Sexting panic: Rethinking criminalization, privacy, and consent
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an age of heightened concern over rape culture and sexualization in the media, Amy Adele Hasinoff's (2015) Sexting Panic is one of the most insightful, concise, and necessary works to emerge in recent feminist media studies. In the short, yet comprehensive text, Hasinoff critiques the central contradiction that informs most contemporary policies intended to discourage and/or punish underage sexting: the notion that a teenager can be too young to legally consent to being sexually photographed, but at the same time can be held criminally accountable for creating child pornography of herself. Such policies, like many juridical policies, disproportionately punish the sexuality of queer, trans, racialized, and poor young women (p. 3) whose sexuality is often more closely policed and framed as being transgressive than their male counterparts whose behavior is framed as biologically given. At the same time, the use of child pornography laws as well as discourses about the heightened “sexualization” in the media combine to negate any sense of sexual desire and agency in teenage girls. Hasinoff shows that a key distinction needs to be made between consensual sexual acts—taking into account the ages and age differences of all parties involved—and the sexually violent decision to share images intended for private consumption.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it