Are Queer Men Queering Consent? A Scoping Review of Sexual Consent Literature Among Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Queer Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To review the literature on Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Queer (GBTQ) men and sexual consent. Methods: Eight electronic databases were searched in June 2022, yielding 1924 articles; 30 were included for review after screening. Results: We found a growing body of literature focused on GBTQ men, with an increasingly intersectional lens. Most studies adopted a nuanced definition of sexual consent. Many discussed the unique sexual scripts developed by GBTQ men to communicate consent, especially in sex venues, and how unfamiliarity with these scripts creates vulnerability for newly "out" men. A common theme was the impact of heteromasculine norms on sexual encounters between GBTQ men. Conclusions: The reviewed literature problematizes binary definitions of consent and miscommunication theories of assault. It both celebrates and problematizes GBTQ sexual cultures. We encourage future research to adopt more explicitly anti-carceral approaches to studying sexual consent and violence.
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 | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".