Rub ’til it bleeds

January 10, 2012 4:09 PM

"The line between intentional and inadvertent exposure can be blurry in a context where inmates do not control their privacy and cells are sometimes defined as public places. What’s more, some experts on prison sex contend that anti-masturbation and anti-porn policies in prisons are counterproductive because they effectively drive inmates to engage in risky sexual behavior. According to this theory, increased access to pornography—which goes hand-in-hand with increased access to one’s doo-dads—might be just what correctional facilities need to stem prison rape. Is it time for a revolution in prisoners’ masturbatory rights?"
posted by Houyhnhnm (45 comments total)

The prison-industrial complex is watching you masturbate.
posted by 2bucksplus at 4:11 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

ok NOW prison would be terrible.
posted by Pathos Bill at 4:14 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

THEY'LL LET YOU WATCH TV BUT THEY DON'T LET YOU JERK IT?!?!

WHAT THE HELL PRISON IS TERRIFYING
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 4:16 PM on January 10 [6 favorites]

God they call themselves capitalistic but their puritanical morals blind the, to obvious revenue streams Set up comfortable, private masturbation nooks with material, free and open to all inmates. Prison gets to put a camera in and gets sell 100% authentic prison wank vids. You'd make a mint on something they where going to do to themselves anyway.
posted by The Whelk at 4:19 PM on January 10 [5 favorites]

I liked this article but I saw a lot of those puns coming a mile away.
posted by Houyhnhnm at 4:29 PM on January 10

C'mon Billy, rub 'till it bleeds, 'cause your mansized snake leaves her dry.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:35 PM on January 10

> 100% authentic prison wank vids

I can almost picture the popups.
So to speak.
posted by lucidium at 4:36 PM on January 10

According to this theory, increased access to pornography—which goes hand-in-hand with increased access to one’s doo-dads—might be just what correctional facilities need to stem prison rape.

Really not sure about the validity of this assertion, as it assumes that inmates are getting raped because other inmates are simply horny, when I'm pretty sure rape is used to dominate, punish and control. Whether an inmate has free and unrestricted access to porn and oodles of fap time probably has little bearing on whether or not he will rape another inmate for being new, for being disobedient, or for any other reason that occurs to him.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:45 PM on January 10 [3 favorites]

Even if 5% of rape is due to horniness, that's 5% fewer rapes.

More to the point, though, this would seem to be a basic human right. What is gained by denying it?
posted by maxwelton at 5:06 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

Really not sure about the validity of this assertion, as it assumes that inmates are getting raped because other inmates are simply horny, when I'm pretty sure rape is used to dominate, punish and control. Whether an inmate has free and unrestricted access to porn and oodles of fap time probably has little bearing on whether or not he will rape another inmate for being new, for being disobedient, or for any other reason that occurs to him.

Empirically, access to pornography (which presumably correlates to increased masturbation) appears to reduce the incidence of rape. I don't think your argument really works, anyway. Rape may be "used to dominate, punish and control" but nonetheless horny and frustrated people are more likely to commit it; there's no contradiction there.

All else equal, people who are relatively more sexually satisfied are probably less likely to commit any sexual act at a given time, whether anti-social or loving.
posted by grobstein at 5:06 PM on January 10 [4 favorites]

And yeah here's reason #594 that you couldn't confirm me to the Supreme Court, cuz I would recognize prisoners have a constitutional right to masturbate.
posted by grobstein at 5:07 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

I had no idea such laws were on the books. I don't know why I'm at all surprised, though. Every day on Metafilter it seems like I encounter news of an outrage that deepens my overall misanthropy, and I guess this is today's.

Let's leave access to porn aside, for the moment. Aside from the extreme horrors found in places like Guantanamo and prolonged solitary confinement, I can't conceive of a more dehumanizing invasion of one's sense of self and privacy than to make simple masturbation -- even under the sheets! -- a legal infraction. (And, no, I don't consider it less dehumanizing and invasive when churches and families attempt do the equivalent). But I guess that's precisely the point isn't it? To dehumanize and undermine one's sense of independent internality, to make one feel as helpless and abject and psychically as miserable and self-loathing as possible.

I suppose it's possible that people who enact and enforce laws like this think they're really doing it for "security" and "social order," but I suspect their motivation is just as likely to be plain old sadistic shits and giggles.
posted by treepour at 5:09 PM on January 10 [5 favorites]

They can have my masturbatory habits when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.

Seriously, if they're willing to do that, then they can have them.
posted by Pecinpah at 5:09 PM on January 10 [4 favorites]

There are some logical leaps here that escape me. I think prisoners should be able to play with themselves under the covers just like everybody else, because we should own our bodies even when we lose our freedom of movement. But I don't understand how we get from "prisoners should be permitted to whack off as long as they're not deliberately exposing themselves" to "give prisoners porn". And I don't get the "porn stops rape" argument, either. As Marisa Stole the Precious Thing points out, rape's not all about horniness, plus it seems like if you can find the circumstances to rape someone without being stopped, you should be able to sneak in a quick wank without getting undue attention.
posted by gingerest at 5:20 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

7.9% of sentenced prisoners in federal prisons on September 30, 2009 were in for violent crimes. 52.4% of sentenced prisoners in state prisons at year end 2008 were in for violent crimes. 21.6% of convicted inmates in jails in 2002 (latest available data by type of offense) were in for violent crimes. Among unconvicted inmates in jails in 2002, 34% had a violent offense as the most serious charge. 41% percent of convicted and unconvicted jail inmates in 2002 had a current or prior violent offense; 46% were nonviolent recidivists

We need to stop imprisoning nonviolent criminals. Those people do not belong in prison. Prison should be for people who need to be kept away from the human race. And even among those people, the focus should be on rehabilitation and not punishment.

I do not understand how, in this day and age, it's still acceptable to implement imprisonment as a means of punishment. The desire for revenge is one of the lowest and most base human instincts.

But if you're the sort that thinks prisons should be for punishment, then I guess a masturbation ban makes sense. I mean, if you're going to dehumanize people, why not go all the way with it?
posted by Afroblanco at 5:24 PM on January 10 [18 favorites]

which goes hand-in-hand with increased access to one’s doo-dads

I see what you did there.
posted by swift at 5:33 PM on January 10

why not just do prisons in the style of old woodcuts of Hell?

demon sculpture everywhere, guards wearing devil suits with the face on the butt and the green skin

do it up like a gothic cathedral with fire under the floor, pipe in classical music and the screams of the damned

get the Disney people to work on it!
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 5:40 PM on January 10 [3 favorites]

charge people to tour the place and observe the acted/real torment of the sinners! arrange it like dante's inferno with seperate tiers
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 5:42 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

We need to stop imprisoning nonviolent criminals.

How exactly do you propose to punish someone who, say, commits massive fraud and steals millions of dollars from elderly retirees.
posted by Justinian at 5:52 PM on January 10 [3 favorites]

Take all their stuff away and tattoo "THIEVING ASSHOLE" on their foreheads?
posted by elizardbits at 5:54 PM on January 10 [6 favorites]

Put them in prison and not let them masturbate while they're in there?

Huh. There's a thought.
posted by amy lecteur at 6:13 PM on January 10

How exactly do you propose to punish someone who, say, commits massive fraud and steals millions of dollars from elderly retirees.

I dunno, maybe restitution, decades of community service, and a lifetime ban on having access to other peoples' money?

In other words, how about a return to "the punishment should fit the crime"?
posted by Afroblanco at 6:17 PM on January 10 [11 favorites]

People who write rules saying other people can't masturbate are deeply disturbed and should not have power over other people, because while they might look like people they really aren't human.
posted by localroger at 6:35 PM on January 10 [5 favorites]

Take all their stuff away and tattoo "THIEVING ASSHOLE" on their foreheads?

Lisbeth Salander for attorney general!
posted by localroger at 6:37 PM on January 10 [6 favorites]

The problem with speculation about how to make prisons better and more humane runs up against the problem that prisons are awful and dehumanizing on purpose. Our society wants to, and has been very successful at, creating an underclass of self-loathing, unemployable ghosts lacking the most basic civil rights. The evidence is overwhelming - Ockham's razor forces the conclusion that we as a society intend the natural and foreseeable outcomes of our actions - and it's utterly ridiculous to suppose that our prison system can produce any other outcome than the one it has. It's never rehabilitated a single person.
posted by facetious at 7:02 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

As Marisa Stole the Precious Thing points out, rape's not all about horniness

Marisa Stole the Precious Thing was arguing that rape is not about sexual desire but about domination. This is the prison-rape version of "rape is about power not sex" mantra that is repeated to the point of becoming close to the only acceptable thing one can say about the causes of rape.

Because a lot of horrible people have, since the dawn of time, tried to blame the victims of rape for what happened to them, the popular theories of rape have become the ones that have nothing to do with the sexual motivation. The fear seems to be that if we acknowledge the obvious sexual component of rape, someone will use the victim's sexuality against them. It's an understandable fear, since misogynists have blamed women for their own rape for claimed "sluttiness". The classic example is saying that a woman in a short skirt was "asking for it".

There's also the fear that acknowledging a biological basis for rape may be used to excuse sexual misconduct. This too, of course, has happened countless times, with sexual crimes being written off as "boys will be boys".

But repeating dogma, and that is what the "rape is never about sex" line has become, ultimately doesn't help rape victims. If a major motivation of rape is sexual desire, that could change how we thing about rape prevention and education, and, indeed, sexual education.

In this instance, with have someone pretty much rejecting out of hand a study that indicates that access to healthy sexual outlets may reduce rape because the study breaks the "rule": sex is about power. I think this is done with the best of intentions, but here a dogmatic point of faith is possibly getting in the way of thinking about things that could actually help potential rape victims.

The idea with prison rape is primarily about non-sexual issues like power and domination is pretty far-fetched. These men, when released back to the streets, don't rape each other to settle disputes. Physical violence and threats are perfectly good tools for domination anywhere else; the obvious difference in prison is the severe limitations of sexual activity.
posted by spaltavian at 7:11 PM on January 10 [27 favorites]

was arguing that rape is not about sexual desire but about domination.

I'm going to submit that they're all linked in a funny sort of triangle. If domination was not linked to sexual desire, then I don't think BDSM practices would be as prevalent as they presently seem.
posted by solarion at 8:03 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

This is the prison-rape version of "rape is about power not sex" mantra that is repeated to the point of becoming close to the only acceptable thing one can say about the causes of rape.

Before we slide into what my personal beliefs are about the motivations for rape in general, I was simply questioning the idea that letting prisoners masturbate is going to prevent prison rapes that occur as a means to punish, control and demean others. Your thoughts on the meaning of rape aside.

For the record, I fully support letting prisoners masturbate. I just don't see it somehow stopping the type of rape-as-dominance that occurs in prisons.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 8:30 PM on January 10

In 1883, exasperated officials at a Pennsylvania penitentiary posted placards in every cell warning “addicted” wankers that their habit caused “speedy death” and begging them to “Stop, at once Stop!” Doctors at New York’s Elmira Reformatory took a more hands-on approach: They chloroformed masturbators and implanted metal rings through their foreskins.

Yet another service I have to pay for but the state hands out for free.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:46 PM on January 10

Look, as I said, rape's not ALL about horniness. And horniness is the problem of the beholder, not the beheld - the argument that short skirts don't cause rape doesn't preclude sexual desire as a motivation for rape. It just notes that no one is responsible for the sexual desires of his or her rapist.
posted by gingerest at 9:08 PM on January 10

And horniness is the problem of the beholder, not the beheld - the argument that short skirts don't cause rape doesn't preclude sexual desire as a motivation for rape. It just notes that no one is responsible for the sexual desires of his or her rapist.

And I agree. My response was to the spaltavian there. I have no idea why this person launched into a screed on the subject of the "rape is about power mantra" - making a lot of assumptions about what I think of rape in general and what "dogma" I subscribe to - using my observation of "not sure if letting them jerk off is going to stop prison rape" as a launch pad. I think if we're going to have a healthy discussion on this, it'd be really great if we wouldn't kick things off with lengthy presumptions about each others' schools of thought. I'm not trying to score points for any particular dogma or side, and I think it's possible to talk about this subject without reducing each other to caricatures.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 9:22 PM on January 10

To be fair, I don't think spaltavian was accusing you personally of this, Marisa Stole the Precious Thing, but rather took your comments as a jump off point and they may have a point.
posted by MartinWisse at 11:59 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]

They hire female guards because they can't find enough men with an education and no record. And you think the story is about masturbation?
posted by falcon at 12:44 AM on January 11

Absolutely, falcon. It's depressing that after 30+ comments, yours was the only one to mention this core aspect of the article. There is no evidence in it that prisoners are being prevented from or punished for discreet masturbation, but that the increasing numbers of female guards is increasing the risk of sanction when a prisoner is discovered.

I see no evidence in the article for this being linked to to puritanism, dehumanisation etc. These doubtless exist, but that does not mean they are the driving factors in every situation.
posted by Busy Old Fool at 3:30 AM on January 11

If a cell is a public place then the mere act of taking a dump is criminal.
posted by JJ86 at 5:56 AM on January 11

So now you know why constipation is a common problem in jail.

Something doesn't have to stop prison rape in order to be a good move. Reducing it helps too! But, you know, we can't allow those convicts to think of themselves as human beings, can we? They might expect to get out and get a job or something!

But it is just impossibly naive to argue that making masturbation a big deal isn't causing behavioural problems amongst prison populations where this happens. Naive, or maybe it's about hormones? Does one have to have lived life steeped in testosterone to understand? Males in need get aggressive! Duh.
posted by Goofyy at 7:45 AM on January 11

And I agree. My response was to the spaltavian there. I have no idea why this person launched into a screed on the subject of the "rape is about power mantra" - making a lot of assumptions about what I think

I made no assumptions. This is what I specifically said you did:

In this instance, with have someone pretty much rejecting out of hand a study that indicates that access to healthy sexual outlets may reduce rape because the study breaks the "rule"

Which, in my view, you clear did. I did use this as a jumping off point to talk about a larger issue. I don't know how "dogmatic" your thinking on this subject is, but I do feel your original post was a kneejerk reaction of something that does not confrom to an acceptable narrative on an understandably sensitive issue.
posted by spaltavian at 10:21 AM on January 11

Perhaps people argue that rape isn't motivated by sexual urges because it makes us feel better to pretend that our sex drives have nothing in common with the sex drives of rapists. It's a way of othering or dehumanising rapists. It's related to how people are disturbed by the notion that pedophilia could be considered a sexual orientation.
posted by Human Flesh at 10:29 AM on January 11

Which, in my view, you clear did. I did use this as a jumping off point to talk about a larger issue. I don't know how "dogmatic" your thinking on this subject is, but I do feel your original post was a kneejerk reaction of something that does not confrom to an acceptable narrative on an understandably sensitive issue.

Not exactly sure how you arrived at this conclusion, considering that what I said was that I don't think allowing prisoners to masturbate - which, I reiterate, I fully support - is going to stop prison rapes committed to dominate or punish. That allowing masturbation would reduce rapes committed out of sheer, unbridled horniness wasn't even something I addressed. So yes, you did make an assumption about where I'm coming from in this, specifically saying that my opinion is "the prison-rape version of 'rape is about power not sex' mantra", and specifically saying I'm coming out this from a "dogmatic" point of view.

It's clearly something you feel strongly about and all, the motivations for rape; I just think you're barking up the wrong tree.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:27 PM on January 11

(I was responding to spaltavian, too, MStPT.)

Also, they hire female guards because it's illegal to discriminate in hiring on the basis of gender. They can't reach gender equity in hiring because men with education and no record can get better jobs than prison guard. From the NYT article linked in the Salon article:
Several factors explain the rising number of women entering the city’s Correction Department. One is the 1977 United States Supreme Court decision in Dothard v. Rawlinson, a watershed sex discrimination case that helped opened doors for women in law enforcement.

Another is the fact that in the mid-’80s, the agency’s third female commissioner, Jacqueline McMickens, began assigning female guards to all-male jails that were once off limits to them. More recently, academic experts suggest, labor shortages and an overhaul of the welfare system have driven more women into the field.
posted by gingerest at 2:02 PM on January 11

I guess the rights of guards to be over-sensitive to the reality that is sexuality trumps the prisoners right to be a sexual being and not be oogled by guards when they engage in personal hygiene.

It would be so much more sensible if we just accepted the simple fact that if a woman is offended by the sight of some dude engaged in a necessary act, then she has no business being a guard. It's her problem, not the guy's.
posted by Goofyy at 9:52 PM on January 11

@gingerest: They can't reach gender equity in hiring because men with education and no record can get better jobs than prison guard. (my emphasis)

That's an heroic use of "because". If some kind of post-highschool education is a requirement, the fact that fewer men than women attain that standard in each category from "some college" to "professional degree", in some cases by up to one quarter fewer [1] is highly relevant.

[1]: US Census Bureau "Educational Attainment of the Population 18 Years and Over, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 2010" link:XLS)
posted by falcon at 1:32 AM on January 12

If we weren't putting such a large percentage of our population in prison, maybe we wouldn't need so many guards that finding enough of them of an appropriate gender is such a problem.
posted by localroger at 5:43 AM on January 12

I didn't question that women have higher educational attainment than men. I said that for the same educational attainment, men can get better jobs than women. For every educational category, for full-time, yearlong workers, taking ethnicity, English speaking, and citizenship into account, men earn more than women. Income isn't the only consideration in what makes work good or bad, but it goes a long way.

Ref: Julian, Tiffany A. and Robert A. Kominski. 2011.“Education and Synthetic Work-Life Earnings Estimates.” American Community Survey Reports,ACS-14. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. pdf
posted by gingerest at 2:20 PM on January 12

And I didn't question that those fewer men who attain the same education as a woman are sometimes able to get better jobs. (Many jobs requiring low education attract compensation money for physical discomfort and occupational injury risk which some women prefer not to expose themselves to). But if that were the only explanation for gender equity parity failure, then there would be no job in which it would be possible to obtain gender equity, which is untrue. Therefore, your argument that it is the explanation in this case is invalid. I realise, from a gynocentric viewpoint, there is literally nothing that cannot be used as evidence of bias against women, but I think we have to draw the line with a statistic derived from the relative imbecility of men as they emerge from the education system.
posted by falcon at 1:30 PM on January 13