Male Sex Work and Society (27 page)
Read Male Sex Work and Society Online
Authors: Unknown
Tags: #Psychology/Human Sexuality, #Social Science/Gay Studies, #SOC012000, #PSY016000
Note:
The OMB defines these population groups as clusters of adjacent counties. Gay concentration is the fraction of the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) identified as same-sex male partners in the 1990 census divided by the national average (for further details, see Black et al., 2007). MSA population counts from the Census Bureau as of July 1, 2007. Cities with MSA rank greater than 12 were randomly selected from the 50 cities listed in Black and colleagues (2007).
24
The OMB defines these population groups as clusters of adjacent counties. Gay concentration is the fraction of the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) identified as same-sex male partners in the 1990 census divided by the national average (for further details, see Black et al., 2007). MSA population counts from the Census Bureau as of July 1, 2007. Cities with MSA rank greater than 12 were randomly selected from the 50 cities listed in Black and colleagues (2007).
24
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 5.3
suggest that male escorts tend to concentrate in cities with substantial populations, not just cities with substantial gay populations. This result holds even when considering midsized 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.
table 5.3
suggest that male escorts tend to concentrate in cities with substantial populations, not just cities with substantial gay populations. This result holds even when considering midsized 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 5.4
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 US$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.
25
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 US$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.
25
TABLE 5.4
The Implicit Prices of Physical Characteristics in the Male Escort Market on Site X
Note:
Robust standard errors are listed under coefficients in parentheses. Each category is a separate regression in which the log of escort prices is the dependent variable. Each regression includes controls for city location and an intercept. For model II, the omitted ethnicity category is Asian. For model III, the omitted hair color is black. For model IV, the omitted eye color is black. For model V, the omitted body build is athletic/swimmer’s build. For model VI, the omitted body hair is hairy.
Robust standard errors are listed under coefficients in parentheses. Each category is a separate regression in which the log of escort prices is the dependent variable. Each regression includes controls for city location and an intercept. For model II, the omitted ethnicity category is Asian. For model III, the omitted hair color is black. For model IV, the omitted eye color is black. For model V, the omitted body build is athletic/swimmer’s build. For model VI, the omitted body hair is hairy.
*
p
< .05; **
p
< .01 (two-tailed tests).
p
< .05; **
p
< .01 (two-tailed tests).
These data indicate that there is a penalty for age, with each additional year of age costing an escort 1 percent ($2) of his market price. There also is a penalty for weight, with each additional 10 pounds resulting in over a 1.5 percent ($3) market price decrease.
26
Body build, which is closely related to weight, also appears to be an important market variable. Men with average body types 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).
27
There is also 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 the reference category “athletic/swimmer’s build.” Because muscularity is a physical signal of maleness and dominance and can be considered a proxy for strength and virility, the premium attached to muscularity in this market is consistent with hegemonic masculinity.
26
Body build, which is closely related to weight, also appears to be an important market variable. Men with average body types 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).
27
There is also 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 the reference category “athletic/swimmer’s build.” Because muscularity is a physical signal of maleness and dominance and can be considered a proxy for strength and virility, the premium attached to muscularity in this market is consistent with hegemonic masculinity.
Surprisingly, ethnicity does not seem to play a role in escort prices. No stated ethnicity 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, both of which indicate masculine traits, do not come with premiums in this market. In general, these results challenge theories that stipulate there is a hegemonic ideal: no ethnicity/hair color/eye color/body hair combination appears to be more valuable than any other. Other than weight and body build, it appears that most personal characteristics are not very important variables in the male escort market.
Sexual behaviors and male escort prices
Table 5.5
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 (column 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, column I) to 17.6 percent ($35, column V).
28
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 (column 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, column I) to 17.6 percent ($35, column V).
28
The substantial premium to tops and penalty to bottoms is interesting for a number of reasons. 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 the 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, & 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 transmission probabilities would suggest that they should.
29
29
These results can be interpreted sociologically, however, 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).
TABLE 5.5
The Implicit Prices of Sexual Behaviors in the Male Escort Market on Site X
Note:
Robust standard errors in parentheses. Dependent variable is the log of an escort’s price in all regressions. Each regression includes controls for age, city location, and an intercept.
Robust standard errors in parentheses. Dependent variable is the log of an escort’s price in all regressions. Each regression includes controls for age, city location, and an intercept.
*
p
< .05; **
p
< .01 (two-tailed tests).
p
< .05; **
p
< .01 (two-tailed tests).
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 upward; 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.
30
30
The intersection of ethnicity and sexual behaviors
As described earlier, the intersection of ethnicity and sexual behaviors could shed light on the connection between hegemonic masculinity and ethnic 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 across ethnicities and sexual behaviors.
Table 5.6
shows estimates of the value of advertised sexual behaviors for men by ethnicity, where each entry shows the implicit price of the interaction of that ethnicity and sexual behavior (e.g., the premium or penalty to being an Asian top or a versatile white).
Table 5.6
shows estimates of the value of advertised sexual behaviors for men by ethnicity, where each entry shows the implicit price of the interaction of that ethnicity and sexual behavior (e.g., the premium or penalty to being an Asian top or a versatile white).
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 ethnicity: 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 5.6
. There is no bottom penalty for Asians or Hispanics. The top/bottom price differential also varies by ethnicity. 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 5.6
put the differential between 14.1 percent and 17.6 percent—the differential for blacks is more than twice the differential for any other racial group, 36.5 percent ($73).
31
These results are consistent with the 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.
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 ethnicity: 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 5.6
. There is no bottom penalty for Asians or Hispanics. The top/bottom price differential also varies by ethnicity. 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 5.6
put the differential between 14.1 percent and 17.6 percent—the differential for blacks is more than twice the differential for any other racial group, 36.5 percent ($73).
31
These results are consistent with the 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.
Other books
Property of the State by Bill Cameron
Forever Odd by Dean Koontz
The Big Fisherman by Lloyd C. Douglas
England's Mistress: The Infamous Life of Emma Hamilton by Kate Williams
Caught on Camera: Part Five by Lily Harlem
Crown of Ice by Vicki L. Weavil
Fire on the Horizon by Tom Shroder
Gideon's Trumpet by Anthony Lewis
The Lance Temptation by Brenda Maxfield
Driven by Fire by Anne Stuart
