Know your john: first major study looks at men who buy sex
By Alex HeiglJuly 18th, 2011, 10:30 amComments (92)
The first major study that looks exclusively at johns, rather than the prostitutes they hire, has been released, and the results are startling.
Imaginatively titled "Comparing Sex Buyers With Men Who Don't Buy Sex," the study was made up of men who lived in the Boston area, ages twenty to seventy-five, with an average age of forty-one. The majority of the sex-buyers were married or partnered, a figure reflective of the group of men that patronize prostitutes.
100 of them served as a control group, meaning they had not been to a strip club more than two times in the past year, had not purchased a lap dance, had not used pornography more than one time in the past month, and had not purchased phone sex or the services of a sex worker, escort, erotic masseuse, or prostitute.
The study authors found that sex buyers were more likely to view sex as divorced from personal relationships and enjoyed the absence of emotional involvement with prostitutes. Their interviews demonstrated that they dehumanized women and thought of them as commodities, viewed them with anger and contempt, demonstrated a lack of empathy for the women's suffering and enjoyed their own ability to inflict pain and degradation on a sex worker.
Most upsetting, the sex buyers were nearly eight times as likely as nonbuyers to admit that they would rape a woman if they could get away with it. Johns in general committed more kinds of crime of every kind than nonbuyers, and all the crimes associated with violence against women were committed by the johns.
The study also suggested that the use of prostitution may, like the use of pornography, cause men to become more aggressive.
"Over time, as a result of their prostitution and pornography use, sex buyers reported that their sexual preferences changed and they sought more sadomasochistic and anal sex," the study reported.
The study does quite a bit to dispel the "happy hooker/charming john" archetype occasionally portrayed in the media (thanks largely to Pretty Woman). It's a view of the damage that sex work can actually do to a woman's enjoyment of her sexuality and overall well-being.
The article notes that estimates of men who buy sex range from sixteen to eighty percent of the populace. If a chunk of the male population that large is having its sexual mores re-coded by pornography and prostitution, I'm more than a little worried about the future of the American male's sexual preferences, and especially worried for the women who'll be on the receiving end of same.
Commentarium (92 Comments)
Eighty percent? Seriously?
They must mean EIGHTEEN percent, not eighty, right?
Really? You don't think that possibly eighty percent of the male population hates women? You should try being a women for a month. Especially here in America!
Shaddup, bitch.
The article doesn't say "80% of men hate women" it says "16-80% of men pay for sex". That's probably a typo.
These kinds of studies are always extremely dangerous, largely because the media can't understand them properly and takes them as iron-clad anyway. As always, there's no evidence of causality at all. Are the guys being 'reprogrammed' by porn and sex workers? Or is that type just attracted to it in the first place? And how can you control for a million other social issues (ie stability of their marriages, drug and alcohol abuse, etc..).
Take things with a grain of salt before you start blaming strippers for the fall of mankind.
dont blame the strippers. If men didn't pay them, they wouldn't exist.
Sixteen to eighty. That's a big range.
would've thought it would be somewhere between 0% and 100%...how vague. Not much validity in that study
What are you talking about? That study was preferred by nine out of ten leading dentists, four times out of five, as being accurate two times out of three, seventy-five per-cent of the time. You can't get more authorative than that, fella.
I'm betting the huge discrepency has to do with the fact that we appear to be grouping johns and porn-consumers together, which to my mind is pretty bullshit. If you're including people who use pornography, I'd say eighty percent is conservative. And I'd say the hysterical tone of the article seems more than a bit overblown, especially as the interviews were conducted with johns, not porn watchers.
Furthermore the way the study villainizes sadomasochistic sex is definitely something to think about and not just accept.
For real. I would be extraordinarily angry (like 80% percent angry) to find out my boyfriend was going to a prostitute, but much less angry (like, way less than 16% percent angry) if he was looking at porn involving anal sex or S&M.
Pretty much discredits the entire study.
an oft-cited anecdote states that a group of researchers tried to do a study on male masturbation in the UK, but had to abandon the project because they could not find any males who had never looked at porn as a control group.
I'm an average guy. I've only met one guy in my life that's used a prostitute. (Or at least, admitted to it.)
Anyways, I gotta get back to work. I have to dig out the pathway from the supply tent to the airdrop again today. It snows every single fucking day here in Antartica.
i think that you explained it all with the line in parentheses..whose gonna admit they had to pay for sex?
"The study does quite a bit to dispel the "happy hooker/charming john" archetype occasionally portrayed in the media (thanks largely to Pretty Woman)."
And frequently portrayed on Hooksexup. Does this mean there will be a change in editorial direction with respect to prostitution?
Elaborate!
Let's see some.
Let's see some.
"The study also suggested that the use of prostitution may, like the use of pornography, cause men to become more aggressive." Excuse me? That suggestion has been drowned out by an overwhelming body of evidence that "suggests" the opposite.
And "sixteen to eighty percent"? Sheesh. Shoddy, shoddy work, this study. Not to mention the article framing it.
Sources for that body of evidence? no? ok, I actually have sources. the use of violent pornography (not all pornography) and purchase of sex from sex workers significantly increases men's aggression towards women and liability to act violently towards them. Peer reviewed studies- Church et al, 2001, Ganju et al 2004, Davis and Bauserman, 1993. The last one also found that exposure to sexual violence increases violence towards women much more than exposure to violence alone.
This study is shoddy work. Its too bad that although most of what it has to say is right, it doesn't have the credibility of these other studies to back it up, so people end up discrediting these sorts of findings altogether.
Agreed on the shoddy work - both the study and the people who have reported on it. This study is not peer reviewed. The study was released exclusively to Newsweek - not a scientific journal last time I checked. It was presented at a conference - not the same thing as being vetted by a group of your peers.
Peer review is a basic tenet of the scientific community. It allows a group of people well informed on the subject to check that your work and conclusions are valid. So you have to ask (or should expect your reporter to ask), why would the authors of this study not put it through peer review?
Why worry for the future? Men have been buying sex for centuries. In France, prostitution is even called "the oldest profession in the world" although I've been known to argue the title belongs to midwives. I also think the present gives us plenty to worry about.
I was just about to say the same thing. There is nothing new about prostitution, as far as I can tell.
No guff, prostitution has been going on for all of recorded history and presumably longer. Enough with the doom and gloom prognostications or the apocalypse.
Seriously, Hooksexup? We're giving credence to a study that was released exclusively to Newsweek? Who does that? You can't look at the underlying data, or anything about the methodology, and neither can we.
What we can see is so shoddy that it should call into serious question all the bullshit soundbites pulled out of the article. 16% to 80% is damn near 0% informative, but it's obvious why that range is the best they could do - if looking at pictures of naked people more than once a month is equivalent to paying a consenting adult for a hand job is equivalent to sexually abusing a trafficked minor, in the view of the study's proponents, then what distinctions are we capable of making?
Well said.
Could it be - no. Could it be? No... no! Was this study sponsored by a neo-con right-wing group?
I think Hooksexup needs to take an entry level psychology course. Maybe statistics too. This article is completely meaningless.
There are so many things wrong with the original Newsweek article, it's hard to know what to say. First and foremost, I question Newsweek for basing the entire article on a study "released exclusively to Newsweek." I have looked online and cannot find the text of this study anywhere. I sincerely hope a source of serious journalism did not actually cite an unpublished, non-peer reviewed study as evidence. This isn't acceptable. (If anyone does know where I can find the study, I'd appreciate a link; I'm eager to read the method as I suspect it has serious limitations. Limitations I cannot evaluate because Newsweek provides no details.) I also question Alex Heigl's characterization of this "study" as a "major study" rather than what it appears to be: unpublished research.
The article is also frustrating because it makes vague references to "research" and "studies" showing things, but never provides any information by which readers could find those studies and evaluate their quality. Further, the author fails to even provide a strawman of the opposition, let alone the opposition's actual rebuttal to the argument. "Experts" are trotted out to support the author's position, but no such experts are given to explain the limitations in the argument.
As others have previously mentioned, the article conflates pornography, strip clubs, erotic massage, and prostitution - and those who consume them - together in a single group. The "control group" is worthless, as v said. As is so common, adult and child prostitutes are conflated to make the author's point. Trafficking is employed as an invective to describe virtually all sex work. The author misrepresents or misleads on several accounts, including a near-smear of the Village Voice in a totally unnecessary summary of the Ashton Kutcher hissy-fit of earlier this month.
All in all, I am embarrassed for Newsweek.
Seconded, and how. Hooksexup, I am disappointed, and I sincerely hope to see this addressed. I have next to no expectations of Newsweek, but I had hoped y'all would be at least a teensy bit more inquisitive. You do traffic in the occasional naked picture here, do you not? Is everyone who visits here twice a month aptly grouped with traffickers of ten-year-olds, for purposes of assessing our attitudes toward women?
"I sincerely hope a source of serious journalism did not actually cite an unpublished, non-peer reviewed study as evidence. This isn't acceptable."
If this is true, then Newsweek is guilty of one of the worst forms of hack reporting. The media is awash with over-hyped studies of human psychology/biology/medicine. It does the public a grave and potentially dangerous disservice to not even wait for peer review and publication.
Newsweek. Guilty of hack reporting. Say it ain't so. Please...
people who are outraged at Hooksexup for posting this are a little behind on the whole blogging thing
How do you mean? The Hooksexup piece isn't a critical view of the article, or even a neutral link to it. The author here appears to take the "study" and linked article at face value, and reacts as though Hooksexup readers should also be taking them seriously. Is that what you think "blogging" is?
Yes.
uhhh..... yup.
It seems pretty biased against johns. While I'm sure having difficulties relating to/getting women is an issue with many of them, I think they're, for the most part, a far cry from the sociopathic rapist archetype the article almost makes them out to be.
I have lived in places overseas where some women waited tables, some drove taxis, some danced in bars and most had a time in their live when they sold their bodies to men... no one boasted about it, no one was ashamed... but then none of them were from christianutty backgrounds. The smart ones can get out, like any other worker they go up the food change. The rest take it for as long as they can and then move on. It is a hard, dangerous life.
Your last two sentences intrigue me! Specifically, the part about it being hard and them taking it for as long as they can. God bless 'em.
LIFE is a hard, dangerous life. Always has been... the fossil record proves it.
In other news: feminist psychos who make-up bs "studies" to justify their hatred of men are 80% more likely to by liars than women who did not take gender studies classes.
Christ, there is no evidence that anyone conducting this study hates men, poorly conducted as it is, and it really is. Maybe men like you, but those aren't actually men, they're overgrown children. Go take some fucking gender studies classes.
In yet more other news: tk is an ass licking homophobe.
Hey! I am not a homophobe.
As a man, I've never patronized a prostitute. But you know what? If you could buy love from a woman, I'd probably do it. But sex? Sorry, ladies, but if all I wanted was a sexual release I could handle that myself for free.
Maybe I'm an oddball, but the reasons for having sex with another person have little to do with the physical mechanism involved. At least with the lady you pick up at the bar that turns into a one-night stand, you can temporarily fool yourself that there's some connection.
I call bullshit. Either you have so little experience with Life that I can craft an appropriate analogy to suit it scope and scale, or you married the woman your mother chose for you. You read Hustler for excitement, that is so sad.
Yes, it's MUCH more pathetic than reading and commenting in Hooksexup.
When people capitalize Life it makes me think of the board game. Or the cereal.
If only there were hookers in the board game! Or the cereal.
It's like renting a car versus buying your own, you can ride it harder and you won't get stuck with it if something happens to break... You just end up paying a little extra.
Nothing like a good simile to make a facile out of any topic!
well said D.
well said LM.
well said VN.
austin power joked about this, "im not a prostitute im a sex worker". come on. they are not victims
Totally not victims. Especially the trafficked women. I mean, people legally drive cars, so women who are trafficked must be doing it of their own accord.
right no more victims than the women who change to sheets in the cheap hotels... it is a choice.
What? What are you saying, M? That they drive Accords? WTF?
They change sheets in cheap hotels?
"The majority of the sex-buyers were married or partnered, a figure reflective of the group of men that patronize prostitutes. "
Most women cease being sexually adventurous the moment their men commit to a relationship. The frustrated male's sexuality will get expressed somehow, count on it.
Hey John, got any sources to cite on that, or just some bitterness from a couple relationships where your girlfriend realized what a dispshit you are and stopped being attracted to you?
@LM - Marge! You cunt. I told you not to reply to me in the forums! Now strip down and get into bed, you bitch! The boys are coming over. Hehehehe. I said coming.
I'm with LM. You're clearly a horrible human being.
it is a no brainer... hours in a bar getting shit faced and going home alone with the 'orbs de bleu' or 5 minutes at the check out stand for the best on the market.
The fact that prostitution is illegal is likely to skew the results. I.e., Johns are more likely to be criminals because buying a prostitute is a crime. A lot of the dehumanizing aspects of prostitution are the result of it being illegal. If it were a regulated industry, I am certain that these results would be quite different.
Excellent point and one I hadn't even considered. It would interesting to see a similar study conducted in Amsterdam.
Why? Because they can.
I haven't read the study yet, but as far as "villainizing sadomasochistic sex" goes, here's my take. There are people for whom BDSM is a genuine pleasure. Then there are those who use BDSM as a method of exercising "consensual" violence on another person. One of those is okay; one is a troubling escalation of antisocial behavior.
Okay, now I've read the full text. The article has no idea what it's even about.
Okay, now I've thought about it for a while. I had no idea what I was commenting about.
Does this mean you're changing your name to writeythinkey? ;)
That will NEVER happen, Kevin. No way Jose.
Oh! Damn...
Oh yeah, this article isn't feminist alarmism or anything. (ha)
In my personal experience, the women have been more in to rough sex and anal than I have. I think it's called being a sexually self-empowered woman who unashamedly enjoys sex. It's probably more fun than writing 'everybody run from the big bad penis' articles like this one.
Gotta love how it's immediately "sex with prostitutes turns you into a maniac", not "maniacs are more likely to be open to sex with a prostitute in the first place". Guess good causality makes bad articles, huh?
Your argument holds no water at all D. Asshat.
The causality thing, which seems to confuse journalists more than anything else, is the biggest problem with this article. Subject selection bias is second.
Then there's about 20 more things wrong. Overall, it sucks worse than LiquidCourage's mom.
This is a completely sex negative article. A potentially interesting study that forced itself into the protestant heteronormative sexuality of the US
I feel like someone should point out that it was not *this* study that produced the 16% to 80% range. The authors were merely commenting that reported figures in *other* research varied widely (say, from as low as 16% in one study to as high as 80% in another). *This* study particularly focused on the behaviors of a group of johns and a group that does not buy sex.
The fact that so many people misinterpreted this says something sad about the scientific literacy of the world today...
It says nothing about scientific literacy because no one misinterpreted the numbers. If anything is speaks to reading comprehension. This is attested by the fact that the author only included these figures to give a scope to the poor level of research on the subject, not as others have suggested to provide an actual range for prevalence. Fail on your part for not knowing the difference between reading comprehension and scientific literacy.
And a fail on your part for a complete and utter lack of tact and humanity in your reply.
So, does the study in any way relate the more agressive man and how do they do in life in relation to the wimps? Or does it even tries to understand why man use hookers (most users tend to be in a relationship) and does it come to the easiest conclusion (Ocams Razos) that it is because woman dont simply put out and do what their expected to do in bed?
Bullshit study, bullshit articule.
Really crappy article Hooksexup, about a really crappy "study".
Really crappy comment Kevin, about a really crappy article about a really crappy "study".
Actually, the first line of this article is wrong. The study hasn't been released -- only an article ABOUT the study, and this is an article ABOUT the article ABOUT the study. Has the study been peer-reviewed? Apparently not. Without being able to see how the study was done (and as some have noted, the questionable grouping of viewing pornography, lap dances, erotic massage, and prostitution under one "buying sex" label) all of the conclusions in the study, in the article ABOUT the study, and the article ABOUT the article ABOUT the study are worthless and should be disregarded by any critical thinker.
And THAT, by the way, was a Comment ABOUT the article ABOUT the article ABOUT the study, and it was consequently as worthless as everything it was built upon, so forget I even posted that. Clearly, I'm not living up to my name. I wish I could erase my Comments...
I know that most people take porn lightly, and I have too. But the more I see of modern porn, the more I feel that porn is a negative force in our society. The things women/girls have to do nowadays are so degrading, dehumanizing, not to mention dangerous and unhealthy, that in my eyes, she should be paid a million dollars per film. The reality is that many of these "actresses" are exploited and are paid next to nothing. Many are from Third World countries where there is little protection from exploiters. I don't have a problem with porn, per se, as long as everyone is well-compensated, well-informed, and happy to be doing it. I feel terrible for the ones who are exploited and I do fear for my young son and others his age when I realize that the first sexual images he will be exposed to are so much more hardcore and completely degrading to women than anything I saw at his age. And with the internet, it's unavoidable that he'll see it.
BXMA, well said. A female colleague and I discussed this over lunch recently. She was upset to have found her 16-yr-old son's porn-watching trail on the family computer. I said that I would not be at all troubled by his seeking to find out what all this was about- I did at his age, and so did all my friends, though the variety was not there in those pre-internet days. Didn't seem to hurt us any. Mattresses maybe, but not psyches.
Instead of fuming, I suggested, she should use it as an opportunity to discuss the fact that porn is not real, is usually designed to appeal to males only, often portrays people doing dangerous, hurtful, and humiliating things, etc. If a trusted adult can cause a young person to question the reality of what porn depicts, it will go a long way toward preventing a distorted view of sexuality- and what women want- from developing. The other thing one can do is have in the house some good books and movies that include realistic depictions of life, including healthy love relationships.
Also, I agree with you that much of porn is a negative influence, but there seems to be a growing body (sorry) of it that is amateur and shows couples of all ages (college & up) making love in ways that show care for each other. Not my dish of tea to put myself on the internet that way, but I don't find it offensive and it balances the outrageous stuff.
Gotta be 16 to EIGHTEEN percent, not EIGHTY percent, right?
Hmm like prostitution was just invented or something? Is it suprising that men who just want to f*ck but not 'foster' personal relationships perfer deviant forms of sexual intercourse? Total bullhookey study yup.
You can say the "f" word here, Jake. Don't be afraid.
After my Gender Studies classes I dropped out of college and started burning effegies of men in the front lawn of my nature-centric, attachment based, free-range co-op. I never really felt the need to justify my hatred for men or curb my lying (I am a distant relative of Mary Magdalene, so maybe that has something to do with it). BS-FR-U is also a great vanity plate option, if you haven't scooped that up for your Jeep.
So what if a large percentage of Men don't like Women? Do Men have a masculinist organisation? Women hate Men plenty, and Women bitch, they love to bitch, they bitch about themselves, Men, their friends, everyone. Bitch is feminine by definition. Woman was created for Man, but she had other ideas. Period and labour pains are your rewards for screwing mankind over in Eden.