Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Consumer Report: America's First Legal Prostidude

Posted by on Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:46 AM

scaled.1265218625-scaled.picture_1.png

Remember Markus, the boundary-busting sex worker making headlines as Nevada's first male brothel employee?

Well, the New York Post sent writer Mandy Stadtmiller to review his services, and the upsetting results are here:

“First thing we do is visual inspection,” explains the dorky college dropout who later confesses I am only his second client, he has been with a total of six women in his life, and, to be perfectly honest, he lost his virginity at 23. “So,” Markus says after leaning over and kissing my knee, “we’re going to get undressed and then take a shower. Then we can both inspect each other to make sure there are no discrepancies.” Minutes later, as we’re standing naked in the shower, he’s examining me like a second-rate gynecologist and nodding. “Yeah,” he murmurs, cooing that I’m “practically” an 8 or a 9. “Everything looks great down there.”

Oh. My. God.

It only gets better/worse. Read the whole thing here. (And if any sex-worker Slog denizens want to hold forth on exactly what Markus is doing so wrong, please get thee to the comments..)

 

Comments (51) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
"exactly what Markus is doing so wrong"

oooh!
oooh!

I Know!

Call on me!...

"Having sex outside of marriage".
Posted by don't say no one ever told you it was wrong on February 3, 2010 at 9:49 AM
bigg 2
Look on the bright side, ladies - if you're into domination, he sounds like a downright pleasure to abuse....
Posted by bigg http://biggblah.blogspot.com/ on February 3, 2010 at 9:50 AM
3
Don't prostitutes have nipples?
Posted by patrick66 on February 3, 2010 at 9:52 AM
wisepunk 4
When did Steve-O get his tattoos removed?
Posted by wisepunk on February 3, 2010 at 9:56 AM
danindowntown 5
What a freaking douche-bag. Shouldn't he be talking to the client about what they want, not what he is into??? PS BUTTERFACE!!! PPS Women don't have to pay for sex. PPPS Because women don't have to pay for sex I predict this guy goes "gay for pay" in 3...2...1...
Posted by danindowntown on February 3, 2010 at 9:57 AM
6
Why would women pay to hang out with an incredibly obnoxious guy? Who on earth is in charge of hiring at the ranch? Are the women who work at these places this annoying?
Posted by Patti on February 3, 2010 at 10:01 AM
Matt from Denver 7
"No, we didn't have sex."

Gee, who woulda thunk it. Just once I'd like to see one of these "investigators" who are so willing to plumb the depths of our depraved society for us, actually tell us they went all the way.
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 3, 2010 at 10:02 AM
michael strangeways 8
sex workers don't have to be pretty/handsome but they should at least be hot...this guy is NOT hot.
Posted by michael strangeways http://www.seattlegayscene.com/ on February 3, 2010 at 10:02 AM
TVDinner 9
He likes the music of "Choppin."

Oh, be still my heart!
Posted by TVDinner http:// on February 3, 2010 at 10:06 AM
d rock 10
@3 - you beat me to it!
Posted by d rock http://www.13th-Grade.COM on February 3, 2010 at 10:11 AM
11
It sounds like he is attempting to take lessons from Smoove B.

http://www.theonion.com/content/columnis…
Posted by Reg on February 3, 2010 at 10:13 AM
12
I've had some sexual experiences that were about as erotic as a pap smear. Sounds like this would be one of them.
Posted by keshmeshi on February 3, 2010 at 10:14 AM
13
@5

"Gay for Pay"?
wtf?!
How?
How could one be "Gay for Pay"?

Gayness is an innate intrinsic part of what a person is.

Could one alter the melanin in their epidermis to be "Black for Cash"?
I don't think so.

Please don't spread nonsense about Gay being a behavior on the slog.

We won't stand for it...
Posted by slog on February 3, 2010 at 10:19 AM
gayballs 14
that was the worst thing ever.
and what an awful website
Posted by gayballs http://www.esoessatanico.blogspot.com on February 3, 2010 at 10:19 AM
Irena 15
This reporter is an asshole. The whole concept of the story is dismally sex-negative and insulting. I'm trying to imagine the outcry if a male reporter wrote a story making fun of an inexperienced prostitute. Would the Stranger be all over it then?

If you disagree with me, tell me why. This is, admittedly, my knee-jerk reaction, so if anyone can explain how this story justifiable as anything other than the most cruel and crass entertainment, I will listen.

Posted by Irena on February 3, 2010 at 10:22 AM
David Schmader 16
13: One becomes "gay for pay" by engaging in homosexual acts for money. Don't overthink it.
Posted by David Schmader on February 3, 2010 at 10:27 AM
17
Irena is right. If a reporter went and hired a female prostitute just to insult her intelligence you'd call him a dick, and rightly so. Beyond being uneducated and naive, what is this guy's crime?
Posted by dur hur hur! Look at the dumb poor person. on February 3, 2010 at 10:31 AM
very bad homo 18
Better men are available at any bar on any night, no charge.
Posted by very bad homo on February 3, 2010 at 10:32 AM
19
@13

I'm pretty sure the implication was not that this guy would become gay, but rather that he'd engage gay clients for the pay. Are you honestly suggesting a straight man couldn't engage in gay sex for pay?
Posted by embarassed for you on February 3, 2010 at 10:32 AM
TheMisanthrope 20
@13 Just think of it as the opposite of Jack Wrangler who went straight for pay...until he...well...
Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 3, 2010 at 10:36 AM
Loveschild 21
"In addition to comparing himself to civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks (“I’m breaking through sexual segregation”)"

Come on, he seems to be so in-tune with the 'movement's' chants (distortions).
Posted by Loveschild http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/articles/responding_to_haiti_earthquake/ on February 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM
seandr 22
Frankly, I don't think a lady hooker would do much better faced with a client who isn't there because he wants to have sex with her.
Posted by seandr on February 3, 2010 at 10:42 AM
BombasticMO 23
@15 - You may be on to something.

Regardless, I had the same knee-jerk response. The guy seems like a total Herb. In life, not just in sex-work.

I guess we're all a little spoiled by the few good writers who are also sex workers. This guy definitely isn't a thinker.
Posted by BombasticMO http://www.BombasticMo.com on February 3, 2010 at 10:44 AM
seandr 24
@15 - 100% agree.
Posted by seandr on February 3, 2010 at 10:45 AM
Julie in Eugene 25
@13, even the Catholic church makes a distinction between homosexual acts (really bad!!) and homosexual desires (sorry God made you gay, dude!). Gay for pay applies only to the former.
Posted by Julie in Eugene on February 3, 2010 at 10:46 AM
26
@16
I'm shocked.
Does Dan know about this?
How much does it cost to make someone Gay?
Can the Gay be purchased and given as a gift?
Posted by slog on February 3, 2010 at 10:52 AM
27
@15, yup I have to agree. How about it Stranger? Give me $2000 and I will go pay a visit to one of Tiger's mistresses and write an article about how vapid she was in The Stranger.
Posted by Reg on February 3, 2010 at 10:57 AM
TheMisanthrope 28
@27 I'd read it.
Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 3, 2010 at 11:00 AM
29
If we raised money to pay Dan to be Gay would he wear better shirts on TV?
Posted by slog on February 3, 2010 at 11:05 AM
Jaymz 30
@15 and others - I truly think The Stranger would be all over any asshole who took advantage of a situation to make someone look bad, but, to be fair, The Stranger also might hire an asshole to do the exact same thing - that is the sick type of balance we know and love here!
Posted by Jaymz on February 3, 2010 at 11:05 AM
Jaymz 31
By the way, this secondary topic about being "gay for pay" brings to mind that guy who used the incredible defense of being "queer from fear" - explaining why he so readily dropped to his knees in a public bathroom! We so like our little rhyming phrases...
Posted by Jaymz on February 3, 2010 at 11:10 AM
You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me 32
Well... You can lead a whore to culture but you can't make him think.
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me on February 3, 2010 at 11:27 AM
Alicia 33
Prosti-dude lost me at the end when he claims a woman can be a prostitute, but not a man. And since that happened before the article was written, it probably had a bit to do with the negative tone of the article. Dude sounds like a class A douchebag.

On the other hand, @15, you're totally right: if this was a dude writing about a female prostitute I would be livid with rage. Of course, there's a strong cultural tradition that female sex workers don't count as real people. Reversing the gender roles doesn't create the opposite cultural tradition, so it reads differently.
Posted by Alicia http://aliciaaho.com on February 3, 2010 at 11:41 AM
Reverse Polarity 34
Sure, Markus comes across as a bit shallow and naive. Quel surprise.

But the reporter was a bitch. She is so obviously worried about the readers judging her virtue, loudly proclaiming she didn't even so much as make out with the guy. She clearly had no intention of having sex with him, or even attempting to have a good time. And she didn't. Color me shocked.

For all we know, the guy could be a spectacular lay. That is, after all, his job. But we'll never know one way or another from this lame "report".
Posted by Reverse Polarity on February 3, 2010 at 11:42 AM
Dee 35
@22 - Not your average female prostitute, no. But there are still some who would do great in that situation. The smarter working girls are able to provide company and/or sex.
Posted by Dee on February 3, 2010 at 11:45 AM
36
Every prostitute on earth is more respectable than any New York Post staffer. Talk about whoring.
Posted by worthless rag. on February 3, 2010 at 12:15 PM
37
@Slog - Seriously dude, if you're not familiar with the phrase "gay for pay" please go look it up and stop the desperate attempts to turn it into a conspiracy against us. Yes, Dan Savage knows about "gay for pay". I'm sure he even understands what it means. You might want to follow suit.
Posted by ace9415 on February 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM
38
I can't believe the writer agreed to this. She had her vajeen inspected by a gigolo for fuck sakes.
Posted by The CHZA on February 3, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Irena 39
there's a strong cultural tradition that female sex workers don't count as real people. Reversing the gender roles doesn't create the opposite cultural tradition, so it reads differently.

Yeah, I hear you about it reading differently -- and that's what the NY Post is counting on, and the only reason they're getting away with this. But what it's really doing is reinforcing the idea that sex workers of either gender "don't count as real people". Again, imagine he's a woman, and the male reporter tells us she "felt abandoned by [her] mother after [her] parents divorced at an early age", that she quit porn because it was "too degrading", that she spent a few months being homeless before getting this job. And then uses the whole article to make fun of her. Terrible, huh? But the fact that the target is a guy means that we can make fun of him for all these things, because he's a sex worker.

And @34 nails something else that bothers me. The reporter does everything she can to show us she got no pleasure out of this and never intended to, as though the thought of a woman enjoying a male prostitute is too ridiculous to contemplate. The whole thing becomes a joke, which suggests to me that we have so much anxiety, as a culture, about women enjoying sex just for the sake of it. So she judges him on his seduction techniques, as opposed to how he uses his tongue and cock. It reminds me of a Woody Allen movie -- Husbands and Wives, I think -- where a character recommends a prostitute to his friend, saying, "She has a mouth like velvet". Our culture is not ready to hear women say things like that yet. Instead, the reporter gets sarcastic when he encourages her to touch his cock: "As romantic as that sounds, I tell him how much it turns me on to hear about something romantic. He looks genuinely befuddled".

No shit.
More...
Posted by Irena on February 3, 2010 at 12:52 PM
40
Ummm...he has really nice lips.
Posted by Michael Wells on February 3, 2010 at 12:54 PM
41
@15 count me as another AGREE
Posted by Scar on February 3, 2010 at 12:55 PM
Alicia 42
@39 <3

You're totally correct that to the culture at large women's sexual pleasure is nonexistent, and sex work is considered inherently dehumanizing. I have an idea that the reporter here went in asking questions, this dude got the notion she actually wanted to hear about his life (crazy, I know), and offered her the experience he thought she wanted.

But then, at the end, when he claims that women want companionship rather than sex, and therefore men cannot be prostitutes? Here we have a male sex worker who denies that men can be sex workers on basis of gender stereotypes. Honestly, I just don't know what to do with that.
Posted by Alicia http://aliciaaho.com on February 3, 2010 at 1:05 PM
43
I find it interesting how condescending the article is about women being prostitutes and then about how gross it is that this guy is in the business. It is especially interesting because it was written by a reporter who was paid by the Post to fuck somebody, in this case prostidude, even though she never consummated full vaginal penetration with him. So what does that make her?
Posted by Reg on February 3, 2010 at 1:09 PM
merry 44
@ 43 - Discriminating? And, employed?

Posted by merry on February 3, 2010 at 1:43 PM
45
@37
Are you sure?
Cause I'm shocked.
Just SHOCKED!
Posted by slog on February 3, 2010 at 1:59 PM
Irena 46
@42: Yes, I agree that's a stupid thing to say. But I mean, he's a sex worker. Is he supposed to be a brilliant conversationalist? Why is he being judged on his intelligence? Again, I can't help thinking how this would come across if he were a woman. Would we all be laughing and jeering at the dumb hooker? Maybe we would.

I don't know. I just think it's gross that a reporter went "undercover" and published all this crap about him. I would guess his normal clients wouldn't give a crap what he thinks, they'd just want to give him his money, get it on, and go.

Sex workers have enough shit to deal with. Let him do his job.
Posted by Irena on February 3, 2010 at 2:17 PM
TheMisanthrope 47
I think people are taking an article from the NY Post (THE POST FOR GODS SAKE) a bit too seriously.

Analyzing the Post is a bit like peering into the social mores that made up the Weekly World News (God Rest It's Trashy Soul) and its fake (and not-so-fake) stories.
Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 3, 2010 at 2:47 PM
danindowntown 48
@ 13 "Could one alter the melanin in their epidermis to be "Black for Cash"?"

Actually you can. Haven't you ever seen "Soul Man" the 1986 classic that marked the high and low point of C. Thomas Howell's acting career???
Posted by danindowntown on February 3, 2010 at 3:15 PM
49
@39
This is the second article I've read with quotes by him, and the woman-don't-really-like-sex angle is primarily him. He talked before starting (I can't remember where the article was, but it was also posted on SLOG) about how woman need companionship, how he's a "special" guy worth paying because he never, ever calls women bitches (as if that shouldn't just be standard), etc.

Even his comment about leaving porn is annoying. If a woman left porn because she felt it was degrading to her, then I'm fine about it. Having a man leave porn because he found it degrading to him -- good idea. But, "I left porn because it degraded women" just seems patronizing, paternalistic, etc. I just think he's a bit of a douche.
Posted by Canadian nurse on February 3, 2010 at 3:19 PM
50
You go, Markus!

1. Spent the evening with a mean, cruel bitch.

2. Didn't get laid.

3. But, the boy got paid!
Posted by Working Boy on February 3, 2010 at 7:03 PM
Christin 51
Please make this guy a "Stranger Suggests" so we have new-Kyle ask this guy about gay-for-pay.
Posted by Christin on February 4, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy