Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women faking orgasm has been identified as a common and widespread practice, particularly in the context of heterosexual sex. While feigning pleasure has been the subject of extensive scholarly inquiry, almost no research attention has been applied to women’s experiences of resisting this normative practice. We adopted a discourse analytic approach to explore the question: If faking orgasm is often compulsory, how do women resist this practice and what does it mean when they do? Participants were 15 undergraduate students who ranged in age from 19 to 28. We identified the mobilization of several discursive patterns in their accounts. First, participants mobilized a “future pleasures” discourse to highlight the importance of resisting faking orgasm in order to increase their chances of experiencing genuine pleasure. Second, they positioned sexual satisfaction as an “equal right” to which they were entitled. In some instances, this was discussed in terms of reciprocity, in which pleasure is given and received. In others, it was positioned as a feminist issue of gender and power. Third, participants highlighted the importance of deflecting blame for absent orgasm in order to avoid hurting one’s partner. Fourth, participants described the role of pain as either a factor that prevented them from faking pleasure or that motivated them to fake orgasm in order to end painful sex. We conclude that an equal rights discourse, framed as a feminist issue, holds the most promise as a means of discursive resistance. At the same time, we highlight the significant risks for women of both faking orgasm and not faking orgasm and the delicate discursive work required when an expected orgasm is not experienced. We suggest that efforts to support women’s sexual health and equality are enhanced by better understanding the emancipatory potential of various discursive constructions as well as their limitations and risks. The merits and challenges of each pattern of accounting are discussed in the context of broader scholarship in the area of discursive resistance.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it