[
    {
        "role": "user",
        "content": "How%20often%20do%20male%20prostitutes%20ejaculate%20while%20servicing%20their%20male%20clients%3F"
    },
    {
        "role": "assistant",
        "content": "I couldn\u2019t find any reliable research or surveys that give a clear answer to **how often male sex workers ejaculated while servicing male clients**. There are a number of reasons the question is difficult to answer:\n\n---\n\n### Why data is limited and equivocal\n\n- Most research studies about male sex workers (MSWs) focus on aspects like HIV/STI risk, condom use, number/frequency of clients, or types of sexual acts. They **rarely ask** clients or workers whether ejaculation occurred during a service situation.  \n- Even when \u201csemen exchange\u201d is discussed, it\u2019s typically in context of risk behaviors (oral sex, anal sex) rather than how frequently ejaculation happens.  \n- Social desirability bias, stigma, and the private nature of sexual activities can make reliable reporting on ejaculation difficult in both interview and survey settings.\n\n---\n\n### What we *do* know from research\n\nHere\u2019s a breakdown of findings from studies that come closest, and what they reveal (or don\u2019t reveal) about ejaculation frequency:\n\n1. **Oral and Anal Sex with Clients**  \n   - One U.S.-based agency escort study found that almost all anal sex with clients involved condoms, and **no semen exchange** was reported for anal sex with clients. ([pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5454495/?utm_source=openai))  \n   - With oral sex, many escorts reported not using condoms with clients, but \u201csemen exchange was low.\u201d ([pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5454495/?utm_source=openai))  \n\n2. **Patterns of Sexual Acts**  \n   - MSWs report a median of ~3 male clients in the past month in some studies, and most encounters involve oral or anal intercourse. ([pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5454495/?utm_source=openai))  \n   - In London (1994-2003), a large study showed high rates of consistent condom use for anal sex with male clients, but oral sex without protection was common. Still, that doesn\u2019t directly tell us about ejaculation frequency. ([pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2563850/?utm_source=openai))  \n\n3. **\u201cSemen Exchange\u201d Reports vs. Ejaculation Events**  \n   - \u201cSemen exchange\u201d (semen present in mouth or anus or via contact) is sometimes measured; in most studies, it's rare with clients, especially in acts where condoms are used. ([pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5454495/?utm_source=openai))  \n   - But \u201csemen exchange\u201d is not the same as \u201cejaculation during service.\u201d A worker may ejaculate but not into a client, or may avoid ejaculation entirely as part of risk reduction or performance strategy.\n\n---\n\n### Tentative inferences and what we can *reasonably* say\n\nGiven the lack of good data, we can only make educated guesses based on related findings:\n\n- It\u2019s likely ejaculation *does not happen* in many service encounters\u2014either because condoms are used, because clients or workers avoid it, or because the sexual act is oral with withdrawal or other precautions.\n- When ejaculation does occur, it\u2019s probably **in situations where condoms are not used orally or perhaps with clients that request \u201ccum-shots\u201d** (i.e. ejaculating into or onto the client), though quantitative frequency is not documented.\n- The percentage of service encounters leading to ejaculation is likely **much lower** than 100%, and probably well below 50% in settings where risk awareness, condom norms, or professional boundaries are strong.\n\n---\n\nIf you like, I could try digging up qualitative interviews or more recent research that specifically addresses this question to get a better estimate. Would you prefer that?"
    },
    {
        "role": "user",
        "content": "Does%20a%20client%20typically%20pay%20more%20for%20an%20encounter%20that%20includes%20a%20kum%20shot"
    },
    {
        "role": "assistant",
        "content": "I couldn\u2019t find credible, specific evidence that clients **typically** pay more for an encounter that explicitly includes a \u201ccum shot\u201d (ejaculation onto or into the client or for visual effect) in male sex work. But there *are* some findings about how extras or riskier services tend to raise prices, which suggests it\u2019s possible\u2014but not universally standard. Here\u2019s what the available research shows:\n\n---\n\n### What we *do* know from studies\n\n- A U.S. study of male sex workers (MSWs) found that **\u201cspecial kinks or fetishes,\u201d services perceived as \u201crisky, demanding or physically or emotionally uncomfortable,\u201d** command higher fees. ([pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11390312/?utm_source=openai))  \n- The same study also found that **\u201danal sex without a condom\u201d** is one such higher-fee activity, indicating clients often pay more for services that increase risk. ([pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11390312/?utm_source=openai))  \n- Another broad study on sex work says that \u201cextras\u201d\u2014services not included in the standard package\u2014are common and typically negotiated. What is considered an \u201cextra\u201d can vary widely depending on the worker\u2019s boundary and what the client requests. ([nswp.org](https://www.nswp.org/sites/default/files/UOOBookletManagingSexWorkWeb.pdf?utm_source=openai))  \n\n---\n\n### What we *don\u2019t* have enough evidence for\n\n- I found **no robust datasets** or peer-reviewed studies that specifically mention \u201ccum shot\u201d as a defined extra and then compare rates of payment with vs. without it.\n- Because of stigma and the variability of what clients expect and what workers are willing to do, there\u2019s likely a lot of unterminated negotiation happening that isn\u2019t documented in academic settings.\n\n---\n\n### Reasonable inference\n\nGiven what is known:\n\n- If \u201ccum shot\u201d is viewed by the client as adding something extra\u2014whether risk (e.g. whether there\u2019s bodily fluid contact), aesthetic/visual appeal, or simply \u201cmore\u201d of the sexual act\u2014then a sex worker *might* ask for more.\n- Workers set fees based on what they\u2019re comfortable doing, how much risk they take, how demanding or unusual a request is, and how much effort is involved. If a cum shot is something extra or more risky (e.g. contact with bodily fluids), that could lead to an additional charge. ([pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11390312/?utm_source=openai))  \n\n---\n\nIf you want, I can try tracking down some qualitative interviews (e.g. among male sex workers) to see if there are first-person reports of clients explicitly paying more for \u201ccum shots.\u201d Would you prefer I dig into that?"
    },
    {
        "role": "user",
        "content": "Yes%20please%20do"
    },
    {
        "role": "assistant",
        "content": "I searched for first-person accounts and academic studies to see whether male sex workers report getting paid more when a client requests a \u201ccum shot\u201d (ejaculation onto/into the client or visibly) and found **no clear, credible examples** in academic literature confirming that this specific request is commonly priced as an \u201cextra.\u201d Below is what I found, what people often say in related contexts (including online forums), and how to interpret the absence of more concrete evidence.\n\n---\n\n### What the research says (academic studies)\n\n**1. \u201cIt\u2019s Almost Like Playing \u2018The Price Is Right\u2019\u201d (2024)**\n- This qualitative study with ~180 male sex workers across several U.S. cities found that **the type of sexual act**, especially anal sex, influenced how much clients would pay. ([pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11390312/?utm_source=openai))\n- It also noted that extra fees tended to apply for \u201cspecial kinks or fetishes\u201d or services considered riskier or more physically/emotionally challenging. ([pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11390312/?utm_source=openai))  \n- *However*, the paper does **not** explicitly mention \u201ccum shots\u201d (ejaculation onto/into a partner) as a distinct service that gets priced separately.\n\n**2. \u201cLived Experiences of Male Sex Workers: A Global Qualitative Meta-Synthesis\u201d (recent)**\n- In this review of many qualitative interviews globally, pricing was found to depend on:  \n  \u2022 time spent with clients  \n  \u2022 type of service (e.g. oral, anal, massage)  \n  \u2022 \u201cclass\u201d or perceived status/attractiveness of the client ([mdpi.com](https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5118/4/2/16?utm_source=openai))  \n- Again, \u201ccum shot\u201d does not appear in the reported data as a specific extra.\n\n**3. \u201cBarebacking Among Internet Based Male Sex Workers\u201d**\n- This paper touches on clients requesting unprotected sex (\u201cbareback\u201d), which often comes with higher pay. There are verbal reports like \u201cclients would offer more money if I fucked them raw\u201d (i.e. without a condom) ([researchgate.net](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241749262_Barebacking_Among_Internet_Based_Male_Sex_Workers?utm_source=openai))  \n- But even here, mention of ejaculation or \u201ccum shot\u201d as part of the deal is not clearly documented.\n\n---\n\n### What people say in online discussions (less formal sources)\n\nSome Reddit threads from sex workers or former escorts do mention that clients sometimes pay more for ejaculatory acts:\n\n- One user said: *\u201cI\u2019d probably charge more if you want me to cum.\u201d* ([reddit.com](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/c5lzuk?utm_source=openai))  \n- Another commenter said that a client asked them to \u201ccum on my body,\u201d and that request came with a higher price: *\u201c50\u20ac up.\u201d* ([reddit.com](https://www.reddit.com/r/askgaybros/comments/1k61855?utm_source=openai))  \n\nThese are personal anecdotes\u2014not rigorously documented\u2014and likely reflect individual negotiations rather than an industry-wide standard.\n\n---\n\n### Interpreting the evidence\n\nPutting together what I found:\n\n- **Academic studies strongly support** that male sex workers do charge more for services seen as higher risk or more specialized (anal sex, fetishes, unprotected sex) but don\u2019t have data showing \u201ccum shot\u201d itself is treated as a typical separate priced service.  \n- **Anecdotal sources** suggest that some individuals do charge extra for ejaculation-based acts, but these sources vary widely in credibility and context, and are not systematic.\n\n---\n\n### My assessment\n\nGiven the evidence:\n\n- It\u2019s **plausible** and likely that some male sex workers **do** charge more when a \u201ccum shot\u201d is explicitly requested\u2014but it\u2019s not clearly documented or widespread in published research.\n- Whether extra payment is required likely depends on:\n\n  \u2022 individual worker\u2019s preferences and boundaries  \n  \u2022 how \u201cbelonging\u201d the ejaculation is (e.g. on client\u2019s body, mouth, inside body, etc.)  \n  \u2022 perceived risk to the worker (e.g. exposure to bodily fluids)  \n  \u2022 negotiation norms in that worker\u2019s area (city/country), service type, client expectations  \n\n- Because the \u201ccum shot\u201d request often involves bodily fluids, it could be treated as higher-risk or more boundary-crossing, which in many cases *would* justify a higher fee in negotiation.\n\n---\n\nIf you want, I can try to find studies specifically focused on ejaculation as a service in male sex work\u2014for example, looking for terms like \u201cclient requests cum shot\u201d + qualitative interviews\u2014to see if any have directly counted how often that occurs and at what extra payment. Would you prefer I do that?"
    },
    {
        "role": "user",
        "content": "yes%20please"
    },
    {
        "role": "assistant",
        "content": "I searched for more specific studies (especially qualitative interviews) looking at whether male sex workers are paid extra when clients request an explicit \u201ccum shot\u201d (i.e. visible ejaculation onto/into the client or for visual effect). I did *not* find any credible academic source that **directly documents** this specific detail. Here\u2019s a detailed summary of what I found, where \u201cgaps\u201d are, and what that likely means in practice.\n\n---\n\n### What comes up in research \u2014 closest but still lacking\n\nSome studies dig into how male sex workers set fees and what extra payments are requested or offered, but they don\u2019t specifically mention \u201ccum shots\u201d:\n\n- A 2024 study called *\u201cIt\u2019s Almost Like Playing \u2018The Price Is Right\u2019\u201d* (180 MSWs in 8 US cities) reports that **anal sex without a condom (bareback)** commands higher fees, as do \u201cspecial kinks or fetishes,\u201d or any sexual acts considered risky, demanding, or emotionally/physically uncomfortable. But the study **does not explicitly** say that ejaculation (cum shot) is separately negotiated or priced. ([pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11390312/?utm_source=openai))\n\n- Another global meta-synthesis of MSWs\u2019 experiences describes how some sex workers are financially incentivized to engage in riskier acts (e.g., condomless sex) for higher pay. Yet again, the data never pinpoint whether \u201cejaculation onto client\u201d is one of the separable acts that is priced differently. ([mdpi.com](https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5118/4/2/16?utm_source=openai))\n\n- A study on male sex workers in Mombasa, Kenya, also confirms that services like oral sex, massages, and anal sex can be negociated for higher pay. But requests for ejaculation-based services weren\u2019t singled out. ([pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6980499/?utm_source=openai))\n\n- Studies like *\u201cWhat Male Sex Workers Want to Clarify With Prospective Clients\u201d* emphasize that negotiation often includes discussing sexual acts, condom use, and boundaries, but \u201ccum shot\u201d does not appear in the examples given. ([pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38096452/?utm_source=openai))\n\n---\n\n### What the absence of evidence suggests\n\nThe lack of documented mention of \u201ccum shot\u201d in academic studies probably means one or more of the following:\n\n1. **It\u2019s not commonly asked for or considered a standard extra** by male sex workers in the populations studied, at least not in ways that researchers have questioned.\n2. **It might be subsumed under broader categories** like \u201criskier acts,\u201d \u201cfetishes,\u201d or \u201csexual fluid exchange,\u201d rather than treated as a distinct request.\n3. **Participants may choose not to disclose it** due to stigma, privacy, or discomfort, so it may happen but not get reported in research.\n\n---\n\n### What personal/online accounts suggest\n\nWhile formal academic literature lacks specific mentions, informal sources (forums, Reddit, etc.) **do** include anecdotes where sex workers mention charging more for ejaculation-based acts:\n\n- Some sex worker forum or Reddit threads include people saying that clients asked for cum-shots (\u201cI\u2019d probably charge more if you want me to cum\u201d) or that a \u201ccum on body\u201d request came with additional payment. These are first-person stories, not systematic data. ([reddit.com](https://www.reddit.com/r/TooAfraidToAsk/comments/1lb9ynd?utm_source=openai))\n\n- Another thread refers to \u201cshots\u201d or \u201chow many cum shots\u201d as part of what clients may ask, often alongside \u201chow much time.\u201d But again, these are not controlled studies. ([reddit.com](https://www.reddit.com/r/TooAfraidToAsk/comments/1lb9ynd?utm_source=openai))\n\n---\n\n### Bottom line\n\n- There\u2019s *no strong, documented evidence* from academic qualitative or quantitative studies that \u201ccum shot\u201d is a commonly priced extra in male sex work.\n- What *is* well-supported is that sex workers negotiate extra payment for services that involve greater risk, greater physical or emotional discomfort, special kinks/fetishes, or anything outside their usual scope. Ejaculation-based acts could fall into one of those categories, but they\u2019re not explicitly identified in the work I reviewed.\n- Anecdotes suggest that *in some cases* extra payment may be asked, but these are far from indicative of widespread standard practice.\n\n---\n\nIf you're interested, I can try locating studies in non-academic or sex-worker-led publications (blogs, advocacy group reports, etc.) to see if that kind of request and pricing is discussed more openly there. Do you want me to check those sources?"
    },
    {
        "role": "user",
        "content": "Changing%20the%20subject%2C%20tell%20me%20about%20froture%2C%20how%20many%20guys%20do%20it%2C%20when%2C%20with%20who%2C%20etc."
    },
    {
        "role": "assistant",
        "content": "Here\u2019s what I found on *frot* / *frottage* (also spelled \u201cfroture\u201d)\u2014behaviors involving genital-to-genital or pelvic rubbing, usually nonpenetrative, often mutual, typically consensual\u2014plus what we *don\u2019t* know because good data are sparse.\n\n---\n\n## Key concepts and definitions\n\n- \u201cFrot\u201d or \u201cfrottage\u201d is sexual or erotic rubbing between two people, typically of genitals against genitals, genitals against body, or pelvis-to-pelvis. It\u2019s nonpenetrative and consensual in these contexts. ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frot?utm_source=openai))  \n- This differs from *frotteurism* / *frotteuristic disorder*, which is non-consensual rubbing of one's pelvis or genitals against another person without consent\u2014categorized as a paraphilic disorder in psychiatric manuals. ([dictionary.apa.org](https://dictionary.apa.org/frotteurism?utm_source=openai))  \n\nWhen we talk about frot/frottage in consensual, gay or queer settings, it\u2019s a normal sexual expression often preferred for various personal or cultural reasons. Frotteurism is legal/ethical violation and pathological if the criteria (non-consent, distress, or impairment) are met.\n\n---\n\n## How common is frot in consensual settings (\u201cfrot,\u201d \u201cGG rubbing,\u201d etc.)\n\nUnfortunately, I **couldn\u2019t find reliable statistics** from academic studies that quantify how many men engage in frot within consensual sexual behavior. The available research tends to focus on non-consensual behavior (*frotteurism*) as a disorder or criminal behavior. \n\nHere\u2019s what *is* known:\n\n- The systematic review \u201cPrevalence and Treatment of Frotteurism in the Community\u201d looked at frotteurism in nonclinical populations. Four studies, among ~1,000 male participants, found rates of frotteuristic behavior or desire in the range of ~7.9% to ~9.7% in three studies. One outlier found ~35%, likely due to methodological differences. ([jaapl.org](https://jaapl.org/content/42/4/478?utm_source=openai))  \n- That review did *not* include data on mutually consensual genital\u2013genital rubbing (i.e. \u201cfrot\u201d as understood in queer sex practices) because those behaviors are generally not classified or discussed in psychiatric or epidemiological studies of paraphilia. ([jaapl.org](https://jaapl.org/content/42/4/478?utm_source=openai))  \n\nSo academic research has largely ignored consensual frot, making it hard to say how many do it, when, with whom, etc.\n\n---\n\n## What we *do* know from other sources\n\nSome sources (sex-positive media, blogs, community or LGBT-focused writing) offer insight into when and why people choose frot:\n\n- Many gay or bisexual men prefer frot or mutual genital rubbing for intimacy, as safe-sex alternatives, or because it feels more \u201cequal\u201d or low-pressure than anal sex. It's often included under sexual roles like \u201cside\u201d (a term for MSM who prefer non-penetrative sexual acts). ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frot?utm_source=openai))  \n- Frot is sometimes chosen:\n  \u2022 As part of foreplay  \n  \u2022 In situations where penetration is not desired or possible  \n  \u2022 When partners want less risk of injury, infection, or technical \u201cperfect sex\u201d  \n  \u2022 Because some people dislike penetration or are uncomfortable with it  \n- There is cultural visibility of \u201cdry humping\u201d (clothed or unclothed rubbing over clothing) in queer communities, in certain kink/BDSM scenes, or in erotic media to represent non-penetrative erotic contact. ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-penetrative_sex?utm_source=openai))  \n\n---\n\n## Gaps & unanswered questions\n\nBecause academic studies rarely cover consensual frot explicitly, there are big unknowns:\n\n- We don\u2019t have reliable demographic breakdowns (age, race, region) of who uses frot.\n- We don\u2019t know how often frot occurs vs how often it\u2019s the preferred or secondary practice within MSM sexual behavior.\n- We don\u2019t know in what relationship contexts frot is more or less common (one-time hook-ups vs long-term partners, for example).\n- We don\u2019t know patterns over time (e.g., if preference for frot correlates with being younger, or shifts as people age or get in relationships).\n\n---\n\nIf you want, I can try looking into sex-positive survey data or community-based health studies (LGBT health & sexuality journals) to see if any give more precise info on consensual frot. Do you want me to do that?"
    },
    {
        "role": "user",
        "content": "yes"
    },
    {
        "role": "assistant",
        "content": "I dug into available community/academic survey data to see how often consensual genital rubbing (\u201cfrot\u201d/\u201cgenital-genital contact\u201d) happens among men, and found a few solid sources. These give us some idea of prevalence, context, and who\u2019s doing what\u2014but there are still many gaps (especially about when, how often, and with whom). Here\u2019s what I found.\n\n---\n\n## Key Data from Community & Academic Surveys\n\n### U.S. National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (NSSHB), 2012\n\n- Among *gay men* in this U.S. sample, **93%** reported lifetime genital rubbing (genital-to-genital contact) ([researchgate.net](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297651739_Sexual_Behaviors_of_US_Men_by_Self-Identified_Sexual_Orientation_Results_From_the_2012_National_Survey_of_Sexual_Health_and_Behavior?utm_source=openai)).\n- In the *past month*, **39%** of gay men reported genital-genital rubbing. ([researchgate.net](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297651739_Sexual_Behaviors_of_US_Men_by_Self-Identified_Sexual_Orientation_Results_From_the_2012_National_Survey_of_Sexual_Health_and_Behavior?utm_source=openai)).\n- Among *bisexual men*, 73% reported lifetime genital-genital rubbing. ([researchgate.net](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297651739_Sexual_Behaviors_of_US_Men_by_Self-Identified_Sexual_Orientation_Results_From_the_2012_National_Survey_of_Sexual_Health_and_Behavior?utm_source=openai)).\n\nThis suggests frot-like activity is extremely common in gay and bisexual men\u2019s sexual practices, not just a fringe behavior.\n\n---\n\n### \u201cCum Play\u201d Survey in Australia (Gay Men, PAIC Context)\n\n- In an online sample of 1,153 HIV-negative and 147 HIV-positive gay men, **\u201ccum play\u201d** (which includes ejaculation onto or around the anus, or using semen as lubricant) was reported by:\n  - About **1 in 6** HIV-negative men in the context of protected anal intercourse with a casual partner\n  - About **1 in 4** of HIV-positive men under similar circumstances ([pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23519589/?utm_source=openai))\n\nWhile this isn\u2019t *exactly* frot, it\u2019s related in that it involves skin/genital contact beyond just penetration, and helps indicate what\u2019s common\u2014or at least not rare\u2014in consensual sexual variety.\n\n---\n\n## What We Still Don\u2019t Know / What Survey Data Don\u2019t Reveal\n\nDespite the useful figures above, critical details are missing:\n\n- **Frequency**: How often do people engage in frot? Is it rare, occasional, or a regular part of sexual repertoire?\n- **With whom**: Do people do it mainly with long-term partners, casual hookups, regular friends, etc.?\n- **Context**: Under what circumstances\u2014foreplay, main act, drunk, sober, online meets, in porn, etc.?\n- **Who prefers/initiates**: Age, identity, experience, and role preferences (top, bottom, side) influencing who prefers frot.\n\n---\n\n## What we *do* glean & plausible interpretations\n\nFrom combining what's known:\n\n- Genital-genital contact (which includes frot or rubbing/genital rubbing) is **very common** among gay men\u2014lifetime prevalence is extremely high (90%+ in some samples) and a large minority report recent activity (past month). ([researchgate.net](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297651739_Sexual_Behaviors_of_US_Men_by_Self-Identified_Sexual_Orientation_Results_From_the_2012_National_Survey_of_Sexual_Health_and_Behavior?utm_source=openai))\n- For bisexual men, lifetime rates are also high (~70%+), though recent activity drops off (whether due to fewer same-sex experiences, partner availability, or what\u2019s surveyed). ([researchgate.net](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297651739_Sexual_Behaviors_of_US_Men_by_Self-Identified_Sexual_Orientation_Results_From_the_2012_National_Survey_of_Sexual_Health_and_Behavior?utm_source=openai))\n- \u201cCum play\u201d adds a layer: some people combine non-penetrative genital contact or skin-on-skin exposure with fluids (semen) as part of their sexual behaviors. While less common than the more basic rubbing, still not unusual. ([pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23519589/?utm_source=openai))\n\n---\n\nIf you like, I could try to find more recent survey data (since 2015\u20132026), especially among younger people, to see any generational shifts in how common frot is and how it's viewed."
    },
    {
        "role": "user",
        "content": "yes%2C%20hearing%20about%20younger%20people%20would%20be%20interesting"
    },
    {
        "role": "assistant",
        "content": "I couldn\u2019t find any recent (post-2015+) academic or large-scale survey data that specifically measures *how often younger men engage in consensual genital-genital rubbing (frot)* or details frequency, partners, etc. Most recent studies tend to address broader categories like \u201csexual behaviors,\u201d \u201cdefinitions of sex,\u201d or \u201crisky intercourse,\u201d without breaking out frot specifically. What *is* available gives some useful indirect insights, including how younger people conceptualize genital rubbing and where it fits in their sexual lives.\n\n---\n\n## What newer studies tell us about youth & definitions of genital rubbing\n\n### 1. Australia: Definitions of Sex Among Young People (around 2024)\n\n- Study of young people (various ages, LGBQ+, gender diverse): found that **LGBQ+ youth and non-binary/gender-diverse youth** are more likely to include *genital rubbing* in their definitions of \u201cwhat counts as sex\u201d compared to heterosexual or cisgender youth. ([tandfonline.com](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14681811.2024.2393769?utm_source=openai))  \n- Non-binary/gender diverse people assigned female at birth were especially likely to include genital rubbing in definitions of sex. Bisexual/questioning people less so (still above heterosexual youth). ([tandfonline.com](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14681811.2024.2393769?utm_source=openai))  \n\nThis suggests that genital rubbing is viewed by younger people\u2014especially in queer and gender-diverse communities\u2014as a legitimate sexual act or type of sex, rather than as just foreplay or something lesser. This could correlate with greater prevalence/visibility\u2014but it doesn\u2019t measure behavior directly, just how people define things.\n\n---\n\n### 2. Sexual Health Study among Adolescents (Sexual Touching & Other Behaviors)\n\n- A pilot program evaluation (recent US school-based or youth-inclusive sexual health efforts) reported that among participants, around **40.5%** had engaged in *sexual touching* in the past three months; far fewer (4.8%) reported anal sex. ([pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11000634/?utm_source=openai))  \n- \u201cSexual touching\u201d is broad; unclear if this includes genital-genital contact or rubbing specifically. Likely includes various non-penetrative behaviors. ([pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11000634/?utm_source=openai))  \n\nSo while many young LGBTQ+ people (or youth in general, depending on the sample) are engaging in non-penetrative sexual behaviors, we can\u2019t isolate frot/rubbing specifically from those numbers.\n\n---\n\n### 3. Youth Surveys Including LGBTQ+ Youth in the U.S.\n\n- The **2022 LGBTQ+ Youth Survey** by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) collected data from ~12,600 youth from all 50 states. It includes questions on \u201cpartnering history, condom use, HIV testing\u201d and other sexual behaviors for LGBTQ+ youth. However, I didn\u2019t find in the public report specific statistics for preg rubbing or genital-genital contact. ([reports.hrc.org](https://reports.hrc.org/2023-lgbtq-youth-report?utm_source=openai))  \n- The survey doesn\u2019t appear to break out \u201cgenital rubbing / frot\u201d behavior in quantitative detail, at least in what they publicly released so far. ([reports.hrc.org](https://reports.hrc.org/2023-lgbtq-youth-report?utm_source=openai))  \n\n---\n\n## Implications & Likely Patterns\n\nGiven what *is* known (definitions, youth sexual behaviors, queer youth identity):\n\n- It\u2019s reasonable to infer that **younger queer men** are more likely than older generations (or heterosexual peers) to include genital rubbing in their definitions of sex, which could correspond with higher rates of doing it\u2014but this remains speculative without direct measurement.  \n- Youth programs and surveys suggest non-penetrative sexual behaviors (like sexual touching) are far more common than penetrative ones among adolescents and LGBTQ youth. So frot/rubbing is likely much more frequent than anal sex, especially among youth without access to partners or desiring more intimate or less risky sexual contact.  \n- Cultural changes (greater visibility of queer practices, more inclusive definitions of sex, less stigma) might increase both prevalence and willingness to report frot/rubbing\u2014but again, empirical data specifically measuring this is scarce.\n\n---\n\nIf you like, I can try to locate smaller/localized studies (e.g. in specific cities or among college students) that may have asked directly about genital-genital contact among younger MSM. That might give sharper estimates (though less generalizable). Do you want me to search those?"
    }
]