Culture, Health & Sexuality, 2015 Vol. 17, No. 5, 541–554, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2014.963679

Men’s constructions of masculinity and male sexuality through talk of buying sex Monique Huysamen* and Floretta Boonzaier Department of Psychology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa (Received 31 January 2014; accepted 6 September 2014) Commercial sex is an everyday occurrence across a range of contexts in South Africa. In this paper we turn our attention to the often-marginalised role of the buyers of sex by drawing on narrative interviews with male clients of female sex workers recruited through online advertisements in order to explore the ways in which heterosexual men construct, negotiate and perform their masculinity and sexuality through talking about their experiences of paying for sex. We highlight parallels between men’s narratives of paying for sex and dominant discourses of gender and heterosexuality. We show how men draw on heteronormative sexual scripts in constructing and making sense of paid sexual encounters and how men are simultaneously able to construct and enact a particular idealised version of masculinity and male sexuality through their talk on paying for sex. Finally, we discuss how online resources could be used more extensively in future research with the male clients of sex workers. Keywords: sex work; clients; masculinity; online research; South Africa

Introduction Although illegal and highly stigmatised in South Africa, the buying and selling of sex online, on street corners or in brothels is widespread. Under the Sexual Offences Amendment Act 23 of 2007, both the buyer and the seller of sex are criminalised (Gardner 2009). There are, however, active civil society organisations lobbying for legal reform and the decriminalisation of sex work. This is in recognition of the fact that the criminalisation and associated stigmatisation of the industry is particularly harmful to women, who make up the majority of the country’s sex workers. While there is a substantial and growing body of research on the commercial sex work industry in South Africa (e.g. Gould and Fick 2008; Stadler and Delany 2006; Trotter 2008; Wojcicki and Malala 2001) as internationally (e.g. Hao et al. 2014; Safika, Levy, and Johnson 2013), this research is mostly centred on the female sex worker, often overlooking the role of men, who are the primary consumers of the sexual services sold by women. Of the existing research on male clients, most has been conducted outside of South Africa and is of a quantitative nature, exploring the associations between a range of psychological and sociological variables and the buying of sex. Collectively, the work attempts to measure or classify client behaviour (e.g. Monto and McRee 2005; Xantidis and McCabe 2000) or explore the relationship between paying for sex and men’s HIV/ AIDS risk-taking behaviours (e.g. Barnard, McKeganey, and Leyland 1993). These types of studies take an essentialist view of men who buy sex, and attempt to formulate a profile of the typical client. Ironically, when considered collectively, these studies are largely

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] q 2014 Taylor & Francis

542

M. Huysamen and F. Boonzaier

contradictory, suggesting that men from various walks of life pay for sex and do so for a variety of reasons (Holzman and Pines 1982; Pitts et al. 2004). A literature search of journal articles yielded a small number of articles (Bernstein 2001; Chen 2005; Holzman and Pines 1982; Jordan 1997; Plumridge et al. 1997; Sanders 2008) that collect clients’ personal accounts and constructions of paying for sex through in-depth interviews, none of which were conducted in the South African context. This body of work, based on a few qualitative studies conducted outside of South Africa, reveals that men construct paying for sex in contradictory ways and have contradictory demands and desires for the client-sex worker interaction. Collectively, the findings suggest that men construct paying for sex as attractive because it affords them the opportunity to satisfy their innate and urgent needs for sex with a variety of women without having to commit to them in any way. Paradoxically, the demand for authenticity and the desire for intimacy within the client-sex worker relationship is one of the key issues raised by clients across these studies (Bernstein 2001; Chen 2005; Holzman and Pines 1982; Jordan 1997; Plumridge et al. 1997; Sanders 2008). What is perhaps most interesting about these findings on clients’ constructions of paid sex are their parallels with dominant discourses of heterosexuality and conceptions of hegemonic masculinity. For instance, the ‘male sex drive discourse’ as proposed by Hollway (1998) suggests that heterosexual men have an urgent, uncontrollable biological need for regular sex. Consistent with this discourse, in Africa, just as in many other parts of the world, a key criterion for achieving hegemonic masculinity is that the man be sexually dominant, skilled and experienced. Mankayi (2008), for example, in her research into South African soldiers’ constructions of masculinity and sexuality, showed that having regular sex with multiple partners provided a way for these men to perform their male sexuality and prove their manhood. While the South African work has now repeatedly illustrated the associations between the performance of masculinity and male (hetero) sexuality, it has not managed to capture the paradoxical constructions of male sexuality as they emerge the international work on male clients (i.e., heterosexual sex for the fulfilment of both a biological ‘need’ and a need for intimacy). A review of research on men’s constructions of heterosexuality shows that it is not only clients of sex workers who construct sex in such a contradictory fashion. For example, Gavey, McPhillips, and Braun (1999) explored young and middle-aged adults’ understandings of the relationship between sex and intimacy. They found that on the one hand, penetrative sex was constructed as a carnal act that could be devoid of intimacy. On the other hand, sex was also constructed, often by the same participants, as the ultimate act of intimacy and a means to experience a deep connection with one’s partner. The need for closeness and intimacy that seems contradictory to the sex drive discourse could be associated with Hollway’s (1998) description of the ‘have/hold discourse’, which constructs sex as something that is performed in the context of a monogamous relationship, characterised by commitment and companionship. Further parallels between research on male buyers of sex and hegemonic heterosexual scripts are found in relation to issues of reciprocity, commodification and sex as a transaction. The commodification of the female body is often seen as central to the maintenance of the sex industry. However, the construction of heterosexual intercourse as an exchange has been found to be present in men’s narratives of heterosexual relationships as a whole (Gilfoyle, Wilson, and Own 1992; Mooney-Somers and Ussher 2010). Traditional heterosexual scripts portray women as the boundary setters and the gatekeepers of their bodies, and construct men as having to offer women something in exchange for access (Seal and Ehrhardt 2003). In South Africa, Jewkes et al. (2012a,

Culture, Health & Sexuality

543

2012b) highlighted the transactional nature of heterosexual relationships by showing that for many men heterosexual relationships were bound up with the expectation that men take on a provider role. In exchange for performing this provider role, however, men assumed that they were entitled to both sex and obedience from partners. This research suggests that this construction of sex as a transaction is not exclusive to the sex industry, but is embedded in a type of conservative masculinity which is hegemonic in South Africa (Jewkes et al. 2012a). What is perhaps most striking about the existing international qualitative research on clients is how it reveals parallels between the broader discourses of heterosexuality that are dominant in South Africa and men’s constructions of their paid encounters with sex workers. This highlights the relevance of studying men’s constructions of paying for sex as part of a broader project of understanding heterosexual masculinities. This paper, based on a larger South African study, explores the ways in which this sample of heterosexual men construct, negotiate and perform versions of masculinity and sexuality through talking about their experiences of paying for sex, asking specifically: how do South African men’s narratives about buying sex illuminate themes in the literature on heteronormative male sexuality and masculinity? Methodology This work is informed by a narrative approach, both as a theoretical framework and as a research design. Narrative methods form part of a broader social constructionist paradigm (Crossley 2000) suggesting that narratives, rather than being reflections of reality, are socially and culturally constituted. One of the central functions of personal narratives is the construction of selfhood and identity (Riessman 2008). Certain types of narrative analysis, like performative narrative analysis, focus not only on the narrative being told, but also on the audience to whom the narrative is being relayed. We understand that the presence of the first author, a young female researcher, would have influenced the kinds of narratives participants performed and the ways in which they constructed themselves during the interviews (Langellier 1989; Riessman 2008). A critical discussion on these interviewer-participant dynamics is beyond the scope of this paper, but an analysis of this is ongoing. In this paper, we attend to the kinds of masculine selves made possible through men’s narrations of the purchase of sexual services from women. Making contact Participants were recruited through the use of online resources. The recruitment process began by placing advertisements on two free online classifieds websites, called Gumtree (www.gumtree.co.za) and Locanto (www.locanto.co.za). These popular websites are used to buy and sell personal items and advertise a range of services. Participants who were interested in the project were invited to contact the first author via email. The recruitment process continued until the responses to advertisements, reposted regularly, began to dwindle and eventually ceased. Participants The sample consisted of 14 men, with a mean age of 43 years, ranging between the ages of 30 and 65 years. Of the 14 participants, 10 were white, 3 were Indian or coloured1 and 1

544

M. Huysamen and F. Boonzaier

was Black. The majority of the participants (10) patronised sex workers working from indoor contexts (agency, brothel or private), one participant used the services of both indoor and street-based sex workers and three participants patronised only street-based sex workers. All participants were employed and most (12) had careers that would place them in middle to higher income brackets, for example some were engineers, business owners or worked in the financial sector. Ten participants were in long-term or marital relationships, three were single and one was separated from his wife at the time of the interviews. Pseudonyms are used in this paper to protect the identities of research participants. This research was approved by and adhered to the ethical guidelines of the University of Cape Town faculty of humanities research ethics committee. Data collection Data were collected through one-off, face-to-face narrative interviews conducted by the first author. Consistent with the open-ended nature of much narrative research, participants were asked one broad opening interview question, namely: ‘Tell me about your first experience of paying for sex’. The opening question provided the broad frame for the interview, with the interviewer following up with further probing questions and questions of clarification. Interviews took place in coffee shops in areas that were most convenient for participants and lasted between 30 and 90 minutes. Interviews were digitally recorded and later transcribed verbatim. Data analysis In the analysis of the transcribed data, we were guided by Riessman’s (2008) delineation of thematic narrative analysis, attending to the stories men told about buying sex and particularly the kinds of masculine identities embedded in and made possible through those narrations. In addition, we attended to men’s use of language and its relation to the discursive production of masculinity and the regulation of behaviour (Gavey 1989). Analysis: constructing heterosexual masculinity through buying sex In the ensuing analysis, we show how participants’ constructions of paid sex as: (1) being ‘without commitment’, (2) being cheaper than casual sex, (3) offering variety and power while, simultaneously, (4) offering moments of authenticity and intimacy, are key to the upholding of a dominant heterosexual masculine script. Sex without commitment: constructing heterosexuality The male sex drive discourse as proposed by Hollway (1998) emerged as a key discourse in men’s talk about their sexuality and their narratives of paid sex. Participants appeared to take it for granted that the interviewer understood that they had an inherent, biological need for regular sex. The question they were more concerned with discussing in the interview was the ways in which they could obtain this sex and what implications it might have for them. The notion that paying for sex allowed for ‘sex without commitment’ or ‘no-strings-attached sex’ arose as one of the most common allures to paying for sex. Almost all participants positioned sex with sex workers as desirable and enjoyable because it freed them of certain obligations associated with other kinds of sexual relationships. Sex with a sex worker was simply less complicated and, as Edwin put it, ‘freer and easier’ than

Culture, Health & Sexuality

545

sex with other women. This ‘no-strings-attached’ element of the client-sex worker relationship is depicted in the excerpt below: I have no emotional attachment. So you know, your baggage is your baggage. Um, I leave the money on the way out and I kind of have my fun and you have to, you know, deal with whatever you have to deal with yourself. (Mark, 30, white)

The way that participants constructed sex with sex workers revealed more than just the dynamics of the client-sex worker transaction. By describing what paid sex did not involve, their ‘no-strings-attached’ narratives automatically referenced their constructions of unpaid heterosexual sex and femininity. In doing so, men drew on traditional discourses of heterosexual female sexuality, positioning women as manipulating men for financial gain, as being overly emotional and as desperately searching for commitment and security. The have/hold discourse suggests that securing a committed and supportive relationship with a potential husband is the primary advantage of sex for women (Hollway 1998). Current research suggests that these traditional conceptions of femininity have remained fairly consistent and continue to manifest in contemporary discourses of femininity. Farvid and Braun (2006), in their analysis of popular women’s magazines, found that women were constructed as being in constant pursuit of long-term committed relationships with men. Examples of these dominant scripts of femininity emerge in Keith’s talk, below: Well, 19% of women on dating sites, they’re raw out of a relationship. And they just want the next one. They just want to belong to somebody, anybody. Whether he’s suitable or not [laughing], anybody will do, as long as he’s, as long as they can hook you. And I mean, they do it with the sex . . . . Ja, and people who get into a relationship on that basis, those women are prostituting themselves. In the relationship, into a marriage, they selling themselves to a guy they’re not particularly in love with. But he’s got a house, he’s got the stuff that they need, they gonna get a life and they feel secure and they’ll sleep with him as often as he wants as long as he keeps providing. (Keith, 48, white)

In the above example, Keith clearly constructs women as devious and manipulative, drawing on the idea that ‘all women are prostitutes’. Like other men in the study, he draws on the have/hold discourse and positions men as the objects of women’s manipulation. By drawing on the widespread and stereotypical scripts of manipulative female sexuality and heterosexuality, men are able to construct buying sex as more desirable (and more honest) than sex through other means. This construction is taken further as men discuss the financial implications of their sexual choices.

The economy of sex: paid sex is cheaper than casual sex All participants constructed their preference for paid sex over other forms of casual sex through an economic discourse. Just as research on heterosexuality (Gilfoyle, Wilson, and Own 1992; Mooney-Somers and Ussher 2010) has found, sex was constructed by participants as a tangible commodity that had to be obtained from women by earning it or by giving them something in exchange. The notion that ‘men pay anyway’ was a central theme in participants’ narratives. Men drew heavily on the understanding of heterosexual relationships as transactional in nature, motivating their preference for paid sex. The theme that women were ‘expensive’ and that relationships were costly to men, not only in terms of time and commitment, but also in terms of financial cost, emerged across interviews: My views? A man pay in any case, if you’re in a relationship it’s the rent, it’s the fuel, it’s the microwave it is the, the hair, etcetera. So a man can never win out of this transaction. (Peter, 44, white)

546

M. Huysamen and F. Boonzaier

Above, Peter draws on an economic discourse by describing a relationship as a ‘transaction’. Other participants spelled out the various types of ‘work’ that men had to perform in order to gain sexual access to women’s bodies. They explained that when ‘picking up’ a woman at a bar, the man needed to invest time and effort into getting to know her; he would also have to spend a significant amount of money on drinks, dinner and entertainment. Many participants suggested that the amount of money and ‘work’ a man spent on having casual sex with a woman surpassed what he would spend on the simpler transaction of paying a sex worker, thereby constructing paying for sex as a logical and preferable avenue for sexual access to women: Interviewer (I): And why was it that you would choose that over meeting someone in a bar? Participant (P): ‘Cause all I wanted to do was have sex. Interviewer: Okay so it was . . . Participant: Pretty pointless sitting there and chatting and getting to know someone when all you want to do is like hump their bones out. It’s like [laughs] I found it like pretty pointless, in my mind . . . . And that time it was just like, okay I don’t want to waste my time. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don’t get lucky. It’s like gambling or something. I was like okay, cool, this way I don’t have to do half the work and you know, sort myself out. (Zade, 30, Indian)

Zade constructs paying for sex as cheaper and requiring less time and effort than trying to obtain casual sex from women. However, his narrative also reveals another prominent factor that participants often included in this cost-benefit analysis: all the work and money men invested in their endeavours to obtain sex from women was not guaranteed to translate into access to these women’s bodies. Regardless of the amount of time, effort and money a man spent on a woman, it was still a ‘gamble’ that might not result in the outcome he desired. The notion that sometimes men would ‘get lucky’ and sometimes they would not revealed something about how participants positioned women within the heterosexual sex act. They constructed women as the gatekeepers of their own bodies, ultimately final access to their bodies could only be granted by women themselves. Access to women’s bodies is further complicated by the construction of women as manipulative and devious (see Keith’s earlier example), showing that despite men’s compliance through the provision of resources, women might still choose not to provide access. In agreement with these findings, many researchers have argued that normative heterosexual scripts place women in the role of ‘gatekeepers’, who ultimately decide whether or not a couple would have sex (Laner and Ventrone 2000; Mooney-Somers and Ussher 2010; Weaver and Herold 2000). However, in the client-sex worker transaction, the exchange of money means that access to the woman’s body is guaranteed. One may argue that paying for sex was not only attractive to men because it was constructed as cheaper and easier, but because it removed the woman from her power position as gatekeeper within heterosexual sex and invested men with the power to purchase the access they required. As a counter to the argument above, we are mindful that many women often do not hold the assumed position of gatekeeper within heterosexual sexual relationships, especially in contexts of widespread and normalised violence against women, where men’s assumptions about sexual rights and entitlement to women’s bodies are also normalised (Jewkes et al. 2012a). For example, Jewkes et al. found that South African women engaging in sex work and other forms of transactional sex in order to meet their material needs often represented themselves as empowered and as forging new economically independent roles for women. Similarly, the complications of power/ powerlessness and access are illustrated in Lucas’s (2005) work with upmarket sex

Culture, Health & Sexuality

547

workers. Lucas found that rather than constructing paid sex in terms of loss of power of their bodies, the client-sex worker relationship was often constructed as the only context in women’s lives where they were able to enjoy boundary setting and experience a sense of control in their sexual interactions with men. The economy of sex: variety and power Beyond the construction of paid sex as less complicated and more cost-effective, participants also constructed buying sex as beneficial because it included sexual access to a ‘variety’ of different women and a range of sexual experiences: I suppose it’s a want for a little bit of variety to mix things up a little bit. (Mark, 30, white)

A number of men described the thrill of being able to have sex with a woman of a different skin colour, body type or who speaks with a different accent from that to which they were accustomed. This idea of variety has also been identified as a primary motivating factor for buying sex in previous research on male clients (Holzman and Pines 1982; Joseph and Black 2012). But what exactly is the meaning of variety in the context of paying for sex in South Africa? In a heterogeneous society like South Africa, particularly in a city like Cape Town, a melting pot of different cultures, races, traditions and religions, it may be suggested that most men would come into contact with a ‘variety’ of women in their personal and work contexts. However, when taking a deeper look at participants’ narratives, it became clear that the appeal of paying for sex had more to do with access and power than it did this idea of ‘variety’. Paying for sex afforded men the power to choose any woman they wanted to have sex with, with a guaranteed outcome of actual sex. In most narratives about ‘variety’, participants describe a situation where, as a client, they were able to walk into a room with a number of women, scan the room for various options and simply pick the woman of their choice from a ‘menu’: Just for the, just for the thrill factor. Of being able to walk through into a place. Either multiple selections, or choose them from a telephone conversation, or a menu and say um, ‘I’ll have a go with you’. (Collin, 44, white)

Collin’s narrative, above, depicts the ‘thrill factor’ that men were afforded through paying for sex. It is also clear, through participants’ narratives of variety, that, while elevating themselves to the positions of power, they simultaneously objectified and reduced sex workers to little more than consumable objects. Through an economic discourse, men’s narratives contained many examples of women being compared to products, which could be picked, ordered or returned if deemed undesirable. Being a client meant that men could choose any type of women they wanted and if a woman did not match their expectations, they had the power to reject her and demand a replacement. As previously mentioned, the commodification of women’s bodies is not only encountered in commercial sex, but is present in dominant gender scripts. Talking about paid sex therefore afforded men a context in which they could comfortably deploy these cultural scripts of femininity and heterosexuality. Dominant masculine sexual scripts suggest that men are to be sexually desirable, assertive and have large amounts of sex with many different women. According to Connell (1995), many men aspire to the ideals of the powerful hegemonic man, regardless of whether they are realistically able to achieve them or not. Realistically, most of the men who participated in this study would not be able to replicate this sense of power in relation to women in other spheres of their lives. It is unlikely that they would be able to, in a social

548

M. Huysamen and F. Boonzaier

or work context, walk into a room and simply select the woman of their choice and then proceed to have sex with her. Thus, participants’ narratives suggest that men may be motivated to pay for sex as it affords them power to demand sexual access to the women of their choice, a ‘luxury’ that may not be available to many of them in other spheres of their lives. It also allows them to comply with a dominant script of masculinity. The client-sex worker transaction provides a context where masculinity and male sexual identity can be affirmed and reinforced. The purchase of intimacy and authenticity Although men constructed paid sex as something that fulfilled their inherent sexual needs, they often expected more from the transaction than just sex. The desire for intimacy within the client-sex worker relationship emerged repeatedly within participants’ narratives. Two participants in this study suggested that their primary motivation for paying sex workers was in fact not sex, but rather a need for intimacy and closeness. At face value, it is difficult to make sense of men’s desire for intimacy within the paid sexual encounter. This desire for intimacy and closeness seems to be contradictory to earlier constructions of themselves as sexually driven and desiring of ‘no-strings-attached’ sex, characteristics that are consistent with prescriptions of dominant masculinity. However, this narrative of intimacy requires closer examination: P: I think lots of relationships, and I’ve experienced this, where you can be in a relationship with somebody, the closeness fades and there’s no more caressing and, like with my wife that I’ve got kids with, I like to sit and watch movies at night. And I want to sit on the couch with her or below the couch and she’s there. She didn’t, she’d sit on the other couch. I: So it sort of comes quite mechanical. P: Very! You know, and I think that happens in a lot of relationships. And I think guys, as tough and as macho as they are, they actually like to be close to a woman. And it’s totally false, if they pay for it and it’s make-believe for an hour. I: So you’re always aware that it’s, sort of, a false sense of intimacy but it’s . . . ‘cause it’s quite [an] interesting kind of a dynamic. P: You see a lot of those girls are so good they make a guy believe, for that hour, that he is it. He is just Mr Hunk himself. And guys feel good, they get their egos stroked, they fine, you know . I: Ja, so it’s definitely not just about the actual sex? P: It never is, I don’t think. Maybe for the, here and there . . . . But look there’s probably for the majority of guys, it’s not about sex, it’s about getting your ego stroked. Feeling good about yourself even if you paid for it, you know. (Keith, 48, white)

In the excerpt above, Keith tells the story of how the intimacy within his marriage had faded away and relates this to his desire for intimacy within paid sexual encounters. However, Keith actively acknowledges that intimacy within the client-sex worker transaction is merely an imitation or a ‘make-believe’ form of intimacy that must be purchased for a limited period of time. This acknowledgement that the intimacy they experienced with sex workers was fake appeared in all but one of the participants’ narratives on buying sex. Interestingly, although participants were content with the knowledge that the intimacy within the client-sex worker transaction was faked, they did not want to experience it as such during the encounter. Participants wanted the client-sex worker interaction to feel as ‘natural’ or ‘genuine’ as it possibly could. For many participants, the closer the

Culture, Health & Sexuality

549

resemblance the client-sex worker interaction bore to a real romantic encounter, the more they experienced it as satisfactory. These men therefore demanded that sex workers provide and perform authenticity within the client-sex worker relationship. This kind of sexual service is often referred to as the ‘girlfriend experience’, a type of sexual encounter that most closely mirrors conventional heterosexual relationships (Chen 2005; Holzman and Pines 1982; Sanders 2008, 407): P: I, my opinion was that if I’m gonna spend a thousand five hundred bucks on something it must be a very natural experience. And if you pay somebody a hundred bucks or two hundred bucks or whatever. I: Ja, fair enough. P: Fair enough, but look I want a quality product for what I’m paying. (Gert, 44, white)

In the excerpt above, Gert highlights the importance of ‘a very natural experience’. However, he simultaneously (and quite paradoxically) draws on a market-related discourse, reducing the experience to a ‘quality product’, which could be bought with large amounts of money. Our common sense understanding of intimacy (informed by discourses of romantic love, perhaps) tells us that intimacy between two people is not a commodity that can be bought and sold, nor is it something that can be switched on and off. However, this excerpt elucidates how participants constructed intimacy within the context of paid sex. It is constructed as a kind of a service, which they expected the sex worker to provide over and above the physical sexual service. Thus, it is not only physical labour that men demand from sex workers, but also emotional labour (Bernstein 2007; Milrod and Weitzer 2012). This understanding of the purchasing of intimacy, or emotional labour, is also consistent with Hochschild’s (2012) work that explores the increasing consumption of personal, intimate services available to the US middle-class, which includes the employment of nannies, personal trainers, life coaches and a range of other ‘services’. Hochschild’s work interestingly discusses how intimacy and emotionality become marketable services, and it may provide a useful lens through which to understand the complexities and meanings associated with the buying of sexual services, specifically the purchase of physical sexual acts as well as emotional intimacy. Returning to the question of participants’ contradictory desires for both ‘no-stringsattached’ and intimate paid sex. If it was not intimacy but rather pseudo-intimacy, a kind of service, that participants sought to buy from the sex worker, it could be suggested that men were not necessarily contradicting hegemonic masculinity after all. By describing the experience as ‘fake’, men distanced themselves from alternative forms of masculinity. This characteristic of the client-sex worker relationship meant that men could enjoy all the intimacy, closeness and connection they desired, but at the same time were free of all the commitments and responsibilities that, according to them, were tied to true intimacy and relationships. This construction of sex work supports Bernstein’s (2001) concept of ‘bounded authenticity’, which suggests that paying for sex is so alluring to men because it provides them with the authenticity of a genuine relationship, but allows for boundaries that protect them from all the obligations associated with heterosexual relationships. But what exactly makes the client-sex worker interaction feel ‘authentic’ for men who buy sex? Brennan (2002) has argued that a defining feature of the sex industry is that sex workers have to pretend that they desire their clients – it is part of the sexual contract. Similarly, Bernstein (2007) suggests that the process of manufacturing of authenticity for sex workers, involves simulating or even producing a sense of genuine desire, pleasure and erotic interest for their clients (Bernstein 2007). In this study, we found that men constructed the sex workers’ sexual pleasure a necessary condition for an authentic

550

M. Huysamen and F. Boonzaier

encounter. The client-sex worker relationship could be experienced as most genuine when it appeared to be based on mutuality, reciprocity and female sexual pleasure. Be it explicit statements about sex workers’ sexual pleasure, or the expression of disapproval of their aloof manner during sex, sex workers’ sexual pleasure was an issue of concern to many clients. Thus, over and above the task of making the client feel a certain way, women were also required to appear as though their clients made them feel a certain way. Why, it may be asked, would men be concerned with a sex worker’s sexual pleasure?: The reason why I go to escort agencies or whatever is to experience a pleasurable sexual encounter with a woman. And if she’s just going to lie there like some dead corpse, it’s just not fun [laughs]. If she’s not enjoying it then I’m not going to enjoy it so then it’s just over and done with. (Ian, 39, white)

Ian’s narrative, above, suggests that this concern with women’s sexual pleasure is not simply a selfless gesture on his part. Rather, the sexual pleasure of the sex worker is directly tied to the sexual pleasure of the client, not unlike intimate heterosexual relationships in general. Participants stated that women’s lack of sexual pleasure functioned as ‘a total turn-off’ and hindered their own ability to enjoy the sexual encounter. Ultimately, participants were concerned with the sex workers’ pleasure because it was a necessary condition for their own pleasure. Gilfoyle, Wilson, and Own (1992) suggest that this emphasis on female pleasure may be less about the woman’s pleasure and more about the man’s ability to produce that pleasure. Farvid and Braun’s (2006) research on heterosexuality showed that pleasure and performance (specifically men’s production of women’s pleasure) are often represented as interconnecting components of male heterosexuality. A key feature of the successful hegemonic man is that he is sexually desirable, experienced and, very importantly, sexually skilled (Barker and Ricardo 2005). Thus, the woman’s orgasm is so central to male sexuality because it is seen to be indicative of a man’s sexual competence (Potts 2001). In the same vein, an analysis of current popular print media suggests that great emphasis is placed on male sexual skill and stamina, which is constructed as a masculine imperative (Farvid and Braun 2006). Research on men’s lifestyle magazines such as FHM (For Him Magazine) or Men’s Health show that they commonly contain portrayals of an idealised, hyper-sexualised masculinities. There is also an obsession with quantity and variety of sexual conquests, penis size, sexual techniques, female sexual pleasure and orgasm and libido as well as a focus on products and strategies that are designed to improve or remedy sexual ‘inadequacy’ (Attwood 2005; Taylor 2005). This research shows how idealised versions of male sexuality are constantly being ‘sold’ to men through the popular media. In turn, this research sheds light on how successfully ‘giving’ a sex worker an orgasm could be instrumental in reinforcing the client’s masculinity through affirming his sexual prowess. The client-sex worker interaction provides a context where men can perform a successful, idealised form of male (hetero)sexuality. As Keith’s earlier narrative suggests, when paid sex feels authentic, it does something for the man’s ego, his sense of self and identity – it allows him to feel like ‘Mr Hunk Himself’. But who is Mr Hunk? This question can be answered not only through men’s narratives in this research but also from critical masculinity studies in general. Mr Hunk is highly sexual, he has the power to gain access to any woman he chooses, when he chooses; he has regular sex with a variety of women; he is sexually dominant and the focus of sex he engages in is always on his sexual fulfilment; he is sexually skilled and can bring any woman to orgasm, which in turn makes him sexually desirable. Mr Hunk signifies the ultimate hegemonic man. The client-sex worker transaction therefore provides the context

Culture, Health & Sexuality

551

for the male client to fully enact the sexuality of the hegemonic man. Regardless of whether he is able to be ‘Mr Hunk’ in any other sphere of his life, the client-sex worker transaction provides a context where he can fulfil the expectations of what it means to be a dominant man in his society. Toward conclusions and suggestions for future research This study has highlighted the entwined relationship between men’s narratives of paying for sex and dominant discourses of gender and heterosexuality. Jackson (2001) suggests that: ‘Gender and heterosexuality are sustained not only through structural hierarchies and social norms, but through our everyday sexual and social practices . . . most of the population ‘do gender’ and ‘do heterosexuality’ every day without reflecting critically on that doing’ (291). We suggest that by paying female sex workers for sex and, indeed, through talking about doing so in interviews, these men were ‘doing’ a certain, dominant kind of male (hetero)sexuality. We further suggest that for these participants, the clientsex worker transaction represented more than just an avenue for ‘relief’ from their sexual urges. It represented a context where they sought to gain affirmation of their masculinity, sexual skill and sexual desirability to women, a reinforcement of hyper-masculinity. Participants’ narratives suggested that they were largely drawn to paying for sex by the desire both to avoid the negative aspects commonly associated with women and heterosexual relationships in our society, and to perform the type of male sexuality privileged by it. For instance, men drew heavily on heterosexual discourses of mutuality and reciprocity as these discourses provided them with the vocabulary they needed to position themselves more favourably both as clients and as successful hegemonic men in general. These heteronormative scripts offered men a space to talk about sexuality and sexual relationships through the dichotomies of non-commercial versus commercial sex, marriage versus ‘casual sex’ and ‘ordinary’ women versus women who sell sex.2 This work contributes to broader research on male clients of female sex workers in that it demonstrates why, as researchers, we should not simply understand our interviews as being a collection of narratives about men buying sex from sex workers. Rather, we should simultaneously view them as men’s narratives about (and performances of) heterosexuality and masculinity. This research suggests that men’s transactional attitude to sex is not exclusive to the sex industry, but is part of a masculinity that is hegemonic in South Africa and elsewhere. Thus, for us to gain further insight into the demand side of the sex work industry in South Africa, we could start by recognising these dominant heterosexual discourses and endeavour to understand how they are continually at work men’s daily lives. Moreover, this paper highlights the importance of both destabilising the idea of a single idealised masculinity and of working towards advocating for broader, more inclusive and achievable versions of male sexuality. However, we recognise that our findings were shaped by the approach we took to the interviews with men. It could be argued that asking men to talk about their experiences of buying sex from women already invites them to position themselves in terms of hegemonic masculinity and heteronormativity. We thus acknowledge that the questions asked in interviews are important for thinking about the kinds of responses it makes possible and those it elides.3 Through this research we are able to offer recommendations for further research with male clients. In addition to the men who agreed to face-to-face interviews in this research, there were many more men who asked to share their experiences through electronic means such as email. This highlights the potential of online forms of data collection. Future

552

M. Huysamen and F. Boonzaier

research could also employ online discussions, focus groups or real-time interviews. These online methods would ensure that a range of diverse perspectives are included and would afford the project a potentially wider geographical reach. In addition, there are a number of websites and forums aimed specifically at clients of the sex work industry, creating virtual communities. Future research might gainfully conduct ethnographic studies of these online communities, specifically exploring the rules of engagement and the ways in which men perform and construct their masculinity and sexuality for one another within these communities. Funding This work was supported by the Harry Crossley Foundation and the National Research Foundation.

Notes 1. 2. 3.

‘Coloured’ is a racial term created during Apartheid that refers to a heterogeneous group of people of ‘mixed’ ancestry. Despite the abolition of Apartheid, this term is still used to identify and name people in South Africa. We thank an anonymous reviewer for assisting us in articulating the dichotomous constructions that emerge from men’s narratives of buying sex. We thank an anonymous reviewer for highlighting how our research design may have affected our findings.

References Attwood, F. 2014. “‘Tits and Ass and Porn and Fighting’ Male Heterosexuality in Magazines for Men.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 8 (1): 83 –100. Barker, G., and C. Ricardo. 2005. Young Men and the Construction of Masculinity in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for HIV/AIDS, Conflict, and Violence. Washington DC: World Bank. Barnard, M. A., N. P. McKeganey, and A. H. Leyland. 1993. “Risk Behaviours among Male Clients of Female Prostitutes.” BMJ 307 (6900): 361 –362. Bernstein, E. 2001. “The Meaning of the Purchase Desire, Demand and the Commerce of Sex.” Ethnography 2 (3): 389– 420. Bernstein, E. 2007. “Sex Work for the Middle Classes.” Sexualities 10 (4): 473– 488. Brennan, D. 2002. “Selling Sex for Visas: Sex Tourism as a Stepping-stone to International Migration.” In Global Woman: Nannies, Maids and Sex Workers in the New Economy, edited by B. Ehrenreich and A. R. Hochschild, 154– 168. London: Granta Books. Chen, M. H. 2005. “Contradictory Male Sexual Desires: Masculinity, Lifestyles and Sexuality among Prostitutes’ Clients in Taiwan.” Travail, Genre et Societes 10: 107– 128. Connell, R. W. 1995. Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press. Crossley, M. L. 2000. Introducing Narrative Psychology: Self, Trauma and the Construction of Meaning. Buckingham: Open University Press. Farvid, P., and V. Braun. 2006. “‘Most of Us Guys Are Raring to Go Anytime, Anyplace, Anywhere’: Male and Female Sexuality in Cleo and Cosmo.” Sex Roles 55 (5-6): 295– 310. Gardner, J. 2009. “Criminalising the Act of Sex: Attitudes to Adult Commercial Sex Work in South Africa.” In The Price and the Prize, edited by M. Steyn and M. Van Zyl, 329– 340. Cape Town: HSRC Press. Gavey, N. 1989. “Feminist Poststructuralism and Discourse Analysis: Contributions to Feminist Psychology.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 13 (4): 459– 475. Gavey, N., K. McPhillips, and V. Braun. 1999. “Interruptus Coitus: Heterosexuals Accounting for Intercourse.” Sexualities 2 (1): 35 – 68. Gilfoyle, J., J. Wilson, and B. Own. 1992. “Sex, Organs and Audiotape: A Discourse Analytic Approach to Talking about Heterosexual Sex and Relationships.” Feminism & Psychology 2 (2): 209– 230. Gould, C., and N. Fick. 2008. Selling Sex in Cape Town: Sex Work and Human Trafficking in a South African City. Cape Town, South Africa: Institute for Security Studies.

Culture, Health & Sexuality

553

Hao, C., H. Liua, S. G. Shermanb, B. Jiangc, X. Lid, Y. Xue, Z. Jiangf, and C. Zang. 2014. “Typology of Older Female Sex Workers and Sexual Risk for HIV Infection in China: A Qualitative Study.” Culture, Health & Sexuality 16 (1): 47 – 60. Hochschild, A. R. 2012. The Outsourced Self: Intimate Life in Market Times. New York: Henry Holt & Company. Hollway, W. 1998. “Gender Difference and the Production of Subjectivity.” In Changing the Subject: Psychology, Social Regulation and Subjectivity, edited by J. Henriques, W. C. Hollway, U. C. Venn, and V. Walkerdine, 227– 263. London: Routledge. Holzman, H. R., and S. Pines. 1982. “Buying Sex: The Phenomenology of Being a John.” Deviant Behavior 4 (1): 89 – 116. Jackson, S. 2001. “Why a Materialist Feminism Is (Still) Possible—and Necessary.” Women’s Studies International Forum 24 (3-4): 283– 293. Jewkes, R., R. Morrell, Y. Sikweyiya, K. Dunkle, L. Penn-Kekana, and B. J. Shea. 2012a. “Men, Prostitution and the Provider Role: Understanding the Intersections of Economic Exchange, Sex, Crime and Violence in South Africa.” PloS One 7 (7): e40821. Jewkes, R., R. Morrell, Y. Sikweyiya, K. Dunkle, and L. Penn-Kekana. 2012b. “Transactional Relationships and Sex with a Woman in Prostitution: Prevalence and Patterns in a Representative Sample of South African Men.” BMC Public Health 12 (1): 325. Jordan, J. 1997. “User Pays: Why Men Buy Sex.” Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 30 (1): 55 – 71. Joseph, L., and P. Black. 2012. “Who’s the Man? Fragile Masculinities, Consumer Masculinities, and the Profiles of Sex Work Clients.” Men and Masculinities 15 (5): 486– 506. Laner, M., and N. Ventrone. 2000. “Dating Scripts Revisited.” Journal of Family Issues 21 (4): 488– 500. Langellier, K. M. 1989. “Personal Narratives: Perspectives on Theory and Research.” Text and Performance Quarterly 9 (40): 243– 276. Lucas, A. M. 2005. “The Work of Sex Work: Elite Prostitutes’ Vocational Orientations and Experiences.” Deviant Behavior 26 (6): 513– 546. Mankayi, N. 2008. “Morality and Sexual Rights: Constructions of Masculinity, Femininity and Sexuality among a Group of South African Soldiers.” Culture, Health & Sexuality 10 (6): 625– 634. Milrod, C., and R. Weitzer. 2012. “The Intimacy Prism: Emotion Management among the Clients of Escorts.” Men and Masculinities 15 (5): 446– 467. Monto, M. A., and N. McRee. 2005. “A Comparison of the Male Customers of Female Street Prostitutes with National Samples of Men.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 49 (5): 505– 529. Mooney-Somers, J., and J. M. Ussher. 2010. “Sex as Commodity: Single and Partnered Men’s Subjectification as Heterosexual Men.” Men and Masculinities 12 (3): 353– 373. Pitts, M. K., M. A. Anthony, J. G. Smith, M. O’Brien, and S. Misson. 2004. “Who Pays for Sex and Why? An Analysis of Social and Motivational Factors Associated with Male Clients of Sex Workers.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 33 (4): 353– 358. Plumridge, E. W., S. J. Chetwynd, A. J. Reed, and S. J. Gifford. 1997. “Discourses of Emotionality in Commercial Sex: The Missing Client Voice.” Feminism & Psychology 7 (2): 165– 181. Potts, A. 2001. “The Man with Two Brains: Hegemonic Masculine Subjectivity and the Discursive Construction of the Unreasonable Penis-self.” Journal of Gender Studies 10 (2): 145– 156. Riessman, C. K. 2008. Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Los Angeles: Sage. Safika, I., J. A. Levy, and T. P. Johnson. 2013. “Sex work Venue and Condom Use among Female Sex Workers in Senggigi, Indonesia.” Culture, Health & Sexuality 15 (5): 598– 613. Sanders, T. 2008. “Male Sexual Scripts: Intimacy, Sexuality and Pleasure in the Purchase of Commercial Sex.” Sociology 42 (3): 400–417. Seal, D. W., and A. A. Ehrhardt. 2003. “Masculinity and Urban Men: Perceived Scripts for Courtship, Romantic, and Sexual Interactions with Women.” Culture, Health & Sexuality 5 (4): 295– 319. Stadler, J., and S. Delany. 2006. “The ‘Healthy Brothel’: The Context of Clinical Services for Sex Workers in Hillbrow, South Africa.” Culture, Health & Sexuality 8 (5): 451– 463. Taylor, L. D. 2005. “All for Him: Articles about Sex in American Lad Magazines.” Sex Roles 52 (3-4): 153– 163.

554

M. Huysamen and F. Boonzaier

Trotter, H. 2008. Sugar Girls & Seamen: A Journey Into the World of Dockside Prostitution in South Africa. South Africa: Jacana Media. Weaver, S. J., and E. S. Herold. 2000. “Casual Sex and Women: Measurement and Motivational Issues.” Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality 12 (3): 23 – 41. Wojcicki, J. M., and J. Malala. 2001. “Condom Use, Power and HIV/AIDS Risk: Sex-workers Bargain for Survival in Hillbrow/Joubert Park/Berea, Johannesburg.” Social Science & Medicine 53 (1): 99 – 121. Xantidis, L., and M. P. McCabe. 2000. “Personality Characteristics of Male Clients of Female Commercial Sex Workers in Australia.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (2): 165– 176.

Re´sume´ Le commerce du sexe, dans toute une se´rie de situations diffe´rentes, est une pratique de tous les jours en Afrique du Sud. Le pre´sent article est une analyse du roˆle souvent marginalise´ des personnes qui payent des services sexuels. Cette analyse est base´e sur les re´cits narratifs de clients masculins de travailleuses du sexe qui ont e´te´ recrute´s par des appels a` te´moins via Internet, dans le but d’examiner comment les hommes he´te´rosexuels construisent, ne´gocient et exercent leur masculinite´ et leur sexualite´, a` partir de ce que les participants raconteraient de leurs expe´riences de paiement de rapports sexuels. Nous soulignons l’existence de paralle`les entre les re´cits des hommes sur ces expe´riences et les discours dominants sur le genre et l’he´te´rosexualite´. Nous montrons comment les hommes s’inspirent des scripts sexuels he´te´ronormatifs pour construire et donner un sens a` leurs rencontres sexuelles payantes, et comment ils sont simultane´ment capables de construire et de jouer une version ide´alise´e tre`s particulie`re de la masculinite´ et de la sexualite´ masculine a` travers leur discours sur l’e´change d’argent contre des services sexuels. Enfin, nous proposons un moyen d’utiliser plus largement les ressources en ligne dans les prochaines recherches sur les clients masculins des travailleuses du sexe.

Resumen El comercio sexual en diversos contextos es un hecho cotidiano en Suda´frica. En este artı´culo prestamos atencio´n al papel con frecuencia marginado de los clientes del sexo. Para ello nos basamos en los relatos de entrevistas a clientes masculinos de trabajadoras sexuales que se realizaron a trave´s de anuncios en internet; nuestro objetivo era analizar el modo en que los hombres heterosexuales construyen, negocian y desempen˜an su masculinidad y sexualidad a trave´s de charlas sobre sus experiencias con relaciones sexuales pagadas. Destacamos paralelismos entre los relatos de los hombres sobre relaciones sexuales pagadas y los discursos dominantes sobre ge´nero y heterosexualidad. Mostramos el modo en que los hombres utilizan los guiones sexuales heteronormativos para construir y dar sentido a sus encuentros de sexo comercial y co´mo a la vez son capaces de construir y representar una versio´n idealizada particular de la masculinidad y la sexualidad masculina cuando hablan de pagar por tener relaciones sexuales. Para terminar, debatimos co´mo se podrı´an utilizar los recursos por internet de una forma ma´s amplia para futuros estudios con clientes masculinos de trabajadoras sexuales.

Copyright of Culture, Health & Sexuality is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.