The Role of Pornography in the “Rough Sex” Defence in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing upon the authors’ earlier research studying the consent defence when it is used to suggest that the complainant agreed to “rough sex” involving violence, this paper develops an extended analysis of the complex role of pornography in these decisions. This paper focuses on a subset of “rough sex” cases, where pornography played a role in “scripting” the accused’s behaviour. Thematically, these cases included: those where the accused had a substantial history of consumption of violent pornography; cases in which the accused forced the complainant to view pornography as part of the assault; cases where the accused recorded the attack, engaging in the making of pornography themselves; and finally those cases where the airing of the “rough sex” defence in the courtroom, including cross-examination based on the re-playing of the recordings made by the accused, creates a “theatre of pornography.” The authors underline concerns about the growing role of pornography in sexual violence against women, and propose both legal and nonlegal strategies in response. S’appuyant sur les recherches antérieures des auteurs qui étudient la défense de consentement lorsqu’elle est utilisée pour suggérer que la plaignante a accepté des « rapports sexuels brutaux » impliquant de la violence, cet article développe une analyse approfondie du rôle complexe de la pornographie dans ces décisions. L’article se concentre sur un sous-ensemble d’affaires de « sexe brutal », où la pornographie a joué un rôle dans la « scénarisation » du comportement de l’accusé. Sur le plan thématique, ces affaires comprennent : les cas où l’accusé a un lourd passé de consommation de pornographie violente; les cas où l’accusé a forcé la plaignante à regarder de la pornographie dans le cadre de l’agression; les cas où l’accusé a enregistré l’agression, se livrant lui-même à la production de pornographie; et enfin les cas où la présentation de la défense de « sexe brutal » dans la salle d’audience, y compris le contre-interrogatoire basé sur la relecture des enregistrements effectués par l’accusé, crée un « théâtre de la pornographie ». Les auteurs soulignent les préoccupations concernant le rôle croissant de la pornographie dans la violence sexuelle à l’égard des femmes et proposent des stratégies juridiques et non juridiques pour y répondre.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".