Stigmatized in stilettos: an ethnographic study of stigma in exotic dancers’ lives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
My dissertation is an ethnographic exploration of exotic dancers’ relationships with romantic partners and relatives, and the ways in which the social stigma stemming from mixing commodified erotics impacted these relationships. My research focuses on women who provide adult entertainment in bars that cater predominantly to straight men in a mid-sized prairie city, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Using feminist anthropological participant observation methods, I completed one year of fieldwork working as a driver for exotic dancers and two years of fieldwork working as an exotic dancer in Winnipeg. Through a reflexive analysis of women’s stories about their relationships with family, romantic partners, and money, I argue that the stigma of erotic labour is rooted in social beliefs about the impurity of mixing commerce with intimate acts in specific ways that do not conform to heteronormative ideology and traditional norms of womanhood. Grounded in my ethnographic data, I show how these cultural mores are constantly upheld, reproduced, and disseminated through the mainstream media, laws, and political ideology, in obvious and not so obvious ways. Furthermore, I propose the theory that “stripping money” is earmarked in specific ways that money earned from other forms of labour is not, and argue that this is the basis of stigmatization in dancers’ lives and relationships. Ultimately, the result of such a social positioning of women’s work is the structural and symbolic violence of stigma that could manifest as direct physical, psychological, verbal, or economic violence in exotic dancer’s interpersonal relationships. Thus, I conclude that the de-stigmatization of exotic dance is imperative for the promotion of women’s rights, health, and well-being and that identifying stigma as violence in exotic dancers’ lives opens up possibilities for positive interventions in attaining this goal.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".