A visita íntima de adolescente no sistema socioeducativo: um direito a ser exercido

Abstract

This study aims to know how male adolescents deprived of freedom perceive the possibility of the conjugal visit in the DEGASE-RJ (General Department of Social Educational Actions in Rio de Janeiro - Brazil). The law 12.594 – SINASE – from 2012, establishes, for married adolescents, the privilege of a conjugal visit. This law is founded on the guarantee of family and couple bonds maintenance. The hypothesis is that this right will promote a discussion about adolescents’ sexuality and body. However, the assurances of the Children and Adolescent Statute (ECA), constructed on the full protection principle, are not totally exercised. This open the topic to discussions and practices based on the irregular situation of the Youngsters Code. The methodology used was the intervention research claimed by René Lourau, established on the institutional analysis theories. The device concept, by Deleuze, was chosen to think the intimate visit more than just a right, but as an instrument to cause debates about youngsters’ sexuality, which has little relevance in the social-education institution. The data collected from the interviews was interpreted considering the analysis of implication, because it is the assumption of the non-neutrality. From May to June, 2015, 08 adolescents were identified as able to conjugal visit. First, they were listened in two group of four. Then the interviews were made individually using a semi-structured questionnaire. The field diary helped on the discussion about the effects of some institutionalized praxis reflected on the imprisoned juveniles’ subjective. As results, it is possible to highlight the DEGASE standard characteristic and it difficulty in manage the differences. From the adolescent’s point of view, the intimate visit might be face naturally, although, they were worried about some possible violation of their pairs during the process. Even though there is difficulty in accept the homoaffective relationship, the institution is open to dialogue. Despite the fact that it has some limitations and, for security, the homosexual adolescents are placed in, so called, “safe” places. The discussion about gender face the heteronormative logic, potentialized by the common sense that prison is “place for males”