At a Glance
182 dancers shared their experiences in March 2026. Here are some of the most striking findings.
Who Responded
A snapshot of 182 community dancers across gender, role, experience, age, and background.
Inclusivity
How inclusive does the Austin two-step community feel — and to whom? This tab covers both ethnic and cultural inclusivity (Question 13) and broader social inclusivity themes drawn from open-ended responses (Question 14).
Ethnic & Cultural Inclusivity
Quantitative ratings and lived experience do not always tell the same story. Respondents of color raised more substantive concerns in their open-ended answers — including the unspoken racial history of honky-tonk spaces, feeling less likely to be asked to dance, and cultural codes embedded in the tradition that may not be immediately visible to white dancers. Felt inclusivity and structural inclusivity are different things, and the community's honky-tonk roots carry a racial history that a rating scale alone cannot capture.
Broader Social Inclusivity
Question 14 asked: "Are there ways the community could be more welcoming or inclusive?" The themes below reflect patterns across open-ended responses. They are not exhaustive but represent the most frequently raised concerns.
Many respondents noted that same-sex dance partnerships — particularly women dancing with women — are becoming more normalized and are genuinely appreciated. However, men dancing with men remains less accepted, and several respondents called this out directly. A number of respondents also praised classes and instructors who use gender-neutral language (leads/follows rather than guys/gals) and actively encourage same-sex partnering.
One of the most commonly raised themes was experienced dancers limiting themselves to their regular circles — declining dances with beginners, newcomers, or people they don't know well. Several respondents described this as the most significant barrier to feeling welcome in the scene, particularly for new dancers who are still learning. The flip side — more experienced dancers actively seeking out newer or less-connected dancers — was cited repeatedly as one of the most meaningful ways someone can make another person feel included.
New dancers — especially follows — described a steep learning curve around both technique and social norms. Several noted that the cost of lessons, even at lower price points, can be a barrier to entry. A few respondents also described being made to feel unwelcome or embarrassed by more experienced dancers, including being told they didn't belong on the floor. Respondents who felt most welcomed described being met with patience, encouragement, and clear communication about skill level.
A smaller but meaningful set of responses raised that sustained eye contact — a norm in this dance style — can be particularly difficult for neurodivergent dancers, and that pressure to conform to this norm can make the scene feel unwelcoming. Similarly, some respondents noted that mobility differences and chronic injuries are rarely acknowledged or accommodated, and that more explicit check-ins around physical limitations (similar to what instructors do in yoga) could make a meaningful difference.
Safety
Overall perceptions of safety, and rates of negative experiences on and off the dance floor. This tab distinguishes between negative dance experiences (physical safety, floorcraft, boundaries within the dance itself) and negative sexual experiences (unwanted sexual contact and boundary violations of a sexual nature).
Feeling Safe
Women are significantly less likely than men to feel "very safe" (33% vs. 55%). Both groups show similar "Neutral" rates (~9-10%), but only women report feeling "Unsafe." All 3 non-binary/trans respondents feel at least "Safe."
Follows report the lowest rate of feeling "very safe" at 34%, compared to 53% of leads.
| Feeling | Women | Men | NB/Trans |
|---|---|---|---|
| Always safe | 27% | 70% | 67% |
| Mostly safe | 58% | 30% | 33% |
| Some of the time | 13% | 2% | 0% |
Negative Dance Experiences
This category covers experiences rooted in the physical mechanics and social dynamics of partner dancing: unsafe floorcraft, risky moves, and pressure to dance in ways that feel uncomfortable or physically risky. These are distinct from sexual boundary violations, which are addressed separately below.
| Experience | Women | Men | NB/Trans | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physically unsafe dance (poor floorcraft, aggressive leading, uncontrolled moves) | 82% | 52% | 67% | p < .001 |
| Pressured to dance closer than comfortable | 86% | 48% | 67% | p < .001 |
| "No" or discomfort not respected (dance-related) | 39% | 14% | 33% | p < .001 |
Tourists and beginners are cited most often, but 40 respondents also name regular dancers. Qualitative responses describe recurring issues with aggressive leading, uninvited dips, follows dipping themselves unsafely, and intoxicated dancing.
| Experienced | Building Confidence | |
|---|---|---|
| Pressured to dance closer | 79% | 55% |
| Physically unsafe dance | 76% | 55% |
Likely reflects cumulative exposure over more dances rather than experience causing negative outcomes.
Negative Sexual Experiences
This category covers experiences of a sexual nature: unwanted sexual contact and serious violations of personal boundaries that go beyond dance mechanics. These are categorically distinct from the dance-experience issues above, even when they occur on the dance floor.
| Women | Men | NB/Trans | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experienced non-consensual sexual contact in the past year | 30% | 22% | 33% |
| Women | Men | |
|---|---|---|
| Yes, more than once | 15% | 3% |
| Yes, once | 25% | 10% |
| Unsure | 11% | 13% |
| No | 48% | 74% |
| Age | Non-consensual sexual contact |
|---|---|
| 21–34 | 38% |
| 35–44 | 25% |
| 45+ | 16% |
Younger dancers report significantly higher rates of non-consensual sexual contact. More frequent dancers also report more incidents overall (Spearman r = .17, p = .023).
The gender-role comparison shows a directional difference (31% vs. 20%) that does not reach statistical significance (p = .21). See methodology for caveats on interpretation.
Agency
How empowered do different groups feel to speak up, set boundaries, and intervene?
| Scenario | Women | Men | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speaking up to partner | 2.02 | 2.32 | p = .16 |
| Physically adjusting | 2.88 | 3.19 | p = .050 |
| Bystander intervention | 1.89 | 1.89 | p = .97 |
| Addressing a friend | 2.70 | 2.70 | p = .90 |
| Seeking venue staff help | 2.87 | 2.65 | p = .29 |
Men feel significantly more comfortable physically adjusting during a dance. Bystander intervention is the lowest-comfort scenario across all genders (mean 1.9/4), indicating a community-wide challenge.
| Scenario | Lead | Follow | Switch | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Speaking up to partner | 2.27 | 2.16 | 1.33 | .028 |
| Physically adjusting | 3.14 | 3.02 | 2.11 | .011 |
| Seeking venue staff help | 2.56 | 2.99 | 2.35 | .045 |
| Bystander intervention | 1.87 | 1.96 | 1.47 | .34 |
| Addressing a friend | 2.65 | 2.80 | 2.29 | .37 |
| Response | Women | Men | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Body language / facial expressions | 65% | 27% | p < .001 |
| Tell others to avoid that dancer | 37% | 9% | p < .001 |
| Mental note not to dance again | 65% | 55% | .23 |
| Say something to partner | 49% | 38% | .25 |
Women are significantly more likely to rely on non-verbal coping and informal warning networks. Directly speaking up is not the most common response for either gender — normalizing verbal feedback could be a high-impact intervention.
| Women | Men | |
|---|---|---|
| Consistently | 40% | 65% |
| Often | 36% | 30% |
| Occasionally / Rarely | 24% | 5% |
Good Times
What makes dancing feel wonderful? This tab focuses on the positive — what the community values, what restores people, and what conditions make a great dance.
Nearly nine in ten community members feel restored by dancing often or always — and this holds true equally across genders (86% of both women and men). Despite higher rates of negative experiences, women's connection to dancing remains just as strong. Improving safety could amplify an already powerful positive experience. Note: the overall 89% figure includes all respondents; the small difference between the overall rate and the gender-specific rates is attributable to non-binary and trans respondents and a small number of skipped answers.
The top two factors — mutual enjoyment and attentiveness — are fundamentally about relational quality, not choreography. This suggests the path to a better scene runs through culture and connection as much as technique.
Dating
How the community views romance and what motivations people bring to the dance floor — including where genders diverge.
| Openness level | Women | Men |
|---|---|---|
| Not at all — only there to dance | 22% | 15% |
| Slightly open, not a goal | 42% | 27% |
| Open, depending on context | 24% | 35% |
| Actively interested | 6% | 17% |
Men are significantly more likely to be actively seeking romantic connections (17% vs. 6%) or contextually open (35% vs. 24%), while women are more likely to be there strictly to dance or only slightly open (64% vs. 42% combined). This mismatch in expectations may contribute to pressure and boundary issues.
| Perspective | Women | Men |
|---|---|---|
| Fine, if boundaries respected | 56% | 41% |
| Natural & positive | 13% | 26% |
| Can create challenges | 15% | 24% |
| Neutral | 12% | 9% |
Women are significantly more likely to frame dating conditionally ("fine, if boundaries are respected"), while men are more likely to view it as unconditionally "natural and positive." Men also more frequently acknowledge it "can create challenges."
Community Systems
How concerns are shared, the role of whisper networks, and willingness to engage.
The community is ambivalent: most see whisper networks as imperfect but necessary. Nearly half flag risks of unfairness — a tension between protection and due process. Qualitative responses echo this, with some describing these networks as vital and others as prone to being performative or vindictive.
External Context
How do these findings compare with broader research? Context helps distinguish what is unique to this community from wider societal patterns.
The gender gap in walking safety found here (women: 27% always safe, men: 70%) mirrors a well-documented national pattern. Gallup's 2023 survey found that roughly 53% of U.S. women reported fear walking alone at night, compared to 26% of men. The Austin two-step community's gap is consistent with this broader societal trend, suggesting post-dance walking safety is largely an extension of general public safety concerns rather than a dance-specific issue. However, it does represent an opportunity for the community to actively support members.
The CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS, 2023/2024) found that approximately 39% of U.S. women have experienced unwanted sexual contact in their lifetime, and a 2024 national study by Stop Street Harassment found that roughly 32% of U.S. women experienced some form of sexual harassment or assault in the prior year across all contexts. This survey found that 30% of women reported non-consensual sexual contact within this specific dance scene in a single year.
Direct comparison is difficult because this survey asks about a narrow context (partner dancing at honky-tonks) over one year, whereas national surveys measure all contexts. The 30% rate in this limited setting is notable. However, this survey may capture a broader range of experiences under "non-consensual contact" than clinical instruments, particularly given the inherent physical intimacy of partner dance. The absence of a significant gender difference for this question (p = .21) may reflect this ambiguity.
While formal prevalence studies specific to social partner dance remain scarce, published academic work consistently identifies consent and boundary issues as pervasive across dance genres. Research by Juliet McMains (Journal of Dance Education, 2021) on fostering consent culture in salsa communities, and documented analyses of assault in swing dancing scenes, indicate that these challenges are not unique to Austin. They echo patterns in salsa, bachata, tango, swing, blues, and fusion scenes worldwide. What sets the Austin two-step community apart is the willingness to measure these issues systematically.
Self-selection bias. People who feel strongly about safety issues may be overrepresented. Those who have left the scene due to negative experiences are likely underrepresented, which could mean true prevalence is higher. Conversely, those who see no need for a survey may be underrepresented, which could inflate problem rates.
Social desirability. The gap between men's self-reported attentiveness (65% "consistently") and women's actual experience is a textbook example of social desirability bias in self-report surveys.
Recall differences. Experienced and frequent dancers report higher rates of negative experiences, but they also have more total dances to remember. It is not possible to determine whether per-dance rates are truly higher or whether cumulative exposure produces more memories.
Question interpretation. "Non-consensual sexual contact" may be interpreted differently in a partner dance context where physical contact is the default. This does not diminish anyone's experience, but it means the 30% figure is not directly comparable to clinical surveys using standardized definitions.
Correlation vs. causation. The association between younger age and higher non-consensual contact rates could reflect many things: less boundary-setting experience, different social dynamics, more alcohol involvement, or genuine targeting of younger dancers.
Snapshot, not trend. This is a single cross-sectional survey. It cannot tell us whether things are improving or worsening. A follow-up survey would be needed to measure intervention impact.
Recommendations
Evidence-informed suggestions for instructors, community leaders, and venue partners — grounded in the survey data and published best practices from other dance communities.
The group that conducted this survey and shared these results is not responsible for implementing any of the following recommendations. These suggestions were generated from the survey data alone and are intended to be thought-provoking. They are offered as starting points for community conversation, not prescriptions or organizational policy — your community gets to decide what fits.
86% say partner attentiveness is what makes dancing comfortable. Instructors can teach this directly by modeling check-ins, demonstrating how to read body language, and explaining when to scale down moves on a crowded floor. Published research on consent in salsa, swing, and fusion communities shows embedding these practices in instruction is the most effective approach. The data supports asking before close embrace (27% selected it as a comfort factor — a low-cost, high-signal behavior).
Currently only 49% of women and 38% of men say something directly to a partner when a dance feels off. Instructors can model post-dance feedback ("What worked for you?") and frame it as a mark of advanced dancing, not confrontation. This also addresses the gap between self-reported attentiveness and actual partner experience.
71% cite small, controlled moves on busy floors as a key comfort factor, and unsafe dances are the second most common negative dance experience (82% of women). Beginner classes should include floorcraft from lesson one. For experienced dancers, leaders can reinforce that adapting to floor conditions is a mark of skill. Focus areas: wrist grips vs. hand holds, dip safety, and leading at appropriate energy levels.
Despite 53% listing venue trust as a comfort factor, only 12 respondents identified venue staff as a channel for safety concerns. Venue partners should consider visible safety protocols, designated point-persons, and brief pre-event reminders. Follows are most comfortable seeking staff help (mean 2.99/4), so staff responsiveness directly impacts the group most exposed to issues.
Switches report significantly lower comfort speaking up and adjusting (1.33/4 and 2.11/4). Instructors and community leaders can actively welcome switching, establish norms around role communication, and check in with switchers. Newer dancers, especially follows, describe a steep learning curve around boundaries — mentorship or buddy programs could help.
The current system relies on word-of-mouth (117 mentions) and whisper networks (66), with 45% noting these can lead to unfair outcomes. Consider a community code of conduct (used in swing, fusion, and tango), a confidential reporting mechanism, or a small safety committee. Over 70% are open to group conversations — there is appetite for structured dialogue.
The significant gender gap in romantic openness (17% of men actively seeking vs. 6% of women) alongside women's conditional framing of dating ("fine, if boundaries are respected" — 56%) points to a need for explicit norms. Community leaders can name the dynamic: dancing is not inherently romantic; interest should be expressed off the floor; a dance is not a date.
The walking safety gap (27% of women always feel safe vs. 70% of men) is stark. Normalizing group departures, walking buddies, or simple visibility measures (well-lit paths, staff presence at close) can make a tangible difference. This reflects a broader societal issue that the community can take practical steps to address.
Methodology & Notes
If you would like access to the data, please apply via the data request form here. Requests will be accepted through June 30, 2026.
All reported trends meet a 90% confidence threshold (p < .10). Findings that do not are labeled as such. Tests used:
- Mann-Whitney U — ordinal/ranked comparisons between two groups
- Kruskal-Wallis H — ordinal comparisons across three or more groups
- Chi-square test of independence — categorical distributions
- Fisher's exact test — 2x2 tables or small expected cell counts
- Spearman rank correlation — associations between ordinal variables
- Convenience sample: Results reflect respondents, not necessarily the full community.
- Small subgroups: Non-binary/trans (n=3) and new dancers (n=6) lack statistical power.
- Self-report bias: The attentiveness-experience gap highlights limits of self-assessment.
- Multiple comparisons: Many tests were run; consistent patterns across related measures are most trustworthy.
- Cross-sectional design: Cannot establish trends over time or causality.
- Qualitative treatment: Themes were identified from free-text responses; no direct quotes are included to protect confidentiality.
| Finding | Test | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| Women feel less safe overall | Mann-Whitney | .011 |
| Women more pressured to dance closer | Fisher/Chi2 | < .001 |
| Women experience more physically unsafe dances | Fisher/Chi2 | < .001 |
| Women's "no" not respected more often (dance) | Fisher/Chi2 | < .001 |
| Women report more serious boundary violations (sexual) | Chi2 | .002 |
| Non-consensual sexual contact — no gender sig. difference | Chi2 | .21 (NS) |
| Women feel less safe walking to car | Chi2 | < .001 |
| Safety differs by dance role | Kruskal-Wallis | .074 |
| Follows more pressured / unsafe dances | Chi2 | < .001 |
| Switches less comfortable speaking up | Kruskal-Wallis | .011–.028 |
| Follows more comfortable seeking venue help | Kruskal-Wallis | .045 |
| Gender difference in romance openness | Chi2 | .024 |
| Gender difference in dating perspective | Chi2 | .048 |
| Women more restored by dancing | Mann-Whitney | .065 |
| Women more non-verbal responses to unsafe dance | Fisher | < .001 |
| Women more likely to warn others | Fisher | < .001 |
| Men self-report more partner-comfort attentiveness | Mann-Whitney | < .001 |
| Experienced dancers report more negative dance exp. | Chi2 | .006–.024 |
| Younger dancers report more non-consensual sexual contact | Chi2 | .043 |
| Women less comfortable physically adjusting | Mann-Whitney | .050 |