Women’s genital body work: Health, hygiene and beauty practices in the production of idealized female genitalia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women’s genitalia are constructed as a bodily site requiring ongoing surveillance, maintenance and modification to conform to social norms. Women engage in a range of genital health, hygiene and beauty practices, including the use of commercial and homemade vaginal douches, washes, wipes, sprays and pubic hair removal, to modify their bodies. Using a social constructionist framework, we draw on interviews with 49 Canadian women to examine the construction of idealized (Western) genitalia as hairless, odourless and free of discharge, and “natural” female genitalia as problematic through the mobilization of normative femininity and (hetero)sexuality discourses. Theorizing women’s genital health, hygiene and beauty practices as a form of body work, we examine how women’s genital body work is constructed as a necessary and thus normative practice of femininity undertaken in the pursuit of idealized genitalia. A minority perspective that drew on alternative discourses to construct female genitalia as acceptable irrespective of genital body work is examined. Throughout our analysis, we examine the ways in which women negotiate issues of agency and choice in relation to their genital body work. Implications for women’s health in the context of the vaginal microbiome are explored.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".