You Can Look but You Cannot Touch: Male Behaviors Observed in Lingerie Stores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cultural theorists (e.g., Jantzen, Ostergaard, & Sucena Vieira, 2006) suggest that lingerie has shifted from being solely worn for the pleasure of men to being a way for women to claim their feminine identities. Due to these new feminine motivations, the role men play when they are with female companions who are shopping for lingerie is unclear. We argue the ambiguity of gender roles, as related to shopping for an item that represents both sexual attraction and feminine empowerment, may lead men to an approach-avoidance conflict. Observations were made of heterosexual couples shopping in either female clothing stores or lingerie stores. Male behaviors were compared for the two conditions, and significant differences were documented. Compared to clothing stores, men in lingerie stores were less likely to handle sexually provocative items but displayed visual interest, suggesting they desired to approach the merchandise (approach motivation) but refrained from engaging in physical contact (avoidance motivation). We argue that men’s behavior in lingerie stores represents classical approach-avoidance behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".