Especially if the escort is in the same class as Gandhi and Rosa Parks. (They quit after two months, too, didn’t they?)
I think well dressed, polite, good looking escorts who would be available to squire unattached women about to functions SHOULD be available. They needn’t drop their pants as part of the job! There are rich society dames who step out with ‘walkers’ - single, usually gay, men who hobnob in society. Heck, I’d like a guy like that to drive me when I go out of town (I can’t do highways and either have to find a relative to drive me or take the bus).
Now that we’re all done laughing at poor Marcus…it occurs to me as pathetically dopey/goofy as he appears to be, if he was a woman whore, no men would be laughing at ‘her’. Men just don’t notice, or care, if they’re putting it to a Harvard graduate or a potted plant when they hire whores. Do they?
Except the only place in the US where prostitution is not a criminal act is in certain counties in Nevada, and it’s only brothel-type prostitution which is allowed.
Markus never had a chance because all the things that the women are saying they want, a guy to be their companion, take them out and do fun things with them, etc. are not available to him within the legal framework. And he was a bit of a butterfaced moron apparently. Still probably smarter and more generally attractive than a number of women who make a living on their backs, but it wasn’t enough to overcome the twin forces of the market and the law against him. The market was against him becasue the service he offers is cheaper and readily available elsewhere. The law said he wasn’t able to offer a lot of the type of services women are interested in, which would be more escorting and companionship, with sex at the end of a session. He had to be in one place, which a particular woman may or may not find romantic, he couldn’t wine and dine them, or show them a good time through the city or around a ranch.
Come to think of it, maybe that would be a better business model. Have a working ranch and women come up, join in pitching hay, herding cattle, basic dude ranch type stuff, and then pick a ranch hand to go back to the bunkhouse with for a couple hours. They get a chance to see a guy working in a “manly” element, instead of some manscaped metrosexual leering at them as soon as they walk in the door, and make it a destination kind of thing, instead of just a wham-bam-thank you ma’am kind of thing. It would be more expensive, but after a couple of hours of working in the fields or with the livestock the woman can check out the guys and decide if she wants to get to know one of them carnally. Work up an appetite, so to speak. They they hit the showers, do all the medical inspections required, and get down to business.
I’m not sure if the legal framework in Nevada would allow this, but it makes more sense to me.
Enjoy,
Steven
It’s called knowing your market. Most women just aren’t that likely to pay for sex or to have to.
Gay men on the other hand- I seriously doubt you could go broke with a legal gay brothel in Nevada so long as you chose some gorgeous guys. And of course you’d advertise with porn starring your stable.
That’s hilarious. I might bite if it was strawberry ice cream on that forehead of yours! 
Did anybody see the episode of 30 Rock recently where Jack creates a “Porn for Women” network? It consists of great looking guys saying “Please tell me all about your day at work… don’t leave anything out… and then I want to hear about your cramps…” type statements. Liz immediately gets hooked on it.
I think that’s the problem with this concept. Women who want quick and dirty anonymous sex can usually get it without paying for it and from a much better looking guy than Herman Munster’s methhead son. (Hey, didn’t he play George’s bodyguard Hugo on The Jeffersons? Oh, wait, no, that was this guy.)
You know, the guy can’t help his face without some extensive cosmetic surgery. But he COULD get a new wardrobe, something that doesn’t scream that he’s a lounge lizard left over from the 70s. And speaking of the 70s, he needs to let that hair grow out a bit. Damn few women find that very short buzz cut to be that attractive. Yes, it’s practical, but he doesn’t need to look practical, he needs to look at least somewhat attractive. I’ve seen female hookers, and I know that they usually are not shining examples of female beauty, but they usually DO make some effort to look attractive and available. This guy does look like he’s available, but he doesn’t look like he’s put any effort into trying to look attractive. To women, anyway. Maybe he’s attractive to some gay men, I dunno.
I can only speak for one gay man but… nuh-uh. He looks like he’s going to take off with your wallet before the lights go off.
OK, what about the hairstyle, then? Is that even remotely attractive to gay men, or to specific gay men? I grew up in the 60s and 70s, and all the Cool Kids (boys AND girls) had long, flowing locks, and to this day, I find long hair on men to be very attractive. The buzz cut is a buzzkill, for me.
I’m sure to some gay guy it is, but this guy just looks like a thug (not in the “style” sense of thug but in the “if you see him on a dark street, run” sense). I’ve seen buzz cuts that look hot, but generally I like longer hair.