Consensual Sex Between Men and Sexual Violence in Australian Prisons

Abstract

Estimates of the incidence of sexual coercion in men's prisons are notoriously variable and fraught with conceptual and methodological problems. In 2006-2007, we conducted a computer-assisted telephone survey of a random sample of 2,018 male prisoners in New South Wales and Queensland. Of 2,626 eligible and available inmates, 76.8% consented and provided full responses. We asked about time in prison, sexual experience, attraction and (homo/bi/heterosexual) identity, attitudes, sexual contact with other inmates, reasons for having sex and practices engaged in, and about sexual coercion, including location and number of perpetrators. Most men (95.1%) identified as heterosexual. Of the total sample, 13.5% reported sexual contact with males in their lifetime: 7.8% only outside prison, 2.8% both inside and outside, and 2.7% only inside prison. Later in the interview, 144 men (7.1% of total sample) reported sexual contact with inmates in prison; the majority had few partners and no anal intercourse. Most did so for pleasure, but some for protection, i.e., to avoid assault by someone else. Before incarceration, 32.9% feared sexual assault in prison; 6.9% had been sexually threatened in prison and 2.6% had been sexually coerced ("forced or frightened into doing something sexually that [they] did not want"). Some of those coerced reported no same-sex contact. The majority of prisoners were intolerant of male-to-male sexual activity. The study achieved a high response rate and asked detailed questions to elicit reports of coercion and sex separately. Both consensual sex and sexual assault are less common than is generally believed.

Predictors of sexual behaviour among men and women in New York City area prisons

“…The number of sexually active participants in our study is comparable to what other researchers in this area have reported (Richters et al 2012). Similar to our research findings, in a study of 245 female prisoners, Hensley et al (2002) found that younger and Black prisoners were more like to engage in sexual behaviour.…”

Sex, violence and HIV on the inside: cultures of violence, denial, gender inequality and homophobia negatively influence the health outcomes of those in closed settings

“…While concern about consensual and nonconsensual sex in prisons is widely described in the literature (Haney 2011;Pardue, Arrigo, and Murphy 2011), some researchers contend that both types of sex may actually occur less frequently than is often posited (Richters et al 2012). It is not possible to assess the frequency of such acts in PNG, but non-consensual sex is a devastating crime that can have lasting physical as well as psychological and social effects and, in extreme cases, even death (Noll 2008;D'Alessio, Flexon, and Stolzenberg 2013).…”

“…The importance of prisoners as a key population in the global epidemic was recently reinforced by the WHO guidelines for key populations (WHO 2014). Closed settings have been identified to pose a substantial risk for HIV as a result of sexual behaviour (including rape), injecting drug use and body modification practices such as tattooing (Richters et al 2012;Pinkerton, Galletly, and Seal 2007;Angora et al 2011;Krebs 2002). This is true in all countries, but especially in resource-poor settings where the prevalence of HIV in closed settings is often higher than among the general population (Angora et al 2011), thus begging the question, is HIV 'on the inside' in PNG?…”

Condoms for prisoners: no evidence that they increase sex in prison, but they increase safe sex

“…Indeed, slightly more prisoners in Queensland (8.8%) than NSW (5.8%; p=0.01) reported sexual activity in prison (see table 1). Overwhelmingly, the reported sexual activity in both states was consensual and consisted mostly of manual or oral sex 7 9. The proportion of prisoners reporting anal sex in prison was equally low in NSW (3.3%) and Queensland (3.6%; p=0.8).…”