Social scientists don't say 'titwank'

McKee, A

Social scientists don't say 'titwank'

McKee, A

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Sexualities, 2009, 12 (5), pp. 629 - 646
Issue Date:: 2009-10-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted ManuscriptAdobe PDF (425.86 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	McKee, A https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0577-2061	en_US
dc.date.issued	2009-10-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Sexualities, 2009, 12 (5), pp. 629 - 646	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1363-4607	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/28812
dc.description.abstract	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. © 2009 SAGE Publications.	en_US
dc.relation	http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DP0209258
dc.relation.ispartof	Sexualities	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1177/1363460709340372	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Gender Studies	en_US
dc.title	Social scientists don't say 'titwank'	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	5	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	12	en_US
utslib.for	200205 Culture, Gender, Sexuality	en_US
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services	en_US
utslib.for	1699 Other Studies in Human Society	en_US
utslib.for	2002 Cultural Studies	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences/FASS Faculty Administration
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.issue	5	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	12	en_US

Abstract:

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. © 2009 SAGE Publications.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/28812