Sodomitical Butterflies: Male Homosexual Desire in Colonial Latin America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the vast research done by contemporary historians concerning the history of sexuality, relatively little is known about gender and sexual identities in what is now Latin America. Much of what is known has been altered by the experiences and backgrounds of historians in this field, leading to interpretations which are either dismayingly negative or wholly positive. Some publications focus more on inference than fact, or ignore much of the context for why homosexuality and non-binary gender identity were treated as they were by Spanish colonists and conquistadors. This paper aims to construct a more complete analysis of sodomy throughout the history of colonial Latin America by comparing existing discourses regarding sodomy in colonial Latin America, as well as a few select colonial documents and court cases. An evaluation of this documentation reveals that the nature of sodomy in Spanish America is too complicated to describe in a binary manner. Authority did not always condemn homosexuality outright, and though most criollos were not for same-sex relations, some had more neutral feelings towards homosexual desires. This anaylsis adds to the growing body of research regarding American sexuality before and after European ideology altered continental perspectives. In using publications with varying perspectives, the role of male homosexuality, the perception of sodomy, the culture of honour in regards to sodomy, and the consequences of same-sex desire in Spain's American colonies can be better understood.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".