Sexual harassment of massage therapists by their clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historical associations between massage therapy and sex work result in the presence of harmful stereotypes that reinforce the sexualization of massage therapy. In addition, the private setting and partial or full nudity involved in massage therapy could be perceived as sexually inviting. However, almost nothing is known about sexual harassment of massage therapists by clients. The current exploratory study investigated massage therapists’ reports of sexual harassment by clients. One hundred forty-three massage therapists completed a survey addressing the context and consequences of harassment experiences. The survey revealed that 74.8% of massage therapists surveyed experienced sexual harassment by clients, with 26.5% experiencing an incident on more than three occasions. Verbal forms of harassment were more common than were physical forms (55.0% and 6.0%), although 34.0% reported experiencing both verbal and physical forms. Incidents typically (87.9%) occurred during the treatment itself. Most therapists (79.4%) told someone about the incident. Only one therapist reported an incident to the police. A call for further research in this area as well as implications for increasing massage therapists’ safety is discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".