Male clients' behaviours with and perspectives about their last male escort encounter: comparing repeat versus first-time hires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on men who have sex with men suggests that condomless anal intercourse occurs more frequently in established sexual relationships. While comparable data regarding male-for-male escorting is unavailable, research implies that many clients seek emotional as well as physical connections with the men they hire. In 2012, 495 male clients, recruited via daddysreviews.com completed an online survey about their last hiring experience. Most participants were from the USA (85.7%), the UK and Canada (3.2% each). In total, 75% of encounters involved an escort hired for the first time; 25% were with a previously hired escort ('repeat encounter'). The client's age, lifetime number of escorts hired and number hired in the past year were positively associated with the last encounter being a repeat encounter. Cuddling, sharing a meal, drinking alcohol, taking a walk, watching a show and shopping were also positively associated with repeat encounters. Conversely, none of the sexual behaviours were significantly associated with repeat encounters. Repeat encounters were significantly more likely to include non-sexual behaviours alongside sexual activities, but no more likely to involve condomless anal intercourse. Moreover, clients' knowledge of escorts' HIV status was not significantly associated with engaging in condomless anal intercourse with repeat encounters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".