Women, male prostitutes and men's opinions

Inspired by this thread
A question for the guys out there (or women too)

The concept of “what kind of woman” frustrated me a bit, then I thought about it and it turned into this question. Would you think worse of a woman who did go to a male prostitute? Would you think any differently of her than of a man who paid for sex (whether gay or straight)?

I ask this because some friends and I were discussing it at a point in time when we were all going through “dry spells” and wishing there were (or we knew how to locate) male prostitutes. We finally ended basically saying that none of us would actually go, because most of us felt that it would really bother any future SOs.

Now, some said they would never do it anyway, just like there are men who say they would never pay for sex. There were some who said it’d be great - because they liked the idea of an encounter with absolutely no strings attached (yes, I know this can happen without money being involved).

I’d also be interested in whether there is a significant difference between the opinions of American men vs. men of other countries.

An interesting question. I personally don’t find it any different for either sex. Somebody wants sex, and they are willing to pay to get it, so they do so. End of story.

Would I? No, not only because I’m bloody poor, but there is a kind of stigma attached to doing so … and it’s illegal.

That and the fact that you just look really desperate.

But I don’t have a problem with others doing so.

I think either of them pay to have sex for money because there isn’t any (or much) emotion to it that way.

But I don’t think that most women enjoy sex without emotion.

I’m the kind of girl that would pay for it! I’d be all over them in a second.

I’m dealing with some pretty messy love affairs right now, and it’s been a long time since I had some good clean fun without it being emotionally traumatic to somebody. I really really miss having fun while having sex.

Sure, I could pick up on guys at bars, but…umm…that usually doesn’t turn out to well. The kind of guys that pick up women in bars don’t tend to make for dynamite sex. As much fun as it is to watch a guy come in twenty seconds…well…it’s not much fun at all.

And dammit, I work! Shouldn’t I be able to use my economic empowerment to get some sexual empowerment. Don’t I deserve good sex? Don’t I deserve some great orgasms? Wouldn’t it be nice to have a guy completely devoted to my pleasure, whoes goal is to make me feel good, not just get his rocks off? What good is the sexual revolution if we still can’t get good sex?

From what I’ve read a good male prostitute puts most guys to shame in the sack. Of course this is true of female prostitutes and most women as well. So whats the big deal about wanting to have the good experience versus taking your chance at a bar or random encounter? Far from being unsafe or “scary” a good male prostitute(and it’s a good idea to get references from places where such things are discussed) is actually SAFER to have an intimate one-night-stand with than random guy #5 at a bar. They practice safe sex as a matter of course and the better ones even go so far as to use “dental dams” during oral sessions(one review I’ve read of a male prostitute was that he was REALLY good at oral with a dental dam, and since a dental dam is essentially a condom split down the side and placed between the tongue and clitoris, it’s not easy. Add in the fact that the person writing the review was a working girl herself and not exactly unexperienced in the arts of pleasure and it’s a fairly compelling data point).

So, why can’t ladies go online, or to the local newspaper, and find such services? What is the stigma against it? Are the average guys of the world, America primarially, afraid of being put to shame?

Enjoy,
Steven

I heard a story earlier this year about the only house of prostitution for women(it was in Europe somewhere.) It went of business. You got ‘serviced’ first and paid on the way out. It seems that most women got ‘serviced’ first and then refused to pay because they were not satisfied with the services.

This is the difference between men and women. A man might have complained about bad sex but still would have paid. I guess women just don’t care about the working stiffs.

I’d genuinely like to see any link to “what [you’ve] read” on this subject given the serious doubt entertained by me and in the GQ OP as to whether this is a phenomenon that exists to any significant degree anywhere outside the fevered imaginations of fiction writers, Sex In The City, and wishful teenage boys mulling vocational options.

Stigma getting in the way of economically viable sex trade? That’s a new one on me. Usually all the stigma in the world, and a heap of law enforcement, is just about able to hold even against any given sex-practice-for-money in which any patron(ess) has a strong interest. I’m also curious to know what the “guys of the world” could do to suppress it even if they <were> so inclined because “afraid” or because they found it distasteful.

Which is not to say the OP doesn’t suggest an interesting question; just to note that predicating the answer on the notion that, factually, male-for-female prostitution exists as anything other than a fringe activity will, I suspect, not lead to super illuminating discussion.

I will also predict a 30% chance this thread gets bogged down into debate over whether men innately have a stronger/more frequent urge for sex qua sex than do women. At this stage (and without expressing an opinion) I would suspect a majority of people believe the answer is “yes” but there are others who have a substantial amount tied up in saying “no” (or at least who would gravitate toward arguments that presuppose or work best if “no”). Depending on how you answer that question, the answer of whether it’s “more normal” (statistically, but also maybe even ethically understandable/forgivable (please note I am not suggesting or recommending such forgiveness)) for men to contemplate using prostitutes than for women to do so will necessarily be changed.

Even the posts to date arguably suggest that the status quo (lots of female-for-male sex trade, no male-for female to speak of) reflects exactly what the market will bear, the market being one in which there is an apparent surplus of male desire for frequent anonymous coupling and an apparent deficit of female desire for same.

LSura notes: “We finally ended basically saying that none of us would actually go, because most of us felt that it would really bother any future SOs.” Well, men are presumably just as able to predict that future SOs won’t want to hear about their romps in the Bangkok bars, and might in fact be really bothered by it . . . but at least some of them weigh this potential down-the-road cost as less than the benefit of immediate and certain bargirl action – and to the extent these guys give further rational thought to diminishing potential costs, it will take the form of . . . just not telling the future SO about My Adventures On Shore Leave. I would wager that in a group of as many men as the number of women LSura discussed this with, you would <not> get the unanimous solution to the cost/benefit problem that she and her girlfriends got – “we’re interested in theory, but it’s not worth the risk.” Which is depressing to me for the men’s sake but – morality and aesthetics aside – doesn’t necessarily mean that the market is broken or that there’s anything paradoxical going on; just different priorities being applied in the cost-benefit.

even sven notes: “I’m dealing with some pretty messy love affairs right now, and it’s been a long time since I had some good clean fun without it being emotionally traumatic to somebody. I really really miss having fun while having sex.” This plays right into the hands of those in the OP who explained the “disparity” in male/female prostitution by asserting that women generally have more (and more frequent) opportunities (not ideal opportunities, but numerically more) for hook-ups, qua hook-ups, at the time they desire them (and even, inconveniently, when they may not) than do men;

Now, we’re all sort of just speculating about motives here, but what percentage of men who actually patronize prostitutes are doing so principally out of a theoretical interest in “non-emotionally-traumatic” sex, rather than out of an interest in <any> sex, especially at a time when they may not have a plurality of love affairs, or any, messy or otherwise, to resort to as source material?

I can’t really provide links here Huerta88(board policy against linking to obscene/potentially obscene material), but if you’re interested I can point you to some very interesting reading via email.

In response to the question as to what men could do about it? Well, firstly, there IS a certain amount of male prostitution, but it is harder to find male sexworkers who cater to females than it is to find women who cater to men. Hard sources, studies, etc, are hard to find on this topic, but from my several years of casually lurking in the sexwork circles I think I can put forth a couple of educated guesses. Firstly, women, as a socioeconomic class, don’t have the disposible income that men have(it’s a whole other debate as to why. Glass ceiling, etc). Secondly, women typically find it far easier to find willing partners without resorting to exchanging money for intimate services(depending on the criteria they use to select a partner). Thirdly, for the group of women our own even sven belongs to, even women who have the money and the inclination still have to deal with other men in the future. As LSura noted in this comment

Future relationships with a good percentage of men could be hampered by such an act.

I have a friend who is recently divorced at a young age. Married for just over a year. She has serious doubts as to her ability to attract a decent partner in the future because of her “second-hand”(her words not mine) status. It’s a feeling I’ve seen shared by other women, and I’ve seen it’s counterpart in men I’ve known “Nah, she’s all used up.”

Stupid? Yes. Real? Yes.

Enjoy,
Steven

From what I’ve read, and from the many people I’ve spoken to who were actually prostitutes, most people go into that profession out of desperation rather than sexual prowess. They may be good at what they do, but the reason they’re doing it is to get money to buy dope.

Just an observation.

Uh… I don’t know where you guys are getting your info about prostitues being good in the sack. Thats completely wrong from what I’ve expeienced and what I’ve heard. Basically all a prostitute will do is let you stick your hoo-haa in them and nothing else. No fondling, no oral foreplay… nothing! And to top it all off they want to bring you to climax as quickly as possible! This doesn’t constitute good sex to me at all. But thats just my take on it. I’ll go out on a limb here and say that male prostitutes are probably the same way.

In theory, I wouldn’t mind taking money for sex. However, they would have to have a full STD test first. If that costs them $70.00 & it’s clear, I would give them $70 credit :slight_smile: Cause I wouldn’t let them pay me to give me an STD.

Did you guys/gals ever think of the STD angle?

Which is another reason I suspect that male prostitutes (for women) don’t exist in any extensive quantity. I don’t doubt that a certain number of women <fantasize> about the possibility of an anonymous, paid encounter (just as some seem to fantasize about being a high class call girl or being kidnapped by a lusty pirate). But given that women tend to have more . . . preconditions for enjoying themselves, and may take longer doing so, and since presumably a patroness of a male prostitute would not be happy simply with <his> enjoying himself, I don’t know that any male-for-female operation could be run on the business model that seems to apply for conventional prostitution, (f-for-m or m-for-m) which seems to be based, as SHAKES notes, on volume, volume, volume and quick turnaround (a situation probably acceptable to many male patrons). The suppositious male-for-female prostitute would have a hard time making a profit if every encounter took five hours to complete or had to begin with dinner and a movie.

Someone else noted economic disparity as a possible explanation for female non-participation in pay-for-sex. Maybe at the high end, but AIDS has managed to spread explosively throughout destitute Africa by way of men who are either unemployed, or at best making a few dollars a week as truck drivers, spending what little they have on prostitutes.

SHAKES did you miss the qualifier “good” in my post? I’m assuming, and maybe it’s a bad assumption, that the customer will do their homework and select a provider based upon reviews and research. Walking down to the local red light district and picking up whatever’s lying around would certainly produce bad results at least as often as it did good results.

spooje, I never said they weren’t in it for the money, although I do assert the class of prostitites I’m referring to(the “good” ones as judged by reviews and recommendations) aren’t in it to get money for a drug habit. Most of the girls I’ve read about are clean and they’re in it primarially for the money. This is not a big deal in and of itself. I can point to ten people on the street at complete random and be fairly well assured that whatever their vocation is, they’re mostly doing it because it puts food on the table. The sad fact is that very few people have a passionate love of what they do for a living. That doesn’t mean they’re bad at it, or that money is some ignoble motivation.

If a person hasn’t looked beyond the working girls on the street corner it would be easy to have the impression that they’re junkies who have sold the last thing they have in order to get their fix. There is an entire other community of sexworkers in which drug use is extremely low. I’ve seen many of them stipulate that they won’t even SEE a client if the client has drugs or intends to do drugs during/before their session.

Enjoy,
Steven

I think we’ve got a disconnect here. I mentioned that, per-capita, the female population, in general, has a lower disposible income than the male population. In America at least. In the scenario where AIDS is being spread through Africa, it seems it is the male drivers employing female prostitutes. How is this relevant to female clients seeking male prostitutes?

As for the number of male prostitutes, I agree they’re rarer, by far, than female prostitutes. That is pretty much a fact. The OP is trying to ascertain WHY they’re rarer. If women are sexual animals, just as men are, why aren’t there as many men providing sexwork as there are women. I tried to give some answers as well as some insight into the industry. Ultimately there isn’t one answer.

I recall reading about one male prostitute, who was very good at what he does from the reviewers perspective, who had a very hard time getting clients. It was certainly not something he could have done as a vocation, it was supplemental income. Why wasn’t he getting business? Partly because of economic factors, partly because of the disparity between the goals of men and women in a sexual encounter, and I believe the OP hit on part of it as well. A reluctance on the part of potential customers to employ his services out of fear of losing some/all respect in the eyes of future SOs. This thread seems to exist to gather additional data on this factor. How much respect would be lost, why, and to gather some statistics on national distribution of such opinions.

So, to directly answer the OP

I would be curious and I would certainly ask about the precautions they had taken together to assure mutual health and disease prevention. I think I might adjust my opinion if she was incautious with such a decision or impulsive in her selection of a provider, but I would apply the same litmus test to a man who used a female provider. The same danger is present in both, a disregard for reasonable protective measures in the face of passion can indicate the presence of poor judgement. Simply because of the act itself? No. I’ve marveled at the restraint many women have shown during “dry spells” and I’m not sure I could do the same in thier position. Nor am I sure I would feel inclined to. I don’t feel the desire for sexual intimacy is something to be ashamed of. As long as the desire is satisfied in a responsible manner, where’s the harm? FTR, I am an American.

Enjoy,
Steven

The saddest fucking thing I know is this bloke who genuinely believes that the prostitute is getting something out of sex with him other than money. Genuinely believes it’s “fun” for them, and that he often has a “special connection” with them.

Yeah right.

We’ve heard, at least I think we have, from at least one man who’s paid. I’d like to hear from any women here who have paid, or personally know or know of any woman who has, just to clarify if we’re in the realm of pure theory as I suspect.

As for the why, Mtgman, what do you think of my previous suggestion that a lot will turn on whether you believe the male sex drive is, objectively, significantly stronger/more frequent? If you answer that question yes, a lot falls into place: women don’t pay for it because they don’t want it badly enough to outweigh the negatives (and because there are enough men out there who do want it under any circumstances that the women who have a moderate though not overweening desire can take their pick and set their conditions). If you answer no, I guess it all falls back on socialization or reproductive strategies.

Most of the hypotheses advanced so far can, as I suggest, be re-cast to turn on this inquiry. Men and women both would likely prefer, in an ideal world, that their respective sexual desires (whatever they may be) would be met without having to pay for it. Men and women both would agree that having a SO admit to previous pay-for-sex experience is kind of disgusting, in most cases (certainly I haven’t seen any suggestion that men brag about this to their new girlfriends, or that girls are out there pining for veterans of the Charlie Sheen school of getting ladies). Men and women both would agree in the abstract that resorting to pay-for-sex is demeaning to themselves and to the provider. It’s just that men seem more frequently willing to pay the higher cost(s) (financially, reputationally, self-esteem wise) to obtain the (seemingly) more difficult-to-come-by benefit of sex on (frequent) demand.

If it’s true that women, all else being equal, have an easier time getting their (possibly less priapically-enthusiastic and frequent) desires met on more or less acceptable cost-free terms, it would also follow that the woman who <couldn’t> get any action by any other means than paying for it would suffer an even sharper blow to her vanity than would a man in like circumstances; no woman on earth, I would think, would really relish the idea of being so undesireable that paying was her only option, whereas male patrons often seem to take it as the natural course of things (and, as istara points out, may even delude themselves still that they’re pretty hot stuff).

I’ve never paid for sex specifically, but I have been shockingly close to a gigelo type situation where I’ve kept a boy in nice clothes, decent liquor and expensive meals out, and basically gotten sex in exchange. In my opinion, this situation is far more exploitive all around than a simple pay-for-sex encounter. I think if you look around you will find a surprising number of women in situations like this.

It’s all how you frame it, though…

First off, let’s work off of the assumption that a lot of women are having sub-standard sex. I don’t have any statistics on me, but an alarming number of women report never having orgasms during intercourse, and a signifigant portion of the female population rarely experiences orgasms through any means. Women on the whole (largely, I’d argue, through social conditioning) know less about their bodies, their sexual responses, and what it takes to get them off. Think about it- how old were you when you first looked at a mirrior “down there”? Because of these factors, women have a harder time asking for exactly what they want in sex, and are more likely to stay in an unfulfilling situation.

But it doesn’t have to be that way.

Now, you could look at a woman purchasing sex as “I am so desperate I have to pay for it”, or you could look at it as “I deserve good sex, not just some guy masturbating inside of me, and I am empowered to seek that out”. It could be completely liberating. Finally, the woman is in control, free to act out on desires that might shock an SO or paint her as a “bad girl” and free to demand that she end up fulfilled and content.

Wouldn’t that be far more liberating than expecting women just to go out and have crappy sex with creepy guys whenever they want a casual encounter? Wouldn’t it be nice if women were able to take a bit more control of their sexuality, and to be more comfortable in sexual situations, and to have better sex in general?

I think that ready access to high-class skiller male prostitutes would be a good thing for women’s sexuality and women in general.

It should be pointed out that a goodly portion of the clients of male prostitutes are…other men. Most of them, probably.

Interesting thread. I would not think less of a woman for patronizing a male prostitute, but the idea raises some questions.

What characteristics should a male prostitute have—should he be young? Handsome? Muscular? All the above? Other?

What services should he provide? Straight intercourse? Oral? Whips and chains?

Is prior arousal on the part of the client assumed, or would inducing arousal be part of the prostitutes service?

Should the prostitute guarantee customer satisfaction?

Would a visit to a male prostitute be strictly a get-on, get-off, get-out affair, or would it include post-sex cuddling, carressing, etc.

If the price was negotiable, what would you, as a client, consider fair?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I am NOT looking for a new career.

But that leaves us still in the realm of the hypothetical. Presumably there are <some> guys out there who are high class and skilled at meeting women’s needs. Presumably some subset of them is unemployed/underemployed. Presumably some subset of them would not have an ethical problem with having sex with a strange woman for money. Yet the invisible hand of the market has not, to date, led to any large number of such guys finding any way to turn their high-class pleasuring skills into a viable career. Why? As LouisB’s post suggests, it may be because “good sex” for many or most women does not just contemplate the act itself, but involves/requires some level of preparation/familiarity/comfort level/willingness to surrender control/“relationship” of some form, and so is rarely going to occur five minutes after some strange guy shows up in answer to your call. So that when a woman speculates about how great it might be to be able to have access to “just good sex,” what that would really entail, in any realistic scenario, may end up sounding not unlike “a new and better boyfriend.” Even in the non-boyfriend/“friends with special privileges” scenario that even sven describes, I’m pretty sure she didn’t hook up with the guy, or start throwing money and clothes at him, until she’d first gotten to know him for awhile. And . . . I’d imagine that even if she hadn’t kept him in toys and liquor, she would’ve had a good chance at getting the action anyhow by judicious application of her feminine wiles alone.