Social scientists don’t say titwank’


Autoria(s): McKee, Alan
Data(s)

01/10/2009

Resumo

Drawing on the textual evidence of a number of referees’ reports, this article maps key differences between the humanities and social sciences approaches to the study of pornography, in order to facilitate better understanding and communication between the areas. 1. Social scientists avoid ‘vulgar’ language to describe sex. Humanities scholars need not do so. 2. Social scientists remain committed to the idea of ‘objectivity’ while humanities scholars reject the idea – although this may be a confusion in language, with the term in the social sciences used to mean something more like ‘falsifiability’. 3. Social science assumes that the primary effects of exposure to pornography must be negative. 4. More generally, social science resists paradigm changes, insisting that all new work agrees with research that has gone before. 5. Social science believes that casual sex and sadomasochism are negative; humanities research need not do so.

Formato

application/pdf

Identificador

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/28519/

Publicador

Sage Publications Ltd.

Relação

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/28519/1/c28519.pdf

DOI:10.1177/1363460709340372

McKee, Alan (2009) Social scientists don’t say titwank’. Sexualities: studies in culture and society, 12(5), pp. 629-646.

Direitos

Copyright 2009 SAGE Publications

Fonte

ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation; Creative Industries Faculty; Film & Television; Institute for Creative Industries and Innovation

Palavras-Chave #200205 Culture Gender Sexuality #research paradigms #pornography #sadomasochism #casual sex
Tipo

Journal Article