SHACKLED SEX:

Gender Disparities and the Continued
Criminalization of Female Sexuality in Prison
Anastazia Schmid

Gender disparities in crime and punishment and the criminalization of
sexuality in women have continued throughout the history of the American
penal system. The isolated environments of institutions and prisons under the
authoritative rule of hetero-patriarchal hegemonic ideologies provided ferile.
grounds for dehumanizing treatment of their inhabitants which remained
hidden from outside scrutiny. Likewise, criminal and “deviant” labeling of
‘women has further dehumanized and discredited both their personhood, as
well as stigmatized women by perpetually rendering them vorceless. With
blatant penalizing attacks against female sexuality, and power and contro!
over women's bodies and their sexuality, complete dominion has relgned for
centuries over women themselves. History has repeatedly depicted women's
gender and sexuality as being the driving force behind criminalization,
chastisement, penalization and the ways and means for gaining contro) over
all aspects of 5 woman's personhood.

In nearly a hundred and fifty years of women's prisons, lttle has changed in
the antiquated ideals of female sexuality based on the hetero-patriarchal
system of male dominance. Targeting female "whores,” *degenerates," “self-
abusers," and "queers" leads to both the incarceration of women and provides
the justification in prolonging their captivity. Once women ar incarcerated,
continuing to criminalize them for their sexuality - whether or not their
sexuality held any variance with their criminal charges - has a detrimental
effect on both the women themselves and society as a whole. It disrggards
women's rights as autonomous agents of their own bodies, minds and
sexuality, as well as the myriad ways and means women's bodies and their
sexuality are vehicles for self-determined expressionism, amode of resistance,
and/or 3 space of negotiations for social, emotional and economic survival
within institutionally confined states of existence.

Continued human and civil rights violations committed against the women
whose sexality remains targeted and harassed within prison result in both
grievous loss for women and society through extended prison stays, and
psychological harm to the women who have been dehumanized by these
practices, not to mention the dreadful effect It has on their young children.

The tax-payer funded cost of incarceration and the profit derived from it by
private corporations are huge financial detriments to society. Money funneled
o the corporate elite, gives them their incentive (greed) to expand the
numbers of those incarcerated and lengthening their sentences, by basically,
pressuring for more and harsher laws for the self-seeking politicians. ALEC
spearheads this madness, overall. The religious right s als0 zealously
patriarchal. History repeats itself ad nauseam through the violence and sexual
oppression of women isolated within the perpetual doom encompassing
incarceration. If awoman has her own sex, she has her own mind, and control
over her own body and existence, and that is the most threatening
combination there is to male dominance and authority. A sexually iberated
2nd/or homosexual woman is a primal threat to the entire dominion of
patriarchal systems. Shackle a woman's sex and she can be controlled.
absolutely. The American female penal system was founded upon and retains
the premise of paternal hierarchy maintaining hegemonic dictatorship over
women and their bodies through continued sexual oppression and
eriminalization of female sexuality.
In order to glean a comprehensive understanding in the driving force behind
women's prisons and the crucial role a woman's gender and sexallty continues.
to play in the American penal system (1 find it interesting to note the similarity
to the words penal and pens), a brief historical overview is necessary to
illustrate the continuum of these premises, patterns and practices there within.

Historical Overview of Women Prisoners

Nathaniel Hawthorne's literary bombshell of the 1840's, The Scariet
Letter, exemplifies the Puritanical ideology concerning female sexality and the
“need" for penalization/criminalization of women who deviated from the
sexually prescribed norms of the hetero-patriarchy. The book opens with the
bone-chillng description of Hester Prynne, imprisoned in physical and moral
destitution for her crime/"sin” of adultery.

‘These dominions of power and control structures implemented under the
guise of religious authority, objectify women as the culprits for the “fall o Man."
Hawithome's narrative exempiifies the burden of transgression upon a woman's
shouider as the brunt of blame for the transgression of (a religious) man who
becomes viewed as a “Victim” to the evils of her sexual seduction. She s made
to suffer a myriad of penalties for her transgressions which permanently brand
her a “devious adulteress,” ostracizing her and her bastard child, through the
symbolic burden clearly marked upon her breast; a label allowing
condemnation, separation and alienation. Hawthorne's work provides a glimpse
into a gateway of hegemonic patriarchal ideologies of women's sexuality and
the need to “punish* a woman who deviates from such views.

‘The Scarlet Letter is but one historical landmrk llustration of male fears
over the power of women's bodies and sex. This primal fear has led to silence
and violence, patriarchal refigious ideologles, scientfic medical advancements,
sexual genocide and captivation of women as modes for subjugation to ensure,
and as a means to secure patriarchal authority, power and control. Al of these
'hegemonic practices laid the foundation for women's prisons.

“The Indiana Women' Prison, theoretically and historically known as the first
American women's prison, amongst its comparable insttutions, strikes a
somewhat paradoxical conundrum. TWP, founded by two Quaker women, Sarah
Smith and Rhoda Cofin, caimed a rehabiliative institution for *fallen” women,
who could be *saved" through humanitarian conditions founded on love” and
religious ideologies; while providing a safe haven against the sexual abuses
perpetrated against female prisoners previously confined within male
institutions, was 2 progressive step. IWP was founded on the very novel idea in
that era of women ruling other women to both protect and transform their
sexual being-ness to a “moral quality good enough for marriage” (AR 11, pg.
17). Yet the conundrum of IWP's history lies in the reailty that there were no
prisoners within the first 24 years of the prison's registry confined for sex-
related offenses. A startiing discovery for a prison founded on the basis of
“saving" “fallen” women. Despite the absence of female prisoners at IWP for
sex-related offenses, sex was a driving force behind "rehabilitative” measures.
for the prisoners there within.

Female prison superintendents operated under the same guise and moral
authority of male hegemonic hetero-patriarchal ideals to found the Indiana
‘Women's Prison. IWP was the creation of the perfect institution for women who
had "stepped out of their role” In subservience to male rule and authorlty in
some form or fashion. The prison wasn't founded on liberating, empowering
and healing women to restore thelr persorhood and gain their autonomy; It
was founded on “saving" them by turning them into “good, moral, working
‘women of 2 quality good enough for marriage,” by any means necessary to 3
achieve that goal.

IWP's Annual Reports and testimonies from investigations on the early days
of the prison contain startling evidence of the ways and means to create
‘women to be the pinnacles of hetero-patriarchal subservience. Women were.
Torced to work In subservient, “domestic” jobs. They were educated to occupy
their minds; yet they were oniy taught to read by limiting reading to the Bible
or other texts, which the authorities eemed "appropriate” - much Ilke today.

But what was to be done with women if and when these ways and means for
reform had falled? Then they were to be locked in solitary confinement,
chained to the wall, stripped naked, beaten, water-boarded or *ducked, fed
only bread and water, or had torturous, sexually mutilating operations
performed on their bodies ntil they submitted and conformed to the hetero-
patriarchal agendas. IWP's Annual Reports from 1873-1885 reveal the
sanctions of solitary confinement for “self-abusers* (AR 14 pg. S) per
Superintendent Smith. An investigation i 1881 on abuse of the women at WP
was replete with horrific accounts of torturous treatment by the
Superintendent, doctor and other inmates under the reign of those in power.
that had previously remained hidden from the outside world. Although the
Investigation shed some light on many abusive practices committed against the
women, and eventually led to the resignation of both Smith and the head
physician, Dr. Theophilus Parvin, the women themselves continued to be
dismissed and devalued due to their negative labeling and sub-human status 35
“criminal offenders.”

‘Hand In hand with female "criminal” confinement was the age of scientific
‘2nd medical advancement, dominated by patriarchal ideologies and agendas.
‘An absolute dominion of women's bodies and sexuality was imperative for
strengthening and advancing those masculine agendas.

Dr. Parvin's predecessor, Dr. Marion Sims, the renowned “father of
gymecology,” used black female siave's bodies to create the medical field of
‘gynecology, thereby completing the conquest over female sexual anatomy,
placing women's bodies solely under the power and control of men. The field
of gynecology became known as the single greatest achievement of the.
nineteenth century. (Barker-Bensfield, pg. 98) Gynecology marks the
complete conquest of the female sexval anatomy and body; the last of the
uncharted territories to masculinity and patriarchy. With the abolition of
(chattel) siavery, the only available option for medical experimentation on
‘women, were Institutions; namely prisons, which to this day, consider
convicted felons, legally, as slaves!

Indiana and New York were the American leaders of the eugenics movement
In the nineteenth century. Institutions provided the most accessible and
operative grounds for experimentation, forced sexually mutilating operations
‘and sterilization. As Michel Foucault states, “The medicine of perversions and
the programs of eugenics were the two great innovations in the technology of
sex of the second haif of the nineteenth century.* (pg. 118) All of which
provided dominions of power and control over women, their bodies, and
Sexuality. IWP was exempt from none of these practices.

Dr. Theophilus Parvin was a theologian and physician (notably of
gynecology and obstetrics), president of the AMA, and the renown nineteenth
Century “expert® on nymphomania and masturbation. His Quaker wife's
brother, Amos Butler, was the head of Indiana's eugenics movement; (which
perhaps provided his connection to the Quaker women who founded IWP, and
why he may have taken the position of head physician inside the institution for
2 salary less than that of the prison's maintenance mani)
Dr. Parvin's ten-year (1873-1883) position as head physician at IWP.
provided him free reign for absolute power and authority over the prison's
endless supply of captive women's vaginas and wombs with no fear of outside
scrutiny of his medical practices and procedures, and no rights of the women to
Oppose treatment (whatever treatment(s) this "expert” may have deemed fit).
‘The end result of his charitabe prison work being the 1886 publication of the
most notorious work, a 668-paged medical manual on The Art and Science of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, replete with the most graphic llustrations of
female sexual anatomy to that date. Along with the development of his
anatomically correct, lfe-sized, female mannequin, complete with female
sexual body parts (as wel as ranging in size, fetuses) molded from lving
‘models, that he released as a state of the art "teaching tool” to the medical
community shortly thereafter.

Parvin ciaimed extreme hetero-patriarchal beliefs about women and their
sexuaity, and proposed bizarre or mutllating treatments for their
“nymphomaniac” behaviors. He was an advocate of citorectomy and
sterilization. Researching his numerous medical journal publications and clnical
lectures, prove his propensity to digitally “examine" his patients (often in front
of his voyeuristic male colleagues) to induce sexual arousal, and then label
those female captive patients as “deviant,” mentaly I,” or “nymphomaniacs.”
He consented to having female prisoner's who "self-abused" to be locked in
soltary confinement (often chained and naked), hosed, ducked/water boarded,
fed only bread and water (AR 14, pg. 18); and he was privy to administering.
muriate of cocaine or cocaine suppositories o the "nymphomaniac's* citoris'
and vagina's 5o that the vagina would be, “as behaved as the most virtuous.
'vagina in the nited States of America.” Although he fails to document his.
surgeries, treatments, and bizarre medical experiments within the prison
records, he does document such practices in his other publications in medical
Journals and ciinical lectures, and several of those "patients" can absolutely be
linked to IWP. What I find most compelling is the fact that given his extensive
curricula vitae and the numerous tributes written about him in memorandum, s
that his decade tenure at IWP is never mentioned, yet everything eise he
accomplished during those years, is. Why omit ten years of work at the height
f a career - uness there is a viable reason to keep that work hidden?

Since the inception of women's prisons, and the religious and/or secular
Institutions, which provide a means to gain power and control over women's
‘minds, bodies and souls, the creation and expansion within these fortresses of
captivity, along with the systematic ideologies backing and ruling them, have
lang since targeted women for their sexual being-ness.

Foucault illustrates the specific mechanisms of power and knowledge in the
development of sexuality through four modes of strategy stated as, A
hysterization of women's bodies, a pedagogization of children’s sex, a
socialization of procreative behavior, and a psychiatrization of perverse
pleasure.” (pg. 104-105) Sex has been used as the way and means to gain
control over a woman's body and personhood. But before we become aghast
by such extremist ideals, principles and practices against women and female
prison inmates, we must take a Geeper look at the evolution of the
criminalization of female sexuaiity and the modern penalization of *perverse
pleasure(s)”, through the evolutionary face causing history to repeat tself,
which now marks the current modus operand in women's prison.

It's an average day, flled with the usual routine: wake up, make the bed,
‘shower and brush teeth, dress, and then join my partner for our coffee as we.
collect our thoughts for the day. We discuss our daily schedules and potential
plans for the evening after returning from work. We share some triviel chat
and a few laughs. 1 glance at the cock and tell her need to finish getting ¢~
ready for work, and we part ways to finish our respective morning rituals.

As I stand in the bathroom mirror fixing my hair and makeup, she pops her
head in the door on her way out to hand me book I had been wanting to
read, “See ya when 1 get back." She eans i tgive me an ai pec t the

“BUSTED! Give me your badges!” booms the voice of 3 SWAT team, storm-
trooperesque correctional officer that's been targeting us for weeks, breaking.
our moment of normalcy.

We're being written up on a Class B sanction, one of the highest levels of
offense an inmate can incur while incarcerated. 'Internally, a Class A or Class B
‘conduct report holds the equivalency of an external felony conviction, holding
the most sever and detrimental sanctions and consequences for an inmate.

What was our heinous offense? Kissing.

Unfortunately, this wasn't my first rodea in this arena. 1 had long since
been the target of innumerable correctional officers in this Southern Indiana,
Bible belt Fundamentallst, women's prison industrial complex; run mostly by
white hetero-sexual men, their wives, and other relations. was a Known
lesbian - the ultimate Scarlet Letter of a female inmate, branding her with a
bulf's eye for endless harassment, torment, and mounting punishments.

Two years prior I had "come out" in prison. Although 1 was a lesbian prior
to coming to prison, sexuality was the least of my concers once 1 became
incarcerated, so I had spent over five years of my incarcerated living with my
Sexual orientation on the *down low.” 1 have always been what 1 like to call 2
Serial pariah. 1am heavily tattooed as I was a professional tattoo artist and
'body piercer by trade in the free worid, which is not common with women in
prison in the state of Indiana in this day and age. My dress is anything but
Conventional (until 2007 women were still wearing their own street clothes in
prison), most days 1 looked like I stepped off the cover of Gothic Beauty,
Wwhich provided a constant issue for ridicule amongst staff due to my
unconventional appearance. 1 am intelligent and college-educated (which is
more often than not, viewed as threatening, and looked upon with corn as this
breaks the stereotype of “Ignore offender”). 1am artistically talented in many
areas, so my speech, expression, opinions and mannerisms more often than
‘not, went against the grain of the mainstream. I am an interfaith practitioner,
spirtually - practicing in Native, earth-based and feminine deity bellefs/ituals;
Certainly not at all fundamentaiist Christian In any regard. Yet probably the
biggest red flag on my personhood, was the fact that my best friend had been a
Short-time offender who was a known anarchist and hermaphrodite (while she
was here, they were too busy targeting her directly to bother messing with
me). And these were only but 3 few non-conforming aspects of my personhood
that caused me to stand out and become the target of harassment and rdicule.

Yet, none of those aspects of my personhood ever resulted in any sever
detriment to my lfe or became criminalized in my incarceration. Nor was
Staff's contempt of such things any worse than any reactions I may have
received from people outside of prison. Yet suddenly, since my sexual
orientation has become known within prison, I became public enemy number
‘one, and my every move and breath was under surveillance and criminalized at
every turn.

1 seemed to be the largest target for male officers, who found it o be the
gravest abomination that an attractive “feminine,” “white" woman had the
audacity to sexually prefer other women. “Pat downs" (which basically equate
to being felt up,) frequently occurred to check me for “kites” - (prison notes
between inmates most often believed by C.0.5 to be of a sexual or “love
relationship" nature) by these offended" male officers, were the daily norm for
me. They relentlessly employed any form of humiliation or attempted to find
‘something I could be written up on to “put me in my place.”

Now, here 1 sit in front of the conduct adjustment board once again, before.
some of those very same men, for an act that is normal, everyday behavior in
the free world; most of al, an act that is legal. These three white men sit
before me, ooking down on me with disdain. 1 am berated and shamed 2% my
accusations are read, about how “sick” I must be to o such things with
another woman, and how a *real woman" would never dare conduct herself in
Such 3 way. Every time | attempt to speak to defend myselr, 1 am cut off and
sllenced. 1 was guilty before I ever entered the room, and even 3 statement by
Jesus himself in my defense, wouldn't have made any difference.

Tam a woman who loves other women. I am a woman with sexual desires.
1am a woman who craves normal human contact and affection. But 1 am alse

or reated.
To the conduct acjustment board, my three inch tick pocketof &
and successulprogram completons were ireievan. The foct
it I have never 50 much 2 had an arument, and corsmy s seeeof
violence, made no difference. Mot singe act sgains the faw v o s
workd can be found anywhere n my record, bl none of that mestepes o
automatc condemnation due 0 the nature of the boost. My eoncioc ieors:
indicates I have offenses of the highest lver o sevely for "y s 5

Criminalization and Penalizing Sanctions Related to
Female Sexuality

This was seven years ago, but the dehumanization and criminaiization of
female sexvality in prison progressively worsen! The current Indiana.
‘Department of Corrections Disclplinary handbook for offenders lists six different
potential charges for sexual offenses, ranging from a Class A to a Class C
charge and sanction status. In 2015, masturbation stll constitutes a Class 5
offense (at least until recently under the category of *self-mutiation* which
also includes cutting and tattooing). While other forms of sexual conduct
(including but not limited to: hugging, kissing, handholding, physical touch,
sexual gestures, acts of penetration, oral sex and beastiaity), s either: Class.
A, Class B or Class C offenses. Class A s the most serious level of offense, with
which & prisoner can be charged, short of committing an actual crime.
‘Sanctions that can be imposed for such offenses Include solitary
‘confinement for up to six months (or more, for multiple offenses), foss of credit
class (which results in serving additional time in prison), and oss of good time
(also resulting In additional prison time), on top of a multitude of other internal
losses. According to recent DOC policies and procedures, if an Inmate Is
sanctioned to loss of good time, and then successfully has her name restored
by petitioning for restoration after remaining conduct report free for six
months, but then receives another Class A or B conduct report subsequently,
also resaulting in a loss of good time, then ail the inmate's good time is st - the
current lost time plus the time that was previously restored. Her good time s
now lost indefintely. 7

Recently, the lesser physical contact charges have been fled under the
‘category of “sexual harassment." So now women who engage in hugging,
Kissing, handholding or simply casual touch, incur the stigmatizing label of
sexual harasser to 3dd to her conduct packet. It is noteworthy that "sexual
conduct” Is often punished more harshiy in here than acts that are actually
illegal, such as battery, theft and trafficking.

“There Is such a hyper-policing and criminalization of anything deemed
sexual within prison, that even the photos out of Mirellie Miler-Young's
academic book on pomography, A Taste for Brown Sugar, had to be cut out
before 1 was allowed to receive it for my graduate studies.

In other words, in 2015 women In prison are still being punished for being
sexual beings and harboring sexual desires, with punishments rendered unto.
them for such acts that indirectly affect all of society. 1f a woman if found
quiky inside this modern prison System for any degree of sexual conduct
(including behaviors most people would hardly classify s ‘sex” such as kissing,
hugging, casual touch and handholding) and is sanctioned by loss of credit
class or foss of good time, the end result is taxpayers forcibly
‘approximately $53.00 per day to continue to incarcerate her for the additional
days spent in prison.

s for any woman who is criminalized for expressing her sexuallty, or
engages in normal human contact and nurturing, she is ostracized and
‘punished with solitary confinement (which means being locked down alone in a
cell for 23 hours 3 day). She also loses any program she may have been
involved in (which results in additional prison time if that program would have
‘eamed her good time credit, thereby cutting time off of her sentence). And,
she Is demoted in status within the prison, which shuts her out of opportunifies
and targets her for further harassment and criminalization.

‘Any form of touch or “sexual gesture” can and does result in mounting
punishments. These charges also include sanctions that cause an inmate to
Iose her visitations with her children. This fusther severs her bonds and creates.
‘psychological trauma in her children through lack of contact with thelr Mother.
The disillusion of the parent-child bond and other familialties becomes one of
the strongest precursars for the child with an incarcerated parent to eventually
‘become incarcerated themselves, someday. Most recently, additonal sanctions
have been added for these offenses to Include a loss of contact visits with an
inmate’s family and loved ones. So now, she is no longer allowed physical
touch with her ties of origin in the outside world, either! Loss of such a vital
connection with an inmate's support system raises the bar for recidivism - and
how could t be otherwise?

As time has passed, I have witnessed patterns and trends with female
‘homosexual inmates; both those who are actually homosexual, as well as those
who are perceived to be homosexual, or those who simply engage in close
relationships with other women while incarcerated. Once a woman s on, what
Tiike to call the "gaydar,” she becomes the target for anything perceived as.
homosexuality (the area most highly under survelliance and hyper-policed
within the prison). The inmate then becomes targeted for write-ups of any
offense and is mercilessly harassed by staff.

Recentiy during my annuai review, | was asked to answer questions on the
latest PREA "rape and sexual abuse” survey. The questions had much more to
do with my sexual orientation, sexual preferences, gender identiication and
sexual desires than it did with rape or sexual abuse. Some of the latter
questions were worded extremely broadly. For example, “Have you ever been
raped? Have you ever been physically abused?” Years ago, a similar survey
was given and the results were then skewed to make the statistics appear as
though any woman who answered *yes* to ever being raped or physically g
‘abused, had been raped or physically abused while in prison, a5 opposed to
having been raped or physically abused at any point throughout her entire ife.
A for the former question, I note that questions of that nature would be
completely illegal in any other setting, namely because those types of questions
open the field for an entire world of discriminations against any non-
heterosexual person, gender or gender-identification beyond that of their birth
origin or external perceptions. A Case in point has been highiighted in Volume
XXV, No. 4, Spring 2015 issue of Ultra Violet, Raevehn Monroe, WA, shares
his story with PREA-induced targeting.

The prison rape Elimination Act (PREA), meant to protect prisoners from
rape, from being sodomized by force, by use or threat of intimidation to coerce
‘compliance, is actually being used in Washington State DOC to punish gay
inmates for their gayness., to segregate and isolate gay inmates for being gay,
to harass and intimidate gay inmates who are openly out and about

2 loud and proud gay ifestyle and to separate gay lovers who would dare to fail
in'love and be close or intimate, even enjoying a non-sexual relationship. 1am
Raeve, my true love and aipha iife mate is D.., and we are now victims of abuse
of the PREA system. 1 am in the Hole, being (ransferred to Coyote Ridge.
(prison), to be separated from my dearest pet (who i to be my future
husband), whom 1 love and who also loves me. We are promised. The Staff
claiims that they saw us holding hands and sitting close to each other, giving
the appearance of intimacy. There is no rule violation, no interaction, our
relationship is not "sexual” and completely consensual and mutual so could not
be a PREA concern. This is purely harassment and punishment.

‘These issues cause questioning as to the actual purpose behind such
‘Questionnaires. First and foremost, rape Is an act of violence - not sexual
orientation or identification. Secondly, countless women currentiy in prison
‘were victims of rape and sexual abuse outside, yet the system failed to protect
them then or to penalize their assailants. This report does nothing to assert or
address rape and/or violence that prison staff member may inflict upon
inmates. In this particular women's prison, rape between inmates is nearly
non-existent. Yet on a national level, the prevalence of stalf raping female
inmates is a problem that has existed since the inception of women's prisons.
Prison rapes and/or sexual abuse harassment committed by prisony/fal staff
members often goes unreported due to further harassment, retaliation,
detrimental internal penaiizations and/or further violence to the women who
report violence by prison/jail officil.

Participation, Observation and Case Studies in
Female Sexuality and Criminalization in Prison

For all the harassment, targeting and discrimination; the sbusive,
demeaning, demoralizing and dehumanizing treatments; along with the
negative labels, criminalization and allits subsequent punishments rendered
‘unto me during my incarceration, my sexual orientation has not changed; thus
bringing me to ponder the dynarmics of female sexuality In prison. As Sara
Ahmed notes in Queer Phenomenology, *..to live out a politics of

disorientation might be to sustain wonder about the very forms of social
gathering.” (pg. 24) 1 question what has really been accomplished through all
that hyper-policing and persecution of my sexuality? In my case, this
phenomenon has sparked an insatiable drive to deive deeper it the esateric
epistemologies underiying the hetero-patriarchal nfrastructures within the
female penal system, and its continued pursut of female sexual domination and
conavest. It has cased me to question the neo-liberal capitolit sgends thar
thrives from the exarbitant cost o taxpayers (quite literaly i the hundreds of
thousands of dolars) keeping women imprisoned over non-Hlegai acts, or
consensual relationships, with or without, physical/sexual contact between 9§
‘peopie; coupled with the exponentol proftabilty for private corporations
operating their business through the corrections sector of market enterprise.

4 the years of my incarceration have worm on, T have become Increasingly
aware of the valdity of my first-hand experiences within the confins of this
environment, and the rare and unique opportunity this offers me 25 a scholar,
sexual intellectual, activist and advocate for women. 1 am both an active
particpant and an observer in this context, providing me with a level of insight
that cannot be fully gleaned or assessed ofherwise. This work i bu the tip of
the iceber n an arena worthy of further research and anolysis.

‘Through my own personal experiences of magnanimous encounters with
"homophobia, and its myriad manifestations of detrimental repercussions insde
prison, T began painstaking observations of this strange phenomenon and
started conducting case studies to validate these correlations of relationships™
‘andjor sexual orientation and the criminaization of female sexualty.
particulrly lesbianism, wihin this environment. Over the years of my study
‘with hundreds of women, I have found real, chronic, shared phenomenon, and
very real, detrimental effects o both the women themseives, a5 well o5 the
ripple effect upon the greater whole of society (albeit the undetected and
unknown consequences to the outside world). 1 have heard my own
‘experiences and story repeated hundreds of times out of the mouths of my

fellow inmates, which confirms the validity of my psychological, social, political
‘and academic inquiries.

Out of my fourteen years of incarceration, the only reports on my record fall
in an approximate four year window of time, while 1 had “known" relationships
with other women in prison. These eleven write-ups al stemmed from my
sexual orientation - whether they were sexual in nature, or not. My lack of
“girifriend” in prison for the past five years has magically caused me to fall off
the “gaydar," which has ended any and all targeting, harassment,
criminalization or penalization to/or against me. It has been my Shifting
change in status within the prison that has caused my heightened awareness of

these attacks against female sexaitty. Lydia, a 39-year old, white lesbian
shared this experience stating,

The harassment and write-ups were non-stop when I had a woman. When I
was younger, I 1 stayed in lock because of a girifriend, and lost at least two
Years of time over (), and I never even got caught having sex! I've been gay
my whoe ife. Did they expect me not to be who 1 am? Ginny* (her long-term
Latina prison partner of over seven years) went home about 2 year and a half

390, and now i's like I don't even exist. They (staff) don't look af me, taik to
me, or fuck with me. I can finally breatr

1 originally *stepped out” with a black woman (one who had only been
known s straight, both inside, and outside of prison). Unbeknownst to me at
the time, this was the ultimate cardinal sin in prison: Interracial coupling. As
Cheryl Clarke states in her article, Lesbianism: An Act of Resistance, "A
woman who takes a woman lover lives dangerously in patriarchy. And woe
betide her even more if she chooses as her lover a woman who is not in her
race.” (p9.9)

‘On more than one occasion 1 literally had officers glare at me with disdain,
threatening, “T GOT you!™ Then they watched my every move for some
infraction to write me up on; (preferably one that Involved my “girlfriend").
1¥'s imperative to note that the prison “relationship® does not have to actually
involve any form of sex. Just being "known couple,” or even seen cooking
together one too many times, is enough to put you in the crosshairs of the
“gaydar.” Although that relationship was short-lived and Invoived nothing
more than a close intimacy without any physical contact, it was all that was
needed to begin a four-year reign of terror by staff and other Inmates alike,
over my sexuality.

Gender Disparities, Race, and the Hierarchy of
Sexual Targeting for Criminalization

Ihave found a hierarchy of oppression within the criminalization of female
sexuality (serial pariah outliers fike myself not withstanding). Throughout my.
years of observatlons and conversations with other gay women in prison, the
hierarchy of homosexual targeting breaks down according to various gender
identity categorles (raclal outliers occasional factor in beyond Caucasians or
African Americans, yet the general demographics beyond such is an extremely
‘small percentage) in the following descending order of hyper-pollcing:

1. Interracial couples: white female (feminine appearance)
coupled with a black stud (boyish/masculine appearance),
black femme with white stud, a black or white femme or stud
with a black or white switch (cross-gendered appearance,
displaying both, femme or stud looks), white or black both
‘women femmes.
2. Black couples: femme with stud, switch with stud, femme
with femme.
3. White couples: femme with stud, switch with stud, femme.
ith femme.

(1 cannot recall any relationship in prison involving two women
‘who would both be classified as studs. If such relationships exist,
they happen on the down low and are not *known" relationships).

Based on longevity of my quires in this area, I have found the highest
prevalence of prison couples to be of femme with stud, or switch with stud
(race of the couple not withstanding). 1find this to be the most prevalent
‘phenomenon due to the fact that many women in prison who eventually seek
companionship (sexual or otherwise) with another woman may not have had
intimate relationships with other women prior to coming to prison, and
therefore seek companionship nside prison with women who possess
masculine appearances over those who appear feminine. A comment likened
tothis phenomenon was made to me by a fellow Inmate, Loraine® when she
said to me, *I guess I started dating her because she reminds me of my
husband. She Kinda looks fike him, that, and I'm bored... it's fun and exciting
to get notes and stuff too, I quess.”
Two case studies in particular provide typical illustrations of the targeting
and hyper-policing of interracial couples. Simone* is a self-identified black
“stud” lesbian in her late twenties dating a white “femme of comparable age.
In the past three years, Simone has received over fifty write-ups and conduct
reports, at least twenty.five of which were directly related to her sexuality and
relationships. She has lost over a ful year of good time, has been dropped in
cred class at least three times, has spent over six months In solitary.
‘confinement, and another nine plus months In the disciplinary housing unit.

‘She reports of a constant surveillance over her, chronic hyper-aggressive
behavior towards her from male officers (1 have heard this same experience
from nearly every "stud" lesbian I know in prison), and a multitude of write-ups
solely derived from being targeted for minor offenses other inmates are ignored
for engaging in. One such Incident involved her going to med line wearing
‘sweat pants Instead of her khaki uniform.She was one of several inmates that
day in line dressed in such a manor, yet she was the only person called out by
the farge, white officer on duty that day. When she attempted to defend
herself and point out that she was not the only person wearing sweats, the
officer began screaming at her to shut up, slammed her into the wall to cuff
her, and took her to lock for “back talking.” Numerous Inmates witnessed this
episode. On anather occasion, this same inmate was threatened by a black
‘male officer during a similar encounter over a minor infraction. He stated he.
Would "treat (her) like 2 man, i (she) was going to look like a man." Simone
lamented s we discussed her experiences,

Ive been gay my whole lfe, but in here, it doesn't matter if I do anything or
not, I'm fucked with constantly, no matter who I'm with, Since I've been with

Kalhlee, i’ like those dudes wanna fight me over her. They'll it on her right

in fron of me. They disrespect everything about who I am.” Although Simone
I an extreme case, her experiences are not uncommon,

1 have heard and seen many such incidents between male officers and
“stud” lesbians over the years. Femmes are demeaned and "put n their
(sexual) place," or hit on/firted with by male officers, yet male officers treat
studs hyper-aggressively, as though they are men. Simone's girifriend,
Kalhlee® had never experienced targeting or hyper-policing until she began
dating Simone. Kalhlee has now aiso become a target and has received
numerous conduct reports (both of the *sexual” nature and otherwise). She
has aiso been sanctioned to solitary confinement and the disciplinary housing
unit, lost good time and her credit class, all In the same time period she has
dated Simone. Kalhlee recently told me she was not targeted, nor did she
receive any write-ups or sanctions while she was dating her previous girlfriend,
Bridget.” (it is imperative to note that Bridget is another white femme in her

Katrina® and Cindy's* experience is slightly different than Simone’s and
Kalhiee's, yet no less detrimental._Katrina is a black femme in her early
thirties._Her partner, Cindy is 2 white switch of comparable age. Over two
Years ago Katrina dated another white (switch) woman, whom she was caught
‘engaging in a sexual act with, and subsequently sanctioned to solitary
‘confinement, loss of good time and loss of visits in the children's center for six
months with her kids. Katrina claims to have been on the “gaydar* ever since.
She and Cindy have now been dating for approximately nine months, six of
which they lived on the same housing unit. Although neither of them were
‘caught for any rules violations or ilegal activities, they have both been targeted
and harassed by staff members, daily. Katrina has been targeted more so than
Cindy. Both women have been the target of other inmates as well, who have.
used them and the relationship as scapegoats to deflect attention from
themselves. As a resut, the two of them were spit up and now five in opposite.
nds of the prison from one another. Katrina tearfully expressed to me, 2

“They just won't leave me alone! I'm not doing anything wrong. Cindy
doesn't even live with me anymore, and et every time I turn around, they
(are) threatening to write me up over somethin'. They tryin' o take my time!
1Just wanna do this littl bit of time I got left and go home! I'm afraid they
gonna put me back in lock and take my time again over dumb shit. You know
Ms.... has it out for me. I'm scared to death. I can't even sieep over this shit,
anymore. Why won't they stop messin’ with me?"

‘She is not alone in her experiences. Every couple I've spoken to has.
‘accounted similar experiences and emotional distress over the myriad of ways
they've been treated because of their sexual orientation.

Two white, middle-aged women who have each served over decade of
time in prison, and two black women in their twenties who have been
Incarcerated siightly under a decade, reported living on the "down low" with
their sexuality for many of the eariier years of their incarceration, until each
decided to "come out” by cutting off their hair and ceasing to wear makeup,
Each of them expressed similar stories with an instant change i report
between them and the staff directly following their change in
‘appearance/gender identity. Once they began looking like "studs” harassment
and targeting instantly ensued and has continued daily. All of these women
were free of conduct reports and sanctions until after their switch in gender
identity and "out” relationships.

Relationships between two black women, both observably as well as through
testimonies, tend to be hyper-policed more 5o than white couples in most
nstances by both white and black staff members. Yet many white couples
attest to harsher treatment and higher levels of hyper-policing by black officers
25 opposed to white officers. Yet neither coupling had been policed and
criminalized more severely than the interracial couples. A recent “couple”
between a femme white woman and a femme Latina woman, both in their mid-
twenties, remained undetected for weeks until staff members were alerted to
their “relationship™ status by other inmates. They report to have been
“watched" ever since and have both since received write-ups as result. After
vears of invisibiity, they are now both chronically on the “gaydar.*

Race

this environment). Uness these couples are biatantly "out there, they five.
relatively unnoticed, by staff and other inmates alike. 1 can only attribete this
0 common stereotypical views of "lpstick” lesbians, in that either: A) they
don't really exist, particularly in prison (or If they do, it's strictly for sexual
laisons), B) they encompass the male sexual fantasy for acceptabie lesblan
oupling, and are therefore excused and allowed or C) they are in the

of "old dyke" and no one cares because they are not considered to be Gesirabiy
0 heterosexual men.
Women engage in homosexual lfestyles i prison (whether of not they were
gay prior to coming to prison). The myriad of reasons for doing so continues to
be disrespected, yet these reasons play a Gitical role in this analysis. It is
worthy of attention to assess some of these reasons in order to comprehend
the detriments to women and society resulting from criminalizing these | 3.
behaviors and attacking these aspects of a woman's personhood. In many
regards, the prison environment is conducive to, and actualy creates a
hecessty for ths behavior; (whether in or against @ woman's favor) as Ahmed
notes, ~..consider ‘nsttutions' as orlentation devices, which take shape of
“what’ resides within them...institutions provide collective or public spaces."
(6. 132)

It of interest to note that within the confines of IWP there are extremely
‘minimal incidents of actual iliegal activity or behaviors. On the average,
‘women's prisons are generall far less violent or rampant with llegal activies
than men's prisons; yet the complexities of this phenomenon, though worthy of
assessment, stretch beyond the scope of this analysis. Unlike in men's prisons,
fignts and acts of violence are nearly non-existent; as are rioting, drug
trafficking, gang activites, and even murders, are almost unheard of within
women's prisons. 1 belleve this lack of viable criminal behavior with women
while in prison has provided fertile ground to search out ways and means to
continue to criminalize and penalize women, morphing into the moden forms
of subjugating women's sex and sexuaity.

There are biatant ways to identify Just how hyper-vigiant the system at
farge is to homosexuality. An example is a recent announcement fiyer posted
for a recreational event that stated,

runners club
Meeting
‘Sunday, Feb. 8 at 8:30
AM,

B ready to runtiimIIIL
New challenges!1 11111
More intensel 11111111

Couples will be separated
(emphasis added)

In this day and age (even within a prison) such a statement would be ilegal
to make regarding race, religion, creed, disabilty or nationa origin, and yet the
‘arena of sexuallty remains fair game for discrimination. Sinnamon Love's.
comment In an interview in A Taste for Brown Sugar, spoke about how
feminists have failed to fight for sex workers in regards to these women's right
to choice and privacy saying, “Women should have the right to be able to make
choice, whether it's in employment, or social status... the right o an abortion,
or the right to choose what to do with their mind, body and soul.” (pg. 209) 1
argue that the same disregard applies to women in prison. Discrimination of
perceived sexual orientation and/or gender identity in prison also surfaces in
internal employment arenas. Tara,® a white, self-prociaimed “tomboy”
bisexual, shared her recent story with a prison job interview,

The interview was going really good, T thought 1 had the job, then al of &
sudden he asked me, 'Who's you girfriend?" 1 didn't say It, but 1 was like
‘what the hell does that have to do with anything?" 1 told him I don't have
girlriend. But it doesn't matter, they haven' called me back.”
Discrimination among a multitude of additional threats, is why many
lesbians choose to remain silent about thelr orientation and/or keep their

sexuaity hidden in prison, a5 3 tactc of surival and sef-preservation. 11

By extreme persecution and hyper-policing of female sexualy, ways and
means have been created to generate, not only the original basis for
incarcerating women, but also provides a myriad of mass internal violations
resulting in grounds and conditions that keep women shackled within the
System via their sex and humanity, which can then extend their terms of
Imprisonment.

Dynamics of Prison Relationships and
Subsequent Criminalization

Although there are infinite reasons behind women engaging in homosexual
relations (women referred to as “gay for the stay," the contingent or
‘environmental lesbian, and women who have aiways Identified themselves as
lesbians), and/or close relationships with other women (fictive kinship) while
incarcerated, analytical inquiry provides a deeper comprehension of the
complexities underlying human behavior and female sexuaity in relation to
women's survival while incarcerated.

First and foremost, there is the basic human need for both physical contact
and emotional nurturance. This fact is blatantiy ignored and denied to the
existence of a prison inmate. Once a person receives the label of "criminal” or
“offender,” they become automatically correlated to being less than human.
Denying a person touch and/or the ability to bond with other human beings
‘within prison equates to subhuman treatment, and potentially creates the
subhuman barbarity the criminal label itself Implles. An inmate s expected to
deny this basic core component of their own humanity by ot having any.
physical contact, in any way, shape o form, with any other human being at any
point in time for any reason whatsoever. How many people in the outside
world go years without any form of human contact?

Nor are inmates supposed to create any type of close bond with any other
person they are incarcerated with; be it friendship, fictive kinship or a love
relationship. There is a complete disregard for the possibity of asting
friendships or relationships develaping between Inmates. Over the years I have.
known countless women who maintained these friendships and relationships
after their release from prison, including several "prison couples” who have
‘gone on to mary one another, post-incarceration. Any acts nvolving physical
‘contact, sex or close relationships, subject a woman to targeting, harassment,
eriminaiization and/or penalization. 1 argue that this actually creates human
disconnection and emotional separation with the person subjected to these
inhumane condtions, particularly those who are Incarcerated long term. In
extreme cases, a cold, compassionless or potentially violent individual can
result from such long term denlals of thelr humanity.

A policy of "o touch” brings a severance of humanity, a sense of alienation,
and an ingrained feeling of separation.” All of which potentially lay the
foundation for multiple levels of violence and social rejection. If we assume
prison inmates are monstrous to begin with, s this not the perfect way to
ensure a person will become the very label that has been placed upon therm?

Criminalizing/penalizing physical human contact brings deep-seated feelings.
of parania, anxiety, fear and any number of intemal negative emotions within
the person forced to feel hyper-vigilant to targeting, harassment and/or

riminalization and penalization for anything that may be construed as physical
contact with another person, or even themselves! 1 have both experienced and
witnessed physical fiinching o shirking away from another person If they get
too close, coupled with an immediate, often involuntary (as result of their
Sonditionins) Immediae scanning of the suroundings to check or being /-
“watched," s internal fears and anxieties mount, while feeling impending
punishment. The accounts of such psychological trauma assoclated with this
conditioned fear and paranola over human contact being chronically targeted
for punishment spans throughout the majority of inmates whether they are.
homosexual or not. Tana,* a thirty-three year oid white stud lesbian, chared
her experiences and fears with me,

1'm scared all the time that they're going to write me up for something and
send me back to lock. It's like I'm not allowed to be who ] am. They target us
"boys." If a femme is doing someone’s hair or tweezing their eyebrows, no one
cares, but if 1 90 do someone's hair or eyebrows, it's an automatic 216 (Class 8
code for sexual write up).

1f we assume prison inmaes are monstrous to begin with,Is this not the
perfect way to ensure a person will become the very fabel that has been placed
upon them?

Beyond basic human necessty s the means for spatialinclusion within
prison sodil structures. Jeffrey Q. McCune, Jr.'s Sexual Discretion offers a
escripton that closely ilustrates this point for the women who were not
previously gay before their incarceration, *...partcipating in a sort of ‘comin’
in. They have arrived in a queer space that welcomes them but does not
require them to become an officil member.* (pg. 98). Or likewise, a¢ he
refers to what, Foucault alls - spaces of heterotopia. The prison environment
provides a level of acceptance to explore an arena of sexuait that s Gtherwise
‘deemed as taboo, and more so socially shunned by the outside world. Void of
familla, peer or social scrutiny, immersed In an environment that same sex
reiations are prevalent; a space then becomes available to explore this opton
ARthough prison is oten not a consclously chosen environment, I is st 4 form
of what Emesto Javier Martinez refers to a5 a migration for queer exadus,
allotting movement from hetero-normality into a place for queer space-making
within women, now held captive with other women.

Prison relationships offer a means for bonding, socialization and group
Inclusion (which i often reason enough for many women to choose to engage
in prison relationships). Marion M. Bailey aptly notes this concept n, Butch
Queens Up in Pumps, stating, “Human beings fundomentally make: culture,
affect power, and reinvent their ways of being in the world, especilly thoss
with limited or no State power and privilege. (p9. 18) Wormen who would
otherwise not it in, o are deemed as being odd in some way, may now have a
means of acceptance and inclusion by partcipating I prison relationships or
engaging in the socialrtuals within tis environment. Yel, on the average,
daily practices and rituals of prison relationships show the various ways women
sociall adapt and form bonds within a confined environment.

*Kite passing provides form of communication, networking, bonding,
‘emotional support and entertainment.. It becomes the outlet for connection and
inclusion as several people may be involved in the itual of message possing
among inmates. This has become a highly targeted and hyper-polced activty,
often resuiing in extreme penalization. Those caught can face sanctions as
severe as those classified as Clss B offenses.

Discussions and gossiping about prison relationships provide a level of
drama and excitement, a form of word of mouth “social media” in an otherwise:
static, Ifeless environment void of external stimulation. This practice carries
over to staff members who then use this information to target lesbians and/or
“couples.” b

On this note, inmates are well aware of the targeting,
criminalzing/penalizing of homosexuality or "couples.” As a resul, this has
also become a form of scapegoating and modern "witch hunting" between
inmates. The non-gay inmate can easly share information about a lesbian
andor her partner, thereby deflecting attention and possible targeting,
criminalizing/penalizing away from themselves. 1 have witnessed innumerable
Instances of such deflections and accusations. Recently, I overheard from an
inmate who chronically portrays herself as a "do-gooder,” hetero-Christion
woman, who spent several minutes gossiping about the alleged “latest couple™
with an officer, who is known to target homosexuals and/or couples. A few
minutes after the conversation ended, said officer put gloves on and proceeded
to head down the hallway to “shake down" the *couple” she had just been
alerted to. As she was conducting her shakedown on the “couple” their
informant proceeded to carry on in the opposite end of the building, conducting
"business* of her own, selling items to other inmates, thereby releasing herself
from harm and providing herself space to cay out a ltte llegal activity of her
Women who share meals and cook together offer entertainment, nurturance
and are a symbol of care, worth, value and/or compassion for others. Likewise,
I the sharing and giving of items which are needed or wanted by others. To
provide another person with hyglene products or gifts of jewelry, makeup, craft
items, etc. provides a means of showing care, concern for another's well-being,
apprecation, or it becomes a way to fit in or show a level of social and/or
economic dout. Giving and sharing In these regards are also often targeted for
criminalization. Bringing food or gifs from one location to another can result in
Class B "trafficking,” or "bribing and giving" charge(s) which can and do result
In extreme sanctions.

To ignore or deny these underlying motivations behind prison relationships
undermines the premise of human social structures. Criminalizing modes of
Socialization further dehumanizes and creates intemal severance of abilly,
and/or the skils to establish social bonds, which are inherent requirements
within any society or community of people. Harsh penaiizations of these
activities can, and o, result in extended prison terms for women.

‘Some relationships spawn out of shear boredom or lack of anything else:
better to do. Recently, while two women were conversing with me, Juni,* a
‘white, middie-aged bisexual woman said, “I need to get me a boo snack (prison
term for girifriend, possibly for sexual and/or economic use), ‘cuz 1 ain't got
nothing better to do.” For the inmate who has been incarcerated for an
extensive period of time, boredom and/or loneliness can become a key in
choosing to have a relationship. If a person is exempt from programs or has.
‘exhausted program options, this may be al that remains for a sense of
normalcy and/or fivabilty.

Yet if we acknowiedge the necessity for a prison relationship on foundational
base grounds for human survival, we may then come to awareness and the
chiling acknowledgement of grounds and means for economic survival within a
State of extreme deprivation. As Mireille Miller-Young states, *Hustiing Is 3 tool
of survival for the dispossessed.” (pg. 49) For many women, prison becomes a
state of existence that forces them to “hustle” (sexually or otherwise) in order
to survive.

I the years ince pivatization has dominated the carceral system and
prison operations, basic needs of on inmate’s surviva have become an | 7
exorbitant expense to the inmate. Pivatization has absohtel create fetie
970U to fore Moy women to either Hegal o atematve modes for suival
whilencarcerated. Very e 1o nothing s provided to nmatcs. In the wey of
yglene s, the monthly indioent ba consits of htelsample Szed ams
and/or the most Substandard products avalloble 10 have sdeauni quaiy 3nd
auaniiy hygiene tems, they mus be purchased of of commissay ot oy
infaed rots or low nd products in smail Quanties. Laundiy serice sw be
pad for by purchasing debit cord t use the washer and e ot & U
oty Gens perlood (the inmate st aso provide nr owh detergen). Ste
Jouncry service s anly provided once a week, when it then lcaves the facilty to
be washed. It takes hree days for an INMaLe’s wash t be returael and e,
itis ot uncommon for a person t have othing Rems (ot eturn. With
sllotment o tree unfforms ssued, oty having your aundey washe once s
week, without being returnd for oys, makes It mperaiive (o & worman to
Supply her own means for lsundry services:

Inmates ore only provided tws state envelopes per month for
Correspondence t famly and friends. The JPAY corporation, which provides
inmates emall and/or video isatin, i an expense 1o nmates o vse, o5 well
25 an excritan cost to the nmate’s farmly and ather ove ones.

Through the privatzation of th Kichen food serice tne quay of the ood
s become extremely poor n portion sizes, which leove mos pecple huogey.
My trip 1o lock n 2007 (afer the privaization of the Kichen) cver e -hand
holding" “ilation* esultedn alos of 27 pounds i 75 Gays, whie eotng
nothing butth three meais a day sered by the Kichen. Al these ssues not
taking nto accoun the nflated cost o tlephone cals, JAY emaviaes ok
service, general commissary, ICARE packages and Cafe Fesh Favorte ool
Gays via Aramark, persona property packses purchased once & vear hom on
outside corporation for hygine Rams, shoes, ek, medica Copays and any
number of expenses or optons o spend money I prison, couse aeomomi and
Physicl hardships o Inmates and constant stress and wery t thee e

' queston the reasoning behind imcarceraton with the erconnecred
natureof private corpations, polticians, e pocy and lowrmakers . and the
criminal Justice system at lore. An artice publshed i November, 2011 by ihe
ACLU tted, Banking on Bondage: Private Prisons and Mase
Incarcerstion, sas,

CCA, the leading private prison company, has long provided major support
t0, and has close ties with, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) -
n organization of state legisiators that has advocated for harsh sentencing and
detention laws, such as mandatory minimum sentencing statutes. ALEC
‘provides state legisiators with model legisiation, and each year, ALEC members
introduce hundreds of these model bl in state houses across the country (g,
9)... Between 2003-2011... CCA hired obbyists in 32 states (Indiana amongst
those states)... these companies (also GEO and Cornell) contributed over two.
million dollars to state politcal campaigns, with a large fraction of the money
funneled to state party committees... these companies backed a high portion of
candidates who uitimately won eiection, which may indicate a strategy of
focusing contributions on candidates likely to wield power. (pg. 27)

With all these expenses, a woman lacking outside financial assistance,
survival becomes bleak unless altemative modes are found to provide for a
person's basic needs. Prisons, by their nature of origin, are exploiative
environments to those held within them. Completely indigent women are
forced to create strategies and negotiations for their survival In prison. Short of
‘committing more commonly perceived illgal offenses to survive in prison such
as theft,traficking, extorton, etc, prison relationships (sexual o otherwise)
become a mode for provision and sustenance for the indigent, destitute woman
(this Is not to suggest that all women engaging in relationships for survival
within prison do 5o exclusively for this reason. Genuine love or personal | g
Interest can exist simutaneously wih this surviva tacti).

The grounds for what Mier-Young discusses n “lict eroticism,” (pg. 266)
10 the marginalized black porn/sex worker, are akin to the marginalized female
prisoner whois automatically deemed “sexual outiaws.” When the personfiood
and the body become modes of commodiication for survivalin an environment
void of other economic options, prison "licit eroticisms” become a tactic of
autonomous self-preservation in an environment replete with oppression and
destitution. Foucault refers to this type of phenomenon as “care of the sef.”

A long ter prison friend once told me, "If I did't have Reese’ I don't
know what I do. She takes care of me.” This particuar inmate has no
outside family or support, is a long term inmate and must try to survive on less
than $3.00 of state pay per month, which is the average pay for women in GED
programs who lack a high school education. If 3 12-ounce battie of cheap
shampoo cost $1.98, how far can $3.00 a month really go? A relationship,
‘whether it holds genuine interest, or s a means for economic exchange, has
become the most viabie option of basic survival for many women n prison. In
thi regard, women remain trapped in a double Catch-22, they become the
*sexual outlaw” they were labeled as to begin with, and they are trapped in a
positin setting them up for chronic criminalization/penalization that potentialy
extends their incarceration.

‘An astronormical number of wormen in prison are survivors of horric orms
of abuse in al forms. For many abuse survivors, prison has become the first
time and place in ther lives they are free of male abusers, (not counting the
ublquitous abusive male guards) and now have time and space for themseives.
Abuse survivors experience a long-standing struggle o re-occupy their own
bodies and minds. For some, it is simply a mater of breaking beyond the bond
of patriarchal Ideslogies and control. Many women are healing and recovering
from mass traumas, learning to know and find themseives. For the frst time in
thei ives, they have the opportunites for self-empowerment through therapy,
education, skils training and avenues fo recreational activRes; avenues that
allow them to acknowledge ther intrnsic worth and value, to exercise their
minds and bodies, to express their passions and talents. For many, It becomes
the first time they have explored their own bodies and/or sexuaity without an
abuser dictating control over their being and lives. Audre Lorde states in her
article, Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power,

We have been raised to fear the yes within ourselves, our deepest cravings.
But, once recognized, those which do not enhance our future lose their power
and can be altered. The fear of our desires keeps them suspect and
indiscriminately powerful, for to suppress any truth is o give It strength beyond
endurance. The fear that we cannot grow beyond whatever distortions we may
find within ourseives keeps us docile and loyal and obedient, externally defined,
and leads us to accept many facets of our oppression as women. (6. 17-18)

Al of these reasons for prison relationships notwithstanding, a woman
choosing her own sexual autonomy and/or agency, exercising her ability to
think freely for herself, or asserting power and dominion over her own body and
‘mind, can become reason and choice for a woman to enter Into a relationship.
o sexual liason with another woman. Christy,* a white femme in an

interracial relationship, commented to me while discussing her relationship with
her partner,

1 was 50 closed off at home, to myself and everything. Now I can really see
‘people for who they are on the inside, not Just what they ook llke or what sex
they are. I've leamed to get to know people and love them for who they are.
I’ sad to me that (1) couldn't do that before. Now I can fail in love with the
person, not the package.

Relationships are also a form of resistance for the woman who has always.
identifled as a lesbian, or form of rebeliion for the woman who chooses to
explore lesblanism while Incarcerated as a means of asserting her own
personhood, sexuailty o humanity. As Clarke states, “The lesbian has
ecolonized her body... Lesbianism Is a recognition, an awakening, a
reawakening of our passion for each (woman) other (women) and for some
(woman)." (pg. 3) Autonomous sexual agency or personal choice, to gain or
rectaim a woman's power in any regard, as Foucault states, “Where there is
power, there i resistance, and yet, or rather, consequently, this resistance is
never in position of exteriority In relation to power.* (pg. 95) Often, her
resistance to claiming her own power becomes the very point that results in
women subsequently losing their power through the criminaiization and
penaiization of her sexual autonomy. It provides a premise for those
historically ingrained subjugations of women by asserting power and control
over their bodies and personhood.

Cathy Cohen's “poiitics of deviance® as quoted by Miller-Young, further
illutrates this point in that, “marginalized people’s so-called practices and

respect"they open up and mobilize a queer politcs of dissent with prevalling
norms that deny the value of their ives. (preface pg. X) Without such a base
of freedom there s a 1oss of personhood, and a depietion or anniilation of
identity. She Is reduced to “thing-ness,” an abject, property, or siave to
another's thoughts, beliefs, desires and use.

‘Denying a woman's base sexual desires and rights over her own body allows
the justification to dehumanize and control her. A woman's desire and ability to
choose either self-gratification or sexual/emotional fulfiliment through self-
pleasure and/or homosexual relations removes the necessity for maes at the
basest of levels. If a man isn't needed at the core and foundation of being-
ness, perhaps he Isn't needed at all. A being without use s without worth or
need, and lacks power. Is this primal fear felt by the hetero-patriarchy what is
driving the hegemonic implementation of the dehumanization of women in
‘order to keep them shackled and enslaved physically, mentally, sexually and
spiritually?

“To disregard these complexities of humanity and women's personhood, and
then dehumanize, criminalize and penaiize them for such aspects of thelr
‘personhood, sexuality and lie, exacerbates problems internally and extemally
With both women themselves as well 25 with the collective whole. It
propagates violence and sexual oppression against women, further instiling
hetero-patriarchal hegemonic systems of power and control, provides a way
and means to keep woren imprisoned thereby exponentially profiting off of
their captivation. As Foucault notes, “there is no power that is exercised
without 2 series of aims and objectives.* (9g. 95)

Within the past few years | have witnessed the criminalization/penalization
of approximately twenty lesbian women I have personally known who were
targeted, harassed, and eventually "caught,” written up and sanctioned to
anywhere from 30 days to several months of loss of good time. Of those
women alone, 1 have tallied up a loss of 2,035 days. If the average cost of
Incarceration is say. $50.00/ per day (very low) not accounting for the money
‘spent by inmates within the prison, medical care or other expenses, st the.
additional days these women have been sanctioned to spend in prison over
some offense deemed "sexual” will cost the state $101,750.00. This money.
being wasted, solely because these women are homosexuals or had engaged in
some form of consensual physical, human contact

This Is only a small figure based on women 1 personally know over a recent,
two-year, small window of time. magine what the totaiity of cost, expense and
profits would look like were someone to do a comprehensive statistical analysis
in this arena? Al of this goes on - notwithstanding a blatant denial of a
‘Woman's right to choose what she wishes to o with her own body and mind,
and her right to choose her own orientation and how she wishes to express her
sexuality. For those of us who are, and always will be lesbians, it denies the
very core of our personhood by criminalizing us for who we innately are.

Conclusion

Forcing women into docile, compliant, subservient roles/positions through
forced human/sexual repression and/or criminalizing human/sexual behaviors
for the sake of dominion over personhood, and as a means of maintaining
power and control over women in prison, fals to address the nuances that
‘underlie behavior, choice, preference/orientation, and one's abiliy to define
their own personhood, identity and autonomous action of free will 1t creates a
blanket for hegemonic hetero-patriarchy that ignores the complexities and
‘mult-faceted aspects of women and their humanity. It allows the continued
dehumanizing treatment of women, their bodies, minds and spirits, thereby
robbing ther existence as sexual, human beings. By ciminalizing and
penalizing women for their sexuaiity, (or normal physical acts of humanity,)
through sanctions, thereby increasing their incarceration, the neo-liberal

pitalistic system thus further profits by prolonging a woman's captvity.
story continues to repeat tself through the captivity of women and the.
shackling of their sex. Liberation of female sexuality through voicing the
secrets sealed within the fortresses and institutions of female captivation break
the bonds of hetero-patriarchal power, bringing true freedom for women to be
who and what they innately are.

“lam the
modern version
of the women
I'm talking
about.

pslazin D 1225% A S
Cib ena LAETE, e b
INeLs, IV Ye21y South Clicago ABC Zine Distro

POB 721 / Homewood, IL 60430