Sex in Prisoner Power Relations: Attitudes and Practices in a Ukrainian Correctional Colony for Men
| Published date | 01 March 2017 |
| Date | 01 March 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12177 |
| Author | ANTON SYMKOVYCH |
The Howard Journal Vol56 No 1. March 2017 DOI: 10.1111/hojo.12177
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 1–18
Sex in Prisoner Power Relations:
Attitudes and Practices in a Ukrainian
Correctional Colony for Men
ANTON SYMKOVYCH
Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Department of Sociology, University of
Johannesburg, South Africa
Abstract: Most research on prison sex has originated in the global West, often employing
quantitative methodology. Building on a semi-ethnographic study of a Ukrainian prison,
this article explores how prisoners and officers perceive prisoner sex. Rape was not reported
in this prison, despite the relatively young prison population. I argue that the informal
prisoner power structure of the prison underworld diminishes sexual abuse. Thus, contrary
to much of the literature, masculinity, homophobia, and informal prisoner hierarchiescan
equally instigate and restrain prison violence and sexual victimisation.
Keywords: prison sex; masculinity; sexual violence; prison culture;
homophobia; inmate code; Ukraine
Sex1among male prisoners (henceforth prison sex) is often coercive and
expresses the domination of some prisoners by others (Dumond 2000;
Tewksbury and West 2000; Trammell 2011). Much of what we know about
prison sex stems from research in the United States (US) and United
Kingdom (Banbury 2004; Hensley, Struckman-Johnson and Eigenberg
2000; O’Donnell 2004; Tewksbury and West 2000), with a few notable
exceptions (Booyens and Bezuidenhout 2014; Egelund 2014; Einat 2012,
2014; Gear 2005; Schifter 1999). Furthermore, because of restricted ac-
cess, a great deal of research on prison sex utilises secondary, aggre-
gated, or retrospective data. Using ethnographic data from a Ukrainian
medium-security prison for men, I argue that, contrary to much of the lit-
erature, masculinity, homophobia, and informal prisoner hierarchies can
both restrain and instigate violence and sexual exploitation. I demonstrate
how power relations in prison incorporate human sexuality and mimic
the social gender division, and how prisoner sociality reconciles virulent
homophobia with sex among men.
I begin by reviewing sex’s role in men’s prisons (hereafter prisons)
as a substitute for heterosexual liaisons, a means of inter-prisoner
1
C
2016 The Authors. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice published by Howard League
and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
The Howard Journal Vol56 No 1. March 2017
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 1–18
subjugation and control, an expression of fluid sexuality, and a contin-
uation of pre-incarceration sexual practices. Next, I explain this case
study’s methodology. I then outline the organisation and normative
code of the Ukrainian underworld, followed by a discussion of how this
informal prisoner sociality,whilst virulently homophobic and m isogynistic,
restrains sexual violence and exploitation. Finally, I present officers’
views on inter-prisoner sex and locate prisoners’ attitudes to sex among
prisoners in their constructions of masculinity. I conclude by arguing that
the masculinity-centred, misogynistic informal prisoner structure, whilst
discriminating against prisoners deemed ‘unmanly’, limits sexual violence.
Whereas scholars often associate violence and abuse in prison with
masculinity, I demonstrate that its role in prison can be more nuanced,
simultaneously justifying discrimination and curbing violence.
Prison Sex as Background and Foreground of Power and Masculinity
Deprivation of heterosexual relations and incessant threats to personal
safety constitute the classical ‘pains of imprisonment’ (Sykes (1958); see
also Ricciardelli, Maier and Hannah-Moffat (2015) on prisoners’ appre-
hensions). Sex between men in prison can alleviate or exacerbate these
pains (Kupers 2010; Schifter 1999; Trammell 2011). Prison sex can be
consensual (Levan 2014; Robinson 2011; Schifter 1999), but it frequently
represents exploitation or rape (Gear 2005; 2007; Kupers 2010; Trammell
2011). Some who seem to consent may simply be engaging in what has
been called survival sex (Booyens and Bezuidenhout 2014; Egelund 2014;
Eigenberg 2000; Jones and Pratt 2008; Levan 2014). Of course, male pris-
oners (hereafter prisoners) may have sex with prison staff, mostly female,
and with visitors, predominantly wives (D’Alessio, Flexon and Stolzenberg
2013; Levan 2014; Schifter 1999). However, these relations are not the
focus of the present study.
Researchers seeking to explain prison sex generally use one of three
models: deprivation, importation, and power. The deprivation model
is heteronormative and historically dominant. It posits that prisoners
seek sexual gratification through masturbation, consensual sex, and rape
(‘coercive sex’) due to a lack, or more often a total absence, of heterosexual
relationships. According to this model, one of the parties to sex is ‘natural’
or ‘dispositionally’ homosexual, an ‘insertee’, and the other is ‘situational’,
an ‘inserter’ (Hensley, Struckman-Johnson and Eigenberg 2000; Levan
2014; Tewksbury and West 2000; classical examples are Clemmer 1940;
Sykes 1958). The importation model regards prison sex as an extension
of men’s sexuality on the ‘outside’. Men either continue having sex with
men once incarcerated, or prison provides an opportunity to explore their
sexuality and challenge gender and heteronormative norms (Gear 2005;
Robinson 2011; on women’s prisons, see Einat and Chen 2012). Sex with
men in prison is not a substitute for sex with women but the evolution and
diversification of their sexuality, which constructionists, unlikeessentialists,
regard as dynamic (Blackburn, Fowler and Mullings 2014; Eigenberg1992;
Gibson and Hensley 2013; Schifter 1999). Finally, building on a feminist
2
C
2016 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial