Gang of female rapists abuse male prisoners and they are not even being charged! Oh, okay. That seems fair.

25 Apr


According to the Baltimore division of the FBI, 13 corrections officers are among the 25 people indicted on charges of racketeering and conspiring to possess and distribute illegal drugs.  Apparently, some gang members had a nice little scam running inside the jail, aided and abetted by 13 female corrections officers. Four of those women became pregnant by the gang-leader and two of them had his name tattooed on some part of their body!

FBI release

Gosh, there’s so much to talk about here!  Why are women working with male prisoner populations?  Whose brilliant idea was that?  Is this kind of stuff common?  What was the motivation for the women to get involved with gang related activities inside the jail? How and when do you manage to have sex with a prisoner?  How do the logistics of that work?  And isn’t sex with a prisoner technically rape?  How can prisoners consent to sex?


Maryland is one of the leaders of the pack when it comes to defining sexual assault. In 2008, the state updated it’s statues to include a provision for “withdrawal of consent”, and naturally, it can only be used against men.  Withdrawal of consent is when a woman consents to sex, and then at some point during penetration, decides she has changed her mind.  If her partner does not immediately cease all activity and withdraw, he is guilty of rape.

Giving new meaning to the withdrawal method.

Wow.  Sex in Maryland sounds like so much fun, doesn’t it?  The courts are basically policing sex down to each and every thrust.  Guys, you need to stop after every stroke and check to see if consent is still in effect.  Well, I guess that’s one way to deal with lovers who rush the act.

Looking over the Maryland sexual assault laws, I came across this one:

2010 Maryland Code



Subtitle 3 – Sexual Crimes

Section 3-314 – Sexual conduct between correctional or Department of Juvenile Services employee and inmate or confined child.

(a)  Definitions.-

(1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated.

(2) (i) “Correctional employee” means a:

1. correctional officer, as defined in § 8-201 of the Correctional Services Article; or

2. managing official or deputy managing official of a correctional facility.

(ii) “Correctional employee” includes a sheriff, warden, or other official who is appointed or employed to supervise a correctional facility.

(3) (i) “Inmate” has the meaning stated in § 1-101 of this article.

(ii) “Inmate” includes an individual confined in a community adult rehabilitation center.

(b)  Prohibited – Correctional employee with inmate.-

(1) This subsection applies to:

(i) a correctional employee;

(ii) any other employee of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services or a correctional facility;

(iii) an employee of a contractor providing goods or services to the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services or a correctional facility; and

(iv) any other individual working in a correctional facility, whether on a paid or volunteer basis.

(2) A person described in paragraph (1) of this subsection may not engage in sexual contact, vaginal intercourse, or a sexual act with an inmate.

Hmm.  Well, that seems pretty clear.  No fucking prisoners.

What is the punishment for violating the rules?

Tyshinia Love Brewster (State police photo)

In New York state, corrections officers who have sex with inmates are charged with rape and professional misconduct.  This lady corrections officer was arrested and charged when she was six months pregnant by an inmate.  They would get busy while she was on shift, right in the cell block, apparently!  Talk about cell block tango!

Yeah, just for one second, let’s talk about the Cell Block Tango. If you’re not familiar with the musical Chicago, have a watch of the video below.  Here’s the chorus:

He had it coming

He had it coming

He only had himself to blame

If you’d have been there

If you’d have seen it

I betcha you would have done the same!


Six lady murderers, all defending their actions.  One guy snapped his gum in an irritating manner, so Liz killed him.  Another guy accused his lovely wife of having an affair with the milkman, so she stabbed him.  Six times.  And on and on and on it goes.

It’s a snappy little number.  It’s relevant to this discussion because it plays on the way we understand women and crime – even very serious crime like murder.  Can you imagine six men dancing and singing and about how those bitches they murdered had it coming and only had themselves to blame?  Would it seem charming and edgy all at the same time?

Not likely. They would come off as straight up psychopaths, and rightly so.  But women are …. special? Even when they are unrepentant, remorseless murderers. Or rapists.

The law in Maryland is clear.  The correctional officers who had sex with an inmate are rapists.  They are guilty of rape.  It does not matter, in a legal sense, whether that sex was consensual.  Inmates cannot give consent, full stop.

And it’s entirely possible that the sex was NOT consensual. The lady guards demanded sex, and the inmates complied because they had no realistic choice.  It happens. Especially in juvenile facilities, it happens.

It’s possible, but in this case, not particularly plausible.  Technically, the ladies are rapists. But more likely, they are simply women who responded in a rather predictable way to the powerful swagger of an Alpha thug. The old “bad boys” story.

bad boy

The appeal of the dominant male is what set in motion the entire shitstorm at the Maryland jail, and if we’re going to continue to mix female guards with highly dangerous, dominant male prisoners, we’ll see more of the same results.

“Chicks dig jerks”, as Heartiste writes.

Even so, even IF the sex was completely consensual, even IF the relationship between the guards and the gang members was predictable, even IF the guards and the gang members decide to get married and live happily ever after, the cold hard facts of the law state that the prisoners were raped.

So why aren’t these women being charged with rape?

It’s amusing in kind of a sickening way to watch the media try to give the ladies a pass.  Oh, gosh, they suffered from “low self-esteem”.  The prisoners “took advantage” of the poor dears.–prison-warders-8586749.html

Low self-esteem?  They’re having sex with prisoners!  No shit they don’t value themselves very highly.  The prisoners took advantage of the guards? Are you shitting me?!?  Who had the keys?  Who was locked in a cage?  Who had the upper hand?


Of course, when we try to talk about a couple of football players who fingered a drunk girl as suffering from self-esteem issues, the entire culture is an screaming uproar!  Whatever “issues” the boys have or had, it doesn’t matter!  Lock them up!  Throw away the keys!

This whole story is a perfect example of one of the most profound injustices boys and men face in Western society:  they are held to much harsher, much sterner standards of the law than women are, for no reason other than the fact that they are men.

Justice is supposed to be blind.  Rape is rape.  Murder is murder.  It shouldn’t matter whether a man or a woman committed the crime.


Female corrections officers raped male inmates, under the law.  They should be held accountable for those actions.  Just as men are.

In the words of HappyCrow:

Equal or Special

Pick one

Lots of love,


30 Responses to “Gang of female rapists abuse male prisoners and they are not even being charged! Oh, okay. That seems fair.”

  1. ar10308 April 25, 2013 at 15:26 #

    Funny how the theorists of Marxism state that racisim or sexism cannot go both ways because either of those requires that one have structural power over the other. In this case, the females clearly had power, but the media still treats them as victims.


  2. Goober April 25, 2013 at 16:19 #

    Life isn’t fair.

    Feminists and mras would all do well to consider that. My question is this:

    Where are all the feminists decrying the evil patriarchy now that it is working in favor of some of their own? Now that it is protecting women instead of “subjogating” them? (Yes those are scorn quotes)

    Which is it? Equal or special?


  3. freetofish April 25, 2013 at 17:02 #

    While I’m sure these women guards will get treated entirely differently than if a male guard had sex with a female inmate, this could have been a nice example of unintended consequences from Feminists continued effort to expand what is considered rape.

    If you went to Jezebel for instance and asked can a man be raped by a woman, without reservation they would say no. As this Maryland law shows though, yes, yes they can. If the act of having intercourse with a prisoner = rape as cited by the law, then these women are rapists plain and simple.

    The broader feminists try to expand the rape laws, the more woman should be charged with rape.


  4. happycrow April 25, 2013 at 17:32 #

    …go to Jezebel…ask a question…. dude. What kind of masochist ARE you?


  5. phil April 25, 2013 at 18:39 #

    I wonder if the lady guards will sue the guy for child support if her were to get out of prison.


  6. phil April 25, 2013 at 18:41 #



  7. Xayadvara April 25, 2013 at 18:48 #

    A kind of hypocritical paradox more like – In this case, society would say its more like a male fantasy so its ok – there sure are rape fantasies for women, but if the roles in this case were switched, society would never say its ok.

    Hmmmm, Humans are so interesting………..


  8. Vladimir April 25, 2013 at 19:53 #

    ”This whole story is a perfect example of one of the most profound injustices boys and men face in Western society: they are held to much harsher, much sterner standards of the law than women are, for no reason other than the fact that they are men.”

    I don’t think this is specific to Western society. I can’t think of any civilisation that ever existed where women were held to the same standards of all aspects of the law. The difference is that in the current North America, Europe, Australia and pretty much every part of the world (with some exceptions) men don’t have the privileges they have enjoyed in compensation for they’re responsibilities.


  9. LostSailor April 25, 2013 at 21:10 #

    Withdrawal of consent is when a woman consents to sex, and then at some point during penetration, decides she has changed her mind. If her partner does not immediately cease all activity and withdraw, he is guilty of rape.

    And they do mean “immediately” boys. One of the cases that prompted this was a Maryland appellate court case State of Maryland v. Maouloud Baby where an 18-year-old college student agreed to drive around with two boys, one of them, Baby, 15 at the time. She agrees to go to a secluded parking lot, and to get in the back seat with the two boys. After some initial fooling around, the other boy has sex with her while Baby exits the car. After the other boy finishes and gets out, Baby gets back in, and asks to have sex with her (at trial it came out that he asked her several times “are you going to let me? I don’t want to rape you”). She tells him yes, but as long as he stops if she asks him to. He puts on a condom. Their stories differ here: He says he never achieved successful penetration, she says he did but it hurt. They both agree that she asked him to stop and that he did stop. Here’s the kicker, though: he says he stopped right away but she testified he took “maybe” 5 seconds to stop.
    He was convicted of several counts of rape. Yeah, there are some sketchy parts to the whole story, and the appellate thing was about jury instructions about whether a woman can withdraw consent after the act has already started, but it has lead to what some call the “Five-Second Rule” which really isn’t a rule so much as something apparently left for the jury to decide.

    So, just be warned when having sex in Maryland (and several other states) guys; be prepared for coitus interruptus instans

    As for the prison guard ladies, why would you ever thing they’d be convicted of anything. Quite obviously they’re victims of low-self-esteem: they’re prison guards….


  10. judgybitch April 25, 2013 at 21:17 #

    Five seconds!!

    Good lord.

    Well, I guess that works out for the premature ejaculators?



  11. Marlo Rocci April 25, 2013 at 22:01 #

    Didn’t we already know that feminists were picking “special”? Equal flew out the door ten years ago and now they’re looking for privilege.


  12. Mik April 25, 2013 at 22:12 #

    I pity American men, i really do. 5 seconds and he gets several counts or rape?!?! So its basically “rape”, if the victim says it is.


  13. Z April 26, 2013 at 00:02 #

    Well, yeah! Cause of… patriarchy! Can’t you see how they are victims here!! These poor women around these criminal men. My, it’s appalling! 😛


  14. Z April 26, 2013 at 00:04 #

    Plenty of women would FANTASIZE about being a prisoner “raped” by a male guard. And I put that in quote marks because a fantasy is very far off the mark of what real, actual rape is. But just because she’d rub one out to those thoughts doesn’t mean it’s actually enjoyable if it happens in real life. There are some fantasies that are meant to remain fantasies. Rape fantasy is pretty clearly one of them IMO.


  15. Z April 26, 2013 at 00:09 #

    This kind of thing is offensive to every person, male or female, who has ACTUALLY been raped. “change your mind and it takes 5 seconds for him to stop” rape is just not rape IMO. And the feminists can screech and call me a “rape apologist” for that. I don’t care. I’m so sick of this nonsense.

    I thought the 5 second rule was about eating something that fell on the ground.


  16. Z April 26, 2013 at 00:10 #

    Men in America should make women sign papers before having sex with them. Pussy is getting too dangerous.


  17. Nergal April 26, 2013 at 01:58 #

    I’m considering doing just that. It’s a tough decision to make,though, because I’m pretty sure I’d never get laid again if I actually tried to legally protect myself from all the stuff feminists can use to put me in jail.

    I can see it now: “Oh baby, I want you so bad too. I just need you to sign here…and here… and here…. and initial….here… and then PRINT your full name and date of birth….here.. now put today’s date here…Ok, let’s GET IT ON… HEY!? Where’d you go?”

    “So why aren’t these women being charged with rape?”

    This is an FBI matter? It might have something to do with the fact that the FBI defines it as rape ONLY if a woman penetrates a man’s anus with her vagina. So if the female wrestler Chyna wants to stick her clit-dick up your poopchute, you’re covered. If you’re a five year old to sixteen year old boy and an adult woman sits on you and forces your penis into her vagina, not so much.


  18. Xayadvara April 26, 2013 at 05:58 #

    I second you there Z. My words were intended to question the hypocrisy of society itself, nothing more. And women get a high from the desirability of herself in that situation – she is actually pumped up by the fact that the “rapist” is completely utterly focused on her or desires her – the actual act or the persona is of lower value for her.

    That’s why it doesn’t gel in real life, the actual fantasy is one-dimensional while reality is not.


  19. Z April 26, 2013 at 06:05 #

    Yep, exactly. Plus women have “rape fantasies” about men they find extremely physically attractive who in real life they would probably sleep with consensually. It’s not like Joe Manganiello would have to throw many helpless women down and rape them… and yet… guys like that are the “rape fantasy guy”. And few women would be able to contain their lust around men like that long enough for him to throw her down anyway. LOL.


  20. Z April 26, 2013 at 06:08 #

    Now you know why a lot of men are looking for women in other countries that haven’t been ruined by this nonsense. There are small pockets of women that are trustworthy and not hysterical or insane, but they seem to be gathered largely in religious groups, which carries its own baggage. I think JB has written posts before about the qualities to look for in a woman… i.e. a woman who is NOT likely to pull that kind of crap on you.


  21. gwallan April 26, 2013 at 06:28 #

    The diabolical episode of the 30-second rapist

    In 1985 the Western Australian parliament dramatically amended the law relating to rape, first by changing the term rape to sexual assault and then greatly widening the definition of what could be classed as sexual assault. Many acts not previously constituting rape were included in the new Act and the criteria for sexual assault was any type of penetration where consent was not present and ongoing. It did not matter that force or threats were not used. The penalty for any type of sexual assault was increased to fifteen years imprisonment.

    Where any type of force was used, the charge was aggravated sexual assault, carrying a penalty of twenty years imprisonment.

    The draconian Act soon snared its first victim. Perth resident Kevin Ibbs was having consensual sex with Christine Watson on the night of 29 November 1986. Watson, a close friend of Ibbs’s wife, Katrina Carter, was living in the same house with Ibbs and Carter. The sex act was taking place with the full knowledge of Carter who was in the house at the time.

    As Ibbs was nearing ejaculation, Watson suddenly withdrew her consent to sex (so she later claimed) and tried to push Ibbs away. He continued for a short time. Too late, he was trapped. He was charged with sexual assault and found guilty under the new law. The judge found that Ibbs had continued sexual intercourse for about thirty seconds without consent (for which he was later dubbed the 30-second rapist). The judge sentenced him to four years imprisonment. [Details of the case]

    Some years later Watson admitted to police that the whole incident was a set-up orchestrated by Carter to have Ibbs charged with sexual assault to get him out of the house they were sharing.

    Christine Elizabeth Watson a.k.a. Christine Elizabeth Wardle and Katrina Ann Carter were subsequently convicted of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. They served seven months in jail.

    Mr Ibbs was acquitted in 2001 but the damage was done. He says that his health has been affected, his career as a tradesman has been ruined and the whole affair has cost him over one million dollars.


  22. gwallan April 26, 2013 at 06:34 #

    Hmmm. The link I stuffed up…

    Brief interview transcript…


  23. Nergal April 26, 2013 at 08:23 #

    I know what qualities to look for, but most of them can only be found in women who self-identify as lesbians,sadly.

    I’ve had short and almost entirely sexual relationships with some of these, but they don’t work out,as you can imagine.

    And before I get the “ewww” response,let me just say that none of the quote-unquote lesbians I’ve had sex with physically resembled the lesbians you’re thinking of. They were normal-looking women, not Cathy Bates impersonators,and my sexual relationships with them were just like my relationships with other women except there were a lot more threesomes and they weren’t threatened when I wanted to go drink beer or play Xbox with my male friends.


  24. Sherlock April 26, 2013 at 11:12 #

    Are you sure they would say no? Have they said so?


  25. Sherlock April 26, 2013 at 11:15 #

    I`d love to see you write a post about that case and any other five second cases if you come across them.


  26. Fred Flange, S.J. April 26, 2013 at 14:11 #

    Baby’s convictions were vacated, but you’re right that the five-second rule stands as a principle “juries can consider” in such cases. According to one article I saw, there have been no other cases like it since – maybe no one wants to go there to test the principle and send a guy down for it. At least yet.


  27. MaMu1977 April 27, 2013 at 20:22 #

    Or, depending on your state/province of residence, you can either audio or video record the proceedings. I remember dealing with a few cases of such in the military. In one case, the “victim’s” claim fell apart after the video file revealed that she’d not only held the recording device in question, she’d also gave a porn-worthy commentary (literally, as her words were enough to hring a blush to the faces of veteran soldiers and Airmen.)


  28. Z April 29, 2013 at 02:48 #

    This is yet another reason I don’t worry overly much about what happens if I end up widowed (since my husband is about 12 years older than me. Odds of that are kind of decent. Sadly. It was one of the reasons I was initially hesitant to marry him because I didn’t want to lose him.)

    I could take care of myself financially, but I enjoy companionship. I need somebody (a man somebody) to look after and take care of.

    Oh, no, I’ve known many pretty lesbians. I had a good friend who is a lesbian and she’s cute as a bug.



  1. Feminister förringar kvinnliga brott | Yasers hörna - April 26, 2013

    […] [Gang of female rapists abuse male prisoners and they are not even being charged! Oh, okay. That see… […]


  2. Lightning Round – 20130/05/01 | Free Northerner - May 1, 2013

    […] Women shouldn’t guard men’s prisons. Related: Female prison guards rape inmates. Where’s the punishment? […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: