Sex counts: An examination of sexual service advertisements in a UK online directory

Abstract

Internationally, sex work research, public opinion, policy, laws, and practice are predicated on the assumption that commercial sex is a priori sold by women and bought by men. Scarce attention has been devoted to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer/questioning (LGBTQ) sex working as well as women who pay for sex. This is as much an empirical absence as it is a theoretical one, for the ideological claim that women comprise the “vast majority” of sex workers is rarely, if ever, exposed to empirical scrutiny. Focusing on the UK, we address this major gap in evidence in order to challenge the gendered and heterosexist logics that underpin contemporary debates. We do so by presenting large‐scale data gained from the quantitative analysis of 25,511 registered member profiles of an online escort directory. Our findings point to heterogeneity rather than homogeneity in the contemporary sex industry including in terms of gender identity, sexual orientation, and advertised client base. For example, while two‐thirds of advertisements self‐identify as “Female,” one in four are listed as “Male;” less than half list their sexual orientation as “Straight;” and nearly two‐thirds advertise to women clients. Our study thus challenges prevailing heteronormative assumptions about commercial sex, which erase LGBTQ sex workers and other non‐normative identities and practices, and which we argue have important political, practical, and theoretical consequences.

Sexual Interaction in Digital Contexts and Its Implications for Sexual Health: A Conceptual Analysis

“…Attempts of non-consensual initiation of offline sexual encounters in digital contexts are described, however, as unethical and illegal grooming of children or harassment of adults ( Malesky, 2007 ; Thompson, 2018 ; Greene-Colozzi et al, 2020 ). When it comes to commercial sex, the literature acknowledges opportunities of reaching clients on social media or dating platform for self-determined sex workers of different genders and sexual identities ( Brennan, 2017 ; Kingston and Smith, 2020 ; Mergenthaler and Yasseri, 2021 ; Morris, 2021 ). At the same time, digital technologies are also characterized as dangerous because young women in particular can be lured and pressured by older men into the digital paysex market without them being able to fully consent, sex trafficking takes place online and prostitutes are contacted online by offenders ( Beckham and Prohaska, 2012 ; Jonsson et al, 2014 ; O’Brien and Li, 2020 ; see Table 4 ).…”

Sex work and online platforms: what should regulation do?

“…Traditionally, sex work is often depicted as gendered, with women portrayed as the service providers and men as the consumers (Davidson, 2002; Jeffreys, 2009). However, more recently, scholars have challenged this, suggesting that it essentialises sex work, and oversimplifies the sex industry, which inevitably influences policy decisions in the regulation of sex work (Kingston and Smith, 2020). People who engage with sexual services, including those who provide the service and consume it, are diverse and include members from LGBTQ + communities, as well as Cisgendered men and women (Logan, 2010; Smith and Attwood, 2013; Smith et al , 2015).…”

“…People who engage with sexual services, including those who provide the service and consume it, are diverse and include members from LGBTQ + communities, as well as Cisgendered men and women (Logan, 2010; Smith and Attwood, 2013; Smith et al , 2015). With such a diverse profile, political decisions regarding the regulation of sex work should consider the different experiences and needs of those engaging with sex markets (Kingston and Smith, 2020).…”

“…Moreover, the advertising of sexual services and practices of sex workers are predominantly web-based, which is clearly evidenced in the reduction of face-to-face services (Sanders et al , 2016, 2017; Brooks-Gordon et al , 2015). Despite this, policy continues to focus on regulating face-to-face sex work, largely ignoring the advancement of online sexual services and advertising (Sanders et al , 2017); this to some extent is indicative of misinformation about sex markets (Kingston and Smith, 2020), but equally reflects some of the challenges of regulating online spaces (McKee et al , 2015). Where the regulation of online platforms has been attempted, as discussed later in this article, adult content has often been censored, and in some cases prohibited, by Internet service providers and by site conveners.…”

Sex Work and Online Platforms: What Should Regulation Do?

“…Moreover, the advertising of sexual services and practices of sex workers are predominantly web-based, which is clearly evidenced in the reduction of face-toface services (Sanders et al, 2016(Sanders et al, , 2017Brooks-Gordon et al, 2015). Despite this, policy continues to focus on regulating face-to-face sex work, largely ignoring the advancement of online sexual services and advertising (Sanders et al, 2017); this to some extent is indicative of misinformation about sex markets (Kingston and Smith, 2020), but equally reflects some of the challenges of regulating online spaces (McKee et al, 2015). Where the regulation of online platforms has been attempted, as discussed later in this article, adult content has often been censored, and in some cases prohibited, by internet service providers and by site conveners.…”