Prison

Homosexuaf
ity
Myth and Reatity

+Ji*":,#;.fiiooo"'

LexingtonBooks
D.C.HeathandCompanv
Lexington,Massachuietts
I oronto
 Contents

List of Figures and Tables rx

Acknowledgments xl

This researchwas executedin conjunction with the National Assessment

of Juvenile Corections project supported by grants (N1724104 and
-Lr--ier 1 The Theoretical and Ernpirical Setting I
73N1-99401G) ftom the National lnstitute of Law Enforcement and Deciding What to Investigate 1
Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement AssistanceAdministration, U.S. De-
partment of Justice, under authodzing legislation of the Omnibus Cdme Homosexuality 8
Conhol and Safe Steets Act of 1968. Neither the NAJC project codirec- The TheoreticalControversy 11
tors nor the granto$ necessarilyconcur with th€ statementsor conclu- The PresentStudy 21
sionsmade by the author, who takes full responsibilityfor the contents.
_*r'.,-er l The Research 25
Terminology 25
Summary of the EssentialBackground 29
ResearchDesignand Procedures 32
Data Analysis 43
Library of CongressCataloging in Publication Data
-\,rtrer 3 The Incidence of Homosexuality and Its Effects 49
Propper,Alice. Defining Homosexuality 49
Prisonhomosexuality. Validity/Reliability 52
Incidence 52
Includesbibliographicalreferencesand irdexes. A Homosexuality Index: ComparingInstitutional
1. Prisoners-United States Sexual behavior. 2. Women prisoners- and Individual Variations 59
United States Sexualbehavior. 3. Homosexuality-United States.I. Title. Homosexualityas an IndependentVariable 62
rry8843P76 365'.6 7948003 Summary 71
ISBN0.669.03628-5 AACR2
--r.rpter4 Irnportation Penpectives on Prison Homosexuality
'19

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

Library of CongressCatalogCard Number 7948OO3

 Contents
PrisonHomosexuality vtl

AppendixB Staffs' Add-on euestionnaire

Chapter5 DeprivationPerspectives
On Prison
Homosexuality llJ
-{ppendixC Contnct Agreement
Measuringthe Severityof Actual andPerceived
203
Deprivation t22 AppendixD SampleIntoductory Statementto precede
DeprivationVadablesasPredictorsof QuestionnaireAdministration
Homosexuality 130 20s
InportationandDeprivationVariablesas BibliographicalIndex
Predictorsof Homosexuality for Girlswith No
Previous Homosexual Experienie 132 SubjectIndex
Sunmary IJJ
229
About the Author 239
Chapter6 The Relationshipof PrisonHomosexualityto
and Correlatesof Previous
Self.Descriptions
HornosexualExperience r39
andPrisonHomosexuality
Self-Descriptions 139
of
Correlates Previous
Homosexuality 145

Chapter7 Q'-si Kinship: Foms, Functions,and Caus€s 149

DefiningQuasiKinship 149
Incidenceof Participationin QuasiKinship 151
RelationshipbetweenSelf-Reported Participation
in HomosexualityandMake-Believe-Family
Roles 154
PerceiveCEffects of Beingin a Make-Believe
Family 155
Liking and Trust for Family Members r56
Staffs'Perceptions of the Dfferencesbetween
Homosexuality andQuasiKinship 157
Aialogous Quasi-KinshipForms 161
Summary 172

Chapter8 Conclusions 177

MythsandRealities 177
Implicationsfor FutureResearchandTheory
Construction 182
of
Modelof the Causes
A Social-Psychological
PrisonHomosexuality 184
Implicationsfor Correctional
Policy 188

AppendixA Girls' Addon Questionnaire

 List of Figures
and Tables

Figures

l-l Sample Homosexual Mafiiage Certificate

l-2 Sample Homosexual Divorce Certificate

8-l A Social-PsychologicalModel of the Causesof Prison

Homosexuality 185

Tables

2-l of SampledInstitutions
Characteristics
Selected 31

3-1 Responses to the Question,"If You WereEverGoing

With or Maried to Another Gid in This Program,Did
one of You Act like a Guy andthe other like a Girl?" 54

InstitutionsRankedby Mear Homosexuality

Scores,
Analysisof Variance(ANOVA) and
Summary,
Scores
Distributionof Homosexuality 6l

3-3 Feelingsabout HavingPassionatelyKissedor Had Sex

with Another Girl and ReportedLikelihood of Future
HomosexualRelationshiPs 65

+l Responsesto the Question,"The Very First Time,Where

Did You WriteLoveLetters,Passionately Kiss,or HaYe
Sexwith Another Girl?" 87
Experiences
Numberof Correctional
Average 90
+3 Raceof GirlsandSocialClassofParents 94
44 ofHomosexualityScores
Resultsof MultipleRegression
on ImportationVariables
by Previous
Scores
Girlswith VariousHomosexuality
Homosexuality 98

+4 of Homosexuality
Analysisof Covariance with
Scores
PreviousHomosexualityas CoYariate 100

tx
 PrisonHomosexualitY

+7 PastandCurrentHomosexual(II) andNonhomosexual Acknowledgments

(NH) Relationshipsin Two Adult Women'sPrisonsby
PdsonType and HomosexualityOutsidePrison 104

5-l Resultsof Multiple Regressionof Homos€xualityScores

on DeprivationVariables 132

6-1 and
HomosexualityScoresby Self-Descriptions
PreviousHomosexualitY 140

G2 Zero-OrderCorrelations Homosexual
of Previous
Experiencewith PrePrison andSelf-
Characteristics
Descriptions t46

7-l StaffsRating BehaviorsasVery Serious 158

'"!VhichThingsDo
Staffs'Responses to the Questions,
Girls in Make-BelieveFamiliesDo More Than Girls Not
in Make-Believe Familes?" and "Which ThingsDo Gids
HavingSexualor RomanticRelationswith Other Girls
HereDo MoreThanGirlsNot HavingSexualor
RomanticRelations?"
t-5 Staffs'PercePtions of the MostknportantReasons for
ParticiDationin Make-BelieveFamiliesand Romanticor
with Other Girls 160
SexuaiRelationships
SomeMythsandRealitiesaboutPdsonHomosexuality 178
8-1

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.

Deciding What to InYestigate

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

PrisonHomosexualitv The Theoreticaland EmpiricalSetting

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

\)q a?.. \.'<- to \)stro \\ c- ilove you.. . later 2 sweet

L.ab loe
uro.kixqS o{ lhL 4 gotten
ur'r\ \\ir, co-p\c- - SlL
Dear George
Since you're not coming back to rcc becauseof that b--ch, i hav€
decided to stay in my room also. I'm praying that the hospital won't
Le5.\ Aec""L keep you becauseI do want to see you before I leave. George you
haven't told me you loved me and really meaot it all day, what's
se$est o. \e6-l Sq1..*\i61 wrong? . You haven't told me baby how I can prove my love
before I leave you. Now I'm sitting here listening to the Osmond
.,'o"r€t- Brothe$ singing Go Away Little Gid and you know that part about
{"o,,, \,s your much too hard to resist, well LaPiere you are. I almost melt
i* $e' r ce of: when you kiss me but it's been so long since you have kissed me that
1.esi I might haye forgotten ho$' to. I wajrt you to write me back ok? . . .

J.lrtrss To Mr. Smith from Mrs. Smith

w i\.r rsS . . . I know you're kind of mad for the way I acted when you said f.m.
had your ring . . , being your wife I don't like tlte idea of hel having
th\s your ring. You know much I hated her , . . Not that I wart it but heh
{he cortt \rcc b\ ' {*\{.\ts
rtaucst look who got it. You said that you wanted me to act like a wife gtrown'
up, I will when you get the ring from her. . . . George you knou' I
don't dig that shit. And no other u'ife would dig it either . . . how
would it hit you if I had a ring like that and ga1'eit to Carol . . you
Slg'.\...s would feel the sameway I do now and always will until you g€t that
ring . . . Don't get me wrong. I'm not telling you I'm just asking Will
Q-eetiYicsrior.l it be me or her? I don't want to loose you so make the right choicQ.
{oc
5.\" Good night I loYeyou.
I love LaPierre
\cAL
P.S. you krow what that give me reasonto hate her more. She'sgot
Se9.c-\.*.( my husband'sdng.
HATE

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
from a baby knowing he's going to cry. Would you take the fish out of
the water knowing the little fellow's going to die. Would you take a
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
taking your loye from me and you know without it I won't goove. . . .
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
patienfly you'll come on home where you belong. So do what you got
to do . . and when your finished playing gamesand rcady to settle
down I'11be ready to make loye to you "freakish cat"
The Theoreticaland EmpiricalSetting 7
trouble. Studs often ca.lled one another brothers becauseof tleir commorr
roles and affection for one alother. I met one mother who formalized aclop_
tion of her inmate sons and daughtersby devisinga btth certificate. This
cer-
tificate recorded the date, the sex and race of the child, the names of the child,
mother, father, and judge.
Crushing had many manifestations beyond tlre emotions and behavior of
the padicipants-most notably, the important role it played in how the institu-
tion was run. For example, communion at church serviceshad been discon_

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
data on the prevalence and causes of homosexuality and quasi kinship among
men and women.
Ilomosexuality
Effect on Organizationalhocedurcs
The literature provides many illustations of procedures designed to reduce
prison homosexuality. In l9l3 in the fllst article ever published on female
institutions, Otis (1913) described "A Perversion Not Commonly Noted,"
which was the courting process between white and black gids in a reform school.
Both Davis (1929, p. 245) nd Elliott (1952, p. 718) tell us that peoplebelieved
homosexual attraction was "stronger between Nego aad white women thaa
between members of the same race" and that the homosexual attmction was
usedto justify mcial segegation.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons, which is commonly regarded as a leader in
its progessive penal policies, describes painstaking and petty rules on tlle main-
tenance of order in its rccent Iome, The Jail: Its Operation and Montgemmt. lt
specifies that, "known homosexuals and sex offenders should not be assigned
to food prepantion" (p. 143; cited in Goldfarb 1975,p.2). Peoplewho look
di.rty or haye slcin disorders or who are deformed are similarly restricted. At
one time, pdsoneff at the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth were forced to
wear a large yellow letter D for degenerateif they were discovered in an act of
homosexuality. Fishman (1934) sayssuch a discovery was rare arrd that the prac-
tice was ineffectiye in eliminating prison homosexuality.
Many administrators seFegate known homosexuals, claiming this protects
others from being seducedand reducesjealousy and fights. JamesF. Howard,
deputy warden of the Kentucky Refornatory at Lacrange, reported:
The adminishation isolatesthe known homosexualswho have become
a behavior problem for 11 months out of the year in a cell block area
which is commonly known as 'queer walk.' During this period of
isolation these men are not permitted to participate in many of the
institutional programs such as moyies, teleyision shows, and other
activities that would bring them irto contact with other inmatesunder
minimum supervision,lFrom a paper by JamesF. Howard, Proceedings
of the Tenth Annual Southem ConferenceoII Correction. Tallahassee.
Flolida,25-26February1965;citedin Nice 1966,p.311
During the month of December, tlte homosexual men were free to rehearsefor
a Christmas vadety show, to move freely within the major part of the institu-
tion, and to wear curlers in their hair and use rouge, lipstick, and perfume.
After their performance for the inmates and general public, the homosexuals
were required to return to the "queer walk."
The Theoreticaland EmpiricalSetting 9
Fishman says that the practice of allowing men to shower in large open
rooms was discontinued in an attempt to decreasehomosexuality:
Instead of this, there are now partitions, u,aist or shoulderhigh, separ-
ating each shower, so that the prisonerscannot seeeachothers' gedtals
while bathing. It was believedthat the exposureof the prisotre$'bodies
in the open shower room promoted thoughts and destes of a homo-
sexual nahrre among the inmates. Incidentally it was also found that
fights ensued as a result of humorous remarks about mary of the
prisone$' physical defects.
In his book, Pison Dayr ond Nights, . . Nelsol gives a remarkable
history of a case in which one prisoner fell in love u'ith another after
seeinghim in the showerroom. [Fishman 1934, pp. 109-110]
The tv/o prisoners had long been good friends before the shower-room incident,
but the initial homosexua.l fantasies of one of the boys and the boys' eventual
homosexual activities were attributed to that incident.
One of the few times that inmates benefited from practices designed to
reduce prison homosexuality was when the lockstep was abandonedbecause
administratoff believed that this close body contact promoted homosexuality
@ishman 1934, p. 90). In the lockstep, each prisoner in the marching line had
his right hand resting on the shoulder of the man in front and his left hand srving-
ing free. His body was close up against the man in front of him, alrd his toes
practically touched the heel of the man in front. Originally, it was advocated as a
technique for easing supewision by shortening the prisoners' marching line and
preventing innates from taking unauthorized leave from the group.
hevalence
At the Salem School for Girls in West Vtginia, girls are constantly given lecturcs
about the danger ald evil of homosexuality. The thirteen- to eighteen-year-old
girls are locked in iheir rooms and denied friendships "because they lead to
homosexuality" (Wooden 1976, p. 125).
Whether or not the prevalence of homosexuality wanants such exteme
measuresand whether the measureshave any effectiveness is not known. Some
of them would certainly seem to interfere rvith the more.important goal of
teatment. Decisions involving biltons of dollars and hundreds of lives were,
and are still being, made on the basis of invalidated impressions and myths.
Although a large body of literature exists on pdson homosexuality, much of it
consists of impressionistic accounts of the sensational aspects of male-homo-
sexual rape and the social meanings of roles adopted by masculine 'lvolfl'
rapists and their more-feminine "punk" victims. Gebhard et al. (1965, p. 205)
place the blame for sexual assaults on the mpists rather than on the victims,
 The Theoreticaland EmpiricalSetting 11
lO PrisonHomosexualitY
Moos 1942; Ibrahim 1974) and of emotional dependenceamongmen (Johason
take what they want'
claiming that rapists are "criminally inclined men wlr-o 1976,pp.16167).
areby-productsof
whetheimoney,material,or women,andtheir sexoffenses

Relationship to Quasi Kinship

There have been more-systematic attempts to describe the nature of consensual

homosexuality and to estimateits prevalencein women's prisons,but estimates
vary widely, in part because some investigators fail to distinguish between
participation in homosexuality and quasi kilship. One reason for the confusion
is that tlre argot terms are often identical for both and becausethe terms usually
do not clearly distinguish between a close asexual friendship; a make.believe-
family relationship; an erotic crush; limited physical contact such as hand
holding, embracing, or light kissing; and more-oved sexual acts. The qeation
and use of phrases such as "having people" and being in "the sillies," "the
racket," and "chick business" (Giallombardo 1966; 1974) may even be inten-
tionally imprecise to neutralize the negative connotations they would have if
they were associatedvith homosexual liasons.
In institutions for delinquent gfuls, estimates of the prevalence of homo-
s€xuality range from none (Feld 1977, p. 163) to 69 percent (Halleck and
Hersko 1962, p. 913). In prisons for adult women, estimatesof homosexuality
range from 20-21 percenl (Mitchel 1975, p. 36; Simmons 1975, p- 132) to
49 percent (Hopper 1980, p. 61). Estimates of participation in make-believe
farniliesin institutions for delinquent girls raage from none (Feld 1977,p.163)
to 86 percent (Giallombarilo 1974, p. 248).In prisons for adult women, esti-
mates of participation in make-believe farnilies range from none (Simmons
1975, p. 132; Ward and Kassebaum1964, p. 171) to 48 percent (LeShanna
1 9 6 9 ,p . 5 6 ) . 3
These wide yariatiols in estimatescould indicate spuriousnessbecausethe
rcsearchers used different definitions and different methods of collecting data.
In this study, we tried to minimize these possible sourcesof variation by clearly
identifying severalhomosexual activities and quasi-fam.ily roles.

The Theoretical Controversy

ln attempting to pull together the diverse witings on prison homosexuality,

I found it useful to examine the more-general sociological theory on what are
commonly known as inmate subculture (the values and behaviors of inmates)
and prisonization (socialization into those values and behaviors). The theoretical
arguments are similar to what social psychologists call the debate about the
relative importance of predispositions and situational characteristics (Haney,
Banks, and Zimbardo 1979; Milgam 1974). Most social psychologistsand

12 PrisonHomosexualitv
sociologistsreact negatively to researcherswho claim that vadous behaviors
are geneticallydetermined.The differencebetweenthem is tltat socialpsycholo-
gistsare more likely to emphasizethe importanceof individual predispositions
like personality tmits and needs,whereassociologists/criminologists emphasize
grouppreprisoncharacteristics like race aad socioeconomic status.Socialpsy-
chologistsare open to consideringpositive and negativesituationalpressureson
behavior,whereasthe sociologists/qiminologistshaveemphasizedthe negative
featuresof imprisonment..
One sociologicaltheory views homosexualityand other forms of deviance
as methods of coping with the harsh, depriving atmosphereof prison life.
Another theory arguesthat prisonersarereally different sortr of peoplethan the
genenl population and that knowing more about their'frevious lives would
enablebetter predictionsof prisoners'behavior.Neither position claimsthe
variablesemphas2edby the other are irelevant, but eachplacesa different em-
phasisupon whetlrer preprison or prison vaiables are the primary sourceof
variation in inmatesvaluesand behavior.aRecenttheoristsstatemore explicitly
that inrnates are inlluenced by and interaction of both preprison and prison
duracteristics, but they havenot clarified which variablesinteract underwhich
conditions.s Also, they havenot recognizedthat inmate behaviorsare affected
by an interaction of viriables within eachperspective.For example,you might
be more likely to engagein homosexualityif you have both a prior experience
in prostitution ard a long-tem prior incarceration(both irnportation variables),
eventhough neithel one alonewould predict prison homosexuality.6Sincethe
number of possibleinteractionswithin and betweenpreprisonand pdson vari-
ablesis staggering,a wise strategy would frst isolate specific variablesthat
directly predict vadous inmate valuesand behaviors.This knowledgecan then
be usedto predictimportantintemctioneffectsbetweenspecificcombinations
of variables.
DeprivationTheory
The deprivation perspectiveon inmates' behaviorsand attitudes has yarioudy
beencalled the theory of indigenousorigins,the functional explanation,and tlre
institutional-product paradigm. It views inmate subculture, of which homo-
sexualityis one aspect,primarily asindigenousto the conilitions of prisonlife.
Inmates'norms and behaviorare seenas a function of the needto mitigatethe
prolongecldeprivationsand strainsof living in ilehumaaizingand punitiv€ prison
environments. Sykes's(1958,pp. 63-78)phrase,"the painsof imprisonment,"
cameto represent the pressuresandproblemsinmatesencountered.
Sykes (1958) providesfive major categoriesof deprivation.One major
problem is the deprivationof liberty, including ihe los of free movement,civil
rights,and emotionalrelationships;the regulationof mail and visiting;lonelness;
The Theoreticaland EmpiricalSetting 13
aad boredom, The prisoner is outcast by being sent to prison and is constantly
reminded of his degradadon.
Deprivation of goods and servicesis a secondmajor problem. This includes
living in a harsl y Spartan environment and being denied the use of numerous
personal possessionswith important symbolic ovedones-liquor, interesting
food, individualized fumishings, and various other amenities. Poverty is prison
policy.
Third is the depdvation of autonomy, including enforceddeferenceand sub-
iection to a large body of tdvial rules and regulations. The authoritadan charac-
ter of prison life is enhalced by staffs frequent refusals to provide explanations
for its commands and regulations, Severe restrictions on inrnates' decision
rnaking often make prisoners feel they have been reduced to the weak, helpless
sratusof cbildhood.
Fourth is the deprir€tion of secudty and the fear of being robbed or beaten
drat comes with forced association with lawbreakers in a place whele some
people pursue the amenities of life by theft, physical coercion, and chicanery.
They cannot rely on other inmates'abiding by society's ruling, and they are
both unwilling and unable to rely on the officials for protection.
The fifth problem is the deprivation of the physiological and emotional
gratifications of heterosexual relationships. The prisoner is forced into hetero-
sexual celibacy and is denied much, if not all, intemction with the opposite
sex, which tends to make prisoners anxious about their sexual identity.
The deprivating aspects of imprisonment were further popularized with
Goffman's (1961) fascinating account of the structural features of so-called
total institutions, which attempted to resocialize incoming inmates. The intro-
ductory essay of his work, Asylums, begjns with an analysis of the common
features of prisons, concentation camps,mental hospitals,monasteries,board-
ing schools,and orphanages.What is different about socializationin thesetotal
institutions is that no escape is available from the norms and role demands of
the setting. A11 the elements of human life occur in one place under tlre same
authority. The influence of total institutions is therefore expectedto be stronger
than that of other environments. Brim and Wheeler(i966), Garfrnkel (1956),
ard Goffman (1961) wrote at length about the "stripping and modifying"
process and the "degradation" cercmonies that were intended to reduce the
impact of the inmate's past upon bis institutional conduct and to homogenize
rather tlnn differentiate the inmates. Etzioni's (1975) analysisfurther empha-
sized that the coercion used to enforce complialce in prisons would create
alienation between inmates ard staff and would decreasethe likelihood of in-
mates' being resocializedto prosocial valuesin zuchplaces.He wamed research-
ers that a reliance upon stated organizational goals could give a misleading pic-
ture of the institution's position on a coercivenesscontinuum. Thus, al inde-
p€ndentmeasureof coercionis required.
Orieinal formulations of the functional model assumedthat inmates could

14 PrisonHomosexuallty
reduce the acute senseof statusdegadation generatedby the pains of impdson-
ment and protect their self€steem by "rejecting the rejecto$" (McCorkle and
Kom 1954, pp. 88-89). Inmates were said to create a social system that would
mitigate their lossesof liberty, feelingsof moral wortl, matedal goods, auton-
omy, security, and heterosocial contact' Proponents of the depdvation per-
spective suggested that inmates could reinstate positive self-images tfuough a
homosexualrelationship becausethe homosexual partner would Provideneeded
support, positiye feedback, and comfort in an otherwise harsh and inhumane
environment. Becausedepdvation theory was developedfrom studies of Par-
ticipant observation, it relied heavily on the explanations tlat inmates gave for
their homosexual activity. Inmates commonly say tlat they are ddven to homo-
sexuality becausetley are bored, because homosexuality makes them feel
better about themselves,and becausethe opposite sex is not available.In coed
institutions, the justifications focus on the presence of the opposite sex ard the
frustration that this creates.Thesereasonable-sounding explanationsaccount for
some of the theory's populadty, but no conclusiveempirical evidenceexists to
support this rather imprecisely stated theory, and severalstudies suggestthat
the inmate system is as likely to be a source of victimization ald exploitation as
to provide relief from tJre pains of imprisooment. An investigation of a boys'
institution by Bartollas, Miller, and Dinitz (1976) found that the material and
sexual exploitation of weaker inmates was considered "cool" and that tlte
major tenets of the inmate code included warnilgs to "exploit whomever you
can," "don't tust anyone," and "everybody for himse1f."Numerous examples
of violence and exploitation can be found among boys in boarding schools
(Millh"*, Bullock, and Cherrett 1975) and training schools (Rubenfeld and
Stafford 1963) and among adult men in prison (Cresseyand Krassowski1957-
1958; Davidson 1974).
More-recentformulations of the deprivation perspectiYehave assumedthat
the more-punitive and -degradingfeaturesof a custodial setting present a more
seyereenvirooment than the treatment-oriented setting. Thus, their research
designs have attempted to test the prediction that inmate attitudes and values
would be more antisocial in deprivating conditions (see, for example, Akers,
Hayner, and Gruninger 1974, 1976,1977a, 19776 Npert 1978, (1979a; Berk
1966: Cline and Wheeler1968;Giallombardo 1974;Grusky 1959;Mitche 1969;
Smith ancl Hepburn 19?9; Street, Vinter, and Perrow 1966)' The lesults were
not conclusive,in palt becausethe so-calledobjectivemeasuresof classification,
which relied on offrcial proclamations of goals and differences in prison archi-
tecture and regulations,may not have been consistentwith inmates'perceptions
of depdvation.
In some cases, the classification of institutions seems hapProprrate'
Giallombardo (1974, pp. 10J1), for example, rightly questions why Street,
Vinter, and Perrow (1966) included two reeducation/developmentProgramsin
the micldle of a gadflcation-deprivation continuum rather than at the
The Theoreticaland EmpiricalSetting 15
gratification end. The boys in these two pro$ams attended local community
schools every day and went home every weekend, whereas all the other five
institutions \vere more total since boys stayed there most of a twenty-four.
hour day. Giallombardo maintains that the scanty descriptions provided in the
Street, Vinter, and Perrow analysis show that the institutions were essentially
more alike than unlike.
Giallombardo's (1974) study is, however, subject to the samesort of criti-
cism. Her "custody," "intermediate," and "treatment" classificationof three
institutions for delinquent girls is inconsistent with her statements that inmates
faced similar problems while incarcerated and that the three institutions "not
only resemble each other but are similar to all other institutions of this type
in that they arc ctntacleized. by conflicting and competing goals" (p. 13).
fume of Giallombardo's other descriptions are also inconsistent with her classif-
ications. For example, she describesone institution (called Central) as "indis-
tinguishablefrom that of an ordinary private boarding school for girls" (p.22).
This description suggestsit should be classified as strongly trcatment or gratifr-
cation odented, yet Giallombardo inexplicably gives it an intermediate
dassification on a depdvation-gatifrcation continuum. She classified the
Western school as the most treatment odented, yet it had some characteristics
that suggestedit was the most depdving atd custody odented. All tfuee institu-
tions had separate maximum-security units, but the Westem school also had
rwo secudty rooms in each cottage, referred to as thinking rooms or holding
rooms, that were immediately available for rule violators. This school also
had more symbols of security like windows that could only open a few inches
and a glass-walledsecurity office that allowed the twenty-four-hour male secur-
ify staff to view the inmates' movements around the cottage living units. It was
completely enclosedwith brick-ald-mortar security fences,whereasthe institu-
tions classifiedasintermediateand custody oriented were more open.
The many possible sources of depdvation make it difficult to make valid
designations of levels of institutional deprivation based on administrative state-
ments of goals or on the type of architecture or the designed security level of
the prison. Smith and Hepburn's (1979) study of six male prisons,for example,
found that official designations of security level did not correspond to actual
levels of coercion ald deprivation. The heatment and custody staffs in the
three minimum-security prisons were signilicalfly more punitive toward inmates
than were staffs in the two medium-security prisons and the maximum-secudty
prison. The authors suggest that inmates confined at the minimum-security
camps and ranches may also suffer more feelings of relative, subjective depriva-
rion because they confront daily the paradox of being unable to leave a relatiye-
ty open and unstructured envirooment. Furthermore, being subject to the
arbitrary enforcement of ambiguously defined rules may be more of a hardship
than receiving uniformly harsh punishments for clearly specified rules. The
constant threat of being transferred to an unfamiliar and more secure prison
 16 PrisonHomosexualitv
is a further hardsldp. Thus, furmatesin minimum$ecurity prisons may feel as
depdved as inrnates in maximum-security prisons.
Cline and Wheeler (1968, p. 181) also commented on the difficulty of
measudng institutional levels of deprivation in tleir study of fifteen Scandi-
nayian pdsons. They say it is more dif{icu1t to construct measures for the
depdvation model tlan for the direct-importation model becausemany different
kinds of deprivation exist. The possible deprivations irclude things such as the
paucity of penonal amenities like tobacco, coffee, and toilet a icles; the loss
of freedom to make decisions and go where one wishes; the perceptions of
rejection by guardsand other inmates;and the absenceofheterosexual contacts.
Cline and Wheeler devised an index of social deprivation based on objective
criteria that included the length of time permitted with visitors, the frequency
of furloughs, the number of lette$ that inmates were permitted to send or
receive, the opportunity for interaction among inmates, the proportion of
furmatesassignedto single cells or rooms, and the proportion of inmates who
ate mealsalone in their cells or rooms.
Cline and Wleelert data showed that inmate attitudes toward staff were
most positive in institutions with high levels of social depdvation. These data
are irconsistent with depriyation-theory predictions that inmates are more
negative about staff where high levels of institutionai deprivations edst. These
Fsearchers suggest the results can be explained by the concept of relative
deprivation. Perhapsihe increasedcontact with the outside world leads to its
increased use as a reference point and makes the prison world seem more
depriving when compared to it. Unfortunately, Cline aad Wheeler did not
actually measure inmates' perceptions of deprivation, thus their explanation
still has the status of an interesting hypothesis.
Cohen and Tzylor (1974, p. 71:72) ald Schroeder (1976) also suggest
that some inmates find prison less stressful when they cut off contact with the
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:
It's unquestionably a mixed blessing, this businessof visits. Visits
probably cost an furmatethree times as much as they're wodh;a single
one-hour visit is often enoughto throw a man irto a frenzy for a week;
a regular weekly visit can keep aII inmate unsettled through his entire
term. . . .
The trouble with visits is that they won't let you forget. The more alive
you keep your memodes of the Straet, the worse things look and feel
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.
In order to shakeeasy time Inside you have to rid yourself of all Out-
side voices,Outsid€ problems (which you can't resolvein any case)and
Outside comparisonswith Inside lifa. Ipp. 135-136]
The Theoreticaland EmpiricalSetting 17
The stressful effects of encounters with the free world also affect inrnates
who do not have visitors. These i nates become upset when they compare the
bappy faces of those going for visits with th€ fact that they are requted to
;ontinue wiilr work "because nobody out there gives enough of a sldt about you
:o come seeyou once in a wbile" (Schroeder1976,p.137).
Explanations based on relative deprivation must be yiewed as interesling
hypotheses tlat still require proof because none of the proponents of relative
deprivation actually measured inmates' p€rceptions of deprivation levels. In
addition, Cline and Wheeler's(1968) indicato$ of deprivation are problematic
because the existence of rules alrd policies regulating communication with the
outside world may not have adequatelyreflected the amount of inmates,actual
expedence and contact with family and friends. Our heldwork showed that
mary youths had little wdtten or personal communication with outsiders even
rlLough they were confrned in places with liberal policies regarding home visits
ald correspondence.
Deprivation tleorists need to acknowledge that the inmates' subjective
ieelhgs of deprivation may have a larger impact on inmate behavior aad norms
fian the institutional conditions that researchersassumeare depriving and also
rhat the inmates' subjective feelings and the researchers' operationalizations
of deprivation may not coincide. The Thomases'famous and succinct dictum
applies, "If men define situations as rcal, they are real in their consequences',
(Thomasand Thomas 1928, p. 572). Thus, if individualsfeel deprived,whether
or not they are in reality deprived, they will act in a way commensurate with
rheir perception. The works of Mead (1934) and Bergerand Luckman (1966)
similarly remind us that members of organizations do not simply respond to
outside forces in the rnanner of robots. They are also influenced by previous
socialization, by interaction with others in the organization, and by tleir needs
ro justify their behavior .
hnportation Theory
The failure to find consistent relationships between iffnate values and behavior
3nd the custody or treatment orientation of the institution could indicate that
inmates' perceptions of deprivations are not radically altered by the differences
in architectue or ihe kinds of treatment offered. Cline and Wheeler report .,a
)asic similadty in the degree to which a prison is likely to be perceived as a
Jepriving experience from the perspective of the inmates" (cited in Wheeler
1969, p. 1015). The inmates in their sample of fifteen institutions felt the
nost significant aspectsof being in pdson were that (1) they had little contact
q,ith the outside world, (2) employment would now be more difficult, (3) they
.'ould no longer be acceptedby the armed forces, ald (4) it would causeutem
3mbarrassment in the cofiununity, Specific events and vadations in conditions
 18 PrisonHomosexuality The Theoreticaland EmpiricalSefting 19

many terms in correctional institutions. These men, some of ]vhom

haye institutional records dating back to early childhood, bdng with
them a ready-madeset of pattems which they apply to the new situa-
tion, just as is the case with participants in the criminal subsculture.
llrwin and Cressey1962,p. 1451

subculture.
Irwin and Cressey's (1962) now classiccritiqueof the inadequacyof the
depdvationistposition asa sole explanationfor inmate
clearstatementof the importationperspective:
not peculiarto prisonat all. [p. 142]
recognized
kwin and Cressey
that otherresearchers-including
previousinstitutionsaadalsofrom outsidepdsons:
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
impact in socializing settings in which the situational influences are not so
strong as to prevent the enty of previousroles.Wheeler(1966) agreeswith this
behavior a very
proYides
hypothesis and suggeststhat a higher correlation betv,/eenpast and present
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
morc inrnate interaction than the hig|:Iy restuictive custody.oriented pdson.
Criminologists have shown concern witlr the evidence of high levels of
Clemmer(1940)'
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-
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
had similar expedencesin their dealingswith bureaucratrc,economrc,
social, and political institutions. It is perhapsthesedegading and-nega-
tive experiencesthat initialy foster ideologieswhich are manifested
ur oppotltion to ttt" organizationalgoalsof the prison' lpp ' 112-1131
gangs.
Thomas and Czge's(1977) study of drug use in a medium-securityprison
for young adult-male felons found that 30 percent of those who reported
preprison use continued to use drugsafter confinement and that over 90 percent
of thore who reported tlle use of nonprescription drugs in prison had also used
'criminalistic subculture"' (p. 203).
tance of situationalcontingencies.:
The influence of prc-institutional effects on behaYiormay be taken as
one measureof the pdson's failure to level individual differencesby
to. Berger
erasingthe influence of the inmate's past which, accoadfuIg
arrd iuckman, is the principal goal of total institutionalization-
lschwartz 1973,P.5421
The Theoreticaland EmpiricalSetting
The Present Study
This study was designedto contdbute to the empfuicalresolution of the issue
of the relative impodatce of importation and deprivation on homosexuality
ajnong impdsoned girls. We overcame some of the limitations of previous
investigationsby measuringmany diff€rent prepdson characteristicsand num-
erous kinds of actual aad perceived deprivations and by including four female
and three coeducational institutions in our study. This is the first study to
-npirically determine the effects of being incarcerated with the opposite sex
m prison homosexuality.
Chapler 2 reviewsthe sampleselection,researchinstruments, and methods
rr data collection used. The chapter is divided so readerscan review only the
:osolutely essential information for understanding the study, or they can go on
:o read all the details if they have more interest in the methodology employed.
Chapter 3 discussessome of the problems in defining and rneasudnghomo-
:e\ual actiyity and summarizes data on the incidence of four homosexual
,-ehaviorsbased on self-reports and on the estimates of female inmates and
r-aifs. Homosexuality was defined as (1) going with or being married to another
jrl. (2) passionatelykissing, (3) writing love lette$, and (4) having sex beyond
:,:igging aad kissing. The chapter concludes with an analysis of the effects of
::ison homosexuality. Perceptionsof participants and nonparticipantsin prison
:,.lmosexualityare compared about (1) whether homosexuality is too prevalent
: fte institution, (2) whether they think homosexuality is ever acceptable,
-: r whethel their same-sex friendships are likely to be labeled as sexual, and
: I whether they think it likely that they will have a future homosexual experi-
:::.'e. As is the casetlroughout, the findings are comparedwith those of other
-Jdies to seeif generalizationscan be formed.
Chapter 4 discussestheories and empirical studies of dtect and indirect
:=cts of various importation variables including the age, racer social class,
-:rious delinquency,previoushomosexuality,and previouscorrectionalexperi-
:--:es of the inmates. The measurement of each variable and its institutional
:--iirences are described.Then the results of multiple regressionand tabular
:--,:J.vsesare used to detemine the relationship of these variables to pnson
:::nosexuality. To the surprise of maly, we found that the best predictor of
-:son homosexuality was previous homosexual experience.It explained both
-:erher or not individuals would have a homosexual experience and the small
:i:ersed differences in prison homosexuality among the seven institutioos.
r :eanalysisof data from Mitchell's (1969) comparativestudy of homosexuality
- r teatment{dented and a custody-odented prison for adult women con-
:j-ed the importance .of previous homosexuality in accounting for individual
r: iutitutional differeices in the incidence of prison homosexuality.
Chapter 5 examines the measurementand institutional variations of num-
:::'.rs rzriables representing the deprivation pe$pecdve. Previous studies had
 The Theoreticaland EmpiricalSetting 23
PrisonHomosexuality
22
people at the hospital did, and they bound them to their beds for a
levels
shown the problems of measuring -
period of severty-seven ard one half hours, and they tied their hands
goals' and feet to the bedposts,and spread€agledthem to the beds in such
official designations'institutional
T a position that the boys could only moye their hands about three or
existence oi rehabilitation programs- four inches in each direction. They were allowed up only to showgr.
percel
inmates' actual experiences and In seyenty{evenand one half hours.
instead. Measuresof actual deprivatlons
Hospital Official: Wete not using punishment over herc. We are using
the institutions' distance from family a multiplicity of treatment in order to change the behavior of the
pe$on.
Interyiewer: Nonetheless,tying a child to a bed for seventyseven
hours soundsto me like punishment.
Hospital Official: Okay, Well, that's a matter of opinion. We are trying
to proyide herc iII this i$titution to some of the kids some kind of
did I therapeutical, um ah, behavior modification, and some kind of dis-
homosexual experiences and others ciplinary approachto the patient.
Chapter 6 examines the relationsh
Interviewer: In other words, tying a child to a bed for seventy-seven
number of variables that could not c hours doesnot createany physicalpain?
Hospital Official: This kind of kid, no. [Excerpts from "This Child Is
Rated X." an NBC News White Paper on juvenile justice, broadcast
2 May 1971,usedwith permission. Citedin Goldfarb 1975,p.2871

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

ln all phasesof the data collection, we attempted to be courteous and respect-

ful and, where appropriate, to follow the language conyentions of the respon-
dents. Therefore, some of the terminology usedin this book was not usedin the
book on three girls' training schools. freldwork. For example, I frequently call the placeswe studied pntons because
Thomas
4. For ex-cellentrevievs of the early studies, see Wheeler 1969' dreir inmates were involuntarily confined for months at a time. I also call the
and Petenen L977, atfi Bowker 1917. yjrls inmates because this word reminds the reader ihat their confinement was
the
5. For an excellent rcview of social psychologists' attemPts to clarify inyoluntary and that their lives often resembledthose of other oeoole rncarce-
situational traits, see Buss 1977'
issueof interaction betweenpersonality and rated in prisons and mental hospitals.They could be sent to isolation or securrry
character-
6. An example of the interaction effects between impodation rooms to be controlled or punished; regulationsprohibited them from giving
(1917, p' 562) finding that age was more
istics is demonstrated in Jensen's or loaning clothing to others; their penonal property was restdcted; and their
institutional expectations among
strongly related to acceptalce of staff or living quarten were regularly inspectedfor contraband.They were pemitted to
(gamma = '61) than among inmates
*o-Jn itt nt", *ho lived in al utban atea leave the institution only with special permission and at infrequent intervals.
= age had
who had lived most of their lives in small towns (gamma 44) A1so' Security precautionsfor preventingrunawayswere visible.For example.rnmates
among irunates who lived in an
a negative relationship to rule breaking only at Delta Coed felt restricted by an eleven-footluebreak around the iampus that
(gamma = -40) but no relationshiP at all among inmates with rural
*iui showed their footprints and by the presence of bloodhounds that coukl follow
"t.u = more of an impact among
backgrounds(gamma .00). In this case,age had rheir scent. Magnolia had a glass-walledsecurity building that permitted guards
uban than amongrural women. with walkie-talkies to survey most of the grounds, and the private institutions
rhreatenedto sendrule breakersto a more-custodialstate training school.
Maay of our respondents,nevertheless,would not have liked to be called
 The Research
PrisonHomosexuality
used to designate the status of the inmates relative to their release. Ranking
systems of this type were common and gave the girls an inc€ntive for conform-
ing with institutional rules because the higher ranks were accompanied by
fewer restrictions and a shorter term before release.No fu)rnateswere allowed
to skip the sequence of ranks in promotions, but demotions could usually skip
levels so that an inmate who attempted to run away once might be demoted
from the top to the bottom mnk. The severity with which most institutions
viewed going AWOL (absent without leave) was emphasizedby how they
defined it. "Running away" frequently meant that the girls took a step outside
dre boundary of the institution.
We studied a small prilate institution (St. Mary\) where girls were allowed
visits only from two to four o'clock on Sunday aftemoon. Girls on the lust
level were only allowed one visit a month. The second level was reservedfor
girls who had been there at least two months and who had "a positive attitude
roward placement but who don't meet group tluee qualities." The third level
was considered "the testing ground of the girls where it is discovered whether
:he'll make progress or not." The fourth level ind.icated the girl could "live up
to the behavior pattem demanded by the group," and the fifth level was for girls
q'ho attained a thorough and satisfactory adjustment in all areasof the program.
At the time of our visit, only ibree girls were above goup three. Each level had
increasing privileges with regard to correspondence by mail and telephone and
oiT.carnpus activities. Little attempt was made to reinforce family ties tfuough
rome yisits, ald some of the girls who came from out of state rarely saw their
:arnilies.
Solitary confinement was used it most institutions, and records showed
Jlat it could be used for almost any reason. A 133€id state ghl's training
s;hool (Magnolia) we visited had 7 security offrcers who worked only in the
;ontrol unit, another 3 lieutenants who concentrated on runaways and emer-
Ency secudty, as well as a security captain who supervisedall thesepersonnel.
fte control unit contained seven isolation rooms in a separate building. The
:rinimum stay was five days for a runaway, but girls could be requfued to stay
is long as six weeks if they exhibited poor behavior in the unit. One of the
:ooms had no window and was used primarily for violent youths. Each of the
r-}Ier six rooms had a security screen over the window, a bed bolted to the
-" dl with a thin mattress and a metal
, miror over a combination commode
=-d sink unit. Water to the units could be shut off by a mastercontrol outside.
;ien more tlnn sevengirls were in the unit, extra mattressesrvere brought in.
.re light in the unit was left on twenty-four houls a day, and the girls were
:-'quired to wear pajamaswhile there. They were not allowed to sleep during
-:: day, nor were they allowed pencils
or witing paper. They were, however,
aowed to read some magazinesand books. Dessertsor sweetswere prohibited,
-.Juding sugaron their cereal,and weekendmealswere limited to sandwiches.
Staff often referred to sottary confinement as a treatment facility to
 PrisonHomsexuality The Research 29

\\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

asking for some detail about homosexuality and make-believefamilies, was

appendedto a largerquestionnateadministered as part of the NAJCproject'
The adcl-onportion for girls is shown in appendix A, and the add-onportion ?d
for staff is in appendix B. The questionnaireswere g.ivento the entke staff
"EO
andinmatepopulations.In total, 396 girls(93 percent)and262 staffmembers
(approximately75 percent)completedboth the largerand add-onquestion-
naires, I
The high responsetates resultedpartially from a policy of the field-worker
teams spendingtwo to three dayswith the girls anil staff before the question-
nairesweretlistributed.Weintroducedourselves andthe project,explainedour
researchrole, observedlife in the institution, and scheduledinterviewsand the
filling out of questionnaires. To ircreaseraPportandcooperation,a largePro- I
portion of this time was spent in friendly convenation and explaining our
dependenceupon staffs and girls' participationto achieveour goals.We
explaineilthat questionnaireswere a useful tool for gettingeveryone'sopinions
about many things, tlat thei.rpadicipation wastotally voluntary, and that their e s?
A
responses would remainconfidefltial. -q o6 = ;lq
\/ F+
The size of tlrc lield team and the length of our visits were determined : ;. .=. 9 .F
.E
primarily by the sizeof the youth and staff poPulation.Four to ten freld staff rii ;6
! 9E
spent from five to eight daysat eachtraining schooland spent at least nine to
ten hours on the groundseachday. I stayedin four institutions a few daysafter
most of the NAJC team had departedto interviewmore staff membersand
€
furmatesabout make-believefamilies and homosexualityand to clarify incon- s: z6E
sistentanswersor missingdata on the questionnaires with respondentswho had
voluntarilyidentifiedthemselves for thispurpose.2
E"
The institutions were selectedon the basis of a multistage probability -3 €g oi o
samplingof statesand corectional Programs.A1l sevenwere total institutions, E f :
zoE
in whichmostinmatesate,slept,andattendedschool.Eachinstitutionconsisted
of anywherefrom two to sevensmall residentialunits for femaleinmatescalletl
crttages.In total, therewerethirty suchunits with an average cottagepopula'
tion of fourteen residents(the rarge was two to twenty-two inmates).Staff oq
€s
oo o

working in these units were called houseparentsand had multiple functions

including supervisinggirls in work and play and sometimesdtecting group
therapy aswell. The averageageof femaleinmateswas sixteenyears(the mnge at)
was from thideen to nineteen).They had been in the institutions an aYerage
of six months at the time of our questionnate administration (the average 9l
ranged from four to nine months amonginstitutions). Adminisfative reports
showedthe overall averagelength of stay to be about nine months (the range
variedfrom five to fifteenmonthsamonginstitutions). tc
?
Tzble 2-1 showssomeof the Yadationsamongthe seveninstitutions in this t
i9
samplewith regardto geographicallocation, auspices,sizeand sexcomposition
of the youths, and girls' responseIates on the questionnaire.Two of the four
girls' training schoolswere administercdby the Catholic Sistersof the Good J!E
s
 The Research 33
PrisonHomosexualitY

and group homes, through a multistage probability sampleof a censusof cor-

state' Their-sizeand location
Shepherd,and two were administeredby the Fctional progams. For the fifft stage, sixteen states were selected on the
fft"V included Magnolia,a large statetraining school in the Southeast
school in the North{entral basis of regional distuibution, admission-rate changes of five- to seventeen-
""tiiO.
Jth ta: in*ut"r; St. Anne's,a mediumCatholic
school in the Northeasx lear-olds in public institutions between 1966 a'J.d1971, specific characteristics
te.Jot *t ft AOinmates;St. Mary's,a smallCatholic of juvenile-justicesystems,and the size of the state'sfive- to seventeen-year-old
school in the Northeast with 37
;";';i;il;J Husoate, smallstate population.a
"
inmates.3 In the second sampling stage,institutions and community-basedprogams
stateadministered'
The three coedinstitutions were similar in that all were Eere drawn independently from the selectedstates.s Altogether, at least ten
for girls.and boys' and al1had
all mJ ,"patut" eating and sleepingfacilities female or coed institutions and ten male institutions were selected.Tirrs was a
m o r e m a l e t h a n f e m a ] e i n m a t e s . T - h e y v a l i e d , s u b s t a n t i a l l y . i n tfor
h€amountof deliberate ovefiepresentationof female and coed institutions becausethey had
female inmates'Bavsidecoed'
;;;;;; f"t-ir,"a amongmale and because seldom been studied before and becauseevidence eisted of a trend toward
as..coed
r-*rpf., *iift +g gkh and 1,0 boys.wasofficially.designated more coed facilities' being estabtshed. To be classihed as an institution, a
administration' but it was more
the boys' and girli' programswere under one girls programhad to meet the following criteria:
since boys and
like the other femul" irrrtitotion' in its actual operation
each sex had its own school and
il;;; ,"p";; groundsonemile apartand
supewised dance' and their Proyideresidentialcarefor at least twenty-one persons;
recreationalfacilities. They met only at a weekly
the boyswereyounger
,olnan,i" i"rat"* in one anotherwasminimized because Pemit less than four hours daily outside the institution for at least 80
girls(thirteento seventeen years)
iunderIifteenyears)thanthe -. .- percent of the cLent population from Monday through Friday;
Boys anct girls attended classes togetherin ft: 9fttl l*? coedifftitutions'
hadmoreheterosocial Have 50 percent or more of the clientele admitted as adjudicated defin-
U"t O"it" i".i itt the South(with 65 girlsand95 boys)
visits betweenboys' and quents, informally committed as consent docket cases,or classified as
,."r*tionut activities(zuchasswimming,dances,an'l
plavingpool or watchin-g-television) than Yankee detention residents;
;th'-;;t-t"g", i"t "ctivr:tieslike
Loeain thJ North (with 29 girlsandapproximately 110boys)' -^ Have three or more full-time staff.
Fifty-one percent of our sample were nonwhite about 20,percenthad
-and
(ike schooltruarcy
unemployedparents.Mostadmitdd to morestatusoffenses Theseprogramsare clearly total institutions in that they provide sleeping,eating,
by adults)than
*J l'n.orrigtuiUtvthat would not be cdmesif committed and educationaland vocationalseruiceson groundsfor most of their clientele.
to a questionaskingwhy they hadteen sentto the
criminaloffenses.Responses Some changeswere made in the original sampleselectionbecausewe later
they had been sentthere
institutionrevealedthit 54 perceniof the girlsthought learnedthat two western programsdid not meet tlle criteria for classificationas
than the 27 percent ofboys
fo, u-rtutu"off""t". This isi far largerpercentage ar institution. The administratorsofan eastemcoed and a north+entral female
had been committed to an
in the larger NAJC study who reported that they facility refusedpermissionto do tJre study, sayingthey thought our procedures
p seventeen percent of the
;tfi;;;"; u ,tutrs off.n," (Vinter 19?6, 31)' might be disruptive and may exacerbate low staff morale. Only one New
percent for.a property cffrle'
girls said they were there for a drug offense,13 England coed institution was chosen to replace these four institutions. It was
demeanor'
i2 oercentfor a crimeagainsta person,3 percentfor a miscellan€ous- selectedfrom a state that had not been representedby the original sample
p"i"."t for a pr-obation/aftercare violation' More-detailed descdptions
-ii s€lection.
of the inmates' irnpolted charactelistics like race,age,socialclass,prior offenses'
variety of the-actual and The resulting sample of four female aJld thxee coed institutions is probably
and correctionalhistory are providedin chapter4 A reasonably representatiye of institutions for delinquent gfuls in the United
living are describedin chapter5'
firceivecl deprivations;f institutional States.It would have been interesting,however, to have studiedhomosexuality
at the custody-odented northcentral girls' training school because a great
preoccupation with homosexuality was apparent during al initial field trip
ResearchDesignand Procedures when I and another NAJC staffer visited the institution to see if it met our
sampling cdteda and to attempt to obtain the cooperation of the administra-
Selectionof Institutions tion in our researchproject. Girls at the school were frequently punishedby
is basedwereselected being locked in their rooms and losing their privilege of wdting letters. A staff
Six of the seveninstitutionsupon which tlis research member told me that a psychologist had recently attempted to discouragea
day-treatmentfacilities
irorn u iurg", set of correctionalprograms,including
 PrisonHomosexuality The Research 35
34

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
used in tlle data-collection process and again verbally when the questionnaires
were distuibuted to staffs ard youths (see appendix D). We explained that any
reports of the study would be about vrhat groups of people said, rather than
about what any particular person told us. Someinformation about what groups
of people said would be given to tlre administratorsof the institution as feed-
back, but most would be usedin determiningnational policy on juvenile correc-
tions.
Development and Administration of the Youth Questionnafue. A rather lengthy
forty-one-pagequestionnaireentitled "What Do You Think?" was constructed
to be administered to all the participating youths. Many questionsfrom prior
studies v/erc included and many were original. The final wording and format
were the result of severalrevisionsthat incorporated advicefrom a readilg con-
sultant ald the experienceof extensivepretesting.T
This questionnafueconsistedof sevendistinct sections,eachabout different
aspectsof institutional life.E Thesesectionsincluded questionsabout:
Opinions on how to get along arrd self-reportedparticipation in delinquent
behavior at the institution:
Friendsinside and outside the institution;
Perceptionsof staff's expectationsand goals;
Availability of doctors, dentists, lawye$, probation officers, and after-
care or court workers; nature of censorship,discipline procedures, per'
ceivedpains of impdsonment, and community and heterosexualcontact;
Erzluations of treatment programs and staff/youth interaction, peer rela-
tionships.and homosexualexperience:
Personalattributes and past-offensehistory;
Family backgroundand relationshipsand future goals.
Eight pages of questions on make-believefamilies, male roles, ard homo-
sexuality were staped in for female respondentsonly at the end of NAJC'S
major questionnairein coed and fernale institutions only.e There were sevetal
reasons for placing this add-on questiomaire after the major inshument. One
rcason was that this was the best way to insure that all respondents completed
tlle major questionnaire under similar conditions. Also, we did not want to take
the chance that we might offend them with questions on homosexuality and
possibly lose their cooperation before they completed the major questionnatue,
which was NAJC's priority.
The only part of the major questionnairethat followed the add-on portion
was the request for the youth's name and future address.The NAJC staff
The Research 37
administeringthe questionnaireasked youths to write tleir namesand addresses
on the last pageif they wanted to receivea surrmary of the study's findings and
were willing to be contacted in the future. We expectedrespondents'voluntary
identification to have little effect on the accuracy of their rephessince under-
starding and believing in the confidentiality of their answers is probably far
more important than anonymity. Kulick, Stein, and Sarbin's (1968) study of
high school (N = 245) and delinquent (N = 137) boys found little difference
in disclosure of delinquent behavior on questionnairesunder conditions of
anonymity and nonanonymity. The boys were only slightly more guarded in
admitting misbehaviomin conditions under which they might be identified,
but the change in candor was more pronounced for slight infractions than for
more-seriousviolations.lo
Al effort was made to administerthe questionnairesat times when inmates
would not be deprived of their leisure activities and when the ongoing routine
of the program would not be disrupted. Usually, this meant using school time.
Potential respondentsassembledin groups of about eight (the rangewas one to
twenty) in cottages,dining rooms, auditodums, or classrooms.They were asked
to sit at a desk or table, far enough away from otlers so that answerswould
rcmain priyate. No institutional staff entered tlese rooms or was presentdudng
the questiomatue administration. Wh:ile the goup was assembling, the field
staff chatted with youths ald answeredtheir questions. Some girls expressed
anxiety and resistancetoward taking such a long "test,"rr and others indicated
they had heard from girls who had already completed the questionnarethat it
was about "fumies" or "fumy bunnies" or some other such local term for
lesbianism.We assuredthem that they were not being tested. Rather, we told
tlem we wele asking about their valued opinions, which had no right or wrong
answers,that their participation was entirely voluntary, and that the questions
about homosexuality and make-believefamflies constituted only a small part
of the questionnaire.We asked them to cross out questionsthey did not x,ish
to answer so that we would know these were not omitted unintentionally.lz
They could answer none, pa , or all of the questionnaireas they wished and
were free to leavethe room at any time without reprisals.
Confidentiality was explained in severalways. We told youths that we
wanted them to complete the questionnairesby themselveswithout looking
at or asking others about their answers.No one olher than the researchers
would ever see any individual's answe$, and this would be insured by locking
the completed questionnaire booklets in the trunk of our car immediately
following their completion.
We explained that we were asking questions on make-believe families and
romantic and sexualrelations betweengirls becausesomepeople saidthesewere
an impodant part of life in cofiectional programs but that we knew very little
about them. The NAJC field-workers tried to convey by their frank replies
and nonjudgrnental,casualmanner that it v/as appropriate to talk about sex.
 38 PrisonHomosexuality
We anticipated occasionaltension and giggling about these questionsand told
the girls it was a natural responseto being asked such unusual questions in goup
settings.
Many inmates said they were aware of a widely held belief that homosexual-
ity was pervasivein institutions, but occasionallysome said it was insulting to
accuse them of such behavior on the questionnaire. When this happened, NAJC
staff explained that asking differed from accusing and that our intercst was m
hnding out whether or not make-belieYefamilies and romantic or sexual rela-
tions betrveengids were a part of life there. Spacewas provided for respondents
to say if these things did not happen or if the inmate personally }vas not
involved. Most gfuls attemPted to complete the questions on quasi kinship and
make-believe families even though they followed forty pages of other questions
and boih they and the administrators were showing some fatigue
We attempted to maintain the respondents'enerry and create a pleasant,
relaxed atmosphere by offering girls soft drinks and a choice of snacks and
arranging for them to be permitted to smoke while they filled out the ques-
tionnaire.r3 Those inmates who attempted to answer fie questiomaire were
given very attractive certificates of appreciation with their names clearly printed
on them. This official-looking document was embossedwith the gold seal of
the Unive$ity of Michigan and had a gold framelike border. It said that this
"Certificate of Appreciation" was "awarded to" (name of respondent was
printed in felt pen) "for contributing to social'science research sponsored by
t}le U.S. government and conducted under the auspicesof tlle Univefiity of
Michigan." The girls were usually proud of these certificates and often hung
them on their bedroom ald living room walls to be admired.
The questionnaire was desiSnedto be self-administercd,but in order to
assist those with reading difhculties, the usual procedure was for one field-
worker to read it aloud while one (or sometimestwo others) circulated around
the room answering any inquiries and checking to see that resPondents were
following the corect procedurein anwering questions.Becausewe wanted to
keep the questionnaire fiom becoming very wordy, we provided lengthy in'
structions verbally. The administrator read these from a manual along with the
written questions. Some of the definitions and instructions were given only
when respondents asked for clarilication or interpretation or displayed be-
wildered expressions.Others were standard. Some girls prefered to 8o faster
thal the reader and were allowed to do so, being encouragedto raisetheir hand
for assistancewhen they encountered difficulty. Most took from seventy-five
to ninety minutes to answer the questiomafue. The range of requfued time was
from less than tlrirty minutes to two-and-one-half hours.
When respondents hnished the questionnaire, the NAJC field-workers
asked their permission to edit their responses for legibility, clarification of
apparent inconsistencies,veriflcation that difficult questionswere understood,
and to insure ttat no questions v/ere unintentionally skipped. This was a
The Research 39
raluable procedure for enhancing the quality of tlre data, but there was some-
tlnes not enough time to complete the procedure and respondents were
sometimes impatient with the time it requted since they had already spent
considerabletime completing the questiornaire. Whenever possible, I tried
ro improve the quality of the responses on quasi kinship and homosexuality
by further editing and by interviewing girls who had written their names on
the questiomaire .
When I first suggestedusing tliis editing procedure at Delta Coed, both
male and female NAJC field-workers asked respondents to clarify illegible,
incomplete, or unansweled questions. This procedure was modified when a
Magnoliainmate speculatedthat some girls may not have reported their homo-
sexual experiencebecausethey had crusheson the attractive NAJC men and
thought it could reduce their chances for a potential romance with them.ru
After this, only female lleldworkers looked at the girls'responsesdudng editing.
In the four female institutions, 95-100 percent of the inmate population
answeredthe questionnaire.The responserate for Yankee Coetlwas 93 percent,
and for Delta Coed it was 86 percent. The only low responsemte, 70 percent,
was at Bayside Coed. Here, six of the forty-three respondentsdid not answer
any part of the questioffnte, and seven mole answeled most of the question-
naire but did not complete the section about homosexuality and make'belieYe
families.
Some girls did not answer the questionnaire becausethey preferred other
activities or were on home visits. In a few caseswe did not provide enough
assistance to those with reading difficulties, and girls dropped out before
answering all the questions.rs Some girls might have stayed away becausethey
had heard the questionnaire asked about homosexuality. My guessis that the
exclusion of some nonrespondentsmay have resulted in decreasedrates of self-
reported homosexuality but that it had little effect on the rates of make-
believe-familyparticipation.
Development and Administration of Staff Questionnafues. A twenty-six-Page
booklet entitled "A Study of Staff Perspectivesin Juvenile Corrections" was
designedto inquire about much ofthe sameinformation asdid the youth question-
naire. In addition, staff memberswere askedabout their views on delinquents,
actual and ideai organizational goals, experiences in working with youths and
other staff, staff roles, and personal attributes. Four pages of questions on
make-believe famfies and homosexuality were stapled in at the end for staffs
in coed and female institutions. The staffs' responseswere analyzed prirnarily
to compare some of their percePtionswith those of the girls' and to provide
some additional descriptive information. They were not used to test major
hypotheses.
The staff questionnaire was a selfadministered instrument that staff was
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
42
more information about the meanings of prison homosexuality or reputed
participarts. Respondentswith homosexual expedence had far more of this
sort of infomation .
It seemed wiser to use my limited time at the institutions to improve
questiomaire data by providing individual administrations to respondents
and by asking those who had voluntarily identihed themselves io clarify in-
complete or inconsistentresponses.I also spoke to girts reputed to be involved
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
notes during interviews and conversations.They understood that notes pro-
vided a more-accurateand detailed record of what they said, and they could
seeconqete evidenceof protecting confidentiality since all records of previous
conyersationswere carefully hidden by starting a new pagefor eachrespondent.
Most of the girls seemed to appreeiate my conscientious effort to accuately
record their statementsin detail. Becausethey could see some of what I was
writing, occasionally an inmate noticed I had not recorded something that she
consideredimportant and suggestedI should wdte it down.
Interviews with executiye and treatment staff were conducted privately,
and the NAJC field staff usually took notes during these interviews. Information
obtained from custodial staff was usually wdtten up later becausesome mem-
bers were reluctant to talk \ rith us and to have their statementsrecorded. In
pad, their reluctance nras due to the conversations' being held while they were
on duty and the possibility that youths or other staff might interupt.
Obseryation, Participation, and Nanative Reports. At each institution, an
NAJC field-worker filled out a standardized form that recorded visible features
of the condition and designof cottages;individual rooms ald furnishings;dining,
living, aad seclusionrooms; recreation ald medical facilities; extent and quality
of interaction between staff and inmates;quality of meals;variationsin inmates'
clothing and hairstyles; and the nature of shared facilities and activities by male
and female inmates in coed institutions. Many of these dimensionswere also
covered in the service unit questionnafue that was answered by institutional
staff.
The NAJC fteld-workers made many observationsald learned a lot about
the program while eating with inmates; attending recreational eYents, goup-
therapy meetings,staff meetings,and academicand vocationalclasses;inspecting
discipline rooms; and examining inmate files and reports on disciPlinary actions
and staff meetings.In addition to weekdays,we tried to uork asmany weekends
as possibleto observedifferencesbetween weekday ald weekendprogams ald
to take advantageof the $eater oppodunity for priYate,informal convenations
during the less-structuredweekendperiod.
Each field-worker was responsiblefor observingsomeaspectof the program
The Research 43
and for writing and sharing his or her observations with the team coordinator,
who then integrated the information into a naratiye report that elaborated
on official responses giyen in interviews ald on the seffice unit questionnafue,
addressedinconsistenciesbetween obseNations and reports, discussedsalient
features of the institution, and summarized any unusual features of the held-
work. This material provides some background information for the interpre-
Etions in this book.
Data Analysis
After the completion of each site visii, the NAJC field-workers met and com-
pared information at our project headquartersin Ann Arbor and provided
the coding staff with a translation of the local argot into standard language.
Each questionnaire was coded by two different trained persons.Open+nded
responses,comments, and answersnot fitting into a standard code category
were written on cards and analyzed separately.A tlftd pe$on compared the
responsesof the first two coders and noted any discrepancies.At this stage,
intercoder reliabfity between the two code$ was above .95 for open-ended
questions and above .99 for closed+nded questions. All discrepaacies were
then resolved by going back to the original data source, thus guamnteeing
almost perfect coding reliability. The coded questionnai.reswere then key-
punchedand verifred,and the odginal questionnairewas destroyed.
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
proportions. Our test of the two major explanatory models required summar-
izing a number of questionnate-item responsesinto composite indexes. In
chapters 4 and 5, the impodation and deprivation theories are examined
separately using similar methods of statistical analysis. Questionnaire items
believed to representvariables subsumedby each theory were identified, and
multiple indicators of a variable were combined into scalesor indexes. The
items were identified on the basis of face validity and then entered into a factor
analysis to reaffirm their common dimension. The method of principal axis
factoring with iterative communality estimation and vadmax rotation was
used to determine which grouping of variablesgo together or form a factor
such that variables within it "sholv relatively small variance among themselves,
while showinglargevariation from other groupings"(Eber 1975, p. 555).
Pearson'scorrelation coefficients were then computed for the responses
on questionnaire items best representing each factor, and Cronbach's alpha
(a) coefficient of reliability was computed for each of the composite indexes
from the item variancesand covariances,Cronbach's alpha is a measure of
internal consistency,varying from zero to one in value, that indicateswhether
it would be appropdate to measure an underlying factor by sumnin8 several
 PrisonHomosexuality
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
factor amongthe items. Its computational formula is
"r\l *l
where 2o?, equalsthe sum of the variancesof item scotes,tt is the number of
tlre items, and of is the sum of the variancesofthe total scale(Cronbach 1951,
p. 299; Bohmstedt1969,p.89).
Indexes with conceptual meaning were tlen constructed by additively
combiaing items of similar scale lengths that formed factors. Mean item scores
were substituted for missing data on items in the index. Where the number of
categoriesvaried for the items used in constructing the scale,the distribution
was standardizedby a Z-scoretransformation using the formula:
'=E',
where X is the value of the variable being standardized,X is the mean of that
variable, and .SDis the standard deviation of that vadable.
The four items measuring the dependent variable of homosexuality were
also combined into an index. The index was based on the interrelationshiP
between four indicators of homosexual behavio$ using Guttman scalogram
analysis.Zero-order correlations and Cronbach'salpha coeffrcient of reliability
confumed the appropriatenessof summingscoreson the items in the index.
Linear multiple-regession tecbniques were used to determine the relative
contribution of each of the independent Yariablestoward explaining the variance
in levels of institutional homosexuality, as well as to detemine the proportion
of variation in the dependent variable accounted for by the total of the variables
representing each theoretical persPective.These results were checked with
oosstabulations of each of the twenty€ight independent variablesand scores
on the homosexuality index using tests of significanceand measuresof associa-
tion designed for ordinal data. This check supported the interpretations and
conclusionsderived from the regressionsummaries.
Before testing the theoretical models of depdvation and importation in
chapters4 and 5, the incidence of homosexual behavior in the seveninstitu-
tions and the construction of a homosexuality index is describedin chaPter
3.
The Research 45
Notes
l. Rosemary Sarri and Robed Vinter were project codirectors for the
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
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
personnel that would be required. Further, the existing literature gave us the
impression that homosexuality and quasi kinship were more important among
female inmates . This impression influenced the decision to limit the study to
incarcerated girls, although it is really more of a hyPothesis than an empirically
substantiatedfact.
2. I stayed at MagnoLiafor five extra days, at St. Anne's for sevenextra
days, at St. Mary's for one extra day, and at Delta Coed for three extra days.
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
activities.
3. The namesgivento all the institutions are pseudon),ms.
4. More-detailed and -comprehensivestatements of the researchgoals,
sampling procedures, and datatollection techniques of rhe NAJC are avail-
able in the Research Design Statement (1972), Gdchtingt (1973) report on
sampling,and Vinter's Time Out (1976)-
The sixteen states selected at the fust stage were California, Colorado,
Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts,Montana, Nebraska, New Hamp-
shire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,Tennessee,
and Wisconsin.
5. Institutions were only selected from fifteen of the original sixteen
states becausea census of progams was not availablefrom one state at the
time of sampling. The population or sampling frame for the selection of these
twenty institutions was 230 serviceunits that were identilted by state officials
and communicatedto us from April 1971 to May 1972.
6. The selection of NAJC field-workers for the study of female and coed
institutions was sometimesproblematic since it required working with one or
two people who would have prefefied not to administerthe questionson homo'
sexuality becausethey were resentful of the extra work it required, they did
not think such information was necessary,or they found it embafiassingto
ask the questions.
A11freld-researchstaff u/ere trained ard basedin Am Arbor. This was an
advantagesince local people might have caused greater concern about the
 PrisonHomosexuality
confidentiality of the information gathered at tlle institutions. Also. tlle con_
tinuity of field staffers enabledus to better compareimpressionsand judgments
acrossplograms.
7. Questionswere printed on both sides of the page to reduce the bulk
of the questionnairebooklet. The pages(Bb" X ll") and print size were large,
ald a lot of spacewas left between the questionsfor possibleresponses.This
format made the questions easier to read and allowed youths to finish a page
quickly, thus feeling satisfied with their accomplishment.
8. The format of numbering items for eachlettered sectionfrom one to a
maximum of twenty-six was intended to give youths a senseof accomplish-
ment.
9. These questions had been pretested on fifty girls in a state training
schoolin the Midlvest.
10. Hardt and Bodine (1965), in a conferencereport basedon the experr-
ences of researchersusing self-report techdques, suggestthat little difference
in responsesmay be found betweensignedand unsignedquestionnafues
Haberman et al. (1972) conducted a study in which about 1,000 students
were asked about drug useon questionnaireswith varying degreesof anonymity.
One version was totally anonymous,another version containeda coded number
basedon the respondent'sname and birth date, and the third ve$ion contained
tlle respondent'sname. The group with complete anonymity reported the least
drug use. The authors conclude, however, that there was no evidence that
identification of the tespondent either produced concealment or exaggeration
of drug use since they found nearly identical rates of self-reportedmadjuana
use reported in interviews two weeks after the initial questionnaireadministra_
tion.
In our study, confidentiality was improved by designingquestionsso that
each required a wdtten response.This format prevented other inmates in a
goup questionnate administuation from dnwing conclusionsafter observing
that a girl did not answer a particular questior. If we had asked only the re-
spondents who reported passionatelykissing to provide specific details about
the experience(as in questions 9b and 9c in appendix A), then others could
have inferred that inmates answering the questions had kissed another girl
and that inmateswho skipped them had not kissed.
11. We learned that some staff at St. Mary,s and Hillsdale told girls they
were going to take a test.
12. It might be thought that such an instruction would greatly reduce the
responserate on sensitivequestions,but this did not happen. Irss than I per,
cent chose the option of crossing out any particular questions about make-
believefamilies or homosexuality.
13. We usually used rooms where girls were normally permitted to smoke
to administer the questionnaires. Care was taken to observe institutional
The Research 47
:r-,ljcy with regard to smoking and hall and bathroom movement during the
- restionnaireadministration.
14. Most investigators feel that interyiewer effects could produce biased
::id unreliable results @enny, fuesman, and Star 1965;Hardt and Bodine 1965,
i 23; Hedblom 1973). Hyman (195a,p.137) is one of the few who has sug-
,resredthat an interviewer effect, although probably smaller,may also be present
:n questionnaireadministrationswhere no inteffiewer is present.
If any tendency existed to underreport homosexuality becauseof the male
:uestiomaire administrators,it was probably becausethey had a combination
Jf qualities that the girls found attractiye. Most were good-looking and likable
l oung Ph.D. students(approximately 20-24 years of age)who were empatretic
iisteners,with good sensesof humor and some musical talent. One brought his
guitar to St. Anne's and led sing-alongs.There may not havebeenany interviewer
effects,however, since respondents'perceptionsare not always accumteindica-
rors of reality. Unsolicited comments by about one-third of Ward ald Kasse-
raum's (1965, pp. 242-244) inte iewees indicated that they found male
hterviewers more tolemnt, undefftanding, and easier to talk to about homo-
sexuality dlan were female interyiewers. Yet, when Ward and Kassebaum
iompared the proportions of women admitting homosexuality to a female
nterviewer and to a male interviewer,they found no important differences.
15. At Delta Coed, the first institution visited, we lost some respondents
in the first questionnaire administration because we tried to administer
questionnairesto approximately frfteen youths. This group was too large
because several girls had serious reading difficulties, and the one circulator
assignedcould not adequately assist all those who needed help. Some girls
preferred to be at school with their boyfriends rather than answedngquestions
with us. More circulators were assignedto later cottage administrators to correct
rhe first problem, however one other group administation at Delta Coed rc-
mained a problem. The group consistedof girls and boys from severalcottages
who had missed the original questionnaire administration in their living unit.
This group was frequently interupted by other youths who came into the
large auditodum where they assembledto visit friends and try to get some
macks and cigarettes. These i[terruptions may have resulted in some dishonest
resPonses.
16. Numbers of staff and estirnatesof responserates iue approximate,
both becauseaccumte staff lists were unavailableand becausewe tded to esti-
mate the numbers of staff who worked primarily with girls. In the coed
programs,many of the staff worked with boys and girls so we multiplied the
tota.l numbem in the cottage, treatment, and education categodesin the institu-
tion by the proportion of girls in the inmate population.
 The Incidenceof
Homosexualityand
Its Effects

Defining Homosexuality

Iestions like "What is homosexuality?" and "Who is homosexual?" are extra-

-:linarily complex becausepeople have a wide variety of behavioraland mental
=items. Part of the complexity in any classification attempt results from
-ople's often deeming elements other than homosexual behavior as more
-':ucial to a homosexualidentity, Deviant acts are not necessadlyconyertedinto
. deviant identity either by the participant or by others. Some people who
:jlk of themselvesas heterosexual have homosexual relations (Butts 1946-
- 947; chsbury 1967; Humphreys 1975; Jersild 1956; Kinsey et al. t948, 1953:'
Reis l96l; Ross 1959). Other people think of themselvesas homosexual,yet
--iiey have heterosexual relations (Hedblom 1973; Maslow 1942; Mclntosh
i968; Saghirand Robins 1973). Still others have no sexualpreferenceat all or
s.infttheir preferenceback and forth between men and women severaltirnes in
: l.ifetime (Blumstein and Schwartz 1974, 1977). Under circumstancesof
;oercion in male prisons, defildtions get eyen more complicated becausethe
erploiters who initiate the activity might be considered heterosexual and
rnasculine, whjle their unwilling yictims are considered homosexuals (Johrson
1971p , . 89).
The diversity of attitudes and behaviorsis not consistentwith a language
rhat tends toward labeling sexualpreferencein terms of heterosexualor homo-
si:xua1polarities.r Reality shows a much more complex continuum with varied
combinations of homosexual and heterosexual emotions and expeiences.
People cannot be categorizedinto two discrete populations: heterosexualand
homosexual.Things are not just that black and white since some people move
tiom one type of relationdrip to the other:

For instance, there arc some who engagein both heterosexualand

homosexualactivities in the sameyear, or in the samemonth or week,
or even in the same day. There are not a few individuals who engage
in goup activities in which they may make simultaneouscontact with
partners of both sex€s.. . . The living world is a continuum in each
and every oIIe of its aspects.The sooner we leam this concerning
humafl sexualbehaviorthe soonerwe shallreach a sound understanding
of the realitiesof sex. I Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Matin 1948, p. 639]

The [terature on prison homosexuality has emphasizedthe way that most

49
 50 PrisonHomosexuality
inrnatesmaintain a heterosexualidentity while havinghomosexualexperiences,
but little researchis availableto determinehow manyhaveovert homosexualex-
periencesor what distinguishesinrnateswith homosexualexperiencesfiom those
without. Our goal,therefore,wasto find out moreaboutthesetwo questions.
Since meaningful estimatesof incidencerequire clear and explicit definitions
of ambiguousterms like homosexualily and homosacualrelations,we defiied
homosexualityas one or more of (1) going with or beingmarried to another
girl, (2) passionatelykissing another girl, (3) writing love letters to another
grrl, and (a) having sex beyond huggingand kissingwith anothergirl. Respon-
dentswere not askedwhetherthey considered tltemselvesto be gay,lesbian,
or homosexual.Our four indicators were intended to exclude asexualsocial
and atlletic contact but to include sexual or erotically-tinged relationships
such as courting and going steady;long, deep,frenchor tonguekisses;and
breastfondling and genitalcontactbet$,eenpeopleof the samesex.The wording
attempted to give respondentsin different institutions and geogaphicalloca-
tions a cofirnon frame of referencefor the reporting of homosexualexperi-
ences.
Our definition of homosexualitywas intentionally specific since a wider
rangeof behaviormay be labeledhomosexualin prisonsthan outside.Prisoners
frequently complain that permissiblefree-world behavioris often regardedas
deviantand problematicin institutions. For example,prison staffshaveimputed
homosexualityto femaleinmateswho engagein inappropriatelooking or "reck-
less eye-balling"(Hampton 1972; Strachanand Cowan 1972), have asexual
friendships(Hammer1965;Moyer 1979;Nelson1974),buy sometlingfor a
friend (Moyer 1979),prefer masculinestylesof dressor hair (Burkhart1973;
Mitchell 1969;Toigo 1962),comb another'shair, hold handsor put their arm
aroundanotherwoman,or hug or lightly kiss@urkhart1973;Cbandler1963;
Hampton1972;Heffernn 1972).
The inmatesand staff alrnostalwaysrefer to romantic artd sexualrelation-
ships in the institution by argot terms ltke mtshing. Previousstudiesrefer to
"girl stuff' and "goingtogether"(Halleckand Hersko1962);"playing,""tum-
ing out," "makingit," or "beingtogether"(WardaadKassebaum 1964);"play-
ing," "having husbands and wives," "being in the life," "bulldogging,"
"housekeeping"(Heffeman 1972\ "fy:u|.l in," "homey relationships," "being
married" (Heffernan1972)i "Ihe doll racket" (Sullivan1956);"darls" (Taylor
1965); "making it," "having people" (Giallombardo196S);"chick-vot" rela-
tionslrips(Bertcher1966; Holyoak 1972); "$rl business"(Lamberti 1963);
"chick business"(Robbins 1953; Rochelle 1965); and "having honies"
@ochelle1965).
Theseterms probably function to indicate somesort of specialrelationship
betweenv/omen that is distinguishedfrom a long-termcommitment to homo-
sexuality, but the exact nature of tfiat relationshipis probably intended to be
impreciseand variable.A particularargotterm can be usedto refer to a wide
Incidenceof Homosexualityand lts Effects 51
rariety of interpersonal relationships including having a close asexual friendship
or make.believe family; having an erodc emotional crush; writing love letters;
having limited physical contact such as light kissing, hand holding, or embracing;
or having overt sexual relations such as tongue kissing, touching of breasts or
genitals, body-rubbing, cunnilingus, or anilingus.
An NAJC field-worker introduced the questions about quasi kinslLip arrd
homosexuality to girls with the following verbal instructions:
This next section has some questions about make-believefamihes
among the girls here. By make-betevefamilies we mean that girls get
together and pretend they are mothers, sisters, wives, daughters,
fathers, brothers, husbands,or sonsto one another. We call them make-
believe families so you won't think we are asking about your real fam-
ilies back home.
There are also some questions about romantic and sexual rclations
among the girls here. We are askilg girls all over the country to answer
these questions so that we can find out how important these things
are in your life.
Perhapssome of these things don't happen here or you have not been
personally involved. If this is the case, there is a place for you to say
this. The information that these things don't happen is a.simpodant
to us aslearninghow much they do happen.
If girls asked if mate-beteve families meaat homosexuality, the NAJC workers
were instructed to reply that having make-believe families was not necessadly
tle same as having sexual relations. They then repeated the definition of make-
believe families. If girls requested a definition of romantic ald sexual relations,
NAJC workers were instructed to say that "romantic and sexual relations are
going with another girl, writhg and receiving love letters, passionately kissing,
and having sex with arother girl."
The wording of our questions about homosexuality was designedto indicate
that we would not be surprisedif girls had such experiences.Instead of asking
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,
Pomeroy, and Martin (9a8,p.53) suggestthat this approach elicits geater
admissions of deviant sexual behavior tlran would be achieved by asking whether
or not they had had a particular experience. It does not give overestirnates of
particular behaviors because subjects do not falsely admit to participating in
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
deny any homosexual experiences.
The questionnaire asked about homosexual experiences in several different
conlexts to check on the consistencyof respondents'self-reports.A respondent
was classified as a self-reported participant or nonparticipant only if she gave
 PrisonHomosexuality
52
consistent answeG to all questions about a particular form of homosexual
behavior. The few inconsistent answers were treated as nonresponses.Thus,
the estimatedratesof participation are slighdy consewative.2
Validity/Reliability
There is an ongoing debate about whether self-reported questionnaires or inter'
views are supedor for obtaining accurate information about sexual activities.3
We used questionnairesbecausetlrcir geater economy enabledus to surveythe
entire staff and youth populatiom of these institutions. The quality of ihe data
is improved becauseof the reduction of sampling enor and b.iasesfrom using
different interviewers in the various institutions.
We expected some undereporting of homosexuality becausepeople tend
to unconsciously distort past behavior and to choose socially acceptable
responses.aAbout 15 percent of male respondentsconcealed a homosexual
experiencein both Clark and Tifft's (1966) questioonaireand Kinsey's (1948)
interview study. Kinsey did not find any overeporting, but Clark and Tifft
found about 5 percent of respondentsexaggeratedhomosexualexperiences.
I interviewed a 10 percent stratified sample of girls at Magnolia (a/ = 14)
and Delta Coed (Ir' = 8) and found that the girls' self-reports of homosexuality
in the interuiews were fairly consistent with their self-reports on tlle question-
naire.s Nevertheless, the incidence of homosexuality may be slightly under-
estimated since a disproportionate number of nonrespondentsmay have had
a homosexual experience.This seemsa possibility becauseat Magnolia, one of
the two refusalswas reputed to be a homosexual by severalgirls' One of the
nine refusals at Delta Coed was also reputed to be homosexualby severalgirls
and told me, in an interview, that she had sex with another girl in the institution.
At Bayside Coed, at least two of the seYengirls who clid not answerthe questions
on quasikinship and homosexualitywere reputed to be homosexual.
Incidence
Our estimates of the proportion of inmates' going with or being married to
another girl are based solely on girls' self.reports. Thee indicatom are available
to estimate the proportion of inmates who have passionately kissed, n'ritten
love letters, and had sex. These indicators include gids' self-rePorts and gkls'
and staffs' estimates of other girls' behavior. It would be incorrect to infer
that staffs' and girls' estimates are more-valiil indicators of tire extent of homo-
sexuality than the girls' self-reports. Thus, concordance of self-reports with
inmate and staff estimates is no guamntee of Yalidity since others may not
know about private homosexual activity. It is, nevertheless,useful to obtain
staff and inmate estimatesasindicators of their perceptionsof its prevalence.6
Incidenceof Homosexualitvand lts Etfects 53
The accuracy of staffs' and inrnates"estimatesof the incidence of homo-
sexuality dependspartly on how these estimatesare obtained. Previousstaffs'
:nd inmates' estimates of homosexuality in adult-female institutions (Tittle
1972, p- 67;Watd, and Kassebaum1965,p.92) involved problems of differing
jefinitions of homosexuality and some inaccuracybecauserespondentsdo not
$derstand the concept of percentages.Estimates of the incidence of homo-
lexuality were often based on the total inmate population rather than upon a
srnaller, more-farniliar subgroup, and estimates by respondents vrith little
i-nowledgewere given the sameweight asmore-accurateestimates.In this study,
.\e quality of estimates was improved by specifrcally defining behaviors, asking
:or numbers rather than percentages,providing a "don't know" option on the
;raff questionnaire, and verbally instucting girls to write in "don't know" if
ihat was the most accurate response.Furthermore, the respondentstvere told
:o base tleir estimates on only the girls "now living" in their cottage or living
jnit. This stdct definition about the population for which the estimateapplies
5 essential.In many institutions, a lot of talk was heard about the homosex-
]l.ity that was going on. Howevel, probing for the participants' identities
-.tien revealedthat particularly unusual homosexualstorieswere about former
--esidentswhom the respondentknew only by reputation.
Going with or Married to Another Gi
To determine the extent of homosexualdyads and sex roles within the dyads,
ae asked, "If you were ever going with or married to atother girl in the pro-
-:ram, did one of you act like a guy and the other like a girl?" Table 3-1 sum-
rarizes the girls' responses. Sunming the lust tluee percentages in the last
:olumn shows us that overall 14 percent reported havinggone with or been mar-
:ied to another girl b the program. The proportions ranged from 4 percelt aI
Sr. Ame's to 23 percent at BaysideCoed. Slightly higher proportions reported
wch relationshipsin the coed (18 percent to 23 percent) than in the female
:rograms (4 percent to 18 percent).
Overall, eighteen responilents(5 percent said they were usually the guy,
;-tteen (4 percent) said they were usually the grl, and twenty-one (5 percenr)
seid both partners usually acted like themselves. The proportion of girls' taking
.i male role varied from none at St. Ame's and Hillsdale to 13 percentat Delta
Coed. Male roles were as common in the coed (4-13 percent) as in the female
astitutions (0-6 percent). Respondents' interpretations of what it meant to
-:ke a male or female role varied. Many
of the girls who reported taking male
:oles looked and acted as feminine as other girls. One girl who identified her-
*lf as taking the male role told me that she thought it was unwise to dress or
.:ir like a guy because this would result in more staff surveillance, less oppor-
;-rnity for lovemaking, and a greater likelihood of getting caught and punished.
)rher girls walked, talked, and dressedlike boys, and wore T-shorts,blue jeans,
54 PrisonHomosexuality Incidenceof Homosexualityand lts Effects 55

.: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
or inyolved. The femme often cooperated in maintaining this arrangement,
particularly if she was new to homosexuality and either unwilling or self_
consciousabout touching another woman.
The power/dependencyrelationshipsexpressedin touching are also charac,
tedstic of nonverbal communication in the free world.. Touching appearsboth
to reflect and to maintain a dominance hierarchy. Just as the bor, put u
"-
hand on the worker, the master on the servant,the teacheron the student,
the
businessmanon the secretary, so men more frequently put their hands on
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-
ship it is usually the male who ftst puts al arm alound ol begtns
holding handswith the female. [Henley and Thorne 197,7,p.2lS]
the ejaculateas subordinate...Beingfucked,,'being a.,cock sucker,',or..getting
screwed" are seen as being conquered ard thus as low status ald womanly,
Several studies report that whether a male takes the inserter or insertee role
often dependsupon whether he or the partner is consideredmore masculine.
may not even think of themselvesas having participated in a homosexualact if
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
on a boy, yet when the boy was asked if he had had sex with the aclult, he
Incidencrof Homosexualityand lts Effects 57
mphatically denied it, saying the man simply "blew me a few times, but we
:idr't have any sex." Benjamin and Master (1964, p. 293) say the customen
-rust pay more if they are to use tleir own penisesto ejaculate.This makesno
:ense economically sincehustle$ could servicemore customersif they were to
rring their customers to orgasm, mther than to ejaculate themselves. The be-
:avior only makes sensewhen we understaad that the male prostitute,s self-
:dentification as heterosexualrequires resistanceto the womanly and inferior
: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
Kissing is behavior that can be either erotic or an innocent greeting, Among
:eterosexualsit often occurs flst as an act of farewell. Since it resemblesthe
: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
;ho had passionatelykissed. The estimatesof passionatekissing for all seven
:rograms combined are 10 percent when basedon 380 self-reports,13 percent
;her based on 352 girls' estimates,ald 14 percent when based on 46 staff
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
-]at the incidence of passionate
kissing is as high in coed as ir all-female insti-
---.rtions.1r
Of the thirty-nine girls who admitted passionately kissing another girl,
:-r percent said they had been at the institution less than two weeks before

58 PrisonHomosexualitY
doingit for the f[st time,23 percentsaidit hadoccurredaftertwo weeksto one
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.
Thesedata provide little suppod for the hypothesisthat inmatesare likely to
get involved in homosexualityduring their fust fev/ daysof incarcerationwhen
they are likely to feel most deprivedand to experiencethe geatest pains of
impdsonment(Ward arld Kassebaum 1965, p. 18). Erotic relationships may
start soon after incarceration,but apparentlypadicipation in an oved homo-
sexualactivity suchaskissingtakessomewhatlonger.
Witing Love Letters
Another possibleexpressionof homosexualactivity is the writing of love letters.
We calculatedestimatesbasedon self-reports from the girls'responses to the
question,"About how many gfulsin this programhaveyou written love letters
to?" Estimatesby both girlsand staffswerebasedon tleir numericalresponses
to our request that they "think about the girls now living in your cottageor
living unit. About how many do you tlink have ever written love letters to
anothergirl in the program?"
In all institutionsexcept Magnoliaand YankeeCoed, staffs' estimates
are sliglrtly higher than gtuls'estimates,which in tuln are slightly higher than
girls' self-reports.The estimatesof writing love letters for all seveninstitutions
combinedare 10 percentbasedon 387 self-reports,15 percentbasedon 359
girls'estimates, and 19 percentbasedon 61 staffmembers'estimates.
On all tluee indicatoru, the highest estimatesof the proportions of girls
writing love letters are reportedat YankeeCoed(L9-24 petcett) and Delta
Coed(15-28 percent),and the smallestproportionis at St. Anne's(1-11 per'
cent).In betweenareMagnolia(12-17percent),BaysideCoed(12-21percent),
St. Mary's (8-22 percenl), and Hillsdale (6-22 percent).The data suggestthat
coedinstitutionsdo little to reducetlle incidenceof eitherpassionate kissing
or writingloveletters.r2
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
wrote to six to ten gi s, and 13 percentwrote to more than ten girls.This
pattern may explain why only 10 percent of the total respondentssaid they
had written love letters and 25 percentreportedreceivingthem. Somegirls
may alsohavebeenmorewilling to report receivingthan wdting love letters.
The girls who wrote love letten were more likely to receivethem. Of the
thfuty.sevenwho reported writing love letters, 97 percent also reported
lncidenceof Homosexualitv
and lts Effects
receiving them. Of the 350 who did not write love leiters, only 17 percent
receivedthem,
Ses beyond Hugging and Kissing
The incidence of a fowth type of homosexual activity was estimated from
girls'responsesto the question, "Altogether, how mary girls at this program
have you had sex witl, beyond hugging and kissing?" Those who indicated
they had sex with at least one ofrer girl were classifiedas self-reportedpar-
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.
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.
About how many have had sex, beyond hugging and kissing, with another
girl in the progam?" Staffs' estimates were only available for Magnolia, St.
Arne's, and Delta Coed. Estimatesbasedon self-reportswere similar to staffs'
and girls' estimatesat St. Anne's and Delta Coed. At Magnolia,the estimates
basedon self-reports(7 percent) were identical to the girls' estimates,but both
thesewere only half the staffs' estimates(15 percent).The estimatesfor having
sex, beyond huggirg and kissing, for all seven institutions combined are 7 per-
cent based on 390 self-reports and 9 percent based on 376 gids'estimates.
The staffs' overall estimate lacks validity becausein four of the sevenprogmrns
few staff membersresponded.13
A comparison of estimates based on self-repo s and the girls' estimates
shows that Delta Coed has the highest proportion of participants (22 percent
and 25 percent, respectively). St. Mary's (10 percent and 15 percent) and
Magnolia (7 percent and 7 percent) appear to have one-third to one-half as
many participants as Delta Coed. The lowest estimateswere reported at Hills-
dale (5 percent and 6 percent), Bayside Coed (3 percent and 5 percent), St.
Anne's (l percent and 3 percent), and Yankee Coed (0 percent and 3 percent).
Again, the data give no support to the common belief that coed institutions
reducehomosexuality.
A Homosexuality Index: Comparing Institutional
ard Individual Yariations
We attempted to rank institutions on the incidenceof homosexualityand found
the ranking was different for each of the four indicators. We therefore con-
structed an index of self-reported homosexuality that incorporated all four
 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
Homos€xuality as an Independent Variable
We expectedthat someperceptionsabout the nature of homosexualityv/ould be
affected by homosexualexperience.We therefore attempted to compareinmates
v/ith and without homosexual expedence on whether they thought there was
too much homosexuality in the institutions, their attitudes torvard homosex,
uality, and theft perceptionsof whether friendshipswere likely to be labeledas
homosexual.rs We asked how they felt about their homosexual expenences
and whether they expectedto have future homosexualrelationships.
Too Much Homosexuality ?
We asked gfuls whether it was true or false that "There is too much homosex-
uality here?" Their responsesshowed that about 40 percent of the 371 respon-
d€nts said true, but the proportions rangedfrom 0{9 percentdependingon the
institution. In every institution, the percentageswho said too much homo-
sexuality existed in the institution were higher among those without homosexual
experience.Overall, 43 percent of those with no homosexual experiencesaid
too much homosexualityexisted,but only 31 percent of thosewith homosexual
experiencefelt this way.
The self-reported prevalence of homosexuality showed a positive relation-
ship with the likelihood that inrnates would think there was too much homo-
sexuality. At Delta Coed, Magnolia,and St. Mary's-where 62{9 percent of the
inmates said there was too much homosexuality-staffs' and gids' estimates
suggestedthat between 1.2-32 percent of girls have passionately kissed and that
somewherebetween 7-25 percent have had sex with another girl. At St. Anne's,
Ilillsdale, Bayside Coed, and Yankee Coed-where less than 12 percent of the
rcspondents said there was too much homosexuality-self-reports and staffs'
and gkls' estimates suggestedthat only 2-10 percent had passionatelykissed
another girl and that 0-6 percent had had sex with another girl. Apparently,
the majority of inmates beganto seehomosexualityas too prevalentwhen more
t1lal 10 percenthad passionatelykissedor more than 5-6 percenthad sex.l,ower
proportions seemedto be acceptable.
Norms about Sexual Relationships between Two Girls
The inmate subcultureis popularly assumedto consist of a whole new complex
of values, attitudes, and behaviors-a radically different life-style and orienta-
tion from those of people outside institutions. In addition to new attitudes
toward sex, staff, and peers,inmates are assumedto have changedtheir betefs
toward homosexuality. To empfuically test this assumption, we included a
Incidenceof Homosexualityand lts Effects 63
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
their predomiaant attitude was disapproval.Overall,83 percent said no. This
level of disapprovalseemsquite similar to that of gfulsoutsideprisons.Sorenson
(19'13, p.289) found that 60 percert of thirteen- to nineteen-year-oldfree-
world girls disagreed with the statement, "Two girls having sex together is all
right if both want it," and 77 percent agreedthat "two girls having sex together
is abnormal and unnatural."
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
if they learned their friends had had a homosexualexperience.A similar pattem
of more.positiveattitudes among those with homosexualexperiencewas found
here. In every institution, those who reported homosexualexperiencewere more
acceptingof homosexuality. Overall, 50 percent of those who .repodedat least
one homosexual experience approyed of homosexuality under some circum-
stances,and only 10 percentof those without homosexualexperiencesometimes
approved.
Are Fiendships Labeled as Homosexual?
The literature contains several references to inmate compaints about staff
mistakenJyinterpreting asexual ftiendships as being homosexual.For example,
many inmates at the State Industrial Farm for Women in Goochland,Virginia,
told Moyer (1979,p. 12) that women were commonly separatedto limit their
oppo unity for irteraction and that "you can't have a friend here becauseif
you sit with another woman or buy somethingfor her at the canteen,the staff
frinks you're homosexua.ls."BurKnrt (1973) repots that the Ohio Reforma-
tory for Women had oppressive rules prohibiting inmates from touching and
from combing each other's hair. An inmate complained, "You can't talk to
another inmate twice or you are brandedasa homosexual.They tlink everyone
is homosexual"(p. 69).
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-
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
when you don't feel free to make friends here becausesomeonewill think you
are having sex with the girl you are friendly with?"
In all six institutions, girls with homosexual experience were more likely
ro perceive that frienddrip may be labeled as homosexual.Overall, 70 percent
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
someone-either staff or girls-would think they were having sex.
At Delta Coed, where homosexual experiencewas also very prevalent,
?3 percent of the fifty-five respondentsreported feelingiohibited about making
friends. However, even at St. Arne's, where homosexualexperienceswere rare,
a substantialproportion (37 percent) of the Population reported sometimesnot
feeling free to make friends. I was surprisedto find the proportion this high at
St. Anne's becausethis was a place that permitted the expressionof alot of
physical affection. One inmate said there was so much hugging, kissing, and
hand holding that, "If we acted like this on the outside,peoplewould think we
were queer." It seems that prison homosexuality was not increasedby the
physical expression of affection at St. Anne's becauseit had the lo\Yestrate
of prison homosexuality.r6 However, this low rate possibly occurred because
St. Anne's sometimestransferredthose caught in homosexualacts to t]le state
training school.
Yankee Coed was the only irstitution where a 1ow proportion of girls
(22 percett) said they did not think they had been deterred from developing
same-sexfriendships for fear they might be labeled as homosexual. The preva-
lence of homosexual suspicionscould account for the estimatesof inciilence
by staff members and inmates being higher than those based on self-reports
The tendency to oversexualizefriendships operatesat some cost becausethe
p€rceived potential for sexual experience appearsto inhibit same-sexfriend-
ships in institutions in much the same way as it inhibits friendship across sex
lines between women and men in the free world. Restdctions are placed on
interaction and the free exprcssionof affection in both situations becauseof
the perceivedpotential for erotic and sexualactivity.r?
feelings of sin or doing something wrong or unnatural, ajld the fear was often
of discovery by family or friends. Men were far more likely to express guilt
or fear about homosexualrelationsthan were women, probably becausesocietal
reaction is more negative toward male homosexuality (Steffensmeier and
Steffensmeier1974).
Guilt or fear about heterosexua.lactivity is also age and sex related, being
more common among young people and girls (Burgessand Wal1in1953; Kinsey
et al. 1953; Reiss 1967; Sorenson1973), probably becausegirls are more likely
to exceed the limits of tJreir more-conseryative standards about premarital sex
and to \yory about the possibility of preganancy. The feelings of guiit and fear
typically lessen as their pariicipation in sex increases, as they get older, and
probably as they begin to use effecdve contraceptivetechniques.
One of the factors Kinsey thought was important in determining if indi-
viduals would have future sexual experience is the satisfactory or unsatisfac-
tory natue of the first homosexual or heterosexual experience (cited in
Pomercy 1972, pp.75-76). If the lust experiencewas pleasurable,individuals
looked forward to repeatingit, but they were reluctant to repeatnonpleasurable
experiences.We are unable to test this hypothesis becauseour data do not
measurethe quality of the fint homosexual experience specifically. Hovever, we
were able to examine how inmates' feelings about haying kissed or had sex with
another girl were related to whether they anticipated homosexual relationships
after leaving the institution. Table 3-3 shows a strong relationship. Nine (69
percent) of the thirteen girls who reported predominately positive feelings
expectedfuture homosexualrelationships.Only two (18 percent) of the eleven
who repo ed equa.lly good and bad feelings ard none of the twenty-six girls

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 .

66 PrisonHomosexuality
who reported predominantly negative feelings expected homosexual relation-
ships in the free world. Almost all those who thought they might have future
homosexual relationships had higher scores on the homosexuality irdex- Nine
had scoresof tluee or four, one had a scoreof two, one had a scoreof one, and
percent of those with no homosexual exPedence said they intended to have it
in th" futot". Another 4 percent predicted they might have it if a suitable
opportunity arose. It is <lifficult to predict what we or others will actually tlo
v/hen confronteal with a favorable opportunity for homosexual contact because
so much dependsupon the particular people and circumstancesinvolved' Many
will find themselves padicipating, though their intent was not to, becauseof the
unanticipatedpower of situationalpressuresand expectations.
Irunates often distinguish those inmates with a long-term homosexual
preference from jailhouse or penitentiary turnouts who engagein homosexual-
ity becauseno men are available. These definitions of the situation are important
determinants of the effects of homosexual activity. By defining themselves as
tumouts, inmates remove some of the stigma and guilt associated with homo-
sexual activity by neuhalizing the pejorative evaluations of abnomality, mental
illnes. or wickedness attdbuted to true homosexual preference''o Inmates
dehne themselves as normal heterosexuals while engaging in situationally
induced homosexuality and thus minimize the guilt or fear associatedwith initial
participation. The view that prison homosexuality is sho term probably facili-
tates a retum to heterosexualrelationstripsupon release,but the Yiew coexists
with inmate behavior that probably facilitates longer-term homosexual partici-
pation. For example, inmates usually tell their partner that their relationship is
iorever (Rochelle 1965, p. 9?) and that they woultl like to reunite when paroled
@assebaum1972,p.45).
Some investigators claim it is misleading to say that jailhouse tumouts
restuict thefu homosexuality to pdson becauseprison experiencesare not auto-
significance of their participation by emphasizing that it is or y temporary'
Since many inmates find their homosexual relationships Yery emotionally and
sexually satisfying, "there does not appear to be any reason why a woman,
Incidenceof Homosexuality
and lts Effects 67
upon leaving prison, would not continue to have (perhaps sporadically) homo-
sexual relations in addition to heterosexualrelations" (p. 170). There is little
Iikelihood that the more-accepting attitudes and satisfying relationships they
experienced in prison would be entirely erased. A true homosexual at the
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:
Seventy-five percent of the girls are J.T,O.,s [jailhouse tumouts] -
they've never seen it before ard they run .l ild, they don,t realize
theyte harming themselyes.You can't forget experienceslike this,
the memories are detdmental to family life. The feeliag between
womeo is deeper than that behlleen men and women or men and
men. [Wardand Kassebaum 1965,p. 121]
Many women told Ward and Kassebaumthat sexualexperiencesbetweenwomen
were more satisfying than heterosexual experiences.One womal found her
prison affair so gmtifying that she divorced her husband and put her child up
for adoption, saying, "I'm planning to live with a woman on the outside. I fini
the physical relationship much more satisfying than with men" (p. 195). Hauis
(1968, p. 200) and Sullivan (1956, p. 111) also found women who were so
moved by their jailhouse sexuality tlat they feit they had discovered tlemselves
and continued homosexual experiencesoutside prison. Jackson(1924) reports
an example of one such discovery when a married woman and an innocent farm
girl both became jailhouse tumouts. Their naivete was tranformed into mad
love for each other, and about two weeks before the married woman was to go
home, she decided, "I don't think I'm going back to my husband.I think I'm
going to go home and live with Kattrryn" (p. 434).
Giallombardo's(1974, p. 2a$ study of three g s' tnining schoolsalso led
her to conclude tlat the ability to develop and maintain future heterosexual
relationships might be limited after inmates had been socialized to view homo-
exuality as a legitimate activity. Inmates at the Wisconsin School for Gids
sometimesexpressedconcem to Halleck and Hersko (1962, p. 913) that they
would be sexually involved with girls in a community setting after release.
They initially had had sex with girls in order to be accepted and later found
their involvement deeply satisfying and necessary.Wentit IIOOS; interviews
with girls at the New Je$ey State Home for Gids and the Girls, Industrial
School in Ohio revealed that the majority with pdson homosexual experience
had also engagedin preprison homosexuality and that most of them expected
to continue homosexua.l activity when they were paroled. Several said they
had been hurt by men and found them less dependable and honest than girls
were.
Some pressureis often evident toward labeling people as either homo-
sexual or straight, and considerable anxiety is expressedabout whether having
 68 PrisonHomosexuality
a homosexualexperienceindicates one is a homosexual.Girls in severalinstitu-
tions told me that they had gone AWOL after exPeriencingan erotic attraction
or homosexual experiencewith another girl in order to test if they were still
normal or if they had turned lesbianor "funny " They proved they were normal
by having sex with a male. One inmate told Burkhad (1973, p.418) that she
bore five children becauseshewanted to demonstrateher heterosexualityto the
'See,I'm
world by "walking down tle street pregnant with a big belly-saying,
normal!' " 19
Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin (1948) believedthat the effects of adolescent
pdson experience may be stronger than that of adult experience because
adolescenceis a critical period for the developmentof sexualidentity. Young
people are more impressionableand lessinculcatedwith all the taboos surround'
ing homos€xualactivity. Thus:
If these adolescentyears are spent in an institution \a'herethere is little
or no oppodunity for the boy to develophis individuality, where there
is essentiallyno priYacy at any time in the day, and where all his com-
paniols are other males,his sexuallife is likely to becomepermanently
stamped rvith the institutional pattern. Long-time confinement for a
younger male is much more significantthan a similar period of confine-
ment for an older adllll. |p.2241
An adult inmate at tle Statesville-Jolietpenitentiary expresseda similar view
when he told Huffman (1960, p. 172) thal most Prison homosexuality was
caused by juvenile recidivistswho had been repeatedly exposed to homosex'
uality in juvenile homes,jails, and reform and training schools.In his opinion.
the true homosexual had far lessinfluence upon "the surgingtide of sexuality
that ebbs and flows within the walls of a large prison." Just as inmates carry
their free-world experiencesinto prison, and their juvenile experiencesinto
adulthood, so do they carry their pdson expedencesinto the free world.2o
Homosexualexpedencesoften begin as a m€ansto emotional and material
security and as a substitute for heterosexualexperience,and then they con-
tinue becausethe experienceshave come to be an end in themselves.2rWhen
"what was a meansto an end has become an end in itself, it becomesfunction'
ally autonomous" (Alport 1937, p. 201). The processwhereby behaviorsexist
independently of their original causesis one common to all behaviors.Allport
gives the example of a student who initially undertakesa course becauseit is
offered at a conyenient time, becauseit is prescribed,or becauseit pleaseshis
parents-only to flnd that he becomesso interested that he continues to study
it throughout the course of his life. The course of life is a dialectical process
of pressuresto act in some way and counterpressures againstsuch action, which
eventuallyresult in somesynthesisofthe conflicting forces.The applicationofthis
dynamic model of behavior to homosexuality emphasizesthat people are
attracted to homosexuality becauseit is able to fulfill needs for emotional
lncidenceof Homosexualitv
and lts Effects 69
and material security, but they are also repelledfrom it becauseit is so strongly
stigmatizedby society. Eventually one pressureor the other predominatesand
determines whetler or not people will initially have a homosexual experience
aad whether they will continue to have such experiences.
What scattered pieces of information we have on the effects of homo-
sexuality suggestthat many men and women filst try homosexuality expecthg
an isolated experienceor two, but this incidental experiencesets the ground-
work for future inyolyement should the coffect combination of circumstances
be present.Thesecircumstancesmight include being propositionedby a persua-
sive homosexual, having an unsatisfying heterosexual relationship, or being
jsolated from the potential criticism of significant others.The later homosexual
involvement would have been impossible without the earlier incident. In part,
this is because tlre earlier experience involves leaming justifications for homo-
sexualactivity that can be invoked in appropriatepostreleasesituations.
An interestingcharacteristicof sexualbehavioris that people often continue
it in spite of unsatisfactory initial expedences.Even forced and coercive en-
counters might result in long-term homosexual preference. Sagrin (1976a)
inte iewed severalhomosexualsin bars who had initially been forced into
homosexuality in prison by threats, cajoling, and rape. Thesemen had heard of
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
I came out in pdson. I know that" (p. 253). Their aggressors encouragedthis
view, claiming that kids who were a "nice piece of ass" really wanted to have
sex all along. They justified their threats and beatings by claiming tleir victims
did not fight 1}tem off becausethe punks really wanted sex and would eventually
come around, voluntarily beggingfor more.
Bartollas, Miller, and Dinitz (1974) also studied casesin a boys'training
school where rape victims found their initial experiences psychologically dis-
gusting and physically painful, yet tley continued homosexual activity without
protest. They seemed to acconmodate to their sexual yictimization and its
accompanying low status in the prison stratification system by finding some
positive benefits in being there. An interview with one of the punks illustrates
that his adaptationwas not witlout ambivalence:
If you're a punk and you've been a punk for a long time and you want
to stop, it's very hard becauseyou've got so mally deshesin you. If
you enjoy what you was doing before and then after you do it, you get
a guilty feeling-you don't know wherc to turn. Like you say,I want to
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
where you want to do it again, and you don't know what to do. You
say you want to stop, but therc's somethirg in you that wants to keep
going.[p. 9l ]
The boys may move to a new institution hoping to leave their past behind,
 70 PrisonHomosexualitv
but once their peers learn they were punks, persistentpressuresare placed on
tlem to continue:
Few youths with a history of sexual encountersare able to tesist the
penistent pressur€srecaived from the sexually deprived. Finally sub-
mitting to the continued harassment,theseyouths sometimesbecome
committed to homosexuality as a lifestyle before leaving the institu-
tion. IBartollas, Miler, and Dinitz 19'16,p.73'l
Haga y's (1979) semiautobiographicalnovel also suggeststlre possibility
of long-term effects when his friend Randy recounts the cirq.rmstancesleading
to his frst real homosexual experience. Raldy started playing the masculine
role, letting kids "blow" him, then later "screwin'them in the ass." It seerned
like a lark, something to do to relieve the boredom of doing time. However,
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
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
having sex with guys aad taking the homosexual role. The frst such experience
probably would not have been possible prior to his ea ier activities in the
masculinerole. As Randy tells it:
It was at Westgatethat I had my first leal homosexual experience.
There was this cute little queen on my tiei and I sort of put the arm
on her. She didn't haye tits like someof thesequeensthat come in now-
adays,but she was cute and I really liked her. . . . Her name was Suzi
and I ended up falling irr love with her. No shit! Anyhow, one Saturday
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
about four months. She started puffin' me lpedorming fellatio] and
sudden.ly,I had this desie to tum her o\. I mean,up to now it had
been a completely one-sidedaffair, but now I wanted to tum her on,
so I erded up goingdown on her . . . . [pp. 159-160]
Johmon (1971, p. 72), a one-time inmate at San Quentin, saysthat there
was a saying that "today's pitcher was tomorrow's catcher." the sayingrecog-
nizes the pattem ofprogression that beginswith a v/illingnes or y to participate
if one can be in the familiar male role of ejaculating when having sex. lzter,
when homosexual acts become more acceptable,men are more willing to plea-
sure thefu padnefi and bring them to orgasm.
Unfortunately, these few piecesof scatteredevidencerepresentthe sum of
our knowledge about the long-term effects of pdson homosexuality. Serious
study of the question has been hampered by the financial and time constraints
of longitudinal follow-up, but the eyidence $,e haye suggestsit is a misconcep-
Incidenceof Homosexualitvand lts Effects 71
tion to think that no one is converted to homosexuality in prison.22 Some
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.
Homosexual experience, like any other prison experience, affects the
inmates' self-concepts in vadous ways. Some inmates define and experience
homosexuality as a situational responseto imprisonment and as a temporary
meansof attaining affection, prestige,and material benefits that will end when
heterosexual opportunities again become available. Others begin by thinking
tleir homosexual activity is a temporary means to emotional and material
secudty but find that it becomes an end in itself. They come to value homo-
sexuality for its own sake ruther than for the other aspects that originally
gave it reinforcing value. Apparently, both overt experiencesand definitions
of the situation by oneself and others affect inmates' choice of sexual partners.
Summary
Estimatesof the proportion of inmates with homosexualexpedencedependon
the definition of homosexual experience.Overall rates, based on self-reports,
for each specific indicator were 14 percent for going with or being marded,
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
least one such homosexual experience.This percentagevaded from 6-29 per-
cent dependingon the institution.
To facilitate comparisonsamong institutions and individuals,we construc-
ted a homosexuality index. The processinvolved scoring nonpa icipation on
each indicator as zero ald participation as one artd then summing the scores
on the four indicators. The resulting score ralged fiom zero to four and indi-
cated the number of different homosexual experiences reported. It also
reflected the probable kind of experience since a Guttman scalogam analysis
uncovered a pattem of progression from going with or being married, to
passionatekissing, to writing love lette$, and then to having sex with other
girls. Respondentsreporting one of the later experiencesin the pro$ession
tended also to report all the preceding expedences.An analysisof vadance
showed that institutional vadations on the homosexuality-index scores
accounted for only 4 percent of the vadance in those scores, while differences
amongindividuals and error varianceaccountedfor 96 percent of the variance.
Our attempt to explain these yadations by testing hypotheses derived from the
importation and depdvation theories of inmate subculture is explained in
chapters4 and 5.
In this chapter, our interest was in describing attitudes toward homosex-
uality and some of the ways girls said they were affected by actual homosexual
experiencesard by other people's expectations about their homosexuality.
 PrisonHomosexuality andlts Effects
of Homosexuality
Incidence 73
72

of sexualpreference.The Institute for Sex Researchfound that many homo-

sexualoffenderswere seducedby older men (Gebhardet al. 1965, pp.275-
276). Somelearnedhomosexualtechniquesand satisfactions from theseearly
homosexualexperiences,which predisposedthem to subsequenthornosexual
activity. The data also raise the chickencgg paradox, however, since tlre
experiencewith adults could havebeena by-productof preexistinghomosexual
preferences.
experi- Although the literature on homosexualityis extensive,no clear-cutanswer
complain of too much homosexuality (43 percent) than were ihose with
is yet availableas to what causeshomosexuality(NIMH 1969). Thus, it would
ence(31 percent).
in be premature to dismissbiological predispositions,childhood influencesand
ih"tt *". no evidence of a subcultural acceptance of homosexuality
experiences,or adolescentand adult socializationas unimpodant. All these
factors could contribute to homosexuality'setiology sincesomesexualidenti-
ties may be set at bfutlr or early in life, while others may be more malleable
aad thus chaagethrough adolescenceand adulthood. People'sbehavior,their
own and others' definitions of the situation, the environment,and experiences
throughout life influence sexuality. The leseacher'sjob is to determine the
impodanceof thesepotentialinfluences underspecifiedconditions.
In the two chaptenthat follow, we clarify the natureof potential influences
suggestedby the importation and deprivation theories and empirically test
hypothesesderivedfrom thesetwo theoreticalperspectives. The homosexuality-
index scoreis usedas a dependentvariablein order to look for possiblediffer-
encesin tJre relative predictive importance of the variablesrepresentingthese
two tleories.

Notes

l. The readeris referredto A. Bell 1975; Bell andWeinberg1978;Block

i955; Blumsteinand Schwartz1974; Henry 1955; Hooker 1968; Mclntosh
1968;Plummer1975; Sagarin1976b;afi Williamson1972 for more-detailed
discussions of the complexitiesof defmitions.
2. The numberof inconsistentresporsesfor sll seveninstitutionscom-
bined was only nine for witing love letters, four for passionatelykissing,and
tfuee for havingsex.
3. For examplesof argumentson the superiority of each method, see
Davis1929;Ehrmann1959;Ellis 1947, 1948;Pomeroy1972;Shortand Nye
1958a;andTermar1948.
4. For evidenceof underreportingon interviews,seeKinsey, Pomeroy,
and Martin 1948,p. 129.For underreporting on questionnaires, seeClarkand
Tifft 1966,p. 521; Elumarn 1959,pp. 27,104, 278;andWhitehead andSmart
invitations.
are 1972,p.6.
These tendencies to label people as either heterosexual or homosexual
probably latent 5. At Magnoha,I interuiewedfourteen gids by randomly selectingtwo
challengeclby social-leaming theorists who claim that we are all
also latent heterosexuals, since all of us can leam either type girls from each cottage. Thirteen of the fourteen said, in botlt the interview
homosJxuals, and
 74 PrisonHomosexuality
Incidenceof Homosexuality
and lts Effects 75

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
inmate populations of cottage units in which at least one staff member provided
a numerical estimate to question ld. Becausethere were no staff respondents
for hve of the thtty cottage units, the overall percentagefor the seveninstitu-
tions was basedon a denominator of only 366 inmates.Further details on the
calculations of all three types of estimates for particular cottage ruLits and for
tlle entire sampleof seveninstitutions is availablein table 5-3 in Propper (1976,
pp. t26-127).
12. The yarious soutcesof percentageestimatesof writing love letters were
calculatedon different denominato$. The denominatorsof the estimatesbased
on self-reportswere the number of girls who gaveconsistentanswersto ques-
tions 6b, 14, and 15 ir particular institutions (Magnolia= 124, St. Anne's = 78,
St. Mary's = 40, Hillsdale = 35, BaysideCoed = 29, Yankee Coed = 27 , Delta
Coed = 54). The number who provided consistentanswersin all seveninstitu-
tions combinedwas 387.
The numerators for the inmates' esiimates were derived from the replies
of 359 respondentsto question 5a. The denominatorsused in calculatingper-
centageestimatesfor particular institutions were tJIe female-inmatepopulation
(seenote 11 for details).
The numerators for the staffs' estimates were derived from the replies
of sixty-ole respondentsto question 2c. The denominatorsused in calculating
percentageestimatesfor each particular institution were the sum of the female-
inmate populations of cottage units in which at least one staff member pro-
vided a numerical estimateto question 2c. Becausethere were no staff respon-
dents for six of the thirty cottage units, the overall percentage for the seven
institutions was basedon a denominator of only 362 inmates.
Further details on the calculations of all tfuee types of estimates for par'
ticular cottage units and for the entire sample of seven institutions is available
in table 5-2 in Propper (1976, pp. I23-I24).
13. The various sourcesof percentageestimatesof sex between girls were
calculatedon different denominators.The denominatorsof the estimatesbased
on self-reports were the number of girls who gave consistent answeff to ques'
tions 12b, 13a, 14, afi, 15 in particular institutions (Magnolia = 127, St.
Alne's = 79, St. Mary's = 39, Hillsdale = 35, Bayside Coed = 29, Yankee
Coed = 27 , Delta Coed = 54). The number who provided consistent answers
in all sevel institutions combinedwas 390.
The numeratorsfor the inmates' estimateswere derivedfrom the responses
of 376 respondentsto question 12a. The denominatorsused in calculatingper-
centage estimates for particular institutions were the female-inmate population
(seenote 11 for details).
The numerators for the staffs' estimateswere derived from the replies of
twenty-six respondentsto question lc. The denominatorsused in calculating
percentag€estimatesfor each padicular institution were the sum of the female-
inmate populations of cottage units in which at least one staff member provided
and lts Effects
Incidenceof Homosexuality 77
a numerical estimate to question 1c. Becausethere were no staff respondents
for sixteen of the thirty cottage units, the overall percentage for the seven
institutions was basedon a denominator of only 208 inmates.
Further details on the calculations of all three tyPes of estimates for par-
ticular cottage units and for tlle entire sample of seven institutions is available
in table54 in Proppet(1976, pp.130-131).
14. The Guttman analysis indicated the scale was acceptablyunidimen-
sional and cumulative (coefficient of scalabfity = .70, co€fficient of reproduci-
bihty = .97, minimum margin reproducibilil
.06). Other indications that it was appropdat(
each of the four indicators of homosexuality
reasonably high correlations rvith one anotb
Cronbach's alpha (.88) indicated high interl
retain the thirty-four caseswhere responden
or answered questions inconsistently, the particular ildicator was recoded to
its mean value. An index score was only calculated if a self-report was available
on at least one of the four componentindicators.
More-detailed explanations and further examples of Guttman scaling are
availablein Nie et al. (1975).
15. It would be mole accurate to say that we are comparing the views
of those who rcport a homosexual experiencewith those who do not report
an experience.I have chosen an abbreviatedway of labeling the groupsbeing
compared but recognizethat reporting is not identical with actual homosexual
activity.
16. A N€w York psychiatrist (UPI 1980) found that 22 perc€nt of his
female respondentsadmitted an intense need to be hugged. When they are
deprived of hugging, they substitute sex and food. Sex with men was less fre-
quent among women who got enough huggmg. Huggng could presumably
alsoreducethe need for overt homosexuality.
17. For a discussionof pressuresagainst cross-sexfriendships in the free
world, see R. Bell (1975). Nelson (1974, p. 142) suggeststhat the ambiguous
defirftions of homosexuality and the tendency to define platonic relationships
as homosexual could also increase tlre likelihood of actual sexual relationships
in prison as inmates tend to conform with the homosexual label that others
imposeon them.
18. Sykes and Matza (1957) coined Ihe term techniquesof neutralization
to describethe way people rationalize socially unacceptablebehavior to make
it justifiable in their eyes and those of others. The negative evaluations of the
behavior are rliminished, or neutralized, by explanations of the behavior's
zuitabiJity in a particular situation. Scott and Lyman (1968) also Provide a
useful analysisof the socially approvedvocabulariesof excusesand justifications
that neutralize an act or its consequenceswhen one or both are brought into
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.
19. I heard no unsolicited stories of these tests' resulting in a lesbian
identity, but presumablythat could alsohappen.Blumstein anclSchwartz(i974,
p. 285) tell of similar tests outside prison in which women selectedmen as
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
1955;Cory 1964; Cmft 1966; Duffy 1965;Jersild1956;Karpman1948;Kasse.
baum 1972; Ktkham 1971; Pattersonand Conracl1950; Schofield 1965a; and
Westwood1952.
activity to be with women. He did not do a follow-up study to see if their
future behaviorwas consistentwith their predictions.
22. Moreno (1953, p. 4tZ) and Sagarin(1969, p. 108) suggesttlat pnson
.
leaders and researchersoften believe that no one is converted to homosexuality
in prison.
lmportation
Perspectiveson
PrisonHomosexuality
Irnpodation theorists think that differences in the attitudes and behaviors of
inmates within the same setting can best be exPlained by variations in preprison
experiences,values, social identities, and roles external to the immediate situa-
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
According to the direct.importation model, a long-term processof conditioning
into the mtionalizations and beneflts of homosexuality and experience with the
pleasuresof homosexual behavior predisposesone to be more receptive to
prison homosexuality. Greco and Wright (1944, p.300) come to this conclu-
sion after comparing the life stories of ten self-labeled chronic homosexuals
ard ten nonhomosexual male inmates of the Pennsylvania Industrial School in
Huntingdon. The critical difference betweer the homosexual and heterosexual
boys n'as that all ten homosexualshad been seducedpdor to being institution-
alized. In addition, the seduction had occurred at a time when they had been
seriously in need of social and emotional security. The seducer had become a
source of comfort and security to them. At ftst, most homosexua.lsviewed
homosexuality as morally wrong, di$iked the initial seduction, and experienced
guilt at participating. This did not prevent their padicipation, however, because
they placed a high value on the homosexual relationship as a source of security.
Most of these boys consciously attempted to resist subs€quenthomosexual
 80 prisonHomosexualitv
relationshipsand resumed sexual relationshipswith girls after the homosexua.l
expe ence had ended. Their resistanceeventually broke down, however, and
they developedrationalizationsfor resuminghomosexualactivity.
The homosexual activity, which initially began as a means of meeting
emotional needs,was later renewedwith other partners to meet emotional and
other needs.Greco and rN fltt (1944, p.306) saw this as ..an excellentillustra-
tion of Allport's 'principle of functional autonomy, relatiye to the motivating
powers of traits, i.e., where a trait or habit which was formerly a means to an
end becomesan end in itself' (p. 306).
Greco and Wright also alert us to the dangersof assumiagthat inmates,
accounts of why they engagein homosexual experiencesare accurate. Their
sample of homosexual boys did not attribute their homosexual Dreferenceto
the early seduction. They blamed prison conditions instead. saying that they
were forced into homosexualassaults,that their homosexualpartner protected
them from the assultsof others, that they had witnesseda homosexualact or
heard erotic talt by others, or that they were participating in order to receive
material goods like candy and cigarettes.Greco and Wright argue that these
justifications did not representthe true reasonsfor the boys' homosexuality
sincethe heterosexualboys had similar experiences.The preinstitutional seduc-
tion that distinguished the heterosexual boys and the chronic hornosexua.ls
was not recognizedas a causalfactor by the homosexuals.
Little empirical evidence addressesthe validity of the theory.of direct
economic status more than previous homosexuality. Only two unpublished
thesescontain data on preprison and prison homosexuality and their relation_
ship. Both provide strong support for the direct-importationmodel.
Hopper\ (i980) data, for example, suggestthat sexual depdvation may
not have been as important as preprison homosexualexperiencein determ.ining
whether female inmates at the Lowell prison in Florida participated in homo-
sexual activity. Forty-nine percent of the 172 questionnairerespondentsin this
study admitted prison homosexuality. Hopper did not report on the prevrous
homosexualexpedenceof the 51 percent who did not participate.However,she
does say that 75 percent of the eighty-four inmateswho reported prison homo_
sexuality also reported some homosexual expedence prior to imprisonment.
When askedabout the developmentof their prison homosexuality,only 26 per-
cent of the participants blamed the institutiona.l settrng,2g percent said it
evolvedfrom a friend or roommate situation, ald the other 45 percent offered
miscellaneousrationalesincluding emotional bonds, physicalattraction, and the
lmportationPerspectives 81
ilfluence of drugs. Most padicipants did not define themselvesas true homo-
sexuals,eventhough they had had prior homosexualexPeriences.
The only other study tlat contains data on both preprison and pdson
homosexuality and that examinesthe relationsldp betweenthe two is Mitchell's
(1969) study of two adult women's prisons. It also supports the direct-
importation model.l Overall,28 percent ofher ninety-four respondentsreported
prison homosexuality, aad 58 percent of these women also rePoded prepdson
homosexualexperiences.Only 15 percent of the sixty€ight respondentswho did
not participate in prison homosexuality had had prior homosexualexpedence.
The data suggestthat direct importation of prior homosexual experiencehas
some effects but that the pdson environment is also influential. Whether the
pdor experienceof the inmates was impoded from other prisons or from the
outside community is not specified. Either is possible becausemary of the
women had se ed previous sentencesin adult and juvenile prisons, and the
data indicated that women who had served time in such placeswere more likely
to participatein homosexuality dudng their cufient incarceration.
Both Tripp (1975, p. 22) and Gagnonand Simon (19?3, p. 245) summarize
some unpublished data from the Institute for Sex Researchthat is interpreted as
evidencethat a very small proportion of participants it prison homosexuality
have no prior experience.However, their particulal estimatesof tlle prevalence
of prison homosexuality differ-Tripp says71 percent of long-terminmateshave
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
show higher estimates of preprison homosexuality and suggest that prisoners
have more homosexual experience than the general population. He found
tlrat 60{5 percent of pdsonefi and 37 42 percent of nonprisonersreported
overt homosexual expedence outside prison. One must interpret these data
with caution, hov,/ever,sincethey appearinconsistentwith Kinsey,Pomeroy,and
Martin's (1948, p.664) statementthat 25-30 percent of inmateshad had a homo-
sexualexpeliencebefore admission.Furthermore, in both reports, the high pro-
portions of prisoners who reported homosexual experiencemay reflect biased
sampling.Gebhardet a1.(1965, p. 33) admit there wasno samplingplan and that
the inmate groups included I 11 white inrnatesin Z wing of Soledad"where all
males who appearedobviously homosexual or who proved to be problems be-
causeof their homosexualitywere segregated."
Importart consequencesflow from our failure to recognize that Pdor
homosexuality influences prison homosexuality and that inmates may have
more homosexual experiencethan the generalpopulation. The result has been
 PrisonHomosexuality
In the 1965 report of homosexuality among white men in and out of
prison, Gebhard et al. found that homosexual behavior, like most sexual be-
havior, fust occurred in adolescence. About ha.lf of those with a homosexual
on long-term effects discussedin chapter 3.
High iates of preprison homosexuality were also obtained in Clemmer,s
(1958, p. 384) study of adult-male felons incarcerated at the Menard State
Prison in Illinois. He interviewed 240 of the lgOO inrnates and found that
wams against inaccurately concluding that pdsons are hotbeds of sexual arousal
Johmon (1971, p. 95) suggestedthat ratesof recid.ivismamongmale homo_
sexualswere high becausetley were drawn to the pdson where they had better
status and security thaa in the community. However,he presentedno evidence
to support this hypothesis. Bluestone, O'Malley, and Connell (1966) made a
similar claim about female homosexuals coming into the New yoik prison
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-
p.iest among other women in a sfuctured environment. In the homosexual
world of the prison, women receive health care, food, pleasant surroundings,
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
typical case histories shows that all five women had their fust homosexual
urges, oved expedences,or increased "acting out" in either state hospitals
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'
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.
Two recent studies suggest that adult-female inmates have dispropor-
tionately high levels of homosexual experience prior to impdsonment, but
neither study investigated the relationship between previous homosexuality
and prison homosexuality. In Nelson's (1974) study of two women's state
prisons, 44 percent of the 119 questionnairerespondentsreported that they
 84 PrisonHomosexualitv
had "sexual relations rvith another woman before they came to prison." Ward,
Jackson, and Wald's (1969) examination of prison records found tlat about
one-fifth of the women in a California pdson had homosexual involvements
or homosexual tuaits. Of the women corunitted for robbery, 40 percent had
records of homosexual involvement prior to imprisonment. These high mtes
of preprison homosexuality could indicate that the influence of previous homo.
sexuality on prison homosexuality has been inadequately recognized.
Indirect Irnportation
Theories of indfuect importation are far more common than those of direct
importation in explaining prison homosexuality. The theories of indirect impor-
tation attempt to linl( achieved characteristics (such as previous cofectional- and
justice.system experiences, previous delinquency, and sex-linked gender leaming)
and ascribed characteristics (such as age, race, and social class of family) to insti-
tutional behavior. For example, several researchers suggest that the presumed
differences in the iffnate subculture between male and female Drisons rcflect
differences in sex-role socialization in American society. The pioblem is that
the premises of the existing preprison and prison differences are not empirically
supported becausefew comparativestudies of males and femaleseist. Investi-
gators tend to specialize in researching either one sex or tlle other in either adult
or juvenile facitties.
The result is the existence of a number of contradictory hypotheses among
widely cited specialists. For example, one widely reprinted view suggeststhat
more homosexuality exists in male than in female prisons becausemen's need
for sex is geater and becausewomen are better able to tolerate the absenceof
overt sexual actiyity (Gagnon and Simon 1968).Its authors originally published
their views n Federal Probation in a 1968 article on .,The Social Meanine of
hison Homosexuality," and then reprinted it in their l9?3 book:a
The sexual adjustment of these women to imprisonment is strongly
linked to the generalgoals to which most women are socializedin the
in prison. There is considerableevidencethat such behayiorsare less
frequgnt among women in the free society than among men, and one
should not be surprised that such contituity would be found inside
the prison. In addition, women seemto tolerute the absenceof overt
sexual actiyity far better than do men, and thus the rates of overt
sexual behavior in the female institutions should be considerably
lower than those found in male institutions. [Gagnon and Simon
1 9 7 3 ,p - 2 s 2 l
lmportationPerspectives 85
Giallombardo's books also advocate the importation perspective, but
she suggests that more homosexuality exists in female than in male prisons
becausewomen are more dependentupon an erotic identity and becausedemon-
strations of verbal and physical affection between women are more acceptable.
She claims that women join homosexual dyads and quasi-family groups in order
to fild protection from other women who they believe are untustwodly and
seltlsn-"
The rcmarkable diiferences between i[mate cultures formed by males
and females may be understood in these tems: The prison inmate
social system is not an intrinsic responseto the depdvationsof impri-
sonment, although the deprivationsof imprisonment may be impo ant
in precipitating inmate culture. . General features of the cultural
definitions and content of male and female roles in American society
are brought into the prison setting, and they function to determinethe
direction and focus of the inmate cultural system.They are the features
concemed with orientation of life goalsfor malesand females;cultural
definitiols of passivity and aggression;acceptability of public expres-
sion of affection displayed toward a membe! of the same sex; and
perception of the samesex with respectto the "popular" culture-that
is, the stereotype of women asuntrustworthy and self-orientation[sic]
becau$e of her odentation to the marriage market. [Giallombardo
r 9 74 , p . 3 1
Neither of these hypotheses are supported by Tittle's (1972, p. 68) finding of
similar rates of homosexuality for men and women, basedon self-reportsand
inmate estimates,in a coeducationalfederalnarcoticshospital.
One of the faults of many previous studies is that the sociodemographic
ard delinquent characteristics of inmates are linked only in indirect and un-
tested ways to homosexuality. As Tittle (1972, p. 3) has noted, the alleged
prevalence of p mary-group alliances among female inmates (Ward and Kasse-
baum 1965; Giallombardo 1966) conld reflect lesserdeprivationsand controls
in v,'omen'sprisons rather than different needsof men aad women. Differences
in the homosexuality of men and women, older and younger inmates, blacks
and whites, lower- and middle{lass, and newcomer and veteraninmates could
result from differences in actual institutional teatment rather than preprison
differences.The preprison experiencesand behaviorsof inmates must actually
be linked to prison homosexuality if we are to consider them as evidenceof
support for importation theory.
In this chapter, I discuss the specific hypotheses formulated about importa-
tion indicators, how we measured each of these indicators, and how these
characteristics were distdbuted in tlre seven institutions. Then the strength of
the relationship of the complete set of preprison characteristics and pdson
homosexuality is examined, as well as the strength of the dfuect relationship
betweeneachpreprison characteristicand prison homosexualty.
 PrisonHomosexuality 87
I mportationPerspedives
Measuring Importation Variables

.LYeviousH omo sexual Exp erience

N
d6$66
IR

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 €

To determine the prevalence of homosexual experiencesprior to the F

inmate's cuuent incarceration, we asked where they had first written love
letters, passionatelykissed,or had sex with another girl (seequestion 15 appen- lr \s s
dix A). Their responsesjsummadzed in table 4-1, show that the propo ion
>'
reporting prior homosexual experienceranged from 3 percent at Hillsdale to
32 percenl at Delta Coed. The overall proportion reporting a prior homosexual F
experiencewas 9 percent.6 Over half of the previously experiencedhad their s: o { . o . r \R
first experiencein another correctionalprogam. Two percent of the 389 respon-
dents reported that their fust experiencewas at some other coed progam, arld
3 percent reported that it was at some other all-girls' program. Of the 17 (4
percent) who reported that it was at another place,T specifietithat the placewas
=v
home and 1 that it wasjail. r
The fact that over half the first homosexualexperiencesoccurredin other
589
correctional institutions complicates our attempts to determine the relative ).5<
impact of noopdson influences. Apparently the preinstitutional effects do not € aE
fi&'t
 88 prisonHomosexuality lmportationPerspectives

simply stop when the cufient incarceration begins but rather continue to operate
along with the effects of the new situation. Our data reflect lhe reality that
many inmates are recidivists and that the justice system is set up so that
offenders are usually in detention c€ntersand jails, and often in group homes,
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.
Fowteen percent reported stays of tluee to six months; l0 percent,
betweensix monthsand oneyear;8 percent,betweenoneandtwo years;4 per_
cent,betweentwo and threeyears;and 7 percent,over tfuee years.Thus,in
total,43 percenthadlivedin suchagencies
for overthreemonths.

hevious Experimce with the Justice System

Some investigatorsspeculatethat pressureto continue homosexualexperience

begun in prior incarcerations occun botl becauseone develops a reputation
that is hard to shake and becauseone's previousimprisonment is accompanied
by exposureto value systemssupporting many forms of deviance(Block 1955;
Gagnon and Simon 1973; Heffernan and Klippel 1980; Kieser and Schaffer
1949). Once an inmate is socializedto accept the situational ethics of prison
homosexuality, his or her attitude in subsequentincarcerationsbecomesmore
acceptingand liberal.
Some empirical support for the hypothesized relationship occun in
Mitchellt (1969, p. 58) study of two adult wornen's prisons where 54 percent andthe smallestnumberat Magnolia,St. Mary's,andHillsclale.
of the twenty.six women who had been in ju,!€nile institutions reported par- Thesedata on the duration of stay in previouscorrectional agenciesand
ticipation in prison homosexuality and only 21 percent of the sixty-six who had on the averagenumberof correctionalexperiences showedthe highestcontact
not been in a juyenile institution reported prison homosexuality. Mitchell also with thejusticesystemat DeltaCoedandthe lo\a,est
at Magnofia.
found prison homosexuality more likely among women who had previously
been in another adult prison (41 percent of twenty-sevenrespondentsversus
27 petcenl of sixty-three respondents),and who had previously spent time in hevious Delinquentsnd CyiminalBehnior
jail (35 percent of forty+ight respondentsyersus 28 percent of thirty-nine
respondents), although these small differences were not statistically significant. Preprison-offense
history and prison homosexualitymight be linked if inmates
acceptdeviantbehaviorand expressa lack of regardfor the normsof free
Duration of Living in Correctional Facilities. Since the duration of the girls,
prior experience in correctional facilities could also determine the level of
participation in prison homosexuality, rve askedthem how long they had lived
in group homes, detention centers, training schools, or co ectional institu.
tions before coming to their presentinstitution.
Overall, only 26 percent of Ihe 394 respondents said they had never lived
at one of these correctional agencies pdor to their current institutional place-
ment. The proportion ranged from 14 percent at Delta Coed to 35 percent at
Bayside Coed.t Thirty-one percent reported that they had fived at these orner
agenciesless than three months. Combined, the .,Never', and .,I_ess-than-three- who had juvenilecommitments.Heffernanwrites, .,Thekey to understanding
months" categorieswere reported by 57 percent of the girls, a surprisinglyhigh the systemat Occoquanand otherprisonsystemsmay well be the orientation
proportion when one considen that residential training schools are supposed thattypical offendertypesbringto their imprisonrnent',
(p. l?).
to act as a last resbrt in attempts to rehabiljtatedelinquents. To determineif offenseswere relatedto insttutioml homosexuality,we
90 PrisonHomosexuality
lmportationPerspectives 91

asked inmates thirteen questions about their participation in a wide range of

delinquent behaviors before coming to the institution. The response options
for each behavior were "Never," "Once or twice," "3-10 times," ald "More
than 10 times." Responserates to each question were uniformly high, ranging
from 94-100 percent.
A factor analysis was used to construct three factors of offense-history
8 items. The fust factor vas called offenses against others and included questions
ohh
about how often they had broken into a place to steal something@&E), dam-
aged someone'sproperty on purpose, robbed someone,hurt someoneon pur-
pose, stole something,and been suspendedfrom school. The secondfactor was
!
called victirnless offenses arrd included items about how often they had used
8 marijuana, hashish, or other drugs, <lrunk alcoholic beverages,run away from
@sv)
home, skipped school, ald had sexual relationswith someoneof the opposite
sex.
The tlird factor included only one item-having had sexual relations for
pay. It was included because it is commonly believed that prostitution is re-
.s I q!q oq lated to homosexuality. Prostitution has beenviewed as a defenseagainsthomo-
*
sexuality, and homosexuality has been viewed as a reaction against negative
impresions of men formed while being a prostitute. Gebhard (1976, p. 79)
says this speculation is "largely unfounded" and that "the incidence of exten-
sive homosexuality does not appear to be substartially greater among prosti-
tutes," but Ward and Kasebaum (1965, pp. 112, 128), using both official
and self-reports, found that homosexual involvement in the adult-female prison
they studied was related to prostitution. A prisoner suggestedthat the lack of
morals in the outside world accounted for the lack of morals in prison. A less-
O1
eyaluative way of stating the hypothesis is that people willing to deviate in one
o way are alsowiJJingto deviatein others.e
In our study, index scoreswere createdby summingthe scoreson tlle items
@s
Ec common to each factor.lo Responsesto each item were coded fiom one (never
.EE engagedin the behavior) to four (participated more than ten times). The mean
bs ior
scores for each item showed that the girls reported more victimless offenses
(range= 2.7 to 3.4) than offensesagainstothers(range= 1.6 to 2.6). Overa.ll,the
mean score on the victir ess-offensesindex was 18.3, with the rangevarying
dightly from 16.5 to 20.0 dependingon the institution (eta2 = -13l'F = 5.75;
q 9\q .-\ oq e n I p < .001). The overall meal on the offenses-against-others index was 12.0, with
F
x! the range varying slightly from 10.0 to 143 dependingon the institution (eta2 =
.08; F = 9.55; p ( .001). On both indexes,YankeeCoed and Delta Coedhad the
highest scores and Magnolia had the lowest. The other four institutions fell
somewherebetween,
The percentages for those who reported having committed victirnless
hs offenses more tlnn once or twice were the following:

F. ra Skipped school 80%

 PrisonHomosexualitY Perspectives
lmportation 93

78 found blacks slightly overrepreserited in rePortinghomosexualactivitiesin the

Drank alcoholicbeverages
75 institution, but the alifferencewasnot statisticallysignificant.
IIad sexrelationswith someoneof the oppositesex
63 Ninety-nine percent of 406 respondents alswered the question "What is
Usedmarijuanaor hashislt
58 your racial or ethnic background?" The response choices were "American
Usedoiher drugs
58 Inrlian,""Black," "Chicano,""Oriental,""Puerto Rican," "White," and"Other
Ran awayfrorn home
(write in)." The racial distdbution is shown in table 4-3. This institutional
The percentages for those who rePorted having committed offenses
against samplecontainsa higherproportion of blacksthan the U.S' population' Twenty-
others more than once or twice were the following: eight percentidentified themselvesas black, yet blacks comprisedon.ly 12 per-
cent of the nationalpopulationaccordingto 1970cenzusfigures.Another23
Suspended from school 46Vo percentidentified themselvesasneither black nor white. The highestproportions
Stolesomething 40 of nonwhiteswereat Magnolia(63 percent),DeltaCoed(62 percent),Hillsdale
24 (58 percent),and BaysideCoed(57 percent).Therewerefewernonwhitesat
Damaged someone's ProPertyon purpose
Hurt someoneon PurPose 23 St. Anne's(37 percent),YankeeCoed(33 percent),andSt. Mary's(25 percent).
Broke into a Placeto stealsomething(B&E) 2l The highestproportion of whiteswasat the two pdvateprograms(63 and 75
Robbedsomeone 18 percent) and at Yankee Coed (67 percent), which was in a state with a very
srnallblack population.In the other four programs,or,ly3743 percentof the
Nine percent had had sex for pay more than once or twice'
girlswerewhite.

Age SocialAassof Parents

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

an indicator of the family\ socioeconomicstatus for 80 percent of respondents

by coding the highest-status occupation reported for either parent into one of
four categoriesas follows:
\s ES N N

Upper-middle c/ass includes manage$, officials, proprietors, professional,

tecbrical, and similar occupations.
Middle clals includes craftsmen, foremen, salesworkers, clerical workers,
E \s \s s s and similar occupations.
i
lUorking class includes laborers, farmers,rr private household workers,
! sewiceworkers, operatives,and similar occupations.
c s \a 6R \R Unemployed is assumedwhen neither parent was listed as employed (ex-
cludesnonresponseson both questions).

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

Irnportation Vadables as Predictors of Homosexuality

s s \R \R

Regressiontechniques and cross-tabulationswere us€d to determine the rela-

tionship between participailon in prison homosexuality ard the fifteen variables
representingthe importation pe$pective. Since the results of the cross-tabula-
\a s N b\ tions were consistentwith tlle conclusionsof the regressionalalysis, but wonld
be far more cumbersometo report, only the regressionsummary is reported
here. A few details about the cross-tabulations involving ordinal- and nominal-
level variables are rcported ir notes at the end of the chapter. Regession
s s \s n techniquesare particularly appropriate for enablingus to determine which par-
I
sf ticular variablesare the best predictors aad the importance of the entire set of
importation variables relative to the set representing the dep yation pe$pec-
q)
tive. Since the search for the best predicto$ representing the importation per-
spectiyewas largely exploratory, it included a large number of variables.These
.
-3 E. bt€
E *-a=
a
g 'rariables are ordered in tle following list as they were described earlier in tlis
drapter and as they appear in the regression.analysissummary shown in table
\s S i := $E€si i= 4-4. This list shows how the fifteen variables were coded for the renression

11 &
Is
dd SEStF E€}=Bi;SEE€ analysis:
 Perspectives
lmportation 97
PrisonHomosexualitV

l. Prcvious homosexual experience-coded 0 if no outside homosexuality Table4-4

reported,I if outsidehomosexuality rcported; Resultsof Multiple Regression
of HomosexualityScoreson
2. Previouslengthof stayin grouphomes,detentioncenten,trainingschools, Importation Variables
or correctionalinstitutions-codedfrom 1 (neyer)to 7 (overthreeyears);
3. Numberof timesarrested by police; Regressioh Zero Order
.. b
yarulbtes tn aneequ4ton Coeffcient Coilehtion
4. Numberof timesin a juveniledetention;
5. Numberof timesin jail; 1 . Previoushomosexualexpe ence 1.90** .54
6. Numberof tirnesin juvenilecourt; 8 . Number of times in goup or foster homes .08
7. Numberof timeson probation, Partial Zerc-Order
8. Numberof timesin goup or fosterhomes; Variablesnot itl the equatian conehtton
9. Number of timesin correctionalinstitutions (tnining schoolor reformatory
2. Previouslength of stay in coEectionalprograms -.04 .08
or othercorrectional institution); 3, Number of times aEestedby police -.05 .09
10. Offenses.against-othe$ index-coded,ftom Oto 24i 4. Number of times in juvenile detendofl -.03 .00
11. Victimlesoffenses index-coded fr om Oto 24; 5. Number of times in jail -.01 .06
6. Number of times in juvenile cowt .03 -.04
12. Prostitution-codedfrom 1 (never)to 4 (morethan ten times); 7. Number of times on probation -.00 .07
13. Agein yea$; 9. Number of times in cofiectional institutions .06 .11
14. Race-coded0 for white, l for nonwhite; 10. Offenses-against-others index .05 . 1 5*
ll. Victimlessoffensesindex -.03 .02
15. Socialclassof parents-codedfrom 1 (unemployed)to 4 (upper-rniddle 12. Prostitution -.08 .06
class). 13. Agein years -.01 .05
14. Race .04 .05
15. Socialclassof parents -.05 .02
The relationshipsbetween homosexuality and these fifteen variablesare
zummarizedin table 44. The summaryis basedon the results of a $epwrse Note: R2 = .30; F231g = 68.66; p = .000. Numbets by variable descnptionsrcfer to
rcFessionin which all the variablesin the model were frst reviewed.r2prison numbersusedin the t6xt description.
homosexuality, the dependentvariable,was then regressedupon the variable aPartia.l
correlation coefficients for each variable witi the dependent variable after the
ya.riablesa.lreadyin the equation have been partialed out.
with which it had tlte largestzero-ordercorrelation (previoushomosexuality).
At this stage,the computer output providesfirstorder partial correlationsof bln
this ,"gression analysis,the dependent variable has been stanalardized.Quantitative
all other fourteen variableswith the dependentvariable, contuolling for the independent va ables such as variable 8 haye been standardized, while dummy independent
variablessuch as variable 1 rema.inin a zero-one fom.
strongestpredictor of pdson homosexuality.The f[st-order partials were then *p < .05.
examinedin order to select the strongestpartial correlation when the first **, < .001.
vadableis controlled.Then the dependentvariablewas regressed upon both
tle first and secondpredictors(rrevioushomosexualityand numberof times
in group or foster homes) to get a new prediction equation. The computer
output providessecondorderpartial corelations of all other thirteen variables The best predictor of prison homosexuality was clearly previoushomosexuality.
with the dependentvariable, controlling for the two strongestpredictors of It explained 29 percerltof the variancein the homosexuality index.rs Number
homosexuality.Whenthe l' test for partial regressioncoefficientsaddeclto the of times in group or foster homes had a weak, but statistically significant,
equationhad a probability geater than .10, this proces was terminated.r3 independent effect, accounting for only 1 perc€nt more of variarce in prison
Table 44 shows the regession equationsincluding only the signficant pre- homosexuality.16
dictors, strce there was little point in addingvariablesto the equation whose The other thtteen indfuect-importationvariables,including other previous
partial regressioncoefficients were not significantly different from zero.ra correctional experiences,previous offenses,age, race, and social class,had no
The secondorder partials for variablesnot in ihe equation are also reported independent associationswitl prison homosexuality once the two most impor-
to provide evidenceof their weak relationshipwith homosexuality.The regres- tant vadableswere controlled.rT Were we to add all thirteen of these variables
sion coefficients indicate that previous homosexuality and number of times (now not in the prediction equation) to the prediction equation, they would
in group or foster homes contribute significantly to p son homosexuality. only account for aaother 2 percenl of the variance in prison homosexuality.
 98 PrisonHomosexuality
Thus, all fifteen importation Yariables simultaneously account for 32 percent
of the variance in prison homosexuality, but previous homosexuality alone
accountsfor 29 percent ofit.
Table 4-5 shows tlre important relationship betweenpreprison and prison
homosexuality in a cross-tabulation.Only 12 percent of the 354 girls who
Fport no previous homosexual experiencereport pdson homosexuality. They
also repod a lower level of involvement (8 percent witl scoresof only one or
two on lhe homosexuality index) tharl those who report Pdor homosexual
experience.In contrast, ?1 percent (N = 25) of the thirty-frve girls who report
prior homosexuality also report at least one exPerience during their current
term of incarceration and higher levels of involvement (51 percent with scores
of three or four on the homosexualityindex).
The ilata offer strong support for the importation perspective, but the
nature and degree of that support must be carefully qualified since most inmates
report that their lust homosexual experience occurred in the training school
where we questioned them. Sixty-three percent of the sixty-seven respondents
who reported prison homosexuality rePoded no previous experience' While
some pdson homosexuality is undoubtedly due to pdson conditions, some
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
same time period in order to determine the strength of the impact of prison
conditions on prison homosexuality,but suchinformation is not available.
The otler important qualification is that many of the Previous homosexual
experiences occurred in other correctional institutions. About half of our
respordents reported fust writing love letters, passionatelykissing, or having
Table 4-5
Girls with Various Homosexuality Scoresby Previous llomosexuality
Homosexuality Previous
Inilex Score Homosexuality Homosexuality
28.6%
0 88.t%
1 8.6
2 i 1.4
3 2.0
1.1 2s.1
Total IO0.O% ro0I%
Number ofrespondeflts J5
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
etl? "
rll
lmportationPerspectives 99
sex in aoother coed or all-girls' correctiona] program.Even this relatively young
inmate group includesmany recidivists.
If prison does increase tlre likelihood of an offender's homosexuality, it
would also increase the proportion of inmates entedng their current Prison term
with homosexualexperiencesince a largeproportion are recidivists.Gagnonand
Simon (1973, p.249) believe that male prostitutes in adult prisons were often
homosexually seduced during a prior incarceration in another prison or in a
training school, and males who were attached to a single partner (and who did
not charge for their seffices) may continue with other male partners during
future sentencesor they may become prostitutes. Brown (1977, pp. 64-65)
studied the New Jersey Correctional Institution for Women in Clinton and
reports that all her respondents said prison homosexuality was likely if one had
more thal one jail experienceor a long sentence.Most women reported being
introduced to homosexual experiencesat Clinton, in city or county jails, or at
the State Home for Girls, zuggestingthat homosexualexperiencescan be moti-
vated by prison conditions but also that they can have long-term effects so that
the experiencesmay be repeated in subsequentincarcerations and the free
world.
Preprison Homosexuality Accounts for Institutional
Differences in Levels of Homosexuality
The small but significant differences between homosexuality scores that we
observed when discussing the differences between institutions (table 3-2,
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
covariate ald its effect on institutional differences in homosexuality scores
during current incarcerationwas examined.
The numbers in the first column are the means of cufient homosexuality
scoresfor each institution expressedas deviations from the grand mean. The
numbers in the second colurm inalicate tlre mean values on the homosexuality
82.870 scores,again expressedas deviations from the grand mean, adjusted for pre-
6.2 vious homosexuality. Initially, the range of mean homosexuality scores among
3.1 institutions was 0.72 (from {.32 to 0.40). Since most of this difference was
4.1
3.8 due to the confounding effects of previoushomosexuality, especiallyat Delta
Coed, the range in mean scoresamong institutions was reduced to 0.27 (from
IO0.07o
4.22 to 0.05) when the effects of previous homosexuality were controUed.
389 When consideredalone, institutional differencesaccounted for 4.4 percent of
tlre variance(eta2 = .044; p < .05) in the homosexuality index. Once previous
homosexuality was controlled, there were no longer any statistically significant
differencesamonginstitutions (beta2 = .017;p ).05).
 lmportation PersPectives 101
100 PrisonHomosexualitv

Table4{ The common belief that homosexuality is encouraged more in an all

Analysisof Covarianceof HomosexualityScoreswith hevious girls' than in a coed envhounent was not supPodedby these data' Neither
HomosexualityasCovariate iiO tttr Out" support an altematehypothesisthat claimsincreasedsexualfrus'
tration causesmore homosexuality in a coed environrnentbecauseiffnates
Deviatiorr from the Grond Mean are constantly arousedby the opposite sex but have no real sexualaccessto
them. After acljustingfor previoushomosexuality,irunatesin tlre three coed
Adjusted foi Pre- Numberof institutions replrt the samelevels of prison homosexualityas inrnatesin the
Unadiusted viaus Homosexutlity Respondefits institutions.
sin8le-sex
Delta Coed .40
MagnoLia .06 .14 121
St. Mary's .04 -.03 40
BaysideCoed .01 .05 30 OtherStudies
Yankee Coed
Hilsdale -.11 .00 34 I know of only two other studiesthat haveactually askedinrnatesabout tleir
St. Anne's 80
gevious and prison homosexualexperiencesand investigatedthe rclationship
Etaz = ,044* Beta2=.017 389 Lt*eetr the iwo. Both Hopper's(1980)andMitchellh(1969)studiesconfirm
Note: Rr = .307; Grand Mean = .41. This analysisi8 basedon 389 respondents.The elimi-
nation of seven caseswhere respondeflts did not answer the question on outside homo-
sexuality accounts for the slight difference in means between table 3-2 and this table.
*p < .05.

The large adjustment to the mean homosexuality score of Delta Coed

when previous homosexuality is controlled occurs becauseDelta Coeclhad
the highest scoreson the homosexualityindex and the highest propo ion of
inmates who reported previous homosexuality. Of the fifty-three girls who
answercdour questionson both variables,sixteen reportedparticipation in at prefer women as sex partnerseven outside prison' Only 18 percent of those
least one of the four indicators of prison homosexuality.Of these, fourteen apottlng a homosexualexPeriencein prison dehneclthemselvesas basically
rcported previous homosexuality,and only two said their lust homosexual tromoseiual. Almost half (49 percent) said tley lvere bisexual, anil a third
experience wasat DeltaCoed. ' percent)saidthat they werebasicallyheterosexual'
(33
At St. Mary's, wherethe adjustedmeaais reducedonJyslightly, four of the llit.h"ll" (1969) comparativeanalysisof the effects of severalpreprison
six girls reporting prison homosexualityalsoreported previoushomosexuality.
At St. Anne's,the adjustedmeanwasinseasedslightly,althoughthreeof the
five girls reporting prison homosexuality also reported a prior homosexual
expedence.This increaseoccu$ becausethe analysisalso takeslevelsof homo.
sexuality into account and becausegirls with previoushomosexualexperience
at St. Anne's are somewhatatypical in tlat they report low homosexuality
scoresduring their cu[ent incarceration.
At Magnolia,BaysideCoed,YankeeCoed,andHillsdale,mostgfulsreporteal
homosexualexperienceonly during their currentincarceralion.Only four of the
twenty-four girls at Magnolia who reported prison homosexualityreported a ernpiricaldatain st[dies of sexualbehavior:
previousexperience.Only oneof the six with homosexualexperienceat Bayside
Coedreported preyioushomosexuality.None of the six at YankeeCoednor tlre Lookingis not enough;one mustknow how to look, u'hatto look for,
four at Hillsdalewho reportedcurrenthomosexual experience reportedprevious antl whin and where-to look' A goodcommonplace exampleof this is
the person at his first spoding He
€vent. as
"sees" muchasanyone,but
homosexual exoerience.
 102 PrisonHomosexualitv
becausehe does not know how to look, he understandsvery little.
He does not know the rules that regulate the game, An orEar.ized
way of viewing is essentialto a1l objectiye unde$tandfug, [pp. 71-
721
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,
however, I rctumed to examine her data more carefully so that I could under-
standwhy shehad not emphasizedits relevance.
Mitchell had purposively selectedone treatnent-oriented and one custody-
oriented pdson so that the contrasting goals and organizational differences
between the prisons would provide a sound base for examining the effects of
different organizational environments. Both prisons had similarly small popu-
lations of sixty-one and sixty{ix inmates. Thus, the selection was ideal for
testing the deprivation-tleory prediction of more homosexuality in the custody-
odented pdson.
Subsequentfieldwork confumed that the treatment-oriented prison was
less depriving than the custody-oriented prison on several indicators. For exam-
ple, it had more staff per inmate, staff-inmate relationshipswere more positiye,
and staff was not readily distinguishablefrom inmates becauseboth groups
wore their own clothes. The grounds and cottagelike surroundingswere more
pleasant;the prison'slocation near a large city madeit easierfor family members
and others to visit; and a.llinmates were engagedin some type of work, either
in the institution or in the community.
These conditions contrasted with the more-depriving custody-oriented
prison in which there were fewer staff per innate, staff-inmate relationships
were more negative, and inmates wore cotton dressesand the matrons wore
white uniforms and white shoes. The U-shaped architecture of the two-story
custodial pdson resembled that of a maximum-security pdson, and visitofs
were required to clearwith armed guardsin the towers of a nearby men's prison.
Most of the women stayed in their rooms the geater part of the day and had
fewer contacts with the outside world becauseof the institution's location in an
isolatedrural environment.
Mitchell canvasedthe total inmate population of the two prisons to deter-
mine tlre incidence of homosexual relationships both prior to and durilg tlLeir
prison term. To measure the incidence of homosexual relationships,inmates
were askedto reply either yes or no to the statements,"In the past I have par-
ticipated in homosexual relationshipsin this institution," and "I am currently
participating in a homosexual relationdrip in tlis institution." A significantly
higher proportion of women in the tTeatment-(37 percent) than in the cus-
tody-oriented prison (21 percent) reported past or curent homosexual rela-
tionshipsin the prisons(Z = 1 .79 p ( .05).1E
Mitchell correctly concludesthat these data seriously challengethe validity
lmportationPerspectives 103
rf the deprivation tleory. Howeler, her explanations are problematic. She
s.rggeststhat more homosexuality existed in the trcatment{riented prison
-.ecauseit provided geater opportunities for privacy and less-severe sanctions
.\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
.enus 21 percent) ard that inmatesin the two prisonsreported alnost identical
-evels of prison homosexuality once the effects of prior homosexuality were
3ken into account.
Previous homosexuality was the only one of several other importation and
:eprivaflon vadables examined that showed a strong and statistically significant
--elationship with both past and curent prison homosexual relationships within
::ch of the two prisons.2oOther importation variables-including education,
-e, marital status, commitment to juvenile institutions, commitment to jail,
-rd commitment to other adult prisons-were not consistently significant in
:oth prisons, nor were the two deprivation variables length of cuuent prison
-.irm and attitudes toward prison staff.
Table 4-7 shows the relationship between prior and curent homosexuality
:idrin each of tJle two prisons. Mitchell's (1969, tables 6, 7) numerical cross-
-culations have been converted to percentagesto show that the small differ-
::ces in rates of homosexuality between the tleatment- and custodyoriented
.iisons are not significant once previoushomosexualityis controlled.
Most of the twenty-five respondentswho reported homosexualrelationships
:.irsiCe prison also repoded past and cufient prison homosexualrelationships.
-:e proportions reporting past (60.0 percent and 60.0 percent) and current
-'33 percent and 50.0 percent) prison homosexuality were similar in the
:s3tment- and custody-orientedpdsons.
Fewer of the seventy4ne respondentswith no previous homosexuality
=lorted prison homosexuality, and although the proportions with past and
:-nent homosexual relationships were higher in the treatment (21.2 perce[t
=,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
:J differences existed between the featment- and custody'o ented prisons.
r rhat the small differences that occurred between previously inexpedenced
:i:rates were not significant becauseof the small sample size. In either case,
-:,-' data are inconsistent with present formulations of the deprivation theory
---,:t suggest custody-oriented prisons cause higher rates of inmate devialce
---.n treatment-orientedprisons.
The data from Mitchell's comparative study of two women's ptisons ate
:.:.ristent with our data ftom gfuls in three coed and four all-girls' juveoile
r-iritutions in showing that no significant institutional differences in rates of
;rson homosexuality occurred once the strong effects of prior homosexual
:i--rience were taken into account. In both studies, institutional differences
 PrisonHomosexuality lmportation Perspectives 105

Table4-7 would only be appropriate with some sort of self-classification,a frequency

Pastand Current llornosexual(H) and Nonhomosexual(NH) Relationships and/or time qualification on certain behavioralindexes,and/or consideration
in Tvo Adult Women'sPrisonsby PrisonType and HomosexualityOutside of the relative propodion of heterosexualexperiences.If a homosexuallabel
Pdson can be inappropriatelyrestrictivefor thosewith a continuingorientation toward
serual, erotic, and/or romantic relationshipswith others of the same sex
Homosexualit! Outside N o Homosexuality Outside (Sagarinl9?5b), it is certainly inappropriatefor thosewith merely an isolated
homosexual experience or occasional seriesof experiences,
Prison Type Percent H Percent NH PercentH PercentNH
Although preprison homosexualexPerienceswere the best predictors of
Past prtson homosexualit, the many importation variableswe examined,a fairly large proportion of in-
Treatment 60.0 40.0 21.2 78 . 8 mates with prison hornosexualitywere girls (63 percent in our study) and
(e) (6) (?) (26)
women (42 percent in Mitchell's study and 26 Percenrin Hopper's study)
Custodial 60.0 40.0 11.1 88.8
(6) (4) (4) (32) witlL no prior homosexualexperience.Our attempt to determine the effect
40.0 ls.9 of importation and deprivation variables (other than prior homosexuality)
Total 60.0 84.0
Number of iespondents (1s) (10) (11) (s8) on prison homosexuality on this previously inexperiencedSrouPis reported
following our descdption of the measurementand institutional distribution of
Between-prison
relationship 0=o;NS C = . 3 8N
; S the deprivation variables and their relationship to prison homosexuality in
dapter 5.
Cuft en t prison homosexualit! Any generalizationsabout the differences between female adults and
Treatment 53.3 46.'1 20.5 79.4
(8) (7) (7) (27) juveniles on the basis of existing information must be tentative because
Custodial 50.0 50.0 5.4 94.5 Mitchell's q[estions about homosexualreladonshipsand Hopper'sabout homo'
(s) (s) (2\ (3s)
sexual activities and homosexual encountersmay yield different responses
Total 52.0 48.0 12.1 87.3 than Halleck and Hersko'squestionsabout "gul stuff' or my questionsabout
Number of respondents (13) (12) (e) (62)
passionatelykissing,writing love letters, and havingsexwith anothergirl. The
Between-prison data suggest, however,that morewomen(40 percentof Hopper's174 reqpon'
relationship 0 = .06;Ns 0 = .64;NS dents and 24 percent of Mitchell's 106 respondents)than girls (9 percent of
Soulce: Rav/ data from Mitchel (1969), tables6 and ?. Usedwith permission.The between- Halleckand Hersko's57 respondents and 9 percentof my 389 resPondents)
prison relationshipis basedon Mitchell's calculationof Yale's O, a specialcaseof gamma come to prison with homosexual experience- This doesnot mean,however,that
for two-by-two tables,and Steinburn'sconservativetest for significance.The level of non- rates of prison homosexuality will always be higher among adult women.
significance(NS) was not reported. The number of rcspondentsis indicated by numbers
in parentheses, Prison homosexuality seernedvery prevalent among the girls in Halleck and
Hersko'ssamplein which 71 percentreportedhaving"muggeil" (kissed)another
girl, and 69 percent admitted having been involved in "girl stuff'(going
reflected different proportions of ifinates entering with previous homosexual together).
experiences. In this study, the previous experience might have been limited to
a single passionatekiss, love letter, or sexual act; in Mitchell's study, to either
an occasional or frequent homosexual relationship outside the institution. Summary
In addition, marry had both heterosexualand homosexual relationships,thus,
the previously experiencedrvomen were not necessarilytrue homosexualswitl A reviewof severalstudiesat the begi ring of this chaptersuggests that inmates
a long-tem preference for homosexuality. This large and impo ant category may have more experiencewith homosexuality than the generalPopulation
of inmates has been overlooked in many studies of prison homosexuality, does.This frnding has led severalresearchers (for example,Clemmer1958;
wbich usually consider only t}te extreme ends of a continuum of homosexual Grecoand Wright 1944; and Hopper 1980) to conclude that the pdsonenviron-
experienceand thus compare only tue homosexualsand those with no previous ment plays only a minor role in fostering homosexuality becauseso much
homosexual expedence.22Some of the problems with using a homosexual homosexualityis imported. An interpretation that is more consistent with the
label, discussedat the beginning of chapter 3, are relevant here. Such a label data is that the prison s€tting plays a very important role in the onset and
 lmportation Perspectives 1O7
106 prisonHomosexuality

more concerned with preventing heterosexual intercourse aad the potential

continuance of homosexual activity. Although the pull toward homosexual
complications of pregnaacy. At Delta Coed, staff tried to prevent homosex-
experiencesis strongest for those who have already had one, differencesin
uality by not allowing girls to go into one another's rooms, but one girl told
institutional environments may have their geatest effect on inmates with no
me there was less likelihood of being punished for kissing a girl than a guy.
previous homosexual experience. We do not yet knovr' what specific prison
Fimlly, decision makers may sometimes assign a disproportionately high num-
influences encourage homosexuality, but the combined circumstances of
ber of inmates with homosexual experiencesor preferencesto cedain coed
extended interaction with same-sex inmates and the relative distalce from
programsbecausethey believeheterosocialactivitiescould be rehabilitatiye.
important otlers in the outside community are probably important. No evidence
A large proportion of vadance in prison homosexuality is explained by
exists showing that differences in institutional structures or administrutiye
prior homosexuality, at least half of which was first begun in other coed and
goals result in predictable institutional differences in prison homosexuality.
female correctional institutions. It seemslikely that curTent institutional con-
The relationship of prison homosexuality to a vadety of imported charac-
ditions also encouragedprison homosexuality, however, sincemost respondents
teristics-like previoushomosexuality, previous contact with the justice system,
reported that their first homosexual experienceoccurred during their current
previous delinquent behavior, age, race, and social class-was examined. Multiple
term of imprisonment. A more-adequate assessmentof institutional effects
rcgression analysis allowed for the assessmentof the irnpact of the entire set of
would require knowledge of the prevalenceof homosexual experienceamong
Iifteen importation variables and the independent effect of each of the imported
a comparable nonincarceratedpopulation. My informal interviews with girls
characteristics, while controlling simultaneously for the effects of the others.
in the training schools indicated that many were familiar with gay subcul-
Only one imported characteristic had a strong relationship to institutional
ture outside prison. Their exposure may be higher than the general popula-
homosexuality: previous homosexuality explained 29 percent of the variation in
tion's, and some would have had a homosexual experienceeven if they had
homosexuality scores among individuals during their current imprisonment atd
neYerbeensent to pdson.
the small difference in average homosexuality scores among institutions. The
The data from Mitchell's (1969) comparativestudy of two women's prisons
highest levels of prison homosexuality were reported in the coed institution with
confumed the impodance of previous homosexuality in predicting prison
the highest degree of interaction among male and female inrnates, but this
homosexuality and showed that previous homosexuality explained more of the
organizational charactedstic did not account for the high rates. This institution
variation between individuals than did any other importation and depdvation
had the same rates of prison homosexuality as the other two coed ald four
variables.Once the effects of previoushomosexuality were taken into account,
girls' institutions once tle effects of previous homosexuality were taken into
the mte of prison homosexuality in the featment-oriented prison was not
account. Its high rate of prison homosexuality occured becauseit had selected,
significantly higher than the rate in the custody-oriented prison. Previous homo-
perhaps unintentionally, the highest proportion of inmates with previous homo-
sexuality clearly plays an important, and inadequately recognized, role in
sexual experience. The evidence does not support the h'?othesis that coed
explaining prison homosexuality.
environments encourage homosexuality because of the sexual arousal produced
Mitchell's data confirm the importalce of previous homosexuality in
by being with the opposite sex, although some inmates offered tlis rationaliza-
predicting prison homosexuality and seriously challenge formulations of depriva-
tion for their homosexual activity. Delta Coed had no more prison homosexual-
tion theory that predict more homosexuality in custodyoriented than in treat-
ity than aay of the other institutions once the effects of previous homosexuality
ment-oriented prisons, but we stjll need to determine if prison homosexuality
were taken into account in an analysis of covariance.
is more preyalent among inmates who experience and perceive higher levels of
These data clearly shatter the myth that coed insututions will automatically
deprivation. The next chapter is devoted to a clarification of this particular
eliminate homosexuality. Several explanations are possible. First, both coed
formulation of deprivation theory and an ernpirical investigation of its validity.
and single-sex settings provide more opportunity for inmates to interact witl
same-sexthan with opposite-sexpeers. Many of the inrnates'most meaningful
interactions are with inmates of the same sex. At both Delta Coed and Yalkee Notes
Coed, group-therapymeetings and most meals and unstructured leisure hours
1. This is my interpretation and reanalysisof Mitchell's data. To enable
were spent with the same sex. Although boys and girls attended school, resea-
the reader to independendy verify tlle apptopriateness of my calculations and
tional activities, and dances together, rules restricted physical contact with the
interpretations, the original table upon which it is basedis reproducedlater in
opposite sex to hand holding. No hugging or rubbing bodies together while
this chapter as the top part of table 4-7. Mitchell did not recognize the impor-
dancing was permitted. Second, greater opportunity for homosexuality may
tance of previous homosexuality in tlre text of her report.
exist in coed institutions becausestaff there are lesslikelv to exDectit and are
 108 prisonHomosexuality
2. Gagnon(1977) sayshe reanalyzedthe original data and estimatesthat;
It is difficult to know how much confidence to place on these estimares smce
they differ from other data collected by the Kinsey Institute and publishecl by
Gebhard and Jobnson (1979, p. 428). They created a less_biased
data set by
eliminating respondents belonging to goups with known sexual bias from their
computations (for exarnple, members of the homosexual Mattachine Society,
all individuals convicted of any offense otJrer than a traffic offense, and prosti-
tutes employed by a famous madam).
The proportions who had ever had a homosexual experience included 36
percent of white collegemen, 40 percent of white noncollegemen, and 30 per_
cent of black collegemen. Among women, the proportions who had everhad a
hornosexualexperience were 15 percent of white collegewomen, I I percent of
white noncollegewomen, and 10 percent of black collegewomen.
more than vice versa because the touching expressespower rather than sexual_
rty.
lmportationPerspectives log
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
and actual physical yiolence at the hands of their inmate peers.
6. The girls' responses to tle question asking where they wrote loye
letters, passionately kissed, or had sex with another girl the fust time were
cross tabulated with a question from the major questionnaire that asked them
about how many times they had had homosexualrelations at sDeci{iclocations
(institutions or elsewhere). Of the 324 gtuls who indicated they had never
suggestgirls may be more willing to admit havingwritten love letters, kissed,or
had sex thaa having had homosexual relations because the former lvords have
fewer pejomtive connotations. The varied and imprecise definitions possible
for the term homosexual relations enable youths to select a defrnition that
allows them to deny having such relations. Asking gids to specify the number
of such relations probably contdbuted to the low admissionrates on ttris oues_
tion, both because it would be difficult for someone witJr extensive seiual
experiencesto remember a specihc number and becausewiting a specific
number produces more anxiety than merely checking a particular location
indicating where one had homosexualexperiences.Becauseof theselimitations,
the data from the homosexual relations question were not used in this analysis.
7. When the institutions are ranked in tems of tte proportion of girls
who had never previously lived in such places, the following order renrlts:
Delta Coed, 14 percent; Hillsdale, 20 percent; St. Anne's,25 percent; yankee
Coed, 26 percent; St. Mary's, 28 percent; Magnolia, 30 percent; and Bayside
coed,35 percent.
8. Some girls included their present stay in an institution, whjle others
did not. Thus, this particular indicator is both conservative and imprecise.
9. For a review of literature on the relationship between homosexuality
ard prostitution, see Cory (1964, p. 144), Karlen (1971, p.55S), and Warcl
and Kassebaum(1965, pp. 126-132). James(1976) suggests that homosexulity
may be more preva.lentamong prostitutes becausethey are so often trcar_
cerated: "Some prostitutes may turn to lesbianismasthe only sexualalternative
while incarceratedand discoverthat they enjoy it" (p. 189).
 110 PrisonHomosexualitv
10. Cronbach'salphasfor both the lust (a = .84) and the second(o= .7?)
factor are sufficiently high to warant summing scores for the items clustered
in each factor to form an index,
11. Only one black girl at Delta Coed reported that her parents were
farmers.
12. Multiple regressionemploys the principle of least squaresto produce a
prediction equation enabling us to weight and sum scoreson the independent
variablesto obtain the best possibleprediction equation of homosexualexped-
ences dudng current incarceration. It is used here primarily as a deyice for
estimating the amount of variance in the dependent variable that the entfue set
of independentvariables(representingeachof the two theories)can account for,
ald also for eyaluatingthe relative contdbution of eachvariableindependently.
13. Statistical significancehas been used only as a crude rule of thumb in
determining a variable's predictive impodance. No variableswere rejected as
unimportant in predicting homosexuality stdctly on the basis of statistical
significance since the magnitude of their effects was small when the variables
were not statistically significant.
14. Becauseeach of the independentvariablesvrashypothesizedto affect
homosexuality, one could legitimately report an equation with allthe predictor
variablesentered. Such equationswere €stimated,and their results were similar
to those reported.
15. This was a consewative estimate of the proportion of variance ex-
plained because"going with or being married to another girl" is part of the
homosexuality index but not of the indicator of previoushomosexuality.Thus,
the definition of homosexuality for the homosexuality index (during current
incarceration)wasbroader than our measureof previoushomosexuaLity,
One possible interyretation of the strong relationship between prevrous
homosexuality and prison homosexuality is that those who had reported homo-
sexuality at one time in their Life were more willing to report it at another time.
This hypothesis treats the variancesharedbetween previoushomosexuality ald
prison homosexuality as an indication of willingnessto report. One reasonfor
rejecting this altemate hypothesis of methodological bias as a total explanation
for the shared variance is that 52 girls reported homosexuality on one variable
but not on the other. Forty-two of the 354 girls reported only prison homo-
sexuality, and 10 of the 25 who reported previoushomosexuality reported no
prison homosexuality. Thus, while some of the sharedvariancemay be due to
rcporting bias,much reflectsthe real lint betureenpast and presentbehavlor.
Such a link was also found by Thomas and,Cage(1977, p.201) in their
study of male felons confined ir a medium-security,custody-orientedfacility.
Of the 60 inmates (22 percent of the sampleof 2?3) who reported drug usein
prison, only 4 reported their first drug use in prison-that is, 93 percent of
those inmates reporting drug use within the prison also reported drug use prior
to their confmement. Thus study is, however, subject to the samemethodolog-
ical criticism.
lmportationPerspectives 111
16. The importalce of previous homosexuality and the relative inability
of number of times in goup or foster homes to predict prison homosexuality
was conf[med when these variableswere cross tabulated with current homo-
sexual experience. The dependent variable was dichotomized, and scores of
four or higher on the number of times in group or foster homes were com-
bined in a cross tabulation ttrat confirmed that inmates with previous homo-
sexuality were more likely to report pdson homosexuality. This relationship
held at all levels of previous experiencein group or foster homes. When we
control for previous homosexuality by examining the relationships between
prison homosexuality with number of group- or foster-homeexperiencesamong
inmates who reported previous homosexuality and those who did not, the
relationshipswere not significant-that is, number of times in goup or foster
homes has little utility as a predictor of prison homosexuality when we fint
remove all tlle variation in previous homosexuality. It accounts for a small
proportion of variancein prison homosexuality when the homosexualityindex,
rather than the dichotomized variable, is employed and only when control
within regressionis utilized.
17. Analysis of the fioss-tabulationsfor the ordinal- and nominal-variables
produced similar conclusions as the regressionanalysis.When pdson homo-
sexuality was dichotomized into participants and nonparticipants, gamma
valueswere *.02 for previous length of stay in corectional programs, .23 for
prostitution, .08 for race, and -.01 for social class. None was statistically
signifrcantusing Goodman and Kruskal's (1963) test (p > l3).
18. Mitchell says that 37.7 percent reported pdson homosexuality in the
teatment pdson, but if nineteen of hfty-one respondentssaid they had been
involved in homosexual behavior, the accurate percentage is 37.3 percent,
which becomesthe 37 percent reported in tlis text when rounded. Although
Mitchell never actually reports the total number of respondentsused for this
calculation, she apparently used the responserate for the overall questionnaire
in the treatment- (/y'= 51) and custody-odented(/y'= 52) prisons.
19. No convincing evidenceto demonstratethat there is more opportunity
for privacy ir the treatment-oriented prison is provided. On the contrary,
inrnate activity may be more closely monitored by staff in the treatment-
oriented prison becausethe staff-inmate Iatio there is thee times as high as in
rle custody-orientedprison. Mitchell's statement that inmates at the custody-
oriented prison were more distrustful about the anonymity of their replies
also raises questions about the validity of her explanation. Since all physical
;ontact at the custody-odented prison was absolutely prohibited and inmates
were put into isolation for as long as a month for passinga note to another
,orisorl€r,more women there had reasonto concealtheir homosexualactivity.
20. The relationship between prior homosexuality and pdJl prison homo-
sexuality was high in the tueatment-orientedprison (Q = .68;p 1.01) and in
.-he custody-oriented prison (Q = .84, p 1 .0001). The relationship between
? or homosexuality and.current prison homosexuality was also high in both
 112 PrisonHomosexualitv
the treatment-oriented prison (Q = .63; p < .01) and the custody{riented
prison(Q = .89,p 1.001). ThesestatisticsareMitchell'scalculations of Yule's
Q, a specialcaseof gammafor two-by-two tables,and Steinburn'sconsewative
testfor significance.
21. To check on the significane of betweenprison differencesin the inci-
denceof past and current homosexualrelationdrips,I also computed/ using
Seigel's(1956,p. 107)formulafor two-by-twocontingency tables:
tr
N (AD-BC) -T
( A + B ) ( C + D ) ( A + C ) ( B + D ) df= t
The formula incorporatesa correctionfor continuity that improvesthe approd-
mation of the distribution of tlre computed12 by the chi-squaredistribution.
For pasthomosexual relationships,yJ = .66;p>.50. For currentprisonhomo-
sexualrelationslrips
, yJ =245;p) .10.
22. Severalof Mitchell's statementsillustrate the strengthof the tendency
to incoffecfly classify women with previousexperienceas true homosexuals.
Mitche[ (1969, p. 60) inconectly classifieswomen who had occasionalor
frequent homosexualrelationshipsoutside as true homosexuals,even though
she cautioned that the homosexuallabel wasinappropriatefor isolatedhomo-
sexualacts or seriesof acts (p. 50). Because sheoverlookeddatathat showed
the exact nature of the relationship betweenpdor and current homosexuality
and focusedinsteadon the similar Foportions of ifinates with prior andprison
homosexualexperience,she incorrecfly concludedthat prison homosexuality
is almostenttely betweentruehomosexuals (p. 60).
DeprivationPerspectives
on PrisonHomoseruality
ln conhast to importation theory's emphasison inmateadaptationsto imprison-
ment as representingbehavior pattems establidred prior to imprisonment,
depdvation theory seessuch adaptationsas resultingprimarily from the harsh
conditions of prison life. The prevalenceof homosexualbehavioris assumedto
Fflect the absenceof the oppositesexand to illustrate that lack of opportunity
to achievesocially acceptedgoals(sex) though legitimatemeans(the opposite
sex)resultsin people'sresortingto illegitimate rneans(the samesex).However,
while researchers commonlyassurnethat prisonhomosexualityis an institutional
product that representsthe normal reaction of normal people to abnormal
conditions,empiricalsupportfor this assumptiondoesnot exist.
One form of the deprivationperspectiyelumps prisonstogetherwith other
organizationsin which one sex congregatesto the exclusion of tlre other and
claimsthat homosexualityis more commonin a wide vruiety of single-s€x total
institutions including boarding schools, orphanages, convents, ships, and the
military @ergand Allen 1958;Caprio1953;Comfort1967;Cory 1951; Davis
1929; Elliot 1952; Kzflen 1971; Ploscowe1956; Rees 1968; Sexton 1969;
Westwood1952). Some emptuicalsupport can be found for this position in
Davis's(1929,p. 259) studyof 1100 singlewomenwho werecollegegraduates.
The study showedtlrat 29 Wrcerrtof those who went to a women'scollegehad
had a homosexualexp€denceand that only 20 percentof those who went to
a coeducational college had had a homosexual experience.In Schofield's
(1965b)studyof the sexualbehaviorof youngpeople,28 percentof hisfrfteen-
ro nineteen-year-old boarding-schoolboys, and only 3 percentof his day+chool
boys,reportedtaking part in homosexualactivities.
Weinberg's(1967) study of boardingschoolsfor boysin Britain prcsentsno
data to specify the extent of homosexuality,but questiomafuessent to fifty-
tluee headmasters askedtlem to iclentify the chief problemsof boarding-school
[Lfe.The problem of sexualadjustmentwas noted by 17 percentof the head-
masterrespondents.It ranked third only to tre problemsof the closednature
of the school community and its distancefrom tfte outside world (noted by
53 percent of the headmasters)and to the related problemsof home-school
adjustment(noted by 32 percen). The dilemmafor the administmto$ is that
rhey would needto increasetheir supervisionto ry to eliminatehomosexuality,
but if they uncoveredand expelledtoo many offenderstley would lose many
boys who brought prestige to the school as prefects, athletes,and scholars.
Sucha move would also createcatastrophicrelationswitl parents,the public,
113
 '114 prisonHomosexuality
and the political enemies of the private-school system. The result is that head-
masters and staffs try to ignore homosexuality. If asked about it, they will
say it is "a temporary aberation with no lasting effects." Gftls as well as boys
are regardedas forbidden sexual objects ald "schoolboys have been flogged for
talking to gtls."
Accurate data about homosexuality in the U.S. Army ald Navy are unavail-
able because the orgalizations formally announce their opposition ro u,
discharge those who are discovered in homosexual acts, ald use psychiatrists on
selection boards to assist in eliminathg anyone with a history of homosexuality
(Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin 1948; Tripp 1975; West and Glass1965;Williams and
Weinberg 1970a, 1970b, 1971). Under these circumstances,one would expect
rates to be lower than in Israel. where authorities are said to sendmetinto lhe
army when they come acrossa caseof homosexuality (Schofield 19652,p.197).
A common suggestion for decreasing homosexuality in single-sex settings
is to allow more furlougfusand conjugal visits for adult inmates(Burstein 1977;
Reid f979) and to replace single-sex institutions with coed facilities (Cataliao
1912; Jtnes 1969; Robbins 1953; Ross et a1. 1978; Ruback 1975). Imple-
menting the latter policy has probably directly involved far more inmates than
any conjugal-visit programs, but no evidence exists showing that having men and
women imprisoned together decreaseshomosexuality. To my knowledge, ours
is the only study that has compared rates of prison homosexuality in coed and
single-sexinstitutions, and it found identical rates of pdson homosexuality in
coed and female pdsons once the effects of preprison homosexualitywere con-
trolled.
Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin (1948, p.357) report that about 40 percent
of men have at least incidental hornosexual relations during the period they are
actually in the army, navy, merchant marine, and other such organizations.
This figure is somewhathiglrer than Clemmer's(1958) findings of 32 percent of
male inmates admitting a homosexual experience during their current iocarcera-
tion. Some investigators tend to blame all this sexual actiyity upon the organi-
zation, but some of these people would have had these experiences at home
even if they had never been in the armed forces or in prison. To know how much
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
social class, during the same time period, in the free world. A coed setting can
have higher rates of prison homosexuality if morc inrnates enter it with pre-
vioushomosexualexperience.
Other less-systematic investigations confirm that homosexuality is not
eliminated in a coed prison, but they offer no data on its prevalenceand no
empirical support for the explanationsthat they offer. W.ilson(1930, pp. 158-
160) studied a minimum.security coed prison with a higher proportion of male
inmates (approximately 50 women and 400 men) and a stringently enforced
rule against physical contact of any sod, including holding hands. Homosexual
DeprivationPerspectives 1 15
contact was more difficult to control than heterosexual contact, and some
residents ihought staff was more tolerant of homosexual than heterosexual
relationships. A female inmate told Wfuon she believed the coed environment
actually stimulated homosexuality. A couple of male inmates at Delta Coed
sindlarly told me that they got "homy" with girls but had sex with guys be-
causethey were too closely watched when with the girls.
Smykla\ (1979) study of t]Ie federal correctional facility at Pleasanton
in California similarly reports that inmates "felt staff condemned heterosexual
relations but ignored homosexual relationships." ln this institution, the policy
statement on physical contact allowed only hand holding and arm-in-arm con-
tact. Smykla suggests that the direct importation of homosexuality from a
previous term in a one-sex pdson environment accounts for some of the homo-
sexuality at Pleasaaton. He feels that staff suweillance and negativ€ sanctions
are ineffective detelents because inmates place a bigher value upon demon-
strating affection than upon the threat of punislunent, friends will stand guard
to protect their pdvacy, and staff is incapable of watching all inmates all the
dme. He hesitatesto make an estimate of the prevalenceof pdson homosex-
uality becausehis intereiews showed that inmates used a diversity of definitions
and held a wide range of attitudes about its acceptability in a coed prison.
Vary women excused their participation by saying they were locked up
together with their own sex for so long that "something" usually happened.
Ross and Heffernaa's (1977, p. 27) interviews in ten coed programs revealed
fiat female inmates sometimes "play the men for suckers to get them to buy
ihings," which the women later share urith 'their people" (other women) at
the cottage(seealso Ruback 1975, p. 325). The reducedoppodunity for hetero-
-xual contact in the evening hours along with high numbers of known male-
homosexualinmates led to similar behaviorpatternsof "relating to the opposite
sexby day and the samesex by night" arnongsomemale inmates.
The comments made by one of the staff members at Pleasanton suggest
-hat homosexualbehavior might be
more acceptedin a coed prison where it is
:nown that one or both of the women involved had a romantic relationship
rith a man (called coedlzg at Pleasanton):
Yes, they (2 female inmates) sit yery close, kiss. and embrace.But I
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
draws them together. . You can't get excited over that. lcited in
Smykla1979,p. 401
Ihe same overt displays of affection miglrt be categorLed as homosexual if they
-\€urred in a one-sexpdson. Homosexuality might also be tolerated more in a
-',J€d prison because staffs are more reluctant to transfer inrnates involved in
:omosexual than in heterosexualrelationshipsto a single-sexprison (Rosset al.
-978,p.28).
 116 PrisonHomosexualitv
Many wdters saythat the homosexualityseemslessprevalentamongmen in
coed pdsons,but no one presentsany dependable estimatesof its incidence
(Alrny ei al. 1975,p. 1471' Carnpbell1980,p. 92; Ruback19?5,p. 325;Smykla
1979,pp.4345). Any studyof sexdifferences in prevalence andcomparisons of
one-sexand coedfacilities would needto take selectionfactorsinto the different
prisonsettingsinto account.Coedsettingsareoftenrestrictedonly to menwho
have good behavior records and who are dose to release,and tlese iffnate
characteristicsmay make a geater contribution to any rcductions it sexual
coercion than the coed setting. The difficulty of evaluatingthe impact of a
coed-pdsonenvironment is also complicated by ihe diffrculty of isolating
its effects from accompalying variables like high community involvement
andfrequentfurloughs(Smykla1980,p. 174).
The usualassumptionthat the presenceof the oppositesexis more gratify-
ing tharl beinglocked up with inmatesof the samesexis not true for everyone.
Srnykla(1979,pp. 4748) talkedto two marriedwomenwho werebotheredby
the sexualharassment of "theselittle bastards.They'reso fresh.. . . Whatis it
with them?They're just kids. . . . I'd rather be in prison with all women." The
women were pressuredby staff to help the men act maturely, but tlre women
preferred having nothing to do with them. Femaleinrnatesfrequently com-
plained about the immaturity of male inmates, and they resentedattempts
to pressue them to take on the responsibility of try.ing to solve the mens'
problemswhen they werehavingenoughtrouble solvingtheir own problems.
Heffemanand Krippel (1980, p. 114) found that 70 percentof the resi-
dents of Fort Worth thought the coed setting wasa good tling but that about
19 percent had mixed feelings.The stongly negativefeelingscenteredaround
the restdctionson physicalcontact. The so-callednormal relationshipsbetween
womenand men at Fort Worthwerenot normalenoughfor them: "Its a bad
scene,man! The women are like the flowers out in the yard-for decorative
purposes onlyl" Cr. 114).In the coedhospitalstudiedby Tittle (1972),oneof
the inmates aptly explainedsimilar problemscreatedby the presenceof the
opPo$tesex:
Havingwomen in the samejoint leadsto too much frustration.It's
like hayinga pieceof cakeand not beingable to eat it. It would be
a lot easierto do time if therc werc no womenherc. The conflicts
and problemscreatedby their presence i8 morethan a guy with time
oughtto put up with. [p. 4l ]
Deveureux ald Moos(1942)andFislman(1934)areamongthe few researchers
whosewritings indicate they would probably not be surprisedby the frnding
that the prevalenceof homosexualrelationshipswas not reduced in a coed
institution. They concededthat the unisex population of most prisonsis a pre-
cipitating condition of homosexuality,but they did not view this as the major
Deprivation
Perspectives 117
cause.Deveureuxand Moos thought that the social isolation and stigrnaof
imprisonment were far more.important becausethese conditions made lhe
prisoners"in some respectssocially dead" arrd tlrerefore no longer bound by
the norms of the socially "living." They thought feelingsof isolation would
make prisonersmore likely to engagein a variety of deviantbehaviorsinclud-
ing homosexuality and that prison sex compensatedfor depdvationssuch as
the sameness of the daily routine; the absenceof thrills, new experiences,and
pleasurableactivities like baseballand movies; and the lack of oppo unity
for spontaneity.
If depriving conditions were actually responsiblefor inmates' deviance,
then we might expect more homosexualityin the harshly Spartanconditions
of a custodyoriented prison tharr in a treatment-orientedsetting. Alailable
evidencedoesnot supportthis prediction,however.rMitchell\ (1969) study
found that a higher proportion of women iomates admitted homosexuality
in a treatment-oriented (37 percent)than in a custody.oriented (21 percent)
prison: this could not be predictedfrom deprivationtheory. The reanalysis
of Mitchell's data in chapter 4 showedthat the institutional differencescould
be explainedby the fact that preprisonhomosexualitypredictedprison homo-
sexuality and that a higher proportion of inmates entered the treatment.
orientedprisonwith homosexual experience.
Adherents of deprivation theory might claim that the pdsonersexperi-
enced similar amounts of deprivation in both prisons, which is possible.In
chapterI we reviewedseveralstudieswhich suggested that expresionsofgood
intent that charactedzeteatment-oriented institutions may not actually result
.in inmates' experiencingthem as less depriviry. In addition, Nelson (1974)
reports that her initial judgrnent about which was the most depriving of two
statewomen'sprisonslater provedto be wrong.Shebeganher research with
the assumptionthat "different institutions exhibit varying degeesof totality"
(Wallace1971,p.2), ard that the most total institutionswould be the most
depriving.Then she classfied the Pennsylvaniaprison as more total than ihe
),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-
spective,the less-totalinstitution was not necessarilyless depriving.Prisoners
remed equallyunhappyat botl places.However,because the sourcesof their
deprivationdiffered, they criticized different things. In New Jersey,they were
unhappywith the food and the poor attitudes and pettinessof staff. In Penn-
sylvania, they were unhappy about discrimination against blacks, wages,
inequitiesin furloughs,and the operation of anhonor systemthat requirednew
iDmatesto weara specialdress,to be escortedat all times,andto haverestricted
privilegesald activities until a tfuee-monthperiod of cooperationmadethem
.ligib.le to becomeso-calledhonor girls with more privilegesand a changeof
Jress.Although neither placewas called a prison and neither had a surrounding
 118 PrisonHomosexualitv
wall or fence, both were experienced as pdsons becausefumates were not
allowed the freedom of coming and going as they wished.
My own obsewations of several juvenile institutions suggest that more-
campuslike architecture and the elimination of perimeter fences may actually
function to restdct inrnates' freedom within the institution more than the high
walls of a custody-oriented prison. All prisons and training schools place a high
priority on preventing escapes. The lack of secure perimeters i1l treatment-
orientedprisonsmakesthem look free, but it qeates the need for greatercontrol
of inmates within the perimeter and the more-frequent imposition of punish-
ments like sottary confinement and extended sentencesfor attempted or
successful escapes. The existence of high walls often results in geater freedom
for inmates on tlle pdson grounds since the walls reduce the necessity of con-
stant staff monitoring and of locking inmates in their rooms overnight.
i Juvenile institutions have the same shortcomings as adult prisons and
probably have even more brutality, intimidation, and homosexual coercron
(AFSC 1971, p. ll4). Ross and McKay (1979) report being horrifrecl by the
distinct and persistent military ambiance they found in the late 1960s at the
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
drab uniforms. They were forced to march fiom one place to another and to sit
silenfly, during the evening, in alphabetical order around a large common room
either knitting, crocheting, staring off into space, or chewing their nails. Speak-
ing was forbidden and crying was punished:
Even the passingof secret messages by an elaborategesturallanguage
that the ever yigilant matrons could never understand proyided only
transient retef from the oppressiveatmosphere.This was discipline
ia its most DickensianseNe; disciplire fashionedafter some distorted
Victorian notion that persisted in the progam, it the selection of
pe$onnel, in the innumerable rules and rcgulations . , . We wete dis-
This picture was quite different from the impression that a more-casual visitor
would get from viewing only the outside. Vjsitors would seewhat appeared to
be a wealthy private girls' school in what seemed to be an idyllic setting on the
periphery of a small town:
Nestled in a wooded glade,enrichedby grassyfields,it bore not a single
gxterior trapping of detention or restraint. There were no towers; no
ominous conctete, brick, or mortar walls; no baJbedwte; or pattolling
guards. A sign at the entrance announced its purpose fui sedate
DeprivationPerspectives 1 19
curlicue-School for Girls. The few fences in evidencewould be con-
sidered commonplace in any public school. Visitors repeatedly
confusedthe local high school with . . . the training school.There was
a singular, stark exception: a building not easily seen by the casual
observer. This was the maximum security unit rvhich confined
thirty-two intractable twelve- to sixteen-year-oldgirls ill an oppres-
sive atmosphereof locked doors, wire-meshgrilledwindows, steelbars,
and cells. . , . Girls who had beell stdpped, searched,and placed tur a
solitary confinement cell (variously and euphemisticallyrefered to as
a "dissociation unit," "thinking room," "blue room," "cooling off
room") with little else thao a hospital style nightgown and a mattress
would frequently ard consistently astound the staff by managingto
mutilate themselyes.. . . The staff had made them hide tleir scarsby
weadng extra clothing. They had punished them for carvilg by reduc-
ing th€ limited number of privilegeswhich they had, or by disallowing
visito$, or by assigningextra work, or by delaying thair releasefrom
the institution. If there is any substanceto the reports communicated
to us, at one point in the institution's history a standardtreatment of
carvingwas the application of salt dtuectly to the wound with a tooth-
brush![Rossand M cKay 1919,pp.l-31
Visitors are often not permitted into training schoolsand detention centers
on the grounds that tlre youths' identities must be protected, but this policy
also allows many practices to go unquestioned. Wooden (1976) found that
houseparents who cared for youths in such places were not always kind. Some
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
to blows on his bare back. "Rundng in place" was when tJre youth was required
to put his head in the same position while the guard runs in place to create
severe friction, resulting in burning and severe headaches. Some guards gave
youths large dosagesof tralquilizers like tiorazine and then forced them to keep
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"
kissing another boy, sixteen days for kissiag, and over twenty days for
attempted and/or completed sodomy.
An NBC News White Paper on Juvenile Justice (1971) called "This Child
Is Rated X," revealedmany more examples of cruelty perpetuatedunder the
formally stated institutional goal of rehabilitating and treating youths. The fact
that the people in charge are called houseparents rather than guards and that
the people who are involuntarily confined are called students or residents
rather than iffnates does not change the fact that tlese so-called schools are
essentially prisons. They are designed to keep children in and visitors out.
 PrisonHomosexuality
120
timesface ilown throughthe unfrientlly Texascactus"(Lloyil 1976' p' 170)'
At tlrc RebekahHome for Girls in Texas,the windowshad alarms,the rooms
werebugged,and the girls were kept under constantsurveillance(Time 1979a)'
Mail wai censoredand errant inrnateswere givenlicks with woodenpaddles'
Thosewho tried to escaPe weretied up or put in solitary'conhnement lockups
for days.The stateattomey general'soffice orcleredan investigationinto charges
that allegedthe residentswere sometimes tied to toileis for daysand sometimes
beatenblack and blue. Barnesand Teeters's(1951) excellentdesqiptionof
training schoolsin the 1940s still appliesto many suchplacestoday' So does
their conclusionthat "what we seein the typical reform schoolin this country
is a moreor lessseverecongregate prisonfor children"(9' 616)'
coflrments:
The philosophy of individual teatment ofien results in favoritism, thus the
inmals of all tlree training schoolsagreedthat a preferable systemwould
attach the same penalty to any de violation, regardlessof the number of
times an inmate violated the samerule. The staff preferredto exercisediscre-
tion, becausethen they could justify ally action in the name of treatment'
Inmatesoften feel that:
The conceptof treatment,in whateverorganizationcontext,imbues
that wouldscarcelybe possible
with a respectability
negativesa:nctions
with custody.[Giallombatdo1974,
were
if ihe sanctions equated solely
P.2421
DeprivationPerspectives 121
No pain equalsan injury inflicted under preten$e of just punishment
(or rehabilitation).[Bartollas,Miller,andD'antz1976,p.2731
It is logical to expect that inmates'levelsof deprivationcouespondto
formally stated goals and with the type of prison architecture-but available
evidencesuggests that cottage-style,treatmentorientedprisonscan be experi-
encedas just as depdvingas high-walledcustody{dentedhstitutions. We
need,therefore,to measurelevelsof perceiveildeprivationmore directly if
we are to providean adeqriatetest of the deprivationtheory.Dkect measure-
ment of deprivation levelswould also control for any differencesin perceived
deprivation1lat might result from differencesin inmates'expectationsand
variouspreprisoncharacteristics. For example,Alpert (1979b, p. 168), Jen-
sen ard Jones(1976, p.589), and Toch (1975, p. 164) suggestthat white
inmatesmay expedenceprison degadationsmore severelythaa black inmates
becausetheir free-world experiencehas not preparedthem for the putdowns
ard punishmentsthey encounter in pdson. Blacks may suffer lessfrom the
samehardshipsin prison becausethey have been exposedto more discrimin-
atorypractices andpowerlessness in the freeworld.
Youths may suffer more tha.nmany adults becausethey are often forced
into inyoluntary conlinement for longer and more.indeterminateterms than
areadultsfor comparableoffenses.The questionabletheory that training schools
are rehabilitative and that youths are more amenableto rehabilitation than
adults has often rcsulted in the imposition of inappropriatelyha6h sentences
upon youths who have committed minor offenses.Girls, in particular, could
feel badly mistreatedbecausetley are more likely to be imprisonedfor juve-
nile status offenses that is, for behayiorsthat are illegal for juvenilesbut not
for adults(Chesney-Lind 1973,1974, 1977,1978,1981;Cohen19'18l' Haft
1973;LEAA 1977;Satn 1974,1976;Selo1979;Strousel972l.rl,looden I976).
Most of thesegirls are impdsonedfor truanting from school, usingchernicals
(for example,sniffingglue,alcohol,marijuana),andnot obeyingparents(being
incorrigible or wayward, creating a disturbance,going out with someoneof a
differentrace,allegedlybeingpromiscuous, andrunningaway).A 1971census
of juveniledetentionand colectional facilitiesfound that 70 percentof the
glrls and 23 percentof the boys in public correctionalprogamswere status
offenders(LEAA 1974).A 1976surveyof statetrainingschoolsfoundthat 50
percent of the girls were status offenders and that girls had longer average
confirements than boys even though only 18 percentof the boys were status
offenders.Femaleinstitutionshad fewer educational,vocational,andjob pro-
gramsandhadthe mostrestrictiveyisitingprivileges (LEAA 19?7).
Many status offenderswere detainedon the suggestion of parentsand
school officials, and tley were confined for longer terms than were youths
who had perpetrated crimes againsteither personsor property (Conway and
Bodgan1977).This confinementis ostensiblyfor their benefit,althoughmany
 122 PrisonHomosexualitv '123
DeorivationPersoectives

inmates would disagree,and no good empirical evidenceis availableto support

Coed, and St. Anne's (7.5 to 9.2 months), and the shortestwere at Hillsdale,
lhis claim.
St. Mary's, Bayside Coed, and Magnolia (4.0 to 5.8 months). Information
In this study, we avoided making unverified assumptions about the depdva-
from administators indicated the averagestay was approximatelynine months.
tion levels of the institutions and indiyialuals by directly measudng inmates'
The girls saidthey expectedto stay a total of twelve-and-a-half
months.
perceptionsof deprivation.We did this by askingrespondentsto indicate degees
of actual and perceived deprivation on a variety of indicators.
Distance from Home

Measuring the Severity of Actual and Perceircd Deprivation

lnmates who are far from home probably experiencea number of additional
depdvations because their friends ald family cannot visit as easily and because
In total, inmates indicated degrees of actual and perceiyed deprivation on
it is more costly and cumbersome to afiange for home visits by the inmates.
thirteen scales and individual items. The indicators of actual deprivation in-
The result could be increased feelings of isolation arld loneliness, a defensive
cluded relatively objective arld quantifiable reports of how long they had been
suspensionof concern with one's home community, and more-intensepeer
in prison, tlre prison's distance from family and friends, the frequency of home
Flationships in the prison.
visits, and the amount of contact with parentsand the oppositesex. The indica-
To determine the distance between the institution and the home com-
to$ of perceiveddeprivation were more subjectiyeand included perceptionsof
munity, the girls were asked where most of their friends and family lived.
the adequacy of contact with family and friends, the quality of peer relation-
A road map was used to detemine the distance betweenthe city and the insti-
ships, whether custody was overemphasized, the adequacy of staffs' efforts
tution using the shortest automobile route. Most distanceswere great enouglr
toward treatment, and staffs' attitudes toward inmates. The next few sections
to make visiting difficult for most families. Overall, 43 percent of the inmates
describe hypotheses about hov/ these variables are related to prison homo-
were over 100 miles from home, 23 percent were 51-100 miles away, 10 per-
sexuality, how the variableswere measured,and the typical ifinate responses
cent were 26-50 miles away, 10 percent were 11-25 miles away, and oniy 14
in all seven institutions. The institutions are usually ordered from most to least
p€rcent rvere 10 miles or less from their homes. A rough ranting of institutions
deprived on each indicator of deprivation.
on this criterion can be obtained by examining the proportions over 50 miles
from home. Most inmates at Magnolia(90 percent) and Delta Coed (94 percent)
reported being over 50 miles from home. Between43-57 percent were over 50
Length of Stay
miles from home at St. Anne's, St. Mary's, and Hillsdale. About one-quarter
of the inmatesat Yankee Coed (25 percent) and BaysideCoed (28 percent) were
Maay theorists have zuggested that homosexuality is more prevalent among
over 50 miles from home.
those with long sentences@eveureux and Moos 1942, p. 3141'Gagnon and
Simon 1968, p. 26; Giallombardo i966, p. 134; Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin
1948, p. 210). However, Kasebaum (1972, p. 45) repofts that many women
Home Visits
linked their homosexual activities with the hrst few days of imprisonment when
information and friendship were in short supply and they were more vulnerable
Several theorists have suggestedtlat pdson homosexuality may be facilitated
and responsive to personal attention by a moreexperienced itunate. In order to
by low interaction with famlJy aJld friends (Abel 1943, p. 101; Giallombardo
detemine if a relationsldp existed between prison homosexuality and lenglh
1966, p, I35; Ward and Kassebaum1965, p. 162). Frequency of home visits
of stay, we asked the girls the day, month, and year, they had been sent to
is an indicator of intemction levels with family and friends and also of the
their institution. To determine how long an ifinate had been in the program,
inmates' opportunity to escapetemporarily from the deprivations of imprison-
coders figured the difference between the date the questionnafue was admin-
ment.
istered and the entry date given by the youths. The difference between the
We asked the girls how many times they had been home on a visit since
two dates was coded to the nearest month. At the time of the questionnate
they had been incarcerated. Their responseswere then used to calculate the
administration, inmates had been institutionalized for an averageof 6.2 montls.
averagenumber of montl y visits (0.63), which was less tlan one home visit
The differences among institutions \vere statistically sigtificant (eta2 = .10;
a month, for ail seveninsututions. The inmatesat Delta Coed,where the average
F = 7.001.p < .001). The longest stays were reported at Yankee Coed, Delta
was 0.01, alnost never went home, and at BaysideCoed,where the averagewas
 124 PrisonHomosexuality DeprivationPerspectives 125

0.22, inmatesu/ent home only once every fourand{ne-half montls. Inmates
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
doneat St. Anne's,wherethe average (1.14)wasonevisiteverythreeweeks.
The linear corelation between the averagenumber of montbly home
visits and distancefrom family arrd friendswas negative(r = -.34), indicating
a slight decreasein the averagenumber of home visits with increasingdistance
betweenthe girls'homes and the institution. Transportationtime ard cost
undoubte<llycontuibutedto the infrequencyof home visits. But they werealso
limited by generalinstitutional regulations,the pmctice of curtailing visits to
punish inmateswho were unableor unwilling to corform to staffs' expectations
of appropriatebehavior,and sometimesby the parents'reluctanceto havetheir
childrenhome.
Contactwith MotherandFather
Contactwith Boys
Becausethe absenceof heterosexualrelationshipsis thought to be one of the
most releva[t deprivations for causingprison homosexuality,we asked the
inmateshov,/ often during the previous month they had been alone with a
young personof the oppositesex. The responses showedthat very few had
had the opportunity to be alonewith a boy the previousmonth andthat Bayside
Coedwaslike the girls'programswith respectto the frequencyofheterosexual
contact.Overall,46 percentreportedneverhavingbeenalonewith a boy in the
last month. The proportions who had neverbeenalonewith a boy werehiShest
at Magnolia(64 percent),St. Anne's(49 percent),aad BaysideCoed(44 per-
cent),and lowestat St. Mary\ (39 percent),YarkeeCoed(3? percent),Hills-
dale (29 percent)and Delta Coed (21 percent).The similarity betweenSt.
Mary'sandIlillsdaleand the coedprograrnsprobablyoccursbecause thesetwo
girls' institutions allowedthe mosthomevisits.

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
Five factors resulted when the responsesto the fifteen items in this list
were factor analyzed with items scored zero if no deprivation was reported
and one if deprivation was reported. I used only the two with items loading
higher than .5. One factor was called perceiYeddepdvation of contact with
family and friends and included items 6 and 11 from the preceding list. The
other was called perceived boredom and restrailt and included reports of
whether there were too many rules and punishmentsand too much boredom
(items 2, 3, and 9 in the precedinglist). Cronbach'salphas(a = .69 and a = .64)
for both factors were sufficiently high to warant computing an index for each
factor by summingthe item scores.
The scoresfor the perceived-depvation-of-contact-with'friends-and-family
index ranged from zero (low) to two (high). The mear score for the sample as
a whole was 0.97 (N = 406). Differences among institutions were statistically
significant (eta2 = -!4; F = 11.25; p ( .001), with averagescoresas follows:
St. Arne's (1.47), St. Mary's (1.23), Delta Coed (1.02), BaysideCoed (0.95),
MagnoLia(0.81), Yankee Coed (0.56), and Hillsdale(042).
index ranged from zero
The scoresfor the perceived-boredom-and-restaint
(no complaints) to three (complaints on all tfuee items). The ovetall mean
score of 2.02 (l/ = a06) reflects a high proportion of complaints. Differences
betweenthe institutions were significant (eta'z= .i0; F = 7.12; p ( .001), with
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
0.33).
Qtality of Relationship with Peers
One might suspectthat good peer relationshipswould causemore homosexual'
ity, but Giallombardo (1966; 1974) instead hypothesizesmore homosexuality
when inmates regard peers as untustworthy, sneaky,and unpredictably vicious.
She assumes that girls, beginning at about age twelve, require validation of
their feminine identity by attmcting boys and that this encouragescompetition,
rivalry, and "predatory interpersonal pattems of behavior" which continue
into adulthood and into prisons.This rivalry for boys somehow becomestrans-
lated into tJre motivation for irnprisoned girls and women to form small groups
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
likely to havehomosexualrelationships.
The quality of peer relationships was measured by asking girls three ques-
tions. Their responsesoffer no support for the view that the furnate subculture
reflects a societalnorm of distrust among girls. For example,in responseto the
question, "How rnany of the youths you have met here would you like to see
DeprivationPerspectives 127
again after you leave?", only 6 percent of the 403 respondentssaid none,20
percent said not many, 39 percent said some, 20 percent said quite a few,
and 15 percent said almost all.
In response to t}Ie question, "How much of the time do you think rnost of
the youths really stick together and are loyal to each other?", only 6 percent
of the 398 respondentssaidnever, 19 percent saida lttle of the time, 37 perc€nt
said someof the time, and 38 percent saidmost or all of the time.
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
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
either the young adult rnen studied by Wheeleror the adult women studiedby
Heffeman. Wheeler(1961, p. 703) found that only 43 percent of men in prison
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
do not support the stereotypesof women's having great hostility torvard one
another and males' inevitably having a udder network of frienrlships than
females. Opportunity for interaction may be more important than sex as a
determinant of peer relationships.Some support for this hypothesisis provided
by Mitchell\ (1969, p.45) data showing that women in a treatment-oriented
institution had more-positive attitudes toward peers than those in a custody-
orientedinstitution.
A qualityof-peer-relationshipsindex was constructed from standardized
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
betweeninstitutions (eta'z = .06; F = 338; p ( .001). The worst peer relation-
ships were reported by girls at Hillsdale (1.0a) and St. Anne's (0.49). Index
scoresat BaysideCoed (0.07), St. Mary\ ( 0.06), Delta Coed (-0.09), and Mag-
nolia (-.34) cenlered around the mean; and scoresat Yankee Coed (-1.07) in-
dicated better-than-averagepeer relationships.These data do not support the
view that unrestrainedcompetition for a boyfriend is a major causeofpe asive
distrust among girls. Competition for boys must surely be greaterin a coed than
in al all-female training school, yet distrust, dislike, and rivalry were no more
evident amonggirls in coed institutions.
Perceptjons of Staff
Severaltheorists have suggestedthat homosexuality would be lessprevalentif
inmates fomed closer relationshipswith staff and respectedthem more. The
conflict of interest between officials and inmates is said to propel inmates
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

3. The staff herepunishyou for tlings you don't do.

- Stronglyagree - Agree -Miltlly agree
- Mililly disagree -Disagree - Strongly disagree
To determine inmates' attitudes toward staffs, we asked twenty-three
questions,which we later factor analyzed.Three principal factors rerult from 4. How much do the staff heretry to punishyouths?
the analysis.The first factor, called staff helpfulaess(o = .gg), containedeleven - A lot - Some - Not very rnuch - Not at all
items,eachbegirudngwith, 'TIow much doesthe staff heretry to,'
5. How many of the staffhere are friendly andeasyto approach?
- Ahnost all Most - Some - A few - Almost none
l. Helpyouths?
2. Get youths into comnunity activities?
3. Help youths understandwhy they get into tlouble? All responses were coded so that higher scoresindicatetlmore-negative viewsof
4. Train youths so that they canget goodjobs? staffs' punitivenessand caring.The averagedscoresindicatedmild disagreement
5. Stop youths from makingtrouble in the community? that staffs do not carc what happensto youths becausethey are just doing a
6. Setgoodexamplesfor yow behavior? job-and mild agreementthat staffs used information againstyoutls and tlat
7. Help youths wiih school? staffs punishedyouths for things they did not do. Someattempt wasmadeto
8. Help youths of different racesor ethnic groupslearn to live together in punishyouths and somestaff werc friendly and easyto approach.
mutualrespect? An index of the gi s' perceptionsof staff punitivenessand caringwascon-
9. Keepyouthssatisfiedandcontent?
structed from standardizeddistributions of the girls'responsesto theseitems.
10. Teachrespectfor others'property?
The overall mean was0; the scoresrangefrom 7.38 (negative)to -7.86 (posi-
1| . Havecloserelationshipswith youths here?
tive). The institutional differenceswere smallbut statisticallysignilicant(etaz =
.lO;F = 11.25;p <.001). Inmatesat St. Anne's(1.31)andSt. Maryh(1.09)
had more-negativeperceptionsof staff than did inmatesat BaysideCoed(0.35),
DeltaCoed(-0.06), and Magnolia(-0.31). The most positiveevaluations were
at YankeeCoed(-1.39) andHillsdale(-2.55).
The third indicator of inrnate perceptionsof staff was the question,"How
much do staff here try to keep order and discipline?"Of the 403 respondents,
58 percent saitl a lot, 32 percentsaid some,9 percentsaid not very much, aad
ol y I percentsaid not at all. In all institutions, iJrmatesagreedthat order and
discipline were important staff goals. Thus, mean scoresamong institutions
variedonly from 3.36 to 3.69,not a significantdifference(eta2= .03;F = 1.99;
p = .07).
In summary, these data indicate a yery strong concem with order and
discipline,along with somepunitivenessand caring,and someattempt to assist
1. Most of the staff here really don't carewhat happensto us; tlrey,rejust inmates.This picture confirms my own observationsat flve of the seveninstitu-
doingajob. tions. Thesegirls do not usually view the stsff as tlre sourceof their troubles,
- Stronglyagree _ Agree - Mildly aBree and only limited evidenceedsts of the norconfidencevote that Halleck and
- Mildly disagree _ Dsagree - Strongly disagee Hersko(1962) found in their study.
 130 PrisonHomosexuality
Psychological Suspensionof Ties with the Outside World
At the Federal Penitentiary for Women at Alclerson, West Virginia, ifinates told
Giallombardo(1966, p. 94) that it was easierto do time if they stoppedthinking
of family and friends outside and instead formed quasi mariages in the prison.
Presumably, iamates who have stopped tbinking about family arrd friends shift
their psychologicalbonds to institutional living ancl have a geater readinessfor
homosexual experiences,whereasthose whose free-world referencegloups are
more important are lesswillilg to have homosexualexperiences.
To see if homosexual expedences were morc likely when ties with the
outside world were severed,we askedhow strongly inmates ageed or disagreed
with the statement, "A good way to get along here is to stop thinking about
family and friends on the outside." Overall, over half (57 percent) of the 402
respondents disagreed.The majority of girls (53{3 percent) in every institu-
tion but BaysideCoed (39 percent) and Delta Coed (4g percent) disagreed.Thus
these girls do not have a nofm of cutting themselvesoff from the outside world.
Perhapsthis is becausethey have shorter sentencesthan the adult women studied
by Giallombardo and becausetheir dependenceupon parents gives them less
choice than adults have about maintaining ties in prison and reestablishing them
upon their rclease.
Deprivation Variables as Predictors of Homosexuality
Though statistically significant differences appeared between the seven institu_
tions on most of the deprivation variables,no consistency appeared in the
ordering of the institutions on the indicators of deprivation. Depriving aspects
were often balanced by positive featurcs so that no one program was consis_
Since no a priori basiswasused for determining which types of objective and
perceiveddeprivations,have the greatestimpact on homosexualityin pnson, our
strategy was to examine each variable as a separatepredictor in a multiple
regession analysis.Using regressiontechniques enabled us to determine both
the relatiye impo ance of specific deprivation variables and the amount of
lariation in homosexuality levels that could be explained by the total set.a
The results were confirmed by cross tabulations and appropriate tests for
DeprivationPerspectives 131
nominal and ordinal yariables.The deprivation theory predicts that a negative
rclationship will occur between homosexuality and the number of home visits
and that a positive relationship will occur between homosexual involvement
and all otler deprivation variables. The following list describeshow tle thirteen
riables were coded for the regression analysis, which is summarized in table
J-l:
1. Length of stay (in months);
2. Distancefrom family and friends-coded from 1 (10 rniles or less)through
6 (more than 200 miles);
3. Averagenumber of monthly home visits;
4. Infrequency of contact with mother-coded from 1 (once a week or morc)
through 3 (never);
5. Infrequency of contact with father codetl from 1 (once a week or more)
tfuough 3 (never);
6. Infrequency of private contact with boys during the preyiousmonth-coded
from 1 (every day) to 6 (never);s
7. Perceived-deprivation-of{ontact-with-family-and-friends index-coded from
0 (enough contact with both friends and family) to 2 (not enough contact
with both friends and family);
8. Boredom-and-restraintindex coded from 0 (no complaints) to 3 (com-
plaints of boredom, rules, and punislments);
9. Quality-of-peer-relationshipsindex-coded from -4.33 (very positive) to
5.88 (very negative);
10. Staff-helpfulness index-coded from 11 (very helpful) to .14 (not at all
helpful);
11. Staff-punitiveness-and-ca ng index-coded from 7.38 (negative) to -7.86
(positive);
12. Staffs efforts toward keeping order and discipline-coded from 1 (not at
all) through 4 (a lot);
13. Adherence to value of psychological suspensionof ties with the outside
world coded from 1 (strongly disagree)tfuough 6 (strongly agree).
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
simultaneouslyin a regression,the coefficient R'z indicated that together they
would explain only 2.6 percent of the variancein levels of homosexualexperi-
ence.
The data provide only limited support for hypotheses derived from the
deprivation theory, alihough some evidence exists of weak relationships between
prison homosexuality and distance from the respondent's home, perceived
deprivation of contact with family and friends, and infrequency of contact with
 132 PrisonHomosexualitv DeprivationPerspectives 133

Table5-l that their first homosexualexperienceoccurreddudng their cu ent stay in the

Resultsof Multiple Regreseion
of HomosexualityScoreson sampledinstitutions. Sincethe impact of importation and deprivationvadabl€s
DeprivationYriables might be stronger on inmates with no previous homosexualexPerience,we
decided to eliminate anyone who reported previoushomosexualityfrom our
Stahdardized analysisand examined the relationship betweenhomosexualityand importa-
Regessiort Zoo-Order tion and depri tion variablesonly amonginmateswho had had their first homo'
Variablet in the equation Coefricient Conelation s€xualexperienceduringtheir current incarceration.
2. Dist3nce flom responalent'shome .12* .11 In tlis new effort to determineif impo ation and dePriYationvariables
7. Perc€iveddep vation-ofrontact-with-family- had any impact, tlle thirty-five girls who reported previoushomosexualitywere
ard-ftiends index .10 .09 eliminated from the regresion. We therefore regressedscoreson the homo-
Pattiol Zero-Order s€xuality index upon all other twenty{even impodation aIId depdYauon
Variobles ot in the eauation Conelationa Conelation variablesfor all respondentsexcept the thirty-five gfulswho reportedprevious
1. Lengih of stay in monthr
homosexuality.This aaalysisincluded only those who had had thei.rflrst homo-
.07 .08
3. AveEgenumber ofmonthly home visits .03 -.01 sexual experiencedwing their cufient incarceratiot (N = 42) and those who
4. Infrequency of conlact with mother .07 .ll rcported no homosexualexperiencesat all (try'= 312) either pdor to or during
5. Infrequency of contact with father .04 .06
5. Inftequencyof last month's privatecontact
their cufientprisonterm.
with boys .03 .04 The results were similar to the previousregressionanalyses(sumrnarized
8. Perceived-boredomdd-restaint index .04 .04 n table44 and table5-1). Numberof timesin groupor fosterhomeswasthe
9. Negativepeer relatioDships .00 .01
10. Staff helpfuloess
only variable that had any statistically significant effects, and its abitty to
11. Staffs punitiveness and cadng .00 .03 predict prison homosexualitywas weak. The variableexplained only 2.1 Per-
12. Staffs efforts toward order and disciDline ,42 .01 c€nt of the vadancein levelsof homosexuality(r = .15;p = .921.
13. Psychologicr.l suspensionof des with outside
world .08

Notet R2 =,.022i F2,211 = 1,082; p = .042. Numbers by variabledescriptionsrefer to Summary

numbercusedto descrjbethe codingschemeand relevanthypothesesin the text.
aPartial cofielatiolr
coefficients for each variable with the dependent variable after the In this chapter,we have describedsome of the propositionsthat can be sub'
yaiables ateady in the equation have be€n pa ialed out,
*p < .05. sumed by depdvation theory anil reviewedseveralstudiesthat found homo'
sexuality is not eliminated in a coed setting and tlat someinmatescomplain
that being with the opposite sex infieases their sexual frustration. We also
mother.6 The indications in chapter 4 that much previous homosexuality was reviewedthe evidenceshowingthat we can no longer safely assumethat tmin-
initiated in previousinstitutions is probably the best evidenceof deprivation ing schools for juveniles are less depriving than prisons for adults or that
influences,even though previoushomosexualitycan also be viewed as an im_ custodyoriented pdsons are more depriving than treatment{riented prisons
portation variable. The lack of correspondencebetweenthe formally statedgoalsof suchinstitu-
tions and the inmates' levels of deprivation demonstratedthe importance of
measudngactual and perceiveddeprivationsmore directly if we wereto provide
lnportation and DeprivationVariablesashedictors of a better empiricaltest of the deprivationtheory.
Homosexualityfor Girls with No Previous We attempied to measureas many different aspectsof girls' experiencts
HomosexualExperience and attitudes as possiblebecausepreviousresearchhas not providedany clear
guidelinesfor choosingthe most painful or relevantdeprivationsfor predicting
prison homosexuality.Across the total sample,we found tlnt ghls had been
in the prison at which we questionedthem for an averageof 6.2 months.Overall,
43 perc.erLl livetl over 100 miles from home, and most had lessthan one visit
home a month. Mostwerenot in touch vrith their mother and father very much,
 Perspectives
Deprivation 135
134 PrisonHomosexuality

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

In this chapter we examine a number of contuadictorytheories about pdson

homosexualitythat involve variableswhich cannot clearly be classiliedasrepre-
sentingimportation or deprivationpenpectir€s.The variablesinclude religious-
ness, quality of relationship with each parent, role preference,domhance,
prettiness.
desiresfor marriageand children,self+steem,and self-perceived
The chapter concludesby examiningthe relationship of preprisonhomo-
sexuality with these variablesand with the preprison variablesdescribedin
chapter4.

andPrisonHomosexuality
Self-Descriptions

To examine hypothesesabout the relationship betweenirmates' s€lf-descdP-

tions and prison homosexuality, we cross-tabulatedeach variable with the
following tfuee levelsof scoreson the homosexualityinalex:

1. No homosexuality (scoreof 0);

2. Low levelof homosexuality (scoreof 1 or 2);
3. High level of homosexuality(scoreof 3 or 4).

Wethen examinedthe relationshipbetweenscoreson the homosexualityindex

and each of the self-descriptivevariablesseparatelyfor the group with prior
homosexualexperienceand the group with no prior homosexualexpedence.
Table 6-1 showsthe resultswhen a variablehad a statistically significantrela-
tionship with prison homosexualityin either of the two groupsor in the total
population.

Religiousnessand Quality of Mother-Dfrtghterand

F ather-Drughter R ebtio nfi ips

Re@iousnes, Becausereligiousteachingsusually condemnsexualrelationships

outsideof marriage,we hypothesizedthat fewerreligiousgirls would havehomo-
sexual experiences.We asked respondentshow religious they considerthem-
selves.The responsecategorieswere very religious,somewhatreligious,not too

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

a RolePrcference,Dominante, otd Desiresfor

Moriage and Children

Role Preference.Sometheorists say that homosexualityrepresentsa rejection

v) E}
3g
of traditional femaleroles,while otherssay that homosexualityoccursbecause
women accept the taditional role. The latter view is representedby Giallom-
'lx
€R bardo's(1966; 19?4) claim that homosexualityis more prevalentamongfemale
\o4 irrrnatesbecausemany aspects6f their preprisonsex-rolesocializationprcdisPose
d3
=E s.9 93 v
them toward it. Shebelievesthat becausen'omen'sidentity is so d€pendenton
F-:
t8 iF *q
to compensatefor the loss of these
their famifial role, they find it necessaJy
roles in prison by substitutingmake-believefamilies and homosexualdyads.If
 142 PrisonHomosexuality
this theory is coffect, then homosexuality will be more preva.lentamong male
and female inmateswho are oriented toward marriageand children.
A less-popularview among sociologistsand criminologists,but with advo_
cates among the generalpublic and psychologists,is the belef that homosexual-
rty representsa rejection of traditional defrnitions of femininity. Blos (1969,
p. 104) suggeststhat guls with homosexual inclinations become dissatistied
with the female role becausethey want to be a boy in order to exerr grearer
control over their girlfriends and to be loved by them. Maslow (1942) studied
a normal population of collegewomen and found that women with ,.masculine,,
prisons. For example, they suggestthat some young lesbianstry
to look and
act like men so they can be identified by other lesbians.Masculinemamerisms
ald appearalce might also be a way of showing hostility to people
who
denigrate their rejection of heterosexual behaviorsand try to force them
to
conform by having sex with men or not at all.
The associationbetween lesbianism and masculinity can also increasethe
liklihood of inyitations to sharea homosexualexperiencefor women who have
likelihood that she would receive homosexualinvitations. And if an inyitation
came from an attractiye woman with a winning approach_at a time when she
was susceptible-shemight acceptit
A similar relationship was found between previous homosexuality and the
rejection of female roles. Forty-sevenpercent of girls with previoushomosexual
expedencewished they were boys, but only 16 percent of those with no
such
experiencereported occasionallyhaving suchwishes.
and PreviousExperlence
Self-Descriptions 143
Dominance. One of the factors that may attract some ghls to the rnale role is
its associationwith dominanceand secudty. Homosexuality also aPpearsto be
related to leadershipand power (Blos 1969; Simmons 1975). In this study we
asked if the statement, "I can usually get other gtulshere to do what I wart,"
was true or false. Table 6-1 showsthat inmateswho had been involved in pdson
homosexuality were far more likely to report such Power and dominance.This
rclationship occured among the groups with and without previous homosexual
expenence.
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,
pp. 15-19) found that women who were designatedas true homosexualsu/ere
also more likely to be consideredleadersand desirablecompanions.They were
outspoken ard assedive in a positive way and able to achieve institutional
chalges that were valued by other inmates.They were chosenby their peen as
people who would be nice to live with, to work with, and to spend free tim€
with. In addition, they tended to be black women who had been incarcerated
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.
Desires for Marriage and Chiklren. Mosi of these girls wanted to get maried
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
on the homosexuality index were most likely to want children. This relationship
existed atnong those with and without prior homosexual experience.When
data for the two groups were combined,the relationshipwas statisticaly signifi-
cant(Y2 = 6.69 12 = .02;P < O5).
 144 prisonHomosexuality
In summary,the datado not supportthe hypothesis
that women'sidentities
aswives andmothersencouragepdsonhomosexuality.They aremore consistent
with hypotheses suggesting
that prisonhomosexuality
is associated
with a rejec_
tion of traditionalfemaleroles and with the expressionof dominanceand
POWer.
Self-Esteemand Self-Perceived
Prettiness
Self-Esteem.Prominentwritersbke Konopka(1966,p. 103)havesuggested that
homosexualityis more commonamonggirls with low self+steem,but Wentz's
(1965) data show that girls with homosexualexpr.ience reported higher self-
esteem.In this study, rve examinedthe relationshipbetween self.esteemand
Self-PerceivedPrettiness.Konopka(1966,p. 103)hasalsosuggested that homo-
s€xualityis more commonamonggfulswho considerthemselvesugly anclunde_
sirable.Konopkasaysthesegirlsbelievethey calnot competefor boysandthat
their chancesare better with gfuls.Her respondentsdid not explain why girls
would overlooktheir uglinessany more than boys would.
This explanationis inconsistentwith my own observationsandwith Heffer-
nan\ (1972,p. 103)suggestion that cute girlsaremorelikely to be targetsfor
seduction.It is also inconsistentwith Behan'sclaim that the better-lookingand
most ilfluential Borstal boys were morelikely to havea homosexualexperience
(citedin Keamey1977,p.85 andchapter3).
In this study, we measuredself-reportedattmctiyenessby askinggirls to
tell us if they thought the statement,,.I am as pretty as other girls my age,"
wastrue or false.Overall,67 percent of the 375 respondentssaiclthey felt the
statementwas true. Table 6-1 shorysthat a higher proportion of gfulswith high
levels of homosexualexperiencerepoded that they were as pritty as other
girls their age,but the relationship was only statistically significant for those
with no previoushomosexual expelience.
Konopka'szuggestion that homosexualityis causedby self-perceived un-
attmctivenessand low self€steemwasnot suppodedby data that showedthat
girls who felt pretty were more likely to have a homosexual expenence.
Apparently, pretty gfulshave sufficient confidenceto seduceothers, or they
may receivemore sexualinyitations becausethey are attractiye. Many invita.
tions are accompaniedby complimentsthat could further enlancetheir feelines
of confidence.
Self-Descrigtions
and PreviousExperience
Summary
This analysisof the relationstripof prison homosexualityto self'descdptions
$ggeststhat a variety of peGonality characteristicsare relatedto prisonhomo-
sexuatity.Although the strength of the relationshipsis sometimesweak, they
offer impotant challengesto hypothesessuggestingthat prison homosexuality
is causedby adherenceto traditional femaleroles and an identity as a wife or
mother. Prison homosexuality v/as more common amonggirls who said that
sometimesthey wished they were boys and those who saidthey could usually
get othe6 to do what they wished. It had no relationship with the destueto
haYechilften.
No evidenceindicated that prison homosexuality was characteristicof
losers.Girls who felt pretty and satisfiedwith themselveswere most likely to
participate. No relationship appeared between prison homosexuality and
religiousnessor the quality of the gfuls' relationshipswith their mother or
father.
A1l the statisticallysignificantrelationshipsthat existedbetweentlese self-
descriptionsand pdson homosexuality,paled in comparisonto the strengthof
the relationshipbetweenprevioushomosexualityandpdsonhomosexuality.We
decided,therefore, to examine some of the correlatesof previoushomosex-
uality as a way of identifying some of the Potentially imPortant predictor
variablesfor future inyestigators.
Correlatesof PrcviousHomosexuality
Table6-2 showsthe co elationsof the self-descriptions reviewedin this chapter
and the fourteen importation variablesdescribed in chapter 4 with previous
homosexuality. For this aaalysis, prepdson homosexual experience wasdichoto-
mizedand codedaszerofor no previous homosexual experienceand oneif the
respondenthad written love letters, passionatelykissed,or had sexwith another
girl beforecorningio the institution.
The top podion of the table showsusthat previoushomosexualexperienc€
showedstatistically siguificant relationshiPswith two Yariablesthat indicated
previousimprisonment-namely,previouslengtlr of stay in correctionalprograms
and number of times in jail. Thesedata are consistentwith the data showinga
large portion of respondentssaid that their first homosexualexpedencewasin
anothercofiectionalpro$am. Previoushomosexuality wasalsorelatedto scores
on the offenses-against-others index, prostitution, and the number of police
arrests,number of times on probation,and age.Apparently,therefore,these
iariables do have some effect on prison homosexuality,but the effect may be
indirect,throughprevioushomosexuality.
The bottom portion of the table shows us that four of the nine self-
 146 PrisonHomosexuality and PreviousExperience
Self-DescriDtions 147

Table6-2 ethical considerations of whether it is appropdate to talk to young people

Zero-OrderCorrelationsof PreviousHomosexualExperiencewith preprison about homosexuality and possibly introduce them to the knowledge that it
Characteristics
and Self-Descriptions exists.
According to Gebhard ald Johlson's (1979,p. a3Q aaalysisof unbiased
Zero-Order data collected by The Institute of Sex Researchfrom 1938-1963, oyer 80 per-
Conelation cent of the white males who reported having sex with another male had had
heprison Characteristicsa their fust postpubertal homosexual contact at age sixteen or less. Forty'four
2. Prcviouslength of stay in corectional progams . 1 6* percent of white females were sixteen or less when they had their f[st post-
3. Number times arrestedby police .19** pubedal homosexualcontact.
4. Nuftber of times in juvenile detention -.01
5. Number of times in jail Sorensen's(1973) nationwide study of tldrteen- to nineteen-yearolds
.08*
6. Number of times in juvenile court .04 showed tfiat 11 percent of the boys and 6 percent of the girls had at least
7. Number of times on probation .11* one active homosexual experience-ftat is, they ilid something that resulted
8, Number of times in group ot foster homes -.06
9. Number of timesin cofiectiona.linstitutions in sexual stimulation for either themselves or their partner. In general, girls
.06
10. Offenses-against-others index .18** reported that their first expedence had occurred earlier than the boys' had.
11. Victimless-offensesindex .07 For girls, 57 percent were six to ten, 32 percent were eleven or twelve, and
12. Prostitution .19x* only I I percent were thirteen to seventeenyears old when they had their first
13. Agein years . 1 0*
14, Race .04 homosexual experience,For boys, only 16 percent were six to ten, 56 percent
15, Socialclassof parents .o2 were eleyen or twelve, ard 28 percent were thirteen to seyenteenyears old.
i
SelfDescdptions
Ninety-one percent of Sorensen'ssample had heard of homosexuality before
1. Religiousness . 1 6* the study was conducted. Among thirteen- to flfteen-year olds, 13 percent of
2. Quality of motherdaughter relationship .11+ girls and 16 percent of boys had not heard of it. Increasedmedia coverageof
3. Quality of father{aughter relations}up .01 homosexual activities since his 1972 interviews has probably resulted in even
4. At times, I wish I were a boy .22**
5. Canusualy get gids here to do what I want .18+* higher proportions of young people being awareof homosexualitynow.
6. Would like to get married someday -.00 This short chapter should help define some useful directions for future
7, Would like to havechildren somedaj .o4 investigations of homosexuality. The next chapter is also helpful because it
8. Usually satislied with self .06
9. As pretty asgi smyage -.02 clarilies the relationship between prison homosexuality and quasi kinship
and presents a comprehensive analysis of data and theory that show that many
Number of respondents 33s-389 similadties are evident in quasi kinship among males and females in prison and
in the free world.
 QuasiKinship:Forms,
Functions,and Causes

Defnine Quasi Kinship

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
female inmates since male inmates rvere included h the families in the coeal
institutions and since females arrd rnales form ouasi families outside Drison.
(3) homosexual marriageswere rare, (4) most make-believefamfies consisted
primarily of asexual sister.sister and mother-daugfrter ties, and (5) participation
in make-bel-ievefamilies was not associated with a greater likelihood of homo-
sexual experience. Since quasi-kin roles were noi usually homosexual, it was
necessaryto look for some other explanation for their existence.
The concept of quasi kinstrip was a useful analytic tool for this purpose
because it provided an altemative to a mideading overemphasis of the homo-
sexual aspects of prison families among women. An analysis of quasi-kin roles
adopted by men in pdson, arrd by men and women outside prison, demon-
strated that quasi kinship is prevalent among all kinils of people in all kinds of
cultures and that the assumption that prison faniites are unique to female in-
mates has led to some misleading explanations of their caus€ and structure.
Inmates are familiar with many quasi-kinship forms before coming to prison and
probably import &eir knowledge of these practices into the pdson and use it as
the basis for forming similar prison families. North American women may have
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-
ent variable; when the creation of a quasi-kin bond strengthens existing relation-
ships, it acts as an independent variable.
For many people, these desiresfor close and durable relationshipsoutside
the bonds of legal or biological ties are expressealin the language of kinship.
The language of kinship also makes us feel that we have achieved some of tlese
desirable relationshipsand createssome expectations for reciprocal affection,
mutual aid, artd social interaction. People in and out of prison haye needs for
security, companionship, affection, attention, status, prestige, and acceptance
that cafl only be filled by having primary-group relationstrips. Friends fill many
of these needs, but the family better represents our ideal or desire for tlese
things in a stable relationship.
In prison, a greater need may exist for using such techniques to foster
familylike relationships and to create the illusion of having stable familylike
relationships because many structural facton of pdson prevent rlurable rela-
tionships. Such factors include high population tumover and rules restricting in-
teraction between inmates both during and after confinement. The inmates'
contact with legal and biological datives and with friends outside is also re-
stricted by rules. Thus, there are many, many pressuresto form the semblance
of family relationships with inmates who are in closer geographical proximity.
In one-sex and coed pdsons, quasi.kin bonds more frequently involve people
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
quasi-kin bonds outside prison becauseayailable eyidence suggeststhat prisoners
OuasiKinshio 151
are more likely to have homosexual relationshiPs than the general Population
is (seechapter4 for details).
However, the girls we studied dtowed a strong preferencefor asexualsister-
sister and mother-daughter relationsltips. The sister rclationships are appropriate
for expressing equalitarian relationdrips among girls of similar age and status anil
they and tle mother-daughter relationships arc particularly appropriate ways
of expressing the desire for stability anil the illusion of having attained it since
the inmates' experience outside prison has probably been that these are among
the most stable of family relationships. The less-stablehusband-wife roles were
far less suitable for expressing their wish for relationships characterized by
equality, cooperation, durability, enduringlove, ard unspecifiedreciprocity. Or,
as the sociologist would say, the sister-sister and mother-daughter roles more-
effectively expressed and encouraged diffuse gemeinschaft solidarity in total and
enduring primary relationships involving collective social obligation. Husbancl-
wife relationsbips were rare and far more likely to exprcss romartic or ove
homosexual relationships tlan tlre more-frequently adopted sister'sister and
mother-daughterroles.
Incidence of Participation in Quasi Kinslfp
In the questionnaires, quasi kinship was defined as when girls "get together and
pretend they are mothers, sisters,wives, daughters,fathers, brothers, husbands,
or sons to one another." We explained that we were calling them make-believe
fanilies so that the girls would not tlink we were asking about their real families
back home.
On our first visit to a coed institution, \\,e found that boys at Delta Coed
also commonly participated as brothers and husbands and occasionally as
fathers artd sons. We therefore changed one items on the girls' questionnaire
when we administered it in coed institutions.l The question originally read:
If you are in a make-believefamily now,how are you related to other girls in your
family here? (CHECK AS MANY AS APPLY)
- a wife - a husband
- a mother - a father
- a daughter _ a s o n
_ a $srer - a brother
- an aunt or some other kind - al uncle or some other kind
of female family member of male family member
- I'm not part of a make-believe family here now
In the coed institutions, the word Szils was changed to students. We also asked
some respondents how many boys and girls were in their rnake-believe families.
 152 prisonHomosexuality
Including themselvesin the count of female kin, most said their families had two
to four girls and zero to two boys.
About half (48 percent) of the 382 respondentsreported taking a make-
believe-family role at the time of the questionnaireadministration.2 The coed
' Ross and Heffeman's (1977, p. 2?) study of ten federal coed institutions
for adults left them with tle irnpression that participation in quasi families did
not decrcaseafter the introducdon of men to an all_femaleinstitution. ln at
least one institution they visited, the fanily network became more extendeal ald
visible
'Krippelafter male inmates were introduced. A later report by Heffeman and
(1980, p. 116) reports that protective-uncleand mothe.ing-aunt rela-
tionships existed between older men and younger women at the fedeial medium.
minimum-security coed prison at Fort Worth. In part, this may have reflected
the imbalanced age structure: 17 percent of the men and only g percent of the
women werc over fifty.In arrearlierreport, Heffeman and Krippel (1975,pp. 39,
42) also reported the existence of mothering roles arrd big_brother,big_sister,
and penitentiary-spouserelationshipsbetweenmale and femaleinmates,
The evidence shows families exist in adult and juvenile facilities and that
they include men and rvomenin coed facilities. Thus, Novick (1960) was corect
in predicting that coed activities and coed institutions would not eliminate
make-believe families :
The statement is often made that coeducational activities or even a
coeducationalschool uould tend to eliminate the make_believe family.
OuasiKinshio 153
This point of view . . implies that the make-believe family is only a
product of an al1-gir1environment that offers a homosexual medium
for meeting sexual drives. I do not conaur \i'ith this point of view.
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-
mate father after leaming of her real father's deatl. A later interview witl the
boy confirmed that he in tum regardedher as a daughter.This sufiogatefatler
was protective toward his daughter,listened to her problems and concems,anil
showed a keen interest in her welfare. Another girl said she had a "tight" rela-
tionship with a boy whom she called Dad but that using the term was'lust
bullshit" and not of much significance. A tlird said that she considered her boy-
fiiend's male friend asher son and that they did favors for one another.
Only nineteen of the 382 respondentsrcported I'ife roles, and only four of
these were in girls' training schools where their husbands would necessarily
be other girls. The other lifteen wiveswere in Yankee Coed and Delta Coed and
most probably harl male spouses.The smallnumber of respondentswho reported
spouseroles indicates that homosexual dyads are not the basisof make-believe
families. Sister-sisterand mother-daughterdyads were far more common. Very
few inmates took spouseor extended-farnily roles.
Rochelle (1965) also saysshe did not find any evidence for higltly structurcd
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
with someone in her cottage, only 2 percent were in husbantl-wife relationships.
As in this study, mother-daughterand sister-sisterroles were most coffnon.
 154 PrisonHomosexuality
LeSharna (1969 p. 80) found very similar pattems in her study of adult
women at the Ohio Reformatory for Women. Forty-eight percent of the ques-
tionnaire respondents said they took a family role. Almost all identified their
most important role as that of a sister, daughter,or mother, and the majority
assumedmore than one of these family roles. Very few adopted a male role.
Relating to the other women made them feel special to someone, and the
v,/omen reported that mothe$ and sisters gave them he.lpful support and advice.
kShanna's data arc inconsistent with hypotheses that suggestwomen form
quasi-kin rclationships because they are oriented to a traditional family role.
If this were true, nonparticipants would be more likely to be carcer odented,
and participants would be more likely to be homemaking oriented. ln fact, the
same proportion (41-42 percnnt) of nonparticipants and participants preferred
a careerto being a homemaker.
Relationship between Self-Reported Participation
in Homosexuality and Make-Believe-Farnily Roles
In our study, only the infrequently adopted male and spous€roles showed strong
conelations with levels of homosexual experience.No sigrificant differences
appearcd between the mean homosexuality scoresof inmates not in families
(mean = 0.23;N = 198) arrd the make-betieve-familyparticipants who adopted
nonconjugal sister,motler, aad daughter roles (mean = 0.48; r'r'= 152), but sig-
nificantly higher scorcswete rcported by those adoptingmale roles(mean= 3.01;
,l\r'= 6) and by wivesin girls' institutions (mean = 2.30;ir' = 4).
The cofielations between the four homosexualexperiencesand being in a
make-believe family were weak and negative, suggesting that homosexual ex-
periences are just as likely for those not in families.s The correlations were .27
( / = 380) for going with or being married to a girl; -.20 (|r' = 372) for passion-
ately kissing; -.2O (N = 379) for v/riting love lette$; and -.18 or' = 382) for
having sex beyond huggingand kissing.
Pa icipation in quasi families does not appear to be a first step toward
homosexual activity. On the contrary, it might more often representan arEmpr,
though not always successful, to define rclationships with relatives as asexual.
Certainly most of the first homosexual kisses did not occur with a family mem-
ber. Of the thirty-eight kissers,twenty-six reported that the fint passionatekiss
v,'as with someone who was not in their make-belieye family at the time. Only
three reported being married to the girl they fust kissed,and only nine reported
that the kisseewas a family member other than her husbandor wife.
Hopper (1980, p. 55) also found that participation in a prison play family
was independent of having a homosexualexperiencein prison. She found that
45 percent of the adult-femalerespondentsat the Florida Correctional Institu-
tion at Lowell reported being a member of a play famity and that no significant
ouasi Kinshio 155
difference appeared betlYeen those who had and had not had a homosexual
encounterin prison.
Giallombardo's (1966) participant observation at Alde$on Federal Peni-
tentiary led her to conclude that the nonspouse kinship network had the im-
portant function of allowing inmates to have close friendly relations that would
not be inte4)reted as homosexual. "To escapethe suspicionof homosexuality,
these inmates may find it nec€ssaryto defme their interaction more rigidly by
kinship bonds" (p. 160). Apparently a lot of nonsexualinteraction Y,ras labeled
as homosexuai since women thouglrt their peers would suspectthem of homo-
sexuality if they were to play cards with the same inmat€s each evening.
Participation in make-believe families seemsto be less motivated by a desire
for sexual gratification than by a need for security, companiolrship,affection,
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.
Perceived Effects of Being in a Make-Believe Fanily
We asked the girls which of several things had ever happened becausetley werc
in a make-believe family in their program (see question 3a in aPpendix A). To
ayoid confusing the effects of being in a make-believe family with the effects
.of taking a male role, we eliminated girls who reporteil male family roles and
.basedthe analysison the 147 respondentswho reported taking female roles in a
make-believefamily. The most common responses(34 percent) \.vercwritten
in the open-endedcategory of "something else happened" and indicated that
therc were either no effects or that staff never found out they were in a make-
believe family. Another 5 percent did not check any items, perhapsbecause
none of tlle responsechoices adequately expressedtheir perceptions of the
results of being in a quasi family. Marly who reported no effects went on to ex'
plain that they were mothers or sislers in a family ald tlat there was no reason
- for staff to punish or control them since this was perfectly natural. The second
most common rcsponse (19 percent) indicated some positive effect such as
feeling that they had a real family; feeling loved, wanted, or needed; or be-
'coming
better friends with their family members. This, too, was a wdte'in
category.
A few inmates also reported somenegativeeffects ofbeing in a make-believe
family. Some (l? percent) said the staff indicated disapproval,and some (12
percent) said that their relationshipswith staff were hindered. A few (7 percent)
werc not in touch with people outside the place as much, a few (6 percent)
went on fewer home visits, and a few (7 percent) stayed or were kept in the
institution longer. We alo not know if staff was responsible for delaying their
release and limiting their contact with others or if these girls willingly chose to
 156 prisonHomosexualitv
restrict contact with people outside or to stay longer, perhapsbecausemake-
believe.family members werc adequately meeting their needs. Only 2 percent
said they were moved to another living unit, and 2 percent wrote in that they
received some type of punislment or negative report in their file as a result of
being in a make-believe family.
In summary, the responsesessentially indicate either no effects or positive
effects of being in a prison family. The negative effects are relatively rninor, in
part becausemost staffs were either unaware of girls, participation in quasi
families or because they did not consider taking female make-believe-family
roles as inappropriate in tlese settings.The analysisof staffs' responseslater in
this chapter shows that they understood that these quasi families met positiye
needs for asexual friendships.
Liking and Trust for Family Members
To detemine how importart liking and trust were as crit€ria for the selection
of family members, we asked the girls which girl in the program they trusted
and liked the most (see question 8 in appendix A). Overall, about half ofthose
in quasi families named one of their make-believe-family members in answedng
tiis question. The rest of those in quaslkin relationships chose a nonfamily
'member.5
Thus, some kin ties arc established with other than best friends and
for reasonsotler than trust and liking. At Delta Coed, a girl told me she had
invited another girl to become her sister after she hacl rejected the other girl,s
invitation to make love. In this case the invitation seruedto define the relation-
-sltip as asexual and to cushion the negative impact of her rcjection by showing
she still wanted to maintain durable ties with the sirl.
Other stualies of girls' training schools inilucle many more reasonsfor
choosing quasi relatives. For example, in her study of three girls' lraining schools,
Giallombardo (1974, pp- 177-178) found tlat girls chose relatives who re-
sembled relatives outside the institution, were popular, had pleasant person-
alities, were related to existing quasi relatiyes, werc willing to act out appropnarc
role prescriptions,or who took initiativesin requestingthat kin ties be established.
Rochelle (i969, p. 106) found that 89 percent of girls in a training school
used family names, but sociometric testing showed that the family names had
little significancefor identit/ing close friends or structured inmate goups. It
was a relatively eary matter to ask someoneto be a mother or sisterin order to
attain a senseof belongingto a larger group.
Another study of two girls' training schools by Wentz (1965, pp. 34-38)
found. that most gids said they participated in the family to pass the time, to
gain affection, becausethey rcjected men, and to hayehomosexualexperiences.
The reasons girls gave for rejecting family participation are just as interesting.
Some felt that belongingmigbt reduce tleir chancesfor an early parole, others
thought it would demonstrate a disloyalty to their real farnily, and still othe$
felt it would be wrong in God's eyes.
OuasiKinshio 157
IpSharura's (1969) study of adult women in an Ohio Pdson found that
some women had become related to each otlrer because they had chosen the
same inmate to be their mother. Some women werc called mother becausethey
had old-fashioned ways or would give an honest and unbiased opinion. Other
women offered to be a mother becausethey could teach less-experiencedwomen
to avoid mistakes they had made when husding.
Staff8' Perc€ptions of the Differences between
Homosexuality and Quasi Kinship
Most staffs distinguished between homosexuality ard make-believe families
when responding to the question, "Is much of the activity in make-believe
families romantic or sexualin natwe?" About 66 percent of the 138 respond-
ents said no, 28 percent said yes, and another 5 percent wrote in responses
indicating that some activity was and some was not. The proportions did not
differ much by instituUon. Their responseson other questions also inalicate that
staffs recognize differences between homosexuality and quasi families and
distinguish between them on s€veralcriteria.
Relative Seiousness of Make-Believe Fanilies
and Homosexuality
We asked staffs how serious they considered homosexuality and make-believe
families to be and gave them the option of four response choices-very serious,
somewhat serious,not very serious, analnot serious.Table 7-1 ranks the be-
haviors by the percentage who said the behavior v/as very serious.
The staffs' responsesshow that they consider participation in make-belieYe
families far less serious than participating in overt homosexual activity. Only
11 percent thought that being in a make-believe family v/as very serious, but 52
percent thought that passionately kissing was very serious, and 74 percent
thought that having sex witir another girl was very serious. Twenty-nine per-
cent of tlle staffs rated acting like a guy as very serious, probably becausethey
thought this was inappropriate behavior for girls anal because they correctly
associatedthe male role with greaterhomosexualexperience.
Behaviots Dtstinguishing Particip ants in
Horno sexualit! and Make-Believe Familie s
We asked the staffs which of several behaviors were more coflrmon among girls
participating in homosexuality and make-believe famites than among the rcst
of the inmate population. Table 7-2 summarizestheir replies.
 OuasiKinship 159
158 PrisonHomosexualiw
Other behavio$ lessclearly distinguishedparticipantsin families and homo-
Table7-l sexuality, although sliglrtly more staff members thought that family members
Staffs Rating BehaviorsasVery Serious acted immaturely (41 versus30 percent),and slightly fewer thought that family
membersstarted fights with other girls (32 versus45 percent).
Percentage Respondents Responseson the remaining items suggestthat staffs do not usually feel
that the behaviors are any more characteristic of inmates with make-believe'
Being in a make-believefamily here 11. 227 family and homosexual experience. Similar proportiors of staffs say that girls
Wdting love letters to another ghl herc 20 238
235 participating in quasi families or homosexua.lity are more likely to fight or
Acting like a guy herc 29
Passionatelykissing another gial here 52 240 argue with staff (34 versus35 percent), be leaders(35 versus30 percent), run
Having sex, beyond kissing and hugging, or go AWOL (18 verzus25 percent), try to hurt themselyes(21 versus19 per'
with another gtul herc 14 cent), get along well with the girls here (21 versus18 percent), antl withdraw
from others (l? versus19 percent).

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

Table7-3 Analogous QuasiKinship Forms

Staffs' Perceptionsof the Most Important Reasonsfor participation in Make-
BelieveFamiliesand Romanticor SexualRelationshipswith Other Girls A good deal of eyidenceexists showing that men form quasi-brotherand quasi-
cousin ties as a meansofprotection and expressingaffection and that father-son
Make-Beliere and marital dyails are formed to publicly express reciprocal rights and obliga-
ClassificatioI of Respo ses Families Ho mosexuality tions. Hov/ever, the evidence for quasi kinship in male and female prisons has
Oryanizational causes usually been based on participant-observation studies by one investigator or on
Lack of contact with boys 4Vo 3470 autobiographicalaccounts.Thus, it is difficult to make meaningfulestimatesof
Remotenessfrom real family 10 0
To satisfysexualneedsand desires the prevalence of various roles or to make valid statements about the similarities
1
Socialpressure,bribery, or coercion 0 2 or differencesbetv/een the meaningsand structuresof quasi-kinroles. Reported
To anger, intimidate, reject, ot upset staff 0 0 differencescould reflect differencesin the writers' perceptionsasmuch as actual
hfiported cduses differencesin the inmate subqlture. It appears,however, that same-sex-sibling
Real family inadequate 2'1 7 and same-sex-parent-chi1droles may be more preyalent than spouse and ex-
Previoushomosexua.l expedence I 5
Role conflrsion, dissatisfaction or lack tended-family roles among both male and female inmates-that is, sister-sister
of successwith female role 1 2 and mother-daughter roles are probably most pre lent among women, and
Poor self-concept,immaturity, inadequate brother-brother aad father-son roles are probably most prevalent among men.
socialization,or emotional disturbance '7
6
Other
For secu ty, companionship,affection,
atLention.status.prestige,or acceptance 36 Quasi Kinship in Men\ Prisons
Curiosity, expe meotation 0 4
Other (no one reason accounting for more Father-Sonand Brother.Brother Roles. Davidson's(1974) study ofSan Quentin
than 5 percentof rcsponses) l4 IJ
found evidence of a family organization consisting of 300 Chicano members
Total r1.6% 125Vo throughout the state, including other California jails and prisons and the street.
Number of respondents 135 143 This large family ftnown as La Familia or the Meican Mafia) contained smaller
subfamilies headed by a father and having severalbrothers by actual or fictitious
Note: The percentagesare basedonly on number of responclents giving at leastone r€ason
(ly' = 135 for.make-b€lieve families, and,,\y'= 143 for homlsexualityj. Th-isexcludes kinship. Since tlte family respectedmachismo, they allowed no "broads." A
respond_
ents who said they did not krox,, that it does not happenhere,or who did not answerthe punk member who had taken tlre inserteerole in a homosexualact stood a good
question. The totals aJe greater than 100 percent beciuie some iespondents gave more than
chance of being killed if he was discovered disgracing the family in this way.
one teason.
La Familia controlled the prison economy and smugglecldrugs and supplies into
the pdson. They maintained power over the inmate subculture tfuough secrecy,
tlreats, and violence.
this as the major reason for participating in make-believe families (52 percent) GeorgeMyron (cited in Pell 19'72,p. 47), a San Quentin inmate, described
than in romantic or sexual relationships (35 percent). These responseswere La Fqmilia as z vlorthless lot who give brotherhood a dirty name becauseof their
classified in the "Other" category because staffs did not specify whether they unprovoked violence. He claimed an inmate on their "shit list" was not safe even
thought these needswere imported into the institution or whether they resulted when paroled becauseclique membershad brothers on the outside who would
from deprivations in the institution. happily do their killing. There was a rumor that new initiates could kill as a way
The staffs' views of the functions and causesof families are consistent n/ith of fulfilling La Familia's requtement that members must have killed someone
some of the reasons other writers have given for the existence of quasi-kin either on the street or in prison. The fate of someone willing to mt on Mafia
structures among male pdsoners and among men and women in almost all members was not promising. For example, Myron claimed the Mafia had a
societiesoutside prison. Our discussionand analysisof a few of thesequasi.ldn bounty on bis life becausehe had turned state's eyidence after witnessing six of
forms demonstrate that quasi kinship is not unique to imprisoned women. them beat a defenseless inmate. He was servingthe rest ofhis pdson term in the
Rather, it has a wide variety of forms and functions and is alsopreyalentamong severelydeprivingconditions of protective custody asa consequence.
nonfemale and noninstitutional populations in North America and most other Irwin (1980, pp. 190-191) reports that The Family's rumored and actual
placesin the world. attacks eventuallyresultedin counterattacksand alliancesbetweenother inmates
 162 PrisonHomosexualitv
who also used the languageof kinship as a symbol of expectedsolidadty. Orig-
nally, ln Familia was allied with the,4ryan Brotherhood, analthey in turn were
opposed by an alliance of another Chicano group called La Nuestra Familia nd
the Blnck Guerilla Farnily. The conllict between these warring clans v/as so great
that tle California prison administration tried to control it by asking entering
Chicanos their gang affiliation so that they could separate the warring factions
and send Za Familit Io San Quentin aad Folsom and La Nuestra Familia to
Soledadand Tracy.
A moretommon and less.sensational use of kinship ierminology occurs
when men address each other as brothers. This form of addressis especially
common among men sharingan ideology of oppression,and its meaning vades
from expressinga relatively unimportant token of symbolic solidarity to a more-
serioushonor requidng a consistentstandardof appropriatebehavior.
Carroll (1974) provides an illustration of this ambiguity in the following
description:
In practice . . . a black inmat€ becomesa 'brother' through his member-
ship in the Afro-American Society. The organization thus has some-
thing of the characterof a family. The relationshipbetween 'brothers,'
however, need not be a deeply persoflal one. One need not know or
even like another black inmate to considerhim a'brother.'One may
evenbe suspiciousand mistrustful of a 'brother.'
,,1 The essertceof brotherhood, then, is not personalkno\r,ledge,liking or
even tru$t. Brotherhood is basedon the recognition of a sharedfate at
the haadsof a common oppressor.Ip. 99]
The membershipof the Afro-American Society opposeddrug use and homo-
sexuality ald had ousted an inactive member who had been found with a set of
x/orks and two nickel bagsof dope after a meeting in which the generalmember-
ship was told:
I know a lot of you 'brothels is friends with J.D. but as far as I'm con-
cerned he ain't a member of the family. Lately he ain't been to no
meetilgs and he ain't showed no interest in the organization. No]v
maybe he still be a 'brother'but he ain't part of the family 'specially
ifhe be dealinsdope.[pp. 134-135]
Whites would probably not be admitted to the family unlessthey proved
some great loyalty, and they would be rejected as brothers for far less-serious
transgressions.For example, a seriesof letters between Billy (white) and Earl
(black) in a California prison providesone illustration (Pell 1972, pp.218-224).
When Billy's communicaton vrith Brother Earl was prohibited by prison author-
ities as punishment for a transgression,Billy expresseda deep concernat suffer-
ing a loss of staturein Earl's eyesand no longer being qualilied to addressEarl as
OuasiKinshiD 163
Brother. Billy "was greatly relieved, if not elated" when he learned that Earl
unde$tood his behavior and that he would not be expelled from the political
family.
Charridre (1971, p. 250), in Papillon, acktrowledgedthe psychological
security that comes with quasi kinship when he offered brotherhood to a dying
friend in a Guianesepdson who asked only for reassurancethat they were
friends.
Other types of brotherly relationshipswere describedin Thomas's(1967)
autobiography of his six-year prison term in New York. One brother was his
religious teacher and another was Tico, the small'framedkid brother of a friend
who required protection from potential homosexual attacks. Tico recognized
he was a likely victim and tried to ward off potential attackersby letting inmates
know he had allies who would defend him. He protectealhimself by telling in.
mates that Piri Thomas was his cousir. Thomasacceptedthe role of guardianby
offering protection, advice, and confirmation of his dependability by telling
Tico, "We're more than cousins,kid, we're brothers."
While Thomas'sstory shows that quasi kinsbjp can be used to protect men
from homosexual attacks, other examples from several Canadian prisons show
that it can also signify a public or private homosexual relationship between
male inmates and that no incest prohibition between close kin exists. Hagafty
(1979, p. 160) reported a senseof being brothers soon after meeting an inmate
who befriended and seducedhim in a pdson in British Columbia, and a past
director of the maximum-security St. Vincent penitentiary in Quebecestimates
that 15 percent of the p sonersthere engagedin homosexualfather-sondyads
(Time Canada 1974). Similar father-son relationshipswere repoded in Mann's
(1967) study of the inmate subculture at Guelph Reformatory in Ontario. In
the usual "lugging" pattem, the father, or old man, was a repeater or servinga
year or more and was older and more aBgressive than the sixteen-or seventeen-
year-old "sweet kid" whom he adopted.The father gavehis kid a cross-and-chain
necklaceto wear that seryedto warn "musclers" to stay away. The "sweet kid"
was sometimesexpectedto kis or neck (called nusslingor bluebirding) or have
sex, but the relationshipswere not always overtly homosexualsince they also
met many nonsexualneeds.The "sweet kid" got protection, improved clothing,
and enlnnced status becauseof his partnershipy/ith the older inmate, and the
father got status from playing the dominant role and from having a visible pos-
session,"hence the expression,'he is my kid"' (Mann 1967, p. 6l). Both m€n
benehted from doing each other favors arrd from their enjoyment of being
together.
Prison Marlages. The many examples of brother-brother and father-son rela-
tionships suggest that ihey may be more common than other family roles,
but the literature also provides occasional accounts of prison marriagesand
weddings, sometimesilvolving a ceremony complete with preacher,best man,
 164 prisonHomosexualitv 165
OuasiKinship
and attendants.Following is an example of one such ceremony in a New york
Prrson:

"Do you, Claude, take this man to be your lawful weddedhusband,to

love, cherish,honor, and obey . . .?" ,,I do,,' Claudesaidsoftly, just like
ary bride anywhere, . . . The goom slipped a ring on the bride,slmgcr
and the minister said, "I now pronounce you man and wife," aod the
guests offered them congratulationsand best of luck [Thomas 1967,
p . 2 8 2 1.
matlrage.

Johnson (1971), during his three years' experienceas an tmate at San

Quentin, observed that homosexual mardage was acceptable in the inmate
society and that the homosexual assumedthe important roles of wife and
mother, imitating the social structure outside prison. Aggressivemen would
couft known homosexualsby buying them candy and other favors, and the
romance would sometimes develop into a marriage. Weddingswere impotam
events in prison and being invited was an honol. Wedding invitations were
printed and embossedin gold and gifts were expected.There was a ceremony shit out of me whenI wouldn't. [p. 79]
and a certificate to symbolize the stability of the union and contracts were
signedto define the masculineand feminine roles in the marriase.

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
Caldwell's (1956) study suggeststhat many prison marriagesare preceded
by courtship and dating. Marriagesthat are consummatedby an actual ceremony
may be quite common sinceCaldwell identified fifty married pairs in a medium-
sized prison. His report provided no information about the specific population
size,how he operationally defined and measuredthe prevalenceof marriages,or
the prevalenceof a husband-wiferole differentiation in the marriages'
I would expect to find fewer marriagesbetweenmale prisonersthan between
female prisoners if one partner was exPected to act as a "gal'boy" or wife
becausemaleswould probably resisttaking the low-prestigefemale role
Folks and People- Our knowledge of families among male inmates is sparse,but
these few availableaccountsclearly suggestthat severalprevalentroles might be
uncoveredin a systematicsurvey. Such researchmight even show tltat men use
kinship terminology alrnost as frequently as women, particularly if we accepted
Schneider's(1968, p. 21) recommendation that terms bke folks and people
ought to be regardedaskinshiP terminology.
Jacobs(1974), in discussinghow inmate gangsat StatesvillePenitentiary in
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
letter from the ranking chief welcoming him into the family" (p' 400) Many
men told Jacobsthey felt closerto gangmembersthan to membersof their own
family:
Gang members consistently explained that on the street and within the
prison, it is the same the gang allows you to feel like a-mal; it ls a
iamily with which you can identify. Severalinformants soberly stated
that ihe orgadzation is something, the only thing, worth dying for'
lp.401l
Members of the Vicelords gang rewarded members who helped their brothers
learn to read. A member of the Vicelords explains that belongng to the gang
was "like a religion. Once a lord, always a Lord. Our people would die for it"
(p.
'- a0l).
"bestpeople"
to a penitentiary's
introduced
Black(1927,pp.117-129)was
he had not
family" because
and was inmediatelyacceptedinto the "Joh-nson
tionship called gourbi. The word derivesfron gurbd, an Arabic word meaning
relatiois or family,T utd rcfers to a familylike group who ate together,sharcd
in the
money,and sometimes evenavenged a member'sdeathby killing enemies
offendingmurderer's gourbi.
OuasiKinship 167
The importance tlat both Black's and Charridre'sprison families placed
upon the sharing of food is significant. MacCullough (1909) is among those
who tlink it may even be more essentialand basic to kinship than a blood
relationship:
Probably th€ idea that kinship meansblood relatiooship a relationship
which can be produced by the blood covenant-is not primitive. More
primitive is the idea that contact, eating and drinking together, ex-
changeof names,garments,rveapons,arrd the [ke will produce a close
bond, whether involving identity or relationshipbetweentwo unrelated
persons.[p. 207]
The sharingand exchangingof food, friendship, enjoyable activities, ideas,
time, favors, and even problems are among the positive aspectsof quasikinship
among male as well as female prisoners. Theseare also the positive aspectsof
quasi kinship among women and men outside prisons.All quasifamilies expiess
a wish for the ideals of durability, trust, depenalability, and emotional and
physical secudty .
QuosiKinship outside Prison
Overview. Most of us have,at sometime or other, extendedour families beyond
our biological and legal kin by using kinship terminology for nonrelativesin a
way that resemblesthe formation of quasikin by inmates.We form common'law
unions, informally foster and adopt children, and refer to and addressnonrela'
tives asbrotlefi, sisters,aunts,uncles,and cousins.The practiceis socommon that
dictionariesprovide definitions of brothers, sisters,and cousinsthat define them
as countrymen, coreligionists,and members of religious orders, ethnic Sroups,
voluntary organizations, guilds, professions,unions, work groups, and gangs'
Sisterhoodand brotherhood are encouragedin movementsfor civil, homosexual,
aad women's rights and in fratemiti€s and sororities,and National Brotherhood
Week is proclaimedto promote peaceand goodwill amongthe family of man'
As children, North Americans are often encouragedto call neighbors or
their parents' closefriends "Uncle Walter" or "Auntie Kay" as a convenientway
of expressingthe closenessof first naming while sti1l expressinggenerational
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
coasin werc usedfar lessfrequently.
Adults frequently refer to closeworking associates as their family. Authors,
for example, commonly acknowledgethe assistance of quasikin. Tfuee instances
 168 prisonHomosexuality
from my recent readinginclude Schaeffer's(1973) gratitude to ..dearestfamily,
natural as well as chosen," Cole's (1972) thanks to his,.affinity family,,,and
Bunter's (1977) appreciation of "brothers-in and out.', Woodward and Arm-
strong (1979, p. 79) referred to the U.S. Supreme Court justices as ,.The
Bretluen" and to the "family" of current and former law clerks.A well-public2ed
example of quasi kinship among co-workers occurred when sportswdters and
announcen referred to the Pittsburg Pirates as ,,The Family" dudng the 1979
World Seriesand when the team used Sister Sledge's..WeAre Farnily', asa theme
song. Their captain, Willie Stargell,said he referred to the pirates as family be-
causeof the team's closeness(Golla 1979, p. 55), and Daveparker, the All-Star
right fielder, said he gaveStargell the nickname pops after some consideration.
"I called him Pops because,like a father, he taught us how to take what comes
and then come back" (Time 1979b, p. 48).
Although the creation of quasi-kinties is more voluntary than the formation
of ascribedrelationships,participants do not alwaysindepeodentlychoosetheir
quasi relatives. Others wishing to extend their own network of interpersonal
relationships often suggest that their primary-group associatesuse kinship
terminology for each other. A study by Ibsen and Klobus (1972) found that
only 8 percent of those using kin terms had initiated their use.Almost half the
usersindicated that one or both of their parentshad initiated use of the terms,
13 percent said the fecipient had suggestedtheir use, and the remaining29 per-
cent that other family members,friends, or neighborshad suggestedtheir use.
1 Although others may have initially suggestedusing the terms, apparently their
use functioned to encoumgestrongerbonds between participants becausemost
userssaid the terms expressedfeelingsof affection and closeness.
Inmates are farniliar with these uses and techaiquesof forming quaslkin
relationships and probably import and use this knowledge and experienceto
create similar families with people in the prison. Both in and out of prison, a
wide range of variability exists in the importance of t"rious roles and bonds;
their origins; the extent to which affection. mutual aid. and social interaction
are goals and realities;and how effectively they fulhll various functions. These
functions include attempting to createkin where none is available,creatingand
reinforcing relationships,institutionalizing mutual role expectations,material
and emotional shadng, specifying appropriate sexual partners, and mitigating
tensionsand strainsby providing a membershipgroup.
In North America, formality and ceremony sometimes accompany the
original bond. Fishel (1979) describesa secret ceremony in which young girl-
friends become so-calledblood sisteff after pricking each other,s index finger
to make it bleed and then mixing their blood together. Since many such Nortlr
American ceremonies are secret, we know little about how they are used to
create quasi-sibling bonds in groups like fratemities, sororities, motorcycle
gangs,Masons,and a variety of criminal and religious organizations.The litera-
ture contains far more-numerousexamples of ritual and ceremonv used in
OuasiKinship 169
creating quasi-sisterand quasi-brotherbonds in placeslike Africa, New Guinea,
and Nepal, where the actual or symbolic ceremonialsharingof blood is often
public.e Where blood is not exchanged,participants often slnre wine to repre-
sent blood, flsh to represent fertility, or saliva to represent attachment and
fidelity.lo Food, weapons,clothing, money, jewelry, names,or oaths are often
exchanged,and the prospectivesiblingsare required to touch each other.
In North American society, outside-prison quasi'kin bonds are usually
initiated without much ceremony or ritual.rr An exception is when bonds are
created and reinforced between godparentsand their godchildren and betnreen
the godparentsand the child's parents during baptism. The fact that this quasi-
kin bond is formalized in a ceremony is no indication that it is more important
than quasi-kin ties that involve no ceremony. GodParent relationships, like most
others, are difficult to cl1a:trlcle'izein terms of importance because the vada-
bility is so large boih within and between cultural and national boundades.In
somecasesthe baptism is a dtual tradition without much real importance for the
participants. In other casesthe godparentsmay agree to act as parents if the
natural parents strould die. The higher mofality rate in poor countries may
make this latter function more necessaryand contributes to the Sreaterimpor-
tance of godparent-parentchildbonds in developingnations.12
Whether or not kinship terminology will be used for nonrelativesdePends
on many factors including trust in and accessto the legal system,ethnic heritage,
and the legality and secrecyof a goup's activities. Homosexuals,for example,
have no choice but to form common-lawunions becauselaws prevent their legal
marriage.l3 Criminal organizationsoften have a quasi'family structureto encour-
agethe necessarysecrecyand trust for illegal activity.ra Blacks are more likely
to informally adopt or foster children becausethe arangement is often tempo-
rary and no one expects the chjld to sever ties with its natal parents. Such
arrangementsare often madebecauselack of wealth meansthat no need for legal
adoption exists in order to settle disputesof inheritance and becauseadoption
centersfot poor nonwhite children are unavailable.ls
Quasi Kinship in Black Communities. The use of kinship terminology among
nonrelativesis especiallywell documented among black Americans,in part be-
cause the studies have often been done by anthropologists who have been
trained in the recognition and analysis of quasi kinship and the collection of
genealogies.The availability of their published reports is one reason why so
many of my examples are about this cornmunity. Examples of quasi kinship
in black communities also illustrate the previous knowledge many inmates have
with quasikinship sincea largeproportion of inmatesare black'
The examples also serve to illustrate the overlap bet\ /een friendship and
quasi kinship and the difhculties of being able to clearly distinguish between
them since friends are describedas'lust like one of the family" (l-adnet 1972'
p. 117); "like a cousin," "like sisters," or "as close as family" (Holloman and
 17O prisonHomosexualitv
Irwis 1978); and "play relatives" are "categoitzed as friendships,' (Aoyagi
1978, p. 309). Whites and blacks in the working class usually claim fewer
friends thaa those in the middle class and rarely entertain nonrelatives at home.
Those coming to homes tend to be treated as family as a way of emphasizing
ihat their friendship is not replaceable (Nlan 1979; Holloman and Lewis
1978).
Quasikinship ties in black comnunities range in function from playfulness
and politeness to more-seriousdghts and obligations. Aschenbrenner(1978)
found that southern Illinois blacks referred to their quasi kin as their Dlav sister.
play brother. play morher. or play father and that 65 percentreportedactive
play-kin or godparent ties. Wlrere ties were between adults and children, the
children received clothing and other gifts, and they in tum helped adults by
running errands and doing household chores. Adult play relatives were often
neighborswho offered each other emotional and economicassistance. Although
the gifts were small, the servicesof a token nature, and the relationshipsreadily
severed,the play-kin relationshipsoften developedinto lasting friendshipsand
"lent a specialfeeling of obligation to a normally casualrelationship" (Aschen-
brcnner 1973, p. 266). Wide variations in the stability, cohesiveness, and impor-
tance of quasi kin were also observedby Holloman and Irwis (1928). At one
end of the continuum were cohesiveand stablebonds. At the other end were
shorter, though sometimesmore-intense,relationshipssimilar to those among
Liebow's (1967) streetcornermen in Washington,D.C.
1, Stack's (i974) study of a Midwestem black ghetto community emphasizes
the more-seriousfunction of quasi-kin bonds as an important mechanism for
encouraging and affirming mutual aid and affection beyond the genealogical
family. Stack says friends must assumethe recognizedresponsibilitiesof kin
and be dependablein order to qualify for a kin classihcationand that partici-
pants are encoumged in maintaining responsibilitiesby the sanction of com-
munity gossip. Quasi-kin bonds are commonly formed among people living in
the same household and among neighbors. Informally adopted children are
treated like children bom into the family, cousins in the samehousehold are
viewed as if they were brothers and sisters,and children sometimescall their
mother's boyfriend their play daddy if he takes an appropriateinterest in them.
Members call the head of the extended econornically interdependent group
Momma even if she is not their birth motler becausettrey recognizethe impor-
tance ofher socialrole.16
"Going for brothers," "going for sisters," and "going for cousins" were
other quasikin forms describedby Stack and in Liebow's (1967) now-classic
study of streetcorner men in Washington, D.C. Liebow found "going for
brothers" to be the most conmon quasi-kin bond among the ghetto men and
says that men who '\rent for brothers" presentedthemselvesto the outside
world as brothers and publicly declaredfriendship obligations,expectations,and
loyalties to be at their maximum. Liebow believeslhat thesequasi-kinbonds ex-
pressed the wish to improve the stability and dependability of their existing
OuasiKinship 171
friendships. Becausethey typically experienced shoft, untrustworthy bonds,
these men often describedan acquaintanceof only a few weeks asar olal friend.
They acted as if they anticipated the eventualend of the relationshipsand tded
to squeezeas much as they could out of them at the moment by romanticizing
and upgradingthem-that is, by elevatingcasualacquaintancesto friends, friends
to close friends, and closefriends to quasikin. At the sametime, they expressed
"a cynical denial that friendship as a system of mutual aid and respectexistsat
all" O. 180). By using kinship terminolory they expressedtheir wish to trans-
form the reality of tleir brief, unstable friendships into an illusion of more-
durable, kinlike relationships.The idiom of kinship usedin "going for brothers"
was a way of attempting to support tenuous relationshipswith the norms and
valuesof dependablekinstrip.
Gap between ldeal and Real Relationships. Among the men Liebow studied
and among male and femaleinmates,the use of kinship terminology often repre-
sented a wish for the familial ideals of mutual aid and brotherly love, rather than
the achievementof relationshipsconsistent with these ideals.This disjunction
between reality and people'sideals for interpersonalrelationshipshas alsobeen
noted in studies of quasikinship amonBAmedcan slaves(Gutman 1976); among
prison families (Ford 1929; Rochelle 1965; Seling 1931); in severalstudies of
South Amedcan compadrazgo (Foster 1953, 1961, 1967; Pitt-Rivers 1968;
Sayres 1956); and in reports of sibling rivalry, desertion, child abuse, wife
battering, and farnily murders among real families outside prison (Gelles 1979;
Steinmetz and Straus 1974; Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz 1980; Straus and
Hotaling 1980). Behavior and attitudes often fa.ll short of the desiredideals of
emotional and economic security-in all sorts of families,
Some relationshipsprobably come closer to achievingthe ideal of durable
love than others, however, and this could account for why the girls in this study
had such an overwhelming preference for sister-sisterand motherdaughter
relationships. Their experience might well have been tlat sister-sister and
mother-daughter relationships were more stable than other relationships.l? If
so, this stability makes them particularly suitable for expressingthe inmates'
wishes for relatively asexuallong-term bonding. Creating husband-wifebonds
would be far lessappropriate to these desiresbecauseit requiresone padner to
act like a man, implies that sex is central to the relationship,and holds constant
reminders that one in three or four marriagesin North Amedca end in divorce.
Many cultural expressionsreflect the view that we feel a spousecan be more-
easily replaced than a parent. For example, Robert Browning noted the geater
durability of parentchild love when he wrote, "Lovers grow cold, men learn to
hate their wives,/ And only parents' love car last our lives" ("Pippa Passes").
The strong expectation and evidenceof distrust between men and women and
the instability of husband-wife relationships among blacks in Philadelphia and
Chicagoare discussedby Abraharns(1970a,1970b,1976), Aschenbrenner (1975),
and Holloman and I-ewis (1978).

172 PrisonHomosexuality
Summary
The data from girls in our sample of four female and tlTee coed institutions
show that future investigators of inmate subculture should clearly distinguish
between homosexual and make-believe-familyparticipation becausethese are
often different kinds of relationshiPs.Asexual sister-sisterand mother'daughter
roles were far more common than husband'wiferoles, and participation in make-
believe families was not usually a step toward overt homosexual experience.
Nonfamily girls were just aslikely to have homosexualexperiencesaswere those
in the common mother, daughter, and sister roles. Girls who took male and
spouseroles were mote likely to report homosexualexPerience,but only a few
girls adopted these roles. In most cases,the creation of the quasikin tie was
relativelyindependentof homosexuality.Quasi-kinbonds were createdto express
the wish for a durable and satisfying asexualrelationsbjp , and more-stable parent-
child and sibling roles were appropriatefor this purpose.
Although participation rates for make-believefamilies were higlrer in the coed
than in the girls' schools in this study, we cafiIot generalize this finiling because
Giallombardo (1974, p. 8\ and Rochelle(1965, p. 43) found ratesof particiPa-
tion in make-believe families just ashigh in four all-gids' training schools.lE
Most staff respontlentsrecognizedthat make'believe-familyactivities nrere
_ prohibiting contact with former inmates, and restrictions and monitoring of mail
not usually homosexual.Staffs consideredhomosexuality a more seriousprob-
lem and thought that postreleasehomosexuality was more likely amongpaltici-
I pants in prison homosexuality than amongparticipantsin make-believefamilies'
Few staffs reported deprivation or Preprison characteristicsas the most
they were loved, wanted, or needed;that they had a real family; or that they had
becomebetter friends as a result of being in a make'believefamily'
also
Quasi-kinshippractices are not unique to incarceratedwomen' They
exist amongmale inmates,and women and men outside prison almost universally
use idioms of kinship to expressand encouragefamilial idealsof reciprocallove,
economic cooperation, dependability, obligation, loyalty, and durability ln-
mates are familiar with quaslkinship Practicesin their home communities out'
OuasiKinship 173
of the quasi-kin relationship in prison necessarily involve more sarne-sexdyadic
roles like sister-sisterand father-sonthan opposite-sexdyadic roles like brother-
sisterand mother-sonbecauseinmatesusuallyhavemore interaction with iffnates
of the same sex. However, the populadty of sister-sisterand brother-brother
roles could also indicate that inmatesdesirethe goal of equality in their personal
relationshipsat least asmuch as dominanceand submission.Also, the Practiceof
calling both siblings and friends by their first name means that no awkward
transition to a new form of addressis required for a quasi sibling. Mother-
daughter and father-son relationships have the advantageof enabling each inmate
to maintain an appropriate gender role while enabling the parent to feel more
mature and the child to feel more secure.
Severalprison conditions facilitate the fomiation of quasi-kin relationships
by encouragingclose, familylike interpersonalinteraction. A few examplesin-
clude living in the samebuildings, eating together, going to school,working and
playing togeiher, and sharing conversation.Inmates may also create quasi kin
relationshipsin prison becausethey give the illusion of closer ties in environ-
ments that make their actual achievement very alifficult. The inmates' need for
the illusion of familylike bonds with peers could result fiom a variety of struc-
tural factors that limit their long-Xerminteractionswith peersanalpeople outside
the prison. These include factors like high population tumover, regulations
and personal visits with friends and family outside the prison.
In summary, the formation of quasifamilies seemsto serveimPodant func-
tions in enhancingthe well-beingof male and female inmates,just astheir forma-
tion performs similar important functions among women and men outside
prison. None of us likes to feel alone in the world, and we are lesslikely to feel
that way ifn/e accept or extend a bond of quasikinship.
Notes
1. This changefor coed institutions was made after the first group question'
naire administration at Delta Coed,which involved about sixteen girls.
2. Only five girls were not in a make-believe family at the time of the
questionnaire administration, but they had been in the past.
3. A girl was counted as a self-rePortedparticipant if shereported a current
family role (question 2b in aPpendix A) or if she hail ever been in a family in
that particular institution in the past (questions 3a and 3b in appendix A). A
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
. 4. Reputational reports obtained in interviewsalso showedthat somegirls
took both male and female roles at the sametime.
5. Nonparticipation was coded aszero and participation as one on each of
the five variables.
6. The proportion was slightly higher (two-thirds) at Delta Coed and
slightly lower (one-third) at Yankee Coed.
7. From Grand Larcusse de Ia Langue Frangaise,vol. 3 (paris: Librairie
Larousse.1973),p. 2266.
8. For a fascinating account of quasi kinship among literate nineteenth-
9. For more-detaileddiscussionsofblood brotherhood, seeCohen (1961),
Gibbs (1962), Hamilton4rierson (1911), Okada (1957), pitt_Rive$ (196Si,
and Reed (1975). Examples of ritual sisterhooclbetween women and men
can be found in Dube (1974), Hamilton.crierson (1911), Mayer (1960), ancl
Reed(1975).
10. Ishino (1953) reports that in Japan, construction workers have cere-
monies to form structured families that include a father (oyabun), his brothers
(ojibun), and chtldren (kobun) who consider the oTiban as uncles. The initiation
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
family name and a jacket (simulating a gift of baby clothes) showing their new
ritual name and status.
to 60-70 percent of the people in neighboring districts. Thus, each man used a
kinship term for at leasi 350 persons.
12. For discussionof the compadrazgo,or dtual coparenthood or god-
parent ties, in South America, see Anderson (1957), Davila (1971), Foster
(1953; 1961; 1967),Gudeman(1921), Keesing(1975), I_aguene(1978),Mintz
and Wolf (1950), and Sayres (1956). I:guerre claims that godparenthood in
Haiti developed during the colonial period and that godparentstook care of
children when the masterdecidedto sell a husbandand wife to differenr masrers.
The godparentswere usually of higher status in the slavecormunity than the
parents,aod somewere even free men.
Sonenschein(1968) distinguishesbetweeninformal marriages(cohabita_
-13.
tion) and those characterized by ritual and ceremony. Cender anclroli clistinctions
OuasiKinshio 175
character2ed only a small minority of marriages. A survey by Jay and Young
(1979) found that 40 percent of female and 25 percent of male rcsPondentscon-
sider or have considercdthemselvesmarried in a homosexual relationdlip. The
common practice of calling homosexual friends and even acquaintances families,
brothers, and sistersis discussedin severalplacesin an earlier book by Jay and
Young (1975).
14. The President'sCommissionon Law Enforcementand Administration of
Justice (1967) rcports tlle existenceof twenty-four family groups(of 20 to 700
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)
discuss quasi kinship and its effects in Japanesecrimiral organization ard gargs.
15. For more on informal adoption or fostering, seeAoyagi (1978), Aschen-
brenner(1975; 1978),Dougherty(1978),Goody (1969; 1971; 1978),Holloman
and Lewis (1978), Jack (1978), kdner (1972), Powdermaker (1939), and
Shimkin, Louie, and Fraie (1978).
16. For more-detailed discussionsof the terminological distinctions be-
ween social and biological parents in black communities, see Aschenbrenner
(1975); Doughedy (1978); Goody (1978); I-adner(1972); Martin and Martin
(1978); Shimkin, Louie, and Frate (1978); and Shimkin and Uchendu (1978).
17. For evidenceand discussionof the stability of same-sex-sibling ties, see
Fishel (1979) and Allan (1979). Reed (1975) explainsthe historical importance
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
(1965) thesis.For example, Foster saysthe participation rate at the Ohio Girls'
School was 63 percent, or 161 of the 268 respondents.The calculation instead
should be 60 percent, but a far more seriousproblem is that page44 of Wentz's
thesis shows this as the number who said they did not pafiicipate in a family.
Wentz doesnot specify which questionssheused to fird out how many respond-
ents were in the families of the two institutions she studied.Shemay have used
argot terms that did not clearly distinguishbetween being in a family and having
a homosexual experience.Wentz saysthat the term stTlteswas used by the girls
and staff to denote family membership and superficial involvement in homosex-
ual behavior that was distinguished from Participation in the "gay life ," yet "going
together" is describedas a common feature of the family. Wentz's data show
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.

Myths and Realities

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

Inmates' attitudes about homosexuality are just as negativeasattitudes of their

nonimprisoned counterparts. Since participants do not have peer support for

177

174 PrisonHomosexuality
Table8-1
SomeMyths and Realitiesabout hison Homos€xuality
Myths Realities
1. The incidenceofhomosexuality is The one suryey thal used the sameindicator of
higher among female than among male male and female imates found they reported
mmales. the sarnerates(chapter l).
2. Most inmateshavea homosexual Availablesurveysfind that 17-69 percent of
experiencein pdson. inmatesreport a prison homosexualexpe ence;
most find lessthan 50 percent (chapters1 and
3).
3. Inmatesapproveof pdson IIl our stualy,infiates opposedhomosexuality
homosexuality. asmuch asyoung peopleoutsidehstitutions
did (chapter3).
4. Peoplewho participatein prison We do not know how many continue,but some
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
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
(chapter4).
6. Prisonhomosexualitywill be reduced Ratesof homosexualityin coed and female
in coed institutions. prisons\veretJlesameonce the effect ofpre_
vious homosexualitywas taken into account
\ (chapter4).
7. Ratesof hofiosexuality are higher Mitchell found ratesof homosexualityhgher
iJra trcatment-odentedptison, but no diffe!_
in custody-oriented than in teatment-
odented pdsons. encewasfound belweenratesin the two Pnsons
once the effectsofprevious homosexualex-
periencewere takeninto accowlt (chapter4).
8. Participation in quasi families leads Nonfamily participants are just aslikely to have
to homosexualactivity. a homosexual experience. Only the infrequently
adoptedmale and spous€roles showedstrodg
retationships with prison homosexuality (chap'
ter / r.
9. Homosexualdyadsale tlle basisof Severalstudies leport more sibling and parent-
quasi families in plison. child relationshipsthan homosexualdyads
(chaptet 7).
10. Quasi families are found only Quasi families are a.lsofound among male in-
amongimpisoned gfulsand women. mates and atnong men and women outside
prison (chapter?).
their homosexual activity, they need io create v/ays of emphasizing their normal-
ity and membership in mainstream society by justifying their behavior to them-
selvesand to others . The techniques they useinclude blaming their homosexuality
on a shortage of the opposite sex, a deste for financial gain, or an ftrestibly
pe$uasiye partner. To diminish the stigma attached to homosexuality, inmates
Conclusions 179
ernphasize its small role in comparison to other things they do. Many inmates
deny a preferencefor homosexual activity and emphasizethe situational pres-
sures that causedthem to pafiicipate.
Long-Term Effects
Although txnates emphasizethe temporary nature of their participation, u/hat
happens in reality is often different than what they expect so that many of
them will continue homosexual activity. The inmates are not alone in denying
the possibility of long-term homosexuality. Corectional administratorsand the
general public are also more comfo able believing that prison homosexuality
is temporary since this ideology absolvesthem of the blame for keeping inmates
in so-calledrehabilitative institutions that contribute to lone-term homosexual
preference.
Relative Impoftance of Importation and Depivation Vaiables
The importation pe$pectiye, derived from studies of inmate subculturc and
from social-psychologicaltheory, arguesthat inmate behavior is a product and
reflection of prior socializationand demographiccharactedsticsthat are carried
into the institutional setting. The model predicts that prison homosexualitywill
be affected by the direct importation of previous homosexualexperienceand
also that it will be affected more indirectly through preyiousdelinquent and cor-
rectional experiencesand backgroundcharactedsticssuch as age,race,and social
class.
In our analysis,the variableof previoushomosexualityhad a very important
role in predicting prison homosexuality. It alone accounted for 29 percent of
the vadancein the individuals' scoreson the homosexuality index. Eighty-eight
percent of the 354 girls who repo ed no pdor homosexuality also reported no
prison homosexuality, and 71 percent of the 35 girls with previoushomosexual
experience also had homosexual experiencesin prison. About half of those
reporting a prior experiencesaid they fust wrote love letters, kissed,or had sex
in a coed or all-femaletraining school, detention center, or group home. Thus,
even among this relatively young group of inmates,much of the prior homosex-
uality appears to be imported from other correctional prograrnsrather than
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.
Recognizingthe important role of prior homosexuality in predicting prison
homosexuality does not mean that institutional influences are unimPortant.
Twothirds of those reporting prison homosexuality indicated that thefu first
experiencehad occurred in the training school at which we questionedthem. It
 180 PrisonHomosexualitv
appearslikely, therefore, that the institutional setting would encouragemore
homosexuality than the free-world environment. At this tirne, however, we
cannot determine the strength of institutional effects becausewe lack compar-
able data on similar free-world populations.
The impodant role of previoushomosexuality in explaining scoreson the
homosexuality index was further demonstratedby its ability to account for the
small differenceir homosexuality scoresbetweeninstitutions. The coed.program
with the highest rates of homosexuality also had the highest proportion of
respondentsreporting previous homosexual experience.Of the fifty-thee girls
who answeredboth our questions on prior and prison homosexuality, sixteen
reported at least one homosexual experience. Of these, fourteen reported
previous homosexuality elsewhere,and only two reported that their first homo-
sexualexperiencehad occurredduring their cqrrent incarceration.
The data fail to support the widespreadbelief that homosexuality is more
prevalent in single-sexthan in coed institutions, perhaps becausethe belief
reflects an inaccurate impression of the normality of coed environments.The
opportunity for heterosocialand heterosexualinteraction is probably lessthan
that of youths with the strictest of parents in the free world. In the three coed
programs sampled for this study, and in most other coed pdsons in North
America, rules against most forms of body contact are strictly enforced. A11
coed interaction is conscientiouslymonitored to ensure that it is not sexual.
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-
sexual experience.Proponentsof this view also assumethat the harsh,depriying
conditions of custodyoriented, maximum-security prisons are more conductive
to homosexuality than are treatment-oriented,minimum-security prisons. This
prediction is in direct contradiction to Mitchell's (1969) fuding of more prison
homosexuality in a treatment-oriented(37 percent) than in a custody-oriented
prison (21 percent). The difference between pdsons occurs becausethe treat-
ment-odentedprison had more inmateswith prior homosexualexperience.When
the effect of prior homosexualitywas taken into account,no statistically signifi-
cant differences existed in rates of prison homosexuality between the two
prisons.
One possible interpretation of the sirnilar rates is that inmates experience
treatment-oriented and custody-odented prisons as equally depriving. Being
involuntarily confned may result in levels of deprivation that are relatively
unaltered by particular variationsin prison conditioos. The difficulty of inferring
deprivation levels from a prison's architecture or formally stated goalsor ploce-
dures requires that we measuredeprivations more directly when investigating
their relationship to pdson homosexuality. The presentstudy did this by asking
respondents to indicate degreesof actual and perceived hardship on several
Conclusions 181
variables. The resulting data showed that the seven inslitutions had a similar
balance of gratifications and depdvations. Our analysis,therefore, focused on
examining the relationships between prison homosexuality and the thirteen
indicators of depdvation in an individual rather than an institutional level of
analysis.
Prison homosexuality was not related to most of the actual and perceived
deprivations we measured,but it had a weak to moderately strong relationship
to infrequency of contact with mother, perceiveddepdvation of contact with
family and friends, and distance from home. These particular indicatom suggest
that the isolation of prisons contributes to prison homosexuality. Since all
pdsoners are isolated, however, these yadables are not strong predictors of
whether or not particular inmatesparticipate.
The clear lack of support for deprivation in Mitchell's study and tlre limited
suppod for it in this study will not relegate deprivation theory to historical
myth, but it should make us more willing to test alternativeexplanations.Since
theorizing is inevitably influenced by valuejudgments,many people assumethat
bad behavioris causedby bad conditions. Homosexuality and deprivation,there-
fore, have a natural affinity. However, other more-positive organizationalfea-
tures like sharing meals, activities, affection, and conversation in close geo-
graphical proximity could also promote prison homosexuality. Not everything
about prison is deprivingalJof the time.
Relntionship of Homosenrality and Quasi Kinship
Analysis of youths' self-reportsand staffs' perceptionsabout the relationslfp of
homosexuality and quasi kinship suggest that these were usually two distinct
aspectsof the inmate subculture.Homosexual dyads were not the basisof the
family structure in these institutions since nonparticipants were as likely as
participants were to have homosexualexpedences.The only quasi-kin relation-
ships strongly associatedwith homosexual activity were spouseand male roles,
and these roles were mre. The majority of quasi-kinparticipantsreported taking
asexualsister-sisterand mother-daughterroles.
Girls in coed institutions participated in quasi-kin relationships as much as
girls in all-female institutions. In coed facilities, male inmates also participated
in quasikinship.
. The majority of staff was awarethat quasi-kinrelationshipswere not homo-
sexual, but they thought participants were attracted to both foms of inrnate
subculture becauseof their needsfor security, companionship,affection, atten-
tion, status, prestige, or acceptance.In addition, quasi kinship was seen as a
responseto having an inadequate real family, and homosexuality was seenas
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.

I was told of incidents ai St. Mary's in which one or severalgirls ,.raped"

another girl by trying to take her pants off, grabbingher breasts,and fingering
her genitals. While dohg this the attackers sometimes tell the girl they love hei
and that they want "to ball" her and she cannot resist.Ifthe victim getsupset,
the aggressorssay she cannot take a joke. But, if she shows some delight or
acceptanceof such activity she may become a target for later, more subtle at_
tempts at homosexual seduction. At other times, this kind of sexualattack is
purely aggressive. One inmate told me that three girls had gangedup on her and
tried to take her pants down. They stopped only becauseshe cried a lot. The
victim thought she was attacked becauseshe did not like to fight, but some of
her peers thought it was becausethe attackers were offended by her poor
hygieneand messyhousekeeping.
Lockwood (1980, p.5) relatesa personal comrnunication from JamesFox
that tells of sexualaggressionbeing employed to humiliate a pdsonerat the New
York State CorrectionalFacility for Women at Bedford tlills. Gardner(1925, pp.
129-130) reviewstlle accounts of two women who claimed they had ro escape
from a California prison in order to avoid sexual assaultby lesbia[ inmates.On
the day of their escape,ten or fifteen lesbian inmates approachedthem with
the alternative of "fuck or fight.,' The resulting fight ended with threats of
future sexualassaults,Since severalprevious complaints to authodtieshad gone
unheeded, the defendants felt they had no choice but to leave the nstitu-
tion in order to savethemselves.The California Court of Appeals upheld their
defense.
A transcript sent to a soutlern Junior Irague group tells of the horrors
observedby a fourteen-year-oldgirl who spent eight months in a correctional
institutiol for running away from home:

Future investigatorscould also benefit by employing a theoretical frame-

work that includes variables which are not subsumedunder cufient formulations
of importation and deprivation.
 184 PrisonHomosexualiw
Conclusion 185
A Social.Psychological Model of the Causesof
Prison Homosexuality

Our study of girls in training schoolsdramatically demonstratedthat preinstitu-

tional effects do not simply stop when institutional effects begin. Rather, they ts>.9
continue to operate along with those in the new situation. Prison organizations
seemto be arenasin which people act out predispositionsthey acquiredearlier.
However, they are also placeswhose surroundingsarld structure help to create
new behavior that continuesto operatewhen they leaveprison.
Figure 8-1 givesa schematicportrayal of how theseprocessesoccur and lists
some variablesvdrose impact should be explored in future investigations.The
astedsked variables in the model had a statistically significant relationship to
prison homosexuality in this study. We assume that interaction effects exist
among the various free-world variables, among the situational variables, and
also among free-world and situational variables. We also assumethat the varia-
bles in the model explain prison homosexuality for both male and female inmate
populations. Any differences or similadties in rates and styles of homosexual
expressionbetweenmen and women in prison should be empiricaily examinedin
relation to possibledifferencesin terms of the variablesin the model. .>s
4c)

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
hnrcdiat e Precipitating Conditio ns
Every homosexualact is shapedover time by a variety of contingencies,events,
and circumstances.The structure of opportunity, the meaning of events,the
more likely to be repeated if the lover is skilled and if the experienceis Phy-
sically and emotionaliy gratifying. Those who find the homosexuality satisfying
are more likely to repeat the experienceboth during tleir incarceration and
x'hen they leave.
The Lomosexualexperienceacts as independentvariablein influencing the
likelihoocl of further such experiencein future situations, both in and out of
tive to leamingjustifications for homosexualbehavior'
Implications for Correctional Policy
consentingjuveniles.
that could
.tvailible evidencesuggeststhat two of the most effectiYesteps
be taken to reduce prison homosexuality are to decreasethe length of prison
Conclusion 189
sentencesand to establishmore weekend-furloughprograms.Thesewould enable
inmates to maintain and establish long-tem family and friendship bonds that
would make prison homosexuality less necessary.Feld's (1977) study of the
Lancaster School for Girls in Massachusettsfound neither homosexuality nor
extended quasikin networks in an institution at which terms were four months
or less and inmates enjoyed weekend home furloughs after the secondmonth.
Apparently frequent contacts with significant others in the free world and the
expectationof an early releasemade them unnecessary.
Decreasingthe length of prison sentencesor eliminating them altogether
could be done for many nondangerousand nonviolent offensesand would have
the additional advantageof substantiallyreducingthe taxpayers'costswith little
risk of changingrecidivism rates (Lipton, Martinson, and Wilks 1975; Robinson
and Smith 1971). The money savedcould be diverted toward the development
of programs that would focus on increasingthe offender's stake in the com-
rnunity by helping them obtain education and jobs, and by providing progmms
of victim restitution, the payment of fines, probation supervision,and com-
munity service.
If administmtors do not reduce the duration of pdson terms, staffs will
probably feel some respoosibility to use other methods of control lt is difficult
to ignore homosexual acts where the lack of pdYacy increases their visibility
and where institutionai architecture and the expectations of administrators
and peers often provide a nonverbal messageto staffs that some form of isola-
tion from the homosexualpartner or some sort of Prevention or negativerein-
forcement of potential or actual homosexual activity is exPected.Sometimes,
staffs trarsfer inmates to another institution and lengthen their sentencesbut
these are bound to create resentment from the accusedand to interfere with
the establishment and maintenance of good staff-inmate relationships.Other
punitive measureslike solitary conltnement are also questionablebecauseno
evidenceindicatesthat they decreasehomosexuality (Mitche1l1969).
To the contrary, the possibility exists that such sanctionsand rigid surveil'
lance would increase the likelihood of such activity. Measuressuch as not
allowing inmates to comb each other's hair and to touch affectionately give the
impression that homosexuality is Prevalent and expected and might increase
inmates' interest in €xpedencing the forbidden activity. Policies that make
inmates' lives sterile and inhuman by restricting affectionate contact could
create more problems for inmates and administratorsthan the occasionalhomo-
sexual encounter. Harsh and visible Punitive reactions like the imposition of
solitary confinement could make it more difficult for participants to move out
of homosexual activity becausethey create publicity that can encourageln-
vitations from other particiPants.The publicity could also createsomepressure
for the offender to move into closer association with others having homosexual
activity since many nonParticipants will disapprove of their behavior and wish
not to associatewith participants.
 190 PrisonHomosexuality
I would also caution against the use of psychological testing and other
measures desigred to identify potential participants. Well-meaning observerslike
Kates (1955) sometimessuggestthat women with high scoreson masculinity
tests should padicipate in some kind of preventative therapy. The problem is
that such scoresare weak predictors, thus many women would needlesslybe
spending their time and the governrnent'smoney on therapy which has no
demonstrated value. I think there is also th€ danger of concluding that more-
feminine scores are desirable,when in fact there is some evidencethat high
masculinity scoresamong women are associatedwith many desirablecharacter-
istics like high school achievement,high occupational status and income, and
high self-esteem(Maslow 1942). Sometimes v/ell-intentioned psychiatric and
psychological counselon crcate harm by their treatment methods, and their
patients or clients would be better off without the intervention (Kittrie 1971:
Szasz1963, 1970a, 1970b, 1973, 1974).
More often, they are helpful, and can provide neededrape-crisiscounseling
and instruction about the myths and realities of prison homosexuality. Such
instruction could help inmates make informed decisions by expanding their
awarenessof forces that would increase or decreasethe likeiihood of their
participation. I hope this book can be a guide to helping counselorsfeel com.
fofiable with discussion about homosexuality, but I also suspect that they
should listen to inmates a good deal. Ross and McKay (1979) found that the
only v/ay they were able to eliminate self-mutilation ("carving") among girls
in an Ontario training school was to treat the inrnatesas rcsourcepersons,re-
search assistants,and experts in a study of carying. The same sort of process
might be effective in reducing the incidenceof problematicprisonhomosexuality
for similar reasons. By treating irunates as respected therapists rather than
clients, Ross and McKay found they behaved in far more capable, altruistic,
and prosocialways. It v/asasif the processof inmates' teachingRossand McKay
about "the logistics, the techniques, the instruments, the designs,the antece-
dents, the attendant emotions at every stageof the process,the significanceof
the act for them, and the consequences"(p. 132) took the fun out ofit for
the inmates. Ros and McKay suggestthat the processwas effectiye in reducing
carving becauseit filled someof the sameneeds-that is, both carvingand acting
as paraprofessionalswhile teaching the author-therapistsabout it may have
allowed the girls to express independence,autonomy, power, control, and
personal freedom. The inmates knew that they could create staff intervention
by cutting their skin. Some inmates even leamed to "predict quite accurately
how many staff memberswould be summoned,howquickly they would respond,
how many stitches would be required, whether or not their parentswould have
to be notified, and how many interyiews with their caseworkeror psychologist
would be forthcoming" (p. 13a). The practice was thus continued becauseit
enabled inmates to feel tley had some control oyer the staff and their own
bodies. Apparently staff.inspired punishments and behayioral programs failed
Conclusion 191
to reduce the self-mutilation because they were additional restrictions on the
inmates' fieedom and power.
Ross and McKay were only able to control the carving once tley gave up
the appearance of all control. They stopped responding as if carving was patho-
logical or evenproblematic and viewed it from the inrnates'perspectiveinstead-
that is, "a genuine attempt to cope with an excessively controlling environment"
O. 138). They relabeledself-mutilation as "a creativeact-epidermal art-an act
of independenceand maturity" (p. 139) and thus took the mystery out of it.
They also told inmates that their carving might provide the staff with some
stimulation becausecdsis intervention made their jobs exciting. When inmates
came to realize that tlre staff members were enjoying their carving, they stopped
the behavior. In addition, those author-thempists secretly coopted inmate
leadersto serveas paraprofessionalpeer therapists.Ross and McKay did this by
spending time obtaining information from an inmate leader about what institu-
tion life was like. While the irunate leader was teaching the psychologists about
her milieu, she was treated by them as a competent, altruistic personwho was
deeply concerned with the welfare of other girls. After some time was spent
teachingher to be ajunior therapist,the leaderestablishedher own therapy pro'
gram for girls with problems.The leaderthen coopted other peer therapists,and
together they drasticallyreducedthe antisocialbehavior of inmates.
Staffs could assistwith voluntary counselingprogramsby explaining some
of the realities of prison homosexuality describedin this book-namely that
isolated homosexual experiencesdo not necessarilyindicate that people are
homosexualor that they will becomehomosexual,but they do seemto increase
the likelihood that some will have a homosexual experience both in future
incarcerationsand in the free world. Also, we have the reality that people can
participate in many sibling and parent-child quasi-kin relationshipswithout fear
that such participation is a step toward homosexuality. Those who participate
in prison homosexuality are not abnormal but rather have given in to some
relatively strong forces that others either have not expedencedor are better at
resisting. If inmates understand the causesand implications of participation in
homosexuality they are in a better position to make responsibledecisionsabout
their own course of action. Inmates' ability to stick with a decision not to
participate would probably be enhancedby some discussionof how to reject
homosexual oyedures in ways that are firm, yet considerate of the people
initiating the invitations to participate. Since administrato$ cannot count on
the informal inmate subculture's eyolving in ways that would insure the com-
munication of this kind of information, they should be prepared to provide it
through more-formal mechanisms in institutions at which homosexuality is
considereda widespreadproblem. This study has shown, however, that homo-
sexuality is so rare in many institutions that such a program would be redundant.
The challenge for staffs and inrnates now in our prisons is to look for
positive stmtegies of control that do not alienate inmates and diminish their
 192 PrisonHomosexuality

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'k nox paz.t of a nake_beTieve fanjlg herc naw-

3, a) Which of rhese thaf,gs have ever happened because you were in

a maj(e-be.Lreve f(ruly in Lt is progran: (CiECK AS !lAN./ AS

_ r staged o! ||as kepx herc jonge.

.....-..'.'_ r /as nct in tauch wixh people oursjde thas place as nuch
_ r went on fe@er tbne visits

_ r was noved to another livinq unit

r did
.............._ not get along as oel.t ,jtn staff

_Staff tojd ne or shawed ne theg didn't like ix

_ r have nevet been jn a nake_betieve fanitg herc

_ sonethiks etse happened (tj/rite tn ||hat)

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.)

_ actinq like a gug ttather, husbandt btothert son, urcfe, 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

oxher (write in)

b) Altoqether, hoq nany gir1s in anothei cortage or living lmit

are you rriting love fetters to, goinq ,itq and narried to ncnr?
4. a) Include vourself and think alrout the girls noq living in youE
cottage or living uni!. About hovr' ma,ry have acted 1ik€ quys
when they were in a make-beliewe fanity here or goinq with
a,lother 9ir1 here?
c) If you are writing love ]e!hers, or going qith, q married to a
girl in t}!is proqlaln nov, irhat lace is she? We want you to
thiru\ Ebout o.Iy the qill you are nost serious about in
a.nswering this question. (CHEq( ONLY ONE)
b) If you qele ever 9oin9 with or rElried to another girl in this
proqran. dial one of you act like a g'ry and the other like a heican Tndian
_
girt? (CHECK ONE)
_ Bfack

_ Yes, I was usuallg xhe g!9

Yes, I ||as .6ua119 the girl ariental

_ _
_ No, we botb usaallg acted fike oprselves PDerto Rj can
_
_ I have never gone with ar been Mrried to another qjiT here

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
_

_ r staged ar ||as kept here longer

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

_ T have never pass;onateiq kisscd another gi here

 AppendixA
196 PrisonHomosexuality rc7
which of these c.hings has eve! happened because
you wrbte tove
c) At tl]e tine lt happened, ras the firct qirl you passionately reElels, pdssion.rety kissed, or had sex vllth anoLher girI in
kissed in this proqran (cHEcK oNE) this progEan? (CHACK AS r4ANy AS Appr,y)

co vou _I sxageU ar \fas kept hete lonser

_ nafried
_r qas not in touch qi.th peopfe
_ parx ot qaur nake-beTjeve tatuity but 29L narried to sau outside thjs pface as nuch
Mnied xo gau nor part af gou! nake-believe faniTg _r went on fewer hone wisits
_ neither
_I ttas roved to aloxhet
- ! have neve! passj onaEe-I] ](jssed anoLher girl in this tivjDq untx
prograr, _I tliat not gex atong as wel.f qith staff
10. Durinq a 24 hour period in this lrogran, hoi{ 1on9 is it usually ........_staff xoTd ne o, showed ne theg didn,t Jike it
possible for tso gir]s !o be alone together? have
_r never written Tove]extels ta anather girj here
have
............'._ress xhan 5 ninutes _r never passianatejg kissed anoxher gitj herc
5 to.l5 runutes .......,_r naye never,'rad sex \]ith another girl
_ herc
16 Flnvtes to I hour _sol€xhins eTse happened (wdte in what)

_ 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)

_ Eq!a]]g good and bad

_ Ihe questions were tao perso1aT
_ ttore bad than qood
_ theg were afraid statf woujd tind oltt
Eave nevet passionatelV kissetl or hatl sex wixh another qirT xheir aneers
_
_ Iheg wefe atraid other girjs woujat final out theit
Do you think you will have sexual relationships vith girls
afte! yo'l leave here? (CHECK ONEI - Theg p^abablg answered a.U tne questao,is honest_ty
_ oxher (wrixe in)
ProbabTg Do Definixelg no

() () ()()
 198 PrisonHomosexuality

we will close with a couple of questions on a alifferent topic. AppendixB:

Staffs'Add-on
I7. a) how well do these statements describe you?
Questionnaire
We have a fes nore questions that we hoPe staff who vork t{ith the
qirls in this progran wil] be able to esweE. Sone questions ale alout
t. I an sua779 satistTeal wixh ngseff nale-believe fanilies anong the gir]s here. By nal<e-beliewe fanilies
2, I an as prettg as othe! girls ny age we nean that giEls get togethe! ed Pretend theY ale nochers, sisters,
wives, daughters, falhers, brothels, husbards, o! sons to or)e anotheE.
3. At xines, r qish r were a hog we call thein male-believe families so that you will not think $?e were
asking about the girls' real fanilies back hone. other questions are
4. I can usua779 get other gi -s here
xo do vhat I wanx about ronantic and sexual relations aftong Lhe 9ir1s here, such as
writing love letters, going with another 9ir1, passionately kissing' or
5. I can be in totch vtith bogs and baving sex, beyoDd huggins and kissing, with anorher si!1'
nen enough at this pTace
We know these thinqs are sonetines difficult to discuss. l,ie
6. I voulal Jike to get narried sonedag decided to ask for your cooPeration, because your close involvenent with
7, I wouTd Tike xo hawe chifdren the girls in the proglan probably gives you a good knoi.lledge of these
behaviors. If you could share thas knowLedlge with us, $e would learn
nore a.bout girls' lives here. Such knovtledge could be very helPful to
those r^,ho sork with adolescent girls.

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

Cixg Had sex, beyond kissing and hugging,

lrith another girl here

2. Please rate how undesirable you consider the folloeing behavior a

girl hele night engage in by circling the nunber reP.esenting the
deglee of seriousness. (Assuhe lhat up to now the girl you are
rating has Rade a fairlY good adjustrent and has not caused too nanv

.9erious Serious serious

a. aeins in a nake-believe farnily 7 2 34

b. Acting li](e a guy here 7 2 34

:n-+har di r) hF.. f 2 34

d. Passionately kissing another

9i!1 hele f 2 34

e. Having sex, beyond kissing and

hugging, dith &other 9ir1 hele .i 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

_ i. lii]I have sex wirh girts when Lhey teave here _

_ j. other (write in)

k. other (write in)

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

9. r{rat are the two best \rays to hanatle

most gr!1s? Please write in ,'1,' for
sexual relationships bet$,een
the best way anat ,,2,, for tbe
AppendixC:
seconit besr way ro handle then.
GontractAgreement
_ Re.Iax antl nox iAxerfere

_ Punish tbe girls

-..'......_ l(eep the girfs afone in a roon a few dags

.............._.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)

and other activities

(sociat rrorket,
naJC
N A T I O N AALS S E S S M E N
OTFJ U V E N I LCEO R R E C T I O N S
_ Atrange fot the girts to see logs ,rore otten T h e l J n i v e r s i toyt M i c h i g a n
203 Easl Hoover
A n n A r b o r ,M i c h i g a n4 8 1 0 4
P h o n e3 1 37 6 3 - 2 3 0 8

TO.
Nane of Adninistlator

TEANK YAU FOR YOIJR COOPEMIrON

eaa..ss oi uniF-

FROM: Rosernary C. Sarri and Robert D. Vinter

Project Co-Di!ectors

FE: App.oval of Tenns for participation in Research

the Nationdl Assessment of Juvenile corrections is enqaqed in a

natronal study of coriectional plograms for youlh. rr is s"iport"a oy a
grant fron the National Instirute of !a$ EDforcement and Cri.ninal Jusrice,
LEAA. of the UniLed States Departnent of Justice, and by The Univelsity
of ltrchigan. The researcb is beihg conducteal frofl The University of
i4ichigan under our supervisron and responsibility.

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.

The anfornation that we sish ro obtain vill pehit us to nake

comDarisons dithin and betn'een prograns. t?e bope through the use of this
knoqledge that greate! effectiveness in juvenite colrections can be
acbieved. InfoEnation is being requested flon staff aDd youth, as NeU
as about the agency and its operation. AII the infornation wilt be
handled confidentia11y.

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)

Age, 118, l63i of first homosexualex-
pe'i,ence, 82 , 92 , I 47 ; of gids in
training schools,l, 30, 92, and
guilt, 65; and incidenceof homo-
sexuality,10, 21,'l 3, 92, 93, 9 6-
9 7, 1 0 3 , 1 0 6 , 1 4 5 - 1 4 6a; n dl o n g -
term effects, 68
Alcohol, 13, 9l
Anal intercourse,70,82- Seeslso
SodomY
Analysisof covariance.SeeStatistical
techniques
Analysisof variance.SeeStatistical
techniques
Anonymity, 37, 46
Argot for prison homosexuality:
e x a m p l eosf , | , 2 , 7 , 9 , 3 7 , 6 6 - 6 8 ,
1 O,7 8, 89, 163-1 65 ; functions of ,
I l , 5 0 ,8 9
A €sts.SeeJusticesystem,experience
with
Arysn Brotherhood, 162, SeeLlso
Quasikinship, amongmale.inmates
Attitudes about homosexuality,of
i n m a t e s3, 8 , 8 8 , 1 1 5 ,1 7 ' 1
,185,
187- l8 8; institutional differefices,
62-64i percei\ed eflects of homo-
sexualexpedenceand Probability
of futute experiences,6+7 2.
Seearso Reactionsto homosex-
uality; Staff, attitudes toward
homosexuality
Attractiveness,80, l40, 144-146, 187
Autonomy,lack of , 13, 125-126,
134, 190;andhomosexuality,
14,22, 13l-132, 159;ard quasi
kinship, 159
Bayh,Bhch (U.S.senator),192
Behan,Breldon, 86, 144
Behaviormodification, 23 ,2'1
Biologicaltheori4 of homosexuality,
73-:15,186
SubjectIndex
Black GuerilloFamily, 162. Seeako
Quasikinship, among male inmates
Boredom,13, 135-126,134;andhomo-
sexuality, 14, 22, 13l-132, l8'7
Bulldagger.Se€Homosexual,roles,
feminine and masculine
Butch- SeeHomosexual,roles, fem-
inine and masculine
Cansolship,29,36 1 ,2 0
Childhood ard adolescentsexuality,
11, 7 3, 82, 83, 92, 146-147,188-
Seec/.voIncidenceof homosexuality
amonggirls in this study
Children, deste for: and homosex-
uality,22, 68, |39-l4l ,143-l46i
in quasi families, 6-7 ,l5O-154,
165,167-173
Class,social,21, 32,94-95; alidhomo-
sexraiity, 93, 96-9'1, 106, 146
CLothrrLE, 7, 25, lO2, I 11
Coed institutions: heterosexualinter-
actlor,,32, 106-107, I l4-l I 6, 180;
incidenceof homosexuality, 5 3-54,
5 7 - 6 1 .8 5 - 8 7 ,1 0 0 - 1 0 1 1, 06-107,
1 1 3 - l 1 6 ,1 8 0 ;i n c i d e n coef q u a s i
kinship, 150, 152-153,l'13
Compailrazgo,17l, 1'l4
Confidentiality,35, 37,40,46
Contact with family and friends: and
homosexuality, 22, l3l-134,137 '
159-160,185-187;and quasikin-
ship,159-160,173;in sampledinsti-
tutions, 27, 124-126, l3O' 135-136
Corelation coefficients.SeeStatistical
techtriques
Court, juvenile. SeeJusticesystem
Criminal behavior' ,9eeOffenses
Crosstabulations.SeeStatistical
techniques
Ch)shing,1,6,7 ,50. Seeako AJgot
for prison homosexualitY
C u n n i l h g u s1, , 5 1 , 5 5
 230
Definition of the sittztiot, l'7, 66, 7 1,
t8'7
Degradationceremonies,13
Delinquent behavior.SeeOffenses
Dep.ivationsof imprisonment, actual
ajrd perceived:amonggirls in
sampledinstitutions,2 5-29, 122-
130; comparedto broader non-
d epriving situational influences,
1 1 ,2 0 , 8 6 , 1 0 6 ,l 8 l , 1 8 6 - 1 8 8 ;
compaled to frce-world depriva-
tions, 83, 135; and homosexuality,
't
3, 80, lo2-ro7, l r3-13't, 159-
160, 178-l8l ; and i.ttmatenorms
and behaYior generally, including
homosexuality, 1 l-23 ; interactions
amongdeprivation characteristiG,
12, 184;hteractionsamongdepri-
vation and importation cha-racter-
istics, 12, 24 , 68, l2l , l84 i an.d
quasikhship, I 59-l 60 ; relative
deprivation, 15-17, 121. Seealso
Institutions, total, difficulty of
classifying on deprivation-gratifica-
tion continuum
Depdvation theory. SeeDeprivations
of imprisonment
Detention, 19. Seedlra Justicesystem,
experiencewith
Deviance,12, 49,'72, 89, 1l7
Diffusion theory, See lmpofted
characteristicsof inmates
Distancebetu'eenhome and correc-
tional institution, I l7; and homo-
sexuahty,22,lO2, 106,123, l3l-
134, 13'7, 159-160,185-186;ard
quasikinship,159-160;in sampled
institutions, 123
Divorce.SeeQuasikirship
Domirance,165, 190;and homo-
sexuality,22, | 39-140, 143-146,
159-160,184-186;ard m asculinity,
2,55-5'7, 163l,and quasikinship,
159, r'13
Drugs,20, 110, 162;heroin,108;
and homosexuality, 81, 97, 108;
malijlJa'Ja,28,9l-92, 121i as pafi
PrisonHomosexuality
of victimless-offenses index, 9l;
thorcziate,119;use by girls in
sampledinstitutions, 9 l-92
Duration of incarceration. ,SseLellgtlt
of imprisonment
Editing of questionnaires,38-39
Effects of prisoDhomosexuality.See
Homosexuality,as an independent
variable; Homosexuality,and
increased[kelihood of future ex-
periences;Reactionsto homo-
sexuality
Euphemisms:lot ilr.mates,25-29,ll9 t
for prisons,25-29; ll7-121i fot
solitary confinemenl, 2'7-29 , lt9 -
Seealso Argot lor prison homo-
sexuality; Trainitrgschools,as
prisons
Ethnicity. See Raceand ethnicity
Fag, 164-165
Fe atio, 56-57,70, 80,82. Seeolso
Sodomy
Fernme-SeeHomosexual,roles,
feminine and masculine
Fictive kinship. SeeQuasikinship
Finger fuckhg, 1, 55
Fox, James,183
Free-woddinfluencesoll homo-
sexuality, 184-186; difficulty of
distinguishilg from iafluence of
previousincarcerations19, 68-70,
8 l - 8 3 , 8 6 - 8 8 ,9 8 - 9 9, t O 7, 1 3 2 .
See4fuoHomosexuality,before
cuEent incarceration; Imported
characteristicsof inmates
Friendship,9; ald homosexuality,50,
63-64, 80, 126-r2',7 , 130,1,55,l86i
and quasikinship,130, 155, l5 6,
169-17l; restrictiotsupon to pre-
vent homosexuality ,'1,9,63,72,
126-127. Seealso Peerrelationships
Functional autonomy, 68-69, 80
Functional theory, 12. SeeDepi'ra-
tions of imprisonment, actual
and percaived
SubjectIndex
G a n g s2, 0 , 1 6 l - 1 6 2 , 1 6 6
Goy, 50 , l'l 5 -l'l 6 ' See also Horrto'
sexual;Homosexuality; Lesbian;
True homosexual
Gemeinshaft,151
Givingup the work, 55-56,'15.See
aLroHomosexual,roles, feminine
and masculhe; Touching, domi-
nanceand genderdifferences
Goals,of correctionalilstitutions,
and inmat€ subculture.See
Homosexuality,its relationship
to institutional goalsand environ-
ments; lnstitutioos, total, dif-
ficulty of classifying on depriva-
tion-gratification continuum
Goingfor brothers, 17O-l'11.Seeako
Quasikinship, outside Prison
Going for sirters,170. SeedLroQuasi
kinship, outside Pnson
G o i n gt o g e t h e r2, 1 , 5 0 - 5 5 , 6 0 , 7 0 ,
7 r, tl0,154,l'l'7
Group or foster home. ^geeJustice
system,expedencewith
Guided $oup interaction (GGI), 28'
29
Gnrlt, 64-66. Seealso Justifications
Neutralization, techniquesof ;
Guttman scalogramanalysis,in con-
structing homosexualityindex,
44,60
Heterosexual contact,13, 14, 61' 136i
amonggirls in sampledinstitutions,
32,92, f25-13o,134; and homo-
s e x u a l i t y2,2 , 8 3 , 1 0 1 ,1 0 6 - 1 0 7 ,
ll3-116, 131-132,l3'1, 1s9-1'60
185-186;and quasikinshiP,159-
I 60; and Punishment'107' I 14-
115, 186.Seeatso Coedinstitutions
Home visits,I l7;and homosexuality,
22,123, l3!-132iand quasikin-
ship, l5 5 ; in sampledinstitutions,
2't,123-124. Seeako contact
with family and friends
Homosexual: di'Iorce,2, 4 ; ldefiity'
4 9 - 5 1 ,5 1 , 8 1 , 1 0 1 ,1 8 7 ;m a l e
231
prostitution,49,56-5'7,78'99 '
mariage betweenfemaleinmates,
2-6, 24, 50, 5 5, 150-15 1 ; marriage
betweenmaleinmates,163-166;
marriageoutside Prison, 169,
l?4-l 75 ; roles, feminine and
masculine, 2, 5-1O,24,49,53-5'1,
'7 5, 142, 16l, 164-166. Seealso
4-7
Argot for prison homosexuality;
Love lette$; RaPe
Homosexuality: advantagesof , 66-69,
'11
, ' t g - 8 1 , 1 1 5 ,1 4 2 ,1 5 9 - 1 6 01' 6 3 ;
a n da e e , 7 0 , 2 l , ' t3 , 8 2 , 9 2 , 9 3 '
9 6-91 , lO3 , l4'l ; alid vlfiactr\e-
ness,80, 140, 1,44-146,181|'an'd
autonomy, 14,22, | 3l-132' 159,
and biology,73-75, 186;and
borcdom,14,22,131-132, 181;
and children,desirefot,22,68,
139-141, 143-146; ard church
sereices, 7; aod class,93,96-97'
106, 146; and coed institutions,
5 3 - 5 4 ,5 7 - 6 1 ,8 5 + 7 , 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 ,
1 0 6 - 1 0 7 I, l 3 - 1 1 6 , 1 8 0 ;a n d
conjugalvisiting, I 14; and contact
with familYand friends,22,l3l-
1 3 4 ,r 3 7, 1 5 9 - 1 6 0 1, 8 5 - 1 8 6a; s
defined operationallyin this
s t u d y ,2 1 , 5 0 , ? l , 8 6 - 8 7 ;d i f -
ficulty of deturing,24, 49-51,
s 6 - 5 ? ,6 6 - 6 8 ,7 0 . 8 e , l 0 l , 1 0 4 -
lO5,112,18'1,191 ; and distance
betweenhome and couectional
institution,22, !02,106' 123' l3l '
1 3 4 ,B 7 , 1 5 9 - 1 6 0 , 1 8 5 - 1 8 6a;n d
domlneurce , 22 , 139-l 40 , 143-146'
' 1 5 9 - 1 6 01 , 8 6 ;a n dd r u g s8, 1 , 9 7 ,
108; and female Prostitution, 9 I ,
109,715,seeslsoHomosexual
male Prostitution; and fights or
arguments with staff, 158-159;and
fightswith inmates,158-159;and
friendshiP, 50, 63-64, 80, 126-
1 2 ' l, l 3 O , 1 5 5, 1 8 6 ; g i v i n gu P t h e
work, 5 5-56,'l 5 i a\d goingAWOL,
158-159; and suilt, 64-66; ard
heterosexual contacl'22,83 ' l0l '
 232
Homosexuality, continue d
to6-lo7, 113-116, 131-132, 13',7,
1 5 9 - 1 6 01 , 8 5 - 1 8 6a; n dh o m e
yisits,22, 123, 131-132 i at\d
hurtingoneself,158-159;alld
immaturity, 158-l 59 ; ard incest,
163, 186;asan independent
(causal)variable,2l ,62-65,'72,
78,82, seealso Effects of prison
homosexuality; and incteased
likelihood of future experiences,
2 , 5 , 6 , 6 5 - 7 3 , 7 8 - 8 4 , 9 9 ,1 0 1 ,
158, 1'78-179,ceealro Homo-
sexuality before curent impdson-
ment; Index, 44, 59-61, 1 1, 77 ;
institutional differcncesin, ex-
plained by plevious homosexuality,
2 1, 99-l04j lO6-lO7; r 14, 134,
180; and justice systemexperiences,
prior to curent incarceration,68-
70, 81-83, 86-88, 96-99, lO3,
1 0 7 ,1 l l , l l 5 , 1 3 2 - 1 3 4t,4 5 - 1 4 6 ,
I 84;justificatiorufot, 56-57,66.
6 8 - 70 , ' 72 , ' 77 - 8 1 , 8 8 , I 1 5 , 1 7 8 -
1 7 9 ,1 8 7 ,1 8 8 ; l a b e l i noef , 4 9 - 5 1 ,
56-5',7 , 63-64, 6'1,72, lO4-1O5,
155, I87; and lengthof imprison-
ment,22, 30, 58, 68,96-97,99 ,
1 0 3 ,l 3 l - 1 3 3 , 1 4 6 ,1 5 9 ,1 8 4 ,1 8 9;
and lockstep, 9; and ma.rriage,
desirefor, 139, 143-146;asmaster
statustrait, 187; myths about,
177-181,190;and nondepriving,
situational influences,20, 86, 106,
l8l, 186-188;and offenses,84,
91, 96-97, tO8, 143, 145-146;
and numberof partners,55, 59,
108; and precipitating events,69,
1 8 2 ,1 8 5 -1 8 6 ;a n dp r e g n a n c y , 6 5 ,
186; and preyioushomosexuality,
JeeHomosexualitybefore current
impdsonment; Propper'ssocial-
psychologicalmodel, I 84-1 88 ;
aod quality of parent-youth rcla-
tionships,22, l4l, 145-146,159-
160, 184;andquality of peer
relationships,22, 8 5, lO9,126-127,
PrisonHomosexuality
131-132,137,159;andquality of
staff-inmaterclationships,22, 103,
127-128,13l-134, 158-160;and
l a c e ,8 , 2 1 , 5 5 , 15 , 8 5 , 9 2 - 9 3 ,
9 6 - 9 ' l , 1 0 6 , 1 0 8 ,1 4 3 ;a r d r e c i d i
vism,68,82,88,99 , seeolso
Homosexualitybeforc curent
imprisonment;its relationshipto
institutional goals and enyiron-
ments, 85, lO2-lO4, 106-107,
1 1 1 - 1 1 2 ,t l ' t , 1 3 4 - 1 3 5 , 1 8 0 - 1 8L ,
185-189;its relationshipto quasi
k i n s h i p ,1 1 , 5 1 , 1 5 0 ,1 5 4 - t 6 1 ,
163-164,l'72, 181; and religious-
ness,139, 141, 142, 145-146,
184;and rings,'1,164, 165,and,
self-esteem,139-140, 142, 144-
146, 185-186;and self-labeling,
4 9 , s 6 - s 7 ,1 9 , ' 7 9 ,1 0 1 ,1 8 7; a n d
sex-roledifferencesin socialization,
84-85, 108-109,182;and sex-role
prcfercnce,22, l4O-1 46, 159-
160, 182, 184, 190;and showers,
1 ,9,34;urd, transferto other
prisons,64, I l5; and withdrawal
from girls and staff, 159-160.
Homosexualitybefore curent im-
prisonment, 67, 79-94, 92, 9 6-108,
I l0-l12, 139, 145-14',7
, 159-t 60,
I84-185; in accountingfor differ-
encesin institutional ratesof prison
homosexuality,21, 99- | 04, I 06-
107, ll4, 134,180;often imported
from othei correctionalinstitu-
tions,68-70, 8l-83, 86-88, 98-99,
to1 , tt5, 132-134,145-146
Houseparents, 6, 30, 40, 119;as
quasikin, 182
Howard, JamesF. (deputy 'd,ardenof
Kentucky Reformatory), 8
ldeology, 19-2O, 72, 197
Importation theory. SeeImported
characteristicsof inmatgs
Imported charactedsticsof inmates:
amonggirls in sampledinstitu-
tions, 32, 86-95; difficulty of
Subiect Index
distinguishhg free-world influences
from those of previousincarcera-
tions, 1, 9, 68-70, 8 l-83, 86-88,
98-99, 107, 132;and homosexual-
ity , 12, 2l ,'l9-l 12, | 32-133, r59-
160, 178-180;and inmatenorrns
and behavior geneDlly, including
homosexuality, 1l-12, 17-2O;
intemctions amongimportation
characteristics,12, 24, 184 t 'll.teF
actions amongimportation and
deprivation characteristics,12, 24,
l2l, 184;ard quasikinship,159-
160. Seealso Fre+world influences
on hom osexuality, 184-186;
Homosexuality beforc curent
incarceration
Incest,163, 186, 192
Incidenceof homos€xuality: among
girlsin this study,2l,52-54,5'l-
6t ,7l,'t5-:77 ,86, 100, l7'7; among
men in Prison,10,45,52,81-82,
85, 114;amongmen and wom€n
outside prison, 86, 92, 1O8, ll3 ;
amongwomen,10, 11, 24, 80-81,
83-E51 , 0 1 - 1 0 5l ,l l
Incidenceof quasikinship. SeeQuasi
kinship
Indigenousorigins theoty, 12- SeeLlso
Depdvationsof imPrisonment
Influence.Ssg Dominance
Inmates, defined, 2 5:29, ll9
Institutional-product paladiEm,12.See
at o DepriYationsof imPrisonment
Institutions. total: defned, 13,26, 33;
and doprivation, 13, I l7; difficultY
of classifying on deprivation-
gratification continNrm, 13-22,
102, lo3, 117-l23, l3zt-135,180
Interaction effects, 12, 24, l2l, 184
InterYiews,29-3 0, 4 | 42, 73-'74
Isolation. SeeDistancebetweenhome
and corectional institution ;
Solitary confinement
Iail. See Justice system, expenence
with
233
JailhouseTumout. SeeTurnouts
Justicesystem,experiencewith prior
to currcnt incarceration;of girls in
this study, 86-90; and homosex'
ualiw, 68,82,86,96-97 ,99, lO3,
ltl, 134, 145-146,184
Justifications, 1'1. Seealto Homo-
sexuality, j ustifications for
Kfursey,A]fied, 65. Seebibliogrophical
index
Kinship, quasi. See Quasi kinship
Kissing,21, 50-52, 57-58 , 60, 62,
'7 -7
| 2,',15-7 6, 86-81, 154, l7 7 ;
between male inmates, 163
Kobun, 174
Labeling,49-5 l, 56-51 ,63-64, 6'l .
7 2 , ' , 7 91, 0 + 1 0 5 , 1 2 5 ,l s 5 , 1 8 7 ,
I 9l ; ard self-fulfiling Prophecy,
7'l . Seealso Argot fot Prbon
homosexuality; Definition of the
situation; Euphemisms; Homo-
sexuality, difficulty of definhg
La Familis, 16l-162
Language.SeeArgot for prison homo-
sexuatty ; Euphemisms; Homo-
sexualitY, difficulty of defining
La Nuestra Fsnilia, 162
Latent aulture, !9, Seealso lmported
characteristicsof inmates
Latent homosexuals,72
Leadership.SeeDominance
Length of imprisonment: amonggfuls
in sampledinstitutions,88, 122-
I 2 3 ; ard homosexualltY, 22, 30'
5 8 , 6 8 ,9 6 - 9 7 ,9 9 , 1 0 3 ,1 3l - l 3 3 ,
146, 159, 184,189;and quasi
kinship, 155, 159
L e s b i a r ,2 8 , 5 0 , 6 8 , 7 8 , 1 0 8 , 1 0 9 '
142, lE3. See aho T.ue homo-
sexual
Love lette$, 1,50-52, 58-59, 60,
6 5 - 6 6 , 7 1 , 7 6 , 8 0 - 8 7, 1 5 4 , 1 7 7i
between male inmates, 10; ex-
amplesof style and content, 2,
5-6
 234
Mafia, 161-162, 175
Make-believefamilies. SeeQuasi
kinship
Manifest culture, 19
Marijuana,28,91-92, 121. Seealso
Drugs
Marriage,desirefor, 22, 139, 143-146 ;
commonlaw, 167;homosexual,
,reeHornosexual
Masterstatustraits, 187
Masturbation,84
Multiple regession analysis.See
Statisticaltechniques
Myron, George,161
Myths and realitiesregardingprison
homosexuality,summai'Eed,77 7-
1 8 1 ,1 9 0
NAJC. SeeNational Assessmentof
JuvenileCorrections
National Assessmentof Juvenile
Corrections(NAJC), 1, 29, 30,
3 4 , 3 5 , 3 6 , 3 8 , 4 0 , 4 5 , 5 1 ,6 3
Neutralization,techniquesof, 10, 11,
66,71 . Seealso Homosexuality
justifications for; Justifications
Offenses:of girls in sampledinstitu-
tions, 89, 9l-92; and homosexual-
ity, 84,91,96-97, IOB, 143,
145-i 46; and quasikinship, 162;
statusversuscriminal, 32, 121-122,
192. Seealso Dru9s
Ojibun, 174
Oyabun,174
Painsof imprisonment, 12. Seealso
Deprivationsof imprisonment
Parent-youthrelationship: and homo-
sexuality, 22, 141, 145-146,
159-160,184;andquasikinship,
1 5 9 -I 6 0
Parker,Dave, 168
Peerrelationships:and homosexuality,
22, 85, 109, t26-12',1, t3 t-l32 ,
137, 159;and quasikinship,159,
in sampledinstirutions,126-127.
Seeatuo Friendship
PrisonHomosexuality Subiectlndex 235
Play relatives.SeeQuasikinship,
outside prison
Policiesto control homosexuality.
See Reactionsto homosexuaLity
Population of sampledinstitutions,
Po\a'er.SeeDominance
Pregnancy,55,68 1 ,0 7 ,1 1 9 ,1 8 6
Prisons,defined, 25-29 , I l'7 -121. See
4fuoDepriyations of imprisonment
Probation, 189.SeeafuoJusticesystem,
experiencewith prior to curent
incarceration
Propper'ssocial-psychological model
of prison hornosexuality,184-188
Prostitution,9l -92 ,109, 115,186.See
a/,roHomosexualmale prostitution
Pseudokinship. ,tee Quasikinship
Pseudonyms (pseud.),2, 45
Punishment:for heterosexualactivity,
1O'1
,114-115, 186;justifiedby
ideology of rehabiliLaLion,22-23
27-28,119-121.See4tuoReactions
lo prison h omosexuality;SoI tary
confinement; Staff treatment
(hardling) of inmates;Transfers
to other correctionali.nstitutions,
as method of control
Punk,9,69. SeealsoHomosexual
identity; Homosexualroles, fern-
inine and masculine;Rape,of
men by men
Quasikinsfup: amongadolescentgirls
in training schools,2-7 , ll,l5O-
t 6 0 , t ' 1 2 ,1 7 8 ,1 8 1 - 1 8 2 ,1 8 9 ;
among adult female inmates,
1 t , 2 4 , l 4 l , 1 4 9, 1 5 2 , 1 5 4 ;
amonginmates and staff, 182;
amongmaleinmates,22,149,
15O-152, 16O-16'1;amongwomen
and men outside prison (including
Africa, Haiti, India, Japan,Nepal,
New Guinea, New Hebrides,
North America, Sicily, South
America and the United States),
22,149-150, 16O,167-175; atd
autonomy, 159; basisfor choosing
 236
Sampling of training schools in this
study, 1, 30, 32-35, 45
Sarri, Rosemary,45
Scott, George,108
Security classificationof prisonsard
deprivationlevels.I 5-l 6
Secrecy:and pseudonyms,2;aad
quasikin initiation ceremonies,
r68, 175
Segegation:of homosexuals,
rccial, 8, See also Solitary con-
finement
Self-esteem,I 90; and homosexuality,
139-140,142, 144-146.185_l86
Self-labeling,49, 56-S'1,79, t}l, lB7
Self-mutiliation, I 19, 159, 190-19 I
Sex, beyond huggingand kissing,21,
50-52. 55-57, 59, 60, 62, 65_66,
't
t-72,7 6-'17,86-87 , 154. 1.77
Seealso Anal intercourse, Cun-
nilingus ; Feuatio ; Finger-fucking ;
Rape
Sex-role differences in socialization
and homosexuality,E4-8S, 108-
109, 182;and quasikinship, 150
Sex-role preference for traditional
female role: and homosexuality,
22, 140-146,159-160,182, 184,
190; aad quasikinship, 154, 159-
160. Seeolso Dominance:Homo-
sexualroles, feminine and masculine
Situational influencesin prison that
arenondepriving,11, 20, 86, 106,
181.186-188
Socialclass.,9eeClass,social
Socialleaming theory, 72, 187
Sodomy, I 19, SeeatJo Anal inter-
course,Rape
Solitary confirement, 189; euphe-
mismsfor, 27, 29 , I I 9; in other
girls' trainfurgschool, I l8-119,
192; in sampledtraining schools,
25 , 27-29; fot victims of homo-
sexualrape, 10
spafe tongue, 74
Splitrec,7
Staff: attitudes toward homosexua.lity,
7 4 , 7 8 ,t O 8 , l 1 5 ,1 5 2 - 1 5 31, 5 7 _
PrisonHomosexuality
SubjectIndex 237
160, 180; attitudes to.wardquasi
kinship, 155, 157-160;inmates' social-psychological model; Sym- f or prison homosexuality; Neutrul-
perceptionsof, 16, 18,22,1O2, bolic interaction; I/ish for ideal ization, techniquesof
1 0 3 ,t 2 2 , 1 2 7 - t 3 4 , 1 5 8 - t6 0 , 1 6 5 , theory of quasi kinship True homosexual,66-67,81,lo4-
189;asquasikin, 182;aspar- Total institutions. SeeInstitutions, 1O5,112,143.Seealso Argot
ticipants in homosexuality, 183; total for prison homosexuality;Homo-
respondentsin this sttJdy, 27 , 30, Touching, 64, 77 ; domirl.ar'ceand sexualidentity ; Labeling,Lesbian,
4042, 47, 14 ; trcatment (handling) genderdifferences, 55-57, 70, Self-labeling
of inmates,7 -9, | 3, 22-23, 2j -29, 75, 108-109,l6l ; restrictions
8, 81, 3 3 , 3 4 , 5 3 , 8 2 , 1 0 3l u , ,l14, l l5, in prison,7, 9, I14, 116. 180.See Unive$ity of Michigan, 38
1 1 8 ,1 1 9 ,l 5 s , 1 6 4 ,1 8 7 - t 9 2 . 4lro Reactionsto homosexuality
,tee4fuoHomosexuality,and staff- Tiaining schools:descriptionsin Validity/reliability, 43 , 51-53,
inmate relationships this study, 25-33; asprisons,25- I l0-11I
Starge , Wiliy, 168 29, 118-122 Vinter, Robert, 45
Statistical techniques, fur determinitg Tranquilize$, 119.Seeaho Dtugs visibility of sexualacts, 135, 187,
predicto$ of prison homosexuality, Transfeff to other corectional institu- 189
43-44; analysisof covarialce, 99- tion$, asmethod of control, 25,
101 ; aaaiysisof variance,60-61; 29,64, ll5 l|ish for idesl aheory of quasi kin
. corelation coefficients,96-97, Truancyand AWOL,28-29 , 32, 91- formation, 150-151, 170-173
13 l-133, 145-l 46: crosstabula- 92, t21,1s8-ls9 t|olf, 9. Seeolso Homosexualidentity;
t i o n s ,4 4 , 9 8 , 1 0 3 - 1 0 4 1 , 10-112. Turnouts,66,6'1,'7'1. Seealso Argor Rape,of men by men
137, 139-1 4 5 i lllnear multiple
regression, 44, 95-98, 110, 130-
134, t36
Statusoffenses,32, 121
Strcet, Dayid, 45
Stigma,26, 66, 178
Stripping anit nortify ing, l 3, 20, l l g
S u b c u l t u r eI ,l , 1 4 , 1 8 , 2 0 , 7 2 , l O 7,
187
Su.rogatekinship. SeeQuasikinship
Sweetkd, 163
Symbolic Interaction theory, See
Argot for prison homosexuality;
Definition of the situation; Euphc
misms;Homosexual,idertity;
Justifications; Labeling;Master
status traits; Neutralization; Self-
labeling;Stigma;Stripping and
Mortifying; Touching, dominance
and genderdifferences
Theory. See Biological theories
of homosexuality; Deprivations
of imprisonment; Frce-world
influenc€son homosexuality;
Functional autonomy; Imported
characteristicsof inmates;Propper's
Aboutthe Author