Tuesday, March 2, 2010

4. Gay Liberation?

In a fit of liberalism, the waiting room in Healthcare is now adorned with a box full of condoms - "help yourselves".

Interestingly, whilst forking out money to facilitate gay sex, the prison spends an absolute fortune in ruthlessly preventing straight men from doing more than holding hands with our partners.

I wonder if the ladies over at the prisonersfamiliesvoices blog have a view on this...?


  1. This would be about right wouldn't it. The amount of times I've been scowled at for touching my man's hand on a visit, and the Prison Service throw out johnny's in prison for people to engage in gay sex? Of course, they will have their human rights, but come on, where are the families human rights? I've been asked before now to stop holding hands with my guy. Makes me sick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. Same as #anon, a femail screw at HMP Wolds thinks a touch on the knee is "sexual contact". Probably if her sexual experiance is anything to go by it is, being an ugly old munter herself.

  3. To be fair I don't think that they are condoning it within the prison - I guess their attitude is similar to teenagers and sex-ed: I.e. they aren't so naieve as to think it doesn't go on, and know there's sod all they can do, so they might as well make sure it's done safely.

    I've always been uncomfortable with prisoners being denied 'access' to their spouses though

  4. The condoms are there just to stop the spread of STDs so I think it's a good thing. I expect that gay men are also forbidden to hold eachother at visiting times.

  5. I agree, I think it's just pragmatism. Not that I am defending it.

    In visiting situations etc. they can tightly control what's happening, it's very public so they can enforce their rules (for better or for worse) and so stop any form of romantic contact. Perhaps they do out of punishment.

    But they can't be there all the time in everybody's cells where there is more privacy (though probably not enough?) so they just can't control it there as much. No doubt if they could they would stop all contact there too, as part of the punishment or some form of warped morality reasons etc. but for practical reasons it's not really possible.

    So a bit of pragmatism regarding STIs.

    That doesn't excuse the draconian and ridiculous morality and system in the first place, but perhaps explains the apparent dichotomy you pointed out?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.