Jump to content

Ads for escorts aimed at women vs. men


FreshFluff
This topic is 3369 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

I once heard a saying: Men are turned on by men/women dressed for sex. Women are turned on by men (and women?) dressed for work.

 

The ads shown below are consistent with that generalization.

 

Rentboy:

http://s12.postimg.org/51mns1uel/Screen_Shot_2014_12_12_at_1_42_49_PM.png

 

Papau.net, a site aimed at women. The two apparently highest-priced ("Ask me") guys are on the upper left. Note the French, which gives the whole enterprise a more "classique" feel. :rolleyes:

http://s11.postimg.org/n7zhsgdgz/Screen_Shot_2014_12_12_at_1_42_02_PM.png

 

Check out the profiles. Most of the escorts (with the exception of QK and Franky) market themselves as event escorts, not as private companions. They even ask the client to buy

 

It's difficult for me to understand appeal of the majority of these guys or the overall experience they're selling. And with the "pre-paid dinner and drinks" and the limo-sedan rental (hello kick-backs), it seems like a pre-fab joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miss. Fresh Fluff and others of the female gender, go to Backpage. At least half the escorts advertising there are for female clients only. And they dress/ present themselves no differently.

 

That's interesting, armadillo.

 

I'm not currently in the market for that kind of experience. But it's interesting that Backpage has so many female-only escorts. I wonder if some guys have delusions about the size of the market for MtF escorts and believe they can get paid regularly for having sex with women, or whether occasional "free money" (which is how most straight man would see paid sex with an average woman) is worth the price of the ad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're saying that the agency is scammy? Sure, I agree.

 

My main point is the difference in how the guys are presented, both in the photos and in their profiles. Do any RB guys actually pretend that they're hiring themselves out as social escorts only?

 

There have been rare ads on Rentboy and some of the other sites of social escorts only. I can't remember if these escorts were marketing themselves for women as well. As for the suit pictures, I'm all for them. Most of the escorts I'm attracted to are incredibly handsome and in great shape, so they all rock the heck out of suits. I'm also fond of pictures showing them half in/half out of the suits as well as the normal physique and nekkid photos. The main photos I'm not that fond of are the ones that show their anuses. While derrières can be cute, anuses rarely are.

 

Gman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time I see a non-real world (in fiction or elsewhere) reference to male escorts exclusively for women, I think "that's a fantasy; they don't really exist in real life because there's not enough of a demand. What actually exists are men who have both male and female clients." That said, I've seen at least one reference elsewhere to an agency for male companions who are marketed exclusively to women. It might be the same one as featured here.

 

I wouldn't necessarily connect the presentation of the men on the sites with that saying. (And I bet I won't surprise FF, or anyone else, when I say that I take generalizations like that with a boulder of salt.) I've seen photos on Rentboy/Rentmen/personal sites of some escorts who are well-known here (Chris Eisenhower and The Legendary Dave come to mind) either in suits or getting dressed in suits. There's all kinds of porn -- gay, straight, probably bisexual as well -- centered on men in suits.

 

Sure, the Rentboy photos are more heavily sexualized. But look at the Papau disclaimer. They purport that the escorts do not sell sex, and (IIRC) trying to hire them for sex nullifies the agreement. Whatever the truth of the matter (and the contents of the user agreement certainly muddies the matter), Papau.net is clearly trying to present its personnel in a more romantic, less sexualized light than that. It may well be an effort to downplay that aspect (if it is indeed an aspect -- the legalisms of the disclaimer, which doesn't come across as "wink wink nod nod" at all, suggest it may in fact not be) of the service to make it more palatable to potential clients. Whether that's necessary or not is another matter, but the fact that it's done doesn't surprise me at all. Women not only are not socialized to look at men in the same way men are taught to look at women (as meat, basically), they are familiar with being the object of it, so many women who are comfortable with being sexual beings may still be uncomfortable with looking at or thinking of men in the direct, sexual manner men learn to apply to women.

 

Not only that, in my observation, men looking for men to have sex with (paid or otherwise) care more about appearance than women do or would. (Anecdotal, I know, and thus of limited validity, but not of no validity.) So abs and so forth matter more to them, and it makes sense for escorts seeking such clients to display them. Women care less about it. Not nothing, but less. (To which I will digress into the endorsement of a statement I've seen elsewhere: that guys looking for women to have sex with need to learn that women don't want to see your dick pic unless they ask for it -- an entirely different mindset, I suspect, than that which is prevalent among men looking to have sex with men.) Also, to the extent -- and it looks like it's a large, if not the entire extent -- this agency exists to provide escorts in the literal sense only, it makes sense to show what the guys are likely to wear under those circumstances.

 

I certainly don't consider myself prudish or easily shocked, but I don't get much out of explicit still photos of erections and the like. The vast majority of them look vaguely ridiculous. Gifs and videos do far more for me. Arty/erotic photos do more for me -- whatever the male equivalent of pinup photos might be. (Other than "beefcake" denoting someone who's husky and built, and I'm not that into that.) I don't think I'm alone in any of that, including a preference for men who aren't as beefy or built up as may be the "norm" among men who are attracted to men. I realize gay/bisexual men aren't a monolithic group in that regard either, but there seems to be more of either a consensus or social pressure to create a consensus among them than there is among women, where there is a group (maybe a minority, but still a sizeable group) who like slender, slim, androgynous men, a group that likes men somewhere in the middle, and another group that likes some form of beefed up men. Some of us have preferences but like men in two or all three categories.

 

So I'm not as turned off or puzzled by this as the others who've commented. I can totally see the appeal of arm candy for a social event, especially if, as suggested, there was someone I wanted to show up, but even if I had the money, I wouldn't hire for that reason. But only the first two guys -- Frant and Victor, the ones with the "upon request" prices -- appeal to me in terms of looks. Franky looks to me like someone who would fit right in on an episode of "The Sopranos" (or like the stereotype of an old-fashioned gigolo who is available as a dance partner at a resort) and I'd stay as far away from him as possible. Most of the rest don't appeal to me, but (full disclosure) Frant and Victor are the only ones whose profiles I've looked at.

 

Also, it's clear that Papau.net has had attorneys draft the disclaimer and user agreement and (presumably, because it's what I'd do) look at the website, which to me indicates that they really are trying to stay on the right side of the law here. So I tend to believe them when they say neither they nor their escorts are selling sex -- at least not officially. I can think of some ways sex could happen and still remain plausibly deniable. They are also ways that I think are probably unethical, but that's a different beast than illegality.

 

Miss. Fresh Fluff and others of the female gender, go to Backpage. At least half the escorts advertising there are for female clients only. And they dress/ present themselves no differently.

 

Dress/present themselves no differently than whom -- the guys who advertise in Rentboy or those from the Papau.net website?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once heard a saying: Men are turned on by men/women dressed for sex. Women are turned on by men (and women?) dressed for work.

 

The ads shown below are consistent with that generalization.

 

Rentboy:

http://s12.postimg.org/51mns1uel/Screen_Shot_2014_12_12_at_1_42_49_PM.png

 

Papau.net, a site aimed at women. The two apparently highest-priced ("Ask me") guys are on the upper left. Note the French, which gives the whole enterprise a more "classique" feel. :rolleyes:

http://s11.postimg.org/n7zhsgdgz/Screen_Shot_2014_12_12_at_1_42_02_PM.png

 

Check out the profiles. Most of the escorts (with the exception of QK and Franky) market themselves as event escorts, not as private companions. They even ask the client to buy

 

It's difficult for me to understand appeal of the majority of these guys or the overall experience they're selling. And with the "pre-paid dinner and drinks" and the limo-sedan rental (hello kick-backs), it seems like a pre-fab joke.

 

 

Long before "escort" became synonymous with "sex worker," it meant exactly that, and there were men who, for a fee, went on dates with women, escorted them to events, etc. I knew a middle-aged straight guy, sort of attractive, who made his living keeping single women company on cruise ships - chatting, having drinks, dancing with them, etc. The cruise line paid him and the women tipped him. I imagine though, that the line between "escort" and "gigolo," even then, was pretty blurry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time I see a non-real world (in fiction or elsewhere) reference to male escorts exclusively for women, I think "that's a fantasy; they don't really exist in real life because there's not enough of a demand. What actually exists are men who have both male and female clients." That said, I've seen at least one reference elsewhere to an agency for male companions who are marketed exclusively to women. It might be the same one as featured here.

 

Do you think you might be referring to this agency?

 

http://www.cowboys4angels.com

 

Also I've seen ads for 'straight' escorts who per their ad only escort for women. In fact occasionally I think I've seen them on Rentboy. I've always chalked it up to someone who didn't realize what audience Rentboy was designed for. Now whether these escorts are occasionally convinced to take a male client and how interactive they would be with that client is of course the question. If we took these escorts for women at their word that they are straight, then we'd pretty much also have to assume that they were strict tops. As a top, I've never tried to hire one of them. But maybe some of the versatile or bottom members here on the Forum have?

 

As for pictures of tallywackers, you are right. I like seeing them. As a (bisexual) friend of mine one remarked in reference to them- 'a thing of beauty is a joy forever'. That being said for me it's part and parcel of the whole ad. If an escort just shows his tallywacker in an ad without views of his face, I'm not usually interested. Same thing goes for butts and especially anuses. But I'm a face, chest, abs, biceps guy. The first men I remember being attracted to when I was as young as 5 years old were bodybuilders and TV/Movie actors.

 

Anyone remember this scene from the musical Li'l Abner?

 

http://global-4-lvs-colossus.opera-mini.net/hs22-10/14246/0/-1/www.briansdriveintheater.com/1489210260/leslieparrish2thumb.jpg

 

I always loved that movie!!!

 

And a question for you QTR, while an overgeneralization, don't you think that a majority of women who hire mainly for sex would want a masculine athletic guy as opposed maybe an androgynous or twinky type?

 

Gman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew a middle-aged straight guy, sort of attractive, who made his living keeping single women company on cruise ships - chatting, having drinks, dancing with them, etc. The cruise line paid him and the women tipped him. I imagine though, that the line between "escort" and "gigolo," even then, was pretty blurry.

 

Cruise lines still do that. They call them "gentlemen hosts". Great job for a guy in his 60's who likes cruises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think you might be referring to this agency?

 

http://www.cowboys4angels.com

 

Also I've seen ads for 'straight' escorts who per their ad only escort for women. In fact occasionally I think I've seen them on Rentboy. I've always chalked it up to someone who didn't realize what audience Rentboy was designed for. Now whether these escorts are occasionally convinced to take a male client and how interactive they would be with that client is of course the question. If we took these escorts for women at their word that they are straight, then we'd pretty much also have to assume that they were strict tops. As a top, I've never tried to hire one of them. But maybe some of the versatile or bottom members here on the Forum have?

 

As for pictures of tallywackers, you are right. I like seeing them. As a (bisexual) friend of mine one remarked in reference to them- 'a thing of beauty is a joy forever'. That being said for me it's part and parcel of the whole ad. If an escort just shows his tallywacker in an ad without views of his face, I'm not usually interested. Same thing goes for butts and especially anuses. But I'm a face, chest, abs, biceps guy. The first men I remember being attracted to when I was as young as 5 years old were bodybuilders and TV/Movie actors.

 

Anyone remember this scene from the musical Li'l Abner?

 

http://global-4-lvs-colossus.opera-mini.net/hs22-10/14246/0/-1/www.briansdriveintheater.com/1489210260/leslieparrish2thumb.jpg

 

I always loved that movie!!!

 

And a question for you QTR, while an overgeneralization, don't you think that a majority of women who hire mainly for sex would want a masculine athletic guy as opposed maybe an androgynous or twinky type?

 

Gman

 

I have no idea. I don't think a name was mentioned, just a location and the fact that its clientele are upscale businesswomen using their own money, not bored wives of businessmen. It's more likely to be Papau, actually, because I think whatever it was I saw mentioned LA and NY as locations where the agency operated.

 

Although there I times when I wonder at the emphasis on one's partner's gender as opposed to interest in the acts one is interested in engaging in, I doubt many strongly straight-identified men who initially advertise on Rentboy for female clients without realizing the real audience are men who have sex with men would be interested in topping men unless they need money badly or were offered a significant amount more than they were looking for initially.

 

IDK, photos of erect penises generally don't do much for me. I get the sense that other than giving some idea of size and whether it curves, they don't do much for other women either, probably in part because such photos can also be (and are) used to harass and intimidate. For a woman, receiving an unsolicited dick pic is not much different from encountering a masturbating flasher. One can be non-prudish and pro-masturbation and still not want to have some man expose his erection to you. I'm sure this goes back to general nervousness over the possibility of rape, aka Schrodinger's Rapist.

 

At any rate, erect penises are more interesting to me in person or, if that's not possible, on video/gifs. If we must have explicit (as opposed to erotic) photos, photos of clothed erections and of penetration do more for me than photos of bare erect penises. Photos of erect penises just seem sort of crass and in one's face. (And yes, I realize that they're a stock in trade for escort sites.)

 

I don't know about everyone else, but I can't see the photo from L'il Abner. I'll just use my imagination.

 

As for generalizing about women who hire: I don't have a good enough sense of what that group as a whole likes to make any generalizations. I only feel comfortable generalizing about women as a whole, not subgroups within the whole unless the subgroup is media fandom or some other similar group, and I can tell you that group is not into super-built guys. They're into guys like Jensen Ackles, Misha Collins, and Jared Padalecki of Supernatural. (Note: I'm not a Supernatural fan. They're just examples. And if I had to pick, of the three, I'd pick Collins, but as much if not more for his personality as for his looks.)

 

Although I wouldn't say they're completely devoid of meaning, I abhor the terms "masculine" and "feminine." They have done as much damage to society and individuals within it as calling people stupid, crazy, and every sort of racial or other epithet. I'm not that crazy about twinky types and the term "twink," either. (Pretty boy, maybe? But as they age, lots of pretty boys become handsome men who are considered more traditionally "masculine" looking. Look at Rupert Graves, for example.)

 

While I'm not opposed to guys who are built or go to the gym, I dislike the look of overly developed biceps and thighs and the bulky fireplug look and have far more in common with someone who's interested in intellectual topics and art and music. I mean, I'm far from athletic myself. Why am I going to want to date or go to bed with someone whose main appeal is that they're athletic or athletic-looking (whatever that means) or someone who is supermuscular? Someone who has stamina and is fit, yes, but someone who's specifically a "masculine athletic guy," to use your term? To me, that spells "jock" and that's not the type I typically go for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...