Ordinary or Peculiar Men? Comparing the Customers of Prostitutes With a Nationally Representative Sample of Men

Abstract

Recent media attention implies that prostitution seeking is widespread, an “ordinary” aspect of masculine sexual behavior. Other accounts suggest that customers are “peculiar,” characterized by distinct qualities, perversions, or psychological impairments. Using the nationally representative General Social Survey (GSS), this study demonstrates that prostitution seeking is relatively uncommon. Only about 14% of men in the United States report having ever paid for sex, and only 1% report having done so during the previous year. Furthermore, this study dissects whether customers are ordinary or peculiar by comparing a new sample of active customers who solicit sex on the Internet with an older sample of arrested customers, a sample of customers from the GSS, and a nationally representative sample of noncustomers. The customers of Internet sexual service providers differed greatly from men in general and also from other customers. The remaining samples of customers differed slightly from noncustomers in general. We argue for a balanced perspective that recognizes the significant variety among customers. There is no evidence of a peculiar quality that differentiates customers in general from men who have not paid for sex.

Keywords

prostitution customers sexual behavior

Recent media attention implies that all forms of prostitution are growing and pervasive. According to a 2011 Newsweek article titled “The John Next Door,” “men who buy sex are your neighbors and colleagues.” The article further states that the “burgeoning demand for porn and prostitutes is warping personal relationships and endangering women and girls” (Bennetts, 2011, p. 60) and that “from 16 percent to 80 percent” of men pay for sex. An MSNBC broadcast repeated the claim, suggesting that “as much as 80% of men have paid for sex” (Jansing, 2011). While these estimates are periodically reiterated by more recent research (Farley et al., 2011), they have their roots in Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin’s 1948 study of male sexuality, which reported that 69% of men had visited a prostitute at least once in their lifetime. Unfortunately, the 12,000 cases from which Kinsey et al. drew their conclusions were gathered entirely through convenience sampling of colleagues and friends, and from places such as fraternities, attendees at sexuality lectures, and men in gay bars. Despite its large size, the sample is far from representative. Later research by Benjamin and Masters (1964) used Kinsey et al.’s numbers as well as their own nonrepresentative data to estimate that almost 80% of American men had visited prostitutes during their lifetime.

With such claims circulating through the popular media, it is important to take full advantage of existing data resources to better understand the incidence of prostitution seeking among men, and to evaluate whether there are significant differences between men who pay for sex and men who do not. One of the only studies appropriately designed to make such estimates is a monograph reporting the results of the nationally representative National Health and Social Life Survey conducted in 1992 (Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, & Kolata, 1994). The study, specifically designed to elicit information about sexual behaviors, indicated that about 16% of men in the United States had visited a prostitute at some point during their lives.

Prostitution is a contentious issue in the United States, with such exchanges illegal in all but a small number of jurisdictions. Although the level of attention it receives by law enforcement officials varies widely, both prostitutes and their customers are subject to arrest, with many communities providing diversion programs to reduce recidivism (Monto, 2004; Shively, Kliorys, Wheeler, & Hunt, 2012). One of the reasons for varying and largely inaccurate claims about customers may be a lack of information concerning this highly elusive population. The present study takes advantage of a new data set on customers of Internet sexual service providers (Milrod & Monto, 2012), an established public domain data set on arrested customers (Monto, 1999a, 1999b), and the nationally representative General Social Survey (GSS) (Smith, Marsden, & Hout, 1972-2010) to compare and describe men who pay for sex with men who do not. The GSS asks a question about whether respondents have ever paid for sex, thereby allowing us to estimate the percentage of men in the United States who pay for sex, as well as providing representative samples of customers and noncustomers. The present study compares background characteristics, attitudes, and behavior of these samples of customers with those of the nationally representative sample of noncustomers. Drawing conclusions based on these comparisons requires caution but also permits us to move beyond the baseless statistics and speculations that are sometimes present in the public dialogue about these issues.

Monto and McRee (2005) argue that much of the scholarly work on customers of prostitutes can be seen as taking either an “every man perspective” or a “peculiar man perspective.” In the former, prostitution is seen as a common, perhaps even inevitable, behavior among men. The phrase “the oldest profession” seems consistent with this orientation, implying that prostitution seeking is a normal aspect of male sexual behavior, that it has always existed, and that it will always exist. The popular media sources cited in the introduction to this article, with their high estimates and their imagery of customers as husbands, neighbors, and coworkers, can also be seen as consistent with this orientation. Prostitution scholarship in the feminist tradition also arrives at a version of an “every man” perspective, depicting customers not as marginalized individuals but as average, usually married men who, despite signs of outward conformity, act in a degrading manner that contributes to a system of patriarchy and oppression, and reinforces the dominant status of men (Farley, 2007; Månsson, 2005, 2006, 2008; O’Connell Davidson, 1998; Raymond, 2004). Throughout this article, we use the term ordinary man in place of every man to avoid confusing the issue of whether customers are distinct from noncustomers with the related question of whether prostitution seeking is widespread among American men.

According to Foucault (1978), scientific knowledge and social norms can work in conjunction to produce new subjects and identities that become identified as deviant, a process that when applied to sexuality can be termed the “psychiatrization of perverse pleasure” (p. 105). In prostitution more specifically, the exchange of money contributes to transforming what is intrinsically a biological act into a perversion, and those who participate into deviants. Seen this way, the customer becomes situated in an ideological context that defines him as peculiar rather than ordinary. The “peculiar man perspective” is reflected in an older body of research that has depicted customers as deviants with mental or moral deficiencies that have led to their behavior (Ellis, 1959; Glover, 1943). More recent research evaluating whether customers have distinguishable psychological traits has yielded mixed findings. Scandinavian and Dutch studies have pointed to characterological problems among customers, complete with classifications of personality types and possible interventions to reorient the peculiar client type toward more ordinary forms of sexual expression (Månsson & Linders, 1984; Sandell, Pettersson, Larsson, & Kuosmanen, 1996; Vanwesenbeeck, Graaf, Zessen, Straver, & Visser, 1993). Xantidis and McCabe (2000) have reported higher levels of sensation seeking among their sample of customers of brothel prostitutes in Australia, while Pitts, Smith, Grierson, O’Brien, and Misson (2004) found no significant differences between customers and their noncustomer sample on various demographic and behavioral measures.

Rubin (1984) argues that the tendency to pathologize certain behaviors and define them as peculiar reinforces the privilege of powerful groups and serves to “rationalize the well-being of the sexually privileged and the adversity of the sexual rabble” (p. 152). Contemporary society locates sexual behavior that is monogamous, procreative, noncommercial, and within marriage inside a “charmed circle,” while placing other sexual behaviors in what Rubin calls “the outer limits.” Our data lend insight into whether customers can reasonably be placed among the less privileged or the sexual rabble, and whether Rubin’s framework meaningfully applies to customers of prostitutes.

One of the leading public policy strategies for responding to the problems associated with prostitution has been to send offenders to diversionary educational programs or “john schools” to reduce recidivism (Monto, 1998; Shively et al., 2008). The orientation taken by these programs toward customers represents an amalgamation of the ordinary and peculiar man orientations. The schools rely on the assumption that most customers are not bent on violence against women and can be persuaded, through an appeal to conscience and a rational awareness of the consequences of future offenses, not to reoffend (Monto, 2004). This is consistent with the ordinary man perspective. However, some schools also include in their curricula components on anger management and sexual addiction—clinical issues that imply a peculiar man orientation (Shively et al., 2012). Interestingly, this strategy has the potential to influence customers’ perceptions of themselves; Wortley, Fischer, and Webster (2002) showed that among their 366 participants in john schools in Toronto, Canada, respondents were more likely to believe that they were addicted to sex after attending the deterrence program than prior to being arrested.

Although any sizable sample of customers (or noncustomers) would undoubtedly include some men with mental disorders, neuroses, or violent tendencies, published research has yielded little evidence of specific psychological problems or antisocial behavior among customers. For example, Monto and Hotaling (2001) found no evidence that arrested customers were more likely than men in general to harbor “rape myths,” that is, attitudes believed to be associated with violence against women. In comparing arrested customers and customers from the National Health and Social Life Survey and GSS with noncustomers, Monto and McRee (2005) found nothing that would indicate substantial peculiarity among men who paid for sex. Their research reported statistically significant but minor differences between customers and noncustomers. Customers were somewhat less likely to be married, less likely to be happily married, and generally less happy overall than men in the national samples. Customers were also more sexually liberal, thought about sex more, masturbated more, and participated in other facets of the sex industry more than noncustomers. These findings suggest that prostitution seeking among men may have more to do with situational and historical forces (Bullough & Bullough, 1987; Monto, 2010) than with the particular characteristics or pathologies of customers themselves.

Much of the existing research on customers of outdoor prostitutes focuses on occasional or inexperienced users. A number of first-offender studies are based on men arrested in sting operations while propositioning an outdoor police decoy (Monto, 1999a, 1999b). While gaining access to such an inaccessible population is valuable, the data may have overrepresented less experienced users. In fact, about 42% of the men in Monto’s sample reported that they had never before engaged sexually with a prostitute or that they had not paid for sex with a prostitute within the past year. Customers responding to the GSS may also have been less experienced users; while about 14% of respondents reported having paid for sex at some time during their lives, only about 1% had done so during the previous year. The present study contributes a sizable sample of highly active users or “hobbyists” who are part of an online community of customers who locate prostitution services through prostitution reviews posted on www.theeroticreview.com.

The Erotic Review, often referred to as TER among its users, is ranked among the top 1,500 most visited websites in the United States (Alexa.com, n.d.). It reports having more than 1,000,000 registered members and receives between 250,000 and 300,000 unique visitors daily. A sizeable fraction of the reviewers, calling themselves hobbyists, participate under anonymous usernames on more than 50 discussion boards on the site. These men, though by no means a representative sample, provide a point of contrast and allow insight into a highly inaccessible population of active customers.

Method

Participants

Participants were drawn from the GSS (n = 4,581), Monto’s (1999a, 1999b) public domain data set of arrested customers (n = 1,817), and from a convenience sample of men solicited on 43 of the discussion boards of the online prostitution review website TER (n = 584). All TER survey participants were provided with an informed consent statement as part of the questionnaire and were treated in accordance with the ethical principles and code of conduct required by the Institutional Review Board of the institution supporting the study (Milrod & Monto, 2012). Members of this sample of Internet hobbyists were registered users of the website. Registration for members is free and requires only a username and self-generated password, though some men choose to pay a small fee to access additional information on providers.

The sample of arrested customers completed anonymous questionnaires while they were gathered together immediately prior to educational workshops or so-called john schools designed to discourage them from reoffending. The return rate was more than 80%, with late arrivals, language barriers, and refusals accounting for the remainder. There were 1,169 respondents who attended Saturday workshops in San Francisco, California, called the First Offenders Prostitution Program (FOPP); 433 attended a similar program in Las Vegas; and 70 attended a weekend-long workshop in Portland, Oregon, administered by the now defunct Sexual Exploitation Education Project (SEEP). Data was gathered in San Francisco from 1995 to 1999, in Portland from 1995 to 1997, and in Las Vegas from 1997 to 1999.

The GSS, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center, uses a sampling frame designed to yield a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. Hence, it is not a perfect sample of men in particular. Data were drawn from the 2002 through 2010 samples. The weight variable COMPWT was used to adjust for the number of adults in the household and for other differences in household selection probability. The GSS includes questions about whether respondents ever had sex for pay in the last year and/or if they had ever paid for sex during their lifetime. The “ever had sex for pay” variable is simple; however, the “sex for pay in the last year” variable requires recoding. Respondents who did not answer the question because they had no sex partners during the previous year, or because they had only one sexual partner whom they described as their wife, girlfriend, or regular sexual partner, were coded as not having paid for sex during the previous year. As with other samples, we limited our GSS data to men aged between 18 and 75 at the time of the survey. Most of our analyses using the GSS are limited to the 2002 through 2010 survey years. However, Table 1, which provides information about the proportion of men in the general population who pay for sex, includes results from the 1991 through 2000 survey years for comparison.

Table 1.

Paid Sex Among a Nationally Representative Sample of Men.

	%	n
Had sex for pay in the last year
By cohort
1991-2000 samples	0.6	5,111
2002-2010 samples	1.0	4,581
By age group (2002-2010 only)		4,581
18-29	1.1
30-39	0.6
40-49	1.5
50-59	0.7
60-69	0.9
70-75	0.5
By military experience (2002-2010 only)		781
Served	1.4
Did not serve	1.1
Ever paid for sex
By cohort
1991-2000 samples	16.1	5,536
2002-2010 samples	13.9	4,552
By age group (2002-2010 only)		4,552
18-29	6.2
30-39	10.2
40-49	15.5
50-59	19.4
60-69	21.5
70-75	23.2
By military experience (2002-2010 only)		783
Served	23.3
Did not serve	9.1

The combination of original and secondary data has some limitations. In particular, the GSS is not designed specifically to explore the issue of prostitution in detail. Hence, we are limited in the variables available for comparison. This notwithstanding, the offender survey and the Internet hobbyist survey deliberately include questions drawn from the GSS to allow for comparisons. In addition, an even larger proportion of questions included in the Internet hobbyist survey was taken with permission from the offender survey. The use of secondary data like the GSS means that researchers do not have the ability to ensure quality and consistency in sampling and administration. Nevertheless, the GSS is a widely used and respected national omnibus survey.

Variables

The comparisons provided in this article are limited to 13 items that were included in the customer survey and the national survey, and 15 additional items that were included in the offender survey and the Internet hobbyist survey. The wording and format of all items asked of the Internet hobbyists was taken from GSS and/or Monto’s (1999a, 1999b) public domain data set, which uses some items derived from an attitudinal inventory developed by Sawyer, Rosser, and Schroeder (1998). Of the 13 items asked of respondents from the national and customer samples, demographic items included age, race, highest degree obtained, income (not asked of offender sample), labor force status, and marital status. Also compared are items related to sexual behavior, including number of sexual partners during the past year, frequency of sex during the past year, and gender of sexual partners during the past year. Four items measured sexual liberalism, asking respondents about the acceptability of sex before marriage, sex between teenagers, homosexual sex, and extramarital sex. An additional item used only in the GSS survey (national customers and noncustomers) asked whether the respondents had served in the military.

Of the 15 items asked only of the offender and Internet hobbyist samples, one asked whether any of their sexual partners was a wife or regular sexual partner; two related items asked how similar their sexual interests and levels of desire were with that regular partner. Two other items asked how often respondents thought about sex and how often thinking about sex made them feel guilty. A pair of items from a “rape myth acceptance scale” (Burt, 1980) asked whether women reporting rape did so “to get back at a man” or “to protect their reputation.” There were four items that asked about customer experiences with prostitution, including the age at which they first patronized a prostitute, how often during the past year they had sex with a prostitute, their most common activity when with a prostitute, and how frequently they used condoms when with a prostitute. The remaining three items dealt with beliefs about prostitution, including whether prostitutes enjoy their work, whether prostitution should be legalized, and whether they could marry a prostitute.

Data Analysis

Simple comparisons of the response frequencies provide a relatively clear sense of the differences and similarities between groups. Because of the large sample sizes, chi-square tests reveal a great many significant differences between the various groups available for comparison on these tables, even when differences are quite small. The tables presented here use Cramer’s V, a chi-square-based measure of the strength of association between two nominal variables (Healy, 1990), which yields values ranging from 0, indicating no relationship, to 1, indicating a perfect relationship. Cramer’s V is a symmetric measure, meaning its value does not vary depending on which variable is identified as independent. Chi-square tests of significance tests are not abandoned entirely, as tables indicate whether relationships between variables reached statistical significance based on Pearson’s chi-square statistic. For clarity, however, we do not include the chi-square test statistics or degrees of freedom in the tables.

Results

Table 1 displays the percentages of men aged between 18 and 75 participating in the GSS who answered questions about whether they had sex for pay in the last year and whether they had ever paid for sex during their lifetime. Among men sampled between 2002 and 2010, about 13.9% reported having paid for sex during their lifetime, and about 1.0% reported having paid for sex during the previous year. Because the question is phrased so that one could answer “yes” whether he paid or received pay for sex, the actual percentage of men who pay for sex could be even smaller. In contrast, men sampled from 1991 to 2000 reported higher percentages during their lifetime (16.1%) but were less likely to have had sex for pay during the previous year (0.6%). These findings indicate that the percentage of men who pay for sex has declined over time in the United States. Older men were more likely than younger men to report having paid for sex during their lifetime, as they have had more years of adult sexual activity in which to have paid for sex. However, older men were less likely than younger men to report having paid for sex during the previous year. Men who reported having served in the military were slightly more likely than men who did not to report having paid for sex during the previous year and were much more likely to report having paid for sex at some point during their lifetime. The discrepancy in these numbers indicates that for these men, patronizing prostitutes was a behavior that took place while in a military context. This suggests that for occasional customers, prostitution use may be more a product of situation and availability than a product of basic personality features or psychological characteristics.

Table 2 provides comparisons between the various samples of customers and the nationally representative sample of men completing the GSS from 2002 to 2010. Consistent with Monto and McRee’s study (2005) using the same data but with different GSS years, we find meaningful but small differences between the GSS noncustomers and the GSS customers. Because GSS customers are defined as men who have paid for sex at some point during their lifetimes, the substantial age differences between the GSS customers and noncustomers likely reflect the fact that older men have more potential years in which to have had sex with a prostitute rather than the tendency to solicit sex when older. Compared with noncustomers, GSS customers were somewhat less likely to be White, somewhat less likely to be working full-time, more likely to be unemployed, and slightly less likely to consider extramarital sex as wrong. National customers were slightly less likely to be married (a difference echoed among the offender sample) but also less likely to report never having been married. This latter finding is likely related to the older age of the national customers. About 70% of noncustomers had one sexual partner during the previous year. National customers were more likely than noncustomers to report having no partners during the last year but also more likely to report having multiple partners. Their frequency of sex during the previous year was quite similar. The remaining differences are exceedingly small and should not be treated as meaningful. The arrested offenders were less likely than the other groups to be non-White and more likely to be aged between 18 and 50. They were also more likely to be employed full-time, less likely to be married, and more likely to have achieved postsecondary education. They were more sexually liberal than the national groups on all items, but the differences were very small on the item regarding attitudes toward homosexuality.

Table 2.

Comparison Between Customers, Noncustomers, Offenders, and Hobbyists.

	I: Noncustomers	II: National customers	III: Arrested offenders	IV: Internet hobbyists	Cramer’s V
Age of respondent	n = 3,920	n = 632	n = 1,824	n = 583	I, II = .170***
18-29	27.4	11.2	25.5	3.1	I, III = .221***
30-39	20.3	14.2	33.9	17.0	I, IV = .230***
40-49	20.2	22.9	25.6	29.8	II, III = .416***
50-59	16.9	25.2	11.1	33.8	II, IV = .236***
60-69	11.3	19.1	3.2	14.8	III, IV = .406***
70-75	3.9	7.3	0.6	1.5
Race of respondent	n = 3,904	n = 630	n = 1,796	n = 583	I, II = .086***
White	75.2	69.5	57.2	84.9	I, III = .271***
African American	9.6	16.7	6.3	3.3	I, IV = .160***
Hispanic/Latino	10.2	8.7	17.3	3.1	II, III = .256***
Asian/Pacific Islander	3.9	3.2	14.5	5.8	II, IV = .282***
Native American	0.9	1.6	1.4	0.5	III, IV = .256***
Other/combo	0.2	0.3	3.3	2.4
Labor force status	n = 3,920	n = 632	n = 1,782	n = 583	I, II = .088***
Working full-time	64.1	60.3	81.2	62.4	I, III = .191***
Working part-time	8.6	8.1	5.2	12.0	I, IV = .214***
Temporarily not working	2.1	2.2	2.1	2.9	II, III = .279***
Unemployed	5.4	6.0	3.8	3.8	II, IV = .404***
Retired	9.7	16.1	2.8	1.0	III, IV = .333***
In school	5.1	1.9	2.0	17.8
Keeping house	2.3	2.4	0.5	0.0
Other	2.7	3.0	2.5	0.0
Income of respondent	n = 2,851	n = 426	NA	n = 575	I, II = .069*
US$1K-US$19.9K	29.2	23.7		1.2	I, III = NA
US$20K-US$29.9K	14.7	11.3		1.0	I, IV = .572***
US$30K-US$44.9K	23.0	29.8		4.3	II, III = NA
US$45K-US$59.9K	12.1	13.1		8.7	II, IV = .674***
US$60K-US$89.9K	12.0	12.2		22.4	III, IV = NA
US$90K-US$119.9K	3.6	4.5		19.1
US$120K or more	5.3	5.4		43.1
Highest degree	n = 3,921	n = 632	n = 1,817	n = 583	I, II = .024
Less than high school	12.6	12.0	9.8	0.0	I, III = .388***
High school	50.4	53.2	19.5	2.9	I, IV = .425***
Junior college	8.3	8.2	35.4	18.0	II, III = .363***
Bachelor	18.3	18.0	24.4	37.9	II, IV = .662***
Graduate	10.4	8.5	10.8	41.2	III, IV = .423***
Marital status	n = 3,921	n = 631	n = 647	n = 583	I, II = .112***
Married	55.8	51.8	41.0	62.4	I, III = .173***
Widowed	1.1	1.6	1.4	1.0	I, IV = .075***
Divorced	9.5	18.9	15.2	12.0	II, III = .135***
Separated	2.1	3.0	6.7	2.9	II, IV = .119**
Never married	31.5	24.7	35.7	21.6	III, IV = .189***
Attitude toward premarital sex	n = 2029	n = 326	n = 1582	n = 566	I, II = .024
Always wrong	19.5	16.9	10.2	0.7	I, III = .148***
Almost always wrong	6.3	6.7	5.3	1.2	I, IV = .296***
Sometimes wrong	18.4	18.4	15.9	8.8	II, III = .095**
Not wrong at all	55.7	58.0	68.6	89.2	II, IV = .400***
					III, IV = .220***
Attitude toward teen sex	n = 2,038	n = 334	n = 1,598	n = 529	I, II = .051
Always wrong	65.4	58.7	50.1	31.0	I, III = .175***
Almost always wrong	17.6	19.8	21.2	26.8	I, IV = .300***
Sometimes wrong	11.4	14.1	15.4	24.2	II, III = .079**
Not wrong at all	5.6	7.5	13.3	18.0	II, IV = .281***
					III, IV = .170***
Attitude toward extramarital sex	n = 2,080	n = 335	n = 1,627	n = 562	I, II = .099***
Always wrong	79.7	69.3	52.0	9.1	I, III = .296***
Almost always wrong	12.0	20.9	24.7	28.1	I, IV = .638***
Sometimes wrong	6.3	8.4	16.9	47.5	II, III = .146***
Not wrong at all	2.1	1.5	6.4	15.3	II, IV = .653***
					III, IV = .420***
Attitude toward homosexual sex	n = 2,036	n = 332	n = 1,444	n = 547	I, II = .041
Always wrong	54.6	49.4	48.9	6.4	I, III = .066**
Almost always wrong	4.5	3.9	6.4	3.8	I, IV = .406***
Sometimes wrong	7.8	9.3	9.6	16.8	II, III = .042
Not wrong at all	33.2	37.3	35.1	72.9	II, IV = .501***
					III, IV = .413***
Number of sex partners in the last year	n = 3,886	n = 629	n = 1,804	n = 582	I, II = .139***
None	13.1	15.7	9.0	0.2	I, III = .399***
1	70.4	58.8	37.4	4.0	I, IV = .765***
2	6.9	7.8	16.7	5.2	II, III = .249***
3	4.1	5.2	10.7	6.7	II, IV = 768***
4	2.3	3.7	7.3	11.0	III, IV = .547***
5-10	2.2	5.4	12.6	35.1
11-20	0.8	1.6	4.0	25.3
21 or more	0.1	1.7	2.3	12.7
How often had sex in the last year	n = 3,788	n = 624	n = 1,722	n = 581	I, II = .054*
Not at all	12.8	14.4	8.8	0.3	I, III = .107***
Once or twice	9.2	10.4	9.5	8.8	I, IV = .207***
Once a month	11.1	13.8	15.4	24.1	II, III = .097**
2-3 times a month	17.4	17.1	22.5	27.0	II, IV = .312***
Weekly	19.1	19.2	18.4	21.0	III, IV = 187***
2-3 times a week	21.9	16.3	17.4	13.9
4+ times a week	8.6	8.7	8.0	4.8
Sex of sex partners in the last 5 years	n = 3,565	n = 583	n = 1,759	n = 583	I, II = .055**
Exclusively male	2.3	3.6	0.3	0.0	I, III = .158***
male and female	0.8	2.1	5.2	2.7	I, IV = .089***
Exclusively female	96.9	94.3	94.5	97.3	II, III = .146***
					II, IV = .137***
					III, IV = .058*

Note: Data in percentage.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Striking differences emerge when we compare the responses of the active hobbyists in the Internet sample with the noncustomers, national customers, and arrested offenders. Hobbyists were older and more likely than all other groups to be 50 to 59 years of age. They were more likely to be White (84.9%), more likely to report having completed an undergraduate (37.9%) or postgraduate degree (41.2%), and reported having significantly higher salaries than all other groups. While only about 20% of the other men reported salaries of US$60,000 or above, more than 80% of the hobbyists did, with 43.1% reporting annual salaries above US$120,000. Hobbyists were more likely to be married (62.4%), more sexually liberal, and reported having far more partners than all other groups. Interestingly, though they reported having more partners, they were less likely than men from the other samples to be among the men having sex four or more times per week. About 8.6% of GSS noncustomers, 8.7% of GSS customers, and 8.0% of offenders reported being in this highest category, compared with only 4.8% of hobbyists.

Table 3 provides comparisons between the arrested offender sample and the Internet hobbyist sample across 15 items asked only of these groups. Compared with the offender sample, the hobbyists reported thinking about sex more frequently, feeling less guilty about it, and having sex with prostitutes more frequently. Internet hobbyists reported that their most frequent activity with prostitutes was penile–vaginal sex (42.1%), followed by fellatio (34.8%). Among arrested offenders, 51.4% reported that fellatio was their most common activity with a prostitute, followed by “other” (commonly referring to “half and half,” that is, fellatio followed by penile–vaginal sex or manual masturbation) at 28.7%, and penile–vaginal sex (13.4%). Hobbyists were somewhat more likely than the offenders to report regular condom use, a difference that may be explained by the frequency of fellatio among arrested offenders. Internet hobbyists reported having their first experience with a prostitute at later ages than the arrested offenders.

Table 3.

Comparison Between Offenders and Hobbyists.

	Arrested offenders	Internet hobbyists	χ²(df)	Cramer’s V
How often thinks about sex	n = 1,748	n = 583	425.58 (5)	.427***
Never	2.5	0.0
Less than once a month	5.1	0.0
One to a few times a month	11.7	0.0
One to a few times a week	28.9	6.9
Everyday	31.9	34.6
Several times a day	19.9	58.5
Feels guilty thinking about sex	n = 1,781	n = 583	47.73 (4)	.136***
Never	49.9	60.0
Rarely	23.8	26.2
Occasionally	19.5	11.7
Often	4.8	1.9
Nearly always	2.0	0.2
One of sex partners was a regular partner	n = 1,554	n = 583	46.81 (1)	.148***
No	20.4	34.6
Yes	79.6	65.4
Similarity of sexual interests with partner	n = 1,184	n = 430
Very similar	37.5	9.3
Somewhat similar	38.3	30.0	240.67 (3)	.386***
Somewhat different	16.2	29.1
Very different	7.9	31.6
Similarity of sexual desire with partner	n = 1,212	n = 427	246.27 (4)	.388***
Partner much more interested	7.3	3.3
Partner somewhat more interested	8.2	5.9
About equally interested	40.5	14.8
I am somewhat more interested	24.7	17.3
I am much more interested	19.3	58.8
Attitude toward sex between adults and children	n = 1,233	n = 583	25.36 (4)	.118***
Always wrong	95.8	91.3
Almost always wrong	1.5	3.9
Wrong only sometimes	0.4	1.5
Not wrong at all	0.5	1.7
Don’t know	1.9	1.5
Proportion of rapes reported to get back at man	n = 1158	n = 583	127.30 (4)	.270***
Almost all	5.1	0.2
About three fourth	7.4	0.2
About half	15.5	5.5
About one fourth	26.6	30.4
Almost none	45.4	63.8
Proportion of rapes reported to protect own reputation	n = 1,143	n = 583	107.36 (4)	.249***
Almost all	3.9	0.0
About three fourth	5.7	0.2
About half	13.2	3.9
About one fourth	26.6	38.3
Almost none	50.6	57.6
How often had sex with a prostitute during past year	n = 1,378	n = 575	368.88 (6)	.435***
Never	25.8	1.4
Only one time	26.2	5.4
More than once but less than once per month	34.6	66.4
One to three times per month	10.5	24.5
Once or twice per week	1.9	1.7
Three or four times per week	0.4	0.5
Five or more time times per week	0.6	0.0
Frequency of condom use with prostitutes	n = 1,341	n = 575	68.40 (4)	.189***
Never	4.2	0.9
Seldom	3.2	1.6
Sometimes	7.5	6.6
Often	11.9	25.6
Always	73.2	65.4
Most common activity with prostitute	n = 1,281	n = 575	393.35 (5)	.460***
Vaginal sex	13.4	42.1
Fellatio	51.4	34.8
Hand job	5.6	3.5
Anal sex	0.6	1.6
Cunnilingus	0.2	11.1
Other	28.7	7.0
Age when first experience with prostitute	n = 1,116	n = 552	217.68 (5)	.361***
18-29	75.7	46.7
30-39	18.2	23.2
40-49	5.2	18.7
50-59	0.7	9.8
60-69	0.1	1.6
70-79	0.1	0.0
Would marry prostitute	n = 1,136	n = 565	237.72 (3)	.374***
Strongly agree	7.2	14.5
Somewhat agree	16.5	38.6
Somewhat disagree	21.7	30.3
Strongly disagree	54.5	16.6
Prostitutes enjoy their work	n = 1,104	n = 565	498.53 (3)	.547***
Strongly agree	4.3	3.4
Somewhat agree	22.3	77.2
Somewhat disagree	44.1	18.6
Strongly disagree	29.3	0.9
Prostitution should be legalized	n = 1,137	n = 565	223.79 (3)	.363***
Strongly agree	38.3	72.6
Somewhat agree	32.5	24.2
Somewhat disagree	11.9	2.5
Strongly disagree	17.3	0.7

Note: Data in percentage.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Among men with wives or regular partners, Internet hobbyists were much more likely than arrested offenders to report that their sexual desires were stronger than their regular partners’ desires and that their sexual interests were different from those of their regular partners’. Although more than 95% of respondents in both groups responded that sex between adults and children was always or almost always wrong, 3.2% of Internet hobbyists responded that it is “wrong only sometimes,” or “not wrong at all” compared with 0.9% of arrested offenders. We hesitate to draw any conclusions about this minor difference, as the arrested offenders might have been more concerned about putting themselves in further legal jeopardy. Few men in either group reported attitudes consistent with rape myths. However, arrested customers were more likely than Internet hobbyists to harbor such beliefs, with 12.5% responding that “almost all” or “about three fourth” of women report rape to get back at a man and 9.6% responding that “almost all” or “about three fourth” of women report rape to protect their reputations. The Internet hobbyists’ attitudes toward prostitutes were significantly more positive than those of the arrested offenders. The belief that prostitutes enjoy their work was supported by more than 80% of the hobbyists, while more than 70% of the offender sample disagreed with this statement. More than half of the hobbyist sample “somewhat agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they would consider marrying a prostitute, whereas only one fifth of the offenders would do the same. Legalization of prostitution was supported by more than 95% of the hobbyists, while about two thirds of the offenders supported this measure.

Discussion

Simple findings from the GSS clearly demonstrate that prostitution seeking is not a conventional aspect of masculine sexual behavior. Only about 13.9% of men aged between 18 and 75, sampled between 2002 and 2010, reported having paid for sex during their lifetime and only about 1% reported having done so during the previous year. These findings clearly contradict the “john next door” notion perpetuated by the media and by groups interested in addressing the real and significant harm done by prostitution. It is noteworthy to recognize that 1% of adult men still results in a large number of customers. Nevertheless, it is also important that researchers move beyond the inaccurate and dated estimates based on Kinsey et al.’s (1948) study. There is no credible evidence to support the idea that hiring prostitutes is a common or conventional aspect of masculine sexual behavior among men in the United States.

In the introduction to this study, we identified two divergent perspectives toward the customers of prostitutes, the ordinary man perspective, which tends to normalize the customer or emphasize his similarities with other men, and the peculiar man perspective, which tends to depict customers as having various deficiencies or other unique qualities. Lowman and Atchison (2006) have identified similar divergences in social science accounts of customers. While we acknowledge that this way of framing the issue tends to imply an either/or approach to the problem, existing research has also lacked balance and tended toward oversimplification, overgeneralization, and a view of prostitution as a monolithic endeavor, ignoring the sometimes stark differences between street prostitution and indoor sex work (Weitzer, 2000). Different types of prostitution may also be associated with differences in the ethnicities and socioeconomic backgrounds of customers and providers, as well as their risk of arrest. In addition, differences in the contexts in which customers encounter prostitutes may affect the degree to which they are seen as peculiar, criminal, or pathological.

While prostitution seeking is relatively uncommon in the United States, arrested customers are not particularly unique or peculiar. Offenders are slightly less likely to be married, slightly more likely to be working full-time, slightly more sexually liberal, and slightly less likely to be White than are noncustomers. Their participation in prostitution is generally occasional, and many have little experience in seeking prostitutes. Customers are generally arrested in police operations in which a female officer serves as a decoy by posing as a street prostitute, and men offer her money for sex. More experienced customers are less likely to appear in a sample of offenders, as they are more likely to know providers and less likely to make errors in negotiation that could lead to arrest (Monto, 2004). Similarly, respondents in the GSS who reported having paid for sex are also not particularly unique or peculiar. The discrepancy between the percentage of men who have ever paid for sex (13.9%) and those who did so in the past year (1.0%) indicates that prostitution seeking does not necessarily become an established pattern of sexual behavior among men who have paid for sex. The fact that many of the men who had paid for sex had also served in the military further indicates that paying for sex may be more a product of situation and availability than behavior based on the peculiar qualities of the individual himself. Although there are statistically significant differences between customer and noncustomers, these differences are minor and do not support the idea that customers are peculiar men.

In contrast to the other two groups of customers, the sample of highly active customers, or hobbyists, does demonstrate that some groups of customers can differ substantially from men who do not pay for sex. The Internet hobbyists in our study were peculiar in their high incomes and high levels of education, but not in ways that suggest pathology or impairment. Their generally sexually liberal attitudes and their attitudes toward prostitution are consistent with their behavior as well. These men are part of an online community that endorses indoor prostitution as a legitimate form of sexual activity and enforces some boundaries about appropriate customer behavior from a moral standpoint (Milrod & Weitzer, 2012). Their overwhelming belief that prostitutes enjoy their work and their acceptance of prostitutes as potential marriage partners speak to a level of engagement that goes beyond satiating sexual desires. The discussion boards on the site offer contacts with providers who willingly participate and to some extent encourage interactions in which paid sexual experiences are seen as normal (Milrod & Weitzer, 2012). This helps the hobbyist reject the stigma of peculiarity attached to paying for sex. The customer adheres to a normative order in which “hobbying” is defined as compatible with a nonstigmatized identity (Goffman, 1963). In addition, the respondents’ socioeconomic standard, education, and ability to pay fees up to US$1,000 per hour for indoor sexual activity largely insulate them from attempts by law enforcement to interfere in their hobbying. Their exposure to arrest and diversionary practices such as john schools is minuscule.

Rubin’s (1984) framework suggests that some sexual behavior exists within a “charmed circle” of approved behaviors and serves to reinforce and justify the privilege of powerful groups, while other sexual behaviors are marginalized. The contention that the social response to particular sexual behaviors reflects differences in power and may serve to marginalize certain groups is useful. However, our findings concerning these different samples of customers complicate the picture. Although customers participate in nonprocreative, extramarital, and nonmonogamous sex, all of which are dimensions outside the charmed circle, their experience of risk and sanctions vary. Privileged men, such as our sample of Internet hobbyists, are not, in absence of occasional public scandal, marginalized or threatened due to their sexual behavior.

In contrast, customers associated with street prostitution are likely to have fewer financial and social resources; in fact, some have argued that specific ethnic segments of these men are explicitly targeted by law enforcement (Conroy, 2006; Preston & Brown-Hart, 2005; Van Brunschot, 2003). Monto (1999a, 1999b) argues that ethnicities of arrested customers generally tend to reflect the composition of the neighborhoods in which police stings take place. However, these operations tend to target areas characterized by street prostitution and occur in marginalized or transitional neighborhoods. These efforts contribute to the perception of the offender as “Other,” as criminal, or as having peculiar perversions or psychological impairments. The emphasis on rehabilitative measures such as teaching about “sex addiction” and “healthy relationships” in diversionary programs (Shively et al., 2012) further support the notion that customers of street prostitutes are endowed with some form of psychopathology that needs reorientation toward more accepted forms of sexual relations. The focus on treatment thus fails to separate paying for sex and being psychologically impaired. Our findings on the variables explored by this study reveal only minor differences between these customers and men who do not patronize prostitutes. It is important to note that the measures we had available do not thoroughly explore issues of psychopathology. Although we find it implausible, we cannot rule out the possibility that there are some peculiar qualities that differentiate these customers from noncustomers.

Recent efforts to reduce demand for prostitution should recognize the profound differences between different categories of customers. Although a full discussion of demand reduction strategies is beyond the scope of this article, it is worth noting that the diversion programs or john schools that are sometimes required of men arrested for trying to hire prostitutes disproportionately serve men who are less experienced in to seeking prostitutes—one of the reasons they are caught in the police sting operations (Monto, 2004). This may bode well for the success of these programs, as it is difficult to change a regular and established pattern of sexual behavior. In addition, men patronizing street prostitutes are involved in the segment of the industry that includes the most vulnerable women (Monto, 2004). Nevertheless, current demand reduction strategies leave largely untouched the most active and privileged customers.

Our research suggests a balanced perspective that recognizes the significant variety among customers. Most of the customers from our national sample have not patronized a prostitute within the past year. Although we know little else about their sexual behavior and history of prostitution seeking, this category of customers disproportionately includes men who served and may have learned about prostitution while in the military, and demonstrates that paying for sex need not necessarily become habitual or an aspect of the individual’s identity. The arrested offenders in our study also have qualities that differentiate them from other men more generally, such as being disproportionately unmarried and younger. Nevertheless, data suggest that seeking prostitutes may not be an established sexual behavior for most of them, as few report regular experience with prostitutes. In contrast, the Internet hobbyists are open enthusiasts of prostitution, evidenced by their planning, negotiating, and discussing encounters online (Milrod & Weitzer, 2012; Sanders, 2008). Their example demonstrates that although seeking sexual experiences with prostitutes is relatively uncommon among men in the United States, there may be categories of customers that are more unusual and distinct, though not necessarily impaired or pathological. Future research should recognize and explore these and other categories of customers and describe how their networks and activities may be influenced by demographics, socioeconomic status, and other characteristics.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by Grant No. 97-IJ-CX-0033 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

References

Alexa.com . (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/theeroticreview.com

Benjamin

Masters

R. E. L.

(1964). Prostitution and morality. New York, NY: Julian Press.

Bennetts

(2011, July 25). The john next door. Newsweek, 158(4), 60-63.

Bullough

(1987). Women and prostitution: A social history. New York, NY: Prometheus Books.

Burt

M. R.

(1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.

Conroy

(2006, April 6). The electronic pillory. Chicago Reader. Retrieved from https://securesite.chireader.com/cgi-bin/Archive/abridged2.bat?path=2006/060407/SOLICIT&search=john%20conroy%20author

Ellis

(1959). Why married men visit prostitutes. Sexology, 25, 344-347.

Farley

(2007). Renting an organ for ten minutes: What tricks tell us about prostitution, pornography and trafficking. In Guinn

(Ed.), Pornography: Driving the demand for international sex trafficking (pp. 144-152). Los Angeles, CA: Captive Daughters Media.

Farley

Schuckman

Golding

J. M.

Houser

Jarrett

Qualliotine

Decker

(2011, July). Comparing sex buyers with men who don’t buy sex: “You can have a good time with the servitude” vs. “You’re supporting a system of degradation.” Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Psychologists for Social Responsibility Boston, MA.

10.

Foucault

(1978). The history of sexuality: An introduction, Volume 1 ( Hurley

, Trans.) New York, NY: Vintage. (Original work published 1976)

11.

Glover

(1943). The psychopathology of prostitution. London, England: Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency.

12.

Goffman

(1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

13.

Healy

M. J. R.

(1990). Measuring importance. Statistics in Medicine, 9, 633-637.

14.

Jansing

(Producer). (2011). New study examines sex industry in the U.S. [Television broadcast]. New York, NY: MSNBC.

15.

Kinsey

A. C.

Pomeroy

W. B.

Martin

(1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders.

16.

Lowman

Atchison

(2006). Men who buy sex: A survey in the greater Vancouver regional district. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 43, 281-296.

17.

Månsson

S.-A.

(2005). Men’s practices in prostitution and their implications for social work. In Månsson

S.-A.

Cervantes

C. P.

(Eds.), Social work in Cuba and Sweden: Prospects and achievements (pp. 267-279). Gothenburg, Sweden: Department of Social Work, University of Gothenburg.

18.

Månsson

S.-A.

(2006). Men’s demand for prostitutes. Sexologies, 15, 87-92.

19.

Månsson

S.-A.

(2008). Sex as a commodity: On prostitution and pornography in late modern society. In Træen

Lewin

(Eds.), Sexology in context (pp. 193-226). Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

20.

Månsson

S.-A.

Linders

(1984). Sexualitet utan ansikte: Könsköparna [Sexuality without a face: The sex buyers]. Stockholm, Sweden: Carlssons.

21.

Michael

R. T.

Gagnon

J. H.

Laumann

E. O.

Kolata

(1994). Sex in America: A definitive survey. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

22.

Milrod

Monto

(2012). The hobbyist and the girlfriend experience: Behaviors and preferences of male customers of Internet sexual services providers. Deviant Behavior, 33, 792-810. doi:10.1080/01639625.2012.707502

23.

Milrod

Weitzer

(2012). The intimacy prism: Emotion management among the clients of escorts. Men and Masculinities, 15, 447-467. doi:10.1177/1097184X12452148

24.

Monto

M. A.

(1998). Holding men accountable for prostitution: The unique approach of the sexual exploitation education project (SEEP). Violence Against Women, 4, 505-517.

25.

Monto

M. A.

(1999a). Clients of street prostitutes, in Portland, Oregon, San Francisco and Santa Clara, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada, 1996-1999 (ICPSR version). Portland, OR: University of Portland [Producer], Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [Distributor], 2000. doi:10.3886/ICPSR02859.v1

26.

Monto

M. A.

(1999b). Focusing on the clients of street prostitutes: A creative approach to reducing violence against women—Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Retrieved from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD

27.

Monto

M. A.

(2004). Female prostitution, customers, and violence. Violence Against Women, 10, 160-188.

28.

Monto

M. A.

(2010). Prostitutes’ customers: Motives and misconceptions. In Weitzer

(Ed.), Sex for sale: Prostitution, pornography and the sex industry (2nd ed., pp. 233-254). New York, NY: Routledge.

29.

Monto

M. A.

Hotaling

(2001). Predictors of rape myth acceptance among the male clients of female street prostitutes. Violence Against Women, 7, 275-293.

30.

Monto

M. A.

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, 505-529.

31.

O’Connell Davidson

. (1998). Prostitution, power and freedom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

32.

Pitts

M. K.

Smith

M. A.

Grierson

O’Brien

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, 353-358.

33.

Preston

Brown-Hart

A. D.

(2005). “John court”: Comparison of characteristics, sexual behavior and sexual attitudes of clients of prostitutes. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 3(4), 49-68.

34.

Raymond

(2004). Prostitution on demand: Legalizing the buyers as sexual consumers. Violence against Women, 10, 1156-1186.

35.

Rubin

(1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In Parker

Aggleton

(Eds.), Culture, society and sexuality: A reader (pp. 143-178). London, England: UCL Press.

36.

Sandell

Pettersson

Larsson

Kuosmanen

(1996). Könsköparna: Varför går män till prostituerade? Djupanalys av män som köper sex [The sex buyers: Why do men go to prostitutes? In-depth analysis of men who buy sex]. Stockholm, Sweden: Natur och Kultur.

37.

Sanders

(2008). Male sexual scripts: Intimacy, sexuality, and pleasure in the purchase of commercial sex. Sociology, 42, 400-417.

38.

Sawyer

Rosser

B. R. S.

Schroeder

(1998). A brief psycho-educational program for men who patronize prostitutes. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 26, 111-125.

39.

Shively

Jalbert

Kling

Rhodes

Finn

Flygare

Wheeler

(2008). Final report on the first offender prostitution program (NIJ Document No.: 222451). Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/222451.pdf

40.

Shively

Kliorys

Wheeler

Hunt

(2012). National overview of prostitution and sex trafficking demand reduction efforts (Final Report 2008-IJ-CX-0010). Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238796.pdf

41.

Smith

T. W.

Marsden

P. V.

Hout

. General Social Survey, 1972-2010 [Cumulative File] (ICPSR31521-v1). Storrs: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [Distributors], 2011-08-05. doi:10.3886/ICPSR31521.v1

42.

Van Brunschot

E. G

. (2003). Community policing and “john schools.” Canadian Review of Sociology, 40, 215-232.

43.

Vanwesenbeeck

Graaf

Zessen

Straver

C. J.

Visser

J. H.

(1993). Protection styles of prostitutes’ clients: Intentions, behavior, and considerations in relation to AIDS. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 19(2), 79-92.

44.

Weitzer

(2000). Why we need more research on sex work. In Weitzer

(Ed.), Sex for sale: Prostitution, pornography and the sex industry (pp. 1-13). New York, NY: Routledge.

45.

Wortley

Fischer

Webster

(2002). Vice lessons: A survey of prostitution offenders enrolled in the Toronto John school diversion program. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 44, 369-402.

46.

Xantidis

McCabe

(2000). Personality characteristics of male clients of female commercial sex workers in Australia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 165-176.