Sexual Ethics and Young Women’s Accounts of Heterosexual Casual Sex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on Foucault’s work on sexuality and ethics we explore young women’s accounts of heterosexual casual sex experiences in Canada and New Zealand. We focus on what Foucault calls ‘ rapport à soi ’ (the relationship one has with one’s self) to explore reports of implied ethical (and less than ethical) practices of casual sex. To do this we conducted a theoretical thematic analysis of the women’s accounts to identify accounts of ‘ care for the self ’, ‘ self-reflection’, and ‘ care for the other’. In our analysis we draw on previous feminist theorizing on heterosexuality to demonstrate how gendered heteronormative discourses are implicated in, and at times impede, an ‘ethics of casual sex’. We argue that women’s expressions of sexual ethics are particularly constrained considering gendered power relations as they relate to heternormative sexual practices. We suggest that the cultivation of ethical sexual subjectivities offer radical potential for the subversion of dominant heterosexual discourses.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".