The good, the bad, and the unwanted: women’s talk of desire and (dis)pleasure In heterosex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical and feminist sexuality scholarship contends that many key sexuality concepts are taken-for-granted definitions that have accrued common sense status but are missing an exploration of what these concepts mean to women. For example, sex is treated as synonymous with penile-vaginal intercourse, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ sex have implicit meanings in media representations, and consent is often seen as the dividing line between sex and sexual violence. This thesis explores and challenges these dominant constructions of female sexuality through one-on-one in-depth interviews with twenty-four women. Key findings explore how participants resist and recapitulate dominant accounts of what ‘counts’ as sex, what makes for good and bad sex, and how consent and desire are negotiated in sexual relationships. Given the considerable disparity between mainstream media representations of female sexuality and women’s embodied sexual experiences, this research aims to explore women’s discursive constructions of their sexual experiences as they elect to define them.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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".