Is this true?

[bcohen7719]

Below is a summary of a just-published research journal article

on male escorts from the American Sociological Review. Do you think this is true?

 

BC

_____________________________________________

 

Male sex workers serve multiple groups (i.e., gay-identified men, heterosexually-identified

men, and their own sexual partners), making them a unique source to test theories of gender,

masculinity, and sexuality. To date, most scholarship on this topic has been qualitative. I

assembled a dataset from the largest online male sex worker website to conduct the first quantitative

analysis of male escorts in the United States. I find the geographic distribution of male

sex workers is more strongly correlated with the general population than with the gay male

population. In addition, I estimate the value of sexual behaviors and personal characteristics

in this market to test sociological theories of gender and masculinity. Consistent with hegemonic

masculinity, I find that male escorts who advertise masculine behavior charge higher

prices for their services, whereas escorts who advertise less masculine behavior charge significantly

less, a differential on the order of 17 percent. Results show that race and sexual behavior

interactions exert a strong influence on prices charged by male sex workers, confirming

aspects of intersectionality theory.

[+ Charlie]

I wonder what that "largest online male sex worker website" might be?

[Steven_Draker]

Personal Characteristics, Sexual Behaviors, and Male Sex Work

A Quantitative Approach

Trevon D. Logana

The Ohio State University and NBER

Trevon D. Logan, The Ohio State University, 410 Arps Hall, 1945 N. High Street, Columbus, OH 43210 E-mail: logan.155@osu.edu

 

Abstract

 

"Male sex workers serve multiple groups (i.e., gay-identified men, heterosexually-identified men, and their own sexual partners), making them a unique source to test theories of gender, masculinity, and sexuality. To date, most scholarship on this topic has been qualitative. I assembled a dataset from the largest online male sex worker website to conduct the first quantitative analysis of male escorts in the United States. I find the geographic distribution of male sex workers is more strongly correlated with the general population than with the gay male population. In addition, I estimate the value of sexual behaviors and personal characteristics in this market to test sociological theories of gender and masculinity. Consistent with hegemonic masculinity, I find that male escorts who advertise masculine behavior charge higher prices for their services, whereas escorts who advertise less masculine behavior charge significantly less, a differential on the order of 17 percent. Results show that race and sexual behavior interactions exert a strong influence on prices charged by male sex workers, confirming aspects of intersectionality theory."

 

 

"Prostitution as a form of exchange (Simmel [1907] 1971) or a location where cultural values and market logics intersect (Zelizer 1994) has long interested social scientists, but male sex work remains under-researched (Bimbi 2007; Pruitt 2005; Weitzer 2009). In general, male sex workers are difficult to conceptualize in current economic, social, and gender theories of prostitution because all participants are the same gender (Bernstein 2005, 2007; Edlund and Korn 2002; Giusta, Di Tommaso, and Strom 2009; Marlowe 1997). Qualitative research on male sex workers informs theories of sexuality, sexual behaviors, and sex work (Bimbi and Parsons 2005; Parsons, Bimbi, and Halkitis 2001; Uy et al. 2004). However, many quantitative questions whose answers could complement the qualitative approach remain unanswered. For example, we know little about the population size or geographic distribution of male sex workers. Quantitatively analyzing the market would increase our understanding of ways that commerce, sexuality, and masculinity interact.

 

There is a relative wealth of research about male sex workers who work the street, but little is known about male escorts who occupy the highest position in the hierarchy of male prostitution (Cameron, Collins, and Thew 1999; Koken et al. 2005; Luckenbill 1986; Parsons, Koken, and Bimbi 2007; Pruitt 2005; Uy et al. 2004). Due to technological progress (the Internet) and the increasing social acceptance of homosexuality (Loftus 2001; Scott 2003), prior work may be out of date.1 For example, recent qualitative scholarship finds that the demographic and social characteristics of male escorts and the reasons for entry into commercial sex work described in earlier postwar research do not apply today (Calhoun and Weaver 1996; Joffe and Dockrell 1995; Parsons et al. 2001; Pruitt 2005; Uy et al. 2004). Researchers also note male sex workers’ unique social and epidemiological position because they serve numerous social groups: gay-identified men, heterosexually-identified men, and their own noncommercial sexual partners (Cohan et al. 2004). Male sex workers thus interact with groups of men who are unlikely to interact with each other, potentially acting as a social and sexual conduit between various groups (Parker 2006).

 

One unique aspect of the study of gay male sex work is that all of the participants are male. In contrast to male–female prostitution, one cannot easily assign sexual positions or behaviors to participants based on sex; this necessitates a discussion of the social value of sexual behaviors practiced and advertised by escorts in the market. In particular, this article analyzes how and if men who have sex with men reify and critique hegemonic masculinity in the values of sexual behaviors; this is especially interesting because gay men are considered counter-hegemonic (Connell 1987, 1995). Additionally, scholars note that racial sexual stereotypes give rise to unique values of practices among men of particular races. I therefore examine how race further shapes the construction of masculinity in this community (Collins 1999, 2000; Han 2006; Reid-Pharr 2001).

 

I break new ground in the study of male sex work by taking an explicitly quantitative approach to the subject. The relationship between escort prices, personal characteristics, and sexual behaviors provides a key window into this relatively under-investigated social activity (Bimbi 2007; Weitzer 2009). The conceptual framework begins by considering how this type of empirical analysis can shed light on social theories of sexuality and masculinity (Dowsett 1993). Principles of economic theory motivate the empirical approach, but I interpret the results in light of social theories of male sexuality. Because the male escort market in the United States does not use intermediaries—who could potentially control the prices and earnings of male escorts—we can see how male escorts price their services conditional on their personal characteristics and sexual behaviors. Values attached to these characteristics and behaviors lie at the confluence of social value and market forces.

 

My approach allows me to answer heretofore unanswered questions about male sex workers and, in turn, social theories of male sexuality: Where are male escorts located? Do they gather in high or low gay concentration cities? How does this market value physical characteristics (e.g., race, height, and weight) and sexual behaviors? For instance, do male sex workers’ clients value hegemonically masculine behaviors and appearance in a way that can be reconciled with hegemonic masculinity (Connell 1987, 1995; Connell and Messerschmidt 2005)? Furthermore, what are the effects of interactions between characteristics and sexual behaviors? Are men of particular races rewarded for downplaying or emphasizing certain sexual behaviors, as intersectionality theory predicts (Collins 1999, 2000)?

 

The present study makes several contributions to the literature. First, I expand the scope of quantitative scholarship on sex work by considering the male side of the market and sex work that is neither street- nor brothel-based (Arunachalam and Shah 2008; Browne and Minichiello 1996; Weitzer 2005, 2009). Second, I overcome a number of problems of sample selection by using the universe of men who advertise online using the largest, most comprehensive, and most geographically diverse website for male escort work in the United States.2 Third, the quantitative approach is novel in that it is informed by and informs theoretical and mostly qualitative work on the sociology of masculinity and sexuality."

[Steven_Draker]

The Online Market for Commercial Male Sex in the United States

 

"Popular media suggest that male sex workers are a sizable portion of the sex worker population in the United States (Pompeo 2009; Steele and Kennedy 2006).3 Unlike their female counterparts, male sex workers usually work independently—there is virtually no pimping nor male brothels in the male sex trade (Logan and Shah 2009; Pruitt 2005; Weitzer 2005, 2009).4 The independent, owner-operator feature of the market allows for greater mobility up and down the hierarchy of the male sex worker labor force. In this hierarchy, male escorts are most esteemed: They do not walk the streets, they take clients by appointment, and they are usually better paid than their street counterparts (Luckenbill 1986). While street sex workers are paid by the piece rate, male escorts are contract employees with greater control over the terms of their work and the services they provide.5 Male escorts used to congregate in “escort bars” and place advertisements in gay-related newspapers to solicit clients, but media reports suggest that the male escort market now takes place online (Friedman 2003; Pompeo 2009; Steele and Kennedy 2006).6 The standard operating procedure is straightforward—escorts pay a monthly fee to post their advertisements, which include pictures, a physical description, their rate for services (quoted by the hour), as well as contact information such as a telephone number or e-mail address. Escorts have complete control over the type and amount of information conveyed in their advertisements. Through the websites, clients contact escorts directly and arrange for appointments at the escort’s home (known as an “incall”) or the client’s residence or hotel (an “outcall”)."

 

Social Science Theories of Male Sex Work

 

"Research on commercial sex work traditionally concentrates on women and neglects the heterogeneous social structures that give rise to the diverse forms of male sex work around the globe (Bernstein 2007; West 1993). Surveys of male prostitution, both scientific research (Aggleton 1999; Kaye 2001; West 1993) and popular media (Itiel 1998; Pompeo 2009; Steele and Kennedy 2006), point out several geographic and cultural distinctions in the practice and forms of male sex work that make it difficult to generalize the phenomena over space or time. This difficulty has hindered research—theories of sexuality pay particular attention to sexual minorities and marginalized sexualities because these are central to understanding majority and minority sexualities and sexual identities (Epstein 2006; Sedgwick 1990; Stein 1989; Weinberg and Williams 1974). Inclusion of male prostitutes also alters the usual theoretical tools of power and gender, allowing for the exploration of dynamics within genders in a novel way (Marlowe 1997).

 

Research on political economy among sexual minorities deals largely with the commoditization of gay desire (Cantu 2002; D’Emilio 1997). Because commoditization is a market force with supply, demand, quantities, and prices, I investigate how men in the male sex work market construct identities and are influenced by social factors. This can, in turn, tell us about values men place on themselves and other men for commercial and perhaps non-commercial sexual liaisons. Researchers have looked at these types of values qualitatively and quantitatively between genders (Almeling 2007; Arunachalam and Shah 2008; Koken, Bimbi, and Parsons 2009), but little quantitative work looks at differences within genders.

 

Today and in the past, significant numbers of male escorts and clients do not identify as homosexual (Bimbi 2007; Chauncey 1994; Dorais 2005). Allen (1980) describes studies of male sex workers that find less than 10 percent identify as homosexual. Since Humphries’s (1970) controversial work social scientists have noted that men partaking in same-sex sexual behavior are unlikely to be found in surveys unless they choose to publicly reveal their sexual behaviors and desires (Black et al. 2000; Black, Sanders, and Taylor 2007; Cameron et al. 2009). The world of male sex work is one of the few places where men who adopt homosexual identity and those who refuse it are in intimate contact with one another; this offers us the opportunity to address questions about male sexual identity and homosexual desire. For example, what roles and behaviors must escorts conform to in order to realize the largest economic gains from sex work? The value of these roles can inform an analysis of the construction of masculinity at the crossroads of heterosexual and homosexual identities because men participating in the market (both clients and escorts) adopt disparate sexual identities."

 

Economic and Demographic Approaches

 

"Since the work of Hooker (1957), psychologists have noted there is little except self-identification to distinguish between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Men who partake in homosexual acts are not distinguishable from the general male population (Humphries 1970). Despite this, a number of studies by demographers and economists looking at trends among the gay-identified population find differences on a range of outcomes, including earnings (Berg and Lien 2002; Carpenter 2004), partnership status (Carpenter and Gates 2008; Jepsen and Jepsen 2002), and general socioeconomic position (Black et al. 2007; Hewitt 1995).

 

While it can be difficult to identify all sexual minorities in any data source (Berg and Lien 2006; Black et al. 2000, 2002; Cameron et al. 2009), researchers can now identify same-sex couples. Using these population trends, scholars note that the geographic distribution of male same-sex couples is different from that of the U.S. general population (Black et al. 2000, 2002; Black et al. 2007). City amenities and the ability to congregate and socialize with a critical mass relate to gay location patterns (Black et al. 2002; alternatively, Collins [2004] emphasizes economic factors). Whatever the reason for these location differences, there are unanswered questions about the demography and geography of male sex work; we know very little about the population size, demographic characteristics, and geographic distribution of male sex workers in the United States.

 

Early studies of male sex work focused on cities with large gay populations (McNamara 1994), but more recent qualitative research reveals that a significant portion of male escorts’ clientele identifies heterosexually.7 Indeed, the “breastplate of righteousness” that Humphries (1970) saw in heterosexually identified men who took part in homosexual behavior has recently resurfaced in the public lexicon (Frankel 2007; MacDonald 2007). In the market for male sex work, such behavior is common. Male escorts note that a significant percentage of their clientele is heterosexually identified and many are married. Because these men are hidden from the most common analysis of sexual minorities, how their presence in the market influences market function and composition is unknown.

 

Simple economic models of location, such as Hotelling’s (1929), suggest that escorts should locate close to their client base. Given that heterosexually-identified men may have much to lose if their same-sex sexual behavior is exposed, male escorts might be more likely to locate in places where there are fewer opportunities for men interested in sexual encounters with other men to meet one another. Self-identified heterosexual men are unlikely to frequent gay bars, coffeehouses, or community groups where they might encounter gay men for socialization or sex. Male escort location should thus differ from that of the gay-identified population. Conversely, researchers note that gay communities do not attach the same level of stigma to sex work as heterosexuals do (Koken et al. 2009; Sadownick 1996). If gay communities are seen as safer havens for sex workers, or if few customers are heterosexually identified, we would expect male sex workers’ geographic distribution to closely mirror the openly gay population’s."

[Steven_Draker]

Sociological Approaches

 

Hegemonic Masculinity

 

"Hegemonic masculinity is defined as “the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of legitimacy of patriarchy” (Connell 1995:77). Hegemonic masculinity is about relations between and within genders.8 Hegemonically masculine practices ensure the dominant position of men over women, and of particular men over other men. These practices can take a number of forms; research usually stresses social traits such as drive, ambition, self-reliance, and aggressiveness, which legitimate the power of men over women. Within genders, there is the subordination of certain masculinities and the marginalization of others (Bird 1996; Reeser 2010; Schrock and Schwalbe 2009). For example, gay masculinities are subordinated and marginalized so that patriarchy can be reproduced through heterosexuality. Connell (1995) describes how hegemonic masculinity is never influenced by non-hegemonic elements: elements of non-heterosexuality are seen as contradictions or weakness (Demetriou 2001).

 

Scholars note the limits of this conceptual binary between hegemonic and non-hegemonic masculinity (Anderson 2002; Connell and Messerschmidt 2005; Demetriou 2001; Donaldson 1993; Dowsett 1993; Reeser 2010). Demetriou and Reeser, among others, suggest that rather than binary, hegemonic masculinity should be viewed as a hybrid, made up of practices and elements of heterosexual and homosexual masculinities, giving hegemonic masculinity the ability to change over time to meet historical circumstances with a different set of practices. In this conception, the practices of gay men, who are non-hegemonic, not only reinforce the patriarchal goal of hegemonic masculinity, but they help define the hegemonic ideal itself.9 Demetriou (2001), for example, notes the recent construction of the “metrosexual” as one example of gay masculinity influencing the construction of the hegemonic ideal.

 

While a binary approach views gay men in relation to the hegemonic ideal, a hybrid approach opens the possibility of analyzing how gay men define, subordinate, and marginalize masculinities among themselves. This within-subgroup construction might influence how hegemonic masculinity itself is defined. Donaldson (1993) and Connell (1992) note that gay men reify hegemonic norms: modern gay practices celebrate and exemplify hegemonic ideals such as bodybuilding and physical strength. This reification of masculine norms can create a situation where some gay masculinities are themselves subordinate to others. That is, among gay men themselves, there may be further refinement of the gay masculine norm along hegemonic lines. Donaldson (1993:649) raises the intriguing point that “it is not ‘gayness’ that is attractive to homosexual men, but ‘maleness.’ A man is lusted after not because he is homosexual but because he’s a man. How counter-hegemonic can this be?”

 

Scholars of masculinity have asserted that gay men critique hegemonic ideals through their counter-hegemony (Connell 1992; Reeser 2010), but it could also be the case that gay men overtly reify hegemonic ideals sexually. To the extent that this occurs, gay masculinities may be aligned with the hegemonic masculinity that marginalizes them. The question is the degree to which homosexual men are complicit in hegemonic masculine norms. In Demetriou’s (2001) language, to what degree do gay masculinities contain significant elements of hegemonic masculinities that legitimate patriarchy and may, in turn, influence hegemonic masculinity itself? In an explicitly sexual arena, hegemonic masculinity would extend to physical appearance (e.g., muscularity, body size, body hair, and height) and sexual behaviors (e.g., sexual dominance, sexual aggressiveness, and penetrative sexual position). To the extent that homosexual men conform to and reify hegemonic masculine norms, the value of masculine traits and practices should have a direct effect on a given escort’s desirability and value. While such “manhood acts” usually elicit deference from other men and reinforce hegemonic masculinity (Bird 1996; Schrock and Schwalbe 2009), in an explicitly homosexual arena they may also elicit sexual desire and objectification.

 

The function of male sex work in gay communities may heighten such effects. In a market for sex work, clients are explicitly seeking sexual contact. Clients may choose escorts unlike the men they interact with socially, but whom they do desire sexually. This may increase the value of certain masculine characteristics insofar as the hegemonic masculine archetype may be a driving force in purely sexual desire (Cameron et al. 1999; Green 2008a; Pruitt 2005; Weinberg and Williams 1974).10 In this market, is men’s lust consistent with hegemonic norms? Sexual desire for the hegemonic ideal could influence how hegemonic masculinity itself is constructed and reinforced among gay men. If this is the case, there may be limits to the binary view of hegemonic masculinity.

 

This type of hybrid hegemonic masculinity might have additional implications for gay male body image and gay men’s use of the body in constructing masculinity. Sadownick (1996) sees the gay liberation movement as a time when gay men began, en masse, to idealize hypermasculinity, muscles, and a hirsute body, turning on its head the “flight from masculinity” that Hacker (1957) observed in earlier generations of gay men. The physical ideal is typified by a muscular physique and other markers of hegemonic masculinity such as height, body hair, whiteness, youth, and middle-class socioeconomic status (Atkins 1998; Green 2008b). This turn of events has molded the gay body into a political representation of masculinity. In part, this subverts norms that question the compatibility of masculinity and homosexuality, but it also reinforces a quasi-hegemonic masculine ideal (Atkins 1998; Connell 1992). Compared with lesbians and heterosexuals, gay men show stronger tendencies to prefer particular body types, and this can lead to poor psychological and health outcomes for gay men who do not conform to gay standards of beauty (Atkins 1998; Beren et al. 1996; Carpenter 2003; Green 2008b; Herzog et al. 1991). In fact, attempts by some gay subcultures to subvert these beauty standards have been critiqued as being agents themselves of hegemonically masculine agendas (Hennen 2005)."

[Steven_Draker]

"In many ways, rejection of large men and thin men may be seen as the rejection (subjugation) of feminizing features. For example, excess weight in a man visually minimizes the relative size of male genitals and produces larger (and, importantly, non-muscular) male breasts; thin men may appear slight, waifish, and physically weak. These appearances emphasize feminizing traits that are actively discouraged in mainstream gay culture (Atkins 1998; Hennen 2005). In the market for male sex work, we expect clients to prize physical characteristics that mark hegemonic masculinity, such as muscular physiques, body hair, and height. We also expect feminizing features, such as excess weight and thinness, to be penalized.

The theory of hegemonic masculinity and the closely related literature on the body in gay communities suggest that clients of male sex workers are likely to prize “masculine” personas and body type. There are several reasons for this. First, numerous scholars assert that gay men’s relationships with effeminate behavior are complex—while celebrated in many aspects of gay culture (e.g., camp, drag shows, and diva worship), effeminate behavior is particularly stigmatized in sexual relationships and as an object of lust (Clarkson 2006; Nardi 2000; Ward 2000). Second, some scholars note how the gay community has commoditized the “authentic” masculinity of self-identified heterosexual men who engage in sex with men (Ward 2008). This has given rise to the distinction between “masculine” and “effeminate” gay men in gay communities (Clarkson 2006; Connell 1992; Pascoe 2007). Construction of dual masculinities among gay men, and distinctions between the two, are used to legitimate the power of masculine gay men over effeminate gay men, a reproduction of patriarchy (Clarkson 2006). We thus expect that men who are interacting primarily for sexual purposes likely place a premium on masculine practices (e.g., penetrative sexual position [“topping”], aggressive sexual behavior, and muscular physique) and penalize feminine practices (e.g., receptive sexual position [“bottoming”], submissiveness, large body size, and thinness) to the degree that they conform to hegemonic masculinity and to the construction of masculinity among gay men."

 

Intersectionality

 

"Just as the theory of hegemonic masculinity has been critiqued for not considering how gay men can conform to and inform hegemonic masculinity, there is also a burgeoning literature that looks at racial variation in social value among gay men (Green 2008a; Han 2006; Nagel 2000; Robinson 2007). As intersectionality theory suggests, the interaction of these social categories is neither cumulative nor additive but rather independent (Collins 1999, 2000; Reeser 2010). The intersection of hegemonic masculinity with racial sexual stereotypes can create multiple forms of sexual objectification for particular groups of gay men. For example, the value of a top (the penetrative partner) is not uniform across all tops, and the value of a white top is not simply the addition of the value of whiteness and “topness,” but an independent effect for men in that particular category, who in this instance embody the highest position in the racial and sexual behavior hierarchies among gay men. Markets for sex may reify these sexual stereotypes (what Cameron and colleagues [1999] call “ethnico-sexual stereotypes”) in explicitly monetary terms.

 

Baldwin (1985) notes that the American ideal of sexuality is rooted in the American ideal of masculinity, which he argues necessitates an inherently racial dimension. Historically, white men were to protect white women from black sexuality, and this supposed threat legitimated white men’s social control of white women (and whites social control over blacks). For homosexual white men, black men’s sexuality may become an object of desire because they are perceived to be sexually dominant and unrestrained—although still under the social control of whites due to their race—turning the hegemonic ideal on its head (Baldwin 1985; Reeser 2010). Robinson (2008), McBride (2005), Reid-Pharr (2001), Green (2008a), and others note how racial stereotypes interact with notions of masculinity to produce a desire for hypermasculine black men, particularly among white gay men.

 

The stereotype of the sexually dominant black man, rather than being an agent of fear, can lead to a celebration of his hyper-sexual behavior, appearance, and conduct. In this theory, the general level of social interaction between black and white gay men is relatively low and occurs chiefly over sex. Black men who demonstrate hypermasculine and sexually aggressive behavior are offered entry into white gay spaces, but this entry is limited to sexual liaisons. McBride (2005), for example, notes the limited range in which black men interact with whites in gay pornography, where the vast majority of black performers are tops and adopt an antisocial persona. Men who defy racial sexual stereotypes could face markedly lower values and become, in this particular instance, counter-hegemonic. Robinson (2008) finds that white gay men largely ignore and devalue black men who do not conform to the stereotype of the hypermasculine black male, suggesting that the penalties for nonconformity may be particularly harsh.

 

The reverse is true for Asians, whose passivity and docility are celebrated. Robinson (2007, 2008), Phua and Kaufman (2003), and Han (2006) describe the persistent stereotype that Asian men should be passive, docile bottoms (the receptive partner). As with black men, this racial sexual stereotype allows the larger gay community to limit Asian men’s socially acceptable sexual expressions. In this case, the counter-hegemonic activity is for Asian men to appear sexually dominant or aggressive. These authors also note that Hispanics are celebrated as passionate, virile lovers who are usually sexually dominant, although not exclusively so, making it difficult to derive quantitative predictions for this group.

 

Given these racial sexual stereotypes, it is necessary to consider how the values of particular sexual behaviors differ by race. Phua and Kaufman (2003:992) find that dating “preferences for minorities often are tinted with stereotypical images: Asians as exotic, docile, loyal partners; Hispanics as passionate, fiery lovers; and Blacks as ‘well-endowed,’ forbidden partners.” If the market for male sex work mirrors the gay community at large, we would expect black men who advertise themselves as tops and Asian men who advertise themselves as bottoms to command high prices, reflecting the value of conforming to racial sexual stereotypes."

[Steven_Draker]

Data from the Gay Male Sex Market

 

"I assembled a dataset on 1,932 men from the largest online website for male sex workers in the United States.11 This source has several advantages. First, it allows me to collect information on escort attributes, prices, and information free from the selection problems one would encounter in a field survey of escorts; the data include every unique advertisement on the site. Second, I can identify escorts’ home locations, which allows for accurate geographic counts. Third, the escort characteristics I use are entered by escorts from dropdown menus. This is particularly advantageous for features one would like to control for in pricing models (e.g., body type or hair color) where free-form responses may be difficult to code consistently or where non-response could bias estimates. Fourth, the website is free for viewing by all. This ensures that the information provided is for a large, general client base and not manipulated to please paying members of the website.

 

It is important to establish that the data source provides sufficient coverage of the online escort market. Table 1 compares escorts on the chosen site with escorts on two prominent competitors for a random sample of cities. As described earlier, I can uniquely identify the men in the chosen website and their home locations. This is impossible with the competitors, and potential double counting by city on competitors would bias upward the number of escorts listed on competing websites. Even with this bias, the chosen website’s coverage of the male escort market is greater than that of its two competitors. The last two columns of Table 1 show the number of escorts on the chosen site that I could locate on the most prominent competitor’s site and vice versa. I found the majority of escorts who advertise on competing sites on the chosen site, but only a small fraction of escorts in my source could be identified on the competitor’s site.

 

Table 1.

 

Comparison of Male Escort Websites

 

Figure 1 shows a diagram of an escort advertisement. Escorts list their age, height, weight, race, hair color, eye color, body type, and body-hair type. Advertisements give clients contact information, the preferred mode of contact (i.e., phone or e-mail), escorts’ availability to travel nationally and internationally, and prices for incalls and outcalls. Escorts can write about their services and quality in an advertisement’s text.12 One additional advantage of the data is that claims escorts make about characteristics can be confirmed with pictures posted in the advertisements.13 In the analysis, I use outcall price as the price of escort services, but results do not change when using incall price.

 

Figure 1.

 

Diagram of Online Escort Advertisement

 

Note: The figure is an example created by the author for informational purposes and is not an actual advertisement.

 

Table 2 shows summary statistics for escorts in the data. On average, escorts charge more than $200 an hour for an outcall, consistent with media estimates of escort services (Pompeo 2009; Steele and Kennedy 2006). As one would expect, escorts are relatively young and fit; on average, they are 28 years old, 5’10”, and 165 pounds. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the average man age 20 to 74 years in the United States is 5’9.5” and 190 pounds. Escorts are racially diverse; 54 percent are white, 22 percent are black, 14 percent are Hispanic, 8 percent are multiracial, and 1 percent are Asian.

 

Table 2.

 

Summary Statistics for the Escort Sample

 

Looking at physical traits, escorts are likely to have black (36 percent) or brown (46 percent) hair (less than 15 percent are blond). More than half of all escorts have brown eyes (55 percent), although significant fractions have blue (18 percent) and hazel (14 percent) eyes. Nearly half of all escorts are smooth (49 percent), 17 percent shave their body hair, but more than a third are hairy or moderately hairy (34 percent). Very few escorts are overweight (1 percent), and relatively few are thin (8 percent); the majority of escorts claim to have athletic (48 percent) or muscular builds (30 percent). Looking at sexual behaviors, 16 percent of escorts are tops, 6 percent are bottoms, and 21 percent list themselves as versatile.14 In addition, 19 percent of escorts advertise that they exclusively practice safer sex. Overall, summary statistics for men in the data are similar to descriptive statistics noted by Cameron and colleagues (1999) for male escorts in British newspapers in the 1990s and Pruitt’s (2005) more recent sample of male escorts who advertise on the Internet."

[Steven_Draker]

Empirical Strategy

 

"Previous quantitative work analyzing male escorts has not examined prices of male escort services (Cameron et al. 1999; Pruitt 2005). I use male escort services’ prices in a hedonic regression, a technique developed by Court (1939), Griliches (1961), and Rosen (1974). The basic technique regresses the price of a particular good or service on its characteristics. This type of regression is widely used in economics, and it is particularly useful for goods that are inherently unique or bundled. For example, to perform a hedonic regression of computers, one would assemble data on computers in the market and their characteristics, such as processor speed, hard drive size, memory, graphics card, and monitor size. A regression of computer prices on characteristics would then give coefficients for each of the characteristics, which would tell us how much computer prices increase or decrease, on average, for an increase or decrease in hard drive size or monitor quality, respectively.

 

Estimated coefficients from hedonic regressions are commonly interpreted as implicit prices because they reflect the change in price one could expect, on average, for a change in that particular characteristic.15 It is common to refer to positive coefficients as a premium and to negative coefficients as a penalty. Using this insight, I regress the price of individual escort i’s services (P) on the escort’s characteristics (Z), his sexual behaviors (S), and identifiers for his location (X).

 

The regression gives the implicit prices for each characteristic (each β) and each sexual behavior (each γ). I control for an escort’s location to purge the estimates of geographic differences in prices.16 Because I take the log of price in this specification, the estimates are percent price changes for each characteristic.

Before turning to the results, it is important to establish the validity of the prices used. Errors or selection could bias the results. First, note that the correlation of advertised prices with actual transaction prices is quite high (r = .89) (see Logan and Shah 2009). Of greater concern is selection. Although the vast majority of escorts post prices (more than 85 percent), not all do so. To address this potential selection issue, I estimated probit models where the dependent variable is whether an escort posted a price. Table 3 reports the results. There is no relationship between the information in an escort’s advertisement (e.g., race or sexual position) and the decision to post prices. Given these results, I am reasonably confident that the price measure is an accurate measure of the prices actually paid in transactions.

 

Table 3.

 

Probit Regression Estimates of Advertisement Information and Selection into Posting Prices

 

Geographic Distribution of Male Sex Workers

 

Table 4 shows the geographic distribution of male escorts who advertise online. I count the actual number of escorts by the home location given in their advertisements. To my knowledge, this is the first large-scale quantitative evidence on the geographic location of male escorts in the United States. Size of the escort population varies considerably; there are more than 300 escorts in only one city, New York, which has long been depicted in the media as the largest male escort market (Pompeo 2009). Atlanta, Los Angeles, Miami, and San Francisco each have more than 100 escorts, but most cities have considerably fewer.

 

Table 4.

 

Geographic Distribution of Escorts, Selected Cities

 

For comparison, I list the same randomly selected cities used in Table 1 and show them in Table 4 along with larger cities. I also include the rank and size of the populations of each Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), as well as the Gay Concentration Index (GCI) developed by Black and colleagues (2007) to compare the location of escorts with gay male location patterns. The GCI counts the proportion of male same-sex households in a given MSA and divides it by the national average. Cities with GCI values greater than 1 have larger shares of male same-sex households in their MSA than the national average. Given that partnership rates are lower for gay men than for heterosexuals (Carpenter and Gates 2008), it is likely that the index understates the concentration of gay men in specific urban areas. While one might argue that single self-identified gay men locate in substantially different MSAs than do partnered gay men, this is unlikely because MSAs encompass an entire metropolitan area.

 

In terms of location patterns there is a striking trend: the number of gay escorts closely follows the size of an MSA, not gay location patterns. For example, Detroit is the 11th largest MSA in the United States, and its gay concentration is 42nd, but there are 51 percent more escorts in Detroit than in Seattle, a city with the fifth highest GCI. Chicago and St. Louis display a similar pattern. Indeed, the overall correlation of the number of escorts with MSA population is quite strong (r = .92), but it is much weaker with the GCI (r = .39). Furthermore, the correlation of per capita escorts with the GCI (r = .69) is weaker than the correlation of escorts with MSA.

 

This result is consistent with the claim that the market for male sex work is national in scope and not driven exclusively by gay-identified participants. If escort services were primarily demanded by self-identified gay men, we would expect the geographic distribution of male escorts to mirror the geographic distribution of self-identified gay men. That is, male escorts would locate in places with a higher concentration of potential customers (Hotelling 1929). Results in Table 4 imply that male escorts tend to concentrate in cities with substantial populations, not just cities with substantial gay populations. This result holds even when considering mid-sized and smaller cities—it is not driven by cities that have large populations and large gay populations, such as Los Angeles. Overall, the evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that male escorts serve a market that includes a substantial number of heterosexually-identified men.

 

Physical Characteristics and Male Escort Prices

 

Table 5 shows estimates of the value of physical characteristics on the pricing of male escort services from hedonic regressions of escort prices on physical characteristics. Given that clients in commercial sex markets generally tend to be older men (Friedman 2003), we would expect clients to prize youth and beauty, consistent with female sex work (Bernstein 2007). The theory of hegemonic masculinity and related literature on the gay body, however, predict that hegemonically masculine physical traits would be prized in the market. In describing the results, I emphasize the percentage differences, but to increase the exposition, I also give the dollar value of the differentials based on an average price of $200 per session. It is important to emphasize that these differentials are cumulative. For example, a 10 percent ($20) price differential per session could lead to earnings differences in excess of $5,000 per year.17

 

Table 5.

 

Implicit Prices of Physical Characteristics in the Male Escort Market

 

There is a penalty for age, with each additional year of age costing an escort 1 percent ($2) of his price. Similarly, there is a penalty for weight, with each additional 10 pounds resulting in over a 1.5 percent ($3) price decrease.18 Body build, which is closely related to weight, also appears to be important. Men with average body type experience a price penalty that exceeds 15 percent ($30), while men who have excess weight experience a price penalty of more than 30 percent ($60).19 There is a price penalty for thinness, although it is not as large as the penalty for those who are average or overweight, being on the order of 5 percent ($10, p < .1). This is consistent with work that finds a large social penalty for additional weight among gay men (Carpenter 2003), theoretical work that describes codes of body image in gay communities (Atkins 1998), and literature on the body that suggests significant penalties for weight among gay men, as both excess weight and thinness have feminizing features. Men with a muscular build, however, enjoy a price premium of around 4 percent ($8, p < .1). Indeed, only men who have muscular builds enjoy a price premium relative to “athletic/swimmer’s build,” the reference category. Because muscularity is a physical signal of maleness and dominance, and it can be considered a proxy for strength and virility, the premium attached to muscularity in this market is consistent with hegemonic masculinity.

 

Surprisingly, race does not seem to play a role in escort prices. No race commands higher prices in the market than any other. While some escorts of color claim they are paid less than their white counterparts (Pompeo 2009), these data do not support that claim. The same holds for hair color, eye color, body hair, and height. Interestingly, body hair and height, masculine traits, do not come with premiums in this market. In general, these results go against theories that stipulate there is a hegemonic ideal: no race/hair color/eye color/body hair combination is more valuable than any other. Other than weight and body build, it appears that most personal characteristics are not very important in the male escort market."

[Steven_Draker]

Sexual Behaviors and Male Escort Prices

 

Table 6 shows estimates of the value of advertised sexual behaviors on male escort prices. An important implication of hegemonic masculinity is the idea that dominant sexual behaviors would be rewarded in the male escort market. Consistent with hegemonic masculinity, the premium to being a top is large, over 9 percent ($18), and the penalty for being a bottom is substantial—in some specifications (Model V), it is nearly as large as the premium for being a top, on the order of −9 percent ($18). The price differential for men who are tops versus men who are bottoms—the top/bottom differential—is substantial, ranging from 14.1 percent ($28, Model I) to 17.6 percent ($35, Model V).20

 

Table 6.

 

Implicit Prices of Sexual Behaviors in the Male Escort Market

 

Premiums for these sexual behaviors are inconsistent with the economic concept of compensating differentials, where riskier occupations (in this market, sexual behaviors) are compensated with higher wages. According to research in public health, the relative risk of contracting HIV for receptive versus penetrative anal sex is 7.69 (Varghese et al. 2002). This implies that correlations we observe are in spite of the fact that receptive sexual activity carries greater disease risk than does the penetrative sex act. Compensating differentials would predict that bottom escorts should be compensated for taking on this increase in disease risk, but I find exactly the opposite. In studies of female sex work, the compensating differential is substantial (Gertler, Shah, and Bertozzi 2005). The empirical estimates also find a positive correlation between advertised safety and escort prices, greater than 5 percent ($10). As further evidence against an idea of compensating differentials for male sex work, I find no premiums for particular types of safe sex—men who advertise as “safe tops” or “safe bottoms” do not enjoy a distinct premium, although disease transmission probabilities would suggest that they should.21

 

The substantial premium to tops and penalty to bottoms is interesting for a number of reasons. These results may be interpreted sociologically as the premium attached to masculine behavior in gay communities. The premium for tops is consistent with literature that notes that gay men prize traditionally masculine behaviors and sexual roles, and the penetrative partner in sexual acts is canonically considered more masculine. The fact that men who act in the dominant sexual position charge higher prices for services is consistent with the social acceptance of quasi-heteronormativity within groups of men who have sex with men. As described earlier, gay communities prize behavior that can be described as hegemonically masculine, and this extends to sexual acts themselves (Clarkson 2006).

 

Alternative explanations for the top premium bear mentioning. One possibility is that the premium may derive from the biology of being a top. If “topping” requires ejaculation and “bottoming” does not, this could limit the number of clients that tops could see in a given period of time and drive the premium. Essentially, there could be a “scarcity premium” for top services. A search of escort advertisements, however, reveals that top escorts who mention “bottoming” also mention that they charge a significant premium for “bottoming” services. Similarly, a detailed analysis of client reviews and online forums does not show that clients demand ejaculation more from top escorts than from bottoms. I take this as evidence of the social penalty of “bottoming” and the premium of “topping.” While biology could certainly play a role, the social position of tops appears to be the dominant force behind the top premium.22

 

The Intersection of Race and Sexual Behaviors

 

As described earlier, the intersection of race and sexual behaviors could shed light on the connection between hegemonic masculinity and racial sexual stereotypes. In particular, black men are expected to be dominant sexually and Asians are expected to be passive. I investigate these intersections by looking at interactions between race and sexual behaviors. Table 7 shows estimates of the value of advertised sexual behaviors for men by race, where each entry shows the implicit price of the interaction of that race and sexual behavior (e.g., the premium or penalty to being an Asian top or a versatile white).

 

Table 7.

 

Implicit Prices of Race and Sexual Behavior Interactions in the Male Escort Market

 

The results are striking. Black, Hispanic, and white men each receive a substantial premium for being tops, but the largest premium is for black men (nearly 12 percent, $24). The premium for Hispanics is greater than 9 percent ($18, p < .1), while the premium for whites is less than 7 percent ($14). There is no statistically significant top premium for Asian escorts. The penalty for being a bottom also varies by race: white bottoms face a penalty of nearly 7 percent ($14, p < .1), while black bottoms face a penalty of nearly 30 percent ($60), the largest penalty seen in any of the results in Table 7. There is no bottom penalty for Asians or Hispanics.

 

The top/bottom price differential also varies by race. While the differential for whites and Hispanics is close to the overall top/bottom differential (13.2 percent [$26] and 12.3 percent [$25], respectively; the estimates of Table 6 put the differential between 14.1 and 17.6 percent), the differential for blacks is more than twice the differential for any other racial group, 36.5 percent ($73).23 These results are consistent with intersectionality theory, in which black men who conform to stereotypes of hypermasculinity and sexual dominance are highly sought after, and those who do not conform are severely penalized. These types of stereotypes appear within the male escort market, and they influence premiums and penalties for sexual behaviors. Predictions for Asians, however, are not borne out in the data—I found neither a top premium nor a bottom penalty for Asian escorts."

 

Limitations and Future Research

 

"While this study makes use of novel data to test theories of male sex work, several limitations to the present analysis should be noted. First, I analyzed only the largest website for escort advertisements, and the results might not hold for competitors. For example, if certain types of escorts are more likely to congregate at different websites, they would not be captured in my data, limiting my ability to describe the market in general. Second, information in the advertisements is posted by escorts and therefore constitutes a self-report. While I exploited independent data to confirm the precision of the price measure, I cannot say with certainty that there are no omitted confounders in the data. Third, the dataset may be missing variables that could influence the price of escort services, such as endowment, an escort’s education level, or expertise in specific sexual conduct.

 

These limitations should inform future research. For example, future studies should analyze competing websites with a similar methodology to confirm or dispute results presented here. Similarly, detailed analysis of client-operated websites, which review escort services, could act as an independent check on the veracity of information posted in escort advertisements. Future research could develop panel data on male escorts that would allow one to track escorts over time to see how and if their behaviors, identities, advertisements, and personas change. Doing so would add an important dimension to this literature."

[Steven_Draker]

Discussion and Conclusions

 

"Using a quantitative online data source describing male sex workers, this study addressed important questions pertaining to male sex work. These questions relate to basic facts about male escorts, their geographic distribution, and the relationship between escort characteristics, sexual behaviors, and prices. The present results should stimulate further research into male sex work and related areas of gender, sexuality, masculinity, race, and deviance. The present results should also show how concepts from ethnographic and qualitative work in social science can be subjected to quantitative empirical approaches, including statistical tests of hypotheses.

 

Overall, I found that male sex work is markedly different from its female counterpart. For instance, escorts are present in cities with low and high gay concentrations; this result supports work that suggests a nontrivial portion of the male escort clientele is not gay-identified. Personal characteristics, except for those pertaining to body build, are largely not related to male escorts’ prices. Muscular men enjoy a premium in the market, while overweight and thin men face a penalty, which is consistent with hegemonic masculinity and the literature on the body and sexuality. Conformity to hegemonic masculine physical norms is well-rewarded in the market.

 

The premium to being a top is substantial, as is the penalty for being a bottom, again consistent with the theory of hegemonic masculinity. When interacting these behaviors with race, I found that black men are at the extremes—they have the largest premiums for top behavior and the largest penalties for bottom behavior. This is consistent with intersectionality theory in that gay communities prize black men who conform to racial stereotypes of sexual behavior and penalize those who do not. While the sexually dominant black male is feared in heterosexual communities, he is rewarded handsomely in gay communities.

 

Given the results, the ways in which desire interacts with racial stereotypes should receive significant attention in masculinity studies. Theoretically, these results should renew attention on the complex construction of masculinities among gay men, in which counter-hegemonic groups adopt and reiterate hegemonic masculine norms among themselves, explicitly reinforcing hegemonic norms. In particular, further work at the nexus of the construction of masculinity among gay men, hegemonic masculinity, and racial inequality would be a fruitful area of research.

 

Further research on race, sexuality, and commerce is needed to address issues unexplored here. For instance, due to data limitations I cannot discuss class dimensions inherent in male sex work. An important question for intersectionality theory in light of the results presented here, is how race and sexual behavior interact with class masculinities to yield premiums and penalties in this market. Furthermore, I have not explored causal estimates of male escort behavior on prices, which would be key for policy discussions such as the feasibility of sexual behavior change among male sex workers to minimize disease risk (Connell 2002).

 

Research on male sex work needs to move at an accelerated pace. As this study shows, there is much to be gained from an integrated, interdisciplinary approach to the subject. Future developments along this line would enhance and extend our understanding of sexuality and gender in general, and male sex work in particular, shedding light on important issues in social research and public policy."

[Steven_Draker]

Acknowledgments

 

"I thank Rene Almeling, Megan Andrew, Rodney Andrews, Raj Arunachalam, Ann Biddlecom, Andrea Cann Chandrasekher, Niambi Carter, Lisa Cook, Reanne Frank, Ruth Peterson, Patricia Reagan, Fabio Rojas, Manisha Shah, Arnold Smotherman, Bryan Sykes, Edward Walker, Jason Whitesel, ASR’s anonymous reviewers and the editors, numerous seminar participants, and participants at the 2009 Population Association of America Annual Meetings for helpful suggestions."

 

Data Appendix

 

"My data are the universe of male sex workers advertising on the chosen website in the United States at the time of data collection (January 2008 to May 2008). These data represent the entire population. Each escort has a page specific to him, from which I gathered information. The website generates its income only from escorts, clients do not pay to access advertisements. I identify each escort uniquely using the following information (see Figure 1 for an example of an escort advertisement):

 

User ID: Each escort account on the site has a unique user ID. This allows me to check against the possibility of double counting escorts who may change location during the data collection period.

User name: Each escort has a username that is displayed next to the ID number at the top of the advertisement.

Services provided: Under this heading, each escort has the option of noting the following services:

Incall: Escort responds “yes” or “no.”

Outcall: Escort responds “yes” or “no.”

Incall price: The price (by the hour) that incall services are provided at if incalls are provided.

Outcall price: The price (by the hour) that outcall services are provided at if outcalls are provided.

Contact information: Under this heading, each escort has the option of noting the following:

Phone: Phone number with area code (recorded y/n if a number is listed).

Cellular: Cellular number with area code (recorded y/n if a number is listed).

Pager: Pager number with area code (recorded y/n if a number is listed).

Prefers phone contact: Listed if escort prefers that clients contact him by phone (y/n).

Prefers e-mail contact: Listed if escort prefers that clients contact him by e-mail (y/n).

Location: The location listed under the heading is the primary location, the locations with suitcase avatars next to them are cities the escort is willing to travel to. I recorded all of these locations.

Age: Age is recorded in years.

Height: Height is reported in feet and inches, I recorded height in inches.

Weight: Weight is listed in 20 pound intervals beginning at 130 pounds and ending at 200 pounds (e.g., 150 to 170 pounds). I took the midpoint of the range given by an escort. If an escort’s text ad lists a weight, I recorded that exact weight in place of the midpoint range.

Race: White, Black/African American, Asian, Hispanic, multiracial, or other.

Hair color: Black, blonde, brown, grey, or red.

Eye color: Black, blue, brown, green, or hazel.

Body type: Athletic/swimmer’s build, average, a few extra pounds, muscular/buff, or thin/lean.

Body hair: Hairy, moderately hairy, shaved, or smooth.

From the text of escort advertisements, I recorded mention of the following (because I read the advertisements, I do not record the instance of a word but its meaning, which can be implied from the context):

Top: Escorts stated they are a top (the penetrative partner in anal sex).

Bottom: Escorts stated they are a bottom (the receptive partner in anal sex).

Versatile: Escorts indicated they are versatile (both top and bottom).

No attitude: Escorts noted they have “no attitude”; that is, they are willing to see clients without regard to race, body type, physical appearance, or disability.

Safe: Escorts noted they are disease and drug free and participate only in safer sex.

Note: In American gay society, men may not only be tops, bottoms, or versatile, but also “versatile tops” and “versatile bottoms.” The meaning of such terms is the distinction between one man who would rarely or never partake in an activity (a top would never perform as a bottom and vice versa), and a man who occasionally partakes in an activity (a versatile top would occasionally bottom and vice versa). These terms are well established in American gay society (Sadownick 1996)."

 

Article Notes

 

"Trevon D. Logan is an Associate Professor of economics at The Ohio State University, a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Scholar in Health Policy Research at the University of Michigan. His work includes studies of African American migration, economic analysis of illegal markets, the economics of marriage transfers, and measures of historical living standards. Selected publications have appeared in American Economic Review, Historical Methods, and Journal of Economic History.

 

Portions of this research were supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, whose support is gratefully acknowledged. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation."

[Steven_Draker]

Notes

 

↵1. These older works include Ginsburg (1967), Hoffman (1972), Boyer (1989), Salamon (1989), McNamara (1994), and Pettiway (1996).

↵2. The chosen data source contains more than 1,930 unique advertisements; the next largest competitor contains fewer than 1,500.

↵3. Before providing an overview of male sex work among men who advertise online in the United States, two caveats should be noted. First, I concentrate on male escorts as opposed to street workers. Second, I focus on how the market for male sex work functions and the implications one can draw from that knowledge in forming testable hypotheses.

↵4. In the past, male prostitution also took the form of transvestite sex work, and male brothels were not uncommon (Chauncey 1994). Dorais (2005) shows that male brothels have survived in other cultures. Friedman (2003) shows that street male and transsexual sex workers do not work in the same locations in the postwar United States.

↵5. Social stigma of male prostitution is assumed to be lower than that for female prostitution (West 1993), but such claims are subject to criticism (Chauncey 1994; Dorais 2005; Friedman 2003). The claim that male prostitutes face less social stigma implicitly conditions on sexual orientation, which itself is stigmatizing.

↵6. Although most gay-related publications continue to have small sections devoted to male escorts, the size of these sections has decreased. The growth of online escorting has largely eliminated a caste of male sex workers—“bar boys”—who would congregate in known “hustler bars” to meet potential clients (Luckenbill 1986; Parsons, Koken, and Bimbi 2004).

↵7. Many escort advertisements note that escorts have specialties in “discretion” and in serving married men.

↵8. Sociologists (e.g., Hacker 1957; Weinberg and Williams 1974) have noted conflicts within masculinities before the theory of hegemonic masculinity developed.

↵9. Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) express doubts about this hybrid, but they concede that hegemonic masculinity could be informed by and inform gay masculinities.

↵10. Male escorts’ advertisements commonly note their “ruggedness” or “manliness” and the “refinement” of their “generous gentlemen” clients.

↵11. Full description of the data and all statistical code for the analysis is available from the author by e-mail request. See the Data Appendix for data construction details.

↵12. I manually inspected every advertisement to classify behaviors from their texts.

↵13. See Logan and Shah (2009) for more on the role of pictures in the male escort market.

↵14. “Versatile” escorts often describe themselves as “versatile tops” or “versatile bottoms”; this denotes a preference for one activity but a willingness to participate in the other. I code “versatile tops” and “versatile bottoms” as “versatile.” See the Data Appendix for further details.

↵15. Economists have noted problems with some of the assumptions underlying the hedonic empirical approach. For example, Rosen (1974) assumes that the market for the good or service in question is perfectly competitive and that the range of products is approximately continuous. Yet many markets are not perfectly competitive, and even fewer have a continuum of goods (which requires a large variety of products of the same type in the market). Rosen also assumes that all product attributes will be observed by market participants; this, too, is not true for some goods, particularly escort services. For these reasons, some object to the hedonic approach and its interpretation (Bartik 1987; Brown and Rosen 1982; Epple 1987). Fortunately, recent advances in applied econometrics show that the hedonic approach used here can be used to uncover implicit prices of characteristics in markets that are not perfectly competitive, where there is not a continuum of goods, and where all product characteristics are not observed (Bajari and Benkard 2005). In short, one can estimate implicit prices in this market without making the rigid market assumptions that have been problematic in the literature.

↵16. I control for an escort’s location not only because price may vary with geography, but because specific locations may have more or fewer competitors, which can exert an independent effect on prices in a particular market.

↵17. This calculation assumes that escorts see 25 clients per month.

↵18. These results are robust to the inclusion of age-squared and when substituting body mass index (BMI) for height and weight.

↵19. Because the specification is semi logarithmic, the percentage change of a dichotomous indicator is approximated by exp(γ)−1, where γ is the coefficient in the regression (Halvorsen and Palmquist 1980).

↵20. The price differential is calculated as exp(Top) – exp(Bottom).

↵21. There are caveats to my interpretation of the correlation of safe sex with higher prices in the male escort market. It could be that clients who desire unsafe sex may desire unsafe sex with escorts who are less likely to participate in unsafe sex generally and may reward them for that.

↵22. See the online supplement (http://asr.sagepub.com/supplemental) for a fuller delineation of the biological hypothesis.

↵23. See note 20.

[Steven_Draker]

References

 

↵ Aggleton Peter, ed. 1999. Men who Sell Sex: International Perspectives on Male Prostitution and HIV/AIDS. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

↵ Allen Donald M. 1980. “Young Male Prostitutes: A Psychosocial Study.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 9:399–426. CrossRefMedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science

↵ Almeling Rene. 2007. “Selling Genes, Selling Gender: Egg Agencies, Sperm Banks, and the Medical Market in Genetic Material.” American Sociological Review 72:319–40. Abstract/FREE Full Text

↵ Anderson Eric. 2002. “Openly Gay Athletes: Contesting Hegemonic Masculinity in a Homophobic Environment.” Gender and Society 16:860–77. CrossRef

↵ Arunachalam Raj, Shah Manisha. 2008. “Prostitutes and Brides?” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 98:516–22. CrossRef

↵ Atkins Dawn, ed. 1998. Looking Queer: Body Image and Identity in Lesbian, Gay, and Transgender Communities. New York: Routledge.

↵ Bajari Patrick, Benkard C. Lanier. 2005. “Demand Estimation with Heterogeneous Consumers and Unobserved Product Characteristics: A Hedonic Approach.” Journal of Political Economy 113:1239–76.

↵ Baldwin James. 1985. The Price of the Ticket: Collected Nonfiction 1948–1985. New York: St. Martin’s.

↵ Bartik Timothy J. 1987. “The Estimation of Demand Parameters in Hedonic Price Models.” Journal of Political Economy 95:81–88. CrossRefWeb of Science

↵ Beren Susan E., Hayden Helen A., Wilfley Denise E., Grilo Carlos M. 1996. “The Influence of Sexual Orientation on Body Dissatisfaction in Adult Men and Women.” International Journal of Eating Disorders 20:135–41. CrossRefMedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science

↵ Berg Nathan, Lien Donald. 2002. “Measuring the Effect of Sexual Orientation on Income: Evidence of Discrimination?” Contemporary Economic Policy 20:394–414. CrossRefWeb of Science

↵ Berg Nathan, Lien Donald. 2006. “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior: U.S. Frequency Estimates from Survey Data with Simultaneous Misreporting and Non-Response.” Applied Economics 38:759–69.

↵ Bernstein Elizabeth. 2005. “Desire, Demand, and the Commerce of Sex.” Pp. 101–128 in Regulating Sex: The Politics of Intimacy and Identity, edited by Bernstein E., Schaffner L. New York: Routledge.

↵ Bernstein Elizabeth. 2007. Temporarily Yours: Sexual Commerce in Post-Industrial Culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

↵ Bimbi David S. 2007. “Male Prostitution: Pathology, Paradigms and Progress in Research.” Journal of Homosexuality 53:7–35. CrossRefMedlineOrder article via Infotrieve

↵ Bimbi David S., Parsons Jeffrey T. 2005. “Barebacking among Internet Based Male Sex Workers.” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy 9:89–110.

↵ Bird Sharon R. 1996. “Welcome to the Men’s Club: Homosociality and the Maintenance of Hegemonic Masculinity.” Gender and Society 10:120–32. CrossRef

↵ Black Dan, Gates Gary, Sanders Seth, Taylor Lowell. 2000. “Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Sources.” Demography 37:139–54. MedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science

↵ Black Dan, Gates Gary, Sanders Seth, Taylor Lowell. 2002. “Why do Gay Men Live in San Francisco?” Journal of Urban Economics 51:54–76. CrossRefWeb of Science

↵ Black Daniel, Sanders Seth, Taylor Lowell. 2007. “The Economics of Lesbian and Gay Families.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 21:53–70. CrossRefWeb of Science

↵ Boyer Debra. 1989. “Male Prostitution and Homosexual Identity.” Journal of Homosexuality 17:151–84. CrossRefMedlineOrder article via Infotrieve

↵ Brown James N., Rosen Harvey S. 1982. “On the Estimation of Structural Hedonic Price Models.” Econometrica 50:765–68. CrossRefWeb of Science

↵ Browne Jan, Minichiello Victor. 1996. “Research Directions in Male Sex Work.” Journal of Homosexuality 31:29–56. CrossRefMedlineOrder article via Infotrieve

↵ Calhoun Thomas C., Weaver Greg. 1996. “Rational Decision-Making among Male Street Prostitutes.” Deviant Behavior 17:209–227. CrossRef

↵ Cameron Samuel, Collins Alan, Drinkwater Stephen, Hickson Ford, Reid David, Roberts Jennifer, Stephens Michael, Weatherburn Peter. 2009. “Surveys and Data Sources on Gay Men’s Lifestyles and Socio-Sexual Behavior: Some Key Concerns and Issues.” Sexuality & Culture 13:135–51. CrossRef

↵ Cameron Samuel, Collins Alan, Thew Neill. 1999. “Prostitution Services: An Exploratory Empirical Analysis.” Applied Economics 31:1523–29. CrossRef

↵ Cantu Lionel. 2002. “A Place Called Home: A Queer Political Economy.” Pp. 382–94 in Sexuality and Gender, edited by Williams C., Stein S. New York: Blackwell.

↵ Carpenter Christopher. 2003. “Sexual Orientation and Body Weight: Evidence from Multiple Surveys.” Gender Issues 21:60–74.

↵ Carpenter Christopher. 2004. “New Evidence on Gay and Lesbian Household Incomes.” Contemporary Economic Policy 22:78–94. CrossRefWeb of Science

↵ Carpenter Christopher, Gates Gary. 2008. “Gay and Lesbian Partnership: Evidence from California.” Demography 45:573–90. CrossRefMedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science

↵ Chauncey George. 1994. Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World 1890–1940. New York: Basic Books.

↵ Clarkson Jay. 2006. “‘Everyday Joe’ versus ‘Pissy, Bitchy, Queens’: Gay Masculinity on StraightActing.com.” Journal of Men’s Studies 14:191–208. CrossRef

↵ Cohan Deborah L., Breyer Johanna, Cobaugh Cynthia, Cloniger Charles, Herlyn Antje, Lutnick Alexandra, Wilson Daniel. 2004. “Social Context and the Health of Sex Workers in San Francisco.” Paper presented at the 2004 International Conference on AIDS, July 11 to 16, Bangkok, Thailand.

↵ Collins Alan. 2004. “Sexual Dissidence, Enterprise and Assimilation: Bedfellows in Urban Regeneration.” Urban Studies 41:1789–806. Abstract/FREE Full Text

↵ Collins Patricia Hill. 1999. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Harper Collins.

↵ Collins Patricia Hill. 2000. “Gender, Black Feminism and Black Political Economy.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 568:41–53. Abstract/FREE Full Text

↵ Connell Jeffrey A. 2002. “Male Sex Work: Occupational Health and Safety.” Paper presented at the 2002 International Conference on AIDS, July 7 to 12, Barcelona, Spain.

↵ Connell R. W. 1987. Gender and Power: Society, the Person, and Sexual Politics. Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin.

↵ Connell R. W. 1992. “A Very Straight Gay: Masculinity, Homosexual Experience, and the Dynamics of Gender.” American Sociological Review 57:737–51.

↵ Connell R. W. 1995. Masculinities. Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin.

↵ Connell R. W., Messerschmidt James W. 2005. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept.” Gender and Society 19:829–59. CrossRef

↵ Court Andrew T. 1939. “Hedonic Price Indexes with Automotive Examples.” Pp. 99–117 in General Motors Corporation, The Dynamics of Automobile Demand. New York: General Motors Corporation.

↵ Demetriou Demetrakis Z. 2001. “Connell’s Concept of Hegemonic Masculinity: A Critique.” Theory and Society 30:337–61. CrossRefWeb of Science

↵ D’Emilio John D. 1997. “Capitalism and Gay Identity.” Pp. 169–78 in The Gender/Sexuality Reader, edited by Lancaster R., diLeonardo M. New York: Routledge.

↵ Donaldson Mike. 1993. “What is Hegemonic Masculinity?” Theory and Society 22:643–57. CrossRefWeb of Science

↵ Dorais Michel. 2005. Rent Boys: The World of Male Sex Workers. London, UK: McGill-Queens University Press.

↵ Dowsett Gary W. 1993. “I’ll Show You Mine, if You’ll Show Me Yours: Gay Men, Masculinity Research, Men’s Studies, and Sex.” Theory and Society 22:697–709. CrossRef

↵ Edlund Lena, Korn Evelyn. 2002. “A Theory of Prostitution.” Journal of Political Economy 110:181–214. CrossRef

↵ Epple Dennis. 1987. “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Estimating Demand and Supply Functions for Differentiated Products.” Journal of Political Economy 95:59–80. CrossRefWeb of Science

↵ Epstein Steven G. 2006. “The New Attack on Sexuality Research: Morality and the Politics of Knowledge Production.” Sexuality Research and Social Policy 3:1–12.

↵ Frankel Todd C. 2007. “In Forest Park, the Roots of Sen. Craig’s Misadventure.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, August 31.

↵ Friedman Mack. 2003. Strapped for Cash: A History of American Hustler Culture. Los Angeles, CA: Alyson.

↵ Gertler Paul, Shah Manisha, Bertozzi Stefano M.. 2005. “Risky Business: The Market for Unprotected Commercial Sex.” Journal of Political Economy 113:518–50. CrossRef

[Steven_Draker]

↵ Ginsburg Kenneth N. 1967. “The ‘Meat Rack’: A Study of the Male Homosexual Prostitute.” American Journal of Psychotherapy 21:170–85. MedlineOrder article via Infotrieve

↵ Giusta Marina D., Di Tommaso Maria L., Strom Steinar. 2009. “Who’s Watching? The Market for Prostitution Services.” Journal of Population Economics 22:501–516. CrossRef

↵ Green Adam I. 2008a. “The Social Organization of Desire: The Sexual Fields Approach.” Sociological Theory 26:25–50. CrossRefWeb of Science

↵ Green Adam I. 2008b. “Health and Sexual Status in an Urban Gay Enclave: An Application of the Stress Process Model.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 49:436–51. Abstract/FREE Full Text

↵ Griliches Zvi. 1961. “Hedonic Price Indexes for Automobiles: An Econometric Analysis of Quality Change.” Pp. 173–96 in The Price Statistics of the Federal Government. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

↵ Hacker Helen M. 1957. “The New Burdens of Masculinity.” Marriage and Family Living 19:227–33. CrossRef

↵ Halvorsen Robert, Palmquist Raymond. 1980. “The Interpretation of Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations.” American Economic Review 70:474–75. Web of Science

↵ Han Chong-Suk. 2006. “Geisha of a Different Kind: Gay Asian Men and the Gendering of Sexual Identity.” Sexuality & Culture 10:3–28.

↵ Hennen Peter. 2005. “Bear Bodies, Bear Masculinity: Recuperation, Resistance, or Retreat?” Gender and Society 19:25–43. CrossRef

↵ Herzog David B., Newman Kerry L., Yeh Christine J., Warshaw Meredith. 1991. “Body Image Satisfaction in Homosexual and Heterosexual Males.” International Journal of Eating Disorders 11:356–96.

↵ Hewitt Christopher. 1995. “The Socioeconomic Position of Gay Men: A Review of the Evidence.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 54:461–79. CrossRefWeb of Science

↵ Hoffman Martin. 1972. “The Male Prostitute.” Sexual Behavior 2:16–21.

↵ Hooker Evelyn. 1957. “The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual.” Journal of Projective Techniques 21:18–31. MedlineOrder article via Infotrieve

↵ Hotelling Harold. 1929. “Stability in Competition.” Economic Journal 39:41–57. CrossRefWeb of Science

↵ Humphries Laud. 1970. Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

↵ Itiel Joseph. 1998. A Consumer’s Guide to Male Hustlers. New York: Harrington Park Press.

↵ Jepsen Lisa, Jepsen Christopher. 2002. “An Empirical Analysis of the Matching Patterns of Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Couples.” Demography 39:435–54. CrossRefMedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science

↵ Joffe Helene, Dockrell Julie E. 1995. “Safer Sex: Lessons from the Male Sex Industry.” Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 5:333–46. CrossRef

↵ Kaye Kerwin. 2001. “Male Prostitution in the Twentieth Century: Pseudohomosexuals, Hoodlums Homosexuals, and Exploited Teens.” Journal of Homosexuality 46:1–77.

↵ Koken Juline A., Bimbi David S., Parsons Jeffrey T. 2009. “Male and Female Escorts: A Comparative Analysis.” Pp. 205–232 in Sex for Sale: Prostitution, Pornography, and the Sex Industry, 2nd ed., edited by Weitzer R. New York: Routledge.

↵ Koken Juline A., Parsons Jeffrey T., Severino Joseph, Bimbi David S. 2005. “Exploring Commercial Sex Encounters in an Urban Community Sample of Gay and Bisexual Men: A Preliminary Report.” Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality 17:197–213. CrossRef

↵ Loftus Jeni. 2001. “America’s Liberalization in Attitudes toward Homosexuality.” American Sociological Review 66:762–82. CrossRefWeb of Science

↵ Logan Trevon D., Shah Manisha. 2009. “Face Value: Information and Signaling in an Illegal Market.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 14841.

↵ Luckenbill David F. 1986. “Deviant Career Mobility: The Case of Male Prostitutes.” Social Problems 33:283–96. CrossRef

↵ MacDonald Laura A. 2007. “America’s Toe-Tapping Menace.” New York Times, September 2.

↵ Marlowe Julian. 1997. “It’s Different for Boys.” Pp.141–44 in *****s and Other Feminists, edited by Nagle J. New York: Routledge.

↵ McBride Dwight. 2005. Why I Hate Abercrombie and Fitch: Essays on Race and Sexuality. New York: NYU Press.

↵ McNamara Robert P. 1994. The Times Square Hustler: Male Prostitution in New York City. Westwood, CT: Praeger.

↵ Nagel Joane. 2000. “Ethnicity and Sexuality.” Annual Review of Sociology 26:107–133. CrossRefWeb of Science

↵ Nardi Peter, ed. 2000. Gay Masculinities. London, UK: Sage.

↵ Parker Melissa. 2006. “Core Groups and the Transmission of HIV: Learning from Male Sex Workers.” Journal of Biosocial Science 38:117–31. CrossRefMedlineOrder article via Infotrieve

↵ Parsons Jeffrey T., Bimbi David S., Halkitis Perry N. 2001. “Sexual Compulsivity among Gay/Bisexual Male Escorts who Advertise on the Internet.” Journal of Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity 8:113–23. CrossRef

↵ Parsons Jeffrey T., Koken Juline A., Bimbi. David S. 2004. “The Use of the Internet by Gay and Bisexual Male Escorts: Sex Workers as Sex Educators.” AIDS Care 16:1021–35. CrossRefMedlineOrder article via Infotrieve

↵ Parsons Jeffrey T., Koken Juline A., Bimbi. David S. 2007. “Looking beyond HIV: Eliciting Individual and Community Needs of Male Internet Escorts.” Journal of Homosexuality 53:219–40. CrossRefMedlineOrder article via Infotrieve

↵ Pascoe C. J. 2007. Dude, You’re a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

↵ Pettiway Leon E. 1996. Honey, Honey, Miss Thang: Being Black, Gay and on the Streets. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

↵ Phua Voon C., Kaufman Gayle. 2003. “The Crossroads of Race and Sexuality: Date Selection among Men in Internet ‘Personal’ Ads.” Journal of Family Issues 24:981–94. Abstract/FREE Full Text

↵ Pompeo Joe. 2009. “The Hipster Rent Boys of New York.” New York Observer, January 27.

↵ Pruitt Matthew. 2005. “Online Boys: Male for Male Internet Escorts.” Sociological Focus 38:189–203.

↵ Reeser Todd W. 2010. Masculinities in Theory. Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell.

↵ Reid-Pharr Robert F. 2001. Black Gay Man: Essays. New York: NYU Press.

↵ Robinson Russell K. 2007. “Uncovering Covering.” Northwestern University Law Review 101:1809–850.

↵ Robinson Russell K. 2008. “Black ‘Tops’ and Asian ‘Bottoms’: The Impact of Race and Gender on Coupling in Queer Communities.” Working paper, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.

↵ Rosen Sherwin. 1974. “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition.” Journal of Political Economy 82:34–55. CrossRefWeb of Science

↵ Sadownick Douglas. 1996. Sex between Men: An Intimate History of the Sex Lives of Gay Men Postwar to Present. New York: Harper Collins.

↵ Salamon Edna D. 1989. “The Homosexual Escort Agency: Deviance Disavowal.” The British Journal of Sociology 40:1–21. CrossRefMedlineOrder article via Infotrieve

↵ Schrock Douglas, Schwalbe Michael. 2009. “Men, Masculinity, and Manhood Acts.” Annual Review of Sociology 35:277–95. CrossRefWeb of Science

↵ Scott John. 2003. “A Prostitute’s Progress: Male Prostitution in Scientific Discourse.” Social Semiotics 13:179–99. CrossRef

↵ Sedgwick Eve Kosofsky. 1990. The Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

↵ Simmel Georg. [1907] 1971. “Prostitution.” Pp. 121–26 in On Individuality and Social Forms, edited by Levine D. N. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

↵ Steele Bruce C., Kennedy Sean. 2006. “Hustle and Grow.” The Advocate, April 11, 2006.

↵ Stein Arlene. 1989. “Three Models of Sexuality: Drives, Identities, and Practices.” Sociological Theory 7:1–13. CrossRef

↵ Uy Jude M., Parsons Jeffrey T., Bimbi David S., Koken Juline A., Halkitis Perry N. 2004. “Gay and Bisexual Male Escorts who Advertise on the Internet: Understanding Reasons for and Effects of Involvement in Commercial Sex.” International Journal of Men’s Health 3:11–26. CrossRef

↵ Varghese Beena, Maher Julie E., Peterman Thomas A., Branson Bernard M., Steketee Richard W. 2002. “Reducing the Risk of Sexual HIV Transmission: Quantifying the Per-Act Risk for HIV on the Basis of Choice of Partner, Sex Act, and Condom Use.” Sexually Transmitted Diseases 29:38–43. MedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science

↵ Ward Jane. 2000. “Queer Sexism: Rethinking Gay Men and Masculinity.” Pp. 152–75 in Gay Masculinities, edited by Nardi P. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

↵ Ward Jane. 2008. “Dude-Sex: White Masculinities and ‘Authentic’ Heterosexuality among Dudes Who Have Sex with Dudes.” Sexualities 11:414–34. Abstract/FREE Full Text

↵ Weinberg Martin S., Williams Colin J. 1974. Male Homosexuals: Their Problems and Adaptations. New York: Oxford University Press.

↵ Weitzer Ronald. 2005. “New Directions in Research in Prostitution.” Crime, Law & Social Change 43:211–35. CrossRef

↵ Weitzer Ronald. 2009. “Sociology of Sex Work.” Annual Review of Sociology 35:213–34. CrossRef

↵ West Donald J. 1993. Male Prostitution. New York: Haworth Press.

↵ Zelizer Viviana A. 1994. The Social Meaning of Money. New York: Basic Books.

 

END

[Steven_Draker]

I wonder what that "largest online male sex worker website" might be?

 

Men4RentNow was used for this study.

http://asr.sagepub.com/content/75/5/679/F1.medium.gif

[+ Charlie]

As a professional in the field yourself, is M4RN the website you would have chosen as the basis of this research study?

[Steven_Draker]

I would have chosen Rentboy.com, but that's just me, Charlie.

[Kevin Slater]

As a professional in the field yourself, is M4RN the website you would have chosen as the basis of this research study?

 

I wouldn't chose M4RN for my worst enemy's syphilitic dog. Without perusing the report, I wonder if the author corrected for dead ads (those which remain on the site long after the individual has left the business) that proliferate that particular site. If not, the data may be skewed toward fellows who either were not able to make a go of it or not terribly serious from the outset.

 

I'm somewhat suspect of the methodology of simply analyzing online ads, whichever the website. Ideally I would like to see the report weigh the data not just against what the escorts advertise, but against what they actually earn. This would eliminate some of the fantasy factor as well as lend more weight to those escorts with more actual transactions. (In an economic analysis, why weigh Mom & Pop's Hardware and Home Depot equally?)

 

Thanks for posting, Steven.

 

Kevin Slater

[+ deej]

I've been celebrating the new year a little too much, too early, to actually read the text until later.

 

But I notice in "Acknowledgments" she thanks "ASR's anonymous reviewers" and I'm drawing a blank on ASR. Anyone?

[Steven_Draker]

... she thanks "ASR's anonymous reviewers" and I'm drawing a blank on ASR. Anyone?

 

"she"? ... alright, Deej, you have been celebrating too much ...

 

ASR stands for American Sociological Review (as in the OP).

[bcohen7719]

"Anonymous reviewers" refers to outside academics who may or may not belong to the editorial board of the journal. They are selected by the journal's Editor. Most journals are supposed to use this system, called "double blind peer review," where neither the author nor the reviewers know who each other are. This is supposed to minimize the influence of pre-existing personal friendships or jealousy when a new paper is submitted to an academic research journal for possible publication.

[+ deej]

OH! That.

 

Thanks. I'm feeling better about blanking on the acronym.

[bcohen7719]

In an unsettling way, "Daddy's Reviews" could also be considered a double-blind peer review online journal. Scary.

[leigh.bess.toad]

Actual bcohen is sort of on the right track. If Dr. Logan had read Daddy's at any length he certainly would have changed some of his conclusins, I believe. First, he would have discovered what we all know here: M4RN has a lot of dead ads and you really can't rely on it for any scientific research. I know I wouldn't. There tends to be, in my experience, a lot more part-timers, players, and long-goners on M4RN than other sites. Then as we all learn early on around here, "asking ain't getting". just because you're a top and list $400/hour doesn't mean that's what you are getting. And then the biggest problem of all, the one raised by Kevin -- you just can't look at 2 ads side by side in a vacuum and say 1 has a penalty and 1 has a premium. For example, if Escort A is a bottom and is at $200/hoiur and his ad draws 10 customers while Escort B is a top and is at $300/hour but his ad draws 2 customers is Escort A really have a bottom penalty? Does Escort B really have a top premium. Strictly from a financial point of view, which guy would you say had the penalty -- the one who made $2000 or the one who made $600?

 

Dr. Logan made an interesting start but he has a long way to go. But spending a considerable amount of time here at Daddy's really isn't a bad idea. In case you haven't noticed, this really is a pretty intelligent and sophisticated group. I may be way off base, but I would wager that the average IQ and income of Daddy's regulars are both considerably above the American norm so Dr. Logan could find a thoughtful group to answer some questions he might have. However, one interesting thing. Even though the article was published in ASR, Dr. Logan is not a sociologist. He is an economist by training and practice.

 

But the question I have is this: where does his interest in this area of study come from? Has he employed any of our friends. I'm certain he is not a poster because he wouldn't have made some of the "errors" we believe he made. I mean it is interesting research. It certainly is completely non-judgmental and I appreciate that. I just think the base of his data is wrong, therefore some of his conclusions are wrong. GIGO. Everytime.

 

But I really want to thank bchoen for calling attention to the article and Steven for printing all of it. It was a very interesting read, at least it was for me.

[gp0560]

Waaaaaaaaaay OT

 

My comment has nothing to do with the quality of the author's data or conclusions. The rest of you are doing just fine playing without me. I simply can't resist, however, commenting on the style of writing that is required in academia. And with that caveat:

 

Having to read this kind of

CRAP

in my own field is one reason I'm glad I left academia.