The Harms of Gay Male Pornography: A Sex Equality Perspective Post Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The case of Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium, argued before the Supreme Court of Canada in 2000, provided the Court with its first opportunity to consider whether the analysis set out by it in R v Butler - a 1992 case in which the Court identified the harm of pornography as the harm of sex inequality - applies to pornography that presents same-sex sexual acts or that is intended for a gay or lesbian audience. The Court held that it does. Examining the specific materials defended in Little Sisters as harm-free, Kendall offers support for the Court's finding, arguing that gay male pornographic materials reinforce those social attitudes that create systemic inequality on the basis of sex and sexual orientation - misogyny and homophobia alike - by sexually conditioning gay men to those attitudes and practices. The end result is harm to individuals who are rendered inferior, vulnerable and unequal on the basis of gender. Kendall uses the Little Sisters case as a way of encouraging a much broader community debate about gay male identity and those legal strategies aimed at promoting it.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".