California Law

[Occhidiangela]

So, what, are you going to claim there is no consentual homosexual sex or sexual activity in prisons? I don't think this has anything to do with rape in prisons. I think this has to do with people who can and will take an interest in their partner's well-being. Rapists generally don't fit that mould.

Though I didn't think this should be neccessary, for the record, I'm against rape. I simply don't think rape and sexual activity in prisons are inherently linked or equal. So when I condone passing out condoms in prisons, I'm not making any judgement call whatsoever about rape.

I think that many things are made illegal that shouldn't be, or needn't be, or are simply not properly understood when laws are made. I also think that the punishment for many crimes are far disproportionate to their crimes. But that's neither here nor here in this discussion.

I think that consentual homosexual sex can and does happen in prisons, and that condom use in such situations can help prevent the spread of diseases. That's all. Rape and other forms of sexual assault are a completely different matter. And as I've said several times, I don't see how they are applicable in this case anyways, since a criminal busy raping someone isn't likely to care if he/she uses a condom. But a concerned sexual partner should and should have the option.

gekko

I find the permission to engage in consensual, homosexual or heterosexual, sex in prison to be inconsistent with the concept of punishment. Given the segregation by gender that is encoded by law, providing condoms means condoning sex in prison, and infers chronically unfair treatment of heterosexual prisoners: no sex for them, unless they submit to being ass raped.

Your argument is that you would discriminate in favor of homosexual prisoners? Nice. Why not ask institutional discrimination, condoned by the state, in more ways, eh? Drop all pretense, and advocate separate but equal, back of the bus, and Jim Crow laws while you are at it.

Occhi