MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035644679 · doi:10.1353/mod.2007.0074

Written in the Flesh: A History of Desire (review)

2007· article· en· W2035644679 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Todd Shepard

Bibliographic record

VenueModernism/modernity · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFleshHuman sexualityPleasurePresumptionArt historySociologyLiteratureArtHistoryClassicsPsychologyLawGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Written in the Flesh: A History of Desire Todd Shepard Written in the Flesh: A History of Desire. Edward Shorter . Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press, 2005. Pp. xi + 321. $39.95 (cloth); $24.95 (paper). This generally well-written book's guiding presumption is that "we are driven willy-nilly by our bodies in the historic search for pleasure" (17). To help his readers understand what this means, Edward Shorter claims to provide a history of desire in the West, which begins with the "free-and-easy sexuality of classical antiquity," presented over the course of four pages in Chapter One. The subsequent three sections gloss, firstly, "night falls over Christian Europe" (ancients until the Victorians); secondly, the "initial breakout" around the fin de siècle; then, thirdly, the 1960s to the present, when significant numbers of people in the West (and wannabes the world over) finally became free to pursue "total body sex" (3). Shorter, I should note, has mastered the dubious art of inventing his own personal jargon: as with his insistent (although not consistent) references to the study of "hedonics," "total body sex" means just what it appears to mean. Why he thinks it's a useful historical category, on the other hand, requires a bit of explaining. Shorter believes that biology drives human desire, as it drives all social developments: "Human sexuality is in the control of biology, and Master Desire is flogging the beast forward" (168). Since [End Page 596] biology constantly pushes all humans toward the fulfillment of desire, yet the historical record suggests that most did not live a life dedicated to "total body sex," what was it that stopped them? This gets to the heart of what Shorter imagines as the historian's task: "to understand change in history, we must understand how external limitations on this drive are abolished" (6). He claims that "the victory of total body sex [was won] over the repressiveness of Christian Europe, want, disease, and stench" (238). Shorter romps through what he seems desperate to call the Dark Ages ("the long Christian centuries between the fall of the Roman Empire and the great changes of the 1800s" [65]) in three chapters: "Sex, a Baseline," "A Baseline for Gays and Lesbians," and "Hindrances." Shorter knows that there are three groups of human beings—straight, gay, and lesbian—which he treats distinctly in each section. Each group follows the same progression toward total body sex, although lesbians keep falling behind. Into the 1800s, to take one example, this means that most straights were limited to the "missionary position," while gays had nary an option except for anal sex and lesbians had rubbing pelvises together (tribadism). How does Shorter know this? Rather than waste time on explaining his choice of sources, method, or epistemology, the author prefers to ruminate on questions of the genre: "is there a historic continuity in lesbian culture that values such symbols as the colour purple or special rings?" (75); or "Where does SM-fetish come from? Does it represent some biological drive? Or are SM and fetish part of the new empowerment that women, for example, have received under feminism . . . ? This," he helpfully clarifies, "is the same kind of biology versus social-construction dilemma that has bothered us at other points" (204). Let's clear up that uncertainty: like everyone else, Shorter recognizes that "it is nature not nurture that drives desire." In his telling, "in gay studies it is now almost universally assumed that sexual orientation is inborn." Don't trust those people? Shorter reminds us that "one can train rats to administer repeatedly to themselves small electrical doses that excite the brain. So there clearly is some kind of biological, brain-based component in desire that presumably is part of the basic wiring of our nervous systems" (4). Having gotten the "some kind of" and "presumably" pussyfooting out of the way, Shorter can now move forward to say whatever he feels like. Those who don't agree are caught up in what Shorter, drawing from the work of the legal scholar Nadine Weidman, terms "biodenial" (17). Those who don't agree, however, might actually follow up the Weidman...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.129 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModernism/modernitySame topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207