I believe it's been mentioned here before though I may be confused with a debate that I was involved in on another site a few months ago regarding the same article.  In any event, I don't really agree with most of the conclusions drawn based on the business practices of the vast number of ladies I have known personally and dealt with over the years. Also, the very premise for the "research" seems a bit far-fetched to me.  

My opinion only of course...

What is your opinion of this so called "study"?

I personally still trying to figure out how can I get around without:

1) A cell phone with any form of contact information.

2) Any form of ID.

3) Bank cards or credit cards

4) Large bills.

5) Small bills.


I have this visual of a hooker running around Wall Street with Ziploc bag full of condoms, lubes, panties, trident, band aids, loose change and two NON cell phones because he said she is carrying two phones but not a cell phone.

Well, RealityChecks,

Sudhir is a "street guy," meaning most of his research was conducted with outdoor sex workers - even though he'd like to say that it wasn't. His original research, published in Qualitative Sociology, is linked. The "real study" was already published according to rules and regulations, so he's milking whatever he can out of it years later. The problem is that Wired doesn't have the space or the inclination to go into the proper format, plus it was an opportunity for him to get publishing credit [rather than give the data to a journalist], so he probably jumped at the chance. He gets around in "real academia" though, so I'm surprised that he went for it. On the other hand, a sociologist colleague of mine characterized him as a "media hound," and the article sure seems evidence thereof.

I can GUARANTEE that upscale providers in NYC carry every single thing you enumerate in your posting. He is tweaking the data beyond recognition, mostly for effect. As usual, these researchers are on the sidelines - no one has proper "access" to any kind of sizeable population. Meanwhile, FYI, I submitted my own article of the 2009 TER study to another journal now - we'll see how they feel about it.

Finally, Sudhir is not so popular among other sociologists, despite his appointment at Columbia. Perhaps it's a case of sour grapes, but they feel he's way too much into tooting his own horn. Obviously I take the article with a heapful of salt...but then again, there are so many of these researchers that purport veracity in their data. Until they've done the work themselves, they'll never really know, will they? And of course, if anyone in academia admitted to frequenting, or worse, being or having been a provider - beware the carnage. Last time it happened, it resulted in suicide

Sigh,
The Love Goddess

I can't help wondering if he might have falsified his research. Since his data relies (or so he claims) on 290 anonymous women whose trust he gained over the course of a year or more, it's not like anybody can verify his methodology. In any case, I think that  he's a disgrace to his academic institution. Even if his results are a fair representation of HIS 290 women (if they exist), how on earth could he have missed us..the very searchable and visible internet escorts who frequent this site? If his article discusses the emergence of internet escorting, we should have at least a mention (and so should TER, but that's another matter).

I find it interesting that, although he purports to have "spent at least 12 months earning [the escorts'] trust," he does not quote a single woman…the only direct quote in the entire article is from a former pimp.

As someone who was very active in 1991, I can say it's very inaccurate in two respects.
1)  It shows the entire area around the Javits Center in the mid 20s as having no activity.  In fact, there were dozens of street girls there.
2)  It shows only a little activity on the East Side in the 30s, 40s and 50s, when in fact there were lots of houses.  I used to be able to walk less than a block to go from one house to the next.  I can't speak to the rest of the maps, but these inaccuracies make me wonder.
3)  The prices look totally goofy.  In fact, prices are fairly uniform across town.  I mean, just check out BP, TER or any site and you'll see the article is wrong.  If this clown is such an Internet wizzard how come he couldn't check any web sites.  CV ads even show location on a Google map!

How on earth could he have missed us?  No researcher out their can or have the time and ability to contact every one. All research are using a sample to predict patterns, i.e, statistical.

Why is he disgrace to the profession? He is conducting legitimate research in sociology and he is sociology professor at Columbia. It is like saying all providers are disgrace to women.

Why don't you write to him and ask his research methodology and why he didn't contact you? There is no reason for him to fabricate a research report sociology.

His website is:

Take look.

They both think he's annoying and his 'insights' shallow.  But neither of them are from NYC or participated in the study.  As LG says, his info comes from a different subsegment of the sex worker population.

I've never met the guy, but his writing style does indeed seem even more annoying than I can even usually manage to be.  And as no doubt will be pointed out by an alias about 35 seconds after I post this, I can be pretty annoying.

BS!! streetwalker pimps do not take 25% ..take it all.

You can be almost as annoying as me. Now that is annoying.

Sorry had to do it as you set yourself up. I guess I did to. Oh well.

Why fabricate his research?  For the publicity and ego strokes?

Legitimate research?  Based only upon this article I find that hard to believe.  Very poor statistcal work, poor design of experiment, almost laughable use of terms (and no definition of most his terms), and lastly, bad arithmetic which always calls into question everything in a supposedly legitimate research document.

I read the linked article and though I do not have the time to dig up or compile my own data I find his article very, very stretched and not at all what he purports it to be.

Even if I spot him the almost 300 women he claims to have gained the confidence of, the collected data does not pass the giggle test.

--This transformation did not take place starting in 1991 creating “an entirely new, upper-end “indoor” market.”  I can vouch that such ladies existed long before that.  They may not have been as numerous nor as easy to find but that is the result of the popularization of the internet far more than “gentrification of Times Square”.  A true researcher would not have made such a significant qualitative error.

--I find even a cursory look at the rates on TER contradicts the claim of $150 as the typical fee for an escort.  It emphasizes that his sample population is the lineage of those streetwalkers who moved off the street, not the TER-like subgroup.  He in essence covers the escorting lower end (from a cost perspective) and the upper end $4K range, but ignores the middle class.  Not exactly good design of experiment.

--He equates “top dollar” to $150 for most men, and that itself is scary.  And that typical “upper end” “luxury brand” escort is bribing shopkeepers (for what I must ask) and getting “drugs for clients”.  And after getting rich they have nothing better to do with those fabulous earnings than “pay for clothes and shoes”.  He really does believe in the Dumb Blonde stereotype.  Sorry, the single biggest reason most escorts work is to support their kids.

--Even by his 2010 numbers 40% of the women are still walking the streets but there is not a pimp to be found?  If he really believes all pimps have disappeared (11 for 11 he claims) he is either blind or doesn’t want to find them.  

--If I believe his statistics, which I find laughable, then 0% of escorts are office workers, 0% are students, and 0% are teachers.  In a representative sample size of 290 I find it incredulous that those three percentages are all zero.

--Self protection is talked about in terms of pocket knives and learning where a guy works (I assume this is his oversimplified way of saying “screening via personal information”.  The concept of references as a safety measure or substitute for “knowing where a guy works” is not even hinted at.

--These “luxury brand” escorts are spending on “online marketing”, but it does not produce enough regular clients to rate a mention other than maybe a part of the 15% “Personal referrals and other”.

--I laughed aloud that he describes the “new age sex worker” as staying in a $500 a night hotel (on $150 a session, right!) but who carries no money, credit cards, or license.  Sure.

--And of course there is the challenge of simple arithmetic:
Streetwalker:  $75/transaction
Self-employed:  $150  (he implies self-employed means non-streetwalker)
And then says “Earn about 50 percent more per transaction than a streetwalker”.  Odd, when I studied math 150 was 100% more than 75.

All in all, wretched analysis.

The article is something that any moron can put together, even without intimate knowledge of the industry.
More then likely, the only sources are frankensteined from other articles readily available on the internet, also with phantom sources.  

Oh, well. I guess it is better then some of the psychobabble that gets posted here.

I've only suffered physical violence from a guy once in my life and at the time, I was working in an office.

There have been a few challenges in my 7 years of escorting, but in each instance the guy eventually bowed down to the power.

whoever controls the wiener, controls the world.

and second, remove the stigma .....
cuz we aren't going to tell anyone the truth until they do.
common sense.

I don't care how many of us someone claims to talk to,  they will never know anything about us until they become one of us.

Even then, each of us have vastly different experiences because there are no "rules".

there is no generalizing in this industry because nothing is ever "ordinary".  you can't even generalize clients because they are so vastly different.

when guys ask me how long I've been doing this, I always say, "all my life" because I believe the ability to use our sexuality for power over men is ingrained into us from a very early age.

"nobody is going to buy the cow if you're giving away the milk for free" is a very common phrase mothers tell their teen-aged daughters.  From the moment we understand what "it" is, we are taught that "it" has VALUE.

all women are ______,  cept mom.

Posted By: TheLoveGoddess

Well, RealityChecks,

Sudhir is a "street guy," meaning most of his research was conducted with outdoor sex workers - even though he'd like to say that it wasn't. His original research, published in Qualitative Sociology, is linked. The "real study" was already published according to rules and regulations, so he's milking whatever he can out of it years later. The problem is that Wired doesn't have the space or the inclination to go into the proper format, plus it was an opportunity for him to get publishing credit [rather than give the data to a journalist], so he probably jumped at the chance. He gets around in "real academia" though, so I'm surprised that he went for it. On the other hand, a sociologist colleague of mine characterized him as a "media hound," and the article sure seems evidence thereof.

I can GUARANTEE that upscale providers in NYC carry every single thing you enumerate in your posting. He is tweaking the data beyond recognition, mostly for effect. As usual, these researchers are on the sidelines - no one has proper "access" to any kind of sizeable population. Meanwhile, FYI, I submitted my own article of the 2009 TER study to another journal now - we'll see how they feel about it.

Finally, Sudhir is not so popular among other sociologists, despite his appointment at Columbia. Perhaps it's a case of sour grapes, but they feel he's way too much into tooting his own horn. Obviously I take the article with a heapful of salt...but then again, there are so many of these researchers that purport veracity in their data. Until they've done the work themselves, they'll never really know, will they? And of course, if anyone in academia admitted to frequenting, or worse, being or having been a provider - beware the carnage. Last time it happened, it resulted in suicide

Sigh,
The Love Goddess

"If the client wants to skip the condom, there's usually a 25 percent surcharge". How many provider even streetwalkers will be OK for this!  Wrong I think...

I enjoy Gang Leader for a Day very much.  This one look to me more like a bad magazine article than research paper.