Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY In 2000, in the case of Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium, the Canadian Supreme Court was asked to determine whether gay male pornography violated the sex equality protections guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Throughout this case, gay male activists and academics emphasised the risk posed by antipornography legal strategies to the dissemination of materials intended to promote safer sexual behaviour. Other arguments were advanced that gay male pornography should not be restricted because it serves as a learning tool for young men and, in so doing, does much to reduce the alarming incidence of gay youth suicide. The author examines these assumptions within the context of the gay male pornography defended in Little Sisters. His conclusion is that the present gay male obsession with hyper-masculinity, best evidenced in the pornography now widely touted by some gay men as a source of gay male identity and freedom, undermines safer sexual practices and the self-respect needed to combat youth suicide. The author concludes that gay men must commit to a sexuality built on mutuality, respect and caring (i.e., an identity politic built around sex equality).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".