MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2267378069

Book Review: Gay Male Pornography: An Issue of Sex Discrimination, by Christopher N. Kendall

2005· article· en· W2267378069 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William D. Araiza

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPornographyHarmGender studiesSexual orientationArgument (complex analysis)SociologyCriminologyPsychologySocial psychologyPsychoanalysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Gay Male Pornography: An Issue of Sex Discrimination, Christopher Kendall, Dean of Law at Murdoch University in Perth, Western Australia, argues forcefully that much gay male pornography disserves the cause of gay liberation and women's equality by idealizing gender roles that subordinate both women and gay men. Dean Kendall's description of certain types of gay pornography raises troubling questions about its ultimate worth as a vehicle for gay self-expression and identity-formation. Moreover, stories of the performers' lives, as recounted by Kendall, reveal the potential for personal destruction implicit in the commercialization of sex. Kendall marshals these arguments in support of an equality-based rationale for suppressing the types of gay pornography that cause these harms. Still, Gay Male Pornography overstates the argument. Much of the gender-reversal present in gay pornography, in which men play both dominant and submissive roles, destabilizes the connection between biology and gender roles, and thus subtly undermines those roles themselves. This destabilization helps both women and gay men. More generally, gay erotica can play an important role both for adult gay men and for younger gay men coming to acknowledge their sexual orientation. Thus, suppression of such material may cause its own harms, especially given that a market economy may not produce a significant amount of gay erotica of the type Kendall believes to be non-harm producing. Even more fundamentally, equality-based rationales for suppressing gay pornography will inevitably lead to over-suppression. The vagueness of the criteria Kendall uses to distinguish between suppressible pornography and harmless (indeed, useful) gay erotica creates a situation in which homophobic judges and law enforcement officers can suppress much speech that even Kendall might agree is beneficial. Indeed, that vagueness would likely cause over and under-inclusive regulation even by well-meaning government officials. His own critique of particular applications of Canada's equality-based pornography suppression law unwittingly reveals the indeterminacy of the criteria he would use to distinguish between protected and non-protected material. Despite these failings, Gay Male Pornography is a useful addition to the literature. It raises difficult questions about the gay community's embrace and defense of troubling material. Kendall does a service by making the strongest possible argument for government regulation, even if, in the review's opinion, that argument ultimately fails.

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)0.008
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.021

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicLaw in Society and Culture→French-language works237,207→