra Justicesystem, Finger fuckhg, 1, 55 Neutralization, techniquesof ; defined operationallyin this
experiencewith Fox, James,183 Guttman scalogramanalysis,in con- s t u d y ,2 1 , 5 0 , ? l , 8 6 - 8 7 ;d i f -
Deviance,12, 49,'72, 89, 1l7 Free-woddinfluencesoll homo- structing homosexualityindex, ficulty of deturing,24, 49-51,
Diffusion theory, See lmpofted sexuality, 184-186; difficulty of 44,60 s 6 - 5 ? ,6 6 - 6 8 ,7 0 . 8 e , l 0 l , 1 0 4 -
characteristicsof inmates distinguishilg from iafluence of lO5,112,18'1,191 ; and distance
Distancebetu'eenhome and correc- previousincarcerations19, 68-70, Heterosexual contact,13, 14, 61' 136i betweenhome and couectional
tional institution, I l7; and homo- 8 l - 8 3 , 8 6 - 8 8 ,9 8 - 9 9, t O 7, 1 3 2 . amonggirls in sampledinstitutions, institution,22, !02,106' 123' l3l '
sexuahty,22,lO2, 106,123, l3l- See4fuoHomosexuality,before 32,92, f25-13o,134; and homo- 1 3 4 ,B 7 , 1 5 9 - 1 6 0 , 1 8 5 - 1 8 6a;n d
134, 13'7, 159-160,185-186;ard cuEent incarceration; Imported s e x u a l i t y2,2 , 8 3 , 1 0 1 ,1 0 6 - 1 0 7 , domlneurce , 22 , 139-l 40 , 143-146'
quasikinship,159-160;in sampled characteristicsof inmates ll3-116, 131-132,l3'1, 1s9-1'60 ' 1 5 9 - 1 6 01 , 8 6 ;a n dd r u g s8, 1 , 9 7 ,
institutions, 123 Friendship,9; ald homosexuality,50, 185-186;and quasikinshiP,159- 108; and female Prostitution, 9 I ,
Divorce.SeeQuasikirship 63-64, 80, 126-r2',7 , 130,1,55,l86i I 60; and Punishment'107' I 14- 109,715,seeslsoHomosexual
Domirance,165, 190;and homo- and quasikinship,130, 155, l5 6, 115, 186.Seeatso Coedinstitutions male Prostitution; and fights or
sexuality,22, | 39-140, 143-146, 169-17l; restrictiotsupon to pre- Home visits,I l7;and homosexuality, arguments with staff, 158-159;and
159-160,184-186;ard m asculinity, vent homosexuality ,'1,9,63,72, 22,123, l3!-132iand quasikin- fightswith inmates,158-159;and
2,55-5'7, 163l,and quasikinship, 126-127. Seealso Peerrelationships ship, l5 5 ; in sampledinstitutions, friendshiP, 50, 63-64, 80, 126-
159, r'13 Functional autonomy, 68-69, 80 2't,123-124. Seeako contact 1 2 ' l, l 3 O , 1 5 5, 1 8 6 ; g i v i n gu P t h e
Drugs,20, 110, 162;heroin,108; Functional theory, 12. SeeDepi'ra- with family and friends work, 5 5-56,'l 5 i a\d goingAWOL,
and homosexuality, 81, 97, 108; tions of imprisonment, actual Homosexual: di'Iorce,2, 4 ; ldefiity' 158-159; and suilt, 64-66; ard
malijlJa'Ja,28,9l-92, 121i as pafi and percaived 4 9 - 5 1 ,5 1 , 8 1 , 1 0 1 ,1 8 7 ;m a l e heterosexual contacl'22,83 ' l0l '
232 Subiect Index 233
PrisonHomosexuality