Closeness and control for sale

by Synnøve Jahnsen

 

Why do some men buy sex? This is a question posed in research reports and public debates, and also on the website. One person answered the question somewhat laconically: “because it’s allowed”, but was soon corrected by somebody else who pointed out that men buy sex even if it is forbidden, as for example in Sweden. Another answered: “It’s actually cheaper than ordering a bunch of porn films from abroad. And it’s cheaper than buying drinks in town”. While yet another answered: “I did it because I missed sex and physical closeness with a woman. I was so starved of sex at home”.
A younger man describes his buying of sex as follows:

Buying sex for me becomes a way of avoiding the bother that chasing women actually means. Besides, I do actually save money on this: I don’t need to maintain the social codes when it comes to alcohol any more. Because of this I’ve completely stopped drinking, and I’ve simply become healthier. Besides, I’m not so sexually frustrated when I get to “ease the pressure” a couple of times a month. (Anonymous 17.09.06)

In the quote above, buying sex appears as a rational solution, as something that is time and cost efficient. Here, it seems as if the shame associated with frequenting prostitutes is subordinated to, or neutralized, in the encounter with other masculine ideals.

The need for security and control, as also the need for closeness and intimacy, are not only described as a necessity, but also as a bene­fit that one can buy access to. This is expressed by “good prostitutes” being described as intelligent, kind, warm, caring and cheerful, while “bad” or “unprofessional” prostitutes are described using concepts such as “business oriented”. The same phenomenon is also illustrated by the use of the concept “GFE”, an international abbrevi­ation among sex clients for “Girl Friend Experience” reflecting to what extent the selling party in the commercial sex relation succeeds in creating a “near-girl-friend-like” experience or illusion.

In the market-terms characteristic of the discussions on sexhandel.no, where men write about their relation to prostitution, the sex trade is understood to be something mutual, justified and equal, where various needs are satisfied. One party gets sex, while the other party gets money. Here, prostitution is described as a pure commercial transaction, where gender, ethnicity, sexuality, body and money are various forms of capital that can be exchanged in a commercial market. The market here not only appears as a free zone for men, but also as a sexually free zone, offering other and more sexual roles, which are not similarly available in non-commercial relationships. Descriptions of controlled and organised brothels, where the prostitutes demand sincerity, cleanliness and intelligence are used to support the notion of equality and power balance between seller and buyer, as between the genders. As in other market discourses, there is a dominant view of “the market’s autonomous justness” or “natural state”.

A paradox

Although many of the men express liberal views of sexual relation­ships in some contexts, the moral status of women is measured in relation to honesty, sexuality and money in other contexts – regardless of whether they are situated in or outside of the prostitution markets. This is illustrated in the quote below, where we find an underlying story of women, money and sex being a problematic combination.

Most the men who have sex can probably be said to have “bought” it in one way or another, too. Some pay cash, others pay in the form of status, expensive car, marriage, safety, good looks etc. Buying prostitutes is a poor man’s way of getting laid. Kjell Inge Røkke can just wave his credit card, and so persons like Celina Middlefart come running and tell what a soft spot she’s got for authoritarian and powerful men… ordinary men have to use other means. (Nilsen 16.01.06)

This type of problematisation can be interpreted as an attempt at reaching a kind of moral equality, where people in general are not better or worse than men who buy sex, since we are all governed by the same urges. However, the moral criticism is consistently aimed at the women’s partner preferences, and not at the men’s preferences.

Thus, a moral paradox emerges, where some rules that pertain to women are not correspondingly valid for men. Such standpoints are challenged by other members of the forum who oppose prostitution and ask whether the buyers of sex would have such a liberal view if, for example, their daughter, girlfriend or wife sold sex. One man answers:

I don’t, for example, want any of my nearest and dear­est to work in coal mines, as deep sea divers, do base jumping, or work as a trapeze artist, but I don’t demand that others not choose these jobs because of that. (Mannsyd 05.02.06)

Another says: “If it were my girlfriend: the relationship would end there and then”. Even if the buyers of sex on sexhandel.no explain their own buying with the notion that the person they buy the service from, is a rational and active market actor, similar to themselves, they also maintain the view that they would not accept the selling of sex as a rational choice for women close to themselves. This can be interpreted in the light of what Nils Christie discusses in Hvor tett et samfunn? (How close­ly knit a society?, 1982): that social nearness in interpersonal relationships, in contrast to distance, creates barriers for exploiting or harming other people.

Obviously, what we see here are also rhetorical stances typical of the discussion forum; the buyers of sex defend their personal views, as something of their own and special, and as separate from the universal, principal and general discussion level. Thus, they can position themselves as liberal on one level, and as conservative on another. They therefore make a distinction between the moral codes for women who are close to them and the codes valid for prostitutes. 

Asymmetrical intimacy

The paradoxes emerging in the discussions are particularly interesting seen in the light of some men describing the buying of sex as a wish for nearness and intimacy. Such descriptions are expressed despite the fact that estrangement and social distance are the actual basic principles of the commercial market, including the purchasing of sex.

While some write that they seek intimacy and emotional nearness through prostitution, others say that they pay in order to avoid the “bother” and “stress” with “ordinary” women. Both types of statement are expressions of a wish for “asymmetrical intimacy”, where the men are caring objects and/or sexual objects, and where the service they pay for also includes a contract on avoiding the kind of emotional mutuality expected in corresponding non-commercial relationships.

Synnøve Jahnsen is cand.polit. at the University of Bergen in Norway and one of the researchers in NIKK’s prostitution project.

This article has been published in NIKK magasin 1 2009 © NIKK