Types of Pleasures Occurring through Paid Sexual Performances among Women Offering Escort Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even though offering sexual services implies for service providers that they have to deal directly with sexuality, research rarely focuses on their representations and emotional experience of sexuality. In order to explore both of these aspects, 16 women who either were offering or had offered escort services were individually met for two semi-directed interviews of about 90 minutes each. Most participants either pursued or accepted sexual pleasure in their interaction with clients, while a few others rather avoided it. In this article, I will first review the skills participants considered necessary for a good work performance (self-presentation as beautiful, feminine and sexy; listening skills and empathy; sexual competence). Following this, I will present the experiences of different types of pleasure they identified (regarding work well done; resulting from performing sexually; feeling sexual pleasure) and compare these experiences as well as the representations those pursuing or accepting sexual pleasure had in contrast with those avoiding sexual pleasure. Feeling comfortable in having sex outside a love relationship as well as in being paid for it renders these types of pleasure possible, while considering sexuality should be expressed only with lovers produces shame, disgust and much displeasure when doing the paid sexual performance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".