Homosexuality in Male Prisons: Demonstrating the Need for a Social Constructionist Approach

Abstract

This paper analyses homosexuality in male prisons and argues that the essentialist approach has dominated research in this area. Essentialists define homosexuality as a static trait and dichotomize sexuality into two categories, homosexuals and heterosexuals. A review of the literature on male homosexuality suggests that an essentialist approach resulted in a paradoxical situation in which researchers were forced to account for "normal" heterosexuals who engaged in situational homosexual behavior while in prison; because the very existence of "situational homosexuality" was inconsistent with essentialist definitions of homosexuality, researchers instead shifted the focus to sexual deprivation and then proceeded to include rape in typologies that purported to address homosexuality. Thus, distinctions between consensual homosexual behavior and rape were blurred. As a result of this conceptual ambiguity and because of paradigmatic changes in the study of homosexuality, there is a tremendous void in the literature on homosexuality in prison. This paper argues that a social constructionist approach would add to our understanding of homosexuality in male prisons.

The Characteristics and Motivations Behind Female Prison Sex

“…Such essentialist explanations concerning the dichotomy between "fixed" heterosexuality and "static" homosexuality have dominated prison sex research, especially in male correctional facilities (see Eigenberg, 1992). Most research on homosexuality in prison, for example, focuses only on either the behavior or identity of the inmate rather than gauging both the behavior and identity.…”

“…The two distinct, yet interrelated (see Eigenberg, 1992), perspectives that are commonly addressed in the study of sexual behavior of females in prison are the deprivation and importation models (Greer, 2000;Owen, 1998;Propper, 1982Propper, , 1981Propper, , 1978Propper, , 1976Nelson, 1974;Heffernan, 1972;Kassebaum, 1972;Giallombardo, 1966;Ward and Kassebaum, 1965;Halleck and Hersko, 1962). The aspects of the deprivation model were originally outlined by Sykes (1958) as being the forfeiture of liberty, withholding of goods and services, denial of heterosexual relationships, loss of autonomy, the sacrifice of security, boredom, lack of privacy, and forced association.…”

Consensual Sex Between Men and Sexual Violence in Australian Prisons

“…A social constructionist regards sexual identities (i.e., as gay, straight, etc.) as created through social meaning-making, and acknowledges that individuals may change not only their sexual practices but also their sexual identity at different stages of their lives and in different social situations (Eigenberg, 1992;Gagnon & Simon, 1973). Gagnon and Simon argued that homosexual relationships in prison serve as a means to satisfy needs that the prison system does not otherwise meet.…”

“…Earlier literature reflected an uncertainty about the distinction between consensual homosexual behavior and sexual victimization (Eigenberg, 1992). If one takes an essentialist or ''trait'' approach to homosexuality, one assumes that same-sex desire is a continuing property of the individual.…”

If you drop the soap in the shower you are on your own: Images of male rape in selected prison movies

“…(2) inmate reactions to sexual victimization and the impact that fear of rape has in the day to day interactions of inmates (Chonco, 1989;Jones & Schmid, 1989;Lockwood, 1985;Smith & Batiuk, 1989;Tewksbury, 1989a;Wooden & Parker, 1982); and (3) response of correctional staff, especially officers, toward rape in prison (Eigenberg, 1989(Eigenberg, , 1992(Eigenberg, , 1994(Eigenberg, , 2000.…”