Dangerous positions: Male homosexuality in the new penal code of Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What does it matter who has what position in the same-sex sexual act? The difference can be life and death. This paper, drawing on sociology of punishment and the critiques of cultural determinism in explaining capital punishment, examines the new penal code of Iran (2013) with respect to same-sex sexual acts between men, analyzing it in terms of its literal and symbolic significance for homosexual men in Iran and its broader meaning and function within the current socio-political and economic situation of Iran. The new penal code makes distinction between male same-sex partners in terms of their respective position during intercourse. In a somewhat counter-intuitive manner, the penetrating man receives more leniency than the one who is penetrated. On the surface, we note greater leniency towards a whole class of gay men (the “tops”). But beneath the surface, some of the new provisions reveal potential anxieties around masculinity and the alteration in relationship between punishment and national identity in Iran as the country grapples with significant internal and geopolitical challenges. Our paper contributes to the literature on sociology of punishment that considers the interplay between global and national politics and the role of sexuality and gender in analyzing capital punishment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".