{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030927835051546393, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0027491408934707906, 'mean_word_length': 5.588235294117647, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Provocation and `Homosexual' Advance: Masculinized Subjects as Threat, Masculinized Subjects Under Threat

By applying queer and critical gender theories to the notion of the masculinized subject, this article theorizes the complexities of the `homosexual' threat within the Canadian legal domain of the provocation defence. The article remarks that most `homosexual' advance defences at the appellate level are rejected while only some are successfully believed. It argues that the extent to which appellate decisions have recognized this defence is predicated upon a logic of (hetero)normativity in which the threat of the `homosexual' advance is not homosexuality per se, but rather, symbolic feminization. This notion of symbolic feminization is theorized and tested through its application to appellate cases. The `homosexual' advance defence is most often rejected because it has the potential to destabilize the fiction of a (hetero)normative masculine subject as impenetrable. Nevertheless, in some appellate cases, the threat of symbolic feminization was ruled to be imminent and its deadly defence worthy of the court's consideration. In a unique case, R. v Valley (1986), the court located `homosexual' threat by recasting the violence of emasculation through the figure of the `S-M homosexual'. Fleshed out as predatory, sexually aggressive and hyper-masculinized, the `homosexual' could now pose an imaginable threat to normative masculinity.