Scientific American has a not very good article this month reviewing some of the research on why men pay for sex. The piece is a bit all over the place, does a poor job of mixing quotes with commentary, and highlights selected researchers without offering enough context of the range of research into sex work, but I was glad to read it anyway as it exposes so many of the assumptions that underlie both journalists and researchers approaches to sex work and made me think.
Take this question from the journalist early on in the piece:
“…a man can usually get sex for free in the context of an ordinary intimate relationship. So why pay good money for it, especially given the social and health risks of having sex with a prostitute?”
Aside from the assumption that sex in an “ordinary intimate relationship” is preferable to sex you pay for, the larger assumption worth unpacking here is the notion that we can talk about all sexual interactions as if they were the same, and interchangeable. Each sexual interaction is a complicated experience involving personal, interpersonal, relational, social, and environmental factors. When you ask someone to compare the sex they had with a partner of four years in a committed relationship to the sex they had one night with a complete stranger in a bathroom at a club, what are you asking them to compare? I guess what I’m saying is that I find the very premise of these investigations to be hopelessly flawed.
There are more assumptions to be found in this article, and not just from the guy who wrote it. Take these two paragraphs describing the research of psychologist Dieter Kleiber who did survey research with 600 clients of sex workers (who the journalist feels comfortable referring to as “johns” without offering any linguistic context as if that’s the term everyone uses):
When Kleiber and his colleagues asked johns to characterize their prostitutes, most rated them as “charming” and “open.” Some also said these women were “intelligent” and “witty.” Many of the men painted a picture of a perfect woman whom they would like to get to know better. A few even penned statements such as “I can easily imagine the prostitute to whom I go as my wife.” “These men have emotionally charged relationships with prostitutes,” Kleiber says. They portray these relationships as intimate despite their commercial nature and limited scope, he adds.
As if to continue their “relationship,” many if not most johns prefer to go back to the same prostitute over and over again. According to Kleiber’s study, more than two thirds of devotees used the services of a particular prostitute more than 50 times. One in four had sex with the same prostitute more than 100 times.
It’s hard to tell if the researcher or the journalist, or both are surprised by the fact that men who pay for sex are impacted by the interactions, but the idea that anyone researching sex work would still be surprised by this is a bit head slapping. If you bother to actually talk to someone who has done sex work, or to someone whose paid for sex, it doesn’t take more than a few minutes to learn that for many this exchange is one that has an emotional context, and not always a negative one.
It seems strange to me that people might be apt to think of these kinds of sexual exchanges as ones that should be devoid of emotion or meaning. We’re constantly being told that sex is supposed to be an expression of love and commitment, that it’s wrong to have sex for money because it degrades both those who do it and the meaning of sex itself. Yet many, including those who write about sex work and those who research it, seem surprised whenever the exchanges are described as complicated or important. And guys who experience their relationships with sex workers as meaningful are portrayed as dupes.
Why can’t we conceive of sex for money as something more than an oppressive or violent act on the one hand, and a depressing empty one on the other?
There’s lots of great research on sex work being done, and even more great writing about sex work by those doing sex work available thanks to the Internet and publications like $pread. So while I’m glad Scientific American is talking about sex work from the perspective of both parties involved, I’d recommend you read some of the sites below first.
Scientific American - Why Do Men Buy Sex?
Some of us men cannot “get sex for free” in a relationship as this article states. I am disabled but independent. I am cultured and hold a doctorate graduate degree. None-the-less, attractive intelligent women lose all interest as soon as they find out I am a stroke survivor with a gait abnormality and a fairly non-functional upper extremity. On the other hand (no pun intended)I have developed friendships with more than one professional sex workers. I enjoy the time that we spend together (for which I pay) whether we have sex or not. In my experience most of these “pros” are physically attractive if not beautiful, intelligent, cultured women who can carry on intelligent conversations on a variety of topics, and who have great personalities as well as being great in bed. In my opinion they should be referred to as courtesans: not sex workers or prostitutes, etc. I don’t delude myself that these encounters will ever develop into anything more than a friendship at best. But if more wives had these attributes, the divorce rate would likely be lower. Only my opinion. I am single and have no master … or mistress. So who is more shallow: me, or those women who won’t “give me a second look”, let alone go out with me?
Written like a true client of expensive call girls.
You know, women are an awful lot better than men in terms of emotional intelligence and the ability to pick up on cues. They are excellent actresses.
Perhaps it is you who have been duped?