Facebook Now Responsible for 25% of Hooker Hookups(wired.com)
wired.com
Facebook Now Responsible for 25% of Hooker Hookups
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/01/ff_sextrade/all/1
8 comments
I agree about the editorialized headline, this has little to do with Facebook and it's limited to NY. But the data itself is interesting, if not surprising. Legalizing sex trade would help getting rid of some of the uglier side of prostitution (minors, STDs, physical abuse).
Tangentially related:
http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/09/06/how-cen...
"How Censoring Craigslist Helps Pimps, Child Traffickers, and Other Abusive Scumbags" I'm a fan of Danah Boyd.
"Condoms and lubricant. If the client wants to skip the condom, there’s usually a 25 percent surcharge."
Wow. Isn't that risky? Or does it only apply to oral sex? (still risky, but less than condom-free intercourse, I guess...)
Wow. Isn't that risky? Or does it only apply to oral sex? (still risky, but less than condom-free intercourse, I guess...)
This is very uncommon from blue collar agencies and downwards, but actually an expected service of more upscale agencies and/or freelancer prostitutes. Really expensive escorts sleep with less men in 10 years than really cheap ones in a year or two. Also, it's a given that sexually transmitted diseases are less common in men that belong to the social class willing to spend two thousand dollars for company, therefore they're also less common in the prostitutes this men frequent.
There is one thing that you should have in mind though. An escort (whom doesn't mind the unprotected sex) can and will say no to condom less sex a lot of time if the client looks like a shady character that saved 5k for a few months to get the date, when she doesn't know the customer in one way or another, or if she detects the slightest irregularity in the guy's penis' smell or appearance. Condom less sex in upscale operations is a normal thing, but it's almost exclusively done between an inner circle of regular clients, and in some operations all the participants are required to have current blood work and std exams in which they prove they're std free.
It's really a game of quality and quantity. The inherent risk is always there, but trust me, you're more likely to get an std from a random hookup at a high scale bar than from the prostitute your governor uses.
There are also lower end prostitutes that charge more for condom less sex. This are std and aids infested petri dishes. They're not that common, but are always women down on their luck and are generally addicts.
There is one thing that you should have in mind though. An escort (whom doesn't mind the unprotected sex) can and will say no to condom less sex a lot of time if the client looks like a shady character that saved 5k for a few months to get the date, when she doesn't know the customer in one way or another, or if she detects the slightest irregularity in the guy's penis' smell or appearance. Condom less sex in upscale operations is a normal thing, but it's almost exclusively done between an inner circle of regular clients, and in some operations all the participants are required to have current blood work and std exams in which they prove they're std free.
It's really a game of quality and quantity. The inherent risk is always there, but trust me, you're more likely to get an std from a random hookup at a high scale bar than from the prostitute your governor uses.
There are also lower end prostitutes that charge more for condom less sex. This are std and aids infested petri dishes. They're not that common, but are always women down on their luck and are generally addicts.
Reminds me of this chapter in Superfreakonomics:
http://books.google.com/books?id=_Gy-McfqgYgC&lpg=PA26&#...
Totally. The reasons men look to prostitution are basically divided into three possible scenarios:
1) They have a significant other and are not getting what they need from the person, but since they don't want to leave the person they look to undercover sex with little risk of getting caught.
2) They are single but incapable of achieving casual sex with someone that fulfills their standards because of their bad looks, lack of cash flow to flaunt, shyness, social stigma within the social circle they frequent, or any other of the myriad of reasons that make them less than desirable candidates for a woman willing to have casual sex.
3) Single or not, the type of men that view sex as a physiological need (in contrast to men that see sex as more than just penetration and exchange of fluids) are more prone to look for comfort between the legs of a woman that won't judge a man for not really having a desire to please her.
My opinion? For me at least, I have sex because I enjoy the look in the woman's face when she climaxes. I could care less about pearly necklaces and cleveland steamers, the only thing I care about is making sure my sexual partner is satisfied. Having sex with prostitutes, be it with a cheapo hooker in the dark alley or with a high end, four figure, 'siliconized' escort cheapens the experience. There is nothing better than waking up beside a woman (or many for that matter) the next morning and saying to yourself 'That was a hell of a freaking night...'
I don't think prostitution is a bad thing at all, but I do think that it completely devalues the act of seduction, and forgoes the main element in sexual relationships... desire.
1) They have a significant other and are not getting what they need from the person, but since they don't want to leave the person they look to undercover sex with little risk of getting caught.
2) They are single but incapable of achieving casual sex with someone that fulfills their standards because of their bad looks, lack of cash flow to flaunt, shyness, social stigma within the social circle they frequent, or any other of the myriad of reasons that make them less than desirable candidates for a woman willing to have casual sex.
3) Single or not, the type of men that view sex as a physiological need (in contrast to men that see sex as more than just penetration and exchange of fluids) are more prone to look for comfort between the legs of a woman that won't judge a man for not really having a desire to please her.
My opinion? For me at least, I have sex because I enjoy the look in the woman's face when she climaxes. I could care less about pearly necklaces and cleveland steamers, the only thing I care about is making sure my sexual partner is satisfied. Having sex with prostitutes, be it with a cheapo hooker in the dark alley or with a high end, four figure, 'siliconized' escort cheapens the experience. There is nothing better than waking up beside a woman (or many for that matter) the next morning and saying to yourself 'That was a hell of a freaking night...'
I don't think prostitution is a bad thing at all, but I do think that it completely devalues the act of seduction, and forgoes the main element in sexual relationships... desire.
I think the author of this article is the same researcher mentioned in that chapter. And the drug dealer story in Freakonomics. Either that, or all Indian names sound the same to me.
The data reported in the interesting submitted article, based on research in one place by one field investigator, do not support the generalization to the headline of the submission here.
Yeah but he talked to 290 women! That's a lot of data...
Also the 25% number is from the article itself and represents measured empirical data from that pretty large sample set.
One could say with more precision, 25% of hooker hookups in Manhattan come from Facebook and there is just cause for that, it's not a fabricated headline.
If one wants to then say it doesn't even stand for Manhattan because there was not a survey of all prostitutes, one would have to discard pretty much every national survey result and medical study under the same reasoning.
One could say with more precision, 25% of hooker hookups in Manhattan come from Facebook and there is just cause for that, it's not a fabricated headline.
If one wants to then say it doesn't even stand for Manhattan because there was not a survey of all prostitutes, one would have to discard pretty much every national survey result and medical study under the same reasoning.
If one wants to then say it doesn't even stand for Manhattan because there was not a survey of all prostitutes, one would have to discard pretty much every national survey result and medical study under the same reasoning.
That would be a good idea. But see Peter Norvig (director of research at Google) for what else would be desirable in most research studies:
http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
That would be a good idea. But see Peter Norvig (director of research at Google) for what else would be desirable in most research studies:
http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
My favorite part:
I asked one of them how pimping experience helps him in the legit economy: “You learn one thing,” he said. “For a good blow job, a man will do just about anything. What can I do with that knowledge? I have no idea.”
I asked one of them how pimping experience helps him in the legit economy: “You learn one thing,” he said. “For a good blow job, a man will do just about anything. What can I do with that knowledge? I have no idea.”
And approximately 95% of college hookups.
FaceHOOK?
Social media timeline:
Craigslist->Facebook->Twitter->???->Profit