MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329298678 · doi:10.7227/cst.2.1.8

Dirty Lesbian Pictures: Art and Pornography in <i>The L Word</i>

2007· article· en· W2329298678 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rebecca Beirne

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Studies in Television The International Journal of Television Studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesbianPornographyArtWord (group theory)SociologyPsychologyLinguisticsPsychoanalysisPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Showtime's television drama The L Word (2004-) has an oft-times precarious relationship with obscenity.This is not unlike other lesbian cultural productions, which have had a history of being viewed as obscenity by the mainstream: from the The Well of Loneliness obscenity trial in 1928 2 to criminal charges being laid on a Toronto bookstore for distributing lesbian pornographic magazine Bad Attitude in 1992. 3Likewise, within lesbian cultures, debates have raged over what constitutes obscenity and what constitutes acceptable sexuality and sexual representation, mostnotably during what has come to be known as the sex wars, which took place during the 1980s and 1990s. 4During this period, 'sex-radical' lesbians who not only argued for but also created a wealth of pornographic texts challenged lesbian feminist prohibitions against pornography.This era had a substantial effect on not only lesbian cultures, but also lesbian cultural representation, and the investments in sex and style, together with the reclamation of lesbian femininity, have arguably contributed to the mainstream's contemporary interest in lesbianism and willingness to display lesbian images in mass-cultural forums such as television.As the contemporary lesbian text most visible to the mainstream, how does The L Word position itself in terms of these histories?With some feminists decrying it as soft porn, deliberately titillating a straight male audience, 5 and right-wingers viewing it as perversion, 6 The L Word takes quite a different attitude towards pornography than that which might be expected.Instead of a sex-radical-inspired celebratory attitude that would seem ideologically necessary to underlie the kinds of images the BEIRNE: 2 series projects, The L Word instead seeks to posit a very clear demarcation between that which it deems to be pornography and a rather amorphous definition of 'art': a demarcation curiously reminiscent of pre-sex-wars distinctions between pornography and erotica.It also harks back to these earlier modalities in its concrete signification of pornography within a continuum of violence against women.It does this within the contemporary context of a concurrent increase in right-wing backlashes against sex in general, and homosexuality in particular, and a contemporary increase in the amount of homosexual sexuality depicted on television -or at the very least on cable.It is notable that The L Word indeed appears on cable television in its home market of the US, as cable broadcasters are generally able to represent sexualit(ies) deemed unsuitable or indeed 'pornographic' by network standards.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Studies in Television The International Journal of Television StudiesSame topicCinema and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207