Exploring definitions of sex positivity through thematic analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite strong claims about the benefits of sex positivity, the term “sex positive” lacks a widely agreed upon conceptual definition. The goal of this study was to identify and explore consistencies and differences in various definitions of sex positivity. Fifty-two experts in the field of human sexuality answered qualitative open-ended questions about how they define sex positivity and sex negativity in an online survey. The results were analyzed using the Braun and Clarke (2006) method of Thematic Analysis. Seven meta-themes were identified: Personal Beliefs, Education, Health and Safety, Respect for the Individual, Positive Relationships with Others, Negative Aspects, and Other Noteworthy Facets. Each of these had a set of sub-themes embedded within them, the most common of which were autonomy, health and safety, acceptance, consent, and sex education. Using these data, we suggest that sex positivity can be understood as an ideology that promotes, with respect to gender and sexuality, being open-minded, non-judgmental and respectful of personal sexual autonomy, when there is consent. The utility of this conceptual definition and avenues of further research are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.116 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".