Escort Clients' Sexual Scripts and Constructions of Intimacy in Commodified Sexual Relationships
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article draws on fourteen in‐depth semi‐structured interviews with men who hire female escorts to examine the role of intimacy in their interactions with sex workers. Using the concept of social scripting, we examine the cultural, interpersonal, and intrapsychic meanings that shape the commodified sexual interaction. Focusing on the clients' intrapsychic scripts, we argue that previous typologies of client behavior ignore the role of intimacy and the meaning that individuals ascribe to their own experiences and actions. We suggest a typology of clients that goes beyond previous classifications of “regular” and “non‐regular”—the latter referred to as a “hummingbird” client from the perspective of one sex worker. Our four‐part typology of committed regulars, hybrids, searchers, and industry insiders takes into account the role of intimacy along with the client's perception of frequency and motive, even in seemingly casual sexual encounters. A video abstract is available at https://youtu.be/IK_UiGzWT_E .
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it