“I’m Not Looking for Mr. Right, Just Mr. Right Now”: Men Clients of Men Escorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2014, Canada's prostitution laws underwent legal reform.The new legal regime criminalized, among other things, the purchase of a sexual service.Arguably, because their existence challenges the underlying rational of the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, men sex workers and their clients have been excluded from the conversation.Moreover, there is a glaring gap in the literature in terms of men's experiences hiring men sex workers.This thesis therefore sought to examine men clients' motivations, experiences, and relationships with men escorts, by speaking with clients directly, drawing upon ten in-depth one-on-one interviews with men who selfidentified as clients of men escorts.This thesis, divided into three findings chapters, explores the commercial sexual exchange, risks and their management, and stigma and identity, from the perspectives of men who hire men escorts.The first findings chapter, "Setting the Stage: The Commercial Sexual Exchange," details the advantages of hiring an escort, how the men set up an encounter, their experience of the commercial sexual encounter, and their relationships with escorts.The next chapter, "Clients Speak of Navigating and Negotiating Risk," moves the conversation beyond sexual health risks (extensively addressed in the literature) to consider other risks navigated by men who hire men escorts.The final findings chapter, "Stigma, Stereotypes, Social Judgment, and Identity Management," draws on Goffman to examine the men's perceptions of stigma, experiences of social judgment, stigma in the gay community, and the ways in which the men negotiate their private identities.This thesis highlights the diversity of clients and their experiences, and draws attention to the complexity of their relationships with escorts.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".