Sexual abuse in women's prison is rampant...also water is wet

[Vera]

I also aim to reduce puerile nature of routine acts of hygiene and security that absolutely will occur when heterosexual men process woman in an even by the book interaction.  Any man can be tempted over time in that setting.

You are only telling on yourself here. Luckily, most men are nothing like the apparently violent moral vacuum you continue to expose yourself as.

Oh, and just because you saw people use a fancy word - puerile - I suggest you look it up before throwing it around willy-nilly, with nary a thought about its actual meaning. "Puerile nature of routine acts of hygiene and security".

Unless, of course, to a moral vacuum such as yourself, sexual aggression and the violation of another human being are just juvenile peccadillos

[Vorpal]

Autocorrect error. The word is prurient.

Witnessing and controlling intimate aspects of hygiene and preforming search functions involving various states of undress can tap into a prurient interest in sex.

As a gay man who uses the gym, I confess that I have to work against an impulse to take a peek at guys in the shower. Crucify me.

[Vorpal]

Improving leadership and training are worthy goals.  Teaching judgment is an ephemeral task.  Many people have skills but do not have the will to consistently use them.  A system of accountability would be great but the type of personality that might find security a pleasing career includes authoritarian sensibilities and an antisocial style.  Being "ratted" on 
will not be tolerated well.

Hence its quality the goal of any competent organization that makes use of force is to basically weed out those who are there "for the power trip". Sure, jobs that involve the use of force or the display of its trapping (AKA carrying a weapon and wearing a uniform) and amongst those people there is certainly a minority that has little scrupulosity and they might not appreciate being ratted out indeed and see it as a betrayal. That a good thing. With a good leadership, those people will either reform or quit the job for another one and thus sexual violence will diminish.

PS: I don't see how a job that involves working with people and operating constantly in teams within a well structured hierarchy would appeal to antisocial people though. Antisocial people usually prefer to be working alone and with little contact with others like in your stereotypical white collars office jobs in cubes.

I don't want to ban men outright. I want to reduce nonpublic actions between male guards and female prisoners.

Guards all have to interact with prisoners. That's the job of guards. If you have a guard that is never or almost never called to interact with a prisoner, that guard is basically useless and most likely doesn't exist, especially considering budgets for prisons being rather thin since it's not very politically popular to "invest" in prisoners and the growing number of private or semi-private prisons. Though, this last one is less of an issue since the study in the OP talks about federal prisons. 

Male guards can monitor mess halls and recreation areas but not showers and sleeping quarters. What's so hard about that?

I also aim to reduce prurient interest-inducing nature of routine acts of hygiene and security that absolutely will occur when heterosexual men process woman in an even by the book interaction.  Any man can be tempted over time in that setting.

As can anybody who has an adversarial relationship with someone, a sense of superiority and authority over them irrespective of gender or sexual orientation. Prisons are not like civilian society. Most rapists attack people of the gender they are attracted to in civilian society, but rapes are even more common in mono or almost mono gender environments like prisons (male or female) or the army despite the fact the overwhelming majority of people in such environment are not homosexual or bisexual. [quote]

This is simply because targets of choice are not available and lesser targets suffice.  Why aren't prisons coed? For similar reasons cross gender guards should be minimized.

Also, just because the problem is not completely rectified by my solution does not mean it should be discarded. Sexual assault, manipulation by guard, by inmate, routine intrusions of privacy would all be reduced significantly.

Youth is actually a big factor in both cases. Rapes are not acts or lust, desire or sexual frustration as much as acts of power and contempt. 

 

There is almost always a large component of sexual desire or otherwise physical assault and nonsexual forms of humiliation would suffice. Power and control is mixed in as well. But let's not make up a fake dichotomy.

Without improving leadership and without granting more rights to prisoners, you will not reach your desired outcome by removing heterosexual men from prison jobs.

Stopping heterosexual access alone with no other change would cut down the sexual incursions I described upwards of 80%. The changes you described would probably improve it another 8%.

I will bring the rest to the stereotype thread so we can go beyond inmate issues.

[epronovost]

Male guards can monitor mess halls and recreation areas but not showers and sleeping quarters. What's so hard about that?

That's not how correctional officer work either. Hell that's not even how mall cops work. That would require far more workforce and most of these static position guards would be useless depending on the time of the day. What's so hard about understanding that simple fact? Correctional officers are not living security cameras nor are they employed as such. 

This is simply because targets of choice are not available and lesser targets suffice.  Why aren't prisons coed? For similar reasons cross gender guards should be minimized.

Many prisons are coed btw. In fact, some of the prisons in the study in the OP are coed. The cell are usually seperated by gender, but there are common areas where both population mingle. It's more common in low and medium security facilities and most prisoners are held in such prisons since most criminals are not violent criminals like rapists and murderers.   

Also, just because the problem is not completely rectified by my solution does not mean it should be discarded. Sexual assault, manipulation by guard, by inmate, routine intrusions of privacy would all be reduced significantly.

There is almost always a large component of sexual desire or otherwise physical assault and nonsexual forms of humiliation would suffice.

Why would the humiliation not be sexual in nature? Fuck, we have hazing cases in sports team that ended up into rapes with broom handles and those people didn't even hate and despised the recruits. You would be surprised at how quickly "simple" cruelty devolves into sexual cruelty and abuse. If you want to cause maximum pain and humiliation with minimal effort, sexual abuse is the way to go.  People don't abuse "by necessity", fulfill a need or to achieve a specific goal. Saying that X would suffice is thus not even wrong. This logic doesn't apply. Those abuse are purely sadistic and enforce a hierarchy.

Stopping heterosexual access alone with no other change would cut down the sexual incursions I described upwards of 80%. The changes you described would probably improve it another 8%.

Citation please?

I'll take the example of cops in your country vs mine. In the US police officer kill five times more people than those in my country and about 8 times more than your average German cop. The big difference isn't crime level since they are rather similar in all these country, certainly not different by factors of 5 or 8. Cases of police brutality are also far less common. The vastly different training and stricter oversight was pointed as the main difference between these numbers. Thus, I would be reasonable to say that changes in training and oversight can have a massive influence as this was observed in a very similar job with very comparable challenges. It's true though that there are slightly more female cops in Canada and Germany than in the US comparatively, but the difference isn't major.

[Vera]

You would be surprised at how quickly "simple" cruelty devolves into sexual cruelty and abuse.

I was going to say that this here deserves its own thread and a (serious, not earflicking and gay nephews birtyhday bash) discussion...

... but your next words probably don't leave much more to be explained...

If you want to cause maximum pain and humiliation with minimal effort, sexual abuse is the way to go.

...except for, maybe, WHY is it that our means of procreation and, luckily for us (as it isn't for so many animals) a pleasant one, is so closely connected with pain and humiliation.

[epronovost]

You would be surprised at how quickly "simple" cruelty devolves into sexual cruelty and abuse.

I was going to say that this here deserves its own thread and a (serious, not earflicking and gay nephews birtyhday bash) discussion...

... but your next words probably don't leave much more to be explained...

If you want to cause maximum pain and humiliation with minimal effort, sexual abuse is the way to go.

...except for, maybe, WHY is it that our means of procreation and, luckily for us (as it isn't for so many animals) a pleasant one, is so closely connected with pain and humiliation.

I would personally say that these two are so intimately connected because our sexuality is deeply intimate and personal. It's, excuse my lack of vocabulary to properly express it, very special. Thus having it robbed from us, turned against us is all the more painful and it's "easy" to do compared to let's say pulling out teeth with a wrench.

[OMM]

Autocorrect error. The word is prurient.

Witnessing and controlling intimate aspects of hygiene and preforming search functions involving various states of undress can tap into a prurient interest in sex.

As a gay man who uses the gym, I confess that I have to work against an impulse to take a peek at guys in the shower. Crucify me.

Okay.....

[Vorpal]

Male guards can monitor mess halls and recreation areas but not showers and sleeping quarters. What's so hard about that?

That's not how correctional officer work either. Hell that's not even how mall cops work. That would require far more workforce and most of these static position guards would be useless depending on the time of the day. What's so hard about understanding that simple fact? Correctional officers are not living security cameras nor are they employed as such. 

They can work the way I describe regardless of what you think the current state of affairs is.  Male guards can monitor personal interface areas remotely while female guards interact with prisoners directly in those areas. You and current wardens apparently do not want to stop sexual assault and manipulation in women's prisons badly enough.

This is simply because targets of choice are not available and lesser targets suffice.  Why aren't prisons coed? For similar reasons cross gender guards should be minimized.

Many prisons are coed btw. In fact, some of the prisons in the study in the OP are coed. The cell are usually seperated by gender, but there are common areas where both population mingle. It's more common in low and medium security facilities and most prisoners are held in such prisons since most criminals are not violent criminals like rapists and murderers.   

The cells, living areas, and showers are always separated by gender.  And so should guard assignments be. Seeing a male in those areas would be an automatic red flag rather than a routine occurrence.

[Vorpal]

Epronovost,

You need to compare numbers involving physical abuse and those involving sexual abuse. When the object of sexual desire is not present, sexual abuse is much lower. Some sexual abuse between same gender nonhomosexual counterparts does not flip the equation. For example consider the fact that Most prisoners DO NOT engage in homosexual behavior in prison. There is a higher rate of homosexual behavior than in the general public, sure. It is what it is and nothing more. Stereotyping only works when a trend is accurate more often than not. And, when the effect on those who buck the trend is slight in comparison to the overall good.

[epronovost]

Male guards can monitor personal interface areas remotely while female guards interact with prisoners directly in those areas.

How are they useful? They are literally watching remotely people who are being watched actively? How is this useful? If something happens, they are not useful. Plus, it's like those prison guards could not abuse prisoners either. Fuck wardens and administration personnel, who are supposed to have very little to almost no contact with the prison population, have been found to commit acts of sexual abuse because their colleagues let them get away with it and even aided them in the act due to poor discipline and oversight as mentioned by the report quoted in the OP. 

You can't use a "you stay there" sort of measure to succeed in limiting sexual abuse if there is no oversight and measures taken in place to make those rules apply and sanction those who break them and that's the problem. Those rules largely exist already anyway. The problem is that they are broken regularly hence why the recommendation of the panel was to find a way to increase oversight and discipline since only through this means can rule actually be applied and toxic individuals be removed promptly before they contaminate the entire institution.

The cells, living areas, and showers are always separated by gender.  And so should guard assignments be. Seeing a male in those areas would be an automatic red flag rather than a routine occurrence.

It's true for cells and showers, but not living areas. There is usually only one kitchen, library and cafeteria and the court is sometime coed though not always. You also have to consider prison workplaces like shops which are also often coed or even "out of prison" work which is, by necessity coed. In coed prisons, male guards are indeed not supposed to be in women's cell block or showers (obviously), but that doesn't prevent sexual assault. Since as mentioned by the article linked above, these systemic abuses occurs with the participation and cooperation of all the guards. 

That John the prison guard isn't supposed to be in the women's shower is pointless if his colleague Jane doesn't give a shit if he is, doesn't check for it, doesn't denounce him if he does, if John doesn't get sanctioned when he is or if Jane will even give him a hand in abusing their wards by turning a blind eye to it or even actively entrapping female prisoners for John's sadistic pleasure.

[epronovost]

When the object of sexual desire is not present, sexual abuse is much lower.

Citation please.

Sexual abuse is more common in the army than in civil society despite being an almost exclusively male environment. While women in the military face sexual crimes at a higher rate, most victims of sexual abuse in the army, by wide margin, are men who were abused by other men. Sexual abuse is also more common in all male prison than in civil society despite the complete absence of women. I don't think that the absence of the object of traditional sexual desire diminishes sexual abuse and these examples seems to support my assertion. Sexual abuse can be an act of power and sadism over someone as much as a sexual act without someone else's consent. Do you have any credible support for your assertion? The fact that sexual abuses are most common within institutions with a strict hierarchy and where the use of force is legitimized would also show that sexual abuse is an act of power more than an act of uncontrolled and forceful sexual desire.

[SYZ]

From Australia...

Sex in Australian Prisons: The Facts.  (excerpted)

We all know what goes on in prison. Or do we? A study examining sexual behaviour and
sexual culture in jails in NSW and Queensland suggests that popular beliefs about prison
sex are largely myths.

Contrary to portrayals of jails as sexually rampant places, a survey by the University of
New South Wales found only 7% of male prisoners had had sex with another prisoner,
while for female prisoners the number was higher at around one-third. And when sex did
happen it was overwhelmingly consensual.

"Sexual coercion seems to be a disappearing phenomenon in prisons," said co-author of the
study, Professor Basil Donovan, who is head of the Sexual Health Program at UNSW's Kirby
Institute.

"Only 2.5% of male prisoners and 3.9% of female prisoners reported that they had been
forced or frightened into unwanted sexual activity.  For almost half of those who reported
coercion, this had only occurred once and for some the event dated back decades.

"With 60% of women and 13% of the men reporting sexual coercion - including rape - prior
to their imprisonment, our evidence suggests that these people are at less risk of sexual
coercion and rape inside prison than outside," Professor Donovan said.

"The reasons for sexual coercion fading out of prisons probably reflects a much improved
prison culture, more sympathetic management applying the principle of duty-of care, fewer
prisoners per cell, and video surveillance," he said.

[Vorpal]

Check out 12 reasons why rape is not sexually motivated: a skeptical examination by Craig t Palmer PhD Arizona State University

The most popular current explanation of rape holds that rapists are seeking power, control, violence, and or domination instead of sex. After reviewing the history of this explanation, this paper examines the evidence that has been used to demonstrate that rapists are not sexually motivated. 12 specific arguments are examined in light of existing data on rape. All 12 of the arguments are found to be either illogically unsound, based on inaccurate definitions, untestable, or inconsistent with the actual behavior of rapist.

[Vorpal]

[epronovost]

Check out 12 reasons why rape is not sexually motivated: a skeptical examination by Craig t Palmer PhD Arizona State University

The most popular current explanation of rape holds that rapists are seeking power, control, violence, and or domination instead of sex. After reviewing the history of this explanation, this paper examines the evidence that has been used to demonstrate that rapists are not sexually motivated. 12 specific arguments are examined in light of existing data on rape. All 12 of the arguments are found to be either illogically unsound, based on inaccurate definitions, untestable, or inconsistent with the actual behavior of rapist.

I know this paper and it doesn't present any argument in defense of your position. In fact, while it's indeed a fair and well reasoned critique of the idea that rapes are acts of domination and sadistic pleasure more than acts of sexual desire and pleasure, it does suffer from similar problems than the ones it criticize namely being vague about definitions (especially those like sex/violence/domination), using exclusionist language (it's either one or the other, it cannot be one and another or some form of ranking) and being untestable. To illustrate the difficulties of this language game, I'd like you to read this quote:

In 1994, Richard Felson and James Tedeschi coauthored the controversial book Aggression and Coercive Actions: A Social-Interactionist Perspective, which argues that rapists are motivated by sexual entitlement, rather than the aggressive desire to dominate the victim.[32] Felson believes that rape is an aggressive form of sexual coercion and the goals of rape are sexual entitlement and gaining a sense of power.

In other words, Richard Felson believes that rape is not motivated by the desire for aggressive domination of a victim; it's simply an aggressive form of coercion whose goal is gaining a sense of power. See how those two things are totally different and not exactly the same thing! Note that Palmer does this a lot in his paper too probably because rapes, being coercive acts, are by necessity acts of aggression and acts of sadistic pleasure, be it sexual or not, are acts of domination and power by necessity. Palmer makes very similar statements in his critique all the while rightfully criticizing others for basically doing it too. Language can be a bitch sometime.

Do note that both Palmer and Felson's works is a bit dated. More recent psychological studies on known rapists have shown that one of their main characteristic is precisely the fact that they, unlike non-rapists, don't separate sexuality and aggression reliably. Rapists tend to be authoritarian. They are also much more misogynists than the average of the population and espouse a huge swath of classic "rape myth" like women like to be raped or they deserved it. To them, dominating people might very well be erotic in and on itself. Some have even suggested that rapists are closer to sexual deviant like necrophiliacs than non-rapists though there is little proof of this outside of a few select violent serial rapists and murderers. In other words, the sexual desire vs domination and power debate might be completely beside the point. If for someone domination is sexually arousing, then what motivates them domination or sexual pleasure? If a man consider that a women owes him sex and he takes it without her consent, is he following is sexual desires to completion or is he claiming his rights? At that point the question is not even wrong. We can't even say both are correct because they are not two separate things in the first place.

I would also like to point that Palmer does admit that rape, like any crime, requires the victim to be vulnerable first and foremost for the crime to occur. Yes, Palmer does point out quite well than when questioned about it, rapists do wish to target people they find attractive, but they actually rape whoever they can. Rapists may have all sorts of rape fantasies and desires, but their behavior shows that they rape people of all sorts, usually targeting people they have easy access to, are vulnerable and who trust them, but that they consider inferior to them and, in many cases, entitled to obedience to their desires. People they can use and who, in their mind, should probably serve them in the first place.

It also doesn't address the sad reality than you have more chance of being sexually assaulted in a US prison than in civil society and the same holds true for the army. Are rapes in mono-gender environment committed by largely heterosexual people explainable using research and analysis based on male perpetrator of sexual violence against women in civil society? I don't think so. They are in a very different context and of a different nature. What those two institutions share in common an authoritarian culture, a strict hierarchy creating a slew of vulnerable people, a high level of patriarchal attitudes and very little oversight and accountability when it comes down sexual violence and misconduct.

[Vorpal]

The idea that rape is an act of control rather than an act motivated by sexual desire has been from the start very odd and unnecessarily dichotomous. Rape almost always has at its center the desire for sexual gratification. Often there is a component of wanting to control and to dominate. Sometimes the two are merged in sadistic pleasure where the sexual gratification is fed by the power difference and humiliation.

The control and domination is a part of the very definition of rape but not necessarily the motivation for the rape. It is a means to the end and not an end in and of itself in a large number of occurrences. In date rape situations, the rapist would most often wish for acquiescence rather than resistance. So, domination is not the point.

Most rape victims are females in their teens or twenties. It is NOT evenly distributed by age. How do we interpret this? Sexual attractiveness is a key to choosing a victim. Vulnerability is another smaller key. Sometimes an easier mark is chosen due to the wish to "succeed" and get away with it. Here, sexual attractiveness is balanced against other matters.

A minority of rapes occur with humiliation at the center and with little wish for sexual gratification. Same gender rapes with objects rather than sexual organs fall in line with this category.

I am not sure why the notion that rape is not about sex trope developed but it's counterproductive. Horny guys wanting sex need to know they can cross the line even though power and control is not part of their original plans.

[Vorpal]

I am not buying the contention that rape occurs in the military within the same gender more than in the general public. I might be convinced that prison rape among inmates is more rampant. SYZ has given us info to the contrary on even that at least in Australia.

It has been noted that sexual assault does increase during military action. This is primarily heterosexually oriented.

We are talking about prison guards primarily male who rape female inmates. Let me just give in to your contention that leadership is key. But let me add good leadership will reduce personal and private interfaces between male guards and female prisoners by design. As I have said the situation is a set up. Criminals are going to be more open to transactional immorality and men are going initiate such transactions or be tempted by it. Noncompliance with the illicit contract will lead to distorted thinking and taking what was promised. Actual boundaries and reduced opportunities will be more effective than training. Though redundant supervision and accountability of guards is also needed. Guards need to know they are vulnerable to the situation and not above moral decay. Pretending that only psychopaths and OTHER weaker mates take advantage of inmates is of no help. Guards need to guard against there own potential behavior.

[Vorpal]

I am not defending Felson. I like palmer and thornhill who focus on biological bases of coercion. I have not read their entire book yet. They are not perfect in their analysis but more grounded in data than the feminist approach.

[epronovost]

We are talking about prison guards primarily male who rape female inmates.  Let me just give in to your contention that leadership is key. But let me add good leadership will reduce personal and private interfaces between male guards and female prisoners by design.

That would indeed be true. As a general rule, male prison guards are not supposed to be in "private settings" with female prisoners like showers, body searches and in within cell blocks unless there is an emergency like a fight, a medical emergency, a riot or a fire within those areas. In fact, a prison guard should probably never be alone with a prisoner in any circumstance if only for security reasons.

As I have said the situation is a set up. Criminals are going to be more open to transactional immorality and men are going initiate such transactions or be tempted by it.  Noncompliance with the illicit contract will lead to distorted thinking and taking what was promised.  Actual boundaries and reduced opportunities will be more effective than training.  Though redundant supervision and accountability of guards is also needed.  Guards need to know they are vulnerable to the situation and not above moral decay. Pretending that only psychopaths and OTHER weaker mates take advantage of inmates is of no help. Guards need to guard against there own potential behavior.

I do not agree that actual boundaries and reduced opportunities have greater effect than training and greater oversight since those boundaries and reduced opportunities can only be enacted if there is oversight and greater and better discipline to actually enforce them. Lack of proper opportunity for sexual violence is the product of a well managed prison not a way to achieve a well managed prison. As SYZ pointed out, US prisons face issues that other countries don't due to difference in training and supervision of correctional officers, but also, and I do think this is key, a far smaller carceral population which makes its management far easier.

I would also like to note that you fell yourself for the language trap in the two bolded statement above. You described men and criminals as being higher on the psychopathic scale and more easily morally corrupted all the while denouncing the fact that portraying rapists as more easily morally corrupted and more psychopathic than the general population. It's understandable since rapists, are, due to their actions, more cruel and morally corrupt than non-rapists. 

I do not believe though that men are inherently more prone to violence, especially sexual violence. I believe the higher rates of violence and sexual violence amongst men is largely due psycho-social conditioning, greater opportunity and lower accountability for violent actions and behaviors.

[Vorpal]

That would indeed be true. As a general rule, male prison guards are not supposed to be in "private settings" with female prisoners like showers, body searches and in within cell blocks unless there is an emergency like a fight, a medical emergency, a riot or a fire within those areas. In fact, a prison guard should probably never be alone with a prisoner in any circumstance if only for security reasons.

What I have suggested is not too far from this boundary. I would include no male guards routinely  interacting on the cell block, period. Female guards can do that.  Male guards monitoring the female guards interactions remotely would serve your goal of never having unwitnessed interactions.  

As I have said the situation is a set up. Criminals are going to be more open to transactional immorality and men are going initiate such transactions or be tempted by it.  Noncompliance with the illicit contract will lead to distorted thinking and taking what was promised.  Actual boundaries and reduced opportunities will be more effective than training.  Though redundant supervision and accountability of guards is also needed.  Guards need to know they are vulnerable to the situation and not above moral decay. Pretending that only psychopaths and OTHER weaker mates take advantage of inmates is of no help. Guards need to guard against there own potential behavior.

I do not agree that actual boundaries and reduced opportunities have greater effect than training and greater oversight since those boundaries and reduced opportunities can only be enacted if there is oversight and greater and better discipline to actually enforce them. Lack of proper opportunity for sexual violence is the product of a well managed prison not a way to achieve a well managed prison. As SYZ pointed out, US prisons face issues that other countries don't due to difference in training and supervision of correctional officers, but also, and I do think this is key, a far smaller carceral population which makes its management far easier.

Your insistence on adding "well managed" to proposed conditions is rather like some one constantly adding there will need to be oxygen in the prison.  No one proposes ideas that will just magically be implemented.  Criticism on the basis impracticality is a different though related matter. Reducing male interface is actually easily achievable. In the past prisons have been run this way. Between management of public areas, remote viewing, guarding the perimeter, and being on call for back up, there are plenty of tasks for male guards.  A lower number of male employees at female prisons is entirely acceptable and understandable in a female prison.  Gender quotas would be nonsensical.

I would also like to note that you fell yourself for the language trap in the two bolded statement above. You described men and criminals as being higher on the psychopathic scale and more easily morally corrupted all the while denouncing the fact that portraying rapists as more easily morally corrupted and more psychopathic than the general population. It's understandable since rapists, are, due to their actions, more cruel and morally corrupt than non-rapists. 

I do not believe though that men are inherently more prone to violence, especially sexual violence. I believe the higher rates of violence and sexual violence amongst men is largely due psycho-social conditioning, greater opportunity and lower accountability for violent actions and behaviors.

This is where we differ.  I acknowledge the reality of trends, you purposefully ignore them. Feminism did good things empowering women.  It is an ideology and not a sound approach to science.  It makes smart people say foolish things like rape is not about sexual desire and males are not more physically aggressive than females.  There is a biological basis to clear gender differences. Testosterone levels makes a big difference.  Implicating socialization alone is foolhardy. Nurture can hedge or enhance what nature creates. To keep ignoring the impact of nature  is willful ignorance.

[epronovost]

In the past prisons have been run this way.

Prisons used to be run exclusively by men. In fact, for most of prisons' history there didn't used to be a "women prison". They were locked up with men. Not that at that time we really cared about the wellbeing of criminals in any way shape or form either to be honest. You would have to wait for the late 19th century to see the first one being created and they were run and guarded by men though there also was female personnel too. That's without counting the so called "correction houses" for pregnant teens and young prostitutes ran by religious organizations that became infamous for the poor treatment of their charges. I don't think there ever was a time where female prisoners lived in prison guarded and administered almost exclusively by women; at least not in the US. Hell, until WWII female correctional officers were incredibly rare, most often they were volunteers working for religious organizations and while female prisoners were also very rare, there probably would not have been enough of them to create a mono-gender environment for them. 

You are right on this point, if we wanted to create mono-gender prisons, now is probably the easiest time to do it. I just don't think it's necessary as other means can be used to create a safe environment for female prisoners and these methods have the benefits of not being legally fraught and logistically complex.
 

Gender quotas would be nonsensical.

Who proposed gender quotas? I saw no mention of it anywhere.

It makes smart people say foolish things like rape is not about sexual desire

How do you deal with the fact that this has been demonstrated to be inaccurate about 20 years ago (they wrote in the mid 90's and by the mid 2000's pretty much nobody was taking their theory seriously due to its many weaknesses)? You do realize that Palmer, Thornhill and Felson's theories were basically rejected in the early 2000's precisely because they were untestable, had weak data supports derived from small prison surveys of the late 70's and early 80's of convicted rapists, a common problem for everyone at that time, and had the same weaknesses they were seeing in other theories like semantic issues and extremely small data samples. They were largely critically panned and entire books have been written debunking their most outlandish claims. As I mentioned before, while they all made some good points, their theories were never widely accepted and since then the entire debate they attempted to spark and resolve has moved sideways as it often does in science if only because not all rapes are comparable.

[Vorpal]

In the past prisons have been run this way.

Prisons used to be run exclusively by men. In fact, for most of prisons' history there didn't used to be a "women prison". They were locked up with men. Not that at that time we really cared about the wellbeing of criminals in any way shape or form either to be honest. You would have to wait for the late 19th century to see the first one being created and they were run and guarded by men though there also was female personnel too. That's without counting the so called "correction houses" for pregnant teens and young prostitutes ran by religious organizations that became infamous for the poor treatment of their charges. I don't think there ever was a time where female prisoners lived in prison guarded and administered almost exclusively by women; at least not in the US. Hell, until WWII female correctional officers were incredibly rare, most often they were volunteers working for religious organizations and while female prisoners were also very rare, there probably would not have been enough of them to create a mono-gender environment for them. 

Indiana established the first separate women's prison in 1874 and by 1940 almost half of the United States had separate prison facilities for women in the separate facilities, all the guards were female. After the 1972 Congress amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prisons again began hiring prison guards of the opposite sex as inmates.

You are right on this point, if we wanted to create mono-gender prisons, now is probably the easiest time to do it. I just don't think it's necessary as other means can be used to create a safe environment for female prisoners and these methods have the benefits of not being legally fraught and logistically complex.

The increased implementation of cross gender supervision policies has also led to an increase in sexual assaults. Pursuent to the prison rape elimination Act of 2003, the bureau of Justice statistics compiled data on prison rape for 2004;  they  imply a high percentage of cross-gender sexual abuse incidents. In local jail throughout the United states, 75% of victims of custodial sexual misconduct women, whereas 65% of the perpetrators were male guards. 
 

Gender quotas would be nonsensical.

Who proposed gender quotas? I saw no mention of it anywhere.

That's just my extreme way of saying employment discrimination based on gender is of less importance that eliminating rape.

It makes smart people say foolish things like rape is not about sexual desire

How do you deal with the fact that this has been demonstrated to be inaccurate about 20 years ago (they wrote in the mid 90's and by the mid 2000's pretty much nobody was taking their theory seriously due to its many weaknesses)? You do realize that Palmer, Thornhill and Felson's theories were basically rejected in the early 2000's precisely because they were untestable, had weak data supports derived from small prison surveys of the late 70's and early 80's of convicted rapists, a common problem for everyone at that time, and had the same weaknesses they were seeing in other theories like semantic issues and extremely small data samples. They were largely critically panned and entire books have been written debunking their most outlandish claims. As I mentioned before, while they all made some good points, their theories were never widely accepted and since then the entire debate they attempted to spark and resolve has moved sideways as it often does in science if only because not all rapes are comparable.

I deal with the fact by not agreeing with the criticisms. Much of the criticism by feminists is bogus, foolish dumb, and moronic. There are mixed reviews from other researchers. Things going sideways simply means that people wised up to the notion that the blanket statement that sexual desire has nothing to do with rape is not well-formed. No one ever claimed that power and control wasn't part of the issue. The other side is not committing an analogous error.

It is true that rape is motivated by various reasons. In my view Palmer has not been discredited. I would be happy to go over every point he made to see you refute them if you like.

[epronovost]

It is true that rape is motivated by various reasons. In my view Palmer has not been discredited. I would be happy to go over every point he made to see you refute them if you like.

Go on ahead.

[Vorpal]

Feminists and social scientists claimed that the definition of sexual desire included caring and tenderness, so rape is not sexual. Their definition contradicts common and rational definitions. Palmer points out that the definition is unduly limiting. One night stands, hook ups and friends with benefits all involve sex, do they not? And this is despite no pair bonding motive. Plenty of people prefer rigorous sex over tenderness. It's still sex.

Palmer also points out that the word sexual is routinely used to refer to the motivation of non-human animals involved in reproductive acts. Why it would be changed to contort things in regard to rape is anybody's guess.

[Vorpal]

It was also claimed that sex was not a motive because most rapist already had a sex partner. Male sexual desires are not exhausted by singular outlet. Variety of interest is the norm. We even have an understanding of polyamory nowadays.