Why Do Men Pay for Sex? Scale Development and Differences in Attitudes Between Men Who Pay for Sex and Men Who Do Not Pay for Sex

Background and purpose: The research on men who pay for sex –an important driving force in the sex trafficking industry – is scant. Views on the reasons men pay for sex vary. Some (following functionalism and liberal feminism), perceive paying for sex as a normativeeconomic transection between two adults. Others (following radical feminism), perceive paying for sex as an immoral behavior, an act of violence and control. The 'peculiar man' perspective suggests men who pay for sex are physically or socially damaged. Based on these perspectives, we developed the Attitudes toward the Reasons Men Pay for Sex (ARMPS). This study examined the factor structure and reliability of the 34 item scale, and assessed whether the scale differentiates between men who pay for sex, and men who do not pay for sex.

Methods: Data were collected using a web-based cross-sectional survey design. A convenience sample of Israeli men (N= 571) was recruited through web-invitation and facebook adds. Most participants were Jews (94.2%), secular (81.2%), married (54.9%), residing in a big city (81.2%); 42% declared that they have paid for sex. Participants filled the ARMPS scale, a demographic questionnaire, whether they have paid for sex (life-time), and details on their sex-payment (frequency, duration, place of consuming, money spend).

Results: Exploratory factor analysis, using principal axis with promax rotation, identified and extracted a likely factor structure. Items that did not meet a loading cutoff point (≤.4) were not retained in the final structure. The analysis revealed a reduced 25-item form of the ARMPS, with 2 main factors: Paying for sex as normative behavior (with 2 sub-factors: paying for sex as an accepted social and cultural behavior; paying for sex as a basic right for the unfortunate ones), and Paying for sex as deviant behavior (with 2 sub-factors: paying for sex as a moral problem and exploitation of women; paying for sex as an addiction). Confirmatory factor analysis affirmed the 4 factor model with 2 latent 2^nd order factors structure, with high goodness-of-fit to the data indices. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that higher levels of perceiving paying for sex as an accepted cultural and social behavior, a basic right for the unfortunate ones, and an addiction were associated with men paying for sex, and that higher levels of viewing paying for sex as a moral problem and exploitation of women was associated with men not paying for sex.  

Implications: the findings suggest that the ARMPS scale can identify between men who pay for sex to those who do not. A deeper understanding of the attitudes toward the reasons men pay for sex could contribute to the growing social debate regarding clients' criminalization. Further studies could focus on  samples of both women and men, in various cultural context as well as samples of sex trafficking victims. Further associations of the ARMPS scale with masculinity and attitudes toward feminism scales could broaden the understanding of the reasons men pay for sex, and help professionals and policy makers tailor interventions dealing with this phenomenon.