How perceptions of masculinity and intimate sexual relationships shape men’s experiences of paying for sex: A qualitative exploration

Abstract

This qualitative study explores how perceptions of masculinity, sexual intimate relationships and sex-for-pay (SFP) shape the experiences of men who pay women for sex (MPWS). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 Israeli MPWS. Participants were recruited through an STD community clinic, an anonymous online survey, ads posted in online forums for MPWS, and an organization for the abolition of prostitution. The findings offer a complex understanding of the experiences of MPWS, based on the intersections between their views of sexuality within long-term intimate relationships, and their perceptions of the acceptability of SFP within dominant discourses of masculinity. The findings comprise four experiential patterns of the multi-layered practice of paying for sex: Agonizing, Ambivalent, Intermittent and Simultaneous.

Keywords

Men who pay women for sex masculinity sexual relationship sex work intimacy

Introduction

Sexuality and sexual relationships are key to masculine identity and experience (Philaretou and Allen, 2001), yet only a handful of studies have sought to understand how men who pay women for sex (MPWS) perceive the nuanced interrelationship between masculine identity, sexual relationships and sex-for-pay (SFP). This qualitative study aims to advance such an understanding by analysing perceptions of Israeli MPWS regarding masculinity, sexual relationships, and SFP, and learning how the interaction between these factors shape their experience of paying for sex.

Masculinities and sexual relationships

A common perception of sexual relationships within the discourse of heterosexual masculinity is of intercourse as the ultimate expression of male sexuality (Philaretou and Allen, 2001). Specifically, boys are commonly socialized to be willing and ready to have sex at any given moment, to control and direct the sexual act (Philaretou and Allen, 2001; Schrock and Schwalbe, 2009) and to believe that intercourse is crucial to gaining social acceptance among their peers (Forrest, 2010; Elmerstig et al., 2014). Accordingly, several studies suggest that men view the social meaning of sex as even more important than sexual relief and pleasure (Elmerstig et al., 2014; Frosh et al. 2001; Richardson 2010).

However, constructions of heterosexual male sexuality in the public sphere and in men’s relationships with other men have been found to differ from those taking place in intimate relationships with women (Frosh et al., 2001; Forrest, 2010). Some men and boys appear to distinguish casual sex from sex that is part of a steady relationship – perceiving casual sex as limited in its potential to realize male sexuality, and preferring romantic sex and emotional intimacy with ‘the right person’ (Forrest, 2010; Elmerstig et al., 2014). Furthermore, in several studies both adolescent boys and men exhibited ambivalence about intimate relationships: On one hand, they felt compelled to conform to the norm that a man should be ready to have sex at any given moment; on the other hand, they expressed a yearning for ‘meaningful sex’ within a romantic intimate relationship (Hyde et al., 2009; Forrest, 2010; Richardson, 2010; Elmerstig et al., 2014). Furthermore, some boys and men uphold the ‘Madonna-Whore Dichotomy’, which denotes women as being chaste and pure or promiscuous and seductive. This, in turn, may lead them to experience an ambivalence regarding romantic relationships (Bareket et al., 2018).

Another central theme in the research on male sexuality is the importance of a female perspective in the affirmation of sexual aptitude – particularly in the context of intercourse (Hyde et al., 2009; Elder et al., 2012). For example, both men and adolescent boys expressed reservations about having sex with a sexually experienced woman, for fear that they would not perform well enough to meet her expectations for sexual pleasure, and thus fail to be ‘man enough’ (Hyde et al., 2009; Elmerstig et al., 2014). These diverse perceptions of male sexuality are also reflected in research findings on MPWS.

Perceptions of masculinity and sexual relationships among MPWS

Growing empirical evidence suggests that paying for sex is strongly related to men’s perceptions and experiences of male sexuality and intimate relations with women (for a review see Prior and Peled, 2021). MPWS described SFP as fulfilling social expectations of masculine sexuality (Huysamen and Boonzaier, 2015; Prior and Peled, 2019). For example, men described SFP as enabling a safe and guaranteed sexual experience, where one need not fear criticism, or rejection (Sanders, 2008b; Kong, 2015; Hammond and Van Hooff, 2019), and as a viable means of acquiring sexual experience in the context of losing virginity, or sexual performance anxiety (Huysamen, 2019; Peng, 2007).

However, the diversity of characteristics of MPWS and in their reasons for paying for sex also appears to apply to their masculinities (Birch et al., 2017). Joseph and Black (2012) found the masculinities of MPWS to range on a spectrum – from what they termed ‘fragile masculinities’ at one end, to ‘consumer masculinities’ at the other. Men of a ‘fragile masculinity’ reportedly use SFP to strengthen their masculine self-image. Conversely, men with ‘consumer masculinity’ paid for sex as part of a broader male leisure culture. Other MPWS perceive SFP as compromising men’s masculinity – since it negates social expectations of male sexuality, and is a testimony of one’s sexual failure (Prior and Peled, 2019; Huysamen and Boonzaier, 2015). Thus, MPWS vary in their experiences of sexuality and in how it relates to paying for sex, and in the meaning they attribute to that practice (Shumka et al., 2017; Hammond and Van Hooff, 2019).

MPWS were also found to express varied and even contradictory perceptions of the nature of paid-for sexual relationships. Some MPWS seek intimacy and a ‘girlfriend experience’, describe themselves as intimate and caring partners in SFP encounters (Sanders, 2008a; Birch, 2015; Milrod and Monto, 2017), and experience disappointment and distress when ending a relationship with women they regularly pay for sex (Peng, 2007; Milrod and Weitzer, 2012). Others describe intimacy within SFP encounters as fake, and inauthentic: they may enjoy the fantasy and make-believe of a ‘romantic’ relationship (Kong, 2015), but appreciate the boundaries inherent in paying for it (Bernstein, 2001; Jin et al., 2016). Nonetheless, ‘a girlfriend experience’ may validate men’s masculinity even when the relationship is maintained through payment – which suggests that, for some MPWS, there is no real conflict between romantic love, and a financial relationship (Bishop and Limmer, 2018).

The purpose of this study is to further contribute to the body of knowledge about MPWS by seeking to understand how their perceptions of masculinity and sexual relationships interplay and shape their experiences and practice of paying for sex. Such understandings can contribute to the theorizing of masculinities and their manifestations among different groups pf men.

Method

The study was conducted using a qualitative-naturalistic methodology, with the aim of understanding participants’ perceptions and experiences, and how they are constructed within the holistic, personal and social context of the phenomenon (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).

The Israeli context

A recent national survey of a representative sample of 989 Israeli men found that 31.2% of them reported having paid for sex at least once in their lives (Shilo et al., 2020). Most of the respondents who have paid for sex described themselves as secular (as opposed to religious or ultra-Orthodox), and no differences were found between them and those who have not paid for sex in terms of age, income, education levels, marital status and number of children.

At the time of data collection, the practice of paying or being paid for sex in Israel was legal as an adult – except for soliciting, to which the police tends to turn a blind eye (Amir and Amir, 2004). Nonetheless, prostitution is highly stigmatized in Israeli society – as evident in Israeli cultural, political, academic and media discourses on the topic (Almog, 2010). In recent years, the view that paying for sex is a form of violence against women has increasingly gained currency in Israeli public, professional and social advocacy discourses (Lahav-Raz, 2020) – as evident in a public campaign to criminalize the purchasing of sex, which culminated in the enactment of a law in July 2020 that criminalizes the practice (Levy-Aronovic et al., 2020). Dissenting voices of sex workers’ rights organizations were non-existent in Israel at the time of the data collection, and are still marginalized in Israeli public discourse nowadays.

Population and participants

The participants were 16 Israeli men who regularly paid women for sex and self-identified as MPWS. Israeli adult MPWS were initially invited to take part in the study through (1) the staff of an STD community clinic in Tel Aviv who approached clients known to have paid for sex in the past year, (2) an NGO dedicated to the abolition of prostitution, (3) an anonymous online survey conducted by the Peled et al. (2020) about perceptions regarding prostitution and SFP, (4) adds in online forums for MPWS and (5) a snowball sampling. As SFP is highly stigmatized in Israel (Almog, 2010), we managed to establish initial contact with only 24 potential participants – of whom 8 were either not interested in participating or could not be interviewed due to scheduling difficulties. Eventually, our convenience sample included 16 participants: six participants were recruited through the STD clinic, five through the anonymous online survey, four through the online ads and one participant was referred by the NGO for the abolition of prostitution. Tentative saturation was achieved once a continuing preliminary analysis of the interviews did not generate new insights on the research topic.

The sample consists of fourteen participants who described paying for sex as an integral part of their lives at the time of the study, and two participants who reported having done so routinely in the past, over a period of 15 or 20 years. Moreover, fourteen of the participants had paid for sex in various indoor venues; one paid for sex mainly in street arenas; and one paid for sex in both indoor and street settings, alternately. The sample was heterogenic in terms of age (from 23 to 51 – mean age 35.4), marital status (7 married; 7 single; 1 in a steady relationship; 1 separated) and level of education (5 had partial or completed high-school education; 4 had a vocational diploma; and 7 had completed an academic degree). All participants were Jewish and most of them were born in Israel (13) and secular (14). In terms of occupation, twelve participants worked in white-collar professions, three in blue-collar professions and one was unemployed.

Data collection

The first author, who was a young social worker at the time, conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with the participants: Twelve face-to-face interviews were conducted in a private university office, or in public settings such as coffee shops, according to their preference, and 4 were carried out over the telephone. The interviews lasted between 45 min and 2.5 h, were audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. The interviewer recorded and later transcribed her reflexive comments throughout the data collection. The interview protocol featured the following main topics: the participant’s reasons for, and patterns of, paying for sex; his experience during and after SFP encounters; related aspects of his intimate and sexual relationships with women; and his perceptions of MPWS, SFP and male gender identity.

This study involved the socially stigmatized and controversial behaviour of paying for sex, and the interviewer and the interviewees seemed to construct and negotiate the meaning of the interview topic based on their prior perceptions of it, and the power dynamics established between them (Prior and Peled, 2022). Most participants appeared to be aware of the stigmatization of their behaviour, and made efforts to present themselves as normative men – as found in other qualitative studies with MPWS (Huysamen, 2016; Prior and Peled, 2019). This led to a somewhat a sexual atmosphere in most of the interviews, even though the topic related to sexual behaviour. Furthermore, although the interviewer encouraged the interviewees to speak freely, they mostly opted to use euphemistic language to describe sexual acts and apologized when using a ‘dirty’ word as part of their story (see also Prior and Peled, 2019). Nonetheless, in debriefing conversations that were held at the end of the interviews, all of the participants reported that they felt the atmosphere was non-judgemental and respectful, and that they were grateful for the opportunity to freely share their experiences. This might suggest that the opportunity to discuss a usually hidden experience triumphed over the fear of stigmatization, and produced an open and honest conversation.

Data analysis

Data analysis was carried by the first author, under the close guidance of the third author, in accordance with the stages proposed by Strauss and Corbin (1998). First, the transcripts were hand-coded, using open and in-vivo coding techniques, to identify themes and concepts, and to enable a breakdown of initial schemes. The resulting themes were then grouped, and regrouped, through a process of axial coding, until a final classification of 29 key categories was reached. The interview transcripts were then recoded into the key categories. Each key category was analysed separately, to gain a complex and nuanced understanding of the participants’ perceptions and experiences, until a broader organizing framework of the findings was conceptualized, that was deemed to faithfully represent the diversity of their narratives.

Ethical considerations and quality criteria

This study was approved by the IRB of the Tel Aviv university. Adherence to ethical principles was of great importance in this sensitive study. All the participants signed an informed consent form before the interview.

As previously noted, paying women for sex is considered a controversial and even deviant behaviour in Israel, and so is often kept secret by MPWS. Not surprisingly, therefore, for many of the participants this interview was the first time they had discussed these complex personal experiences. To ensure the ethical tenet of ‘Do no harm’ (Peled and Lichtentrit, 2002), the interviewer emphasized to the participants that they could terminate their participation at any time, or refuse to answer certain questions, without any adverse consequences. Most of the participants did not report feeling any distress as a result of the interview in the debriefing conversations. Three participants were referred to treatment, pending on their request, so they could further explore the issue of SFP in their lives. Extra care was taken to maintain confidentiality of the participants’ identities, by omitting or changing all identifying details at the transcription stage.

To ensure the trustworthiness of this study, we followed the criteria determined by Lincoln and Guba (1985). The credibility of the findings was supported by the effort to enable a complex and nuanced understanding of the participants’ experiences, that takes into consideration the context in which they were shaped. The analysis was accompanied by a conscious effort made by the interviewer to neutralize initial prejudices such a viewing MPWS as misogynist and deviant. The transferability of the findings was achieved by keeping a research log by the first author, where she documented her reflexive progression. These memos were found valuable during data analysis as they helped the researchers to recall elements such as the participants’ non-verbal communication, and the interviewer’s raw insights during the data collection phase. The dependability of the findings was achieved by a meticulous documentation of the research procedure and a transparent report of the analysis stages. The confirmability of the findings was facilitated by vigilance against undue influences of the researchers’ personal views, through critical reflexive discussions between the authors as well as peer debriefing which took place as part of a research workshop accompanying the research process.

Findings

The interviewees shared intricate perspectives of the interrelationship between their perceptions of paying for sex and their experiences and perceptions of normative masculinity, male sexuality and intimate relationship. The intersections between their views of sexuality within long-term intimate relationships, and their perceptions of the acceptability of the practice of paying for sex for men, yielded four patterns of paying for sex that we termed: Agonizing; Ambivalent; Intermittent; and Simultaneous. Each of the intersecting perspectives will be further explored, followed by a discussion of the four patterns of SFP experiences.

Perceptions of male sexuality in the context of intimate relationships

The interviewees described their sexual experiences at length, and the importance of sexual relationships to their expression and validation of masculinity. Two different perceptions of male sexuality emerged from these stories. Some of the men suggested that normative men are expected to fulfil their sexuality within a monogamous relationship, while others proposed that fulfilment of male sexuality necessitates maintaining multiple and simultaneous sexual relationships with different women.

Fulfilment of sexuality within a monogamous relationship

Some interviewees viewed the fulfilment of male sexuality within a steady intimate relationship as the ideal, emphasizing the interdependency of sexual and emotional needs. Accordingly, they linked having sexual urges with the quest for an intimate relationship:

Part of being a man, even when he sees a really attractive woman, (…) he needs an incentive to go seek a girlfriend and a relationship, right? A drive – you need to have some kind of drive – and one of the things, except for wanting warmth and love and all that, a man does it also because he’s horny – that’s also a part of it. (Ronen, 38, married)

These men tended to describe intimate relationships in romantic terms, and mostly viewed cheating on their partner as wrong. Koby – a 26-year-old single man – said: ‘When I will have a wife that I love, it is inconceivable that I will go behind her back with other women’. Participants who held this perception, and were single, longed for a relationship, and shared their difficulties in maintaining steady intimate relationships. Like Roï (26, in a relationship), they attributed these difficulties to a lack of sexual and romantic experience as teenagers: ‘In junior high and in high school I had little to do with girls – I was more interested in computers. It got me a great job, but also led to me being single most of the time [laughs]’.

Sexual fulfilment through multiple simultaneous relationships

Other interviewees suggested that sex and love were not necessarily connected – sexual and emotional needs may be fulfilled through simultaneous relationships with different women:

I think that Eddie Murphy said it once – that when he got married he told his wife “Let’s have sex,” and his wife replied, “We’re not having sex – we are making love.” So he said “Fine.” Then one day his wife caught him with another woman and told him: “You fucked her!” So he said: “Yes, I fucked her – but I make love to you.” So this is my statement. (Stephen, 47, separated)

The Madonna-whore dichotomy was conspicuous in the narratives of some of these men, who regarded having a relationship with a permissive woman for the purpose of sexual pleasure and a marital relationship with the mother of their children, as an optimal fulfilment of both their sexual and emotional needs. In the words of Saul, a 38-year-old married man, ‘Like in The Unbearable Lightness of Being, having sex with a woman, and sleeping with a woman, are two totally different passions – […] it’s hard to mix them up’.

Some described their early twenties – when they had formed a relationship for the purpose of cohabiting, or marriage – as a formative period, in which they still held romantic notions of marriage. Then, they believed that they could fulfil their sexuality within their marital relationships – only to be disillusioned a few years later:

With my first wife, I never screwed around, never did anything – like, nothing! I never touched another girl until we broke up. After that, I changed the way I see things. I told myself “Sex is sex – and life is life.” (Eric, 35, married twice)

Perceptions of masculinity within the context of paying for sex

The interviewees’ narratives about paying for sex reflected Western and secular/liberal notions of masculinity and sexual relationships. Almost all of them referred to the view that ‘real men’ do not pay for sex, but rather ‘get it for free’ within an occasional or a romantic relationship. However, while half the participants subscribed to that notion – and by extension, to the view that paying for sex compromises one’s masculinity – others rejected it, and saw it as an acceptable masculine behaviour.

Paying for sex as damaging masculinity

The participants who believed that men should be capable of getting their sexual needs met within a casual or a romantic relationship, felt ashamed and emasculated when they paid for sex:

[Another] thing that really affects me and makes me feel bad about myself is that… I had the need to go get it [SFP], because I didn’t manage on my own. How should I put it? It’s like, it doesn’t feel like being “a man,” okay? It’s not a natural thing to do – to look for, to get it for pay, instead of getting it the conventional way. (Eyal, 23, single)

For these men, paying for sex reflected a man’s failure to attract women who want to have sex with him, and thereby compromised their masculine identity:

For quite a long time I felt like, it’s not like I really got her, it’s only that I’m paying her, that’s why, otherwise she wouldn’t be with me. It’s not an achievement in the sense of – “Dude! I got someone: she saw me, we went out, we had a good time, and she was all over me”— right? It’s masculinity only in the technical sense of the word, not in the sense of managing to score. (Ronen, 38, married)

Paying for sex as an acceptable male practice

Other participants perceived paying for sex as an acceptable male practice that addresses specific emotional and sexual needs, that exist side-by-side with sexual conquests or having a romantic relationship with other women. As such, it neither undermined, nor reaffirmed their masculinity:

I don’t see any connection between paying for sex and feeling masculine – what do they have with each other? (…) I think that the men who pay for sex are task-oriented: they need something, they go there, they pay, and they get it. (Tamir, 36, married)

These men seemed to view all relationships between men and women as involving a trade of sex for money:

All [women] are being paid, the only question is when, and how. When you get married, you pay much more money for the sex. If you measure it per number, per fuck, you’re probably paying your wife much more than you’d pay any prostitute you meet on the street, so I don’t know if it’s that bad, it may even be cheap sex, or cheaper sex. (Eric, 35, married twice)

Men’s experiences of paying for sex: Four patterns

The interviewees linked their experiences of paying for sex to their perceptions of masculinity and of sexual and intimate relationships. As noted, they tended to hold one of two views regarding the ideal setting for realizing their sexuality – a monogamous relationship, or several simultaneous relationships in parallel – and one of two views as to whether paying for sex is damaging their masculinity. Accordingly, we have identified four main patterns of SFP experiences, based on the intersections of those dimensions in the men’s narratives.

About half of the interviewees perceived SFP as diminishing masculinity and emphasized the emotional toll of paying for sex. Of them, some described the experience of SFP as Agonizing and felt bad about it, believing that it undermines their masculinity, and that male sexuality is best fulfilled within a monogamous intimate relationship. Still other MPWS described paying for sex as an Ambivalent experience. They felt that paying for sex is a mark against their masculinity but, at the same time, that a man’s sexuality cannot be fulfilled within a monogamous relationship. Differently, for the other half of the interviewees, SFP experiences were impacted by their perception of paying for sex as an acceptable male practice. These MPWS differed over the notion of whether SFP may coexist with a steady intimate relationship. We termed Intermittent the SFP experience of MPWS who approved of paying for sex only when one is not in an ongoing intimate relationship, and Simultaneous the practice of paying for sex as complementary with a long-term intimate relationship.

SFP as an Agonizing experience

Several men described their experiences of paying for sex as wrong and wanted to quit doing so. They attributed great importance to having a steady intimate relationship, but most of them were single and had never had a long-term relationship. In the interviews, they were preoccupied with how paying for sex diminished them, compared with ‘normative’ men:

Most men, or at least the man I see as a normative man, if he’s single then he meets someone, goes out with her three-four times, and if they have a nice time together, then they may also go to bed, and it’s more, seems more legitimate than… even if you’re done with her afterwards, quit the relationship, and are kind of bummed about it… at the end it’s more legitimate than paying a prostitute. (Ronen, 38, married)

These interviewees seemed to regard paying for sex as a way of compensating for their failures with women – yet paradoxically, this solution often became part of the problem:

I go there [to a brothel] because I feel unworthy and I leave there feeling even worse. It doesn’t solve the problem, it simply… it becomes a problem of its own… It’s hard to explain. Like they say, I don’t know if it’s the hen or the egg, what comes first: I don’t know whether I go there because I can’t find a woman, or I can’t find a woman because I go there. (Haim, 32, single)

As most of these men were not in a relationship, they paid for sex to meet their need for sex, and for intimacy. However, they described SFP as a limited solution to their problem:

I regret that I didn’t deal with my relationship problem. I think it’s a pity I didn’t lose my virginity in a more respectable way … I believe that if you lose your virginity with a partner, it’s a much better experience than losing your virginity this way. (Gil, 51, single)

SFP as an Ambivalent experience

Some interviewees believed that normative men should manage to get sex ‘for free’ and not pay for it but, at the same time, described their need for diverse sexual encounters as a key part of their masculinity. Hence, while they perceived having a steady intimate relationship as an essential aspect of being a normative man, they were concerned that such a relationship might preclude sexual fulfilment:

That scares me the most – that tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, I’ll meet someone that I want to marry, but I won’t, because I’ll feel that I haven’t made the most of it, that I missed out, and that feeling will haunt me for a long time. (Eyal, 23, single)

These men appeared to have felt ambivalence and dissatisfaction both in their intimate relationships, and when paying for sex. Their narratives were often confused and incoherent – vacillating between justifying their choice to pay for sex, and expressing remorse for doing so:

Interviewer: I understand that part of your attraction to brothels is having many women to choose from?

Interviewee: Sure, yes! It’s to be aroused, and to watch… and to stir up this urge. I realize that I’m beaming when I talk to you about this…

Interviewer: You’re beaming?

Interviewee: Yes, yes, yes … believe me, I honestly see myself as a miserable person. (Yig’al, 40, separated)

Intermittent SFP

Several participants perceived paying for sex as justifiable and called-for only when they were not in an intimate, monogamous relationship – which they very much wanted:

Most likely, when I have a steady partner – like I’ve had in the past – I’ll stop going to these things. (…) If – excuse my language – I’m [sexually] satisfied, I’m like a child, I’m content. I don’t need to graze in foreign pastures. (Orr, 25, single)

At the same time, they valued the absence of emotional ties when paying for sex, over the emotional commitment involved in a steady, intimate relationship. They reported having difficulties with intimacy, and their romantic history consisted mainly of short relationships:

It’s hard on me being a dick (…) It’s simply that I’m sensitive. One of the reasons I go to escort girls is to get this issue of commitment off the table. It’s liberating, it’s like, I don’t have to… I feel I don’t have to lie to anyone. (Danny, 47, single)

These men perceived SFP as a stop-gap alternative to fulfil a range of sexual and emotional needs without threatening their masculine self-image, as Danny put it explicitly:

I see it as a need, that’s all. I see it as a kind of act that I do, on the one hand, for something physical, and on the other, like I said, in my case I actually pay so that I don’t get into an emotional involvement. It’s got nothing to do with masculinity. (Danny, 47, single)

Simultaneous SFP

Finally, several interviewees, all of whom were married, claimed that men cannot satisfy their sexual needs within a monogamous relationship, and are therefore bound to pay for sex:

There is no one I know who went through the phase of dating and marriage – what you might call “the first child phase” – and avoided going to a prostitute. (…) I can tell you that most people around me that go to prostitutes are in a relationship, love their wife, and aren’t thinking of getting a divorce. (Eric, 35 married twice)

The perception of sex with a variety of women as an essential masculine sexual experience was prominent in these men’s narratives. Hence, their decision to pay for sex was not necessarily related to being sexually dissatisfied in their marriage:

[Paying for sex], it’s just because I have the opportunity, OK? It’s like you can eat even when you’re not hungry, because you have the opportunity. I think Eyal Golan [a popular Israeli singer] said it well: It’s nice to eat a sirloin steak every day, but every now and then you want something new. (Stephen, 47, separated)

Moreover, these men described paying for sex as an attractive ‘value for money’ sexual alternative:

When you go to an escort girl or for a body massage, whatever, you don’t get attached. It’s a technical matter. You come for an hour, and get the exact same thing you get in a two-hour meeting with your lover in a hotel room except here you don’t take any unnecessary risks. You don't have to text each other in the middle of the night, no emails, and you don’t have to worry that someone is spying after you or watching you. (Tamir, 36, married)

Discussion

This study supports previous research on MPWS, in that it demonstrates the diversity of their SFP experiences (Hammond and Van Hooff, 2019). Its findings show that MPWS have various reasons for paying for sex, have varying perceptions of SFP, and attribute multiple personal and discursive meanings to paying for sex. Importantly, the findings suggest that men’s practices of paying for sex are informed by a complex web of social discourses regarding masculinity, intimacy and heterosexuality (Huysamen, 2019; Huysamen and Boonzaier, 2015; Lahav-Raz, 2019). The findings of the present study depict SFP as a multi-layered, potentially conflictual experience for MPWS, due to a variety of – at times, contradictory – motivations. Furthermore, the findings demonstrate how paying for sex as a common practice is interwoven with other key experiential domains, such as sexual and romantic relationships. Accordingly, the practice of SFP holds multiple contextual and potentially fluid meanings for MPWS.

Specifically, the findings demonstrate how paying for sex can at once confirm and compromise men’s assimilation of dominant masculinity scripts (Prior and Peled, 2019; Prior and Peled, 2021). For example, MPWS who have experienced paying for sex as Agonizing appeared to mitigate a sense of flawed sexual masculinity, by complying with gendered expectations of men to have frequent sex with women. At the same time, they felt that paying for sex hampered their ability to comply with another masculinity-related expectation – that of securing unpaid intimate relationships with women – thereby deepening their sense of flawed masculinity. Similarly, MPWS who experienced Ambivalence over paying for sex believed that it undermines their masculinity, but also that male sexuality cannot be fulfilled within a monogamous intimate relationship, and that men need multiple and diverse sexual partners. Interestingly, within these states of conflicting feelings and perceptions, men who experienced SFP as either Agonizing or Ambivalent continued to engage in the practice, while feeling torn over it. Conversely, MPWS who practiced Intermittent SFP seemed to have avoided such moral and relational dilemma by paying for sex only when they were not in a monogamous intimate relationship. Still other interviewees – who practiced what we dubbed as Simultaneous SFP – had little qualms of any kind about paying for sex, and even saw it as a helpful practice for men who need to manage their sexual and relational needs. MPWS who practiced SFP as Intermittent or Simultaneous viewed it as a common and normative practice of male sexuality, and as unrelated to their masculinity.

These findings present men’s paying for sex as an arena where masculinity is asserted in an era of shifting gender norms, when men struggle to understand, practice and internalize notions of masculinity (Seal and Ehrhardt, 2003). Within this unique context of masculinity performances, as experienced by the participants, there may be no single or even dominant script of masculinity to which all other masculinities subordinate, but rather multiple and often competing experiences, which affirm diverse notions of masculinity. Furthermore, similarly to other unique contexts in which men struggle to practice their masculinity (Kumar et al., 2017), MPWS seem to both align themselves with gender norms and be constrained by these very same norms. Namely, SFP may simultaneously confirm and diminish men’s sense of masculinity. These findings about MPWS are in line with a recent reformulation of hegemonic masculinity theory (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005; Messerschmidt, 2019) that argues for a more holistic and sophisticated understanding of masculinities. This reformulation embraces variation, multiplicity, contradictions, and fluidity in masculinities (Birch et al., 2017; Hammond and Van Hooff, 2019), and calls for a relational and contextualized theorization of masculinities rather than an essentialist one (Messerschmidt, 2018).

The findings also support previous research, that found that MPWS do not necessarily view commercial sexual relations and unpaid sexual relations as mutually exclusive (Sanders, 2008b), and that some men’s experiences of SFP involve a sense of intimacy and closeness similar to those experienced in unpaid sexual, or intimate, relations (Bishop and Limmer, 2018; Jones and Hannem, 2018). Indeed, some of the participants considered their experiences of paying for sex as an integral part of their life-long sexual experiences and relations with women.

These findings place and contextualize the phenomenon of SFP within the general domain of gendered and sexual relations, and extend prevailing social narratives of paying for sex beyond abnormality, deviancy, criminality or strictly consumerist behaviour (Hammond and Van Hooff, 2019). Further, the findings show how the interplay between discourses of sexuality and intimacy, and their association with dominant notions of masculinity, may shape the experiences of MPWS. These are seen as determining which masculine behaviour is ‘acceptable’, and which is not (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005; Messerschmidt, 2019). Specifically, sexual relationships are a key setting in which gender norms are restructured, and men’s experiences within these relations may reshape discourses of masculinity (Doull et al., 2013). In this regard, the present study highlights the significance of the research domain of MPWS to the development of masculinities theory regarding sexual and intimate relationships (Birch et al., 2017).

Limitations

This study explored the perceptions of a small group of 16 Israeli MPWS. While it generated new understandings, they are of course bound by size and characteristics of the sample and the research context, this affecting the transferability of the findings. The sample was heterogenic in some aspects (such as age and marital status), yet due to the stigmatization of SFP we were unable to achieve a more heterogeneous sample in terms of ethnicity and religious background. The fear of stigmatization may have also challenged participants’ ability to discuss their sexual experiences in face-to-face interviews, particularly when compared with their discussions about this subject in online forums (Milrod and Weitzer, 2012; Lahav-Raz, 2019). However, the face-to-face setting may have yielded vulnerable and complex narratives about masculinity and SFP, that would have been difficult to produce in other contexts. These considerations highlight the importance of using diverse methods to study MPWS. Finally, member checking would have further supported the credibility of the findings.

Conclusion

In recent decades, a substantial body of knowledge on MPWS has developed. The present study modestly contributes to this research by unravelling some of the complex interplay between various notions of masculinities and perceptions of sexuality and intimacy among MPWS, and how these come together to shape their diverse experiences. As this research domain continues to grow, we encourage fellow scholars to further explore the nuanced experiences of MPWS, and how these are intertwined within the lives and self-image of MPWS. Focussing on how SFP interacts with other life domains and various daily practices of these men can position SFP as a complex social phenomenon that is inseparable from other, related, life spheres and social discourses (Hammond and Van Hooff, 2019). The findings of the present study, and further exploration of the multifaceted experiences of MPWS, could contribute to the development of better targeted and differential social interventions and social policies in the field of SFP (Prior and Peled, 2019; Prior and Peled, 2021).

This study explored the experiences of a small sample of 16 Israeli MPWS. While it produced meaningful understandings, these are circumscribed by contextual aspects that affect their transferability. Thus, for example, the majority of the participants pay for sex actively and on a regular basis. It would be interesting to explore how masculinity and perceptions of sexual and intimate relations intersect with, and shape the experiences of men who pay for sex only occasionally (Shilo et al., 2021). Moreover, future studies might explore how gender discourses and perceptions of masculinity and male sexuality play out and intersect within the experiences of men who pay other men, or transgender women, for sex.

Footnotes

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ayelet Prior

Rachel Tal-Hadar is a doctoral student at the Bob Shapell School of Social Work at Tel Aviv University. Her research focuses on social structuring of gender and sexuality in the sex industry. She is also a sex-positive feminist activist and the co-CEO of an NGO for sexual rights which raises awareness to stigmatized sexualities such as BDSM, CNM and LGBTQ in purpose of diminishing alienation.

Ayelet Prior is a doctoral student at the Bob Shapell School of Social Work at Tel Aviv University. Her research explores various aspects of the sex industry and the phenomenon of paying for sex. She focuses on social constructions of gendered identities, sexuality and deviancy. She has published in Journal of Sex Research, Sexuality Research and Social Policy, The International Journal of Social Research Methodology, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, and in Trauma, Violence & Abuse.

Einat Peled is a Full Professor and Head of the Bob Shapell School of Social Work at Tel Aviv University. Her research focuses on gendered aspects of social work, particularly in the domains of domestic violence, at-risk youth, mothering under violence and duress, and – in the last decade – prostitution, commercial sexual exploitation and paying for sex. Her research on the sex industry aims to facilitate a complex, multifaceted theoretical understanding of this personal and social phenomenon.

References

Almog

(2010) Prostitution as exploitation: an Israeli perspective. Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law 11(3): 711–742.

Amir

(2004) In: Outshoorn

(ed) The politics of prostitution and trafficking of women in Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (The politics of prostitution: Women’s movements, democratic states, and the globalization of commerce), 144–164.

Bareket

Kahalon

Shnabel

, et al. (2018) The Madonna-whore dichotomy: men who perceive women’s nurturance and sexuality as mutually exclusive endorse patriarchy and show lower relationship satisfaction. Sex Roles 79(9–10): 519–532. DOI: 10.1007/s11199-018-0895-7.

Bernstein

(2001) The meaning of the purchase: desire, demand and the commerce of sex. Ethnography 2(3): 389–420.

Birch

(2015) Why Men Buy Sex: Examining Sex Worker Clients. London ; New York: Routledge.

Birch

Baldry

Hartley

(2017) Procuring sexual services: evidencing masculinity diversity and difference through sex work research. Sexuality & Culture 21(4): 1106–1119. DOI: 10.1007/s12119-017-9439-5.

Bishop

Limmer

(2018) Performance, power and condom use: reconceptualised masculinities amongst Western male sex tourists to Thailand. Culture, Health & Sexuality 20(3): 276–288. DOI: 10.1080/13691058.2017.1340671.

Connell

Messerschmidt

(2005) Hegemonic masculinity rethinking the concept. Gender and Society 19(6): 829–859. DOI: 10.1177/0891243205278639.

Doull

Oliffe

Knight

, et al. (2013) Sex and straight young men: challenging and endorsing hegemonic masculinities and gender gegimes. Men and Masculinities 16(3): 329–346. DOI: 10.1177/1097184X13494837.

10.

Elder

Brooks

Morrow

(2012) Sexual self-schemas of heterosexual men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity 13(2): 166–179. DOI: 10.1037/a0024835.

11.

Elmerstig

Wijma

Sandell

, et al. (2014) Sexual interaction or a solitary action: young Swedish men’s ideal images of sexual situations in relationships and in one-night stands. Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare 5(3): 149–155. DOI: 10.1016/j.srhc.2014.06.001.

12.

Forrest

(2010) Young men in love: the (re)making of heterosexual masculinities through “serious” relationships. Sexual and Relationship Therapy 25(2): 206–218.

13.

Frosh

Phoenix

Pattman

(2001) Young Masculinities: Understanding Boys in Contemporary Society. New York: Palgrave.

14.

Hammond

van Hooff

(2019) “This is me, this is what I am, I am a man”: the masculinities of men who pay for sex with women. Journal of Sex Research 57(5): 650–663. DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2019.1644485.

15.

Huysamen

(2016) Constructing the “respectable” client and the “good” researcher: the complex dynamics of cross-gender interviews with men who pay for sex. NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies 11(1): 19–33. DOI: 10.1080/18902138.2015.1119379.

16.

Huysamen

(2019) “There’s massive pressure to please her”: on the discursive production of men’s desire to pay for sex. Journal of Sex Research 57(5): 639–649. DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2019.1645806.

17.

Huysamen

Boonzaier

(2015) Men’s constructions of masculinity and male sexuality through talk of buying sex. Culture, Health & Sexuality 17(5): 1–14. DOI: 10.1080/13691058.2014.963679.

18.

Hyde

Drennan

Howlett

, et al. (2009) ‘Young men ’ s vulnerability in constituting hegemonic’. American Journal of Men’s Health 3: 238–251.

19.

Jin

Shu Xu

(2016) Risky pleasures: Malaysian male clients transcending the boundaries of commercial sex with foreign female sex workers. SAGE Open 6(2): 1–9. DOI: 10.1177/2158244016650241.

20.

Jones

Hannem

(2018) Escort clients’ sexual scripts and constructions of intimacy in commodified sexual relationships. Symbolic Interaction 41(4): 488–512. DOI: 10.1002/symb.379.

21.

Joseph

Black

(2012) Who’s the man? Fragile masculinities, consumer masculinities, and the profiles of sex work clients. Men and Masculinities 15(5): 486–506. DOI: 10.1177/1097184X12458591.

22.

Kong

TSK

(2015) Romancing the boundary: client masculinities in the Chinese sex industry. Culture, Health & Sexuality 17(7): 810–824. DOI: 10.1080/13691058.2015.1004197.

23.

Kumar

Scott

Minichiello

(2017) Masculinity and the occupational experience of male independent escorts who seek male clients. Social Sciences 6(2): 58. DOI: 10.3390/socsci6020058.

24.

Lahav-Raz

(2019) “Hunting on the streets”: masculine repertoires among Israeli clients of street-based sex work. Sexuality and Culture 24(1): 230–247. DOI: 10.1007/s12119-019-09636-0.

25.

Lahav-Raz

(2020) Narrative struggles in online arenas: the Facebook feminist sex wars on the Israeli sex industry. Feminist Media Studies 20(6): 784–800. DOI: 10.1080/14680777.2019.1642227.

26.

Levy-Aronovic

Lahav-Raz

Raz

(2020) Who takes part in the political game ? The sex work governance debate in Israel. Sexuality Research and Social Policy 18: 516–526. DOI: 10.1007/s13178-020-00476-4.

27.

Lincoln

Guba

(1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

28.

Messerschmidt

(2018) Hegemonic Masculinities: Formulation, Reformulation and Amplification. Lanham; Boulder; NY; London: ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD.

29.

Messerschmidt

(2019) The salience of “hegemonic masculinity”. Men and Masculinities 22(1): 85–91. DOI: 10.1177/1097184X18805555.

30.

Milrod

Monto

(2017) Older male clients of female sex workers in the United States. Archives of Sexual Behavior 46(6): 1867–1876. DOI: 10.1007/s10508-016-0733-3.

31.

Milrod

Weitzer

(2012) The intimacy prism: emotion management among the clients of escorts. Men and Masculinities 15(5): 447–467. DOI: 10.1177/1097184X12452148.

32.

Peled

Leichtentritt

(2002) The ethics of qualitative social work research. Qualitative Social Work 1(2): 145–169. DOI: 10.1177/147332500200100203.

33.

Peled

Shilo

Marton Marom

Eick

(2020) The Attitudes Toward Men Who Pay for Sex Scale: Development and preliminary validation. Archives of Sexual Behavior 49(8): 3075–3087. DOI: 10.1007/s10508-020-01668-0.

34.

Peng

Y-WW

(2007) Buying sex: domination and difference in the discourses of Taiwanese Piao-ke. Men and Masculinities 9(3): 315–336. DOI: 10.1177/1097184X05284227.

35.

Philaretou

Allen

(2001) Reconstructing masculinity and sexuality. The Journal of Men’s Studies 9(3): 301–321. DOI: 10.3149/jms.0903.301.

36.

Prior

Peled

(2019) Paying for Sex While Traveling As Tourists: The Experiences of Israeli Men. The Journal of Sex Research 56(4-5): 659–669. DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2018.1530340.

37.

Prior

Peled

(2021) Identity construction of men who pay women for sex: A qualitative meta-synthesis. The Journal of Sex Research 58(6): 724–742. DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2021.1905763.

38.

Prior

Peled

(2022) Gendered power relations in women-to-men interviews on controversial sexual behavior. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 25(3): 277–291. DOI: 10.1080/13645579.2021.1882193.

39.

Richardson

(2010) Youth masculinities: compelling male heterosexuality. British Journal of Sociology 61(4): 737–756. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01339.x.

40.

Sanders

(2008a) Male sexual scripts: intimacy, sexuality and pleasure in the purchase of commercial sex. Sociology 42(3): 400–417. DOI: 10.1177/0038038508088833.

41.

Sanders

(2008b) Paying for Pleasure: Men Who Buy Sex. Portland: Willan.

42.

Schrock

Schwalbe

(2009) Men, masculinity, and manhood acts. Annual Review of Sociology 35(1): 277–295. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115933.

43.

Seal

Ehrhardt

(2003) Masculinity and urban men: Perceived scripts for courtship, romantic, and sexual interactions with women. Culture, Health and Sexuality 5(4): 295–319. DOI: 10.1080/136910501171698.

44.

Shilo

Gewirtz-Meydan

Peled

(2021) Men Who Pay for Sex Once, More than Once, or Not at All: The Associations between Attitudes toward Paying for Sex,Socio-Demographic Characteristics, and Frequency of Sex Payment. The Journal of Sex Research 58(6): 754–762. DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2021.1907527.

45.

Shilo

Peled

Shamir

(2020) Paying for sex, receiving payment for sex and attitudes towards prostitution/sex Work policy and the law prohibiting the purchase of sexual services: Data from a survey of the Israeli Jewish population. Hebrew: Tel-Aviv University.

46.

Shumka

Strega

Hallgrimsdottir

(2017) “I wanted to feel like a man again”: hegemonic masculinity in relation to the purchase of street-level sex. Frontiers in Sociology 2(October): 1–15. DOI: 10.3389/fsoc.2017.00015.

47.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998) Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques. Newbury Park: CA: SAGE.