Are Men Who Pay for Sex Sexist? Masculinity and Client Attitudes Toward Gender Role Equality in Different Prostitution Markets

Abstract

Prostitution clients’ attitudes toward gender equality are important indicators of how masculinity relates to the demand for commercial sexual services. Research on male client misogyny has been inconclusive, and few studies compare men in different markets. Using an online survey of 519 clients of sexual services, we examine whether male client attitudes toward gender role equality are related to the main methods customers used to access prostitution services (i.e., through print or online media vs. in-person contact). We found no differences among men in these markets in attitudes toward gender role equality in the workplace and home. This is in a context where all clients had more egalitarian attitudes toward women’s roles than the U.S. male population in the General Social Survey (GSS). However, clients in in-person markets were less supportive of affirmative action than in online markets in a context where all clients were less supportive compared to the national average. These findings point to need to rethink how masculinity and gender role attitudes affect patterns of male demand for paid sex.

Full text

1
Men & Masculinities Author’s final manuscript Published online February 4, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20901561
1
Are Men Who Pay for Sex
Sexist? Masculinity and
Client Attitudes toward
Gender Role Equality in
Different Prostitution
Markets
Men and Masculinities
1-21
@The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI:10.1177/1097184X20901561
journals.sagepub.com/home/jmm
Barbara G. Brents1, Takashi Yamashita2,
Andrew L. Spivak1, Olesya Venger1,
Christina Parreira1, and Alessandra Lanti1
Abstract
Prostitution clients’ attitudes toward gender equality are important indicators of how
masculinity relates to the demand for commercial sexual services. Research on male
client misogyny has been inconclusive, and few studies compare men in different
markets. Using an online survey of 519 clients of sexual services, we examine whether
male client attitudes toward gender role equality are related to the main methods
customers used to access prostitution services (i.e., through print or online media vs.
in-person contact). We found no differences among men in these markets in attitudes
toward gender role equality in the workplace and home. This is in a context where all
clients had more egalitarian attitudes toward women’s roles than the U.S. male
population in the General Social Survey (GSS). However, clients in in- person markets
were less supportive of affirmative action than in online markets in a context where
all clients were less supportive compared to the national average. These findings point
to need to rethink how masculinity and gender role attitudes affect patterns of male
demand for paid sex.
Keywords
criminology, deviance, gender equality, hegemonic masculinity, sexualities, united
states, feminism, prostitution, prostitution demand, prostitution clients.
1 Department of Sociology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA
2 Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Health Administration and Policy, University of Maryland
Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA
Corresponding Author:
Barbara G. Brents, Department of Sociology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Maryland Parkway, Box
455033. Las Vegas, NV 89154-5033, USA. Email: barb.brents@unlv.edu

2
Men & Masculinities Author’s final manuscript Published online February 4, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20901561
2
Are Men Who Pay for Sex Sexist? Masculinity and Client
Attitudes toward Gender Role Equality in Different
Prostitution Markets
Anti-prostitution feminists have long argued that prostitution is produced by and produces a
cultural ideal of masculinity based on dominance and control of women (Barry, 1995;
Dworkin, 1993). Not all individuals who pay for sex are men, men and transgender individuals
provide services (Minichiello & Scott, 2014; Weitzer, 2009), and studies find real diversity
among male clients in different markets (Stewart Cunningham et al., 2018; Della Giusta, Di
Tommaso, Shima, & Strom, 2009; Monto, 2010; Monto & Milrod, 2014; Sanders, 2008b).
Nonetheless, because mostly men buy and women sell, proponents of criminalizing clients, for
example “End Demand” policies or the “Nordic Model,” are motivated at least in part, by
arguments that “Gender equality will remain unattainable so long as men buy, sell, and exploit
women” (Ekberg, 2005; Skilbrei, 2012).
Men’s attitudes about gender equality are one important piece of this debate. These
attitudes are important indicators of how masculinity relates to the demand for commercial
sexual services. Relatively little research in sexual commerce has looked at clients’ attitudes
about women’s roles directly and even less has looked for differences among client groups.
Most research examines violent or aggressive attitudes, finding no consistent evidence that
clients accept rape myths, score high on entitlement, control or similar scales more than other
men (Busch, Bell, Hotaling, & Monto, 2002; Della Giusta et al., 2009; Farley, Golding,
Matthews, Malamuth, & Jarrett, 2017; Joseph & Black, 2012; Monto & Hotaling, 2001; Monto
& Milrod, 2014). Others argue that prostitution may be fed by attitudes more typical of other
consumers in a service economy -- a neoliberal “market morality,” “bounded authenticity” or
consumer masculinity connected to individual freedom, contract-based fulfillments of needs,
sexual liberalism and tolerance that is connected to support for gender equality (Bernstein,
2007; Brents, 2016; Brents, Jackson, & Hausbeck, 2010; Joseph & Black, 2012; Milrod &
Weitzer, 2012; Peng, 2007; Pettinger, 2013; Prasad, 1999; Sanders, 2008a, 2008b).
How do gender role attitudes relate to the market for paid sex? Are more sexist men likely
to participate in the more vulnerable markets? Is masculinity in sex markets inevitably sexist?
Or might support for equality in women’s roles be consistent with a consumer masculinity that
is part of the demand for sexual consumption? Exploring client attitudes towards gender-role
equality can better explain the connection between masculinity, gender inequality and the
demand for paid sex. As Birch, et al., point out, researching gender attitudes in male clients
can provide new insights into theorizing masculinities (Birch, Baldry, & Hartley, 2017).
The current study uses survey data to examine the link between client attitudes toward
gender role equality and the methods clients use to seek service providers. We first
contextualize our sample by comparing male clients’ attitudes toward gender equality with a
nationally representative sample of males in the U.S. We then compare attitudes across
different client groups. We use a unique data source, an online survey of 519 men that asked
about patterns in accessing sexual services in several markets. Preferred markets were
measured by whether customers indicated that they contacted providers more frequently in-
person (e.g. street, bar or hotel) or through mediated means - electronic and print media. Our
survey was conducted before 2018 legislation in the U.S. closed many online venues,
restricting the visibility and accessibility of the online environment. While bar and hotel
rendezvous are typically seen as safer than street markets, we felt that service providers who
were unable to pre-screen clients were significantly more vulnerable compared to online and
print clients who could interact prior to arranging services. Our survey borrowed questions
from the General Social Survey (GSS) that are commonly used to measure attitudes about
gender equality across four dimensions: (i) working mothers; (ii) women in politics; (iii)
traditional gender roles in the family; and (iv) affirmative action for women in the workplace.
The research question that underlies the study: Are male client gender egalitarian attitudes

3
Men & Masculinities Author’s final manuscript Published online February 4, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20901561
3
associated with the methods they used to contact sex service providers (online/print media vs.
face to face)?
We found no difference between markets in attitudes toward women’s equality in the
workplace and in the home. Indeed, our descriptive data found clients in all markets are
significantly more likely to have positive attitudes toward gender role equality than men in the
GSS. Our findings overall contribute to research showing that negative attitudes toward
women is not central to the demand for paid sex (Joseph & Black, 2012; Milrod & Monto,
2012; Peng, 2007; Sanders, 2008a) and that consumer, flexible, or inclusive masculinities that
do not rest entirely on othering or devaluing women are key to understanding sexual
consumption. Paying for sex should be examined in the context of other consumer and leisure
services.
Client attitudes and gender inequality
Traditional gender roles are important in the sex industry. Men report paying for sexual
services because their partners are unable to fulfill their sexual needs or they want emotional
care or a girlfriend experience (Milrod & Weitzer, 2012; Monto, 2010; Sanders, 2008a, 2008b)
suggesting that clients may hold traditional attitudes about women’s roles at home or as
caregivers. But do these gendered motives inescapably rest on devaluing women’s roles, power
or abilities?
The notion that prostitution legitimates gender inequality rests in large part on the concept
of hegemonic masculinity -- an aspirational and relational configuration of discourses, attitudes
and behaviors that legitimizes men’s dominance over women through bifurcating gender,
positioning masculinity against the feminine and discrediting and devaluing women or
women’s roles (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Research exploring masculinities among
men who pay for sex finds that some groups indeed construct their sense of manhood against
women’s roles and power. For example, some arrested clients evidence a “fragile masculinity”
(feeling unattractive, insecure and rejected in relation to women) that makes them more likely
to hold negative and aggressive attitudes toward women (Joseph & Black, 2012). Or they
assert masculinity characterized by beliefs about women’s inferiority and lack of abilities
(Besbris, 2016; Shumka, Strega, & Hallgrimsdottir, 2017). Huyasamen and Boonzeler suggest
that the online clients they interviewed prefer sex without commitment because they see
women as devious and manipulative, striving for hegemonic male sexuality in exaggerated,
aggressive, hostile, or hypermasculine ways (Huysamen & Boonzaier, 2015). In these studies,
the struggle to attain masculinity among clients is a gender zero-sum game where a belief in
gender equality does not coexist with the masculinity involved in paying for sex.
On the other hand, research on some sex buyers finds that gendering isn’t necessarily based
on attitudes opposed to female power. Sanders finds that regulars, men who return to the same
providers for services, talk about escaping from the dominant roles they often play in their
other worlds, and it was not a discourse of entitlement (Sanders, 2008b). Studies of clients in
indoor markets find similar patterns, that clients view paying for sex more as one would other
consumer services, using their consumer power to meet physical, sexual, emotional or social
needs (Bernstein, 2007; Joseph & Black, 2012; Milrod & Monto, 2016; Milrod & Weitzer,
2012; Peng, 2007; Pettinger, 2013; Sanders, 2008a, 2008b). Valuing women’s abilities as
“professionals” seems to characterize clients in online markets as much as a desire for
feminine services (Pettinger, 2011). Others find clients are motivated by clear rules in the
economic exchange; paying for sexual services lacks the ambiguity, status-dependence, and
potential hypocrisy of romantic sex (Prasad, 1999). The clarity of norms in an economic
exchange might result in less misogyny toward service providers or be less threatening to
masculinity compared to ambiguous norms surrounding romantic sex. Indeed, the same study
that found evidence for a link between fragile masculinity and potential violence also found
evidence for a “consumer masculinity” among these arrested clients (those who treat sex as a
consumer good for diversion, experimentation, and sexual release) that was not linked to
violent or misogynistic attitudes (Joseph & Black, 2012).

4
Men & Masculinities Author’s final manuscript Published online February 4, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20901561
4
Research looking at the role of gender in commercial sex often links client motivations to
traditional masculine traits such as being unemotional, hyper-sexual, risk seeking, aggressive,
or overtly heterosexual. Recent theorizing on masculinities has found evidence for flexible,
inclusive or hybrid masculinities that incorporate rather than wholly reject “Others” into the
gender identity process, and are less violent, more emotional and more gender equitable
(Anderson & McCormack, 2018; Birch et al., 2017; Bridges & Pascoe, 2014). Studies of how
clients seek intimacy or escape from masculine roles (Z. Jones & Hannem, 2018; Milrod &
Weitzer, 2012; Sanders, 2008b) points to a more complex expression of masculinity in
commercial sex in some situations. Birch argues that most clients do not exhibit
hypermasculinity, and that clients, far from being unemotional, attend to their emotional needs
by seeking providers (Birch et al., 2017). Lahav Raz’s studied how clients’ in online forums
talk about their exploits in seeking street workers and found that they performed power and
validated their masculinity more in relation to other men than to women (Lahav-Raz, 2019a).
While client attitudes toward gender equality are but one component of masculine repertoires,
they are key to understanding how certain groups of men may define themselves in relation to
women.
Support for gender egalitarian attitudes is increasing in the U.S. (Bolzendahl & Myers,
2004; Kane & Whipkey, 2009). Others note that we are in the midst of a “stalled revolution” --
beliefs about women’s necessary care giving roles in the interpersonal realm persist alongside
egalitarian attitudes about women in the workplace (Cotter, Hermsen, & Vanneman, 2011;
England, 2010; Scarborough, Sin, & Risman, 2018). Others find support for gender equality
but variation in support for affirmative action (Levtov, Barker, Contreras-Urbina, Heilman, &
Verma, 2014). Knight and Brinton find that gender-role attitudes are split across the
dimensions of egalitarianism, essentialism (a belief that men and women have fundamentally
different traits), and a third individual choice belief set supporting gender equality at work but
not that men and women must have equal work roles, reflecting an individualistic belief in free
choice (Knight & Brinton, 2017). These findings highlight “how multidimensional attitudes
around gender are, and how other beliefs and values based on local realities (e.g., about the
role of government and free markets, or about the fair and consistent application of the law)
interact with gender ideologies” (Levtov et al., 2014, p. 491).
Diversity in prostitution markets
Where clients contact providers matter a great deal. Street sex markets draw more vulnerable
sellers and buyers with fewer financial and social resources, and both parties, but especially the
workers, are likely to encounter violence in the environment by police or criminals (Connelly,
Kamerāde, & Sanders; Deering et al., 2014; Weitzer, 2009). On the other hand, print ads, and
more recently, digital communications provide distance in time and space allowing both buyer
and seller to gather more information, be more selective and screen out dangerous or
undesireable clients and situations (Armstrong, 2014; Campbell, Sanders, Scoular, Pitcher, &
Cunningham, 2018; Scott Cunningham & Kendall, 2011; Monto & Milrod, 2014; Nelson,
Hausbeck Korgan, Izzo, & Bessen, 2019; Sanders, 2008a, 2008b). Even workers in fixed
locations, such as brothels or parlors, can use the internet or similar mechanisms to arrange
appointments and assess clients more than can workers on the street or even a bar or hotel
(Brents & Hausbeck, 2005; Stewart Cunningham et al., 2018). While the 2018 shuttering of
many online sites put providers and clients with fewer resources back on the streets, there is
evidence that less visible online platforms continue as an important part of commercial sex
markets globally (Stewart Cunningham et al., 2018).
Studies of client interactions in online review sites finds that buyers regulate themselves,
standardizing conduct, socializing novices and placing respect or connection with workers at
forefront (Horswill & Weitzer, 2018; Milrod & Monto, 2012; Milrod & Weitzer, 2012). Monto
and Milrod compared data from hobbyists in an online review site with a data set of arrested
customers, who tend to be more ethnically diverse and inexperienced, and found differences in
attitudes, motivations and experiences (Monto & Milrod, 2014). Whether clients with certain

5
Men & Masculinities Author’s final manuscript Published online February 4, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20901561
5
attitudes choose certain markets or whether the market affects their attitudes, these findings
highlight the need to examine differences among clients in different markets.
Methods
Due to difficulty accessing representative samples of sex buyers for statistically significant
comparisons, there are very few large-scale studies and even fewer with the ability to
differentiate among clients. Data for this paper is based on a unique online survey of clients of
sexual services collected between 2015 and 2017.
1
Research team members enlisted the help of
individuals in the sex work community to help recruit consumers of adult services and spread
the survey URL. We promoted the survey on social media, online, print and radio news, email
groups, online forums and other online sources encouraging circulation to potential
participants, and posted the URL of the survey on the first author’s faculty web-page for ease
of access. Several sex worker bloggers posted information to their clients. We also recruited
clients of Nevada’s legal brothels, recognizing that many also pay for illegal services, although
we excluded respondents who only used legal brothels from this study. We posted survey
announcements in an online forum for legal brothel clients (CyberWhore Mongers Club), and
on one large legal brothel webpage. In addition, organizers posted an email announcement to
individuals registering for the CyberWhore Mongers Club annual meeting. While consumers
of sexual services can include a wide variety of services, we eliminated all surveys of
individuals who indicated that they had not “paid for sex.”
We realized our methods would likely bias toward subjects who access sexual services
online. Our questions, however, also asked about the range of ways in which respondents
accessed sexual services, and indeed, we found a significant number of individuals who
accessed sellers in various ways, including mostly through in-person encounters.
We obtained data on American adults aged 18 and older from the 2014 General Social
Survey to estimate the nationally representative figures to compare to the study respondents in
our customer survey (Smith, Marsden, Hout, & Kim, 1976-2016). Our data was collected
between June 2015 and June 2017, however because more than half of our subjects responded
during 2015 and relatively few during 2017, we decided that the 2014 GSS data were the most
comparable national data. The information available in the GSS includes sociodemographic
characteristics, attitudes toward society, and politics in general. Given that the survey
respondents in our survey were predominantly men (approximately 94%), we used only male
respondents both from our customer survey and the GSS data. After excluding women and
cases with missing values in key variables (see below), the final sample sizes for our buyer
survey was 519. The sample from the GSS was 1,141.
Dependent Variable
Clients were classified into two groups – those using mediated online/print or in-person
contact. Respondents were asked, “About how many times have you ever paid for sex, or
attempted to make arrangements to pay for sex, under each of the following circumstances?
(It's okay if circumstances overlap).” Choices included contacting someone in outdoor public
place, indoor public place (such as a bar, casino, or strip club), indoor private place (such as a
massage parlor or sex club, excluding the legal brothels), through printed materials (flyers,
cards, phone books) or online sources. Each item was assessed 7-point Likert-like scale [1-7:
(1) never; (2) 1-2 times; (3) 3-4 times; (4) 5-6 times; (5) 7-8 times; (6) 9-10 times; (7) more
than 10 times]. For the media-group and in-person group, the average frequencies of two and
three items were computed, respectively. Among the media group, average frequencies for the
media and in-person contact were 3.86 and 1.97 (about 55% of them never used the in-person
contact). Among the in-person group, average frequencies for the media and in-person contact
were 1.89 (about 45% of them never used the media contact) and 3.29. Although some used
1
UNLV Institutional Review Board, Consumption and Adult Entertainment Research Project,
protocol number 1102-3717.

6
Men & Masculinities Author’s final manuscript Published online February 4, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20901561
6
both nearly equally, respondents were classified into a group based on the greater average
frequency. As seen in the mean frequencies, the ways two groups access to the sex service are
appreciably different. We excluded those who visited legal brothels because legal prostitution
is rare in the US, little is known about those buyers, and there were some distinctive
characteristics (e.g., attitudes, socioeconomic status) among brothel buyers. Due to the small
sample size from the non-systematic sampling we were uncertain about the comparability to
illegal clients.
Independent Variables
We adopted four questions on attitudes toward gender equality that have been asked regularly
in the GSS and frequently are used to assess gender role attitudes (Cotter et al., 2011; England,
2010; Kane & Whipkey, 2009; Knight & Brinton, 2017; Scarborough et al., 2018). For this
study, evidence for positive attitudes toward gender equality was operationalized as holding
negative attitudes toward working women’s ability to care for children and special efforts to
promote qualified women and holding more positive attitudes toward men being more suited
for politics and women not working outside the home. Specifically, the survey items we used
were, “A working mother can establish just as warm and secure a relationship with her
children as a mother who does not work,” “Because of past discrimination, employers should
make special efforts to hire and promote qualified women,” “Most men are better suited
emotionally for politics than are most women,” and “It is much better for everyone involved if
the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family.”
The responses were originally recorded in 4-point Likert Scale (strongly agree, agree, disagree,
strongly disagree) but were dichotomized to “Agree” and “Disagree” due to the skewed
distributions and insufficient sample sizes (less than 5% of the total sample) in several
categories. The same survey items were used from the GSS data and the response categories
were made comparable (i.e., dichotomized) to the present study. One of the GSS survey items,
“Because of past discrimination, employers should make special efforts to hire and promote
qualified women,” had an additional response category, “Neither agree or disagree,” and this
response category was removed from the analysis to make it consistent with other survey
items. Interpretation of findings about this particular survey item requires caution due to this
difference in response categories. We choose to analyze items separately rather than combine
them because of the size of the sample and its lack of representativeness. We were also
interested in seeing possible differences among items that deal with attitudes about familial
and workplace roles.
Covariates
The covariates were selected considering the theoretical relevance of the key variables and
parsimony in the statistical analysis. Age at the time of the survey was recorded in years. Race
and ethnicity were dichotomized to non-Hispanic whites and others (e.g., blacks, Hispanics,
Asians) because the vast majority (over 86%) of the respondents were white. Marital status
and educational attainment were dichotomous variables (married vs. not married; college or
higher degree vs. less than college, respectively). Household income was assessed with the 11
levels, roughly by $20,000 [(1) Under $20,000, (2) $20,000 to $39,999… and (11) over
$200,000]. The same information was extracted from the GSS data, except for the household
income due to the incomparable response categories.
Analytic Strategies
Two sets of analyses were sequentially conducted. First, the descriptive summaries of the
survey respondents were compared to the national average. We incorporated the sampling
weights into the estimation of nationally representative figures. The PROC SURVEYFREQ
and SURVEYMEANS commands were used in SAS version 9.4 (Copyright © 2013, SAS

7
Men & Masculinities Author’s final manuscript Published online February 4, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20901561
7
Institute Inc.). The bivariate significance tests (i.e., t-test or chi-square test) were used to
compare the data in the present study to the national average.
Second, a series of binary logistic regressions were conducted to address the main research
question (Hosmer, Lemeshow, & Sturdivant, 2013). The PROC LOGISTIC command in SAS
9.4 was used to model methods of accessing sexual services as a function of gender attitudes.
For each gender attitude item, an unconditional model was evaluated. Only if a statistically
significant association was identified was a fully conditional model constructed. The model
quality was assessed using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and the area under the
Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve (Hosmer et al., 2013). AIC indicates how
well the model fits to the data, and the area under the ROC curve indicates the sensitivity (i.e.,
correctly detect any statistically significant effect) and specificity (i.e., correctly reject any
statistically non-significant effect). A lower AIC and a greater area under the ROC curve
indicate better model fit and predictive accuracy. Statistical significance was based on an alpha
value of 0.05.
Results
Table 1 presents the descriptive summaries (i.e., mean and standard deviation, or percentage
for the study sample; weighted mean and standard error, or weighted percentages for the GSS
sample) of client groups as well as the bivariate test results and compares them with a national
sample of men taken from the 2014 GSS. The test statistics are presented in Table 1. The
results are summarized below.
Among the client survey participants (n = 519), the majority, 354 (about 68%) of them
were classified in the media group; that is, they accessed sexual services primarily either
online or through print media. The average age of the client survey respondents (47.84; p >
0.05) was similar to the national average (47.6 years old). The average age of the media
(47.35; p > 0.05) and in-person (48.90; p > 0.05) groups were also comparable to the national
average. Survey respondents were less likely to be married (34.17%; p < 0.05) compared to the
national average (55.04%). This finding was consistent for the media (34.84%) and in-person
(38.79%) groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the educational attainment
between any of the groups (32.73% - 34.84%) and the national average (30.81%).
Surprisingly, gender role attitudes of all surveyed clients in all groups were consistently
more positive than the national average (all p < 0.05), except for the question on special efforts
to promote and hire more women. Significantly fewer survey respondents (48.06%; p < 0.05)
supported these special efforts than the national average (69.54%). However, interpretations of
the difference in the special efforts question between our sample and the GSS require caution
because GSS data contained an additional response category "Neither agree or disagree" that
was removed from the analysis to make it consistent with other client survey items.
Table 2 presents results from the binary logistic regressions. The difference in men who
used media vs. in-person was not significantly associated with attitudes toward the working
mother (Model 1), women in politics (Model 2), and traditional gendered family roles (Model
3). Therefore, we did not include the control variables because the baseline model was not
significant, and no further analysis was conducted for these three attitudinal items.
There was a statistically significant association between the media vs. in-person markets
and the attitude toward special efforts to promote and hire more women at work (b = 0.73, SE
= 0.21, p < 0.05). Specifically, clients with positive attitudes toward special efforts to promote
women had 2.08 times greater odds of using media to access sexual services, compared to
those with negative attitudes. Based on the AIC and area under the ROC curve of the final
model (Model 4b in Table 2), the quality of the final model was better than the unconditional
model (Model 4). However, the predictive accuracy (area under the ROC curve = 0.64) is
slightly lower than the suggested cut-off point of 0.70 (Swets, 1988), although greater than the
unconditional model (0.56). Taken together, our overall evaluation of the final model is
adequate given the lack of previous empirical evidence on client attitudes toward affirmative
action in these market classifications. However, future research with other information (e.g.,

8
Men & Masculinities Author’s final manuscript Published online February 4, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20901561
8
more detailed client behaviors/classifications) is needed to improve the predictive accuracy of
the model.
Age, race/ethnicity, and household income were significantly associated with methods of
contacting service providers. Older clients were less likely to use media than in-person contact.
Consistent with most research, non-Hispanic whites were more likely to use media than in-
person contact. Finally, those with greater household income were more likely to use media
than in-person contact. These findings of the covariates suggest that there are differences
between individuals in the methods they use to access sexual services and gender attitudes.
Discussion
The most surprising finding in the descriptive data was that men in all markets were
significantly more likely to support gender equality for women’s roles in the home, work and
politics than the general population of males. This contradicts the view that men who pay for
sex devalue women’s power, abilities, and roles. While our sample was less ethnically diverse
and fewer were married than in the general population, these differences would not seem to
explain why clients in our sample were more supportive of gender role equality.
Do male clients’ attitudes toward gender equality relate to the markets in which they
mainly participated? We found few differences; egalitarian attitudes were similar across
markets in most questions. The absence of differences among client markets in three of the
four questions – women being emotionally suited for politics, women working outside the
home, and working women’s ability to take care of children – is important. That clients’
generally positive attitudes were not associated with different markets means that these client
attitudes likely play no central role in providers’ greater experiences of violence or exploitation
in in-person markets. Numerous studies point to a variety of contextual factors that explain
violence or negative experiences among street workers, including legal and policing policies
and practices, economic conditions, stigma, and other structural relations of power (Connelly
et al.; Deering et al., 2014; Monto & Milrod, 2019). Many factors explain sex workers’
experiences in different markets, but attitudes towards gender role equality does not seem to be
one of them, although a wider range of gender attitudes, masculine repertoires and structural
factors should be examined.
Attitudes on affirmative action did matter in the descriptive statistics. Men using media
markets were more supportive of special efforts to promote or hire qualified women in the
workplace than men using in-person markets. This is in a context where clients in both markets
were less likely to support special efforts than the population as a whole. While questions on
gender-related affirmative action are frequently used to measure support for equality in the
workplace, sexism in gender-role attitudes does not play a big role in predicting attitudes
toward gender-based affirmative action (Harrison, Kravitz, Mayer, Leslie, & Lev-Arey, 2006;
Kane & Whipkey, 2009). One cross cultural study found male attitudes toward gender based
affirmative action are generally lower among some otherwise egalitarian men (Levtov et al.,
2014). Questions on gender based affirmative action are found to be less related to gender and
more to issues such as race-related affirmative action, opinions about government involvement
with market forces, meritocracy, free choice, or class based perceptions about one’s own
workplace chances (Kane & Whipkey, 2009; Morgenroth & Ryan, 2018). But we definitely
need more research.
Based on the results from the regression analysis, we found that in-person clients, who
were more likely non-white, single and lower income, were more likely to be against special
efforts. This is curious as other findings suggest that these more marginalized groups more
likely support gender based affirmative action (Harrison et al., 2006; Kane & Whipkey, 2009).
Yet, in our study, this finding is robust -- we controlled all covariates in the model and the
special effort variable was still significant. It could be that these individuals were more akin to
flexible egalitarians who tend to support individual choice in roles, and affirmative action was
seen as antithetical to free choice (Knight & Brinton, 2017). In terms of the effect size, the
estimated odds ratio indicates the relative contribution of affirmative action attitudes to market
preference after adjusting for covariates. It is possible that that clients who prefer street

9
Men & Masculinities Author’s final manuscript Published online February 4, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20901561
9
markets are more threatened by affirmative action policies. However, given the lack of
empirical evidence on the same topic, the magnitude of such effect should be further examined
in future research when other comparable data become available. This issue is certainly worthy
of further study, especially using different measures of the various dimensions of
egalitarianism.
Study Limitations
Our sample is certainly not representative of all men who pay for sex. As long as they remain
an underground and stigmatized population, it is unlikely there will ever be a representative
sample of clients. Regular and frequent clients are more likely to access review sites, online
blogs, or social media than casual or one-time consumers (Milrod & Monto, 2012; Sanders,
2008b). Our online recruitment process likely missed the full range of individuals who use face
to face methods and who do not regularly use the internet (Shumka et al., 2017).
Online recruitment methods also access mostly white clients (Shumka et al., 2017), which
was the case for our sample. Our recruitment strategy began with subjects in a particular
geographic area, ie. the Nevada’s brothels, and this population is fairly racially homogenous
(Brents et al., 2010), although we excluded brothel only clients. Given the importance of
exploring racial and ethnic diversity within prostitution markets (A. Jones, 2015), future
research should pay attention to the demographic characteristics within online and face to face
prostitution markets.
Also, the classification method of clients (media vs. in-person) was one of many possible
approaches one could take to differentiating markets (Stewart Cunningham et al., 2018; A.
Jones, 2015). Many respondents used both mediated online/print and in-person markets. Our
classification was somewhat simplistic, the available sample size was insufficient for more in-
depth analysis. Future research should explore more detailed client-type classifications
referring to our study for baseline findings.
In addition, due to low cell sizes, our in-person group included those who initially made
contact in a bar or hotel, a space that is typically classed as an indoor venue and seen as
somewhat safer than the street. We opted for a distinction based on the ability of client and
provider to screen each other, a distinction that greatly affects safety in markets and the
amount of third-party control. However, it is also the case that hotel and bar buyers are more
similar to other indoor buyers in some respects. Future research should be able to understand if
face to face initial contact in a bar or hotel is different than on the street.
Also, our study only focused on the examination of associations, and results should not be
interpreted as implying causality. Although our sample was sufficient to address the research
questions, the causal relationship should be investigated using longitudinal data in future
research. Finally, our sample of GSS men includes the 13.9% who report that they have paid
for sex in their lifetimes (Monto & Milrod, 2014). Future research should examine the sub-
populations (e.g., individuals who have paid vs. those who never paid for sex).
Conclusions
Male client attitudes about gender equality are one piece of the puzzle of how masculinities
relate to the demand for paid sex. Our study’s descriptive comparison found that clients are
more positive toward gender equality than the population of men, and that most attitudes were
not related to preferences for different markets for commercial sex. This supports other
research that the demand for commercial sex is not uniformly motivated by negative attitudes
toward gender role equality, and thus demand may not be centrally driven by a masculinity
built on devaluing women’s place in society.
Client support for equality in women’s roles is consistent with attitude research showing
that enjoyment of sexual pleasure and even support for extra-marital sex are in line with
support for gender equality and support for prostitution in neoliberal regimes (Stack,
Adamczyk, & Cao, 2010). Trends like the increasing demand for and value of the girlfriend
experience, companionship or mutual enjoyment, normative pressures to show respect for
women in online review sites, and the existence of consumer masculinities in purchasing

10
Men & Masculinities Author’s final manuscript Published online February 4, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20901561
10
sexual services, collectively might be contributing to more egalitarian attitudes toward women
in all markets among the average client. We need more research in various markets.
Contemporary masculinity theorizing finds that masculine performances are enacted in
relation to other men and to marginalized masculinities as well as in relation to women. While
preliminary, our findings suggest that the demand for sexual services coexists with less
oppressive and more gender egalitarian forms of masculinities -- flexible, inclusive or hybrid
masculinities that are not entirely dependent upon the negation or exclusion of women (and
gay men) in certain leisure spaces (Anderson & McCormack, 2018; Birch et al., 2017; Bridges
& Pascoe, 2014; Crowhurst & Eldridge, 2018; Hearn et al., 2012).
In addition, the demand for sexual services doesn’t just reflect attitudes toward women.
The apparent inconsistency in answers to questions on affirmative action actually aligns with
neoliberal cultural values such as individual autonomy, class and color-blind attitudes that
reject these differences as determinant of life chances and affirm the superiority of contract-
based exchange (Harvey, 2007). Clients in our study thus may care more about free choice,
free markets, the role of government, fair and consistent application of the law (Knight &
Brinton, 2017; Levtov et al., 2014) than about gender inequality (Harrison et al., 2006; Kane &
Whipkey, 2009). Thus, these kinds of free choice market moralities (Brents, 2016; Pettinger,
2013; Prasad, 1999) may be as important in framing attitudes toward commercial sex in
western culture as sex and gender role attitudes. This market morality includes values centered
on “autonomy, democratic equality, and unambiguous and non-discretionary fulfillment of
obligations” (Prasad, 1999, p. 185), whether it be called “consumer masculinities” (Joseph &
Black, 2012), “bounded authenticity” (Bernstein, 2007), or “deserving consumers” (Pettinger,
2013) to justify the superiority of prostitution over the gift exchange inherent in relational sex
(Brents & Hausbeck, 2007; Milrod & Weitzer, 2012). Exploring this market morality and its
relation to sexual consumption is a question certainly worth pursuing in future research.
As this and other research indicates, efforts to promote gender equality should tap into
this support for gender equality among clients (Jewkes, Flood, & Lang, 2015; Levtov et al.,
2014). Cross cultural studies find that for the most part, men’s equitable attitudes were
associated with equitable practices (Levtov et al., 2014). Misogyny does exist in the sex
industry, but given the ability of clients to collectively create market norms online (Lahav-Raz,
2019b), policies criminalizing clients or closing online forums to correct gender injustices may
unwittingly cut off avenues for positive socialization among clients with gender egalitarian
attitudes (Armstrong, 2014; Horswill & Weitzer, 2018). Understanding the complexities of
client attitudes toward women, and especially how these may change with different market
preferences, can add important insights into how consumer culture interacts with what it is to
be a man in the twenty-first century (Birch et al., 2017).
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.
Notes
1. UNLV Institutional Review Board, Consumption and Adult Entertainment Research Proj-
ect, protocol number 1102-3717.
References

11
Men & Masculinities Author’s final manuscript Published online February 4, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20901561
11
Anderson, E., & McCormack, M. (2018). Inclusive masculinity theory: Overview, reflection
and refinement. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(5), 547-561.
Armstrong, L. (2014). Screening clients in a decriminalised street-based sex industry: Insights
into the experiences of new zealand sex workers. Australian & New Zealand Journal
of Criminology, 47(2), 207-222.
Barry, K. (1995). The prostitution of sexuality. New York: New York University Press.
Bernstein, E. (2007). Temporarily yours: Intimacy, authenticity and the commerce of sex.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Besbris, M. (2016). Revanchist masculinity: Gender attitudes in sex work management. The
Sociological Quarterly, 57(4), 711-732.
Birch, P., Baldry, E., & Hartley, V. H. (2017). Procuring sexual services: Evidencing
masculinity diversity and difference through sex work research. Sexuality & culture,
21(4), 1106-1119.
Bolzendahl, C. I., & Myers, D. J. (2004). Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality:
Opinion change in women and men, 1974–1998. Social Forces, 83(2), 759-789.
Brents, B. G. (2016). Neoliberalism’s market morality and heteroflexibility: Protectionist and
free market discourses in debates for legal prostitution. Sexuality Research and Social
Policy, 13(4), 402-416.
Brents, B. G., & Hausbeck, K. (2005). Violence and legalized brothel prostitution in nevada:
Examining safety, risk and prostitution policy. Journal of interpersonal violence,
20(3), 270-295.
Brents, B. G., & Hausbeck, K. (2007). Marketing sex: U.S. Legal brothels and late capitalist
consumption. Sexualities, 10(4), 425-439.
Brents, B. G., Jackson, C., & Hausbeck, K. (2010). The state of sex: Tourism, sex and sin in
the new american heartland. New York: Routledge.
Bridges, T., & Pascoe, C. J. (2014). Hybrid masculinities: New directions in the sociology of
men and masculinities. Sociology Compass, 8(3), 246-258.
Busch, N. B., Bell, H., Hotaling, N., & Monto, M. A. (2002). Male customers of prostituted
women. Violence Against Women, 8(9), 1093.
Campbell, R., Sanders, T., Scoular, J., Pitcher, J., & Cunningham, S. (2018). Risking safety
and rights: Online sex work, crimes and ‘blended safety repertoires’. The British
journal of sociology.
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the
concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829-859.
Connelly, L., Kamerāde, D., & Sanders, T. (2018). Violent and nonviolent crimes against sex
workers: The influence of the sex market on reporting practices in the united
kingdom. Journal of interpersonal violence, 0(0), 0886260518780782.
Cotter, D., Hermsen, J. M., & Vanneman, R. (2011). The end of the gender revolution? Gender
role attitudes from 1977 to 2008. American Journal of Sociology, 117(1), 259-289.
Crowhurst, I., & Eldridge, A. (2018). “A cathartic moment in a man’s life” homosociality and
gendered fun on the puttan tour. Men & Masculinities, 1097184X18766578.
Cunningham, S., & Kendall, T. D. (2011). Prostitution 2.0: The changing face of sex work.
Journal of Urban Economics, 69(3), 273-287.
Cunningham, S., Sanders, T., Scoular, J., Campbell, R., Pitcher, J., Hill, K., Valentine-Chase,
M., Melissa, C., Aydin, Y., & Hamer, R. (2018). Behind the screen: Commercial sex,
digital spaces and working online. Technology in Society, 53(May), 47-54.
Deering, K. N., Amin, A., Shoveller, J., Nesbitt, A., Garcia-Moreno, C., Duff, P., Argento, E.,
& Shannon, K. (2014). A systematic review of the correlates of violence against sex
workers. American Journal of Public Health, 104(5), e42-e54.
Della Giusta, M., Di Tommaso, M. L., Shima, I., & Strom, S. (2009). What money buys:
Clients of street sex workers in the us. Applied Economics, 41, 2261-2277.
Dworkin, A. (1993). Prostitution and male supremacy. Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, 1,
1.
Ekberg, G. (2005). Prostitution and trafficking in human beings: Fact sheet. In E. a. C.

12
Men & Masculinities Author’s final manuscript Published online February 4, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20901561
12
Ministry of Industry (Ed.), (Vol. Article no. N5029). Stockholm: Ministry of Industry,
Employment and Communications, Division for Gender Equality.
England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society, 24(2), 149-
166.
Farley, M., Golding, J. M., Matthews, E. S., Malamuth, N. M., & Jarrett, L. (2017). Comparing
sex buyers with men who do not buy sex new data on prostitution and trafficking.
Journal of interpersonal violence, 32(23), 3601-3625.
Harrison, D. A., Kravitz, D. A., Mayer, D. M., Leslie, L. M., & Lev-Arey, D. (2006).
Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment:
Summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91(5), 1013.
Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism: Oxford University Press, USA.
Hearn, J., Nordberg, M., Andersson, K., Balkmar, D., Gottzén, L., Klinth, R., Pringle, K., &
Sandberg, L. (2012). Hegemonic masculinity and beyond:40 years of research in
sweden. Men and Masculinities, 15(1), 31-55.
Horswill, A., & Weitzer, R. J. D. B. (2018). Becoming a client: The socialization of novice
buyers of sexual services. Deviant Behavior, 39(2), 148-158.
Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. X. (2013). Applied logistic regression (3rd
ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Huysamen, M., & Boonzaier, F. (2015). Men’s constructions of masculinity and male sexuality
through talk of buying sex. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(5), 541-554.
Jewkes, R. K., Flood, M. G., & Lang, J. (2015). From work with men and boys to changes of
social norms and reduction of inequities in gender relations: A conceptual shift in
prevention of violence against women and girls. The Lancet, 385(9977), 1580-1589.
Jones, A. (2015). Sex work in a digital era. Sociological Compass, 9(7), 558-570.
Jones, Z., & Hannem, S. (2018). Escort clients' sexual scripts and constructions of intimacy in
commodified sexual relationships. Symbolic Interaction, 41(4), 488-512.
Joseph, L. J., & Black, P. (2012). Who's the man? Fragile masculinities, consumer
masculinities, and the profiles of sex work clients. Men & Masculinities, 15(5), 486-
506.
Kane, E. W., & Whipkey, K. J. (2009). Predictors of public support for gender-related
affirmative action: Interests, gender attitudes, and stratification beliefs. The Public
Opinion Quarterly, 73(2), 233-254.
Knight, C. R., & Brinton, M. C. (2017). One egalitarianism or several? Two decades of
gender-role attitude change in europe. American Journal of Sociology, 122(5), 1485-
1532.
Lahav-Raz, Y. (2019a). “Hunting on the streets”: Masculine repertoires among israeli clients
of street-based sex work. Sexuality & culture.
Lahav-Raz, Y. (2019b). The prosumer economy and the sex industry: The creation of an online
community of sex prosumers. Journal of Cultural Economy, 1-13.
Levtov, R. G., Barker, G., Contreras-Urbina, M., Heilman, B., & Verma, R. (2014). Pathways
to gender-equitable men:Findings from the international men and gender equality
survey in eight countries. Men and Masculinities, 17(5), 467-501.
Milrod, C., & Monto, M. A. (2012). The hobbyist and the girlfriend experience: Behaviors and
preferences of male customers of internet sexual service providers. Deviant Behavior,
33(10), 792-810.
Milrod, C., & Monto, M. A. (2016). Older male clients of female sex workers in the united
states. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1-10.
Milrod, C., & Weitzer, R. (2012). The intimacy prism: Emotion management among the
clients of escorts. Men & Masculinities, 15(5), 447-467.
Minichiello, V., & Scott, J. (2014). Male sex work and society: Columbia University Press.
Monto, M. A. (2010). Prostitutes’ customers: Motives and misconceptions. In R. Weitzer
(Ed.), Sex for sale: Prostitution, pornography and the sex industry (2nd ed., pp. 233-
254). New York: Routledge.
Monto, M. A., & Hotaling, N. (2001). Predictors of rape myth acceptance among male clients

13
Men & Masculinities Author’s final manuscript Published online February 4, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20901561
13
of female street prostitutes. Violence Against Women, 7(3), 275.
Monto, M. A., & Milrod, C. (2014). Ordinary or peculiar men? Comparing the customers of
prostitutes with a nationally representative sample of men. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58(7), 802-820.
Monto, M. A., & Milrod, C. (2019). Perceptions of provider power among sex buyers.
Sexualities, online first, 1363460719831977.
Morgenroth, T., & Ryan, M. K. (2018). Quotas and affirmative action: U nderstanding group‐
based outcomes and attitudes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(3),
e12374.
Nelson, A. J., Hausbeck Korgan, K., Izzo, A. M., & Bessen, S. Y. (2019). Client desires and
the price of seduction: Exploring the relationship between independent escorts’
marketing and rates. The Journal of Sex Research, 1-17.
Peng, Y.-W. (2007). Buying sex: Domination and difference in the discourses of taiwanese
piao-ke. Men & Masculinities, 9(3), 315-336.
Pettinger, L. (2011). ‘Knows how to please a man’: Studying customers to understand service
work. The Sociological Review, 59(2), 223-241.
Pettinger, L. (2013). Market moralities in the field of commercial sex. Journal of Cultural
Economy, 6(2), 184-199.
Prasad, M. (1999). The morality of market exchange: Love, money, and contractual justice.
Sociological Perspectives, 42(2), 181-214.
Sanders, T. (2008a). Male sexual scripts: Intimacy, sexuality and pleasure in the purchase of
commercial sex. Sociology, 42(3), 400.
Sanders, T. (2008b). Paying for pleasure: Men who buy sex. Cullompton: Willan Publishers.
Scarborough, W. J., Sin, R., & Risman, B. (2018). Attitudes and the stalled gender revolution:
Egalitarianism, traditionalism, and ambivalence from 1977 through 2016. Gender &
Society, 0891243218809604.
Shumka, L., Strega, S., & Hallgrimsdottir, H. K. (2017). “I wanted to feel like a man again”:
Hegemonic masculinity in relation to the purchase of street-level sex. Frontiers in
Sociology, 2, 15.
Skilbrei, M.-L. (2012). The development of norwegian prostitution policies: A marriage of
convenience between pragmatism and principles. Sexuality Research and Social
Policy, 9(3), 244-257.
Smith, T. W., Marsden, P., Hout, M., & Kim, J. (1976-2016). General social surveys, 1972-
2016 [machine-readable data file]. Retrieved from: gssdataexplorer.norc.org
Stack, S., Adamczyk, A., & Cao, L. (2010). Survivalism and public opinion on criminality: A
cross-national analysis of prostitution. Social Forces, 88(4), 1703-1726.
Swets, J. A. (1988). Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science(240), 1285-1293.
Weitzer, R. (2009). Sociology of sex work. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 213-234.
Author Biographies
Barbara G. Brents, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas. Brents has been publishing research using the sex industry as a site to
understand the intersections of gender, sexuality, culture and economics for the past 25 years.
She is the co-author of Paying for Sex in the Digital Age (Routledge 2020) and The State of
Sex: Tourism, Sex and Sin in the New American Heartland (Routledge 2010), a study of
Nevada’s brothels that situates the nation’s only legal brothel industry in the political econ-
omy of contemporary tourism.
Takashi Yamashita, PhD, MPH, MA, is an associate professor of sociology and a faculty of
the Gerontology PhD program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. His primary
areas of research are social determinants of health and well-being, wider benefits of lifelong
learning, and health literacy in the older population.

14
Men & Masculinities Author’s final manuscript Published online February 4, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20901561
14
Andrew L. Spivak, PhD, is associate professor of Sociology at the University of Nevada, Las
Vegas. He is the author of Sexual Violence: Beyond the Feminist-Evolutionary Debate (LFB,
2011) and co-author of Heartland Tobacco War (Lexington, 2013), as well as numerous
articles, chapters, and reports related to topics including prison recidivism, special needs
inmates, suicide and violent behavior, prostitution, juvenile justice processing, tobacco use and
regulation, and residential segregation.
Olesya Venger, PhD is an assistant professor of Strategic Communication at the School of
Journalism and Media Studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She conducts inter-
disciplinary research at the intersection of strategic communication and advertising planning,
media sociology, regulations and media clearance, human trafficking and technology. Her
work has been published in Journal of Advertising, Journal of Current Research and Issues in
Advertising, Journal of Arab and Muslim Media Research, Journal of Virtual Worlds
Research, Social Indicators Research and others.
Christina Parreira, MA, is a doctoral student in the Department of Sociology at the Uni-
versity of Nevada, Las Vegas. Parreira has been studying the sex industry for the past 6 years,
exploring the intersections of gender, race, and social class in the legal Nevada brothels. She
has also been involved in projects that examine clients of both legal and criminalized pros-
titution and underage prostitution on the streets of Las Vegas.
Alessandra Lanti is a doctoral student in the Department of Sociology at the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas. She holds a Master of Arts in clinical psychology from UNLV and her
current research combines scholarship in sociology, sexuality and psychology to help
understand the relationship between stigma and sex workers’ mental health as well as inform
clinical treatment programs for stigmatized populations. Alessandra is also a licensed clinical
professional counse- lor at Gender Justice Nevada specialized in providing support to
individuals who work in the sex industry. She started and facilitates a no-cost weekly support
and solidarity group for sex workers with a focus on stigma in Las Vegas, the only one of its
kind.

Men & Masculinities Author’s final manuscript Published online February 4, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20901561
15
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of the Study Participants by the Means to Access Illegal Sexual Services, and Comparisons to the National Average of Men
Variables
All participants
(N = 519)
Media 2
(n = 354)
In-person 2
(n = 165)
GSS 2014
(n = 1,141) 3
Mean (Standard
Deviation) or
Percentage
Mean (Standard
Deviation) or
Percentage
Mean (Standard
Deviation) or
Percentage
Weighted mean
(Standard Error)
or Percentage 1
Age (years)
47.84 (12.26)
[t (518) = 0.84]
47.35 (12.03)
[t (353) = -0.05]
48.90 (12.71)
[t (164) = 1.51]
47.60 (0.52)
Non-Hispanic white (vs. all other race & ethnicity)
85.96%*
[x2 (1) = 87.25]
88.17%*
[x2 (1) = 73.96]
81.21%*
[x2 (1) = 15.74]
66.65%
Marital Status (married)
43.74%*
[x2 (1) = 26.79]
46.05%*
[x2 (1) = 11.57]
38.79%*
[x2 (1) = 17.61]
55.04%
Education (college degree or higher)
34.17%
[x2 (1) = 2.74]
34.84%
[x2 (1) = 2.70]
32.73%
[x2 (1) = 0.28]
30.81%
Income (11 levels)5
5.71 (3.25)
5.98 (3.30)
5.12 (3.07)
NA 4
Agree with “A working mother can establish just as warm and secure a relationship with
her children as a mother who does not work.”
(Positive attitude = agreed)
88.25%*
[x2 (1) = 73.55]
86.72%*
[x2 (1) = 41.60]
91.52%*
[x2 (1) = 33.21]
71.20%
Disagree with “Most men are better suited emotionally for politics than are most
women”
(Positive attitude = disagreed)
86.29%*
[x2 (1) = 13.00]
88.10%*
[x2 (1) = 14.63]
82.42%*
[x2 (1) = 0.63]
79.95%
Disagree with “It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside
the home and the woman takes care of the home and family”
(Positive attitude = disagreed)
86.41%*
[x2 (1) = 88.27]
88.00%*
[x2 (1) = 70.20]
83.03%*
[x2 (1) = 19.32]
66.93%
Agree with “Because of past discrimination, employers should make special efforts to hire
and promote qualified women.”
(Positive attitude = agreed)
48.06%*
[x2 (1) = 112.38.00]
52.14%*
[x2 (1) = 50.19]
39.39%*
[x2 (1) = 70.79]
69.54%
GSS = General Social Survey; *p < 0.05 for the two-sample t-test [t (degrees of freedom)] or Pearson’s Chi-square test [x2 (degrees of freedom)] (vs. GSS)
1. The weighted statistics (i.e., nationally representative figures) were estimated using the sampling weights provided in the GSS
2. The main means to access illegal sexual service (see the methods section for more detail)
3. Unweighted sample size
4. Not Applicable due to the incomparable response categories between the present survey and the GSS
5. 11 levels, roughly by $20,000 [(1) Under $20,000, (2) $20,000 to $39,999… and (11) over $200,000]

Men & Masculinities Author’s final manuscript Published online February 4, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20901561
16
Table 2: Estimated Coefficients from the Binary Logistic Regressions for the Means to Access to the Illegal Sexual Services
Variables
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 4b
Dependent Variable
Media vs. In-
person
Media vs. In-
person
Media vs. In-
person
Media vs. In-
person
Media vs. In-
person
Estimated
Coefficients (SE)
Estimated
Coefficients (SE)
Estimated
Coefficients (SE)
Estimated
Coefficients (SE)
Estimated
Coefficients (SE)
Independent Variables
Gender attitudes
A working mother can establish just as warm and secure a relationship with her
children as a mother who does not work
(Positive attitude)
-0.50 (0.32)
Most men are better suited emotionally for politics than are most women
(Positive attitude)
0.46 (0.26)
It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the
home and the woman takes care of the home and family
(Positive attitude)
0.40 (0.26)
Because of past discrimination, employers should make special efforts to hire
and promote qualified women
(Positive attitude)
0.52 (0.19)*
0.73 (0.21)*
Covariates
Age (years)
-0.02 (0.01)*
Non-Hispanic white (vs. all other race & ethnicity)
0.79 (0.29)*
Marital Status (married)
0.17 (0.23)
Education (college degree or higher)
0.01 (0.22)
Household income
0.08 (0.04)*
Model Quality Indicators
Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)
650.43
649.33
647.69
643.75
604.50
Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve
0.52
0.53
0.53
0.56
0.64
*p < 0.05; SE = Standard Error
The estimated coefficients show the log-odds of being in the media group (vs. the in-person group as a reference group)
See the methods section for the detailed classifications (media and in-person)