Open Collections will be undergoing maintenance Monday June 8th, 2020 11:00 – 13:00 PT. No downtime is expected, but site performance may be temporarily impacted.

Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Rhythms and relations in transactional sex : relating past, present, and future time dimensions to the… Burnett, Patrick John 2018

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2019_february_burnett_patrick.pdf [ 3.57MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0375843.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0375843-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0375843-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0375843-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0375843-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0375843-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0375843-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0375843-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0375843.ris

Full Text

RHYTHMS AND RELATIONS IN TRANSACTIONAL SEX: RELATING PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE TIME DIMENSIONS TO THE PRACTICE OF PURCHASING SEXUAL SERVICES IN CANADA by Patrick John Burnett M.A., The University of British Columbia, 2012B.A. (First Class Honours), Simon Fraser University, 2009 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Sociology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) December 2018 © Patrick John Burnett, 2018 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled:   Rhythms and relations in transactional sex: Relating past, present, and future time dimensions to the practice of purchasing sexual services in Canada  submitted by Patrick John Burnett  in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology  Examining Committee: Gerry Veenstra Supervisor  Qiang Fu Supervisory Committee Member  Sean Lauer Supervisory Committee Member Kate Shannon University Examiner Jean Shoveller University Examiner Teela Sanders External Examiner    iii Abstract  This dissertation employs a mixed methods strategy consisting of layered multiple correspondence analyses and thematic analyses of open-ended content from 852 completed online surveys to investigate factors that shape the practices of people who pay for sexual services in Canada. It describes 12 substantively unique classifications of clients whose diverse experiences of the past, preferences for more or less intimate connections in the present, and perceptions of future risks associated with purchasing sexual services inform their safety practices and willingness to intervene when witnessing conflict. The discussion revisits three central debates in client research. First, it considers the idea of clients as perpetrators of violence and conflict, showing how lack of foresight catalyzes situational conflict and unsafe action, cognitive connections to the future shape safe practices and desire to support others in need, and future planning assures stability and regularity in transactions. Second, it considers the common position that most clients are sources of violence against service providers, arguing that some clients’ embodiment of past experiences provides a unique insider’s perspective that can mitigate violence and promote safety. Finally, it considers the role of stigma in influencing clients’ willingness to take action against victimization and conflict.    iv Lay Summary This dissertation employs a mixed methods strategy consisting of layered multiple correspondence analysis and thematic analysis of open-ended content from 852 completed online surveys to investigate social factors that shape the practices of people who pay for sexual services in Canada. I describe 12 substantively unique classifications of clients whose diverse past experiences, present dispositions, and perceptions of future risks inform their safety practices and willingness to intervene when witnessing conflict. I find that a lack of foresight on the part of clients catalyzes situational conflict and unsafe practices; that relations with providers shape safe practices and support for the needs of providers; and that careful planning assures stability and regularity in transactions. I argue that clients possess a unique insider’s perspective which can help to mitigate violence and promote safety, and discuss how the stigma of purchasing sexual services shapes clients’ willingness to take action against victimization and conflict.    v Preface  The data used in this dissertation were collected by Chris Atchison (University of Victoria, Department of Sociology), with the assistance of Dalia Vukmirovich and Patrick John Burnett, under the auspices of a research project titled “Sex, Safety, and Security: A Study of the Experiences of People who Pay for Sex in Canada.” Funding for this research was awarded to Chris Atchison by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. This research was approved by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board at the University of Victoria (ethics protocol number 12-235; issued July 24, 2012).   My contributions to the research project included feedback and revisions to the survey instrument; participant recruitment; online marketing and advertisement design and implementation; gathering online ethnographic observations of virtual sex industry environments (netnography); survey data entry, cleaning, and coding; analysis and summary of survey data; and research report writing and editing.  All written content and data analyses in this dissertation are my own original work with the exception of several sub-sections in Chapter 3 (data collection) which are partly based on the content published online for the project summary report co-written by Chris Atchison, Dalia Vukmirovich, and me. As web developer and curator of the backend server monitoring and management, Chris Atchison wrote much of the core content in the following sub-sections: 3.3 Survey Sample: Site Visits, Completion, Refusal, Attrition 3.3.1 Website and website visits 3.3.2 Data breakdown of completion rates, multiple- and non-responses, and attrition (I have written the final paragraph related to the final sub-sample used in my analyses)  vi 3.4 Ethical review and conflict of interest Chris Atchison, Dalia Vukmirovich, and I contributed equally to the following sub-sections: 3.1 Research Instruments and Data Sources 3.1.2.1 Questions and Themes 3.1.2.4 Dataset 3.2 Sampling and Recruitment 3.2.1 Recruitment Strategies 3.2.1.3 Word-of-Mouth and Ads in Physical Locals Sub-sections of Chapter 3 written exclusively by me: 3.1.1 In-house Web-server and Data Security 3.1.2.2 Ordering and Composition 3.1.2.3 Web Format 3.2.1.1 Online Spaces: Social and Popular Media 3.2.1.2 Regional and National News Coverage   vii Table of Contents  Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iv Preface ............................................................................................................................................ v Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ vii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xi List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xiii Dedication .................................................................................................................................... xv PART 1: Time and Social Process ............................................................................................... 1 Chapter  1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Chapter  2: Theory and Literature ............................................................................................. 9 2.1 Examining Clients in Space and Time ............................................................................ 9 2.1.1 The Social Past ........................................................................................................ 10 2.1.2 The Social Past in the Social Present ...................................................................... 13 2.1.3 The Social Past and Present in the Social Future .................................................... 16 2.2 Framing Social Relations .............................................................................................. 20 2.3 Guiding Principles and Analytic Steps ......................................................................... 22 PART 2: Research Design .......................................................................................................... 24 Chapter  3: Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 24 3.1 Research Instruments and Data Sources ....................................................................... 25 3.1.1 In-house Web-server and Data Security ................................................................. 26 3.1.2 Structured Self-Administered Questionnaire .......................................................... 27 3.1.2.1 Questions and Themes ..................................................................................... 27 3.1.2.2 Ordering and Composition .............................................................................. 29 3.1.2.3 Web Format ..................................................................................................... 30 3.1.2.4 Dataset ............................................................................................................. 31 3.2 Sampling and Recruitment ............................................................................................ 32 3.2.1 Recruitment Strategies ............................................................................................ 33 3.2.1.1 Online Spaces: Social and Popular Media ....................................................... 33 3.2.1.2 Regional and National News Coverage ........................................................... 34 3.2.1.3 Word-of-Mouth and Ads in Physical Locals ................................................... 35 3.3 Survey Sample: Site Visits, Completion, Refusal, Attrition ......................................... 36 3.3.1 Website and Website Visits .................................................................................... 36 3.3.2 Breakdown of Completion Rates, Multiple- and Non-responses, and Attrition ..... 38 3.4 Ethical Review and Conflict of Interest ........................................................................ 40 Chapter  4: Operationalization of Key Concepts ..................................................................... 43 4.1 Spatial Foundations of Social Positioning .................................................................... 44 4.1.1 Positions in Spaces of Everyday Life ..................................................................... 44 4.1.1.1 Partnership Status ............................................................................................ 45 4.1.1.2 Income, Education, and Occupation ................................................................ 46 4.1.2 Positions in Spaces of Transactional Sex................................................................ 46 4.1.2.1 Venue Experiences .......................................................................................... 46 4.1.2.2 Recurrence and Breadth of Sexual Experiences .............................................. 47 4.1.3 Experience and Time .............................................................................................. 48  viii 4.1.3.1 Age................................................................................................................... 48 4.1.3.2 Purchasing Frequency and Time of Entry ....................................................... 49 4.2 Past Experiences of Disruption ..................................................................................... 49 4.2.1 Active Disruption .................................................................................................... 50 4.2.1.1 Challenge, Pressure, and Refusal .................................................................... 51 4.2.1.2 Sexual Safety ................................................................................................... 52 4.2.1.3 Active Substance Use ...................................................................................... 53 4.2.2 Passive Disruption .................................................................................................. 53 4.2.2.1 Anticipation and Expectations ......................................................................... 53 4.2.2.2 Verbal Disruption ............................................................................................ 54 4.2.2.3 Theft or Robbery ............................................................................................. 55 4.2.3 Interactive Disruption ............................................................................................. 55 4.2.4 Lateral Disruption ................................................................................................... 56 4.3 Present Dispositions and Valence ................................................................................. 57 4.3.1 Actor - Actor Valence ............................................................................................. 58 4.3.2 Actor - Non-Human Actor Valence ........................................................................ 60 4.3.3 Actor - Event Valence ............................................................................................. 61 4.4 Future Perceptions and Projections ............................................................................... 63 4.4.1 Clarity ..................................................................................................................... 64 4.4.2 Sociality .................................................................................................................. 65 4.4.3 Volition ................................................................................................................... 66 Chapter  5: Spatial Modeling ..................................................................................................... 68 5.1 Analysis......................................................................................................................... 68 5.2 Model Dimensions ........................................................................................................ 70 5.2.1 Dimension 1: Experiences over Time ..................................................................... 70 5.2.2 Dimension 2: Relations and Dispositions ............................................................... 72 5.2.3 Dimension 3: Venues and Perception ..................................................................... 73 5.2.4 Dimension 4: Social Position in Time .................................................................... 74 5.3 Visualization ................................................................................................................. 75 5.4 Classifications ............................................................................................................... 77 5.5 Open-Ended Recontextualization ................................................................................. 77 5.5.1 Identifying Respondents in the Classifications ....................................................... 79 5.5.2 Coding Process........................................................................................................ 81 PART 3: Modeled Spaces of Relations...................................................................................... 84 Chapter  6: Space of Discord and Impersonal Relations ........................................................ 86 6.1 Class 1: Concerned, Cautious, and Distant with Clarity Towards the Future .............. 86 6.1.1 Force of Sociality and Concern............................................................................... 88 6.1.2 Actor-Event Valence and a Disengaged Future ...................................................... 90 6.1.3 Passive Volition and Past Disruptions .................................................................... 91 6.2 Class 2: Older Common-law, Non-personal Relations at Managed Venues ................ 92 6.2.1 Managed Spaces, Manual Release, Aversion to Intimacy ...................................... 94 6.2.2 Non-personal and a Preserved Future ..................................................................... 95 6.3 Class 3: Careless and Disruptive Clients Drawn to the Street ...................................... 96 6.3.1 Pressure: Disrupting the Rhythm of Arrhythmic Spaces ........................................ 96 6.3.2 Process of Interpersonal Discord and Adjustments ................................................ 99 6.3.3 Attuned to Disruptive Rhythms ............................................................................ 101  ix 6.4 Class 4: Unsafe Buyers with Same-Sex Experiences and Disruptive Leanings ......... 102 6.4.1 Volition, Valence, and Risky Sexual Activity ...................................................... 104 6.4.2 Social Dynamics of “Something for Nothing” ..................................................... 106 6.4.3 Disruption of the Expected and its Social Resonance .......................................... 107 6.5 Processes of Discord and Impersonal Relations ......................................................... 110 Chapter  7: Space of Rhythm, Reputation, and Personal Relations .................................... 115 7.1 Class 5: Inexperienced with Clarity Towards the Future ............................................ 115 7.1.1 Inexperience, Trust, and Naiveté .......................................................................... 116 7.1.2 Social Certainty and Lack of Concern .................................................................. 116 7.1.3 Empathy and Willingness to Intervene ................................................................. 118 7.2 Class 6: Balanced and Consistent Older Clients with Less Experience ..................... 120 7.2.1 Active Precaution Taking and a Lack of Concern ................................................ 120 7.2.2 Regularity, the Known, and Social Clarity ........................................................... 122 7.3 Class 7: Experienced, Single Clients Drawn to Connection and Intimacy ................. 123 7.3.1 Familiarity, Regularity, Relaxed Precautions and Mutual Decisions ................... 125 7.3.2 Experience, Assurance and the Draw of Reputation ............................................ 126 7.3.3 Communication and Establishing Clarity Before Action ..................................... 127 7.4 Class 8: Experienced, Socially Open, Divorced Clients with Future Clarity ............. 128 7.4.1 Reputation, Comfort, and Established Trust ......................................................... 128 7.4.2 Balanced Volition, Mutual Respect for Safety, and Risk Avoidance ................... 129 7.4.3 Lateral Disruption, Communication, and Tendency to Act .................................. 132 7.5 Processes of Rhythm and Relations ............................................................................ 134 Chapter  8: Space of Passive Disruption, Situational Control, and Awareness .................. 138 8.1 Class 9: Burned and Concerned Clients who Take Precautions ................................. 138 8.1.1 Maintaining Balance with Passive Responses to Passive Disruption ................... 139 8.1.2 Lateral Disruption, Fear of Consequence, and Self Preservation ......................... 141 8.1.3 Persistent Worry for the “Unknown” and Active Precaution Taking ................... 143 8.1.4 Social Repercussions, Experienced and Perceived ............................................... 144 8.2 Class 10: Moderately Experienced and Safe with Passive Volition ........................... 145 8.2.1 Assurance of Safety Through Regularity and Avoidance..................................... 147 8.2.2 Passive Volition, Sense of Position, and Assurance of Distance .......................... 148 8.3 Class 11: Highly Experienced Wealthy Clients who Take Action ............................. 149 8.3.1 Subdued Concern, Risk Avoidance, and “Professional” Providers ...................... 149 8.3.2 Navigating Relaxed Safety Precautions ................................................................ 152 8.3.3 Lateral Disruption and Past Communicative Intervention.................................... 153 8.4 Class 12: Safe, Older and Less Experienced Clients Attuned to Cleanliness ............. 155 8.4.1 Minimized Fluid Exchange and Assurance of Cleanliness................................... 155 8.4.2 Reputation, Planning, and Spatial Assessment ..................................................... 156 8.4.3 Balanced Interactions and Non-Confrontational Intervention .............................. 158 8.5 Processes of Control and Awareness .......................................................................... 159 PART 4: Taking Stock of Time and Process in Client Practices .......................................... 163 Chapter  9: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 165 9.1 Disruption, Violence, Conflict and Foresight ............................................................. 165 9.2 Attuned to Rhythms: Detection and Recognition of Disruption ................................. 171 9.3 Social Time and Barriers to Reporting Disruption ..................................................... 173 9.4 The Dimensions of Social Stigma............................................................................... 176  x Chapter  10: Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 179 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 185 Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 199 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................. 199 A.1 Frequencies of Everyday Spaces Variables .............................................................. 199 A.2 Frequencies of Transactional Sex Spaces Variables ................................................ 200 A.3 Frequencies of Time in Spaces Variables ................................................................. 202 Appendix B ............................................................................................................................. 203 B.1 Frequencies of Active Disruption Variables ............................................................ 203 B.2 Frequencies of Passive Disruption Variables ........................................................... 204 B.3 Frequencies of Interactive and Lateral Disruption Variables ................................... 205 Appendix C ............................................................................................................................. 206 C.1 Frequencies of Actor—Actor Valence Variables ..................................................... 206 C.2 Frequencies of Actor—Non-Human Actor Valence Variables ................................ 207 C.3 Frequencies of Actor—Event Valence Variables ..................................................... 208 Appendix D ............................................................................................................................. 209 D.1 Frequencies of Future Clarity Variables ................................................................... 209 D.2 Frequencies of Sociality Variables ........................................................................... 210 D.3 Frequencies of Volition Variables ............................................................................ 211 Appendix E ............................................................................................................................. 212 E.1 List of Influential Variables by Dimension .............................................................. 212   xi List of Tables   Table 5.1    Legend of Node Themes ............................................................................................ 77 Table 5.2    Frequency Counts of Respondents by Classification ................................................ 81    xii List of Figures   Figure 5.1: List of Influential Categories by Dimension .............................................................. 71 Figure 5.2: Presentation of Four Dimensions ............................................................................... 76 Figure 5.3: Individual Respondents in Four Dimensions ............................................................. 80 Figure 5.4: Network Map of Open-ended Questions by Classification ........................................ 82 Figure 6.1: Class 1 - Concerned, Cautious, and Distant with Clarity Towards the Future ........... 87 Figure 6.2: Class 2 - Older Common-law, Non-personal Relations at Managed Venues ............ 93 Figure 6.3: Class 3 - Careless and Disruptive Clients Drawn to the Street .................................. 97 Figure 6.4: Class 4 - Unsafe Buyers with Same-Sex Experiences and Disruptive Leanings ..... 103 Figure 7.1: Class 5 - Inexperienced with Clarity Towards the Future ........................................ 117 Figure 7.2: Class 6 - Balanced and Consistent Older Clients with Less Experience .................. 121 Figure 7.3: Class 7 - Experienced, Single Clients Drawn to Connection and Intimacy ............. 124 Figure 7.4: Class 8 - Experienced, Socially Open, Divorced Clients with Future Clarity ......... 130 Figure 8.1: Class 9 - Burned and Concerned Clients who Take Precautions ............................. 140 Figure 8.2: Class 10 - Moderately Experienced and Safe with Passive Volition ....................... 146 Figure 8.3: Class 11 - Highly Experienced Wealthy Clients Who Take Action ........................ 150 Figure 8.4: Class 12 - Safe, Older and Less Experienced Clients Attuned to Cleanliness ......... 157 Figure 9.1: Clients’ Relation to Past, Present, and Future Time Dimensions ............................ 164    xiii Acknowledgements  I offer my enduring gratitude to the faculty, staff, and graduate students of the department of Sociology at the University of British Columbia. I owe particular thanks to Gerry Veenstra, whose continued support and constant encouragement to think big, work hard, and have fun has helped me produce a dissertation of which I can be proud. I also thank Sean Lauer, Qiang Fu and Neil Gross for their thoughtful commentary and guidance along the way.   I owe incalculable amounts of gratitude and thanks to my friend and mentor Chris Atchison. The complexities that went along with applying an eclectic theoretical framework and exploring data using a novel mixed-methods approach would not have been possible without his expert understanding of all things related to people who pay for sexual services. Thank you for all your years of support and encouraging me to learn and grow by diving into the deep end.  François Lachapelle, my research partner and intellectual doppelganger, was there every day on Skype with a green dot next to his name, engaging me with interesting ideas, responding to me when I had ridiculous questions, and encouraging me through the peaks and valleys of the writing process. The Ph.D. is an isolating process that can test a person’s spirit and disposition to confront big ideas. Without his virtual and physical presence and support, the intellectual isolation would have surely taken a much greater toll on my life and work. Thank you, Frank.  The biggest “I couldn't have done this without you” acknowledgment is owed to my unbelievably supportive wife Jocelyn. Her unconditional love throughout my entire academic career is the only reason I have been able to continue on. Thanks to Carys and Fiona, my two little stinkers born during the madness of doctoral study and research. The thousands of hours spent in the basement office were made bearable by the smiles and hugs that always awaited me at the end  xiv of the day. And nana, oma, grandma and grandpa, Nikki, and Sheena, we can’t thank you enough for your help in raising our girls while we struggled through the graduate student years.    xv Dedication I would like to dedicate this dissertation to the memory of my loving and supportive father-in-law, Mark Caddick. You were always the first person to call after every milestone, no matter how big or small, encouraging and supporting me at each step along the way. I wish you were here to share in the joy of reaching the peak of this journey. You are missed every day.    1 PART 1: Time and Social Process Chapter  1: Introduction  The sex industry is comprised of multiple actors. There are the sellers of sexual services, the buyers of sexual services, people who manage transactions between parties, website developers, moderators of online message boards and review sites, providers of support services for members of the industry, cab drivers, body guards/security, desk clerks, bell hops, door people, etc. There are police officers who enforce the laws associated with transactional sex1, lawyers who defend or prosecute “offenders”, and there are families and friends of all the varying actors entwined within the sex industry. None of these constitutes the centre of the sex industry – each is related to all of the others in a dynamic ecosystem that evolves and changes over time. Most of our knowledge about the many inhabitants of this ecosystem pertains to the service providers2, in particular. Though interest in studying clients and their behaviours is growing and the barriers that previously made clients difficult to study are less prominent thanks to online research methods (Hammond, 2018; Kolar & Atchison, 2013), significant gaps remain in our understanding of the demand side of the equation and the social forces that shape the actions of people who pay for sexual services.  The relative lack of knowledge about the clients of service providers does not stem from a lack of interest or fear of studying this population – though the stigma associated with this population has a tendency to transfix to the researchers studying them (Hammond & Kingston, 2014) – but rather from methodological difficulties inherent to recruiting study participants from                                                  1 Throughout this study I use the term ‘transactional sex’ to capture a broad range of activities, actors, relations, and environments associated with the exchange of sexual services for money between a client and a service provider. 2 The appropriate terms to use when referring to people who engage in the transaction of sexual services for money is a hotly debated issue that crosses ideological divides in research and popular media (see McMillan, Worth, & Rawstorne, 2018). Weitzer (2018b) argues that whore, hooker, harlot, john, or punter are generally perceived as derogatory names that contribute to the persistent stigmatization of actors within the industry. Terms like sex worker, service provider, sex buyer, or client are viewed as terms that better reflect the economically motivated transactional nature of the sexual exchange (McMillan et al., 2018). In this study I employ the interactional terms interchangeably.  2 a highly stigmatized and criminalized population that is wary of the social repercussions of participation (Atchison & Burnett, 2016; Hammond, 2018; Kolar & Atchison, 2013; Weitzer, 2005). More recently, researchers have circumvented the challenge of contacting clients directly by employing indirect avenues of study: collecting second-hand accounts from sex workers about their perceptions of, and experiences with, the buyers they have interacted with (Coughlan, Mindel, & Estcourt, 2001; Day & Ward, 2001; Remple, Patrick, Johnston, Tyndall, & Jolly, 2007), collecting narrative data from online message and review boards frequented by clients (Horswill & Weitzer, 2018), or utilizing national survey datasets containing trivial measures of purchasing history (Had sex for pay in the last year? Ever paid for sex?) to infer population estimates (Monto & McRee, 2005; Monto & Milrod, 2014). A small body of research has collected information from recently arrested/captive populations of buyers forced to take part in studies while attending mandatory Johns’ School sessions (Atchison, Fraser, & Lowman, 1998; Brunschot, 2003; Fischer, Wortley, Webster, & Kirst, 2002; Sanders, 2009; Shively et al., 2008). The most informative research on clients and their experiences has been exploratory, qualitative studies of small samples of buyers that represent only a small segment of the population (Atchison et al., 1998; Coughlan et al., 2001; Sanders, 2008; Weitzer, 2005). To date, there have been very few large-scale studies of clients who are engaged by researchers in a manner such that they feel that their identity is secure enough to speak freely about their experiences.  Early theories investigating the behaviour of sex buyers focused on biological or physiological “appetites” or “natural” predispositions for sex and the drive to satisfy “carnal” desires (Davis, 1937; Ellis, 1959; Gibbens & Silberman, 1960; Glover, 1945). Many were inspired by Freudian psychoanalytic principles pertaining to psychosocial phenomena such as stunted sexual development, pathological motivations, and trauma induced desires (Glover, 1945; Stoller,  3 1976, 1986). More recently, feminist theories have situated client attitudes and behaviours within patriarchal structures of power and desire, emphasizing a macro level understanding of clients’ agency being overtly directed and shaped by male-dominant societal norms (Busch, Bell, Hotaling, & Monto, 2002; Cooper, 1989; Overall, 1992; Pateman, 1983; Shrage, 1989). In this body of research, radical feminist/prohibitionist perspectives employ sensationalized anecdotal ‘evidence’ to cast an essentialist view on clients as the primary and dominant source of violence against service providers. From this vantage point, clients are universally cast as a homogeneous population of “predators”, “domestic abusers”, “batterers”, who engage in “paid rape”, are “regularly murderous toward women” and “belong on sex offender registries” (Dworkin, 1997; Farley, Bindel, & Golding, 2009; Farley et al., 2011; Hughes, 2005; Macleod, Farley, Anderson, & Golding, 2008; Raphael & Shapiro, 2004; Raymond, 1995). Though social scientists have often questioned the dubious ethics and questionable research methods undergirding these studies (O’Connell Davidson, 2003; Sanders, 2016; Sanders et al., 2008; Weitzer, 2005, 2010, 2018b), radical feminist positions of this ilk continue to guide much of the narrative around clients in popular media and shape public perceptions of the predatory sex buyer. Rational choice approaches have focused on clients’ decision-making processes in regards to the drive to engage in “risky” behaviour—approaches that over-emphasize the individual-level calculations and actions without explicit consideration of social context (Weitzer, 2005). Symbolic interactionist theories have been used to understand the roles that emotional connection, symbolic elements such as fantasy and the meanings surrounding the act have in shaping the behaviours of sex buyers (Brooks-Gordon, Bilby, & Wells, 2006; Holzman & Pines, 1982; Milrod & Weitzer, 2012; Elizabeth W. Plumridge, Chetwynd, Reed, & Gifford, 1997; Sanders, 2013; Winick, 1962; Winick & Kinsie, 1971).   4  To date, findings from research largely revolve around attempts to thematize the collective identities of the buying population, to understand what external and internal factors or entities are related to safe and unsafe practices. Emphasizing the role of either external/structural factors or internalized/agential forces upon actions of sex buyers has resulted in empirical and interpretive tendencies to overemphasize the causal link between isolated social, cultural and individual characteristics and underemphasize the dynamic interplay and relations between the socio-cultural dimensions that inform and shape behaviours. Furthermore, as I will argue throughout this work, understanding the practices of people who pay for sexual services requires added attention to the social processes that undergird the experiences, dispositions, and perceptions that have developed, strengthened and adapted over time. Time in social spaces, engaged with varying people, reacting and learning from events, being drawn or averse to particular situations, and reacting to events with future consideration in mind, make up social patterns that have yet to be studied within the context of the client. In short, we still know very little about the social processes, social strategies, and social forces that shape the actions of people who pay for sexual services.  Taken together, methodological barriers, limited data, and the application of characteristic-driven theoretical frameworks have resulted in a restricted understanding of the social factors that shape the practices of people who pay for sexual services. Fortunately, we are experiencing a time of methodological and theoretical advancement in the field of sociology. Methodologically, computer-assisted sampling, marketing, recruitment and survey development and deployment techniques (Atchison & Burnett, 2016; Hammond, 2018; Kolar & Atchison, 2013) have made it possible to reach and recruit sex buyers and offer digital identity security and anonymity to a population concerned about being “outed” and prosecuted or persecuted for their actions. Theoretically, the recent turn towards re-conceptualizing theories of action in relational terms  5 (Abbott, 2016; Emirbayer, 1997; Latour, 2005; Martin, 2003, 2011) provides a substantively rich theoretical foundation from which to understand how people who pay for sexual services navigate the social ecosystem that is the transactional sex industry. This study employs progressive computer-assisted research methods and a relational framework to move towards providing a satisfactory answer to the research question that motivates this dissertation: how do social factors and processes shape the practices of people who pay for sexual services? This dissertation begins with a detailed outline of the theoretical principles that I employ in this study to systematically explore the guiding research question. Inspired largely by the works of John Levi Martin (2003, 2009, 2011, 2015; Martin & Gregg, 2014; Martin & Vandebroeck, 2014), Andrew Abbott (1988, 2001, 2016), Norbert Elias (1992), and the later works of Pierre Bourdieu (2000) and Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992), Chapter 2 pieces together some eclectic theoretical principles from these and related works that deal specifically with principles related to social time and the processes through which people link and enact past experiences (the social past), present dispositions, habits, and valence (the social present), and perceptions and projections of future events and outcomes (the social future) in their actions. Accordingly, this study of social process expressly examines the ways in which human action emerges from the cognitive linkages that connect people with their history (what they have experienced), their present (what they like and how they think), and their future (what may possibly take place). To examine and understand these processual linkages, I present the core structural principles that undergird each of the three time dimensions and draw parallels with existing research and literature on clients to clarify the ways in which cognition is tied with external social factors and forces. Following this, I outline the relational principles that underlie the theoretic framework and describe how they inform the  6 mixed methodological analytic strategy I employ to empirically investigate the processes through which clients’ practices relate to these three time dimensions. Chapter 3 (Data Collection) consists of a detailed description of a methodical data collection process that produced one of the largest voluntary samples of sex buyers ever collected. Considering the composition of the research instrument, data security measures employed, sampling and recruitment techniques developed, and data cleaning and sub-sampling processes undertaken help to better understand the ways in which the data can be used to answer the research question. Chapter 4 (Operationalization of Key Concepts) describes the closed-ended variables and open-ended questions that are used to empirically represent the theoretical principles of past experience, present dispositions and valence, and future perceptions and projections in the analytical model. Chapter 5 (Spatial Modeling) describes the mixed-methodological analytical techniques used to model the data and reveal contextual nuances, namely, the use of a data reduction technique called Multiple Correspondence Analysis to reveal substantively distinct classes of clients (statistically similar respondents whose similarity in responding to survey questions draw them together in a four dimensional modeled space) and the supportive integration of narrative text data from open-ended survey questions to meaningfully integrate the contextual evidence provided by respondents.   In the final chapters of this study I present the results of the multiple correspondence analysis and contextualize the 12 substantively distinct classifications with the open-ended responses provided by respondents who hold position within each class and discuss what the results tell us about the ways in which social processes through which clients relate to past, present and future dimensions shape their practices. Chapter 6 presents four distinct classes of clients who hold similar positions in the analytic model. In the part of the model discussed here, clients are  7 relationally bound by past, present, and future forces that express disconnected and impersonal relations with providers and common experiences with social disruption and discord. The social processes unique to each of the four classes of clients are presented through a mixed presentation of the bundles of social factors that populate the space and the open-ended responses that reveal the actual processes and experiences that draw them together. Chapter 7 presents four classes of clients who are bound together by common experiences free of disruption, dispositions towards intimate and open relations with providers, and clarity with regard to future projections. Chapter 8 presents four spatially proximal classes of clients who share a distinct desire for situational control and exhibit a heightened sense of awareness and concern over unknown future outcomes. The presentation of these 12 classes of clients is followed by a closing discussion (Chapter 9) that considers the implications of the findings and what a processual understanding of client practices as they relate to past, present, and future contexts can reveal about the relational workings of the transactional sex industry. Specifically, I contribute to three central debates in client research. First, I consider the idea of clients as perpetrators of violence and conflict, showing how lack of foresight catalyzes situational conflict and unsafe action, how cognitive connections to the future shape safe practices and desire to support others in need, and how future planning assures stability and regularity in transactions. Second, I consider the common essentializing position that most clients are sources of violence against service providers, arguing that clients’ embodiment of past experiences provides a unique insider’s perspective that mitigates violence and promotes safety. Finally, I consider the social force of stigma and its relation to cognitive barriers that shape clients’ willingness to take action against victimization, extending the discussion of stigma to include an understanding of how clients perceive the providers they visit. I conclude with some thoughts and  8 considerations about the strengths and weaknesses of the study as a whole and the kinds of concluding statements that can be made.    9 Chapter  2: Theory and Literature  2.1 Examining Clients in Space and Time At the beginning of his book Processual Sociology, Andrew Abbott (2016) elegantly expresses the ways in which social enquiry could benefit from thinking processually about how we develop through our relations to the people and objects that confront us over time: “The important facts of human nature concern how personalities link past, present, and future, and because of the social nature of the personality these linkages can be expected to vary from culture to culture. [..] individuals or social entities are never purely free but must always make their futures in conditions shaped by others; and not only by those others that are socially nearby, but also by those further off.” (pp.1-2)  This captures the core goal of this study, namely, to provide a theoretically and methodologically robust examination of the ways in which past experiences, present circumstance, and perception of the future shape the practices of people who purchase sexual services. The study wades into theoretical territory that considers the ways in which social time, social space, and an individual’s positioning and orientation to social objects shape the way people act. In the following sections I walk through the core theoretical principles pertaining to how social time and social space can guide our understanding of how social experiences can shape social action.  As social beings, our lives are at all times in a processual state of flux, moving in a social world populated with other people, groups, organizations, objects, things, rules, norms, and laws, some of which we have encountered many times and others seldom, if at all. Our relations with the social “stuff” around us, how we interact with them and how these relations shape our behaviours, are a primary focus of this study. Particularly unique to this study, these relations are examined within the context of the social spaces in which people are situated. The study considers the ways in which past experiences and present positions within multiple social spaces relate to people’s dispositions and the ways in which they understand and consider future contexts and their  10 actions. To concretize these abstract ideas, the following theoretical conceptualizations are flavoured with examples related to people who pay for sexual services, from here on referred to as clients or buyers. Although existing research on clients is extremely limited in scope and breadth, I will draw connections wherever possible with existing research and empirical findings in order to substantiate and ground the core theoretical concepts.   In the following sub-sections I describe how I conceptualize social spaces and social time. First, I describe how past, present, and future time dimensions can help us understand client practices. Second, I describe the relational framework employed to empirically investigate how these time dimensions are related to social action. Third, I describe the research aims of this study and the methodological techniques employed. 2.1.1 The Social Past The social past is foundational to understanding human behaviour. It refers to the experiences people have had, the types of people they have learned from, the social environments that they have become accustomed to, and the influential events that have shaped who a person is and how they think, etc. Understanding the ways in which past experiences are embodied and “encoded” into individuals is central to sociological examinations of socially informed action. Examining the link between the social and the actor has given rise to sociological concepts such as stock of knowledge (Schutz, 1959, 1962), habitus (Bourdieu, 1977, 1984, 2000; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992), social habitus (N. Elias, 1978, 1992), social crust (Bergson, 2001), Weltanschauung (Mannheim, 2013), social encoding/historicality (Abbott, 2016), and the social self (Mead, 1934), each of which considers the ways in which people become social beings. What remains contested here is the degree to which this social encoding enables or constrains an individual’s ability to act freely. In other words, the question is not if social experiences inform our actions, but how much.  11  Early psychological research on clients attribute their decision making to biological or physiological “appetites” or “natural” predispositions for sex and the drive to satisfy “carnal” desires, studies that were variously inspired by Freudian psychoanalytic principles examining psychosocial bases of behaviours, such as stunted sexual development, pathological socialization, and experiences of trauma (Davis, 1937; Glover, 1945). More socially oriented studies focused on the past social experiences clients had with marital partners, such as a lack of affection, lack of sexual understanding, interpersonal hostility (Ellis, 1959), “abnormal” relationships with “dominant” parents and shallow personal relationships (Gibbens & Silberman, 1960), or a lack of social skills and “aberrant” sexual drives disqualifying buyers from other sexual opportunities (Lemert, 1967). Where these early studies focused on drawing the connection between past life experiences outside of the sex industry with cognitive development and client actions, seminal research by Winick (1962) focused on past experiences within sex industry spaces and how visits to a sex seller shaped the “personality economy” of the 732 clients in his sample. Shifting the narrative from why clients purchase sex to how they change from the experience of purchasing, Winick revealed that emotional meanings and overtones of the visits with prostitutes overshadowed the “carnal” desires for sexual release and that symbolic elements such as the fantasy of visiting a sex worker and the meanings surrounding the act were important factors. Despite an overemphasis on the psychological dimensions of buyer motivations, these early studies introduced the notion that not only do past experiences play a role in cognitive development – or underdevelopment, many argued – but experiences of individuals’ day to day lives as well as their experiences within the sex industry are important social dimensions to consider in order to fully understand the behaviours of clients (Atchison & Burnett, 2016; E. W. Plumridge, Chetwynd, Reed, & Gifford, 1996).  12  The 1980s saw a discursive and substantive shift in client research alongside the emergence and publicization of HIV/AIDS. No longer was the focus on why clients pay for sexual services; rather, the focus shifted to the characteristics of clients who pay for ‘risky’ sex, in particular (Atchison and Burnett 2016; Plumridge et al. 1996). The search for explanatory mechanisms set the research agenda firmly in the past/historical dimension for decades. The driving force behind much of the client focused research from the past 30-40 years has been to curate a comprehensive list of compartmentalized experiences that best explain the behaviours of people who pay for sex; a hunt for social facts. The social determinants identifying the typical ‘risky’ client revealed factors such as lower levels of education (De Graaf, 1995), lower income (Bloor, McKeganey, & Barnard, 1990; Morse, Simon, Balson, & Osofsky, 1992), proclivities to use alcohol and drugs (De Graaf, 1995; Thomas, Plant, & Plant, 1990), and experiences within the on-street sex industry spaces (Atchison et al., 1998; Bloor et al., 1990; Morse et al., 1992; Weinberg, Worth, & Williams, 2001). Outside of the ‘risk’ specific research, the categorization of the ‘typical’ client informed a large body of research assessing the client composition based on age, race, marital status, income, level of education, occupation, sexual orientation, and geographic location (see Atchison et al., 1998; Sanders, 2009; Weitzer, 2009). Efforts to characterize the typical client revealed high variation with wide ranging attributes and experiences, leading to the conclusion that clients are not necessarily socially inadequate or deviant men but often “ordinary” people who lead otherwise “ordinary” lives (Brewer et al., 2000; Campbell, 1998; Diana, 1985; Freund, Lee, & Leonard, 1991; Howe, 2004; Jordan, 1997; Lever & Dolnick, 2000; Monto & McRee, 2005; Moore, 1999; Perkins, 1999).   Within the context of the social past, while most of these studies do not tackle the ‘why’ of the relationship between social determinants and the actions or outcomes under investigation  13 (e.g., why lower incomes are related to a higher likelihood of unprotected sex), these studies do contribute to a richer understanding of the social forces commonly patterned within the spaces related to the purchase of sexual services. That is, they enrich our understanding of the factors that might inform the ‘stock of knowledge’, ‘habits’, ‘habitus’, or ‘social crust’ that clients develop, but they do not contribute much to the explanation of how the social past shapes the practice of paying for sex. It is this connection between the social past, the habits we develop, and tendencies to engage in certain actions or patterns of actions that is critical to understanding client behaviour. 2.1.2 The Social Past in the Social Present The social present is a particularly important time dimension to consider when seeking to understand action. Where the social past focuses on the form, depth, and contexts of experiences people have had over time, the social present focuses on the immediate moments encountered by individuals, considering the ways in which rooted/embodied past experiences inform how people act in these moments. As mentioned above, the embodied past takes many forms in sociological enquiry. Here, I focus on the most commonly employed concept, habitus, which has been implemented in the works of Mauss, Elias, and perhaps most notably by Pierre Bourdieu, and provides a way of drawing a connection between past social experiences and socially shaped dispositions in the present.   The idea of embodied experience as captured in the concept of habitus speaks to the dispositions and sense of the rhythm and regularities that develop over time through the experiences of individuals in social environments; “the presence of the past in the present” (Bourdieu, 2000, p. 210). Defined within the context of the spaces people inhabit, habitus is the cognization of social position, where repeated interactions with the regularities of particular enclaves in the social world give rise to “vital interests and ‘visceral’ tastes and distastes [..] a  14 system of thoughts, perceptions and actions that provide a person with the skills and dispositions necessary to navigate within different fields" (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 474). Habitus essentially refers to the receptive and perceptive powers that a person develops within social environments that are familiar to them (see Martin, 2011, p. 260) wherein how they think and act is, to varying degrees, in harmony with the rules and logic of familiar social contexts. It is an internalized familiarity and sense of pace and rhythm with the people, ideas, relationships, regularities, and expectations of known social environments – a ‘sense of the game’ as Bourdieu often called it (Bourdieu, 1984, 2000; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) – that informs social actors’ abilities and potentials to act within particular environments and the degree to which they are drawn to them.    These principles of understanding behavioural patterns of clients by drawing connections between experience and their dispositions, though less prominent in the literature, have been implemented in several important studies on clients. One such study was by sociologists Holzman and Pines (1982) who sought to understand how buyers’ subjective realities in the form of their attitudes, values and beliefs – referencing Mannheim’s concept of Weltanschauung – are informed by the objective social realities that surround them. Asking 30 clients to describe the circumstances that would lead them to purchase services and their thoughts, feelings, and actions during and following the transactions, their findings suggest parallel feelings and rituals between the pursuit of paid sexual encounters and typical courting experiences in the past such as shaving, bathing, dressing fashionably, and seeking familiar environments for the first encounter. Other studies have focused on the social motivations bringing clients to purchase sexual services. Motivations are often described as shaped by two common forces over and above sexual needs: 1) the desire for social and personal intimacy, and 2) the need for novelty, excitement, and something outside of normal routines (Bernstein, 2001; Jordan, 1997; Lever & Dolnick, 2000; N. P. McKeganey &  15 Barnard, 1996; Milrod & Weitzer, 2012; Monto, 1999; Elizabeth W. Plumridge et al., 1997; Sanders, 2008; Xantidis & McCabe, 2000). These studies situate the motivations of buyers in the context of past experiences as being devoid of either the regularity of emotional and/or sexual events or as being overly regular to the point of needing variety in the form of the disruption of regular sexual routines. In both cases, the act of purchasing sexual services is seen as bridging social reality and personal fantasy, the past and an ideal present.  While these studies make important contributions to our understanding of the ways in which social contexts relate to purchasing motivations, Sanders (2008) develops an important idea about the bi-directionality of forces at play in the motivations and actions of clients. She argues that motivations do not consist entirely of driving forces – “push factors” that impel clients to purchase sexual services – but also attractive forces, “pull factors” that draw or impel clients towards sex industry spaces and the purchase of services. This idea of bi-directional forces emphasizes the differing charge of the forces that emanate from the everyday social contexts of a client (the push), and the sex industry spaces that draw them in (the pull). This notion is captured in client literature focused on risk management, where understanding of the prevalence of HIV or STIs in the sex industry act as push factors away from particular types of providers, venues, and the spaces within venues (Giusta, Tommaso, Shima, & Strøm, 2009; Holt, Blevins, & Kuhns, 2008; Leonard, 1990; N. McKeganey, 1994; E. W. Plumridge et al., 1996). In this way, we can understand the client as being situated at the intersection of complementary social forces, between motive and fantasy, the known and the unfamiliar, desire and safety, or more simply, between past and present. It is at this intersection where we begin to think in relational terms, where social action and behaviour is cast as a process that unfolds within the context of actors’ positions among the dynamic forces inherent to socio-cultural environments.   16  Key to explaining social action is the relation, the reciprocal orientation between the self and the object as they express unity in form (Martin, 2011, p. 247). Respective of the relational principles outlined above, this study is not directly interested in either the self (client) or the object (purchasing a sexual service), but the valence, the forces of impulsion or repulsion, attraction or aversion, or ambivalence (the absence of force) that resonates at the intersection of these two (or many) social entities (see Martin, 2011: pp. 244–248). In other words, the focus is on the relational “charge”, “power”, or “force” that emerges between social people, social spaces, and social objects over time—to understand the contexts in which relations to social objects have been formed and how dispositions and habits/habitus mirror the qualities of these objects (Martin, 2011). In the context of the client and the aim to reveal the ways in which clients relate to people, events, and projected futures, valence is a theoretical concept that helps us conceptualize the strength of the connection between—the positive, negative, or neutral force between them. It is this impulsion or repulsion that is behind action—the pull or push forces as characterized by Sanders (2008)—that lead clients to prefer some states as opposed to others (see Martin, 2011, p. 311). By way of exploring client dispositions at the level of their relational attraction or repulsion from varying forms of sex industry related activities, spaces, experiences, or relations, we can tap into the connection between the social past and the social present. However, to fully understand how the past and present relate to social action, a third and often overlooked time dimension must also be considered: the social future. 2.1.3 The Social Past and Present in the Social Future The social forces that shape actions and interactions are not limited to past experiences and present dispositions: these dimensions can only tell us about how people have acted in the past and how these actions inform their present preferences and dispositions. In order to speak to how people  17 are likely to act in certain situations – the complex process of predicting the ‘what will or might be’ in the social sciences (Winch, 1958) – we must also consider how peoples’ actions relate to the future tense. The idea of the future as a time period that has not yet taken place produces a first intuition to treat the future as limitless, a time-scape where anything can happen, a dimension that is purely random and therefore inherently unpredictable. As discussed thus far, the social world is understood to comprise of dynamic patterns, rules, and social logics that tend to endure over time. Understanding how these social regularities and rhythms persist and evolve over time – what has happened regularly in the past and persists in the present – informs an understanding of what is likely to happen in the future (see Abbott, 2001; Adam, 2008; Bergson, 2001; Bourdieu, 2000; Elias, 1992; Schutz, 1959, 1962; Tarde, 1901; Thompson, 1967 for superb treatises on social time and the future). In this way, the future is a logical extension of experienced past rhythms and regularities to an assumed future of persisting rhythms and regularities. Consider, for instance, a person who has purchased sexual services 100 times. The process is as follows: they enter a residence, place their money on a table, engage in the negotiated activity, talk, leave, and return home without incidence. Through these past experiences of regularly occurring events, this person would logically project similar processes to progress into the future, assuming that the next visit would resemble the previous 100. In this way, the future is a dimension that takes shape at the cognitive level, in the way we think about and expect social order based on the extent and regularity of our past experiences in particular spaces and with particular people. Such is the foundational principle behind sociological iterations of dispositions and habit/habitus as a definition for order that spans past, present, and future (see Abbott, 2016, p. 220).  How social action relates to the future is more complex than an anticipation of regularity for, as we know, the social world is full of irregularities and unanticipated events. These ideas are  18 extended into the future through theories of social cognition and cognitive function, wherein the experience of past events is thought to give a person a level of understanding and familiarity that translates into an ability to orient their actions, anticipate future events, and sense what is liable to take place (Schutz, 1959, p. 76). Tied more directly to past experiences, this take on the future tense speaks to the ways in which depth of experience in social environments over time is tied to an ability and capacity to anticipate events through an attuned sense—much like the way in which a seasoned hockey player can anticipate where the puck will go, or an experienced sex buyer can interpret the communication style of a service provider and anticipate how the interaction is likely to proceed. The idea here is that ability to anticipate the “forth-coming” of events arises “from experience of the regularities of existence, [which] structure the contingencies of life in terms of previous experience and make it possible to anticipate in practice the probable futures” (Bourdieu, 2000, p. 211), that is, the “power to control the future requires having a grasp on the present” (ibid). In terms of clients, those with more experience with the transactional sex industry are likely to better understand the rules and regularities, have embodied the processes, and become more attuned to what is “likely” to happen compared to those purchasing sex for the first time.   Research by Atchison and Burnett (2016) on the social dimensions of client safety practices illustrate how depth of experience and repetition with a ‘long term’ service provider over time can lead to a sense of comfort and safety – being attuned to the space – that tempers fears about sexual risk and can relax safety practices with the provider. These findings suggest that lack of familiarity with a provider and/or the space is tied to increased use of safety precautions through fear of the unknown. Other studies have made similar arguments about clients’ sense of what to expect and the assumptions and understanding of the rules and unwritten laws of different venue spaces, such as knowing the typical types of services offered and where to go to procure them (Atchison &  19 Burnett, 2016; De Graaf, 1995; Lever & Dolnick, 2010; Milrod & Weitzer, 2012; Sanders, 2013). While developing this sense for the space and what to expect is typically attributed to physical experiences over time, Horswill and Weitzer’s (2018) examination of online message-board posts by clients reveal the breadth and depth of archived experiences—in-depth documentation of the past—and the type of content that is available to clients who may be less experienced purchasing sexual services and how this facilitates the socialization process (see also Weitzer, 2009). For first-time ‘novice’ buyers who have never or rarely experienced the process of arranging and procuring the exchange of sexual services, online forum spaces like the ‘FAQ for newbies’ sections of websites like TER function as digital environments where inexperienced people can ask questions and learn from ‘seasoned buyers’ on topics ranging from proper screening techniques, location and scheduling, the processes of exchanging money and negotiating rates, ensuring privacy and secrecy, avoiding scams and staying safe, and appropriate and expected health practices (Horswill & Weitzer, 2018). Related to the theoretical principles discussed thus far, experienced buyers with a ‘sense of the game’ impart their experiences and knowledge for the inexperienced in a way that helps them develop a better sense of what to expect and develop increased clarity for the future (i.e., that which has not yet taken place).   But capacity to perceive future events is not just tied to depth of experience in the sex industry, it is also informed by the social forces experienced and embodied from the everyday spaces outside of the industry. How we orient our actions in less familiar social spaces is meaningfully tied to our social positioning and experience in environments that are common to us, that we know well, and to which we are attuned (Bourdieu, 1984, 2000; Martin, 2011; Mische, 2009). In the context of being socialized to the processes and patterns within social spaces, people learn to adjust their actions to fit the tendencies of the environment, to shape their expectations  20 and aspirations according to concrete and symbolic indices of the accessible and the inaccessible, of what is and is not ‘for them’ or ‘desirable’ to them (Bourdieu, 1984, 1985, 2000; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). In this way, it is argued that the future we see and envision is practically shaped by social forces that emanate from the social contexts we find ourselves situated in. It is from this  social position that we pursue acts within the substantive limitations of the encoded constraints of the past and present and the encoded possibility of a future tied to the present (Abbott, 2016, p. 28). For instance, a sex buyer’s perception of how they might act (in the future) if they were to witness a service provider being attacked is not strictly confined to the present moment, it is also shaped by the many social forces related to their positionality and the forces emanating from the present context (i.e., whether they know the SP well, have a family at home, have a job that would be in jeopardy if they were arrested, injured, or outed, etc.), and past experiences (i.e., have they helped in the past and faced consequences, have they witnessed similar situations before). In this way, action is not the simple outcome of internalized experiences, it relates to the degree and intensity to which actors orient to the people and objects that are tied to their social position within and outside of the transactional sex industry.  2.2 Framing Social Relations The above sections outline how I will engage with key principles related to time and process and move towards an examination of the ways in which clients link past, present, and future in their practices. These theoretical principles express how people come to embody and encode the social and become sensitized to aspects of the world they have been or find themselves in. The empirical portion of this study aims to examine the degree of sociality in actions through understanding the ways in which actors—clients of sex workers in this case—orient to the qualities of their past  21 experiences, present dispositions, and future projections that they confront and how the intersubjectively valid qualities of these relations call on them to act (Martin, 2011, p. 111;343). Here degree of sociality can be taken as an empirical expression of the coherent sets of relations established between actors and social objects, forces, and experiences they encounter over time. The aim is to identify the social factors at play and understand the nature of the mutually susceptible bond clients have with them, that is, how they orient to the qualities of the social factors and how these qualities also draw them in or push them away (Martin, 2011). In the case of a client who is a well paid surgeon, has a wife of 30 years, has been purchasing sexual services for 10 years, frequents massage parlours, only pays for unprotected manual release (i.e., hand jobs), has never been robbed, expects discretion, and has encountered the presence of law enforcement on several occasions, examining degree of sociality requires understanding the nature of the relation between the client and the qualities of these social objects and the degree to which the client’s orientation to them acts as a force impelling (or repelling) in a certain direction toward particular forms of action that “make sense” and induce feelings of “rightness”. For the study of a wider population of clients, the goal is to identify those who not only share position among similar forms of social objects (similar experiences with jobs, marriage, dispositions, and purchasing sexual services), but also understand the ways in which their experiences, dispositions, valence, and projections shape their orientation to the qualities of the social objects in cohesive or distinct ways. To investigate the degree, form, quality, and orientation of sets of relations between clients and social objects, I employ the following mixed methodological approach.     22 2.3 Guiding Principles and Analytic Steps In order to establish an empirically robust understanding of the ways in which past experiences, present dispositions, and future projections relationally inform the actions of clients, I employ closed- and open-ended survey responses from 852 people with experience purchasing sexual services in Canada to realize each of the following analytic steps.  1) Identify principles and forces that are pervasive among purchasers of sexual services. Informed by the theoretic principles of time and space described above, this is a process of classifying and operationalizing relevant variables and categories based on their expression of clients’ past experiences, present dispositions and valence, and future perceptions and projections. 2) Employ multiple correspondence analysis, an exploratory data reduction technique, to reveal the principles, properties, and processes that draw together clients with similar experiences, dispositions, and perceptions. This will reveal a four-dimensional space of positions. Each dimension is constituted along a vector with the most influential social factors populating the positive and negative extremes and the less influential settling near the middle. 3) Visualize the distribution of variable categories along the dimensional axes in an explorable model. The clusters of categories (or constellation of relations) are identified based on their distinct spatial positioning relative to other clusters in the modeled space of relations. The process of classifying clients based on the patterns of experiences and properties (the ‘set of relations’) facilitates an understanding of how activities and behaviours are relationally bound at the intersection of the past, present, and future dimensions of social life. 4) Examine how clients orient to the qualities of the social objects included in the model, and identify the strategies, directions, and logic that inform positioning in the space of relations.  23 Here, qualitative data is used to contextualize the experiences of individuals identified within the substantively distinguished positions in social space. The ways in which respondents’ answer follow-up open-ended questions to core survey items helps to reveal the qualities of the social experiences, dispositions, projections, and overall processes that shape their actions. 5) Interpret which classifications hold relative position within the modeled space – bound together by similar properties and experiences – and how these collections of statistically similar classes cohere or vary in their logic of practice (i.e., how they have oriented themselves in the past and present and might orient themselves in the future). This reveals how similar sets of actors with common, yet variable social positions and experiences share rules, rhythms, and regularities in their logic of practice. A robust description of the properties, characteristics, dispositions, actions, and overall logic of orientation and interaction of sets of actors tells us something about the forces at play. The analytic process that I undertake is meant to act as a general explanatory framework, a substantive assertion about the ways in which social forces guide and shape the actions and interactions of actors. Following these five steps facilitates the empirical assessment of the rhythms and reasons that shape actions and interactions of people who are engage in the act of purchasing sexual services. The successful identification of the unique processes and relations of force will contribute to a more complete understanding of how actors orient to the qualities of the social objects3 that confront them in organized form within and outside the sex industry.                                                    3 Martin (2011) defines social objects as “a crystallisation of a set of social relations” (p. 228) or a bundle of relations that we, as sociologists, treat as an object (Martin & Vandebroeck, 2014, p. 111).   24 PART 2: Research Design Chapter  3: Data Collection People who pay for sexual services are one of the most highly stigmatized and marginalized populations to study. They are a hidden population with unique requirements for anonymity and information security, where being ‘outed’ as a sex buyer could have a significant effect on someone’s personal, professional, and/or social life. Designing a research program to reach and recruit a population that does not want to be found and who have very specific anonymity criteria requires a dynamic and eclectic approach. It necessitates attention to data security through configuration and management of an in-house Web server to hold and lock down sensitive data; designing survey and interview questions to encourage frank discussions about sensitive topics without being off-putting; crafting a marketing campaign that relays a message of security, privacy, and trust; and identifying appropriate spaces where advertisements and messages can be released and disseminated.   Led by principle investigator (PI) Chris Atchison and supported by research coordinator Dalia Vukmirovich and research assistant Patrick John Burnett, the Sex, Safety and Security (SS&S) research project was designed and executed from January 2012 to January 2014. Participants were given the option to complete an adaptive online survey consisting of roughly 600 categorical and open-ended (adaptive) questions and/or participate in a conversational interview. The following sections describe the details of the sequential nested mixed methods strategy used for participant recruitment and data collection.      25 3.1 Research Instruments and Data Sources The Sex, Safety, and Security research project was an extension to the 2009 Johns’ Voice study (www.johnsvoice.ca), a mixed methods research project led by Chris Atchison and supported by Research Assistant Kat Kolar which successfully recruited 861 Canadian sex buyers to partake in a 100+ question survey and 24 sex buyers to participate in phone or in-person interviews. Johns’ Voice was the testing ground to see how sex buyers could be recruited, whether they were interested in participating and speaking up, where recruitment efforts could be focused, how respondents would react to a primarily web-based survey, and more generally, how technology could be used to study hidden and marginalized populations. Kolar and Atchison (2013) outline several factors that contributed to the project’s success, most notably, the web-based survey instrument and the viral recruitment strategies employed. With regards to the web survey, the added layer of anonymity and security that went along with an online questionnaire proved to be a welcome dimension to a population fearful of the risks. The viral marketing strategy – where the research recruitment message turns viral and is disseminated in almost an automatic way by third parties – was made possible by the period of growth and expanding presence and reach of the online sex industry in 2009, mostly among “adult” advertising sites, online discussion and review forums, and independent websites. From a research standpoint, the ability and freedom to advertise research for free in these online discussion forums and advertisement spaces, populated by both people working in the sex industry and people looking to procure services, allowed the research message to reach a broad range of sex buyers from across Canada.   The outcome of the Johns’ Voice study revealed that sex buyers were willing to speak about some fairly candid topics (e.g., socio-demographic information, experiences of violence and victimization, health-related behaviours, and questions about non-commercial partners), investing  26 between 1-2 hours to fill out a detailed survey. When asked why they decided to participate, a high proportion of respondents emphasized the fact that they have never been asked about their experiences and enjoyed speaking about it. The success of this study, coupled with the feedback from participants, led to the development of a second wave of research in 2013, namely, the Sex, Safety, and Security project. This project was situated within a federally funded (SSHRC), inter-institutional, multi-member Canadian research initiative looking at the simultaneous roles that police, regulatory agencies and social service providers, people who sell and purchase sexual services, managers, and intimate partners play in the safety and health of people involved in Canada’s sex industry (Benoit et al., 2014). The segment of the study investigating people who pay for sexual services, aimed to employ, refine and extend the design and recruitment strategies used for Johns’ Voice, placing even greater emphasis on utilizing web-based dimensions of recruitment and survey design and capitalizing on the burgeoning and pervasive presence of online sex industry spaces. 3.1.1 In-house Web-server and Data Security Before describing the nuances of the survey, interview, and ethnography, it is necessary to first discuss some technical dimensions to the project within the context of digital autonomy, web design, and data security. In the social sciences, it is not uncommon for researchers to use web survey applications like Survey Monkey, Lime Survey, Survey Gizmo, or Smart Survey. The use of third-party survey options are necessary solutions for many technologically novice researchers looking to launch their survey online quickly and painlessly. While these options provide the benefit of simplicity and very little technical investment on the part of the researcher, they come at great cost to data security, wherein the servers that host the surveys and the data are housed in American or international locations that are subject to different policies, laws, and protocols  27 regarding data security and safety from federally mandated seizures or anonymous hacking (Atchison & Thomas, 2000; Palys & Lowman, 2014). In the current digital climate, shaped by the presence of WikiLeaks, the NSA, and large-scale international data breaches, concerns over data security and control must be at the forefront of every researcher’s project design, regardless of the sensitivity of the data or the features of the population being studied.   Researching highly marginalized, stigmatized, and criminalized populations such as people who pay for sex requires substantial consideration on the part of the researcher(s) to ensure the privacy and anonymity of the respondents is protected. To this end, the Sex, Safety and Security project started with the foundational requirement of having complete control over web content and data. We utilized an in-house Linux web server that was configured behind multiple physical and virtual firewalls meant to direct and filter out potential data breaches and attackers. All files were encrypted on multiple hard drives, ensuring complete control over the location of the data, the ability to destroy identifying information should the need arise, and providing respondents with added security that ensures complete anonymity and confidentiality. As will be discussed in the following sections, multiple levels of data security aided Sex, Safety, and Security’s ability to establish trust, offer potential respondents assurances of security and anonymity, and maintain trust during the survey or interview and after it was completed.  3.1.2 Structured Self-Administered Questionnaire 3.1.2.1 Questions and Themes The first phase of the study involved the use of a computer-assisted self-administered questionnaire (CASQ) distributed through our research web site (sexsafetysecurity.ca). Participants had the option of filling out the questionnaire directly in their web browser or hand-held mobile device, or by downloading an electronic paper (e-paper) version that could be filled out and returned via  28 email or conventional mail. Both versions of the questionnaire were available in English and French. The questionnaire was a way for participants to tell us about their experiences in a less direct—and therefore less threatening—manner. It facilitated respondents’ ability to speak about some of the more sensitive issues related to sexual safety practices, relationships with non-commercial partners, experiences of violence and victimization, STI testing practices, and other topics affecting a broader array of relationships between clients and sexual service providers.   The questionnaire consisted of 612 questions organized into the following 7 sections: 1) General commercial sex behaviours, preferences, and experiences 2) Safety practices when purchasing sex 3) Experiences and awareness of safety, conflict, victimization, and violence 4) Witnessing crime and willingness to report 5) Exposure to and attitudes toward the law 6) Sharing of information and communication with sex workers 7) Trust and communication with persons outside of the sex industry 8) Shame, stigma and secrecy related to purchasing sexual services 9) Impact of personal health on transactional sex activity 10) Sexual health knowledge and behaviour 11) Information about the survey  Each section of the questionnaire was divided into thematic subsections, each of which was comprised a selection of open-ended and pre-coded answer format questions. Efforts were made to match the themes and specific wording of various questions with those asked in the 2009 Johns’  29 Voice study to facilitate future comparative analyses of the attitudes, behaviours, and experiences of clients and service providers as well as samples of clients at different points in time (2009 and 2014).  3.1.2.2 Ordering and Composition Early on the decision was made to include some of the more important but sensitive and potentially off-putting social demographic questions at the beginning of the questionnaire. The primary concern was over the possibility that our target population might get “scared off” by the early introduction of demographic questions about gender, age, location, marital status, etc., which can be perceived as invasive and interpreted as a violation of confidentiality, or as overly intrusive to the respondents’ sense of anonymity. Weighing in on the outcome of the Johns’ Voice questionnaire, where demographic questions were asked at the end of the survey, the team reflected on 1) the fact that surveys would become unusable if respondents filled out all but the demographic information, and 2) our responsibility to offer respondents the opportunity to decide early on whether they were prepared to reveal the “sensitive” information pertaining to their personal life. If they were not prepared to reveal sensitive information we offered the opportunity to opt out of the study before answering 550 additional questions. Additionally, it was our belief that respondents who withdrew from the survey after completing demographic information introduced early on would be more likely to reconsider and come back to complete the full survey than respondents who withdrew after investing hours completing 90% of the survey. While this may seem like a trivial decision for most researchers, it is foundational when studying marginalized and criminalized populations concerned with privacy and anonymity.  In addition to these considerations, the early introduction of demographic-based questions offers information that can be used as qualifying criteria for skip patterns that can often  30 significantly shorten the length of the survey for particular respondents (e.g., married respondents are asked a set of questions that would not be asked of people who are single). Furthermore, it was important that we not exclude sex buyers with very little experience or those who had only purchased once in their lifetime; having information about the number of times sex has been purchased allowed us to tailor questions accordingly and not inundate one time buyers with a host of questions pertaining to frequency of experiences. Paying particular attention to skip patterns significantly increase the efficiency of the survey and helps to decrease respondent fatigue and attrition rate. 3.1.2.3 Web Format From a research design standpoint, an entirely web-based study was necessary for security, adaptability, visual appeal, freedom for respondents, and efficiency of the survey experience. Part of the challenge when researching highly stigmatized populations is not getting them to fill out the survey but rather figuring out how to attract them to the survey, get them through the often-esoteric ethics preamble without scaring them off, and then get them to start and finish the survey. Often, respondents’ first point of contact with the research project is the website, which can act as a very important introductory extension to a survey. In the case of apprehensive populations like sex buyers, the website is an effective way to introduce ideas and themes, convey a sense of trust of the researcher and legitimacy of the research itself, and give potential participants the chance to experience and feel what the survey might be like before committing.   The required ethics preamble can be quite concerning to some; presenting the content in web format offers the ability to have hover over messages to further explain/diffuse some of the cold and prickly language, offer hyperlinks to other webpages for further explanations or information, provide drop-down options to read further, keep the message succinct, and further  31 emphasize some of the key data security and encryption methods used. The hover function was also used to expand upon concepts, provide definitions, or provide alternative descriptions to potentially confusing words, phrases, or concepts. An adaptive design was used to reveal follow-up questions only if respondents clicked the connected category. This helped respondents progress through the survey efficiently and quickly, minimizing the visual presence of unnecessary content. Text boxes with unlimited character counts were used for open-ended follow-up questions. A prompt option was also used to remind respondents if they missed a question.   In addition to these practical applications, a web format also offers a host of secondary data such as anonymized identification numbers based on IP signatures to surmise the general location of respondents and the local time a survey is started, how long respondents spend on each page, and on what page they drop out of the survey. This data is important for the early stages of survey monitoring when decisions need to be made about refining the ordering of questions, adding additional context in the form of hover-over text, or removing problematic questions. For instance, while monitoring the first 15 to 20 survey completions we observed significantly longer time expenditure and increased dropouts in the experiences and perceptions of conflict section, where exit comments from respondents emphasized their frustration with an abundance of repetitive questions. In response to these early observations, we removed roughly 5 to 10 questions from the section in question to reduce the length and smooth the flow. This decision likely reduced dropout rates and the speed by which respondents made it through the section.  3.1.2.4 Dataset Along with a web-based survey comes enhanced efficiency and significant reductions in data entry errors. The process of scripting a survey in PHP and connecting to a MySQL database ensures that responses are converted into exportable data in exactly the way expected. When a respondent  32 clicks a category on a web survey, the response is converted into a predefined numeric value in the secured database on the Web server. It is immediate and without the common imputation error that goes along with imputing survey responses by hand. One can imagine the amount of error that might accrue when entering the 6,500,000+ potential data points sourced from 1217 surveys consisting of 612 questions—20% of which are lengthy open-ended comments. The efficiency and accuracy of PHP scripting gives us confidence in the accuracy of our data. Additionally, having our data in a SQL database facilitates the transferability to any type of data analysis program.  3.2 Sampling and Recruitment From January 2013 to January 2014 we conducted a 12-month ‘netnographic’ immersion into online ‘communities’ where people involved in the sale and purchase of sex interact. The principal advantage of micro-ethnographic or ‘netnographic’ research is that it allows researchers to develop a more complete description and understanding of the languages, beliefs, and practices of a group of people occupying a very specific social-spatial location. Accordingly, the primary focus of this dimension of our research was to engage with and document the subcultural and spatial context of transactional sex as it occurred within specific physical and virtual ‘communities’. More specifically, we sought to acquire a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the socio-cultural contexts which shape the practices of transactional sex. Our netnographic efforts integrated organically with our recruitment and advertisement strategies wherein the daily routine of spending hours posting advertisements across dozens of online spaces went hand-in-hand with netnographic observations and explications.    33 3.2.1 Recruitment Strategies Our primary goal in recruitment during the different phases of the research was to acquire a large and diverse sample of individuals over the age of 18 who were residing in Canada at the time of participation and who had paid money for sexual services on one or more occasions during their life-time. Since it is impossible to distinguish people who pay for sexual services from those who do not and given that members of this population are largely hidden within the mosaic of the Canadian populous, we attempted to cast a wide net and distribute information about the research to as many people and across as many online spaces as possible. To accomplish this, we employed several recruitment strategies that proved successful in the Johns’ Voice study.   As much human social activity is mediated through information and communications networks, we relied heavily on online spaces to publicize the study and solicit participants. We began by making direct online appeals for participants through regularly posting on online classified advertising websites, on online discussion forums where clients and service providers interact and exchange information, and through social media applications such as Twitter and Facebook. We also posted about recent news articles and radio and television interviews featuring the research on media websites where they were available for longer periods of time and to wide audiences in the hopes that these stories featuring the research would be seen by people involved in the sex industry who would then virally transmit the information to members of their network.   3.2.1.1 Online Spaces: Social and Popular Media This phase of the research focused on collecting netnographic information and posting advertisements in three primary online spaces that are central avenues of communication and connection between clients and workers. The first primary virtual sites were online advertisement websites including, but not limited to, Craigslist, Backpage, Eros Guide, and LEOlist. These spaces  34 were used primarily by sex workers to advertise services, prices, contact information, pictures etc., and are primary locations where sex buyers visit. We spent a significant amount of time in these advertisement spaces placing our own advertisements for the research and thus spent a lot of time observing and documenting field notes within these highly active and dynamic online spaces.  The second online space of interest was review message boards, which included all major Escort Review Boards (ERBs) in Canada. These review message boards are used as advertisement spaces for sex workers but also as online forums where sex buyers review their encounters with workers and discuss industry and non-industry related topics. Time spent in these spaces allowed us to observe the nature of the content buyers’ post, the tone of the discussions, the interactions that take place between buyers and buyers and between buyers and sellers, and the number of registered users, posting frequency, and thread themes (what people are talking about).  The third major online spaces were social media sites including Twitter and Facebook. While we initially used these sites as a means for spreading the word about the research and generating “buzz” within the community, we soon found social media to be a hub for both providers and clients to communicate messages, advertise and discuss topical issues. Much of our time observing social media spaces was spent taking notes about the general tone of conversations and the role instant forms of communication play in worker to worker and worker to client relations.  3.2.1.2 Regional and National News Coverage Within the data collection timeframe, Chris Atchison participated in 18 radio interviews across Canada to discuss topics related to the sex industry, experiences of clients, and findings from his 2009 study “Johns’ Voice”. At the time of data collection, the Canadian Government was engaged in a fierce debate over the proposal to amend the Criminal Code of Canada with new laws aimed  35 at abolishing the sex industry (Government of Canada, 2014). This gave rise to much public attention and interest in sex industry-related news, resulting in many opportunities for our project lead to discuss our research and promote the survey on a national platform. In addition, our research was featured or directly mentioned in over a dozen print news articles which led to additional coverage of our research. This element of “viral marketing” through televised and print news that was picked up in the sex industry conversational spaces (Twitter and blog mentions increased during times of news coverage) resulted in free advertisement and coverage beyond anything we could have imagined.  We generated further publicity for the study by sending out regular updates about the project to journalists, media outlets, and non-profit organizations across Canada. This resulted in regular print and online media coverage as well as radio and television appearances by the lead researcher. We also wrote and published guest articles, editorials, and opinion pieces in several Canadian news sources. Aside from attracting attention to the project, the media coverage also helped to increase the perceived legitimacy of the research by increasing its public visibility and helping to place it in the context of wider Canadian discussions. 3.2.1.3 Word-of-Mouth and Ads in Physical Locals Word-of-mouth as a recruitment strategy was an invaluable part of our recruitment protocol. Several individual sexual service providers who had previously worked with or were acquainted with the project principle investigator volunteered to pass along information to members of their social network (e.g., clients, service providers and people who owned, operated, and managed commercial sex businesses). Additionally, over the course of the project a number of other individuals, organizations, and businesses also offered to post or make available information about the project. We also designed and printed a number of visually attractive project-specific postcards,  36 posters, and magnets that we used to advertise the project. Postcards and magnets were distributed in the six target cities to businesses and organizations that were in some ways directly or potentially connected to the sex industry. These businesses and organizations included sexual health clinics, sex industry outreach and support organizations, bars, clubs, and adult novelty and DVD rental outlets.  3.3 Survey Sample: Site Visits, Completion, Refusal, Attrition Since the web servers and accompanying databases used to host the online survey and store participant responses were owned and operated by members of the research team, we were able to monitor and record all activity on the servers during the data collection period lasting from January 2013 to January 2014. Analysis of the site activity allowed us to not only gain valuable insights into the number of unique visitors to the research web site during the course of the survey but also allowed us the ability to assess the levels of participant attrition at various stages of the survey.4  3.3.1 Website and Website Visits A total of 22,179 unique visitors accessed the sexsafetysecurity.ca web site between the 8th of January 2013 and the 15th of January 2014. Of these, 3,752 (16.9%) made their way to the “survey start” page and viewed the mandatory research ethics preamble describing: 1) the purpose and objectives of the research; 2) participant eligibility requirements; 3) the expectations, risks, and benefits of participating in the research; 4) assurances of anonymity and confidentiality and details of how the data gathered would be collected, stored, and used; 5) the voluntary nature of their                                                  4 Attrition is different from complete withdraw from the study in that when a participant withdraws from the study they indicate that they do not want their information to be used while those that fail to complete the questions asked do not withdraw from the study they simply drop out due to response fatigue, lack of time, or some other unknown factor. Information provided by participants who fail to answer some of the questions asked of them, while incomplete, still contributes to the collective knowledge acquired through the research.  37 participation and their right to refuse to answer any or all questions asked; 6) how the data would be used and how the results would be disseminated; and 7) who they could contact if they had any questions or concerns. Of the 3,752 potential participants who read the ethics preamble, 2,812 (74.95%) decided to agree to participate in the study. From here, 2,783 viewed the survey instructions page which detailed guidelines regarding how to use the special accessibility features built into the browser-based version of the survey. Of these potential participants, 2,708 (97.3%) went on to page one of the survey which began with asking basic socio-demographic questions. Of the 2,708 people who viewed the socio-demographic questions, 1,928 (71.2%) answered some or all of the questions asked and proceeded to subsequent sections of the survey.   Following the socio-demographic section, participants were asked a series of questions about their non-commercial sexual relations. By the end of the two sections of questions pertaining to non-commercial sexual partners, an additional 276 people had dropped from the survey, leaving us with 1,652 participants (representing an additional loss of 14.3% of participants from the previous section and 38.9% of the original sample) who were asked questions about their sex-buying behaviours and preferences. Of these people, 1,599 provided information on their lifetime history of purchasing sexual services. Responses to questions on this page determined which participants were to be included in the survey and which would be filtered out (i.e., only people who indicated that they had purchased sex on one or more occasions in their lifetime were forwarded to the remaining questions). A total of 1,383 participants – 71.5% of those who provided socio-demographic information – indicated that they had purchased sex on one or more occasions in their lifetime and were eligible to proceed. After this point in the survey the attrition rate reduced dramatically with an average of 1.9% of participants (ranging from 0.3% to 4.8%) dropping out after each subsequent section of questions asked.  38 3.3.2 Breakdown of Completion Rates, Multiple- and Non-responses, and Attrition A total of 2,708 people started the survey, 747 (27.6%) of whom did not complete any questions. Our rigorous assessment of the data resulted in the exclusion of an additional 744 participants (33.1% of participants), leaving us with a final sample of 1,217 adult sex buyers.   For ethical reasons we did not record IP addresses as part of survey responses but we were able to implement a respondent tracking method where we joined a non-identifying encrypted numeric equivalent of the participant’s IP address with a numeric translation of the software agent (browser, browser version, operating system) that each user was using to access the survey. This machine fingerprint ID allowed us to reliably identify duplicate submissions of the survey. Using SPSS’s duplicate case identification procedure, we were able to identify 159 participants who had submitted the survey on more than one occasion, accounting for 379 different submissions (19.3% of all submissions). A detailed analysis of these multiple submissions revealed that 3 participants used the withdraw option to indicate that they wanted to remove each of their multiple submissions. Additionally, 14 participants who had submitted their survey twice withdrew one of their submissions leaving only one valid submission. An additional 97 participants who submitted multiple surveys did not provide responses in one or more of their submissions; these people may have wanted an opportunity to look over the questions in the survey before they decided to fully participate.   Only 53 participants submitted multiple complete or partially complete surveys. Most of the people who submitted more than one survey submitted only twice. In these cases we thoroughly analyzed each submission for inconsistent or additional information. When responses were inconsistent, we opted to exclude the participant entirely. When responses were identical, or when the only difference between two responses was the inclusion of additional information, we opted  39 to include the submission with the most complete data. Of the remaining people who submitted multiple surveys, 21 submitted three times, five attempted to submit four times; four attempted to submit five times; and, three attempted to submit the survey seven or eight times. The decision was made to omit all submissions of participants who attempted to submit partially or fully completed surveys on three or more occasions since we could not determine if these people were purposely trying to contaminate or bias the research data. In the end, we accepted one submission from 120 of the 159 participants who submitted on more than one occasion. The 120 we accepted were participants who clearly were not attempting to manipulate or sabotage the survey results (e.g., they had either withdrawn one of their submissions or provided actual responses only once). Accordingly, we omitted 259 responses (13.2%) due to multiple submissions.   Thorough analysis of the responses provided by each participant resulted in our decision to exclude responses from 7 participants (0.35%) who were clearly not serious respondents. Evidence of this was found mostly in their responses to open-ended questions. For example, when asked about the types of sexual partners they had been with in the past their responses included “extra-terrestrial,” “alien” and “Mars Attacks” and when asked about where he or she was born one participant responded with “pussy town.” Only one participant was omitted from the final sample where it was not completely obvious that they were not taking the survey seriously. In this case, the participant indicated he or she was 23 years old, started purchasing sexual services at 23 and had purchased 10,000 times; all other information provided by this participant appeared to be consistent and realistic.  We omitted an additional 383 respondents (19.5%) because they did not specify that they had purchased sexual services on one or more occasions in their lifetime and 22 (1.1%) because they indicated that they were not Canadian and had never purchased sex in Canada. We deleted  40 one further participant because he or she indicated that they were born in 1998 making them ineligible for participation because they were under 18. Finally, we omitted the responses of 72 participants (3.7%) who officially withdrew from the study by selecting the “withdraw from survey now” option located at the bottom of every page of the survey. In total, 1,217 adult sex buyers were retained in the final dataset.   The analyses formulated and presented in the following chapters are based on a final sub-sample of 852 respondents. All of these respondents completed most or all the questions pertinent to the operationalized variables described in Chapter 4, are male, have purchased sexual services in Canada on at least one occasion, and have never sold sexual services. In regard to the marital status of the clients in this sub-sample (see Appendix A.1), just over a third are married (36%), 31% are single, 12% are divorced, and 21% are common-law/dating. Roughly half report a personal income of over $60,000 per year and/or having completed some form of post-secondary education. The majority of clients are over the age of 41 (61.2%) with varying levels of experience paying for services that ranges from 1-5 times (11.9%) to over 100 times (19.2%). (See Appendix A through D for additional frequency counts and percentages.)  3.4 Ethical Review and Conflict of Interest A strong commitment to ethical research was a priority of this project. It informed all aspects of the study, including the development of the research questions, choice of data collection methods and manner of implementation, precautions taken to protect anonymity and ensure confidentiality of research participants, and reporting of our findings. Maintaining a strong and clear awareness and focus on ethics was especially important given the stigma associated with paying for sexual services and the stigmatized population that the project was focused on.   41  The project was reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics Board (HREB) at the University of Victoria in accordance with the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. As a multi-member SSHRC funded Team Grant, the project was also subject to external granting agency peer review prior to its start. This research was conducted without any conflicts of interest.   Although the project was perceived to be posing "minimal risk" to participants – meaning it was no riskier than any of the possible harms that a person may encounter in everyday life – there were a number of specific precautions taken with respect to participants’ privacy and confidentiality. For example, participants gave their verbal or implied consent to take part in research rather than being required to provide written consent which could increase the risk of being identified by signature. Participants also had the option to remain completely anonymous when filling out the survey or taking part in the interview. We retained no personal information about the participants that could be used to identify them. Similarly, participants were instructed to not disclose any of such information during interviews. They were reminded that their participation in the research was voluntary, that they could leave it at any time and that they were free to decline to answer any questions they may feel uncomfortable with. If respondents had revealed personal identifying information through the survey or interview process, it was identified and removed through the data cleaning and/or transcription process.  The research website provided detailed information about the project, including its purpose and objectives, information about the research team members, and how the research was being conducted including ways to participate, reasons why participation is important, and descriptions of our commitment to ethics, privacy, and confidentiality. Each person taking part in the online survey would have read this information prior to indicating through clicking the on-screen button  42 that they agree to participate. Individuals taking part in interviews were given the same information verbally at the start of each interview. This helped ensure that each participant was adequately informed about the research prior to agreeing to take part.    43 Chapter  4: Operationalization of Key Concepts In this chapter I describe the closed- and open-ended survey questions and operationalized variables that ‘tap’ into the theoretical schema elaborated upon in Chapter 2, namely, accounting for indicators that help us to understand respondents’ positioning in social space over past (experiences and tendencies purchasing), present (dispositions and proclivities), and future (perceptions and projections) time dimensions. The goal of the study is to reveal how these dimensions inform the logic of practice (the mutual orientation, strategies and directions) for sets of actors in this sample of sex buyers. Starting with the operational definitions of the theoretical themes that inform my research objectives, in this chapter I introduce which forces are investigated, why they are important, and how they are measured in this study.  The following are detailed descriptions of specific variables included in each of the themes and sub-categorizations. In addition to the variables and the categories included in the model, I list the open-ended questions that are used to contextualize the classifications that emerge in the model. The variables included are presented thematically as indicators of sex buyers’ positionality and experience in their day-to-day life and in the sex industry, past experiences of disruptive events, present dispositions, and future perceptions and projections. For each group of variables, I provide a table containing: 1) the survey item(s) used to generate the variables included in the analysis, 2) the accompanying follow-up open-ended question where applicable, and 3) a shortened version of each variable category for use in the mapping of the social space. Frequency distributions and the names appended to each category in the analysis for each of the following variables are included in Appendix A through D.   44 4.1 Spatial Foundations of Social Positioning The inclusion of the following series of questions in the multiple correspondence model will establish a spatial understanding of respondents’ positions occupied in spaces related to transactional sex (e.g., the venues they frequent, the sexual and non-sexual activities they tend to pay for, etc.) as well as those of everyday life (e.g., jobs, marital status, education, income, age, etc.), providing context of respondents’ experiences purchasing sexual services over time and across spaces.  My approach to operationalizing spatial dimensions of everyday and sex industry specific social spaces is non-restrictive. That is, my aim is not to identify rigid boundaries that define and separate social spaces but to understand how boundaries of social spaces overlap and coincide with one another. This process requires thinking about how individuals are situated within multiple spaces and how their positionality within each informs a broader understanding of the multidimensionality of the social world and how people experience and navigate them. Additionally, it is important to get a sense of how long an individual has been situated or invested in social spaces: the time dimension associated with their positionality. Factors such as age, years pursuing an education, years in a relationship, age someone first purchased sexual services, and how frequently, recently, and/or in total they have paid for sex all speak to experiences, process, immersion, understanding, and position in the everyday and sex industry spaces. Frequency distributions for each of the variables described in the following sub-sections are included in Appendix A. 4.1.1 Positions in Spaces of Everyday Life A central dimension to one’s social positioning when studying the purchase of sexual services is marital or partnership status. Relationships and marital status constitute prominent forces that  45 shape actions and interactions in social spaces. It is a force that emerges from commonly understandable and relatable rules, regulations, norms, rituals, ceremonies, and formalities, all of which not only say something about individuals’ position in their everyday lives but also the position they hold within other social contexts. The act of marriage infers commitment to another person, commitment to friends and family of the person, shared income, shared responsibilities, shared decision-making, shared living space, and to varying degrees (especially in western cultures) sexual and emotional monogamy. People who do not have a partner, who are single, divorced, or casually dating but not necessarily committed to another person, hold social positions that differ along lines of personal income, responsibilities, decisions, and interactions from those held by formally partnered individuals whose social existence is more directly tied to another person or persons (e.g., wife, husband, children).  4.1.1.1 Partnership Status To measure partnership status, respondents were asked: “Are you currently involved in any intimate/romantic relationships with someone who is not a sex worker? (e.g., husband or wife, common-law partner, romantic or dating relationship)”, followed by a question asking whether they live with the person and how many years they have been in a relationship with the person, and then a final question asking to specify their marital status as married, common-law5, single, widowed, separated or divorced, or other. In the interest of adding a time dimension to partnership status, these three questions were combined into a seven-category indicator distinguishing between single and never married, single and have been married, dating for less than two years (in a                                                  5 Respondents were provided with the following definition of common-law: “According to the Canada Revenue Agency a common-law partner is a person who is not your spouse, with whom you are living in a conjugal relationship, and to whom at least one of the following situations applies. He or she: a) has been living with you in a conjugal relationship for at least 12 continuous months; b) is the parent of your child by birth or adoption; or c) has custody and control of your child (or had custody and control immediately before the child turned 19 years of age) and your child is wholly dependent on that person for support”  46 romantic relationship for less than 2 years, not living together, and not married), common-law for less or equal to 5 years, common-law for more than 5 years, married for less than 15 years, and married for more than 15 years. 4.1.1.2 Income, Education, and Occupation To assess respondents’ personal income they were asked: “What was your personal income (before taxes) from all sources in 2011” and given the option to choose one of 22 income-range categories ranging from no income to $100,000 or more. For analytic purposes, this measure was collapsed as: less than $19,999; $20,000-39,999; $40,000-59,999; $60,000-79,999; $80,000-99,999; and $100,000 or more. Level of education was categorized by highest level of schooling completed: high school or less; some trade or technical college; completed trade or technical college; some post secondary (college or university); completed diploma or certificate (college); completed university degree (bachelor); completed a master’s degree; and completed a PhD, MD, or LLB. Respondents were asked about their main occupation at the time of the survey. Responses were categorized using the Canadian national occupation classification system (CNOCS) which offers a standardized way to organize occupations into 520 occupational group descriptions that can be re-structured into a few broad categories. For the purposes of this analysis, I have grouped the occupations into the CNOCS’s eight broadest parent categories and also included categories for respondents who are retired, on disability or unemployed, students, and an additional category for those who are working full-time but chose not to specify their occupation name. 4.1.2 Positions in Spaces of Transactional Sex  4.1.2.1 Venue Experiences In an effort to understand what kinds of venues respondents have visited and infuse a frequency and regularity time dimension, I have created a series of composite measures that draw on  47 responses to the questions: “Which of the following types of sex sellers have you visited in your lifetime? [choose multiple from list of 9 venues]”, “In the past 12 months, how many times have you had sexual encounters with a sex seller who you met in the following locations? [list of 9 venues with 7 frequency of visit category choices]”, “Which of the following types of sex sellers do you visit most often? [choose one from list of 9 venues]”, and a follow up question asking “Do you only see sex sellers that work through the [most often visited] location? [yes or no]”. Composite measures of experience with each of the nine venue options (street, escort, bar/club, massage, independent out-call, independent in-call, brothel, BDSM/Fetish, and online) consist of four categories: 1) never visited X, 2) have visited X but not within the last year, 3) have visited X 1-3 times within the last year, and 4) have visited X on 4 or more occasions within the last year. Using the questions about venues most often and/or only visited, a 12-category composite measure was created, consisting of those respondents who most often or only visit: 1) independent in-call, 2) independent out-call, 3) escorts, 4) massage parlours or brothels6, 5) street or club/bar, 6) online. 4.1.2.2 Recurrence and Breadth of Sexual Experiences As added elements to the sexual experiences respondents have in transactional sex spaces, I have included three additional questions pertaining to general sexual experiences and relations. First, respondents were asked if prostitution was their only source of sex over the past 12 months (yes or no). Second, respondents were asked whether or not they have visited the same sex seller more than once in the past 12 months followed by a question asking whether or not they only visit/see the same sex seller each time they purchased sexual services. Responses were combined into a three-category measure consisting of: 1) no, respondent has not visited the same seller for the past                                                  6 To ensure adequate cell counts, massage parlours and brothels have been collapsed together based on their substantive similarities as structured environments that have managers and multiple workers at any given time; street and club have also been collapsed for their substantive similarities as largely unstructured purchasing environments populated primarily with independent workers that doesn’t require pre-booking.  48 year, 2) yes, respondent has visited the same seller but not exclusively, and 3) yes, respondent has only visited the same seller. To add a dimension of international experience purchasing sexual services in fields outside of Canada, respondents were asked if they have ever purchased sex outside of Canada and, if so, in which countries were they purchased (listing names of locations)? Number of locations were tallied and combined with experience to establish a three-category measure of 1) only having bought in Canada, 2) having purchased in only one location outside of Canada, and 3) having purchased in two or more locations outside of Canada. Finally, a measure of sexuality through experience is included, where respondents were asked: “Which of the following types of sexual partners have you had in the past? [Check all that apply]”, female, male, trans-man (female transitioned/ing to male), or trans-woman (male transitioned/ing to female). Four dichotomous yes or no indicators are included in the model.   Overall, these indicators offer insight into the transactional sex spaces with which respondents have had experience and the general breadth of sexual and non-sexual activities they have experienced over time. 4.1.3 Experience and Time Time is a very important dimension in this study. While I have consciously tried to infuse elements of time into the above-mentioned variables (i.e., in terms of frequency, breadth, length of time, etc.), it is important to also include some more specific measures of experience and immersion in spaces of the day-to-day and spaces of transactional sex over time.  4.1.3.1 Age At the most general level I’ve included age as an indicator of time. Respondents were asked: “In what year were you born?”, and age categories were then collapsed into five groups: 1) 18-30 years old, 2) 31-40 years old, 3) 41-50 years old, 4) 51-60 years old, 5) over 60 years old. In theories  49 that consider space and time dimensions in society, age is one of the most important fundamental indicators of likelihood of experience, learning, adaptation, and change. When taken as a stand-alone concept age can take on a very static quality as an indicator of where somebody lies along the straight linear continuum of their life course. Here I think about age in a relational way, as a measure of time that, when taken in the context of what other social forces are in proximity, speaks to the history and breadth of experiences respondents have in social fields.  4.1.3.2 Purchasing Frequency and Time of Entry I have included two additional measures of experience within transactional sex spaces. The first captures the overall breadth of experience respondents have purchasing services, and is based on their answer to: “Approximately how many times have you paid money for sexual services in your lifetime? [open integer response]”. Responses were recoded into seven categories of experience levels: 1) purchased sexual services 1-5 times in their lifetime, 2) 6-10 times, 3) 11-20 times, 4) 21-40 times, 5) 41-75 times, 6) 76-100 times, and 7) more than 100 times. The second captures a further dimension related to point of introduction into sex industry fields, and is based on respondents’ answer to: “How old were you when you first purchased sexual services? [# years of age]”. Responses were recoded into six categories: 1) respondent was less or equal to 18 years old when they first purchased sexual services, 2) 19-21 years old, 3) 22-25 years old, 4) 26-30 years old, 5) 31-40 years old, and 6) over 40 years old.  4.2 Past Experiences of Disruption Situations of disruption are of particular importance in a study of people who pay for sexual services. As actors who are often entering situations that they have never experienced before, much of what they experience is hidden and unknown to those with little or no experience. For those  50 who do have experience, the hidden nature of the sex industry brings with it higher potential for unanticipated disruptive events or situations (e.g., being robbed, arrested, victimized, etc.). The process of learning the rules and rhythms of purchasing sexual services is a fluid process of navigating disruptive events, some of which will be more memorable and influential than others. For the present study, I am interested in the memorable and influential events that clients have or have not experienced in the past, the frequency by which they have encountered them, the context in which they happened, and their position and response to the event(s). To understand the regularity and rhythms of the anticipated dimensions of purchasing sexual services, we must examine what a disruptive (unanticipated) event is and how it is experienced by people who pay for sex. In other words, I attempt to identify the effects of irregularities in order to better understand the effects of regularities.  Focusing on past experiences within transactional sex spaces, the following operational definitions are aimed at evincing past experiences of disruption and conflict with actors and/or events over time. Variable selection for dimensions of past experiences is broken down into: 1) active forms of disruption, indicators of experiences where respondents may have had a more active role in the disruptive event; 2) passive forms of disruption, where a disruptive experience may have been sourced from another party; 3) interactive forms of disruption, taking the form of arguments or disagreements between two parties; and 4) lateral disruption, where the respondent was an outside observer to a disruptive event. Frequency distributions for each of the variables described in the following four sub-sections are included in Appendix B. 4.2.1 Active Disruption Active disruption refers to an experience that could be defined or categorized as emerging from the actions of the sex buyer. People are not always passive witnesses to disruptive events; they can  51 be active participants. This can mean a situation where a sex buyer knowingly or unknowingly acts in a way that is disruptive to the flow of interactions taking place.  4.2.1.1 Challenge, Pressure, and Refusal To capture experiences where respondents were active participants in a disruptive situation, they were asked several questions with open-ended follow-ups. First they were asked: “Have you ever tried to get sexual services for free from a sex seller? [yes or no]”, which was followed with two open ended questions for those who answered yes: 1) “If you have tried to get sexual services for free, why did you do this?”, and 2) “If you have tried to get sexual services for free, what was the result of your attempt to get free services?”. Second: “Have you ever pressured a sex seller into doing something sexually that they were not prepared to do? [yes or no]”, followed by two open ended questions asking: 1) “If you have pressured a sex seller into doing something sexually that they were not prepared to do, what caused you to do this?”, and 2) “If you have pressured a sex seller into doing something sexually that they were not prepared to do, what happened after you did this?”. Third: “Have you ever refused to use sexual safety precautions such as condoms, female condoms, dental dams or medical gloves when a sex seller has asked you to use them? [yes or no]”, which was followed with an open-ended question for those who said yes asking: “How do sex sellers react when you refuse to use sexual safety precautions?”. These questions capture a more direct initiation of a disruptive experience where the sex buyer is acting in opposition to what is expected by the sex worker. While the initial questions allow us to identify if the respondent has experience with and initiated disruption, the follow-up questions help us understand how the experience unfolded and what the outcome was.     52 4.2.1.2 Sexual Safety Also included are several indicators that are not as directly disruptive but are actions that have the potential to be initiators or catalysts to disruptive events, such as drinking alcohol prior to a session, having experiences with unsafe unprotected sex, and generally not using sexual safety precautions, all of which could be argued as active forms of disruption emanating from the actions of sex buyers. First, respondents were asked: “Which of the following activities do you generally engage in when you are with the sex seller?” to which they could choose yes or no for each of a list of 12 categories: 1) Use dental dams during sexual activity; 2) Oral sex with a condom; 3) Oral sex without a condom; 4) Vaginal intercourse with a condom; 5) Vaginal intercourse without a condom; 6) Anal intercourse with a condom; 7) Anal intercourse without a condom; 8) Masturbation by partner (i.e., a hand-job) with a condom; 9) Masturbation by partner (i.e., a hand-job) without a condom; 10) Self-masturbation; 11) Group sex with a condom; 12) Group sex without a condom. In order to capture the most disruptive activities of unprotected forms of sexual contact, responses to question five, seven, and twelve were coded into a dichotomous measure indicating whether respondents generally engage in unprotected penetrative sex. To follow-up this question and to give further context, respondents were asked: “How often do you use sexual safety precautions such as condoms, female condoms, dental dams or medical gloves when you are with a sex seller?” and provided six response categories: 1) All the time (100% of the time), 2) Almost every time (75-99% of the time), 3) A lot of the time (50-74% of the time), 4) Sometimes (25-49% of the time), 5) Rarely (less than 25% of the time), 6) Never (0%). Given that there are a variety of sexual acts that do not necessarily require sexual safety precautions, respondents were asked a follow-up open-ended question: “In what situations do you not use sexual safety precautions such as condoms, female condoms, dental dams or medical gloves when you are with a sex seller?”.   53 4.2.1.3 Active Substance Use Finally, to capture how often respondents might enter a transactional sex environment under the influence of alcohol, they were asked: “On average, how often do you drink more than three alcoholic beverages just prior to or during your visit?”, and provided the same six response categories ranging from all the time to never. For the analysis responses were collapsed into three categories, those who never drink three alcoholic beverages prior, those who do so less than 25% of the time, and those who do so more than 25% of the time. 4.2.2 Passive Disruption An often overlooked dimension in sex industry research is the notion that sex buyers can also have experiences of disruption at the hands of others. These experiences of disruption are characterized as situations that emanate from the actions of others. Instances of passive disruptive events include bait and switch experiences7, being refused services that were negotiated or paid for, being put down, being verbally abused or harassed, being robbed, or having a session with a sex worker who is under the influence of alcohol or other substances. 4.2.2.1 Anticipation and Expectations To capture some of these variations in experiences of uninitiated disruptive events respondents were asked: “Have you ever arranged to meet a sex worker over the phone, email or online only to find out that he/she was not who you had assumed (e.g., in terms of age/gender/race/weight, etc.) they were based on how they were advertised (i.e., a “bait and switch”)?” which was followed by an open ended question for those who have experienced a bait and switch: “If a sex worker you have seen did not match the way they were advertised, how did you react when this happened?”. Next, respondents were asked: “Has a sex worker ever refused to provide you with the services                                                  7 Arranged to meet a sex worker over the phone, email or online only to find out that he/she was not who the sex buyer had assumed (e.g., in terms of age/gender/race/weight, etc.) based on how they were advertised.  54 you negotiated or paid for?” followed by an open-ended question asking: “If sex workers you have seen have refused to provide you with the services you negotiated or paid for, how did you react when this happened?”. Also, I included a contrasting measure of respondents’ perception of workers’ alcohol use: “On average, how often do you think the sex seller you are with is under the influence of alcohol during your visit?”. The six-category response was collapsed into three categories: 1) never, 2) <25% of the time, and 3) >= 25% of the time. While these are classified as disruptions to expectations and anticipations, I also included two composite measures of verbal conflict by the sex worker and experiencing theft or robbery at the hands of a sex worker.  4.2.2.2 Verbal Disruption Examining verbal forms of disruption, I combined the responses of three primary questions and their follow ups that ask how frequently an event has happened (only once, 2-5 times, more than 5 times). The first asked: “Have you ever been insulted or put down by a sex worker [yes or no]”. The second asked: “Have you ever been verbally abused/harassed (i.e., had threatening words or phrases directed at you) by a sex seller?” and the third asked: “Has a sex worker ever made threatening gestures (e.g., shaking a hand or fist) or faces at you because they were angry with you?”. Accounting for responses to these three questions and frequency of occurrence, I created a three-category measure consisting of: 1) never experienced conflict by sex worker, 2) experienced conflict by sex worker on one occasion, 3) experienced conflict by sex worker on two or more occasions. In a few instances, respondents had answered yes to two of the three questions and described in the open-ended questions that were clearly different situations. In instances where it was clear each situation happened only once (i.e., they experienced two separate situations of conflict), they were coded into the ‘experienced conflict 2 or more times category’. Follow-up open ended questions for each of the three primary questions asked respondents: “How did you  55 react when [insulted, harassed, or gestures] happened?”. In the few cases where respondents experienced this form of disruption on more than one occasion, responses were combined and delimited by a semicolon. 4.2.2.3 Theft or Robbery Examining experiences of disruption by theft or robbery, respondents were asked two questions: 1) “Have you ever had property stolen by a sex seller when you were with him/her?” and 2) “Have you ever been robbed (i.e., had something stolen from you with the threat or use of violence) by a sex seller?”. Both were followed by questions asking those who had experienced either stolen property or robbery how “frequently has it happened? (only once, 2-5 times, more than 5 times)”. The responses from both were combined into a three-category measure consisting of those who have never experienced theft, those who have experienced theft on one occasion, and those who have experienced theft on two or more occasions. The follow-up open-ended questions asked respondents how they reacted to the situation(s). 4.2.3 Interactive Disruption Experiences of disruption can also take an interactive or discursive tone in the form of arguments and disagreements between clients and providers. Towards capturing the interpersonal and processual form that disruption can take, respondents were asked a series of questions about situations where they may or may not have argued with a sex worker, what they thought caused the argument, and what the result ended up being. The three questions included in the model asked respondents: “Have you ever argued with a sex seller over the length of the encounter?”, “Have you ever argued with a sex seller over the terms of service (e.g., the types of activities you will engage in)?”, and “Have you ever argued with a sex seller over the price of the service(s) you have  56 negotiated?” Respondents who said to one of these questions was asked two follow-up open-ended questions asking them what caused the argument and what the result of the argument was.  4.2.4 Lateral Disruption Finally, a key dimension of experiencing disruptive events relates to situations where a respondent may be a passive observer, witness, or in proximity to a disruptive event or be in a situation where they have not directly observed an event but suspect another person has experienced a disruptive event. I use the term lateral disruption to reflect situations where the respondent is a part, extension, or side observer to a disruptive event. To measure respondents’ experiences of lateral disruption, I fashioned a composite measure that draws upon answers to four related questions. These questions are: 1) “Have you ever witnessed a sex worker being victimized in any way by a client or someone you thought was a client?”, 2) “Have you ever witnessed a sex worker being victimized in any way by a third party such as an agency owner, manager, booking agent or "pimp"?”, 3) “Have you ever suspected a sex worker was being victimized in any way by a client or someone you thought was a client?”, and 4) “Have you ever suspected a sex worker was being victimized in any way by a third party such as an agency owner, manager, booking agent or "pimp"?”. Those who witnessed or suspected instances of victimization were asked three follow-up questions: 1) “What did you witness? [open ended]”, 2) “Did you do anything about it? [yes or no]”, and 3) “Why or why not? [open ended]”. I computed the answers into a five-category composite measure distinguishing between respondents who have never witnessed or suspected victimization; have not witnessed, have suspected, but did not act; have not witnessed, have suspected, and did act; have witnessed or suspected and did not act; and those who did witness or suspect and did act. The open-ended responses to these questions serve to specify the nature of the disruption that was  57 witnessed or suspected and put into context why respondent did or did not engage with the directly or indirectly witnessed disruptive event.  4.3 Present Dispositions and Valence Where the operative focus of the previous section was on the presence or absence of memorable disruptive events as change inducing experiences, this section aims to capture some dimensions of respondents’ present dispositions and values as a way to better understand how transactional sex spaces are navigated, that is, how their actions and interactions are relationally shaped by social position and past experiences purchasing sexual services. I first elaborate on what disposition means and how we can go about operationalizing it in a way that captures both the attraction (taste, like, value) and aversion (distaste, dislike, devaluation) dimensions of the concept. This means not just focusing on internal dispositions a respondent has but paying attention to the external elements and situations that “charge” or “repulse” the orientation of a person. Towards this end, I adapt and apply the concepts of valence and dispositions.  To operationalize valance as a force between respondent and a social element (object, situation, event, person(s), etc.), I included a series of questions that asked about the degree to which respondents worry about various conditions. Though fear, concern, or worry can be characterized as an internal sentiment that is produced at the individual or cognitive level—something that is felt—it is a concept with inherently social dimensions. The idea of being worried says something about a force that exists between a person and social situations that take place outside of them. Valence is a complex cognitive concept that is rarely investigated in sociological research. There is no roadmap to guide an analytical interpretation and application of a concept that exists at the intersection of person and things. The following operational definitions focus on  58 the present in the form of dispositions and valence: the dispositional or preferential forces of attraction or aversion between respondent and social contexts. These variables are classified into three broad forms of valence: 1) actor--actor valence, which reflects dispositional forces that draw or repel respondents to or from types of sex workers, venues, or types of activities; 2) actor--non-human actor valence, reflective of forces between respondents and alcohol, drugs, and diseases; and 3) actor--event valence, which broadly relates to attractive or aversive forces between the respondents and events such as being arrested, being robbed, experiencing victimization, etc. Frequency distributions for each of the following variables are included in Appendix C. 4.3.1 Actor - Actor Valence In order to measure the degree of attractive or aversive force in the form of being drawn to or aversive to insurance of privacy or anonymity when interacting with a service provider, I employ several questions that speak to the openness and intimacy between actors. Respondents were asked: “Do you use your real name when you meet with sex sellers? [yes or no]” and “How often do you talk to the sex sellers you visit about your personal life?”, which offered six response categories: 1) all the time (100% of the time), 2) almost every time (75-99% of the time), 3) a lot of the time (50-74% of the time), 4) sometimes (25-49% of the time), 5) rarely (less than 25% of the time), and 6) never (0%). All six categories are included in the model.   Measuring the personal preferences or dispositions of sex buyers or the valence between respondents and the sex workers they generally visit, I employ two questions. First, respondents’ preferred age range of sex seller was based on answers to: “What age range do you prefer for sex sellers, in general? [select one response only from 10 category ranges]”. Responses were collapsed into five categories: 1) prefer sex workers who are under 20, 2) prefer 21-25, 3) prefer 26-30, 4) prefer 31-35, and 5) prefer 36 or older. Additionally, I included a general measure of pragmatics  59 or preference towards visiting sex workers of different racial backgrounds, operationalized by respondents’ answer to the question: “How frequently do you purchase sexual services from a sex seller whose racial background is different from your own” [choose from 6 categories]. Response categories included in the model are: 1) all the time (100% of the time), 2) almost every time (75-99% of the time), 3) a lot of the time (50-74% of the time), 4) sometimes (25-49% of the time), 5) rarely (less than 25% of the time), and 6) never (0%).  I measured the valence between respondents and a broader scope and range of actors in and out of the transactional sex spaces in terms of attractive or repulsive valence for talking to others about sex buying. To do so, I employ a computed measure of respondents’ answer to two questions, 1) “have you ever spoken to anyone about your encounters with sex sellers?”, and if yes, 2) “Did any of the people you have spoken to about your visits with sex sellers treat you any differently after they found out you had purchased sexual services [yes or no]?”. From these two questions, I created a final three-category measure consisting of: 1) has never talked to another person, 2) has talked to someone and didn’t treat differently, 3) has talked to someone and did treat differently. If the respondent replied yes to being treated differently, they were then asked: “In what way did they treat you differently? [open ended]”.   Finally, in order to capture the kinds of sexual and non-sexual activities and forms of sexual relations respondents are drawn to or avoid, they were asked: “Generally speaking, when you are with a sex seller, what activities do you pay for?” [choose all that apply from a list of 14 activities]. Activities include conversation, companionship, kissing, masturbation or hand job, massage, giving oral sex, receiving oral sex, penetrative vaginal intercourse with the worker, penetrative anal intercourse with the worker, receiving anal intercourse from the worker, girlfriend experience  60 (GFE)8, multiple partners (threesomes), porn star experience (PSE)9, and BDSM/Fetish10. Included in the model are 14 dichotomous measures of whether or not respondents do or do not generally pay for the activities in question. 4.3.2 Actor - Non-Human Actor Valence Valence can take the form of relations between an actor and the objects that surround them. As Johnson and Latour (1988) and Latour (2005) have argued, objects are not just passive things that fill a space. Non-human artifacts like doors (Latour & Johnson, 1988), insects (Mawani, 2014), and clocks (Thompson, 1967) can hold social positions and enact force in a social space. In the sex industry, there are ‘things’ that exist in the fields that can take on active properties to the degree that they can be characterized as active elements or actors. STIs, HIV, or other diseases, though microscopic and non-human in form, are prominently present as active and actionable social elements that both clients and providers act in relation to; always a concern, always on the mind, always capable of attacking. Similarly, legal and illegal social factors like alcohol, drugs, or other substances like Viagra are non-human elements that can become actors by transmission through a person.  The first forms of non-human actor (NHA) valence I look at is worry about the presence of legal and illegal mood-altering substances such as alcohol or illegal drugs. Alcohol and Drugs are non-human actors that have an influential relation with human actors who consume them and others in proximity to them. To capture relational force between respondents and these NHAs, I draw upon two questions asked of respondents: “Does it worry you that the sex seller you are with                                                  8 A type of service a female sex worker offers which includes acting like a girlfriend to the client. GFE includes French kissing, hugging, talking, and eating a meal together. If the sex worker is male, the service is called the boyfriend experience (BFE). 9 Term used to describe a sexual encounter that is very similar to what you would see in a pornographic film – such as talking dirty, ejaculation in the mouth or on the sex worker's body, and a wide range of sexual positions. 10 Bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, sadism and masochism.  61 could be under the influence of alcohol when you are with her/him?” and “Does it worry you that the sex seller you are with could be under the influence of drugs such as marijuana, hashish, cocaine/crack, crystal meth/speed, club drugs (e.g., K, GHB, X), or heroin when you are with her/him?”, with response categories for each of yes and no. Those who responded yes were then asked: “How worried does this make you? A little bit worried, worried, or very worried”. The final indicators included in the model consist of four-category measures: 1) don’t worry at all, 2) worry a little bit, 3) worry, and 4) very worried. The second form of NHA valence I examine is worry about contracting a Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) or Disease (STD). STIs and STDs are non-human actors that hold a particularly central position across many and most social fields, they can be more prevalent in some social fields than others. The following question addresses valence between respondents and STI/STDs: “How often do you worry that you might contract an STI/STD as a result of your visits with sex sellers?” with 4 response categories: 1) always worry, 2) usually worry, 3) occasionally worry, 4) never worry. A fifth “not sure/ don’t know” category is also included to represent the respondents who replied that they have never heard of sexually transmitted infections or diseases and had never been tested for a STI/STD. Respondents were also asked an open-ended question about general practices to protect against HIV or STIs: “How do you protect yourself from HIV or other STIs?” 4.3.3 Actor - Event Valence Valence is not limited to the spaces between the physically tangible; it can emerge between a person and an unknown, an idea, an event, or an outcome. In transactional sex environments, events such robbery, arrest, victimization, extortion and being ‘outed’ are all non-tangible situations that exist as conditions external to a person who pays for sex, something that may or may not have taken place but is nevertheless something between which valence emerges. I employ  62 several questions that measure the degree to which aversion or concern are present between respondent and select events.   I measured concern of victimization utilizing responses to the question: “Have you ever worried about being victimized in some way (e.g., being robbed, assaulted, verbally abused/harassed, insulted, having your property damaged or stolen, etc.) when you are purchasing sexual services? [yes or no]”. This question was followed with an open-ended question for those who have worried about being victimized: “Could you tell us a bit about the specific forms of victimization that you worry about when purchasing sexual services?”. I also measured concern over arrest by way of the question: “Do you ever worry that you may be arrested for soliciting sexual services? [yes or no]” and if so, “How worried does this make you? [A little bit worried, worried, or very worried]”. Both questions are included in the model as a four-category measure: 1) not worried about being arrested, 2) a little worried, 3) worried, and 4) very worried.  While the above examine valence between potential events, I also examine the valence between a respondent and the event of posting reviews on community message boards11, exploring the ways in which respondents and the process of reviewing a provider are related. To measure valence with posting reviews, I draw upon responses to the question: “Have you ever posted a negative review about a sex seller on an on-line forum ([List major Canadian review forums])? [yes or no]” and the follow up question asked of those who answered yes: “Thinking back over all the times you have paid for sex in your lifetime, how frequently have you posted a negative review about a sex seller on an on-line forum? [only once, 2-5 times, more than 5 times]”. Responses to these two questions were coded into a three-category measure consisting of: 1) never posted a                                                  11 A community message board is a sex industry specific online space where sex buyers post reviews and commentary about their practical, sexual, and emotional, experiences with sex workers they have visited.  63 negative review, 2) posted a negative review once, and 3) posted a negative review 2 or more times.  Finally, I measured valence between respondent and the event of sex for money transactions with the question: “Do you take any precautions to ensure your safety when visiting sex sellers? [yes or no]”. While this question somewhat narrowly speaks to the valence between a respondent and a safe sexual transaction, the follow up open-ended questions are of particular importance to understand the constitution of the valence. Those who responded that they do take precautions were asked to specify what precautions they take, and those who responded that they do not take precautions were asked why they don’t take any precautions. Together, these questions help to understand the nature of the attractive, repulsive, or ambivalence forces between actors and characteristics of the transactional sex event.  4.4 Future Perceptions and Projections The social forces that shape actions and interactions are not limited to past experiences and present dispositions. There is a dimension of force that, bound to past and present, expands into the future: that which has not yet happened. Of interest is understanding how past experiences and social positioning in and out of transactional sex spaces relate to the ways respondents think about what has not yet happened but could happen in the future, or what has happened and could happen again in the future. Recalling discussion of the future time dimension in Chapter 2, the final series of operational definitions capture future dimensions of perceptions and projections of respondents in terms of their perceptions of power relations and social position, and their projections of what might happen if events were to take place. Variables are categorized into three general forms as developed by Mische (2009): 1) clarity, which relates to the degree of certainty respondents  64 believe an event or situation that has yet to take place would unfold in a certain way; 2) sociality, speaking to the ways in which respondents’ future perceptions relate to other people in their lives; and 3) volition, which relates to their perceptions of interpersonal passivity or control over interactions. Frequency distributions for each of the following operational definitions are included in Appendix D. 4.4.1 Clarity To measure the degree of clarity with which the future is imagined, I employ several questions that examine the certainty by which respondents think they would act upon situations of violence or conflict. The variables account for two future situations, one in which they might be directly involved (witness) and another in which they might be passively involved (suspect). First, respondents were asked to consider how they might act or react in the future if they witnessed a sex buyer being victimized: “If you ever witness a person purchasing sex being victimized in any way how likely would you be to do something about it?”. Next, they were asked to consider the same regarding a sex worker being victimized: “If you ever witness a sex worker being victimized in any way how likely would you be to do something about it?”. And finally, they were asked about acting or reacting if they suspected a sex worker was being victimized: “If you ever suspect a sex worker is being victimized in any way how likely would you be to do something about it?”. Each of these three questions offered the same six response categories: 1) Not at all likely (I am 100% sure I would NEVER do anything), 2) Not very likely (there might be a very small chance I would do something), 3) Somewhat, or 50/50% likely (there is a 50/50% chance I would do something), 4) Very likely (There is a very high chance I would do something), 5) 100% likely (I am sure I would do something), and 6) Not sure. Two follow up open ended questions were offered for each of the three questions. For those who responded that they were not sure, would be not at  65 all likely, or not very likely to act, they were then asked to specify “why not?”. For those who responded that they would be 50% likely, very likely, or 100% likely, they were then asked to specify “What would you do?”.  I also examine clarity of future events through a measure of respondents’ perceptions of likelihood of contracting an STI or STD in the future. Respondents were asked: “How likely do you think it is that you will get an STI/STD in your lifetime?”. Response categories included: 1) Not at all likely (I am 100% sure I will NEVER get an STD/STI), 2) Not very likely (there might be a very small chance I will get an STD/STI), 3) Somewhat, or 50% likely (there is a 50/50 chance I will get an STD/STI), 4) Very likely (I will probably get an STD/STI, there is a very high chance), 5) 100% likely (I am sure I will eventually get an STD/STI), and 6) Not sure. Respondents who replied that they do not know what STIs or STDs are were coded into the ‘not sure’ category12. Finally, I include an indicator of clarity towards how respondents’ think a service provider would react if they proposed an unsafe sexual interaction: “If I asked a sex seller not to use a condom, he or she would get angry”. Responses to this question are collapsed into 3 categories, 1) strongly disagree and disagree, 2) neutral, and 3) strongly agree and agree. 4.4.2 Sociality The act of paying for sexual services comes with immense social stigma. Stigma is an interesting future-oriented concept. From the outside, it is defined as a pervasive and severe social disapproval of a person or a group of people based on characteristics, beliefs, or anti-normative behaviours, a                                                  12 Prior to this question, respondents were asked a series of questions about STI/STD testing and whether they have had a ‘positive’ result over the past six months. A total of 29 respondents noted having positive results. It’s important to emphasize that the “how likely … that you will” question pertains to the future tense and applies to those who may currently have an STI or STD. Our assumption when devising the question was that those who recently or currently had an STI or STD would interpret the question as “how likely do you think … that you will get an STI/STD again”. Of the 29 people who did respond, 1 replied that they would never get an STI in the future, 3 said a very small chance, 11 said 50% likely, 6 said very likely, and 8 said 100% likely.  66 symbolic ‘marker’ that distinguishes a person or group from other members of society and spoils their social identity (Goffman, 2009). For a person or people to whom social stigma might be directed, it can inform a sense of how others see or judge them, a relational social force between people. This sense of what others might think is an inroad to understand how sex buyers’ future perceptions are “peopled” with others whose actions and reactions are seen as intertwined with their own. Mische’s concept of sociality is a means to consider the idea of social stigma and how it relates to the future. For sex buyers, fear of being ‘outed’ is directly related to a sense of what others will think if it is publicly revealed that they pay for sexual services.   To tap into a future projection dimension of stigma, respondents were asked a series of questions pertaining to how they think people in their social spaces would react if they were to know that they pay for sexual services. Questions were asked in a way that taps into the unknown future, to get respondents to consider what might happen to social relations if an event were to take place (i.e., they ‘outed’ themselves or are ‘outed’ by some other circumstance). Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with four statements: 1) “My friends would willingly accept me if they knew I had purchased sexual services”, 2) “Most people I know would think less of me if they knew I had purchased sexual services”, 3) “If my close friends knew I had purchased sexual services they wouldn’t trust me as much”, and 4) “My friends and family would see my sex buying as a sign of personal failure”. Response categories range from 1) strongly disagree to 5) strongly agree. 4.4.3 Volition The concept of volition is a little more abstract in its future qualities. Relating to whether an actor has a passive stance towards the future or perception of control over it, volition is a present dimension that relates to the future. I interpret this concept as tapping into perceptions of power  67 dynamics as a means to understand the ‘grip’ one might have over future situations, consistent with Bourdieu’s statement that “power to control the future requires having a grasp on the present” (Bourdieu, 2000, p. 221). To tap into perceptions of control as an indicator of perceived control over the future, I include a series of questions that asked respondents about the general interactions they have with sex sellers and their perceptions of interpersonal passivity or control over interactions and what takes place during transactions. They were asked to use a five-point scale to rate their agreement or disagreement with the following statements: 1) “In general, the sex sellers I visit have more power in our relationship”, 2) “The sex sellers I visit get more out of our relationship than I do”, 3) “The sex sellers I am with generally have more say than I do about the terms of service”, and 4) “When I am with a sex seller, I am generally pretty quiet”. Responses to each question were collapsed into 3 categories for inclusion into the final model: 1) strongly disagree and disagree, 2) neutral, and 3) strongly agree and agree.     68 Chapter  5: Spatial Modeling 5.1 Analysis The method for developing evidence of the principles, properties, and processes that draw together clients with similar experiences, dispositions, and perceptions is to construct an ‘analogical model’ that can facilitate the exploration of how social factors in the form of objective properties (variables) are distributed and connected to one another. A common analytic process for doing so employs a spatial mapping technique called Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) to explore the relational composition of social objects and properties that distinguish 'similar' and 'different' agents in a social space. As a multi-variate analytic method, structural mapping is used to reveal and illustrate the principles of similarity and differentiation embedded in the experiences of individual respondents at the levels of social setting in which resources, institutions and organizations interact (objective positions) and individual level dispositions, values, and beliefs (subjective dispositions). A “technique which thinks in terms of relations” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 97), MCA is a theoretically informed exploratory method that uses data reduction strategies to reveal the underlying patterns in survey data by transforming the categorical associations present within a large matrix of cross-tabulations into a graphical representation/map of the variable categories as clustered points in a computer-generated multi-dimensional social space (Burnett & Veenstra, 2017; De Nooy, 2003). This technique allows for the inductive discovery of the structures inherent in the data (Rouanet, Ackermann, & Le Roux, 2000) and permits the transformation of a table of numeric information into a graphical display that facilitates interpretation and exploration (Greenacre & Blasius, 1994).  MCA is an exploratory geometric mapping technique more so than a statistical one. The primary statistical concept to which it is linked is the Pearson chi-square statistic, a measure of  69 strength of association commonly computed for cross-tabulations to assess the significance of associations between row and column variables (Greenacre, 2017; Greenacre & Blasius, 1994). The geospatial maps cluster categories that co-occur relatively often and help to understand the context of the associations among the variables in a clean visual form (De Nooy, 2003, p. 307). As an exploratory technique, MCA does not ‘think’ in terms of causal relationships nor does it follow the theoretical assumptions of more conventional linear modeling techniques like regression analysis.  Using SPSS analytic software, all of the categorical variables described in Chapter 4 are included as active variables to ensure that equal weight is given to all forms of questions and experiences in the model. This decision is informed by core relational theoretic principles which considers all social factors as being potentially influential in any given context depending on who or what it is in relation to. This means that it is not theoretically (or methodologically) appropriate to determine a priori which social factors structure any given context more than others. The only value judgements to be made at the development stage regards which theoretically relevant social factors are to be included in the analysis, not which factors are more important than others, the latter in direct opposition to the break from substantialist reasoning that is central to a relational research program (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, pp. 234–235). Any instances where respondents chose not to answer a question (missing values) are retained in the analysis as passive extra categories, meaning they do not influence the structuring of the model. In the analytical model, of the 852 respondents 663 are valid active cases that answered all questions and 189 are active cases with instances of missing values. In the following sections I detail the model dimensions of the MCA analyses and the influential categories that structure each dimension.    70 5.2 Model Dimensions Statistical and substantive assessment of the MCA output informed the decision to include four substantively distinct dimensions in the model. The interpretation of dimensions reveals which social factors emerge as influential in structuring the model and the composition and distribution of the dimensions. Together, the four dimensions account for 18.32% of the variance in the data. Dimension 1 (D1) explains 5.69%, dimension 2 (D2) 5.12%, dimension 3 (D3) 3.95%, and dimension 4 (D4) 3.56% of the total variance. The variables which together account for 75% or more of the variance in each of the four dimensions are discussed below. The list of influential variables in each dimension are presented in Appendix E. Among these influential variables, the factor contributions of the most influential categories—based on high contribution to inertia (τ Tau)—within each of the four dimensions are discussed in reference to Figure 5.1 below. Categories that are influential in two dimensions are listed in the overlapping portions of the two-dimension circles in Figure 5.1, and categories that are influential across three or four dimensions are presented in the middle section of the three or four overlapping dimension circles. Influential categories operationalized as indicators of everyday or transactional sex position are coloured white, disruptive experiences are marked with red squares, indicators of valence are marked with blue squares, and indicators of future perception and projection are marked with green squares. 5.2.1 Dimension 1: Experiences over Time The first dimension (D1) is heavily influenced by indicators of experience with purchasing sexual services and experience of disruptive events. High on D1 are by respondents who have paid for sexual services on more than 100 occasions and have bought outside of Canada on two or more occasions. The experiences of disruptive events among the higher experienced space of D1 is populated by those who have experienced passive disruption such as experiencing theft on two or     71 Figure 5.1: List of Influential Categories by Dimension      72 more occasions, being refused services after paying, encountering conflict by service providers on two or more occasions, bait and switch situations, and think that 25% of the sex workers they visit are under the influence of alcohol; interactive disruptions where they have argued over the price, the length of the encounter, and/or the terms of services; and active disruption where they have experience with unsafe penetrative sexual acts. Pertaining to measures of valence, high on D1 is influenced by the indicator of actor-event valence, having posted negative reviews on forums or message boards on two or more occasions, and actor-actor valence, paying to have anal sex and/or a porn star experience with service providers.  Low on D1 is influenced by less experienced respondents who have purchased sexual services 1 to 5 times, have never purchased from escorts, the street, or massage parlours, have not experienced a bait and switch situation, and/or believe the sex workers they have visited are never under the influence of alcohol. Among the less experienced, the notable influential actor-actor valence category relates to those who have never purchased sexual services from a provider whose race is different from their own. Indicators of future perception and projection do not have notably high influence on the composition of D1. 5.2.2 Dimension 2: Relations and Dispositions Dimension 2 (D2) is primarily influenced by indicators of interpersonal relations with service providers, types of sexual and non-sexual activities preferred, and the types of venues frequented. Among the influential categories high on D2 are some that pertain to actor-actor valence such as: not generally paying for conversation, companionship, girlfriend experience, kissing, or vaginal sex when with a service provider, and never talking to a service provider about their personal lives. Regarding venue, high on D2 is influenced by having frequently bought from the street over the past year, most often or only purchasing from the street, and never having purchased in-call  73 services. Finally, three future oriented categories typified as clarity, such as helping providers or other clients in need, are influential. Specifically, among those who purchase from the street and do not generally pay for sexual activities of a more personal nature with providers, they agree that 1) if they were ever to witness a sex worker being victimized they are 100% sure they would not help, 2) if they were ever to suspect a sex worker being victimized they are 100% sure they would not help, and 3) if they were ever to witness or suspect another client being victimized they are 100% sure they would not help. Low on D2 is influenced heavily by actor-actor valence indicators related to paying for kissing, conversation, companionship, girlfriend experiences, and providing oral sex to the service provider.  5.2.3 Dimension 3: Venues and Perception Dimension 3 (D3) primarily distinguishes respondents along substantive lines related to the venues they tend to purchase from and ways in which they perceive what others might think of their purchasing practices. Specific to D3, the negative portion is influenced by respondents who almost always purchase services from massage parlours and/or brothels as well as actor--non-human actor valence indicators of being very worried about sex workers being under the influence of drugs. Future oriented categories low on D3 are those related to sociality and expecting stronger negative reactions from others if their purchasing habits were to be known, namely, they strongly agree that others would see their purchasing as a sign of personal failure, strongly agree that people they know would think less of them, and strongly disagree that friends would accept them.   High on D3 are categories indicative of respondents who do not pay for massage or masturbation/hand jobs, generally pay to have anal sex and/or porn star experience, have had unprotected penetrative sex, and frequently purchase from providers who offer out-call services. Along this dimension are sociality indicators of minimal concern about what others would think  74 about them if their purchasing habits were known, emphasized by strong disagreement that people they know would trust them less, see purchasing sexual services as a sign of personal failure, and agree and strongly agree that their friends would readily accept them. 5.2.4 Dimension 4: Social Position in Time Dimension 4 (D4) is clearly demarcated along lines of age, social position, partner status, and further sociality indicators. High on D4 is shaped by categories indicative of later life course stages, such as those who are aged 51-60 and 60+, are retired, divorced and currently single, and have experience purchasing sexual services in two or more places outside of Canada, and are not drawn to paying for vaginal sex or receiving oral sex. Future oriented sociality categories influential on the high end of D4 are: disagree that people they know will see their purchasing habits as a sign of personal failure, agree that friends will readily accept them if they knew they purchase sex, and are ambivalent to the notion that people they know will think less of them.   Low on D4 is influenced by younger respondents at earlier life stages, such as those who are 18-30 and 31-40 years old, students, make less than $20,000 per year, and/or are single and never married. Also low on this dimension is the actor-actor valence category indicative of respondents who prefer to purchase sexual services from providers under the age of 20. Specific future-oriented indicators which are low on D4 include concern over how others might react if they found out that the respondents purchase sexual services, namely, strong agreement that people they know would trust them less, see their purchasing as a sign of personal failure, think less of them, and strongly disagree that their friends and family would accept them.     75 5.3 Visualization In the following sub-sections I present visual depictions of how the variables and categories are distributed in a four-dimensional social space. The visualization process requires importing the dimensional coordinates from the SPSS MCA output into XLSTAT. Miner3D data modeling software is then used to visually render the coordinates into a four-dimensional model. The visual presentation of a four-dimensional space, however, poses some logistical challenges, namely, visualizing a 4th dimension in a model visually limited to a three-dimensional axes structure. To meet this challenge, I employ a filtering function to isolate all the categories that are located on the positive end (> 0) and the negative end (< 0) of dimension 4. As illustrated in Figure 5.2 below, this facilitates the presentation of a full four-dimensional model in its entirety and as two substantively distinct sub-models: 1) categories from D1, D2, and D3 that are low on D4, and 2) categories from D1, D2, and D3 that are high on D4. The JavaScript library, Three.js, is used to generate a fully explorable online model available at: sociologix.ca/dissertation.  Categories in the space are presented as nodes which are sized based on their total contribution strength to the model (calculated as the average Tau across all four dimensions), where larger nodes have greater inertia influence and smaller nodes have less inertia influence on the structuring of the overall model. Nodes in the model are coloured by the thematic groupings described in Chapter 4 (see Table 5.1 below for legend).     76 Figure 5.2: Presentation of Four Dimensions       77 Table 5.1    Legend of Node Themes Theme Colour Thematic Groupings  1-Everyday Spaces   2-Sex-Ind Spaces   3-Time in Spaces   4-Active Disruption   5-Passive Disruption   6-Interactive Disruption   7-Lateral Disruption   8-A-&-A Valence   9-A-&-NHA Valence   10-A-&-E Valence   11-Clarity – Future   12-Sociality – Future   13-Volition – Future   5.4 Classifications To identify substantively distinct classifications in the model, I explore the composition, distribution, and relative positioning of category clusters across the four-dimensions. In total, the 4D model revealed 12 statistically and substantively distinct classes of respondents (see Table 5.2 below). These classifications are used to inform the recontextualization analysis of open-ended questions where the individual respondents who populate each of the classes are identified and examined.  5.5 Open-Ended Recontextualization A critical dimension to a thoroughly relational application of MCA is recognizing the role that contextual evidence can have to elaborate upon the contours of the clusters and relations in an analogical model. With qualitative data, we can more clearly see the people behind the model and better understand the experiences that inform the constitution of the spaces revealed in the analysis. While there are many examples of MCA applications in the social sciences, there are very few examples of studies that employ mixed forms of data to accompany or complement MCA results. The few examples that exist (Bourdieu, 1977, 1984, 1998; Dubois & Méon, 2013) used the results  78 of the MCA analyses to inform a second wave of stratified sampling and collection of qualitative data from substantively relevant sub-samples revealed in the survey data. These examples of mixed-data usage can be described as complementary processes to “qualitize” quantitative results (a term coined by Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). As a hybrid analysis where the MCA results reveal some of the underlying patterns that distinguish individuals within populations, the open-ended qualitative contexts elaborate upon the processes that distinguish the people within the patterns, serving to recontextualize the data and infuse meaning to the obtained results (Castro, Kellison, Boyd, & Kopak, 2010; Gelo, Braakmann, & Benetka, 2008; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006; Small, 2011).  Inspired by these mixed-analytic accompaniments to MCA results, I undertake a novel process of formalizing narrative text data from open-ended survey questions to meaningfully integrate the contextual evidence provided by respondents. The process of integrating the open-ended context into the MCA results requires parsing out the substantively distinct category clusters in the model and identifying the ID tags of the individual respondents who are positioned within these distinct spaces. This process of purposefully sub-sampling respondents who are statistically associated with one another through common adherence to variable categories allows me to then identify and explore the responses to the open-ended questions given by respondents within each of the clusters. This integrative process allows me to recontextualize the MCA model in two important ways: first, qualitative responses can be used to consider and examine how respondents who have been deemed statistically similar (or different) in the model are substantively similar (or different) to one another within classes/clusters; and second, the qualitative responses from within groups/clusters can be used to elaborate upon and reveal the contextual variations between groups that distinguish the classes/clusters in the model from one another. This process allows me to tap  79 into the qualitative experience, the motivations behind the categories represented in the model, the “subjective correlative to the intersubjectively valid qualities of social objects” (Martin, 2011, p. 265), and begin to understand the logic that shape their practices. 5.5.1 Identifying Respondents in the Classifications The process for presenting open-ended results requires identifying individuals who comprise each of the classes identified in the four-dimensional space presented above. To do this, I use object scores from SPSS output (dimension location of individual cases) to identify the coordinates of individual respondents in the 4D model. I then import these coordinates into XLSTAT and produce a second 4D visualization with Miner3D, essentially overlaying individual respondents on top of the categorical model. Figure 5.3 is a visualization of where the 852 respondents are located in the model. For purely illustrative purposes, I have coloured them by the classification they hold position in.   This process allows me to isolate the respondents who hold relative position within the boundaries of each of the 12 classifications. Using the coordinate boundaries of each of the 12 classes, I isolate the individual respondents who occupy the same space within these boundaries. For example, if Class 1 is low on D4, High on D1, High on D2, and Low on D3, I find the respondents who hold coordinate position in the same spatial zone and mark them as Class 1 respondents. At times, this process required distinguishing somewhat arbitrary boundaries to isolate individuals who were located in spatial position at the outskirts of one class and bordering another (e.g., individuals positioned where Class 1 and Class 2 would intersect). In the few cases where this occurred, I used notable categories from the classes to demarcate a specific boundary marker and then proceeded to determine the class to which the respondent in question belonged. Once all the respondents’ IDs were identified with their respective classes, the groups of  80 individuals could then be filtered out in SPSS by class specification and their responses to open ended survey questions could then be analyzed and summarized. Table 5.2 presents the 12 classes in the model and the number of unique respondents that have been identified and isolated within each.  Figure 5.3: Individual Respondents in Four Dimensions     81 Table 5.2    Frequency Counts of Respondents by Classification Classifications Frequency Percentage Position in Space Class 1 79 9.3 D1 + D2 + D3 - D4 - Class 2 73 8.6 D1 - D2 + D3 - D4 + Class 3 45 5.3 D1 + D2 + D3 + D4 - Class 4 71 8.3 D1 + D2 + D3 + D4 + Class 5 72 8.5 D1 - D2 + D3 + D4 - Class 6 56 6.6 D1 - D2 + D3 + D4 + Class 7 87 10.2 D1 + - D2 - D3 + D4 - Class 8 88 10.3 D1 - D2 - D3 + D4 + Class 9 59 6.9 D1 + D2 - D3 - D4 - Class 10 66 7.7 D1 - D2 - D3 - D4 - Class 11 83 9.7 D1 + D2 - D3 - D4 + Class 12 73 8.6 D1 - D2 - D3 - D4 + Total 852 100      Using these results, I follow each class description with thematic elaborations of the contextual responses given by respondents in each of the 12 classifications. To do this, open-ended response data were imported to Nvivo 11 qualitative analysis software. This process imports each of the 852 respondents as cases, along with their categorical survey responses as attributes that can then be used to filter and classify respondents based on their attributes; class values in this case. All of the open-ended questions are imported as individual items (as Nvivo nodes in my analysis) containing responses from all those who answered each of the open-ended questions.  5.5.2 Coding Process The coding process starts by identifying all the open-ended questions that are centrally positioned and relevant to each of the 12 classes, that is, finding the root question for each of the open-ended follow ups in the 4D model and marking which classes are positioned in close proximity to them. For instance, I identify the root category “Yes wit OR susp-YES act” in the model, document the classes in proximity to it, and mark them as those who answered the open-ended question: “What conflict did you witness or suspect?” and “What did you do about it?”. In Nvivo, I then proceed to append each of the open-ended questions that are pertinent to each of the classes in the model. Figure 5.4 presents a network visualization of the specific open-ended questions that are centrally   82    Figure 5.4: Network Map of Open-ended Questions by Classification  83 located within classes in the four-dimensional model (visit sociologix.ca/dissertation-oe for a fully interactive web version)13.   Following a purposive sub-sampling design, pertinent open-ended qualitative questions were attributed to classifications of respondents most likely to have answered the root quantitative question. The coding process employed an inductive thematic analysis where themes, concepts, and dimensions of concepts emerged from the data. Specifically, when reading the responses to each of the questions outlined in Figure 5.4 above, I observed common response patterns that were coded into thematically distinct parent and child nodes in Nvivo. This coding process, when completed for each question, provides a code structure of key thematic concepts that can be used to recontextualize the classes in the model. The emergent themes from the coding process are presented in the following results sections.                                                    13 The structure of the map was generated using the ForceAtlas2 network layout algorithm in Gephi (see Jacomy, Venturini, Heymann, & Bastian, 2014) which is a force-directed layout that uses linear connections between nodes and the degree and strength of connections between nodes (the count of connected edges and strength/weight of the edge) to assess attraction and repulsion forces (energy) used to organize and spatialize the network. In short, Figure 5.4 is an exercise in organization and shifted perspective to present connected data in a different way in order to understand more clearly how classes are relationally bound together through past (red), present (blue), and future (green) dimensions.  84 PART 3: Modeled Spaces of Relations The presentation of the mixed-analytic results is structured into three sections, each of which describes relationally convergent classes that hold substantively distinct spatial positions within the model. Each section comprises a description of the thematic composition of categories within select classes in the model and is accompanied by a series of two-dimensional snapshots in which the depth axis (the z-axis) represents D1, the horizontal axis (the x-axis) represents D2, and the vertical axis (the y-axis) represents D3. Each snapshot depicts substantively distinct classes (or clusters) that took shape across four dimensions. Primary nodes in the class are left fully visible and nodes that are not part of the class but are close in proximity are shaded to appear transparent. This allows the reader to get a general sense of the other factors that are within the same vicinity in space. The same transparency setting has also been applied in the online model when the class filter buttons are clicked along the right margin of the screen. For a more immersive reading of the following sections, I suggest exploring each of the classes in the online model to get a better sense of the positionality, depth, and space between categories and classes, something that cannot be accurately depicted in 2D format (sociologix.ca/dissertation).  Integrated with the descriptions of each individual classification, I incorporate open-ended responses to elaborate upon the contextual forces that impel properties and people together within the classes in the modelled space. Because the survey was taken online using computer, tablet, or smart phone, the open-ended responses presented below have been gently edited to remove the most glaring instances of mistypes or autocorrects. Following the integrative examination of within-class context, each chapter closes with an assessment of the underlying logic of practice that emerge from the statistical and contextual results of the similarly positioned classes of  85 respondents, considering the ways in which clients relate to past, present, and future time dimensions in their practices.    86 Chapter  6: Space of Discord and Impersonal Relations High on D2, mid-high on D1, and spanning D3 and D4 are four classes of sex buyers who share spatial position within and around indicators expressive of detached connection with service providers and shared experiences with disruptive events in the past, many of which were of the active variety. While all four classes are situated in the vicinity of indicators related to clarity towards not helping a buyer or worker in need, the forces that distinguish the classes pertain to their perceptions of volition and the power dynamics between themselves and the providers, along with varying levels of concern in relation to actors, non-human actors, and event valence. The degree of fear, worry, or concern within two classes is related to stronger perceptions of sociality and the negative perceptions others might have of their actions purchasing sexual services. While there is variation in experience, many of the respondents in these groups are either in the early years of marriage or in the early stages of dating, have experience with street-based venues or currently are drawn to them, and generally engage in riskier types of behaviours. To better understand the principles of discord that undergird this space, I examine more closely the relational dynamics of each of these four classes.  6.1 Class 1: Concerned, Cautious, and Distant with Clarity Towards the Future Class 1 holds spatial position low on D4, mid-to-high on D1, high on D2, and low on D3, which is indicative of younger to middle-aged respondents with moderate levels of experience who seek disassociated relations and exhibit strong perceptions towards the future. Respondents in this class are situated in relation to management level occupations and being married to a partner for less or equal to 15 years and are positioned mid-low on D4.     87    Figure 6.1: Class 1 - Concerned, Cautious, and Distant with Clarity Towards the Future  88 6.1.1 Force of Sociality and Concern The strongest inertial forces among respondents in Class 1 relate to future perceptions of sociality and a strong fear for what they perceive others would think and how interpersonal relations could change if their purchasing habits were to become known. Specifically, there is strong agreement that most people they know would think less of them, friends and family would see their actions as a sign of personal failure, friends would not willingly accept them, and close friends would not trust them as much. Relationally positioned among these strong sociality forces are indicators of negative valence in the form of a dissuasion from using their real name when interacting with a service provider and being worried about events such as arrest and victimization. When asked about what specific forms of victimization they worry about, over half report worrying about robbery or physical violence, with many specifically mentioning fear of an unknown third party being present in the vicinity:  “I’m always wary of pimps showing up and robbing me”; “Worried the sex worker will have a boyfriend or pimp in the other room that will rob and beat me”; “Worry about having men in there waiting to jump and rob me”; “Been to some strange seedy massage parlours where large men were onsite - I was concerned that I might get robbed on my way out. But nothing ever happened”; “Scammer with friends around waiting to rob me”; “I worry about providing phone number and hotel room number. Understand her need for security but when she shows up with male in tow and he enters my hotel room, worry about personal safety and being robbed. A rare exception but has happened”; “Worried that place could be robbed by underworld figures/criminals as its unlikely micros will call police; worried that provider may steal my personal belongings while I’m in the shower”; “Have read about some set ups, where the sex seller and her partner will rob you”.  Several emphasize the fear of situations with social consequences, such as extortion or blackmail and run-ins with the police:  “Blackmail or robbery”; “I worry about being robbed or being videotaped and bribed”; “Being robbed, being harassed afterwards by phone/text, being exposed to police”; “I no longer visit street prostitutes because of concern about robbery or police sting operations. I use massage parlours as I consider them much safer”; “Being arrested by the police”.    89 Other respondents reflect on more general concerns over the attitude and preferences of the providers:  “Backpage girls can be bitches with attitude. I’m just trying to have a good time”; “Victimization based on race. When I phoned a sex worker once, the first thing she told me was that she doesn’t see brown or black people”.  In addition to their fear and concern over arrest and victimization, they also commonly hold strong concerns about contracting an STI—a form of negative valence towards the non-human actor that is sexually transmitted infections or diseases. The ways in which they protect themselves from contracting a sexually transmitted disease, aside from the common response of using condoms (82% of 66 respondents), emphasize avoiding risky people and drugs:  “Avoid high risk people”; “Low risk service providers new to the industry”; “Visit non-IV drug users who are heterosexual”; “Don’t have sex with crack whores. Pick sex workers carefully. Get married soon or get into steady relationship so that I can quit going to sex workers”; “Avoid drug use”, certain activities, “No sex”; “Avoid intercourse”; “Handjobs!”; “No intercourse”; “Only receive oral”; “No unprotected sex at all. Usually only go for hand jobs with sex workers”, avoiding markers of disease, “Ask partner about status, observe for physical symptoms”, and fluids, “Minimize fluid exposure”; “No bodily fluid exchange with high risk individuals”; “Avoid fluid contact”.  The relational fibers drawing together these concerns over events that can result in the respondents being outed and a strong sense of how social relations would change if being outed were to occur are also connected with a strong sense of clarity towards their perceptions of how they would act or react if they witnessed a disruptive event. Specifically, respondents in this class tend to claim that they are 100% sure they would not help a sex buyer they witness being victimized, and 100% sure they would not help a sex worker if they suspect they are being victimized nor would they be likely to help if they witness victimization. The predominant reason given for why they would not help out relates to concern over their anonymity and fear of being exposed: “Would have to consider if it would draw attention to me as the sex trade is illegal”; “Have to consider that if I call the cops it will beg the question what was I doing there”; “Like I’m gonna ruin my life over some stranger... plus how do I know the person did not get into  90 trouble by their own doing... takes two to tango”; “I would not want to get involved and be publicly named etc.”; “Fear of exposure”; “Fear of being victimized myself, fear of going to police and being identified”; “The stigma of being there - legalize it and people would intervene”; “Afraid of my discretion being compromised - if it was very serious I might do something. Otherwise I would look other way”; “Fear of being associated with it”, several of whom reflect on reasons related to their spouse or family, “Cannot get caught up in it due to family matters”; “I wouldn’t want to take the chance that Id have to explain to my wife a bruise or a court appearance etc.”; “fear of being found in areas that have sex workers... married”; “I would try and remain anonymous as much as possible as to not get caught or exposed to friends and family”; “Can’t risk my spouse finding out”.   Others further emphasize their fear or distrust of the police: “Too much trouble dealing with police. Can’t trust them”; “Fear of police”; “Don’t want to get involved in case something happens and police get involved”; “Because I don’t like getting stabbed and if the situation got out of hand I don’t want to explain to the police why I am there”, and general fear for their safety, “I am not physically capable of confrontation”; “Not safe for me to get involved”; “I’d fear my own safety”; “My own safety might be at risk”; “Worried about what would happen to me”; “I have more to lose than to gain”.  The rest of respondents discuss remaining disassociated and entirely removed from the conflict, emphasizing a “not my problem” position: “Up to them”; “None of my business”; “They know what they are getting into”; “It is part of taking on the service. You win some you lose some. Live and learn for the next”; “This is a private business. Leave well alone”; “There are a lot of dangers surrounding sex workers. They tend to have a lot of backup and defense”; “Risk of the business we all accept”; “Who gives a rat’s ass”; “I don’t want to get involved”; “Not my place to intercede”; “She probably deserved it based on how often I have been stolen from”; “It won't help anyways - what's the point”; “I try to stay out of peoples business. If I don’t see it, it didn’t happen”.  6.1.2 Actor-Event Valence and a Disengaged Future This perceptive clarity towards future actions also corresponds with actual past experiences with lateral disruption (i.e., as an outside observer of a disruptive situation) and the reasons why respondents decided to not take actions to respond to witnessed or suspected victimization of a sex worker or buyer. The nature of the situations encountered [s#] and the reasons for not responding [r#] range from direct witnessing of physical violence:  91 [s1]“I saw a pimp slap a girl in the face” [r1]“Because I don’t like getting stabbed”; [s2]“Yonge street pimps being abusive” [r2]“We ran a business around them... no trouble...”; [s3]“Girl was punching a guy in the face and threatening to have her pimp kill him if he didn’t give her more money. She wanted double what was agreed to” [r3]“Not my business. He had a hell’s angels patch. Nuff said”, and observing physical markings, [s4]“Bruises on arms of sex worker” [r4]“Not safe for me to get involved”; [s5]“I saw what looked like a cigarette burn but not sure” [r5]“She didn’t speak English”; [s6]“Bruising on their body” [r6]“May have negative reaction”.   In other instances, respondents were perceptive of mannerisms and the tone of the interaction, deciding not to respond for reasons related to their perception of not being able to act:  [s7]“Body language” [r7]“Not able to—in a club”; [s8]“Overheard a phone conversation” [r8]“I am not physically capable of confrontation”, fear, [s9]“They displayed fear” [r9]“Fear of being involved”; [s10]“She was scared” [r10]“I don’t know what to do besides getting myself known”; [s11]“Ex client phoning/buzzing/texting while I was at an appt” [r11]“She downplayed it and I did not want to get involved. I told her to call the police”, and not knowing what actions to take, [s12]“The interactions that you see and a level of submissiveness to the manager” [r12]“What could I possibly do?”; [s13]“Once in a massage parlour, we lost track of time and I spent over an hour in the room when I only paid for 30 minutes, when I went to leave, she asked for more money to pay for the extra time, but I didn’t have any more money with me, and she was terrified that her pimp would know (cameras in the hallway) how long I was there and that she might be stealing from him” [r13]“Nothing I could do. I had no more money to give her”.  Several respondents, however, did report minimal involvement in the form of offering a bit of extra money:  [s14]“Her demeanor, it seemed like she was being forced into it” [r14]“I gave her money, and offered to drive her somewhere. I just felt sorry for her. She took the money and was back on the street 30 mins later”, general advice, [s15]“The service was very poor, the SP was crying and telling me she would be beaten if she did not achieve a certain target each day” [r15]“I told her to pack up her stuff and head to the bus station and get out of town right away”, reporting on online forums, [s16]“Workers seemed young or couldn’t speak English. I have had workers tell me they didn’t want to be there on that particular day (not in general) because they weren’t feeling well or were having their period but they had to be there anyways. Those workers ask you not to pick them” [r16]“I have reported the experiences on online forums”.  6.1.3 Passive Volition and Past Disruptions Finally, this class exhibits a more passive volition regarding their perception of control over the interpersonal interactions they have with service providers, tending to agree that they are generally  92 pretty quiet when with a sex worker and that the service provider gets more out of the relationship. Interspersed with these forces are respondents’ experiences with passive disruption in the form of verbal conflict at the hands of the service provider. When asked about how they responded to the situations most continued the session without conflict: “I paid for it. We had sex”; “Got angry and continued with sex—never went back”; “Tried to keep things calm. She mocked my idea of how the session should go. I was annoyed”; “Tried to ignore it, never went back there. I was told to finish myself (masturbate)”; “Was upset but let it go”; “Stayed quiet”, several of whom describe their feelings during the process, “Unhappy, humiliated. I returned her to her requested location”; “Was upset but I let it go”; “Mad”; “Was hurt but I accepted the comments”; “Frustrated, embarrassed. I complained to the establishment manager”, and one who describes a passive-aggressive physical response to the comment, “Made fun of my weight. I laughed it off but still had sex. I was probably more forceful in the sex (thrusted harder) as I wanted to show her that I was the man. Stupid I know, but it was a heat of the moment thing. She seemed to act like she enjoyed it, might have been her thing”. And others ended the session or exited without conflict, “I walked away”; “Fuck you and I left”; “I left”; “I left. She apologized profusely via email after. Apparently it was a great misunderstanding”, asked them to leave, “Kicked her out of my vehicle”; “Asked her to leave”; “Ended appointment, asked them to leave”.   Aside from these generally passive responses, several respondents describe more direct verbal reactions: “Was totally uncalled for. Saying I was a loser if I pay for sex. Biting the hand that feeds you? Only stupid girls are capable of that shit. Lost erection, session wasted”; “I went to see a shemale - and she was more of a Cross-Dresser than a Transsexual. When I refused the visit, she got very upset and cursed me out, but I didn’t care cuz I wasn’t half as ugly as she was”; “I make a joke about it, repeat what they say. It’s funny”; “Told her to bring it. We texted a bit and then she stopped”, and an instance of physical altercations, “I changed my mind, she threatens to have me beat up, grabbed a knife, threatened me again, then I kicked her out of the car, and drove away”.   6.2 Class 2: Older Common-law, Non-personal Relations at Managed Venues Class 2 holds spatial position high on D4, mid to low on D1, high on D2, and low on D3, which is indicative of generally older clients with low to moderate levels of experience, who do not seek out personal relations, and frequent managed massage venues. Respondents in this class are situated in relation to everyday space indicators of being in a common-law relationship with a   93  Figure 6.2: Class 2 - Older Common-law, Non-personal Relations at Managed Venues  94 partner for over five years and indicating that paying for sexual services is not their only source of sexual contact. They are located high on D4 among older respondents and report that they first payed for sexual services when they were between ages 26-30.  6.2.1 Managed Spaces, Manual Release, Aversion to Intimacy The strongest inertial force among this class of clients relates to a negative actor-actor valence for interpersonal relations of a more intimate nature with a service provider, such as not engaging in girlfriend experiences, kissing, companionship, conversation, and/or discussing about their personal lives. Furthermore, there is aversive valence to intimate sexual acts with service providers, including vaginal sex, anal sex, giving oral sex, and/or receiving oral sex, which are activities less commonly engaged in at the venues this class ‘only’ visits: massage parlour venues—or “rub-and-tug” locals as they are commonly called—and generally never seek out-call or escort services. Bound with the negative valence to penetrative sexual acts, respondents in this class commonly answered that they never use prophylactics when with a service provider and do not pay for porn star experiences or threesomes. Reasons for not using sexual safety precautions hinge largely on the fact that they mainly pay for manual or oral stimulation at these venues. Of the 61 respondents who elaborated about situations when they do not use safety precautions, 75% specify not using condoms when receiving hand jobs or blow jobs:  “getting a blowjob or handjob”; “Oral without a condom”; “oral occasionally”; “a couple of times during massage .... just started oral sex with no condom, many offer blowjob with no condom for more money, I prefer them to use condom”; “Some oral sex and manual stimulation”; “When I see a sex seller for oral sex, about half the time she provides it without a condom”; “Oral sometimes and never for hand jobs”; “I have only masturbated or received hand jobs”; “When I’m with a sex seller, I do not request penetration and therefore don’t use condoms. Self masturbation is the usual finish”; “Simple rub and tug”; “For masturbation hand job after massage”; “Handjob after massage”; “Having only oral or hand sex”; “Mutual masturbation”; “Handjob after a few minutes”; “Massage parlour, no condom during handjob”, in addition to other forms of non-penetrative sexual activities, “Oral sex, hand jobs, prostate massage”; “hand job, titfuck, bj with confirmed clean seller who loves swallowing”; “Hand job, blow job, oral  95 sex on provider”; “Water sports [sexual activities involving urine or urination].” The remaining respondents mention: “My regular worker”; “When the provider is very young and honest looking”; “If they do not insist on it, then I prefer not to use any precautions.”   Their sense of safety extends to reasons why they tend to not take precautions when purchasing sexual services, citing a general trust in the establishments and the workers: “Trustworthy”; “I go to establishments that I know and trust”; “It’s a trusted establishment”; “I feel she has all the bases covered”; “Go to reputable places”, repetition and trust in the safety of the environments, “Mostly go to the same places”; “Massage parlours are pretty safe”; “Usually a controlled environment”; “Safe environment”; “I don’t put myself in situations where I feel unsafe”, and not perceiving it necessary, “Don’t think it’s necessary”; “Don’t feel the need”; “I don’t take precautions as I don’t feel any threat to my safety”; “I feel by getting a penis massaged there is very little danger of getting any diseases”. The remaining respondents are unsure, “Not sure what I could do”; “I dunno”; “Difficult to do”, or feel they are prepared to take action, “I’m a man who is more than capable of defending myself”; “I can over power women.”  6.2.2 Non-personal and a Preserved Future Set within these preferences towards non-personal sexual interactions and communicative practices, are indicators of firm clarity towards projected actions, where respondents report 100% certainty that they would not help a service provider if they witnessed them being victimized. Reasons for this clarity reflect a general desire not to get involved in the situation: “Non-involvement safest route”; “Out of sight, out of mind”; “Do not want to get involved”; “I’m not getting involved”; “Don’t get involved!”; “I just wouldn’t want to get involved”; “Typically these people have weapons or friends that have weapons. I have no desire to die a hero”, concern for their personal safety, “Personal safety most likely reason”; “Fear of danger”; “I’m a lover not a fighter”; “I’m not a good fighter”, and leaving things up to the parties in question, “Occupational hazard and none of my business”; “It is a very rough territory to get involved in”; “Not my business”; “Not my problem”; “I could be wrong; its kind of their business; I sort of feel that sex workers usually have the weaker side of the transaction”; “I would never suspect. Implies too much knowledge of the individual”; “Not my place ... hazards of their trade”.   Related to the indicator of sociality and their feeling neutral about the prospect of people trusting them less if they knew about their purchasing habits, several mention reasons related to discretion and anonymity:  96 “Safety, and worry about getting involved in something that could affect discretion”; “I wouldn’t want to be dragged into something and have to explain why I was there”; “Because I wouldn’t want to have to testify or give my true identity to any authorities”; “I am discreet”; “Being exposed for being with a sex worker”; “I would just ask if she was ok. But would not tell anyone because I do want to remain discreet”; “Fear of incriminating myself”; “Self preservation.”     6.3 Class 3: Careless and Disruptive Clients Drawn to the Street Class 3 holds spatial position low on D4, mid-to-high on D1, high on D2, and low on D3, indicative of generally younger to middle-aged respondents with moderate levels of experience purchasing sexual services that tend to be dissociative/non-personal in terms of the relations sought with providers and have frequency of past and recent experiences purchasing from the street. This class is situated in relation to everyday social indicators of having less or equal to a high school education, being in a dating relationship for less than 2 years, and working full-time at an unreported occupation. The early middle-aged respondents in this class, between 31 and 40 years old, started purchasing around their early 20’s and exhibit dispositions towards younger service providers who are <20 or between 21-25 years old. 6.3.1 Pressure: Disrupting the Rhythm of Arrhythmic Spaces Active within the past year, this class has purchased heavily from the street as well as through online venues and has past experiences purchasing services from providers that respondents identified as trans-female (male-female transition). Along with a propensity to the street, respondents in this space are bound by extensive experiences of disruptive situations. Notably, they are the most likely to have engaged in active disruption by trying to get sexual services for free and/or pressuring the provider to do something they were not willing to do. Regarding the former, respondents describe instances of active disruption where free sexual services were     97     Figure 6.3: Class 3 - Careless and Disruptive Clients Drawn to the Street  98 brought up as relating to the nature of the relationship they developed with the provider ([s#] situation [r#] result): [s1]“We became friends and we had sex that wasn't planned” [r1] missing; [s2]“We had a connection more than just pay for sex” [r2]“Got it for free and met again a few times for free”; [s3]“She was a good friend really, and it just sort of happened” [r3]“ Yes, everything that I wanted”; [s4]“Just mutual agreement because we both enjoyed the sex” [r4]“I was a regular customer”; [s5]“Mutual attraction” [r5]“Ended up having a relationship”; [s6]“Because I have established a relationship with her, saw her regularly, and thought that instead of just a BJ we should do more” [r6]“She had sex with me a few times for free, times were tough a while back and she wanted to see me as much as I wanted to see her”; [s7]“Girlfriend was pretty much a prostitute (she would sell sex to other men, but not during our relationship or even in the same town we lived in)” [r7]“Myself personally I never paid her but she generally got what she wanted and so did I”; [s8]“Seller enjoyed sexual activity and was receptive to activity outside what was negotiated previously” [r8]“I received more than I negotiated and paid for.”   In other instances, respondents negotiated an exchange of services:  [s9]“I helped her out with some other trade” [r9]“It worked, but I never asked again”; [s10]“Had no money and was a good customer and told her I would not use her again unless I got it free this time. But would make up for it next time I saw her” [r10]“Got what I wanted each time”, perceived/desired an intimate connection, [s11]“I thought there was a connection with the seller” [r11]“No, it didn’t work out. They only wanted to do it for money”; [s12]“It would feel more like love” [r12]“Almost always no, but I did make friends”; [s13]“I was in need of some intimacy” [r13]“I was going to hire an Asian woman after we had sex at my work”, or admit to just looking for a deal, [s14]“I forgot to pay her” [r14]“Got harassed by her and payed her”; [s15]“I’m cheap” [r15]“Didn’t happen”; [s16]“Just wanted a freebee” [r16]“Ended up paying.”  Relationally bound with these past experiences are present dispositions towards paying to have anal sex with the service provider and never paying to receive hand jobs/masturbation during their visits. While less influential in the space, some respondents do purchase BDSM/Fetish services and have generally done so on one or more occasions over the past year. Among those who reported that they have pressured a service provider, descriptions are of instances where they pressure for lower prices:  [s1]“I negotiated for a lower price” [r1]“ I received the services but they were of poor quality”, and specific services, [s2]“The service was advertised” [r2]“I pointed out the discrepancy to the seller, indicated my displeasure and got what I wanted”, such as anal  99 intercourse, [s3]“I wanted anal sex and I knew she wanted money so $20 more I got anal” [r3]“I had an orgasm”; [s4]“Horny” [r4]“We did anal”, bareback blowjobs, [s5]“She  wanted me to use condom while she sucked my cock, although initially she had already been sucking me without one” [r5]“She sucked me some more but I did not cum”, or additional services more generally, [s6]“I wanted a certain service and I pressured them into giving it to me” [r6]“They usually provided the services I wanted”; [s7]“Wanted what I wanted” [r7]“Sometimes did it, sometimes not”; [s8]“I only use words and ask them to do things that they may not want to do” [r8]“I fully understand and respect that no means no and I continue on with the date if they say no. I would say I had to ask to lighten the mood if they are upset.”  6.3.2 Process of Interpersonal Discord and Adjustments Interspersed with these active forms of disruption are further instances of experiences with interactive disruption where conflictual arguments arise from a situation. Relating to arguments over price, respondents describe instances where the service provider wanted more money: [s1]“She wanted more than I was willing to pay” [r1]“She took the lesser amount for the service”; [s2]“She told me one price, then upped it when she got here” [r2]“I paid the extra”; [s3]“I do not want to pay more than I have to, they often jack up the prices” [r3]“Usually got what I wanted or a compromise”; [s4]“Tried to upsell from the agreed price for services agreed to beforehand” [r4]“I just paid what was agreed, with no tip”, where they (the client) wanted better rates, [s5]“Argue? Negotiate yes” [r5]“Got a better deal”; [s6]“I found out what her cut was from an agency and attempted to negotiate a rate that was better than her cut, but saved me money and she refused to agree to it” [r6]“I ended up not seeing her or paying more than I would like to”; [s7]“Felt that the price was not reasonable, based on similar encounters with other providers” [r7]“Did not purchase service from the provider”, or they changed their mind, [s8]“I changed my mind” [r8]“She gave 1/2 money back.”   Other disruptive arguments emerged from disagreements with the terms of service, where services agreed upon were rejected: [s9]“She lied and changed mind, well she was scamming guys” [r9]“I left, sometimes with money other times was robbed”; [s10]“Paying for all the night and she want to quit after the intercourse” [r10]“Rip off”; [s11]“This person worked from her home and she had a very bad attitude. She should not have been in this trade” [r11]“She left, I still paid her as she already got the money”; [s12]“She promised bareback service in a text, then refused at the door” [r12]“I usually leave if I’ve been lied to or she changed her mind. No fuss”; [s13]“Miscommunication about what she was comfortable with providing, I tried to convince her to provide those services and an argument ensued” [r13]“I ended up leaving. I no longer pay upfront anymore but negotiate services and withhold funds until services are provided as promised”.  100  Among their preference to purchase sexual services from the street along with experiences of active and interactive disruption, respondents are also likely to have experienced passive forms of disruptive events where they have experienced theft or robbery. While the situations of theft share similarities, respondents’ reactions to the event varied by intensity. Some simply cut their losses and accepted the situation: [s1]“Street worker stole a discman that was in the car. [The other instance] Street worker took money then did a runner” [r1]“She ran off, I cut my losses and drove off”; [s2]“Stole my money many times” [r2]“Ran off”; [s3]“Got out, not worth the trouble” [r3]“Left the area”; [s4]“Decided to let the issue go” [r4]“Went home”; [s5]“She was already done” [r5]“What could I do?”; [s6]“I realized the bad position I was in, and complied. [The other instance] My home, did not know of it until they were gone” [r6]“Never saw them again, gave a bad review”, while other took actions through verbal threats and/or confrontation: [s7]“Told her she could take the money, but not my wallet, and informed her that if she tried to persist to take my wallet I would break her wrist and she wouldn’t get anything. [The other instance] Only noticed if afterwards” [r7]“Simply saw it as my own fault for not being more careful”; [s8]“I was angry, expressed that through verbally abusive language” [r8]“I left”; [s9]“I knew the girl, I confronted her, she denied it. She was someone I had known for a few years, so I left her alone in a room, where I forgot I had money” [r9]“I never called on her again!”; [s10]“Confronted them” [r10]“Got her to leave”; [s11]“She was at my house and quietly stealing stuff. She took the money and ran” [r11]“I took it back and kicked her out”; [s12]“I caught her, she tried to steal my phone” [r12]“I heard it make a noise and got it back from her then kicked her out”; [s13]“Took the money” [r13]“Snuck out”; [s14]“I told her to get out” [r14]“She took half the money”, and in one particular instance, extorted the service provider and threatened violence: [s15]“She took money and ran. Picked her up a few months later when she did not know it was me. Took her to a room and had my way with her and told her I had prepaid. When she said I raped her told her what she did. She remembered and said it was still rape. Told her if she went to cops my friends would beat her” [r15]“Nothing came of it and I still see her and use her services.”   Respondents also describe feelings associated with the experience:  [s16]“I felt violated, upset and dismayed that someone would steal from me” [r16]“I was upset. Nothing, I just stopped seeing her and warned others about her”; [s17]“Was pissed I wasn’t more cautious. First time I was stunned I was so stupid” [r17]“I just went on with my day. Both times it was smokes. She took off in a cab, not much I could do”; [s18]“Was upset, but walked away, let it be” [r18]“I just walked away and avoided her in future”, with one instance leading the respondent to seek out a police officer for help: [s19]“I had a girl in my hotel in Ontario who was bent over the desk where my wallet was, she left the wallet and stole my credit cards. Another instance, I had a girl get in my car, she stole my cell phone and said she did not have it. I had 2 cells at the time and called one from the  101 other, when it rang she admitted she had it” [r19]“I drove until I found a police man, pulled up so she could not get out of the car, told him she jumped into my car at a light and has my phone and would not give it back. He confirmed this with her and told her to give it back. Then I pulled forward until she could open the door, and she got out.”  In instances where the service provider refused to provide services negotiated or paid for, respondents describe situations where they were scammed or robbed:  “Paid for 30mins and then a guy came out of the next room and told me to get out of his house. they were working a scam”; “She demanded prepayment for oral sex, then faked an emergency washroom visit at a nearby coffee shop...and disappeared”; “She said she would be right back, never returned, my own fault for paying for services prior to her preforming them!!”, and those where they passively retaliate, “Got scammed so I called her for a month at all hours of the day and night”; “I was upset, I left and posted reviews online about her”, or actively respond, “Got mad at them. With one I ran and got her and got my money back and fucked her”; “I tried to get my money back and where that failed I ended up leaving”; “I left before paying or put up with it. I always confirm the services offered before handing the money over. Sometimes I demanded and got my money back, but I would always be insistent without threatening.” Remaining respondents describe passively exiting, “I left”; “No tip”; “I left as I didn’t want to get beat up”; “Walked away”; “Got her to leave”; or continuing the session, “Usually find something else to finish off with. I have large penis so it’s usually size related”; “I went along with it”; “Just took what I could get”, with negotiation, “Asked for alternate services and extended time.”  6.3.3 Attuned to Disruptive Rhythms  This class of respondents is more likely to drink three or more alcoholic beverages prior to a transaction and report providers they visit are under the influence of alcohol over 25% of the time—experiences that are also spatially situated near not worrying about sex workers being under the influence of alcohol. This class exhibits moderate perceptual clarity regarding their likelihood of contracting an STI while purchasing sexual services, which ranges from those who think they are 50% likely to those who think it is very likely. Finally, respondents’ extensive experiences with disruptive events include many cases of witnessing or suspecting victimization that they did not react to. Situations include witnessing physical or verbal assault: [s1]“I’ve seen a woman on the street carefully watching a guy who was carefully watching her luring tricks...when she got one he followed them. I know the identity of the man, and have heard he regularly beats johns for cash and does so with her as well” [r1]“Both were  102 already known to local cops”; [s2]“Pimp yelling” [r2]“I was driving by”, and experiencing direct verbal appeal from service providers where communication was made but inaction was the end result: [s3]“Woman I was with was scared when she left the motel her man would take all her money” [r3]“I was not prepared to destroy a pimp for her. I felt bad for her but did not see it my job to fight for her. She accepted that. Looking back I should of given her a bit more money so she could of saved something. That was a long time ago, 15 or more years”; [s4]“When talking to the sex worker, she told me about being victimized and being forced to work for her pimp. I asked her if she wanted help, and if she wanted me to call the police, but it seemed like she was too scared and declined help” [r4]“She specifically asked me not to try to help her. And she said she moved in and works for her pimp by her own choice”; [s5]“Bruises, plus she told me” [r5]“No mechanism.”   In other contexts, respondents relied on their sense of what was taking place in the environment, identifying unusual or out of the ordinary events: [s6]“Seller showed behavioural indicators of being physically abused” [r6]“None of my business, no emotional investment in seller”; [s7]“Calls during service, oriental with no language in places they would not be otherwise” [r7]“Way too much work and bs with trying help”; [s8]“Her ads changed drastically” [r8]“I consider her a friend”; [s9]“She was constantly on the phone arguing with her pimp, and her reaction was very negative” [r9]“I didn’t think it was my business”; [s10]“I thought this because the sex worker spoke almost no English and was seemingly present in Canada to work as a sex worker. The booking agent was the same ethnicity as the sex worker but spoke English fluently” [r10]“I trust the sex worker’s judgement”, some of which are direct observations of physical markings, [s11]“Bruises” [r11]“She said it was an accident”; [s12]“The girl had some bad bruises assumed it was her pimp” [r12]“I asked her about it and she got defensive so dropped it”; [s13]“I suspected this because of the fat lip and swollen eye along with a hand print on her face” [r13]“I suspect the event and what happened all finished before I saw the workers face.”   6.4 Class 4: Unsafe Buyers with Same-Sex Experiences and Disruptive Leanings Similarly positioned in space to Class 3—though distinguished by their position on D4—Class 4 is located high on all four dimensions, indicative of generally older respondents with moderate levels of experience who seek out comparatively dissociative/non-personal sexual experiences and exhibit strong volition. While diverse in composition, this class is uniquely comprised of a marginal number of respondents who have never had a female sexual partner in the past (n=24), respondents who have had sexual experiences with other men (n=244) or with people identified as   103     Figure 6.4: Class 4 - Unsafe Buyers with Same-Sex Experiences and Disruptive Leanings  104 trans-male (transitioning from female to male) (n=31), and respondents who report having first purchased sexual services at/or under the age of 18. Respondents in this class tend to solicit services through online spaces and unstructured venues like bars, clubs, or street, a portion of whom only purchase from the street/clubs or online and/or have experience purchasing from BDSM providers though not within the past year. Like Class 3, there is a propensity to unstructured street-based venues that are accompanied by past experiences of both active, passive and interactive forms of disruption. Of the passive variety, respondents in this class have experienced conflict by a sex worker on two or more occasions and have experienced theft on 1 or 2+ occasions, respectively.  6.4.1 Volition, Valence, and Risky Sexual Activity They also have experienced active forms of disruption, whereby they have refused to use a condom when asked—which is accompanied in the model by a strong volition towards disagreeing that a sex worker would get angry if they asked to not use a condom—and have had unprotected penetrative sexual experiences with a sex worker. Alongside these experiences, they also report minimal use of prophylactics during encounters, specifying they use them less than 50% or less than 25% of the time. Within this context of sexual protection and penetrative sex, this class is also comprised of respondents who generally pay to receive anal sex from a service provider. Of the 65 who provided responses to the situations in which they do not use precautions, 37% directly mention when receiving manual or oral sex. Among the remaining respondents, unprotected situations emerge when the service provider doesn’t provide the protection:  “If there isn’t any available”; “It’s happened a couple of times with a woman I frequently see, when she has no condoms”, they negotiate or agree upon terms, “When I can I don’t use condoms and I think its safe”; “When I don’t have to”; “When she appears clean and healthy and agrees”; “It’s an agreed upon transaction before the seller and I meet”; “After talking to the person and concluding it is safe to proceed without protection”, or when it is with a known or repeat provider: “Return person”; “Only when I know the sex  105 seller and we know our test results. As I have had a vasectomy so there is no risk of pregnancy, I always get yearly medical exams with blood test with include CBC, LCL, Diabetes STDs Cancer screening”; “I do not use safety when I am with my regular girl. In the last 15 years I have mainly used the services of 2 girls”; “Never exchange body fluids, selective and seek only those I know personally”; “Someone I see on a regular basis”; “when I want oral done on me no condom, if she’s clean and I have seen her before I do oral on her no condom or dental dam.”   Unique to this class, they also mention the influence of substances upon their decision making, where they do not use protection:  “If she is quite young or if I am impaired”; “When I am stoned on drugs, usually crack cocaine”; “If I can tell she is a hardcore drug user”; “When drunk and after the club.” Furthermore, respondents also consist of those who never or rarely use protection: “I don’t use any”; “All [situations], they don’t fit”; “All situations”; “Oral and vaginal sex”; “Oral sex / Anal sex - giving and receiving”; “Have a problem maintaining an erection with a condom”; “Most ... my preferred activities don’t usually involve exchange of bodily fluids”, emphasized by one respondent’s perception of the prevalence of unprotected sex in the industry based on his experiences, “About 99% of the time in the recent years [doesn’t use sexual safety]. It’s a service that’s offered widely, everyone calls it taboo, but everyone still does it. And everyone including sex workers will lie about offering it. It’s all about public image.”  These experiences with unprotected sexual encounters tie in with active disruptive practices where several have pressured service providers into doing something they were not prepared to do. Descriptions are of instances where they pressure for bareback services: [s1]“I wanted sex without a condom” [r1]“She relented”; [s2]“I wanted to have sex without a condom” [r2]“I got her to have sex without a condom”; [s3]“Didn’t want to use condom which they had earlier agreed to then changed their mind” [r3]“I always get my way. We went bare”; [s4]“I prefer bareback sex” [r4]“They agreed”; [s5]“I wanted a service and when I got there they didn’t do it” [r5]“I convinced them to do it, i.e. kissing, unprotected sex”, in several instances for anal intercourse, [s6]“Anal” [r6] missing; [s7]“Anal intercourse” [r7]“Everything was good”; [s8]“I wanted anal” [r8]“Nothin”; [s9]“She agreed to have anal sex with me and after I paid her she changed her mind until I told her to give me my money back and get out” [r9]“She sucked me until I was hard and then lubed my condom up and let me have anal sex with her like we first agreed”, and in other cases, additional services were more forcefully pursued, [s10]“I wanted what I wanted to pay for” [r10]“I got what I wanted”; [s11]“They were receptive to a little verbal convincing” [r11]“We did what I wanted”; [s12]“She was submissive so I took advantage of it” [r12]“She went in the bathroom for a while and cried, I dressed and left”; [s13]“I wanted to fuck her” [r13]“She consented”; [s14]“No condom” [r14]“Nothing.”    106 In tune with situations of pressure, respondents also reflect on experiences where they have refused to use sexual safety precautions when asked by the service provider:  “Usually do not have intercourse”; “Nothing”, accepting the proposition, “sometimes they admit it, other times I might walk out”; “It’s ok usually”; “They’re good about it”; “Fine, depending on service”; “They complain a bit but always agree to do the blow job without a condom”, re-negotiating terms, “Named a higher price, I haggled then paid”; “Money talks, make an offer and anything is possible”; “Usually negotiate for more money”; “Want more money”; “Mostly ok with it for more money”; “It cost more”; “They acquiesce, given that I’ve negotiated the service in advance”, or reaching a mutual agreement or understanding, “My regular provider and I have a mutual understanding”; “If its agreed to before hand the precautions are put away”; “I know the details before I meet them so I only see the ones that don’t require any precautions”; “They usually say that I look very clean and it will be okay, or they don’t have any and they are very clean and it will be okay.” One respondent, however, describes multiple instances where the fact was hidden from the provider, “Twice I have torn the condom and not told her until I was done.”   6.4.2 Social Dynamics of “Something for Nothing” Rounding out Class 4’s extensive experiences with active disruption are situations where they have tried to get sexual services for free from service providers. Several describe situations of mutual agreement:  [s1]“Sex seller was receptive to the idea” [r1]“Success”; [s2]“It wasn’t about trying, it was offered” [r2]“I accepted”; [s3]“She offered” [r3] missing; [s4]“Mutual agreement” [r4]“Free sex”; [s5]“I am very good with a huge penis” [r5]“Yes and more”; [s6]“I was feeling guilty about paying money for sex. On the two occasions it happened, I’d seen the girls a number of times” [r6]“It happened twice and it was successful”; [s7]“They wanted my cock” [r7]“Yes, only have done it when they approach me”, or an exchange of services: [s8]“One girl I knew needed a ride to a client we made a deal” [r8]“She agreed and gave me an earth shattering blowjob for the pick-up and ride and taking her home again”; [s9]“Traded services” [r9] missing; [s10]“I only wanted her to give me a handjob but she went ahead and started blowing me” [r10]“She let me finish in her mouth, swallowed and told me where I could drop her off without asking for any money.”   Other contexts emerge from a desire for a personal relationship:  [s11]“I tried but it was not successful. I attempted to pursue a real relationship with them. I was falling in love with them” [r11]“No I did not get what I wanted. I was not successful. Most of the girls do not want to be known outside of their work. I attempted to have a relationship with them. We text and chat and stay in touch for a period of time but then it fades. Usually the girls tour around and so sometimes I would never see them again”, or  107 the desire to save money or to negotiate a deal: [s12]“Save money” [r12]“No”; [s13]“Tried it as a lark...surprised that she was game..” [r13]“we partied together for a while then had sex...”; [s14]“I talk them into it, never use force or threats, I get off on talking them into doing me again for free” [r14]“Oh yes, I met her at her home at her request and it was AMAZING for both of us”; [s15]“To try and see what happens” [r15]“Fail”; [s16]“Charm” [r16]“Fail”; [s17]“My birthday” [r17]“No”; [s18]“Felt horny for more” [r18]“No”; [s19]“Asked for happy ending at a massage” [r19]“It worked”; [s20]“Who wants to pay?” [r20] missing.   In the remaining situations, the presence of substances contextualize the dynamics of the interactions in the following ways, emphasizing imbalances in the power relations: [s21]“The previous encounter was rushed and I didn’t cum. So the next encounter I demanded she provide me with what I paid for last time but never received.” [r21]“She was a little bit high, didn’t want to at first. But being a business man it was easy to negotiate with a crack head hooker. I told her next time I will pay and use her for an extra 15 mins. But I never picked up that bitch since then.”; [s22]“She was obviously jonesing badly for a fix” [r22]“Lower price”; [s23]“She was so loaded she passed out as I was Fucking her so I finished and took her to where she said she wanted to go and left” [r23]“I got sex for free a few times because the girls are usually really high and you can tell them you paid them even if you never. Or you can take the money back out of their pocket while you are fucking them.”  6.4.3 Disruption of the Expected and its Social Resonance Furthermore, these respondents have experience with interactive disruption where they have argued with a service provider about the length of an encounter. Respondents describe the arguments emerging from discrepancies with the expected time and sessions being cut short: [s1]“Worker tried to suggest the fee was for less than the hour I expected given market standards” [r1]“Seller agreed to continue for full hour”; [s2]“The time promised did not occur” [r2]“I left”; [s3]“Amount [of time] spent” [r3]“Not seen again”; [s4]“She left” [r4]“No tip”; [s5]“The agency booked one hour, she only wanted to do 30 minutes” [r5]“I left and the agency gave me a discount on my next encounter”; [s6]“I paid for 1 hour and she tried to leave after I came which was only about 30 minutes in to the 1 hour session” [r6]“I did not get what I wanted, she just carried on out the door. I chalk it up to experience and never call that girl back again”, to physical limitations that influence interactions: [s7]“I have a very large penis, sometimes they just cant handle it” [r7]“Mostly”; [s8]”I have a larger than average member and she stopped because her neck and jaw were sore” [r8]“I agreed to just masturbate myself as long as I could cum in her mouth”; [s9]“She said there was a time limit and I said that I paid her for a blow job and that is what she is going to do no matter how long it takes or give me my money back” [r9]“She complained that her jaw was getting soar so I grabbed her by the head and fucked her face until I came  108 in her mouth.” Other respondents emphasize their perception of poor service: [s10]“She wasn't good at cocksucking” [r10]“Too late, bad bj already done”; [s11]“The girl is not looking to give good service” [r11]“Cancelled, or took my money back”; [s12]“She just didn’t want to perform” [r12]“ I didn’t pay her full amount”; [s13]“They tried to get the money without providing the agreed upon service” [r13]“I always get what I want. I’m the customer”, and the influence of substances upon the situation, [s14]“She was too high on drugs and very paranoid” [r14]“She bailed out of my car while I was driving with $90 after she only spent 10 minutes with me! Was one of my first times, so was a little naive. But the bitch left her purse so I took her smokes and weed and chucked it in a dumpster and left to go jack off somewhere”; [s15]“Me being drunk. Don’t cum for a very long time when drinking” [r15]“Continued on.”  In the context of extensive experiences of active disruption, many respondents from this class have also experienced passive forms of disruption where they have been insulted or put down by a service provider. Responses to the event include leaving the session:  “I left, there are plenty of other sex workers available that offer better service”; “Walked away and never visited them again”; “Remained calm. I left”; “No feeling, left area”, asking the provider to leave or forcibly removing them, “She was very drunk, sent her packing”; “Asked her to leave my car”; “I told it to leave”; “Asked and forced them to leave by pushing them out the door”, several of whom describe the emotions felt when leaving, “Anger”; “Was upset. I left”; “I felt sad and left”; “I was frightened. I paid and left”; “I cancelled a visit and the worker called me an a-hole. Never saw them again”; “Not much. I am very quiet. I apologised and left quietly and never went back to her.”   There were other respondents who ignored the verbal conflict:   “I thought it was quite funny actually and just laughed it off”; “Shrugged it off. Tried to finish appointment. Will not return”; “Shrugged it off”; “No reaction. Nothing unusual”; “It did not happen during a session. It happened when I was hanging out with this person as we had become friends and would sometimes do things together. She said I was needy, I was not sure how to take it, if she was just joking or what, but also said I was very emotional and sometimes act like a girl. Nothing really happened, it passed. I mean I thought about what she had said, not sure if she really meant it. Soon after though we stopped seeing each other and all contact outside of the massage parlour stopped. She had moved on with her life and didn’t want to have anything to do with me”, those who responded to the event with verbal and physical force: “Yelled back. Nothing happened”; “It was an African American girl in an almost all African American community who kept telling me what a tiny white dick I had even as she was sucking me off. After a while when I got closer to the edge she took her hand away and I pushed my dick down her throat several times and then held her there until I came. She hit me, demanded her money and then jumped out and stormed off without putting her shirt back on”, and one respondent who experienced a positive sexual reaction, “It excited me sexually”.   109 Like Class 3, many from Class 4 have experienced being robbed or having money or effects stolen in the past. When describing the situations and their responses, several simply cut their losses and accepted it:  [s1]“Stolen jewelry, stolen car” [r1]“Nothing”; [s2]“Annoyed but there was nothing that could be done” [r2] missing; [s3] missing [r3]“Wrote it off”; [s4] missing [r4]“Disappointed”; [s5]“I just left” [r5]“Nothing”; [s6]“Get the hell out!” [r6]“Left immediately”, didn’t realize until later, [s7]“Found out later” [r7]“So nothing”; [s8]“Found out too late” [r8]“Nothing to be done”; [s9]“I was angry” [r9]“Nothing cuz I didn’t know until after she left. I didn’t call the police”; [s10]“Not aware at the time” [r10]“Not seen again”; [s11]“I didn’t realize until I got home she stole my wallet” [r11] missing, and didn’t return, [s12]“I never picked her up again” [r12]“Nothing”; [s13] missing [r13]“Didn’t go back”; [s14]“Just angry and upset” [r14]“I never went there again”.   Others emphasized how it functioned as a learning experience on some levels:  [s15] missing [r15]“Used it as a learning experience”; [s16]“Was really pissed off but could do nothing about it as I was not going to call the police and tell them I was robbed by a hooker” [r16]“Chalked it up to experience. Another beautiful hooker seen what happened and gave me a 1/2 price deal and we went back to my room and she treated me super special to try and prove that not all girls are rip offs”; [s17] missing [r17]“Was unhappy that I let myself be vulnerable to the theft”; [s18] missing [r18]“Chalked it up to a learning experience”; [s19]“I was mad and pissed off - as much as him as I was at myself for getting duped and not taking steps to protect myself - felt ashamed and angry” [r19]“Not much - He stole a couple of my meds - had to go get new RX or go without, and after that never left things in the open again”; [s20]“Lost my wallet. We spent an hour looking for it. When I realize she took the wallet I left” [r20]“Was fearful for my life. Thought this hobby was stupid and I was asking for trouble”; [s21] missing [r21]“Embarrassed should have known better.”   Among those who took action, several attempted to pursue the thief:  [s22]“Theft” [r22]“Went looking for her later”; [s23]“She bailed out of my car” [r23]“When I found out I went out to try and find her”; [s24]“I only realized later that something from my house was stolen” [r24]“I tried to get it back”; [s25]“I noticed after that I had been robbed from a street worker in my car” [r25]“I tried to look for her with no success”; [s26] missing [r26]“Tried to follow her”; [s27]“Computer missing. Ipod missing. Fell asleep. Colombia” [r27]“I got it back after I found her and threatened to tell the police”, engaged in a verbal altercation, [s28] missing [r28]“Told her I was disappointed and would not see her again”; [s29]“Anger” [r29]“Confronted”; [s30]“I laughed at her cause the watch she took was broken” [r30]“Verbally abused her. Left.”, one instance where the client was verbally confronted, [s31] missing [r31]“She left. Asshole came in and threatened”, and a situation where a physical altercation took place,  110 [s32]“Stole $700, I was pissed off, but still calm. She pulled a knife on me, I reacted by wrestling the knife away from her and then I left” [r32]“I found another sex worker. Did pleasure me.”  These prominent and pervasive disruptive experiences in largely unregulated spaces like the street are accompanied by future oriented indicators that reflect the detached relationships and perception of volition and power dynamics between the parties. Namely, respondents in this class are averse to companionship with a service provider, a factor that has the strongest contributing force within the space. Not being worried about a service provider being under the influence of drugs, respondents exhibit a strong perception of volition/control over interactions through their disagreement or neutral position regarding service providers having more say about the terms of service, having more power in the relationship, and getting angry if asked not to use a condom, as well as feeling neutral about whether or not they are quiet when with a provider. Finally, this class, who have pervasive experiences with unsafe sexual acts and decreased frequency of using prophylactics, also comprise respondents with strong clarity towards the future, feeling 100% likely that they will get an STI or STD at some point in their lifetime. This class also strongly disagrees that others would see their purchasing habits as a sign of personal failure.  6.5 Processes of Discord and Impersonal Relations The four classes described in this chapter, though substantively quite different in the nature of their experiences, dispositions, and the ways in which they project their position in future events, share a common emotional disconnect or distance from the service providers they engage with and a generally disconnected/depersonalized presence.   Class 1, for instance, presents a logic of practice shaped by forces emanating more strongly in the future dimension. Strong perceptual clarity regarding the social significance of being outed  111 or revealed as a person who pays for sexual services is interspersed with a strong negative valence with prospective future events and outcomes like being arrested, victimized, extorted, or contracting an STI that would reverberate strongly into the day-to-day social world they share with marital partners. The fear of an unknown and uncertain future is relationally bound with discretionary, cautionary, and risk avoidant habits and practices described by respondents, emphasizing their active awareness of situations with disruptive potential and the actions and inactions they take to avoid them. There is balance between these future-oriented concerns and habits with their past “not my problem” or “not worth the risk” inaction when observing lateral disruption, passive responses to passive disruption that do not escalate the disturbance, and the clarity with which they project future inaction if they were to experience lateral conflict again. With such concern for the future, these respondents appear to be particularly attuned to the rhythms of the interactions and the ways they can navigate social spaces and relations with minimal disturbance to the flow of events.   Sharing similar dissociative non-intimate sexual habits with providers, strong projective clarity regarding their unwillingness to help others for reasons related to discretion, anonymity, and self preservation, and concerns over contracting STIs, Class 2 diverges from Class 1 in their logic of practice shaped by a positive valence towards regularity and the known. Class 1’s negative volition to avoid that which they distrust and be aware of all things risky is juxtaposed with Class 2’s positive volition to ensure safety and discretion by seeking out safer managed massage spaces and providers that they trust, engaging in only safe/non-penetrative sexual acts, and rarely deviating from these practices. This pursuit of regularity, repetition, and trust translates to a logic of practice that hinges on the balance between what they seek, where they go, and an assumed stability and regularity in the spaces they frequent. In this case, controlling the uncertainties of the  112 sex industry and managing control of future outcomes closely relates to the specificity of their dispositions and the sense of what is and is not for them—or where is and is not for them. From this position, projections of their involvement in future disruptive events is the maintenance of distance from the situation and ensuring self preservation.  Class 1’s negative valence to avoid instability and Class 2’s positive valence drawn to seek out stable and known spaces, Classes 3 and 4 consist of clients who, to varying degrees, seem to be attuned to disruption, instability, and discord through their past experiences purchasing from street level spaces that are inherently unpredictable, uncertain, and risky; encountering passive disruption in the form of being robbed or scammed; and engaging in active forms of disruptive practices of pressuring or negotiating for services or outcomes that interrupt the reciprocal flow of a transaction. In Classes 3 and 4, to be attuned to disruption does not mean clients seek out social discord or conflict for the sake of creating conflict, rather, the results suggest an established comfort and familiarity with disruptive relations and power dynamics that coincide with logics of practice that tend to reside more closely to the present situation than stretching out into the social future.   The common practice among respondents in Class 3 to actively disrupt a transaction by proposing/negotiating free services or alternative sexual activities, for instance, is accompanied by narratives that evoke a sense of the client trying to get what they want despite their understanding of the expected prices and services offered by the provider. In a way, the clients describe interactions where the focus on achieving present desires is devoid of reflection upon, or concern for, what the outcomes of the disruption may be; what could alternatively be described as an absence of foresight. As such, many of the clients who report disruptive actions similarly experience interactive forms of conflict whereby they argue with a service provider about price or  113 terms of service. Overall, there is very little expression of planning or projection among Class 3 respondents. There is a balance between their activities and the worker, they drink alcohol prior to a visit often, visit providers who they perceive as being under the influence, and are not worried about the influence of alcohol. The general imbalance and disruption in the spaces they engage with equates to clarity that they will likely contract an STI in the future; an anticipation of a disruptive outcome and an expression of their perception of an assumed instability that fits with their discordant dispositions to act.   Class 4 expresses many of the same relational principles as Class 3, engaging regularly with street-based contexts, having experienced many instances of theft or robbery, and having a history of actions that provoke disruption between them and the provider. In the same way, respondents in Class 4 act with a limited view to the future, pursuing and negotiating for sexual activities and services ‘in the moment’ and in a way that serves their own interests above what the provider may be willing to offer. What emerges from these clients is a strong volition regarding their perceived control of the future, where their disagreement that providers have more power or say in what transpires plays out clearly in their descriptions of the many instances where they express their dissatisfaction with particular experiences, describe how they manipulate situations and apply pressure, and navigate getting something for nothing or at a discount. Furthermore, there is a strong perceptual clarity regarding workers not getting angry if they asked for no condom to be used, which coincides with the many experiences clients in this class have negotiating for risky sexual practices, several of which entail the presence of alcohol or substances as forces in the situation. The situations where unprotected sex takes place emphasize the in-the-moment or unplanned nature of the relation where neither party is carrying a condom, general disposition to engage in bareback, or only with a regular provider that they know. Alongside the extensive  114 experiences with disruptive events and a generally muted concern about the presence of substances or the use of safety precautions, the extent of respondents’ future projections is captured in the clarity for which they believe they will contract an STI or STD at some point.   These common disruptive experiences, practices, and narrow vision to the future for classes 3 and 4 are important to consider within the context of the lack of perceived social pressures in the form of not really caring what other people think about their actions. In the model, both classes hold position among forces related to a lack of concern for sociality, which also translates into their contextual descriptions where there is very little reflection on the social impact of their actions on others or concern over the social pressures that, as will be revealed in following chapters, tend to be at the forefront of many considerations and actions of other clients.    115 Chapter  7: Space of Rhythm, Reputation, and Personal Relations High on D3, mid-low on D1 and D2, and spanning D4 are four classes of sex buyers who share spatial position within and around indicators expressive of their shared lack of experience with disruptive events in the past, being unrestricted by fear, worry or concern, and displaying strong clarity towards future actions and projections regarding the likelihood that they would help a sex worker or fellow sex buyer in need. While there is variation in experience, age, and the forms of relations sought out, a common thread within these groups is their position high on D3 which relates a strong future sense of sociality and common agreement that most people in their social networks would likely be accepting of their activities purchasing sexual services. Interlaced with the general lack of concern over social perceptions of their experiences and actions, many of the respondents in these classes are typically single or divorced, are drawn to seeing the same service providers, tend to frequent independent providers they see either via out-call or in-call with whom they generally share a more consistent, open, and engaged relationship.  7.1 Class 5: Inexperienced with Clarity Towards the Future The space held low on D1 and D4 and high on D2 and D3 draws together the least experienced and youngest buyers with tendencies for less personal encounters with service providers and who exhibit strong clarity towards future events. Respondents are positioned within the earlier life stages in everyday spaces, comprised of students, those with less or equal to a high school diploma, and those who are employed in trades, transport or processing occupations or are on disability or unemployment, though the latter two are less influential and located at the spatial fringes near Class 3. Pertinent to these forces, respondents are also likely to be in three of the lowest yearly income brackets.  116 7.1.1 Inexperience, Trust, and Naiveté Strongly charged by forces of inexperience within sex industry spaces, the most influential force in this class comes from having only purchased 1-5 times—less so by those who have purchased 6-10 or 11-20 times in their lives. This class of buyers has less breadth of experiences across industry spaces, having only purchased in Canada, never from brothels or massage parlours, never having purchased from the same service provider on more than one occasion, indicate a tendency to only procure in-call services, and have never suspected a service provider they have visited was under the influence of alcohol. Though generally less experienced overall, respondents hold positions near indicators of inexperience with disruptive events and a tendency not to take precautions when purchasing sexual services. Respondents’ reasons for not taking precautions are shaped by feelings of uncertainty, not knowing, or not being concerned, citing:  “naivety”; “what is there to fear”; “I’ve done it once”; “don’t feel I have to”; “not worried”. Other reasons speak to a trust in the consistency of past experiences with others being disruption free: “They have all been trusty so far and they put themselves much more at risk than me”; “I don’t know, I think the sex seller can provide condom”; “never felt the need”; “never had a problem”, “never felt I needed them—have trusted the workers I have been with”; “don’t feel the need as there is a certain amount of trust and respect for each other that has been established”; “I trust them, and I make sure they know to bring condoms”; “it’s ok, I trust”. While others speak to a more general acceptance or disregard for the possibility of unsafe situations: “Sexual impulses override precautions”; “What precautions would I take, I’m a big guy and it’s a lady. I think I’m safe”; “Like what, bring a gun? Ya, right”; “yolo (seriously not trying to sound childish but yeah; you only live once).”  7.1.2 Social Certainty and Lack of Concern Proximally located near the early stage common-law relationship indicator are valence-related forces indicative of respondents’ aversion to talking to others about their purchasing experiences and talking to service providers about their personal lives, which is also accompanied by forces of volition pertaining to an agreement that they are generally pretty quiet when with a service provider. Amidst these general indicators of disengaged personal or social relations and a subdued   117   Figure 7.1: Class 5 - Inexperienced with Clarity Towards the Future  118 demeanor when with a provider are strong forces of sociality regarding the ways in which they perceive their social networks might react to knowledge of their purchasing history. Notably, respondents strongly agree that their friends would accept them and strongly disagree that most people they know would think less of them if it became known that they purchase sexual services.  This lack of concern towards social consequences is illustrated through responses to the question of what types of safety are of most concern when purchasing sexual services, where confidentiality, privacy or concern over being outed are not mentioned. Of most concern is their personal sexual safety, where 73% of respondents—the highest proportion of all classes—emphasize concerns over disease contraction, many of whom mention:  “disease”, “STI or STD”, “HIV AIDS”, while others more elaborately discuss: “STDs, but also of being hurt, attacked, robbed, etc., from/by the person. It is an intimate interaction with a stranger after all”; “Primary concern is keeping clean from long-term STIs”; “prevention from some diseases such as HIV or Hepatitis”; “Sexually transmitted diseases are my primary concern”; “STD transmissible by kissing”; “Disease free, Clean, Friendly, Horny, Willing to give and receive, likes to experiment, easy going”. Other concerns specify disease prevention, many of whom mention: “condom use”, “condoms”, “condoms for penetration”, “safe sex”, and more generally: “For me personally, the hygiene and safe-sex materials”; “I worry about hygiene, as one can never be sure about the bed when lying flat getting a massage and the towels given are often to small to cover the whole body”.   Alongside these concerns over sexual safety, Class 5 is comprised of both respondents who are 100% sure they will never contract an STI in the future and those who are unsure, the latter a category bordering the space near Class 3. 7.1.3 Empathy and Willingness to Intervene These comparatively younger and less experienced clients are also among the few respondents who directly mention being concerned about the well being of the service providers, mentioning:  “For the workers, proper security and that they are entrepreneurs making the money and not sex slaves”; “another primary concern is the safety of the sex worker - I always keep an eye out to make sure that her circumstances don’t seem sketchy, and I do my best to let her know that I’m a regular guy and I don’t pose a threat”; “the provider is safe from bad  119 dates”; “I am more primarily concerned about the sex workers safety. I know they see a lot of people and not everyone treats them with respect. I worry about them when are alone with someone they don’t know. I worry that a customer might become violent with them or hurt them. I care about them because they are real people, not just a sex object”.   Contextually related to these statements, respondents in this class also exhibit clarity towards their projections of how they would act or react if they ever suspected or witnessed a disruptive event, located among indicators that they are 100% sure they would help a service provider if they either suspected or directly witnessed, and are 100% certain that they would help another sex buyer if they witnessed an instance of victimization. The ways in which respondents project they would react if witnessing a sex buyer in need conform to more direct forms of intervention along with expressions of less direct verbal forms of intervention. Of the direct actions they would take:  “Break up the fight”; “Try to interpose/help the victim. If it looks too dangerous, at least call the police”; “Attempt to intervene, If I could stop it I would”; “Intervene physically if I felt someone was in danger. Immediately call the police”; “make a citizen’s arrest”; “physically intervene”; “encounter the aggressor”; “call the police, step in if necessary”; “step in to resolve the issue”, or provide more general assistance and verbal intervention: “call the police and assist”; “I’d offer to help in some way. This would likely be more of a bro-code / camaraderie thing. I wouldn’t do anything if it appeared that the person purchasing sex deserved it - if he was abusive, or rude, or intoxicated”; “I would just try to deflate the incident by acting as a mediator”; “Command the assailant to cease. If they failed to do so, I would contact the police”; “Intervene, defuse situation, provide distraction, report”.  These projections of future actions play out in a very similar way for the parallel question of how respondents would intervene if they witnessed a service provider being victimized, with heavy emphasis on reporting to the authorities and personally intervening, though the physical and direct forms of intervention are more pronounced among the younger class 5, responding that they would: “Hurt the guy”; “Physically attack them”; “Intervene physically if I felt someone was in danger. Immediately call the police”; “It is bad enough that the law and society victimizes sex workers. I would most likely intervene and attempt to either restrain the person victimizing the sex worker or try to deflate the situation”; “Likely use violence against the perpetrator”; “Command the assailant to cease. If they did not, I would have no practical alternative but to assault the assailant such as to incapacitate or intimidate them into  120 leaving”; “Maybe call the cops, maybe punch the fool harassing, maybe both”; “Step in and protect the sex worker”.   Finally, it is worth noting that there are respondents skirting the space closer to class three who are not sure if they would help a service provider if they suspected they were being victimized.  7.2 Class 6: Balanced and Consistent Older Clients with Less Experience Class 6, occupying similar spatial position with Class 5, is located low on D1, high on D2 and D3, and low on D4, indicative of older respondents with less experience purchasing sexual services who have minimal experience with disruptive events and moderate to strong perceptions of sociality and volition. These older clients tend to not have experience with the niche BDSM/fetish services or interactions with trans-female sexual partners, though they tend to be drawn to similarly older providers (36 +). Purchasing sexual services is not their only source of sex over the preceding year. While less influential to the composition of the space, respondents’ position in everyday spaces are shaped by education, having completed some or all of a trades certificate, having some post-secondary education, and currently holding jobs in sales and service sectors.  7.2.1 Active Precaution Taking and a Lack of Concern Perhaps most notable for this class is the symbiosis between their lack of experience with disruptive events in the past and their present lack of concern or worry. Never having experienced bait and switch situations, refusal of services, conflict by or towards service providers, arguments over price or terms of service, witnessing or suspecting conflict, or pressuring a service provider is accompanied by never having posted negative reviews, not being worried about victimization, contracting and STI, or never worrying about a service provider being under the influence of drugs.     121    Figure 7.2: Class 6 - Balanced and Consistent Older Clients with Less Experience  122 Central to their uneventful experiences is an indicator of respondents’ tendency to not take precautions to ensure their safety before visiting a sex worker. Reasons for this reflect a general lack of concern:  “I don’t feel there is a need to do so”; “no need to”; “never felt the need to”, which, in several instances, is tied to the security of the location and awareness, “Not needed, safe upscale area”, “they visit my hotel room”; “I’m aware of my surroundings”. In the remaining cases, respondents reflect on the lack of control: “don’t know what you’re walking into, i.e., guy in closet, car robbed outside”; “I’m submissive to male prostitutes, I expect to be used”, assurance of anonymity: “Then I’d have to tell someone what I was doing and where I was going”, and trust in oneself and others: “I choose carefully and am a strong male”; “safe acts”; “I don’t make contact other than hand jobs”; and “they provide the condoms”.   Regarding the prominent lack of concern about contracting STIs or STD among Class 6 respondents, the ways in which they protect themselves—in addition to the common practices of condom use—relate to their dispositions to visit known providers:  “avoid unknown people”; “know your seller”; “Choosing my sex partners wisely”, common sense and general safety: “Common Sense”; “Do safe things with sex sellers”; “I play safe”, avoiding drugs: “Do not use needles for drugs, or associate with anyone that does”; “always using condoms for anal sex; in general, assuming that new sex partners are HIV positive and proceeding accordingly”; “never use the services of an intravenous drug user”, and increasing certainty of safety with lesser known providers, “condoms with partners I do not know very very very well. enough to know if they have HIV or not”; “condoms, no oral sex given on people I don’t know / have a relationship with”.  7.2.2 Regularity, the Known, and Social Clarity These respondents also exhibit a tendency towards regularity with the types of venues and/or service providers they prefer to visit, consistency that comes in the form of only visiting the same independent service providers with a proclivity towards only out-call (SP comes to their location) and online over in-call services which they never or not recently have visited. Their sense of volition and how they perceive their control over interactions is shaped by their belief that both parties have equal say about the terms of service and disagree that SPs get more out of the  123 relationship than they do. The subdued level of concern and uneventful past experiences are tied with passive stances on sociality related perceptions, wherein they feel neutral that being outed as a buyer would lead others to think less of them or see their practices as a sign of personal failure, and strongly disagree that others would trust them less.   Contextualizing these shared principles, respondents also report that they would be very likely to help both a sex buyer and service provider who was being victimized, projecting their actions in a way that, compared to the direct actions described by Class 5, emphasizes intent to approach a situation verbally or with communication:  “tell them to stop and call 911”; “Let the person know what I saw”; “Ask if everything was okay. If they didn’t reply I would tell them I’m calling the police”; “Step in and talk”; “get details, report later”; “Talk to the person and ask if they wanted me to call the police or possibly try to intervene”; “I would stop it and try to calm the situation”. Similar projections emerge with regards to the verbal and communicative way they would respond to a service provider they suspected of being victimized, stating that they would likely: “Talk to them”; “Talk to the person and see if they want help”; “get details, contact a sex worker advocacy group”; “try to find out more”; “counselling suggestion and interfere”; “when she was alone help her clean up and transport her to a safe place”; “counsel them to seek support i.e. contact police”; “I have contacts in social service agencies that deal directly with sex workers; I would mention it to a friend”.     7.3 Class 7: Experienced, Single Clients Drawn to Connection and Intimacy Respondents in Class 7 are strongly positioned along the low end of D2, centrally located on D1, high on D3, and low on D4, indicative of generally younger/middle-aged respondents disposed to more intimate interactions with service providers who have moderate levels of experience in sex industry spaces. Clients that populate this space tend to hold position in day-to-day spaces as single men who have never been married, make between $60-$80,000 per year, work in the field of art, culture, recreation or sport, and whose only source of sexual contact over the past year has been with a sexual service provider.     124    Figure 7.3: Class 7 - Experienced, Single Clients Drawn to Connection and Intimacy  125 7.3.1 Familiarity, Regularity, Relaxed Precautions and Mutual Decisions Relational forces within this space are strongly bound by positive actor-actor valence indicators of interpersonal intimacy such as generally paying for girlfriend experiences, kissing, companionship, and conversation. Clients in this class tend to be drawn to increased openness with providers, reporting that they talk with them about their personal lives between 75 and 100% of the time. Additional forces of valence speak to a disposition to regularly engage in vaginal sex and providing and receiving oral sex, along with paying for porn star experiences and threesomes. Alongside the experience with vaginal sex, respondents in this space also report that they use sexual safety precautions between 75 and 99% of the time. When elaborating upon the context of the situations where they do not use sexual safety precautions, primarily receiving or providing unprotected oral sex, respondents emphasize the importance of being with known and familiar providers:  “When giving or receiving oral sex with a sex seller that I know/am comfortable with, when being masturbated by a sex seller”; “SPs (service provider) that I have seen before. Usually bare back oral sex both ways”; “When I’m paying one of my lady friends”; “If I know the person WELL, have been granted access to their medical records, receiving oral, really high (then jerk off for three months and go get tested) when I know that no fluids will be exchanged”; “Only consider it if there are recent test results”; “Oral sex with a respectable Independent GFE provider”. One respondent further reflects upon the ways in which familiarity and experience over time can lead to relaxed precaution taking: “Generally sexual safety precautions are not used in oral sex both giving and receiving. Some providers do use condoms the first few times we meet for oral sex but after we’ve seen each other a few times condoms aren’t used for oral sex”. However, as the following excerpt emphasizes, lack of familiarity and communication, inexperience of actors, and “in the moment” decision making can shape particularly risky events: “It only happened once. The girl was young (18) and a non-pro. Maybe her first time selling sex. Condoms didn’t come up. It was an out-call and before she came over I put condoms in the drawer beside the bed in case she didn’t have any. But she seemed so nice and clean during cunnilingus and then in the heat of the moment we didn’t use any protection (I know, stupid). After engaging her for a while I asked her where I should cum and she said inside her so that’s what I did. Although incredibly foolish and dangerous”.   126 Further to the dimension of experience and familiarity, respondents from Class 7 also emphasize how safe sex practices emerge from within the dispositions and preferences of two (inter)actors:  “In my experience I’ve tended to always use condoms for vaginal intercourse, but rarely for fellatio (and I’ve never been asked for or used a dental dam for cunnilingus)”; “I had one lady offer oral sex without a condom for an additional fee... I paid the fee”; “Both of the providers which I’ve seen have shown a clear stated preference for USING protection for any form of penetration but NOT using protection for oral”; “I have been offered a condom for oral on me (it was my choice, the lady did not care) and have refused”; “For oral sex. Giving I have never used a dental dam. And for receiving I prefer not to use a condom but leave it up to the sex worker. They choose to around 35% of the time. Although I tend to choose workers who provide non-condom oral services”; “I don’t use condoms when receiving oral sex generally, as the providers I use don’t bring it up. I use a condom for receiving oral sex if the provider wants to use one. Generally, I do not ejaculate in the providers mouth, though am happy to do so if the provider clearly allows it. I don’t use protection when performing oral sex. Generally, I am willing to accept the risk presented by oral sex. I have not had any disease transmission that I am aware of as a result of this policy”.  7.3.2 Experience, Assurance and the Draw of Reputation In terms of experience purchasing sexual services, respondents from Class 7 did so frequently within the previous year and have purchased services between 21 and 40 times in their lifetime. The industry spaces they tend to frequent are independent venues, showcasing a breadth of experiences within the past 12 months with independent in-call, out-call, and escort services, and many report that they mostly or always purchase escort or out-call services. The precautionary processes they take to ensure their safety are bound with their enhanced level of experience and knowledge of reputable and known spaces and providers. They emphasize their tendency to visit reputable service providers and/or agencies:  “I am with well reviewed general upstanding sex workers”; “See only workers with good reputations”; “I mostly deal with well reputed agencies”; “Only use high end agencies, with encounters in my own home”, and invest time researching to assure their safety: “I research the sex seller heavily before seeing her and mostly only see well-reviewed sellers with good reputations”; “only visit well reviewed providers”; “only go to providers who have been reviewed positively”; “I’ll reference an escort review site or two and find out if anyone has seen the provider before and how they would rate them. Also, when I find out where the provider is working out of and if I’m not comfortable with that location then I  127 won’t make the appointment”; “Only see sellers with non-sketchy websites, check for good reviews”; “I only use providers/ agencies that have received consistently high recommendations on escort review boards”; “I use an online forum to screen the workers I visit, or agencies I trust. I also try to be careful of my wording when first meeting a sex worker”; “I look for reviews that suggest that it will be a safe experience when visiting such and such a girl”.   Familiarity with venues and the providers they see is of notable import for Class 7, expressing that they:  “frequent known sellers, or areas that I feel comfortable with”; “I’m very selective as to whom I see and the situation that I put myself in, trying to avoid the unknown”; “select parts of town I am familiar with, prefer seeing sex workers in private residence or hotel”, and rely on information from others they’ve established relations with over time: “I only see reputable independent or agency girls. Most independents, I find by referral from other independents. I only use certain agencies”; “I only visit ladies that are highly recommended and that I’ve established an online dialogue with prior”; “only meet with sex sellers in reputable locations (i.e. higher end hotels, more upscale neighborhoods)”; “Most of my precautions are very pre - I only deal with independents, and try and get a sense of the person behind the ad [..] these days there’s only one sex worker I see (and even her infrequently). Novelty and safety are often at odds”.  7.3.3 Communication and Establishing Clarity Before Action Speaking to the more intimate and interpersonal relationships they tend to have with service providers, respondents in this space report that if they were to witness a sex buyer or worker being victimized they would be 100% likely to help out. Similar to the communicative approach described by Class 6, respondents from Class 7 emphasize three varying levels of communicative involvement they would likely take. First, by asking and probing into the severity or context of the situation:  “See if there was any way I could help”; “Ask her”; “it would depend how well I knew the person, but likely ask if she is okay and if there is anything I could do to help”; “I would ask them about it and offer to help them in any way possible”; “I would ask if they need help in any way”; “Ask her more about it, confront the person harassing her if possible”; “Talk to them and see if there is a problem and if I can help”.   Second, by reflecting on how they might open a dialogue and communicate to learn more before acting:   128 “I would first ask her about it privately. If I was still worried, I would call the cops”; “I’d probably ask her about it and try to find out more of the story”; “Well, first confirm my suspicions then take the correct action depending on the situation”; “Start by talking to the provider to find out if my suspicions are right”; “I am not sure because having a suspicion is not enough. If I know her, I would talk to her”; “Ask them about it, find a friend of theirs to and try to get them to find out if they are ok. Ask another reputable worker to look into things if they are new or do not have any friends that I can find”.   Third, by projecting a more direct communicative approach where they might make suggestions:  “I would suggest the sex worker contact the Sex Worker Alliance of Toronto”; “Advise them to get help or quit and get away”; “If I knew her or felt that we had some form of trust established, I would attempt to discuss it with her. From my past experience, nearly all women in this industry have issues to deal with on one level or another. If she was open and receptive, I would offer advice or support in the right situation”; “offer to help the lady i.e. escort her to victim services, offer a place to stay for a night or so... basically offer her safety whatever that looked like for her”; “If I obtain information from the sex worker regarding the client, I would tell the sex worker to contact the police and sex worker hotline”; “Counsel the sex worker, urge her to contact an appropriate support group”.   7.4 Class 8: Experienced, Socially Open, Divorced Clients with Future Clarity Located in close proximity to Class 7, respondents from Class 8 are located centrally on D1, low on D2, high on D3, and high on D4, reflective of their generally older age, higher levels of experience, disposition towards more interpersonal interactions with service providers, and perceptual clarity towards the future. Respondents are brought together by their shared positionality as divorced men who are currently single, who prefer and frequent out-call venues (have visited escorts and massage parlours in the past), who regularly visit the same service providers—many of whom only visit the same SP—and who interact openly, using their real name and talking about their personal lives 50 to 75% of the time.  7.4.1 Reputation, Comfort, and Established Trust The disposition towards regularity and familiarity with service providers, coupled with their proximal location low on D2 among indicators of more intimate types of sexual encounters, are  129 relationally bound with reasons why respondents from Class 8 report not taking safety precautions when purchasing services. Related to reputation of providers and agencies, respondents note:  “I’m a large intimidating looking man and usually only see well reviewed providers”; “I rarely see girls that have not already built some reputation”; “I only visit well regarded and well-known girls”; “I’ve only bought sex from established escort agencies or reputable independent sex sellers. I’ve never had anything happen that threatened my safety”; “I only do out calls with a very reputable agency”. They also reflect upon repetition seeing providers they already know: “I only see providers who I already know, who are recommended to me by another provider, who have I have observed interacting on Boards or who have very good recommendations”; “only see ones I know and trust”; “I usually know them or have a good feeling about them”, “don’t need to, I know all the girls”; “I know the women, where they live and what they do. I use the same women or friends of those I see”. Others describe a general sense of trust they have with the situation and with others: “I feel that they are safe and clean”; “I am very trusting”; “comfortable with her”; “Condoms are always provided by seller”, the assumption of trust and the process of establishing it with a service provider: “although I am nervous, I assume the worker is nervous to, and hope there is a level of trust between the two of us. As well an independent could not advertise multiple times if she was a scammer”; “I tend to engage in written conversation . . . email or PM on escort review boards ... with SPs prior to meeting in person. So, a whole lot of online flirting takes place first, sometimes over the course of several months. By the time we meet in person, we’ve already established a friendship and a basis of trust”, and a general lack of concern, overall: “Not worried”; “No special need to”; Never occurred to me”; “Feel safe”; “I feel they are unnecessary”; “none to take that will ensure safety”; “generally good experiences”.  7.4.2 Balanced Volition, Mutual Respect for Safety, and Risk Avoidance The positive valence towards openness with service providers further plays out through experiences having talked to someone about their sex buying practices and perceiving the outcome as not having changed the way the person treated them. The openness to talk with providers and others is closely bound in the model with an indicator of volition in the form of disagreeing that they are quiet when interacting with a service provider. In terms of the balance of power between both parties, though less influential to the composition of the space, respondents agree or feel neutral that they get more out of the relationship than the sex worker.   The social openness displayed by respondents in this class are tied with strong perceptions of sociality and the way others might react to knowledge of their purchasing habits. Specifically,   130  Figure 7.4: Class 8 - Experienced, Socially Open, Divorced Clients with Future Clarity  131 they agree that their friends would accept them, disagree and feel neutral that others would think less of them, and disagree that others would see their purchasing as a sign of personal failure. This subdued fear of social reprisal is further shaped through actor-event valence in the form of not being worried about the prospect of arrest or victimization. Though generally unworried about perceptions of others, respondents are positioned near the indicator of negative non-human actor valence in the form of being occasionally worried (and not sure if they worry) about contracting an STI or STD. Their methods for ensuring their sexual safety are related to familiarity, knowledge, and trust of the service provider:  “Just keep my tests up to date. And have now found a worker who will be my only partner for the foreseeable future”; “getting to know the person. Not sleeping around”; “knowing my partner”; “I know the woman that I sleep with and have sex with, I am very careful”; “No unprotected intercourse and careful choices of partners”; “seeing escorts that ensure clients wear condoms”, along with assessment of the reputation of the provider and agency: “purchase sex from agencies with regular testing for their escorts, use reputable independent escorts”; “Only visit reputable sex providers who take precautions like condoms and who get regular STI testing themselves. No random sex. No street sex. No sex with drunken pickups. No unprotected sex”.  Noteworthy among Class 8 respondents is their specific mention of risk avoidance, that is, actively avoiding situations they perceive to be risky:  “Despite seeing sex workers, I avoid high risk situations and unsafe sex”; “try to avoid high risk groups (e.g. aboriginal or addicted people)”; “avoid unhealthy partners”; “Never engage in risky behaviors. Hey, I lived though the 1980s. I saw what happened to 35-40 of my friends. Very cautious of what I do and who I do it with”; “being selective about sex partners”; “select only low risk (high-cost) women”; which, as one respondent describes, can be multi-faceted: “I use condoms. I ensure that I don’t use the same hand for myself as I use with my provider unless it has been cleaned with an antiseptic wipe. I ensure that neither myself or my provider has open sores or cuts where an infection may cross over. I don’t brush my teeth within an hour of a meeting to avoid irritating my gums and causing small abrasions. I don’t see street walkers, who are a high risk group for infection (more likely to engage in unprotected sex and/or be intravenous drug users). I don’t engage in anal sex with gay men, another high risk group and activity”.     132 7.4.3 Lateral Disruption, Communication, and Tendency to Act Alongside the forces described thus far, respondents’ experiences are generally devoid of passive or interactive forms of disruption. However, respondents located in this class occasionally (<25% of the time) partake in an active form of disruption, drinking three or more alcoholic beverages prior to or during a visit with a service provider. Additionally, among the four classes described, a notable proportion of Class 8 respondents have experienced lateral forms of disruption where they have suspected that a service provider was being victimized. Descriptions of the situation and the actions taken by respondents take the form of direct action to help resolve the problem (the following responses are demarcated by [s#] description of situation, and [r#] description of response/action): [s1]“sex worker told me” [r1]“helped them get it resolved”; [s2]“My next door neighbour (about 15+ years ago) in a condo was verbally abusing a sex worker who was trying to leave his place” [r2]“I allowed her into my place so she could make a phone call because I felt there was the potential of escalation and I feared for her safety”; [s3]“Robbery and mugging” [r3]“Reported to police and testified [..] she had her own methods of equalization”; [s4]“I’ve witnessed girls yelling and trying to kick my drunk friend who said something rude” [r4]“we left the massage parlor”.   Passive situations of suspected disruption where respondents communicated and probed further, with varying levels of success: [s5]“Vague statements that the sex worker made about his current boyfriend” [r5]“Because the statements were vague, I gently suggested that this did not sound like a healthy relationship and that he should reconsider his involvement in it”; [s6]“She seemed depressed and not enjoying her work, I stay away from private residents where multiple girls work from” [r6]“I tried to talk to her, encouraging her to open up, she asked me to please continue to see her in the future”; [s7]“the SP was stoned” [r7]“asked if she was OK...she left...very unsatisfying experience”; [s8]“The way the worker acted, like they were watching over their shoulder all the time” [r8]“I tried but was not successful I don’t think, I wanted to get her away from the agency, and go on her own”; [s9]“The loud voice on her phone chastizing her” [r9]“I ask her if everything was Ok. I told her she was safe with me”; [s10]“The way they were being spoken to” [r10]“They are human and needed to be treated with respect and dignity”. And more direct forms of disruption or conflict that directly involved a third party, respondents approach with more caution, fear, and inaction: [s11]“She told me she was being abused by her pimp” [r11]“Not my place”;  133 [s12]“once I was in a taxi in downtown Vancouver, and I asked the driver if we could hit the stroll. He said just a minute made a phone call and picked up a woman a couple of minutes later. He told me to get started, she was definitely not into it, and I felt really uncomfortable. I left the taxi and could hear him yelling at her as I walked away” [r12]“I don’t know exactly what was going on there, but, I hoped she would make the decision to run away from that situation”; [s13]“Bruises. Scared.” [r13]“didn’t know who it was”; [s14]“Conversation, attitude” [r14]“not my place to”; [s15]“A girl being slapped a few times” [r15]“To afraid to step in for fear of physical retaliation”.  As a class of respondents with experiences of lateral forms of disruption, they have suspected victimization and, to varying degrees, acted to help. Within the modeled space, they are also positionally located near indicators of perceptual clarity regarding the future actions they project taking if they witnessed or suspected others being victimized, expressing that they would be very likely to help either a sex buyer or a service provider being victimized. Regarding the form of intervention aiding a fellow client emphasizes verbal cues and communication with those involved: “Most likely involve the police and advise the person to not allow fear of scandal to let them be cowered into being a victim”; “Assist the client, consult with the client and if the client wishes, go to police.”; “I would ask if there was a problem and would see if it was possible to mediate”; “intervene by speaking with one or both parties, possibly getting between them, or calling 911 (and letting all parties know I am doing so)”; “Ask them if they wanted confidential help”; “Verbally intervene, if I felt I would not be at risk. Might want to talk to the person alone to check on them”; “speak to them”; “Talk to the individuals or offer assistance”, and more generally speaking up in the situation: “I would let the person know about it”; “Intervene verbally and call the police”; “depends on circumstances and if the person purchasing sex would be receptive to help”; “at the very least get involved and threaten to call the police”; “Would probably try to intervene if safe to do so. Would very likely report it on PERB to help others avoid the situation”.  The common communicative path of clients’ actions to conflict emerge more prominently in the question pertaining to suspecting a service provider was being victimized. Aside from the common response to call the police, Class 8 (and Class 7) express that they would communicate directly and have a dialogue with the service provider. Their projected level of involvement varying from asking to further probing into the severity or context of the situation:   134 “Speak to her and/call the police”; “I would offer to help and/or try to get the worker help from appropriate sources”; “Depends on the willingness of the SP to fix the situation. Can’t change someone, but you can offer help”; “First ask the sex worker if they were okay, ask if they need assistance, offer what assistance I could”; “Try to talk to them and see if there was any way I could help her”; “Ask if they were okay?”; “ask them if they wanted confidential help”; “Speak to them, decide next steps”, consulting with the service provider: “Consult with the worker and if the worker wishes, go to police”; “I would ask if there was a problem and if there was anything I could do to help”; “Talk to the sex worker to find out what was going on and what I could do to help”, and directly suggesting options and avenues that can be taken to help resolve the situation: “Try to talk to them about it, advise them to get out of a dangerous situation”; “Probably talk to her and try to encourage her to get out of the abusive situation”; “I would ask about it and maybe make a suggestion to seek help”; “perhaps get her side of the story first ...then perhaps action or advice”; “remove them from the situation and find out how I could help them”.   7.5 Processes of Rhythm and Relations Differing from the classes in the space of discord and impersonal relations, Classes 5 through 8 have very little experience with situations of disruption, are generally active pursuers of reputable providers and drawn to establishing personal relations, and express clarity in their future projections.   Though Class 5 comprises the youngest and least experienced respondents who are also spatially bound with indicators of negative valence towards personal communications with providers, they are among those with the strongest and most prevalent future clarity regarding the likeliness that they would help out someone in need. Lacking any experience with disruptive events and generally having a narrow breadth of experience purchasing services, respondents have yet to experience a rupture of their expectations and express very little concern for possible disruptive outcomes. The reasons for not taking precautions capture their sense of trust, never having experienced problems, not feeling the need, self professed naiveté, and lack of worry where their limited past experiences translate into an assumed future where events are not expected to deviate from the normal rhythms they have experienced. Their projected future actions to help providers or clients in need express unique clarity and conviction for respondents who have never  135 experienced disruptive events. This clarity is accompanied by relationally empathetic comments regarding their concern for the well being and safety of the provider and particularly direct projections of intervening actions were they to encounter disruptive situations, many of whom would directly step in, engage the situation physically, or report to authorities. When placed in the context of their unaffecting sense of social pressures or repercussions if they were to be outed to friends or family, the strength of conviction into their future projections illustrate a general logic of practice that, unaffected by past disruptions, is idealistic, direct, and unconfined by many of the social forces described by respondents in Class 1, for instance.   The similarly less experienced older respondents in Class 6 are equally unconcerned about safety risks, though, compared to Class 5’s assumed continuation of uneventful experiences, take active control to ensure their safety and consistency of their interactions. They are positioned in modeled space populated with indicators of a total lack of experience with disruptive events and situations, and lack of concern for being victimized, encountering providers under the influence, or contracting STIs or STDs. The lack of concern for potentially disruptive future events is contextualized by processual dispositions and habits to plan prior to encounters, only visiting independent providers they know and trust, and sticking to their own safety rules. In terms of valence, there is a clear narrative of avoiding that which they perceive to be risky (drug use and particular sexual practices) and being drawn to that which they perceive to be consistent and safe (known and regular providers). Consistent with the logic of practice to plan, learn and ensure consistency and control, respondents’ clarity to help providers in cases of victimization is couched within practices to learn more about the situation, ask questions, and make an informed decision on how to proceed.   136  The logic of practice for respondents in Class 7 is guided heavily by valence and the impulsion to interpersonally intimate and established relations with providers. Valence towards conversation, openness about personal life, and more intimate types of activities like kissing, performing oral sex on the provider, conversation, and general GFE interaction, is relationally bound with personal positions in day-to-day lives as single and never-married clients whose recent sexual experiences consist primarily of paid encounters. Along with the increased interpersonal nature of the relations, respondents express a common draw to known, familiar, reputable, and established providers. The “pre” research they do to ensure these criteria of regularity and well reviewed providers is a means to take control of their future experiences, many describing a process of developing trust, comfort, and confidence in knowing what they are walking into—a position captured by one respondent’s assertion that “novelty and safety are often at odds.” The common valence towards reputation of providers—a marker of an assumed stability and assurance of smooth interactions—and the comparatively intimate forms of relations engaged in, raise degrees of familiarity and comfort between client and provider that give rise to relaxed sexual precaution taking. In this context, past mutual experience, familiarity, and trust between client and provider over time informs future projections of sexual safety (they anticipate freedom from STIs or STDs) among clients that are met with relaxed sexual precaution taking. These habits for establishing a personal understanding through research and experience inform respondents’ clarity towards helping clients or providers in need, whereby, there is a clear narrative to communicate, ask questions and permission, and establish a clear understanding of the context before seeking a resolution to a disruptive situation.  Class 8 shares many of the same impulsions towards developing a sense of reputation and trust for a provider before visiting. Represented largely by single, formerly married respondents,  137 they tend to visit the same service providers with whom they are drawn to speak to about their personal lives and describe as having an established sense, feeling, and assumption of trust with. This social openness with providers transcends into the day-to-day with an openness to discuss their purchasing experiences with others, practices which are relationally bound within indicators suggesting respondents do not feel social pressure from their perceptions of how people in their personal networks may react to knowledge of their purchasing habits, nor the prospect of arrest or being victimized. Largely unaffected by the effects of social pressures, clients in Class 8 express conviction in their desire to take control of their future safety by seeking reputation and reliability in service providers. Notably, the process for ensuring sexual safety reveals a uniquely negative valence to actively avoid high risk people, spaces, and practices—different from the positive valence towards seeking safe spaces and providers described by Class 7. Though actively prone to avoid risky situation, respondents in Class 8 express conviction in the clarity and control they have over projected future actions to intervene in situations where they encounter victimization. In line with the communicative openness of these respondents, actual past experiences with intervention and projected actions for intervention follow a common communicative path to probe further and communicate with authorities if need be. Like Class 7, they are very process driven throughout their research, assessment of situations, and plans to act.     138 Chapter  8: Space of Passive Disruption, Situational Control, and Awareness Low on D2 and D3, high to moderately high on D1 and dispersed along D4 are four classes of clients who share spatial position within and around indicators expressive of their higher breadth and depth of experiences and financial freedoms compared to other classes. Though varied among the four classes, respondents share experiences with passive forms of disruption like bait and switch and respond to the situations passively in ways that minimize conflict escalation. Elements of passive volition play out in this space, where respondents perceive the control and power more so in the hands of the provider. Across classes, respondents describe varying levels of control that they seek over the interactions by way of precaution taking, risk avoidance, and moderate consideration of the social implications of purchasing sexual services—particularly with Classes 9 and 10. While respondents express more subdued clarity regarding their willingness to help a provider or buyer in need, their past experiences witnessing lateral disruption and the communicative actions they took to learn more and assess the situation are indicative of the level of informed control that is evident in this space.   8.1 Class 9: Burned and Concerned Clients who Take Precautions Spatially positioned high on D1 and low on D2, D3, and D4, these younger educated respondents are drawn together by high levels of experience purchasing sexual services, dispositions towards purchasing at brothels—typically managed venues with security measures in place—which they have frequented often over the past 12 months. Their experiences with passive forms of disruption and an elevated sense of concern is enmeshed with future projections of negative social reactions from others. Prominently central to this space is the experience of encountering a bait and switch situation, where the service provider differed from what they expected, and, though less influential,  139 having experienced being put down and/or verbally harassed by a service provider on one occasion.  8.1.1 Maintaining Balance with Passive Responses to Passive Disruption Of the 47 respondents who arrived at an appointment and were met by a service provider who did not match the way they were advertised roughly half continued on with the session (n=19). They described going with the flow and tolerating the disruption:  “I continued with the session I was willing to give her a chance as I know some agencies are notorious for exaggerating looks”; “Went along with it, planning on never allowing it to happen again. Hasn’t happened since”; “Go with it. Too shy to leave”; “I sometimes tolerate the bait and switch in order to get the sexual satisfaction that I was wanting”; “Continued with the encounter”; “I didn’t complain but didn’t go back”; “Usually went through with the sexual service”; “Nothing usually, evening typically progressed as planned, it’s only once or twice been dramatically older or heavier to the point I would walk away. I do a lot of research before proceeding”; “I may make a comment but leave it. I don’t want to offend the sex worker. I just wouldn’t see her again.” The unanticipated disruptive experiences are also described as evoking feelings of awkwardness, discomfort, or unpleasantness: “We continued as planned, usually awkwardly and more quickly than I had hoped”; “The visit was shorter than anticipated ... still stayed but the session was uncomfortable and brief”; “I had an unpleasant session”, “I was disappointed”, or a situation they later regret, “Did it but regretted it. Won’t do it again, and warn sps [service providers] that if they are misrepresenting, I will send them away”; “Was too horny, so I stayed and paid the sex worker. Only later on, afterwards, do I realize that I should have not gone in.” Others describe feelings of indifference to the situation: “No reaction - the girl was not who was advertised, but was just as attractive and I didn’t mind”, take it as an opportunity to negotiate, “Worked a reduced price and fucked her anyways”, or as a situation that warranted warning others, “Flagged the ad as spam”; “Reported to review board”; “I told people on some internet sites dedicated to prostitution in Toronto”; “I posted my experience on an escort review board so other guys do not get nailed this way.”  Most of those who exited the situation replied that they simply “left” or “left without paying”. Others described the interactive tone of the actions:  “I politely told them and left”; “I paid her taxi ride and sent her away”; “I refused to give her the money and backed out. Sometimes I left 20$ as compensation but the last time it happened I said this is fraud and bolted!”; “I laughed, told her there was no way I was staying, and left”; “She went back. Sometimes the agency offered a replacement.”     140  Figure 8.1: Class 9 - Burned and Concerned Clients who Take Precautions  141 Common to these responses to the bait and switch situations are non-confrontational reactions and continuing along with the rhythms of unpleasantness sparked by the unanticipated event. The described effects vary, however, often including learning from the experience, ensuring it does not happen again, and sharing the experience so it does not happen to others. The tone of these responses emerges in a similar way regarding experiences of verbal conflict by the service providers, where most react passively or in a way that does not escalate the disruption:  “I kept my mouth shut. I thought it said more about them than about me”; “I shrugged off the insult. She was just being catty, no need to make a big deal”; “stay quiet, kept the peace, did not want to make a ruckus”; “I didn’t really care”; “[Responded] Calmly. No need for it to escalate”; “The girl said ‘Gorto’ which is Español for fat. She did not know that I understood”, or simply leave the situation: “I left… rip off”; “was offended, ended session and left”; “walked away”; “Gave her a $50 bill and drove away”; “I left and did not return.” Others describe the way the disruptive event informed their feelings and reactions: “I felt bad and sent her away”; “Felt disappointed. Communicated, asked why I was insulted”; “Didn’t see them again, posted a negative review about them online”; “I didn’t see them again and wrote a negative review on a message board”; “I mentioned I read her services on the internet. She told me she used to do those things but won’t do them anymore. I said that’s fine, but I felt she cheated me a little. The reason why I felt cheated is because I know she will offer those services [condom-less blowjobs] to other guys and I was the only one who got less because they like to bully me, meaning blowjob with protection.”  8.1.2 Lateral Disruption, Fear of Consequence, and Self Preservation In addition to these passive disruptive experiences, respondents from this class have also experienced lateral forms of disruption as an observer to a situation or context that they interpreted as problematic for the sex worker and potentially related to victimization. The common response to the suspected victimization was to keep out of it and not intervene. When describing their reasoning for not responding to their assessment of the situation, respondents emphasized a general sense of fear and concern for their safety (the following presented as [s#] description of situation, and [r#] description of reasoning):  [s1]“A group of men came into the hotel room just as I was getting dressed. They said there were cops outside, but I didn’t see anyone. I assumed one of the men was the sex seller’s  142 pimp. The men didn’t respect the sex seller’s privacy at all, they barged in as if they owned the place (which they may have in fact). Based on their attitude I thought the sex seller could be at risk” [r1]“I felt concerned for my own safety, so I left as quickly as possible”; [s2]“They worked out of an office somewhere” [r2]“Thought it was not my business. Afraid for my safety”; [s3]“Appearance of provider” [r3]“Not my business and I hate confrontation”, and fear of persecution and loss of their anonymity: [s4]“An aggressive looking guy lurking outside” [r4]“Self preservation. I texted her a bunch of times to make sure she was OK, and offered to help her if she wasn’t, but odds are he read those. I thought of going to the police but I was too afraid of my own persecution by them”; [s5] missing [r5]“Can’t afford the repercussions if manager found out he could retaliate. Also police in one major Alberta city use unethical tactics to force people to become informants against their will by threatening to expose them if they don’t cooperate”; [s6]“An aggressive looking guy lurking outside” [r6]“Self preservation. I texted her a bunch of times to make sure she was OK, and offered to help her if she wasn’t, but odds are he read those. I thought of going to the police but I was too afraid of my own persecution by them”; [s7]“The woman had strange reactions as if she was very nervous and skittish, there was nothing obvious but something didn’t feel right.” [r7]“I made a comment about the situation and location on a board which I thought the cops monitored, though I regret not going to the cops directly”; [s8]“ripped off” [r8]“Anonymous.”   Others cited the lack of evidence and hesitation to act on their suspicion:   [s9]“Several sex workers have told me stories of clients trying to victimize them” [r9]“Insufficient information to do anything about it. Plus the party telling me about it seemed to have found ways to deal with the situation”; [s10]“The lady was from a foreign country and did not speak english at all. The agency was known as an Asian Micro, and it just felt as though the lady was not there necessarily by choice” [r10]“It was only a feeling, with no real evidence to back up my thoughts at the time”; [s11]“It was a miserable little brothel in Chinatown... just felt like the sort of place that someone might be there against their will”; [r11]“Didn’t want to get involved, and I didn’t really know anything”, and not knowing what to do or what actions to take: [s12]“One girl told me one of her clients tried to rape her” [r12]“Wasn’t sure what I could do”; [s13]“Her attitude - nervous, almost fearful when we met, then comfortable; then, when it was time for her to leave, she didn’t seem to want to go - the nerves were back” [r13]“I only suspected that there may be something wrong (had no proof, nothing specific she said), and didn’t know what to do”, particularly in unfamiliar surroundings as described by one clients experiences in Thailand: [s14]“Slave brothel in Thailand” [r14]“I was in Thailand on holiday and I was approached by a tuk tuk  driver who asked me if I wanted a lady massage. I cautiously agreed to go for a ride to the outskirts of town (Chang Mai). We pulled up at a corrugated steel gate and when the pimps opened the gate, I was ushered into what looked like a prison. The girls were brought downstairs and I was given a choice. They all looked like prisoners. I declined and was allowed to leave. I really didn’t know what to do because I assumed the authorities were aware.”     143 8.1.3 Persistent Worry for the “Unknown” and Active Precaution Taking Relationally bound with these past experiences are valence-related indicators expressive of being worried about experiencing victimization when purchasing sexual services and worried about being arrested or visiting service providers who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. When asked to elaborate upon the specific forms of victimization that they worry about when purchasing sexual services, the common response related to fear of assault or robbery when entering unknown situations such as meeting a new provider:  “Always have a concern about assault or theft when meeting new providers”, entering ‘sketchy’ neighbourhoods, “Some buildings and neighbourhoods are dodgy or dangerous and going to them brings a higher risk of confrontation with some people who live there, not the sex worker”; “I have a minor physical disability, but it would be very easy for someone to assault or rob me, as I would be unable to put up much of a fight. As a result, I am generally somewhat leery about visiting locations that seem unsavoury, or sketchy”, and not knowing what to expect, “Being robbed, assaulted, etc. You never know what you could encounter”.   Respondents also emphasize the fear of disruptive events that extend beyond the present moment, such as extortion or blackmail:  “Extortion and theft”; “blackmail”; “them finding where I live”; “Being robbed, assaulted or blackmailed, or having my car stolen or damaged”, along with more general concerns, “being robbed or cheated in some way”; “I’ve worried about having my wallet taken (which is why I don’t take it with me) and about her taking my money and leaving”, and the increasing concern that comes with aging, “As I get older, fear of robbery increases.” Tied to many of these fears are situational concerns over the presence of ‘unknown others’: “Possibility of a pimp close by”; “I usually shower at the escorts place or hotel room, so I do worry I will get robbed of my money, cards, etc. Also, if I don’t know the lady well and she has pimp that could come in and assault / rob me, it has passed my mind”; “I worry that if the worker has someone else waiting in another room, closet, etc. they could rob or beat me”; “I’ve worried about other men I’ve seen nearby who seem to be waiting for the sex worker, worried about an intrusive arrival, possible robbery. Also, I’ve experienced withholding of all sexual services before while she kept my money. That had happened. I’m not going to get angry or threatening, so it worries me that after I pay, I might not get any service, as that has happened to me before”; “Robbery or physical assault by pimps”; “Robbery, being attacked by accomplice.”   144 For Class 9, these concerns are interrelated with dispositions towards actively taking precautions to ensure their safety when visiting a service provider. Aside from the common response of leaving valuables in the vehicle prior to a visit and only bringing the exact amount of money required—common across all classes—respondents emphasized the practice of researching beforehand, paying attention to reputation of agencies and providers:  “I use websites to look up reviews on sp. I use agencies that have been around long enough to be trustworthy. I never bring my car to an in-call I have not visited before. My fear is it is a set up to break into the car or steal it”; “only in reputable places, limit in-calls”; “I use reputed agencies”; “Funny, I almost said no, but realized that what I do now is deal with agencies and well reputed independents who have some feedback on a chat board”; “See known quantities (e.g. reviewed on review boards, seen them before, good referral from a trusted source on a review board); see independents working from a known hotel location; pay attention to ads for clues about maturity and reliability”; “Research online to find quality providers in safe locations”; “Ensure the lady is known on Canada Adult Fun”; “Read several reviews prior to booking a girl.”   Having experiences with disruptive events and using review boards for research, respondents from this class also act in ways to inform others about their negative experiences in the form of posting negative reviews on two or more occasions.  8.1.4 Social Repercussions, Experienced and Perceived Respondents in this class openly talked about their purchasing experiences with another person, actions they perceive as having changed the way the person treated them such as:  “They use it against me sometimes to show that I am irresponsible and stupid”; “They had a very negative reaction and believed something was drastically wrong with me”; “Made fun. Teased”; “My ex-wife thought less of me”; “One refused to speak to me anymore”; “I was stigmatized and avoided.”   These experiences are relationally bound with strong future perceptions of sociality whereby respondents agree that, if their purchasing habits became public, people they know would trust them less, see the practices as a sign of personal failure, and would not accept them. These contextual experiences with disruptive events and varying levels of concern and fear cohere with  145 a clarity towards their future actions, where respondents from Class 9 specify that they would not be likely to help a sex worker if they suspected they were being victimized, nor would they help a sex buyer if they witnessed them being victimized. Respondents again emphasized conflict avoidance:  “Don’t want to be around if there is trouble”; “Sometimes it better to not as long as no danger to someone’s life”, fear of confrontation and negative outcomes, “I avoid confrontation”; “Chances of injury if directly involving yourself and calling the police would be a waste of time”; “I would fear being victimized myself by Law Enforcement”; “Scared of what might happen”; “Afraid of getting hurt”; “I am a fairly passive person who avoids confrontation. I would likely leave but not act beyond posting a report on an on-line forum”, concerns over anonymity and exposure, “Would not want questions raised about my own participation in purchasing sex”; “Do not want to blow my cover by getting involved as no one in my personal life knows that I do this”; “Risk of exposing myself”; “Anonymous”, and detachment from the situation, “Not my problem”; “It’s not my business”; “Their personal choice”; “His problem, not mine”; “It is up to them to initiate charges”; “It seems to me that many of the situations are in part of the victims own making. I’ve gotten between an abusive guy and his girlfriend, but she’s going home with him, so why am I taking a risk?”; “Because of the nature of the service. Buyer beware”; “What can one do?”   8.2 Class 10: Moderately Experienced and Safe with Passive Volition Holding low position along each of the four dimensions, respondents in Class 10 are located in space populated by generally younger and comparatively inexperienced buyers who are particularly safe with their sexual activities. These respondents’ have limited breadth of experiences in relation to other classes, having never purchased from the street, bar, or BDSM services along with never having sexual experiences with other men, trans-men, or receiving anal sexual services. These respondents do have recent experiences purchasing services from in-call providers which tend to be on the safer side. Specifically, they report never engaging in unprotected sexual practices, using prophylactics 100% of the time, never refusing to use a condom when asked, and never drinking alcohol prior to or during an encounter.    146    Figure 8.2: Class 10 - Moderately Experienced and Safe with Passive Volition  147 8.2.1 Assurance of Safety Through Regularity and Avoidance When asked how they protect themselves from HIV or other STDs or STIs, in addition to the common mention of condom use they emphasized avoiding high risk activities and groups: “avoiding other risky behaviors, not associating (sexually, anyways) with people in high risk groups”; “no risky types of sex e.g. anal no fluid exchange no drugs”; “I won’t have vaginal or anal sex with any sex worker ever. I won’t have vaginal or anal sex with a non-sex worker unless I have been in a relationship with them for at least 3 months and I have seen there STD test results.”   As well as considering the safe practices of the service providers they see:   “regular tests, limit purchased sex to sellers I trust to screen themselves regularly”; “I use condoms nearly every time I have sex, and I don’t use needles or participate in other activities that would put me at risk. with sex workers and friends who have a large amount of sex partners, I always use a condom though sexual encounters with either are very rare. the only time I don’t use a condom is with one particular friend I trust who is on the pill”, safety steps that are elaborately described by one respondent: “Step 1, Condoms. Step 2, I try to be careful about spreading fluids around when taking the condom off, doing my best to keep any of her bodily fluids from getting up around the tip of my penis. Step 3, as soon as she’s left, I shower off thoroughly and put my towel and sheets directly into the laundry. Step 4, get tested regularly. That’s all unless I’m with a regular partner that I trust and know/believe not to be a risk. If the latter is the case, I take just about no precautions at all so long as I know I’m clean and can’t spread anything to her either.”  Similar to Classes 9, 11, and 12, the precautions taken by Class 10 respondents to ensure their safety when visiting a sex seller include leaving their valuables in the car or at home and only taking the required amount of money and relying on research indicating that the service provider is reputable: “I read review boards and will only visit someone who is well reviewed”; “I make sure that every provider I visit has a positive review history. I don’t take any chances with unknowns from classifieds. This is probably the most important step for me”; “Generally check online reviews or go to legit establishments”; “Read reviews of sex worker. Only use CAF website girls, only ones with good reviews, only at in-calls”; “Verify details, and reputation. Meet in neutral territory or public areas”; “Prior to visiting a sex trade worker I go to escort review boards to ensure that the woman whom I’m planning on making an appointment with is legitimate and has a professional attitude towards her job”; “Book with known providers and/or those with reviews on a community web site”; “Use review boards.”   148 8.2.2 Passive Volition, Sense of Position, and Assurance of Distance The avoidance of risky spaces and practices along with generally safe sex practices and lack of experience with active disruption are accompanied by a sense that a service provider would get angry if they asked not to use a condom. This volition extends into their perception of the power dynamic between them and a service provider, believing that the provider has more power in the relationship and more say about the terms of service. Enmeshed with these safe practices and passive position with service providers are strong concerns about a provider they visit being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, indicators of valence that are also positioned within diffuse experiences of never having experienced theft and never suspecting that a provider was under the influence of alcohol.  The passive stance and general avoidance of risk also takes shape in their responses to why they would likely not help out a sex buyer or sex worker being victimized. Reasons for this include general conflict avoidance:  “I don’t want to get involved”; “Wouldn’t want to get involved”; “depends if it puts me in harms way. I don’t want to be entangled in a squabble”; “I’m not terribly assertive”, distancing from the situation: “Mind my own business”; “Not my problem”; “Not my place”; “Because purchasing sex is a risky business. Every customer knows that they’re taking risks. I wouldn’t expect anybody to help me if I got into trouble”, the fear of being exposed or relinquishing their anonymity: “Fear of being beat up and or exposed to police”; “Concern for privacy, fear of repercussions for being involved”; “It would be extremely complicated to report such a scenario to the proper authorities, and I would worry about being investigated myself”; “I would not want to be arrested”; “Fear of being hurt, given police hard to involve, danger of being found out and future injury”; “I would worry that I’d be putting myself at risk. I might go as far as anonymously calling authorities, but I probably wouldn’t get personally involved”; “I keep my purchasing of sex a secret. Unless there was very severe victimization happening I would probably be afraid of being involved for fear that my secret would be exposed”; “Unless there was a potential for bodily harm, my need for anonymity would supersede another individuals need for assistance”, and consideration for the outcomes their actions might impose on other: “The person being victimized might not want a third party such as myself to get involved especially since purchasing sex is viewed as a taboo”; “It may get the person in trouble even more.”   149 8.3 Class 11: Highly Experienced Wealthy Clients who Take Action Holding position high on D1 and D4, and low on D2 and D3, this class is generally comprised of married older middle-aged clients (41-50 and 51-60 years) with high frequency and breadth of purchasing experiences, higher levels of education, higher paying jobs in business and finance or health-related fields, and who are generally quite wealthy. This class is positioned in and around indicators of high frequency purchasing of sexual services, the strongest being those who have purchased over 100 times in their lifetime followed by those who have purchased 76-100 times and then who have purchased on 41-75 occasions. The frequency of experiences is matched with a breadth of experience that spans many different transactional spaces over time. Specifically, they report having experienced purchasing in the past (over at least a year from time of survey) from the street, bar, brothels, escort services, out-call, and/or BDSM/fetish, along with experiences purchasing outside of Canada on one or more occasions. Outside of these past experiences, they exhibit more recent proclivities for purchasing services from massage parlours, reporting visits on 1-3 and more than 4 occasions within the previous 12 months, claiming that they visit parlours or brothels most often and generally pay for massage services.  8.3.1 Subdued Concern, Risk Avoidance, and “Professional” Providers Respondents populating this space report repeated visits to the same service provider on more than one occasion over the previous 12 months, with whom they talk tend to talk to about their personal life 50-75% or 25-50% of the time. The providers they are generally drawn to range in age from 31-35 years and tend to be of a different race. Perceiving the service providers they visit to be under the influence of alcohol less than 25% of the time, respondents do not claim to be concerned about alcohol use; rather, they worry about providers being under the influence of drugs. Additionally, they occasionally worry about contracting an STI, wherein common responses to     150  Figure 8.3: Class 11 - Highly Experienced Wealthy Clients Who Take Action  151 how they protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases—over and above the common response of condom use—emphasize risk avoidance and safety assurance in terms of the sexual activities engaged in: “Avoid anal, mostly massage”; “safer activities”; “I stick to oral sex”; “Don’t engage in activities that are high risk”; “Low risk sexual activities (rub and tug), clean hands for both me and the provider, caution during services that nothing uncovered touches”; “limit activities”; “I avoid anal sex and use condoms when I do it. I do not allow anyone to ejaculate in my mouth”; “I like to have anal with woman, but I haven’t since I got chlamydia”, avoiding risky groups and types of service providers: “No contact with high risk groups”; “condom for anal sex, no drug use, sober for sexual encounters, avoid partners who are obviously ill”; “No sex with men or intravenous drug users”; “Don’t interact with people who I think may be infected”; “Avoid high risk sexual activities and other modes of transmission”; “no unprotected vaginal/anal sex. No drug use. Visit only new girls”; “Only hand jobs from sex workers, other sex partners are usually married and have to be clean as well”, and gathering knowledge of the sex worker through research and selecting healthy and/or clean partners: “Condoms with people I don’t know”; “Know your partner”; “careful partner selection”; “research and due diligence.”   The sexual safety practice of researching reputable service providers also extends to their general practices to ensure their safety when purchasing sexual services, with respondents emphasizing professionalism, reputation, established histories, and ‘high-class’ providers: “I do not pick up street walkers and I do not do out-calls. I only use in-calls or massage parlours now. I mostly limit myself to handjobs and only occasionally pay for intercourse. I try to see reputable sellers”; “Being aware, review boards, internet reviews and warnings”; “Normal stuff. I only see high class independents”; “If I am meeting someone for the first time, I take care in who I meet. I look for someone who advertises over a long period of time or who has positive reviews online. If it is an in-call, I evaluate what neighbourhood its in. Also, if there’s something off in the attitude on the phone, I won’t proceed”; “Only go to reputable providers”; “Known providers with an online reputation for professionalism”; “Leave valuables at home, try to only see reputable providers with references/reviews”; “Only deal with established agencies or reliable independents. Stay away from sketchy neighbourhoods and craigslist advertisers.”   Among the four classes in this space, several respondents from Class 11 also take social precautionary measures by contacting or alerting a third party about their location, activity, and whereabouts:  152 “Have GPS turned on, on the phone. Arrange to call a friend after the appointment. make sure the location is safe”; “Leave information on where I am and with whom”; “If I visit I leave written details of where I am going, if receiving at my place I meet first in public place”; “Let my best friend know where I am going and with whom”; “I ensure I know the area. I use a hotel room and tell the front desk to screen the persons looking for me. I leave the name of the sex worker with the front desk. Or I meet them in a safe public place then we go to a motel or hotel that I choose.”  8.3.2 Navigating Relaxed Safety Precautions The concern over contracting STIs, while accompanied by risk avoidance practices, is proximally located near an indicator of moderate use of sexual safety precautions where respondents generally use them between 50 and 75% of the time. Instances where respondents do not use sexual safety precautions are largely related to receiving unprotected oral sex (63% of respondents) as well as providing unprotected oral sex (27%), situations that are described along lines of the service providers’ willingness: “I never use when I give oral sex. I often don't use when receiving oral sex, depending on the seller”; “oral sex occasionally is offered without the blowjob. Never used a dam or gloves”; “Oral sex unless the provider prefers to use a condom”; “I don’t use any safety for erotic massage or blow jobs if the girl is okay with it”; “if she asks me I put it on always, but sometimes they want me not to use for some reason”; “Hand job, blow job (if she agrees), cunnilingus”; “For masturbation (the only service I engaging in from service providers) I do not normally wear a condom. If she asks I will. I do start with a hand sanitizer, or hand washing for both of us and finish with the same”, and the nature and length of the relationship with the provider: “sugar daddy/sugar baby relationship”; “My sugar baby who is exclusive to me, otherwise it is 100% with ALL others”; “with my fwb [Friends with Benefits] partner of ten years”; “when I know her”; “Oral sex with a provider I’ve seen a few times. Both ways”; “I have a few regular providers and we have agreed to not use any precautions”; “With SPs who I have known for long time. Regularly have oral (giving and receiving) with no condom”; “Received oral sex once without a condom from a sex worker who I knew well and was able to determine the STI risk was low.”   While most respondents only mentioned non-penetrative activities for which they do not use sexual safety precautions, several respondents described experiences where they have had unprotected intercourse with a sex worker:  153 “vaginal sex, and oral sex on me and her”; “have once done vaginal with a particular provider unprotected”; “There has been only one time. Our encounter was to include vaginal intercourse for a 30 minute period, which it did, and we used a condom. After that the sex worker was relaxing and I masturbated to a second orgasm. Even though nearly 60 minutes had passed, the sex worker suggested that she could give me a third orgasm and then provided unprotected oral sex and unprotected vaginal sex for another 60 minutes”, several of which are expressed by the client in terms of their perceptions of personally being low risk clients: “After using her several times. After lengthy discussion on who she has been and what her criteria is for unprotected sex with others. I then explain that I am in a monogamous relationship with my wife so I am not really a high risk sex partner. The sex workers I see in Asia usually understand and allow me to have unprotected sex with them. Of course they are safer from me than I am from them.” Though not specifically mentioning unprotected intercourse, one respondent remarks on not taking precautions when “feeling depressed and I don’t care.”  8.3.3 Lateral Disruption and Past Communicative Intervention Regarding past instances of lateral disruption experienced by respondents from Class 11 and their future projections as to the likely course of action they would take if they were to witness or suspect a client or provider being victimized, descriptions resonate similarly in terms of passive intervention and verbal communication. The situations ([s#]) of lateral disruption they witnessed were met with communicative responses ([r#]) across varying spaces and contexts, such as offering to help:  [s1]“A mamasan was aggressively tossing a customer out of her establishment. She was vicious in her assault and left the customer injured” [r1]“I left immediately behind the customer who had been ejected, spoke with him and sought to get him some medical assistance. He declined and indicated he would care for himself”; [s2]“Drunk guy in a massage parlour that refused to leave” [r2]“I offered to help but the girls all worked together to get him out”, direct verbal confrontation and threats of reporting: [s3]“I witnessed a client yelling and screaming at street worker I knew” [r3]“I approached the client, told him he was creating a scene and that I thought it would be best if he left. The man, obviously angry, but MUCH smaller then I am left the scene after exchanging a few more heated words with me.”; [s4]“I was driving down the street and saw someone being aggressive with a female street worker” [r4]“I pulled over and asked what was going on. The aggressor told me to mind my own business. I said I would call the police and he walked away”; [s5]“The language being used at the worker” [r5]“Asked to abuser to relax and treat her with more respect. It is a tough job. I left so I don’t know of it had any effect but his mouth was open”, and supportive communication with a service provider they perceived to be in need: [s6]“Her boyfriend abusing her economically and physically and emotionally, with drugs, as well.” [r6]“I tried to reason with the sex worker to get help”;  154 [s7]“One girl in the U.S. told me she was not allowed to leave the apartment” [r7]“I tried to talk her into leaving with me so I could take her to a women’s shelter or at least the police.”   Similar communicative inquiries unfolded in situations where respondents observed bruising and markings: [s8]“A bruise on her breast” [r8]“I asked and she said it’s not your concern”; [s9]“Bruise” [r9]“Asked question”; [s10]“Marks or sores” [r10]“Asked if they were ok”; [s11]“Bruises on her legs” [r11]“I asked her about it. She gave me an explanation. I accepted it”; [s12]“She has a large bruise on her hand” [r12]“I asked what happened, and she said she accidentally hit herself”, and when observing the situation and mannerisms of the service provider: [s13]“Young adult female accompanied to hotel by older man who walked her to room” [r13]“I just chatted with the lady for a while and told her I was no longer interested but would pay her so she would not get in trouble. She seemed relieved”; [s14]“Worker seemed reluctant to provide services agreed upon. upon further discussion she was being pimped out by her boyfriend and was not that happy about it” [r14]“Wasn’t provided with enough information. Wrote a review to that effect”; [s15]“May have been a sex slave” [r15]“I think I made an anonymous tip to cops.”  Though some respondents have taken action in the past, many express that they would be 50% likely to help someone in need in the future if they either witnessed or suspected victimization. Of those who elaborated upon the likely actions they would take, 40% (17) specifically mentioned that they would likely contact the police. Of those who mentioned that they would personally intervene, like the actions taken when experiencing lateral disruptive events, verbal intervention was the most prominent form: “Probably ask them to stop and threaten to call the cops. I would not intervene”; “I would not get physically involved, but would threaten to call police. If the situation escalated, I would call the police”; “Ask questions”; “Speak up. Offer help”; “Tell them to calm down or call police”; “Calm the situation”; “Try to be morally supportive”; “Verbally intervene to try and stop the victimization”; “Discuss options with the victim before acting”; “If immediate harm seemed possible, I’d make my presence known from a distance, allowing the perpetrator some face-saving grace to desist and depart. Or, call out, excuse me miss is all OK? If continued I’d maybe take a mobile phone photo and phone for Police. I’d keep my distance, allowing both me and the perpetrator a wide personal boundary - allowing him to run, or his victim space to run if he should begin to approach me”; “Police not unless it was very violent. Threaten to report to the advertising agency and maybe the press”, with others likely to intervene passively but prepared to get physical, “The most likely way would be to support verbally the person being victimized, and possibly might  155 physically defend someone being victimized”; “I’d try a peaceful approach with my finger on the 911 button, and maybe get physical.”  Finally, taking a similarly neutral position, respondents in this class are not sure if close friends and family would trust them less if they knew about past experiences purchasing sexual services.  8.4 Class 12: Safe, Older and Less Experienced Clients Attuned to Cleanliness The fourth and final class in this space is positioned low on D1, D2, and D3 and high on D4. It is comprised primarily of the oldest clients in the study with less experience who started purchasing sexual services at an older age (older than 40 years), have been married for over 15 years, tend to have higher education—some of whom have completed PhDs—work(ed) in social science, education, or government service occupations, and report higher levels of income between 80 and 100,000 dollars per year. Respective of their older age, this class is distinctly disposed to older service providers, ranging from 26 to over 36 years old.  8.4.1 Minimized Fluid Exchange and Assurance of Cleanliness Respondents in this class have a narrow breadth of experiences across transactional sex spaces, many of whom have never purchased through online spaces, paid for anal sex, BDSM/fetish play, or engaged in sexual relations with female-trans individuals. The services they express a disposition towards are non-penetrative massage and/or masturbation/hand-job services which they tend to procure from managed massage parlour venues. With respect to the actions they take to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases, they emphasize avoidance or risky activities and sexual partners: “I usually avoid the kinds of sexual activities that are risky for HIV, and I assume that any sexual partners I don’t know well are positive. Other STIs -- hard to say, its hard to protect yourself from everything without living in a bubble”; “Always use a condom for vaginal intercourse, never patronize a SW who I suspect might be a drug user, or might sometimes practice unprotected intercourse”; “not have sex with HIV or STI positive people if I am  156 aware of it”; “Never engaging in activities where there is a risk of contracting it”; “caution and NO risky activities: drugs, homosexuality”; “I don’t do guys”, and being particular about the cleanliness of the providers they visit: “Selection of healthy partners. No visiting sex providers if I have any type of wound or illness (which would probably put them in an uncomfortable position anyway)”; “cleanliness, not have sex with HIV or STI positive people if I am aware of it”; “assure cleanliness of worker and wear a condom”; “Clean women, safe sex”; “Choosy about women.” Respondents from this class especially emphasize avoidance of fluid exchanges: “Making sure no chance of blood transfer. Never use needles”; “Never exchange any fluids”; “careful about body fluids exchange (no kissing, oral sex, do not touch genitals while unprotected with SW)”; “No kissing”, and refraining from purchasing sexual services when they are personally a risk factor, “when I have an injury resulting in broken skin on an area of my body that might reasonably come in contact with the sex worker's bodily fluids (other than saliva and they are unlikely to lick a sore).”  8.4.2 Reputation, Planning, and Spatial Assessment In tune with these sexual safety practices, the general precautions taken to ensure their safety when purchasing sexual services hinge on extensive prior research to identify the safe, reputable and well reviewed providers: “Only go to ladies who are highly regarded”; “I only visit experienced and well-reviewed sex sellers. No TOFTT (Taking One For The Team)”; “Providers I visit are well-established and seen as professionals. I’ve already verified that the location isn’t in a safe part of town...I don’t worry about visiting any one of them as I would worry about visiting an auto mechanic”; “I do extensive research online and only patronize sex sellers who are well-reviewed by others, operate in a professional manner, and are located in relatively safe neighborhoods”; “I go to high visibility locations or businesses...also meet with high class ladies at good locations”; “I choose girls with good reps in the industry and more mature types”; “I only visit sellers or agencies whose reputation has already been established on internet review boards”; “Research providers for good reputations”; “I use CERB, for information. I don’t visit providers who are without a good reputation”; “If I’m visiting a woman: I arrive early to check out the neighbourhood to gauge its safety; I do not make these arrangements at night, especially if I do not have any previous experience with a provider; I look around at the providers accommodations...are they clean, is there evidence of substance abuse, is there anyone lurking in the closets. If it is an out-call, I don’t open the door until I’ve looked through the peephole to see it the lady is unescorted. Also, I have never hired a provider who has not been reviewed on a board, and I’ve been around long enough to monitor who the reviewers are and go with those reviewers who have a positive track record.”   157 Figure 8.4: Class 12 - Safe, Older and Less Experienced Clients Attuned to Cleanliness  158 8.4.3 Balanced Interactions and Non-Confrontational Intervention  These safety precautions—positioned among dispositions for generally safer non-penetrative sexual practices—are relationally bound with respondents’ strong perceptual clarity about their sexual safety and the chances of contracting an STI or STD in the future, which most project to be very small. Though they have limited experiences with disruptive events, many of whom have never confronted passive disruption in the form of being refused services negotiated or paid for or active disruption such as pressuring service providers to do something they were not willing to do or trying to get services for free, respondents are uncertain about whether they would help out a fellow client or service provider in need. Their projections of how they might help if they did witness or suspect victimization, similar to Class 11, emphasize passive intervention by calling the police (roughly 40% mention this intervention) and verbal intervention: “Attempt to intervene through discussion. I would not be physically confrontational. Not in my nature”; “It would depend on the circumstances, but I certainly would not start a fight”; “I would use noise to draw attention to the assailant”; “Would for sure try to talk to girl and hear her story”; “First speak up to the individuals involved. In extreme cases I would involve the police - unfortunately police services do not have a good reputation in this area”; “Ask what’s going on, knowing it may be dangerous”; “Try to diffuse the situation”; “Get in touch with that person and ask if they want assistance”; “Try to resolve the situation between parties, if this fails get the owner/manager involved”; “Verbal intervention”; “Speak to those involved”; “Make my presence known; position myself to help the victim leave if they decide to do so”, and reporting through online forums and spaces, “I would talk about it on a sex forum”; “Warn others of the chance of this happening on the forums”; “Post about it on the online forums.”   Finally, in terms of sociality, they tend to believe that others would think less of them if they knew about their purchasing habits and are undecided about whether their friends would accept them if they were outed.    159 8.5 Processes of Control and Awareness A prevalent force among these classes is risk avoidance, a negative valence attuned to the concerns or fears clients have towards a person, non-human actor, or situation. Alongside these principles of avoidance are expressions of ensuring control over ones’ future outcomes by way of planning and assessment of the interpersonal and spatial contexts. Much of the relational interactions are communicative with intent to increase understanding of context and to plan responses.   Respondents in Class 9 express a logic of practice that is tightly bound with past experiences of passive disruption, uniquely aversive valence expressive of fear and avoidance, and future projections limited by fears of unknown outcomes and concerns over social repercussions. Compared to other classes that take a more direct and confrontational approach to experiences of conflict, respondents from Class 9 describe comparatively passive and non-confrontational responses and resolution to unplanned bait-and-switch situations, instances of verbal conflict by service providers, and lateral experiences of disruption perceived as being particularly risky and threatening. This passive volition reveals itself to be a process of maintaining a balance in the situation and not contributing to the escalation of a conflict to a point where anonymity and personal safety would be compromised. To this point, respondents have notable concern for the future in terms of perceived social repercussions of being outed—concerns that are tied with actual experiences telling others about purchasing and being treated differently as a result. As such, reasoning behind their clarity to not likely help a provider or buyer being victimized in the future is tightly bound with a clear negative valence highlighting an aversion to confrontation, fear of being victimized, and anxiety of losing their anonymity. Overall, respondents describe their relations to experiences and future outcomes in ways that highlight being particularly attuned to  160 the unknown and ‘what if’ situations, wherein actions are shaped by boundary forming perceptions of a chaotic and disruptive future.  Class 10 respondents exhibit many of the same fears and concerns over arrest, being outed, being victimized and the social repercussions that come with being involved in the purchase of services, though compared to Class 9 they have comparatively limited experience with disruptive events and elevated fear of the interference of alcohol or drugs. Similarly, they are guided by a generally passive disposition tied to a negative valence aversive to risk and instability and volition expressive of a sense that providers have more power in the dynamics of the transactions and relations. Though passive in demeanor and volition, respondents show evidence of active precaution taking via thorough research and planning prior to an encounter and active avoidance of what they perceive to be high risk activities or groups, maintaining sobriety and never purchasing from the street. Overall, this class expresses a logic of practices that, despite being limited in past experiences, is grounded in a disposition to ensure control through planning and maintenance of distance from potential situations that may result in social exposure.   Class 11 consists of respondents who have the most extensive breadth of experiences purchasing sexual services of all classes, characterized by high income, education, professional occupations, and being married for over 15 years. In context of the 100+ experiences purchasing sexual services across many different venues, respondents express a muted sense of concern for the presence of substances and the risk of contracting an STD or STI that is accompanied by risk avoidance practices and clarity with respect to the type of professional, reputable, established, and “high class” provider they are drawn to. The balanced valence highlights an established sense of what to avoid and seek out, what is and is not for them. Unique to this class of respondents, they are drawn to communicate with others about their whereabouts to ensure their safety, a practice  161 oriented to the future that is tied with a constructive and pragmatic perception of sociality. The moderate use of sexual safety precautions is contextualized by communicative agreements and discussions with providers that they describe as knowing well, whereby familiarity with actors—similar to relations expressed by Class 7—act as social forces that shape the sexual safety practices and outcomes. The past experiences witnessing and reacting to lateral disruptions take a passive communicative and inquisitive tone where respondents tend to process the situation before taking action. The nature of the situations described reveal an awareness of the situational delicacy that can come with helping someone in need and the emergent practices intentioned to express support, diffuse the tension, gather information, and contact law enforcement if necessary. Though this class expresses neutral position with regard to their sense of social impact of being outed and their likelihood of helping in the future, the narrative in the responses reveal notable clarity in their resolve to be an active indirect presence in instances of disruption.  Class 12 consists of older clients who began purchasing services at an older age and prefer visiting providers of relatively older age. Absent experiences of disruptive events and behaviours along with strengthened clarity with regards to people thinking less of them if outed, respondents exhibit strong dispositions to plan and assess the reputation and cleanliness of providers through investigation on online review spaces and forums. The clear narrative to actively control the situations through avoiding providers they assess to be risky and—unique to this class—specifically avoiding interactions with fluid, is further expressed in their descriptions of the pre-encounter planning and habits they follow, such as arriving early, assessing the neighbourhood, only purchasing during the day etc. This class expresses a particularly attuned sense of their surroundings and the importance it plays as indicator of risk. They haven’t pressured or disrupted the situation and emphasize a balanced approach to the way they would approach a possible  162 problematic situation in the future, communicating with those involved and passively intervening if necessary, to diffuse a situation.    163 PART 4: Taking Stock of Time and Process in Client Practices In the previous chapters I examined 12 classes of clients who share dimensional positioning within three spaces bound together by social forces relationally formed through past experiences, present valence and dispositions, and elements of future projections and perceptions. Here I consider what an empirically established understanding of client practices and processes means in the wider context of transactional sex and how we can relay the findings to contribute to a more informed and detailed assessment of the social forces at play in the spaces where sexual service transactions take place. Where past research has largely characterized the behaviours of sex buyers as being driven by internal or external forces, the relational lens applied to this study reveals that it is not the accumulation of individual social factors or objects that shape actions but how a buyer relates to the objects, how strong the valence is between them, and the degree to which these relations have strengthened or softened over time. In relation to time, the central aim of this study was to understand how a buyer’s relations to past experiences, present dispositions and valence, and future projections shape their actions. What has been revealed is that social time, as it relates to social people acting in a social world, takes on a dimensional as opposed to linear form. This means that it is not the past experiences that direct the dispositions that direct the perceptions that direct the actions but rather how a person relates to past experiences, how they relate to future situations, and the nature of present position and dispositions that shape their actions. In this way the results can be illustrated in a way that places the 12 classes onto a time-oriented plane based on the degree to which the results suggest they are oriented to past, present, and future. In Figure 9.1 the positioning of classes within the three time dimensions provides a rough guide to discuss the ways in which orientation to social time informs processes that shape the actions of people who pay for sexual services.  164 Figure 9.1: Clients’ Relation to Past, Present, and Future Time Dimensions    165 Chapter  9: Discussion Perhaps most fundamentally this study reveals that client are not all the same – not all deviant irrational beings or thrill seekers and risk takers or good people looking for an intimate connection. The mixed methodological approach reveals classifications of individuals who vary in their experiences, dispositions, fears, desires, and future planning. Responses from clients in this study reveal complex processes they engage in to actively, passively, or ambivalently navigate risk and future outcomes. With the added dimension of time in the theoretical underpinnings of this study, I have tapped into some of the ways in which these processes are shaped by social forces in the form of relations to past events, strength and depth of relations with providers, familiarity with spatial contexts and rhythms, dispositions to control or passively navigate relations, and perception of the effects of future situations and potential outcomes. How clients relate to the tangible and intangible experiences, social contexts, and social objects around them is key to understanding processes that shape actions. The theoretical framework and results of this study allow us to speak to several forms of actions and activities that have been topics of study and debate within sex industry research and offer a new position on historically contradictory perspectives regarding ways to address conflict, violence and safety, and practices of observing and reporting experiences of violence and victimization.  9.1 Disruption, Violence, Conflict and Foresight Studies examining violence and victimization in the sex industry occupy a large area of research that spans decades and has been at the centre of debates about sex buyers. A recent critical review of the victimization research (Sanders, 2016) makes the argument that although violence and victimization is something that is experienced in transactional sex, it is not an inherent  166 characteristic of the industry and is something that can be changed. This research highlights the contextual variations that violence and victimization against sex workers can take: histories of violence, victimization within their private lives and from managers or pimps, partners, law enforcement and clients (Atchison et al., 1998; Crago, Rakhmetova, & Sheilds, 2010; Deering et al., 2014; Lowman, 2000; Lowman & Atchison, 2006; Sanders, 2016). In addition to the types of people likely to be perpetrators of violence and victimization, recent research has emphasized the environmental and spatial contexts that must be acknowledged when considering violence in the sex industry, demarcating in particular the high-risk street based transactional spaces and the managed and independent off-street venues, all of which are contextually very different in the level and forms of risk involved (Deering et al., 2014; Krüsi et al., 2014; Lowman, 2000). Though there remains significantly less research examining victimization in off-street venues, findings suggest they are comparatively safer (Kinnell, 2013; Sanders & Campbell, 2007), though not without exploitation, particularly for migrant workers (Brown & Sanders, 2017). Recent investigations into the online transactional spaces suggests that conflict and victimization through digital communications can take the form of persistent verbal/written harassment and threats which can transmit offline into physical crimes and stalking (Sanders, Connelly, & King, 2016). Overall, research on the experiences of providers has revealed that violence and victimization can take varying emotional, social, physical, and sexual forms at the hands of many different people within diverse spaces, though the most troublesome and violent types tend to manifest most frequently and prominently in the comparatively hidden and unregulated street-based environments.   While the purchasers of services have tended to be viewed as the primary catalyst and source of violence and victimization against service providers, little is known about the processes behind conflict and victimization from the perspective of the client and the contextual variations  167 that they take within and outside of street based venues. The results of this study reveal several important facets of these processes and how clients’ relation to social time inform them. The first relates to the respondents in classes 3 and 4 whose logic of practice finds their relation to future projections to be lacking foresight and their interactive processes to be situated firmly in the present (see Figure 9.1 above). Both classes exhibit dispositions towards self-serving and conflict invoking practices like in situ pressuring and negotiating for price and service alterations and expressing a comfort and familiarity with the process of acting in ways that disregard the expectations and assumptions of the other party. In a way, these clients are not drawn to risk or conflict; rather, they seem to lack fear or concern for the potential outcomes that might occur from pressuring a provider, arguing with them, or generally disregarding the expected social conventions of the client-provider interaction and agreement.   The logic of practice of these two classes help to provide context to what Lowman (2000) terms situational and predatory violence. Situational violence is defined as a dispute or conflict that arises during the course of a transaction and violence or victimization ensues as a means to resolve the conflict. Predatory violence is premeditated and may be financially motivated and/or misogynist, sexual, and serial (pp. 1004–1005). My findings suggest a further distinction to situational and predatory violence based on the active and passive nature of the relation. Experiences of some respondents in Class 3 and 4 reveal their active role in disrupting the expected transactional flow with price and service disputes, actions which, as their experiences suggest, spark situational violence in the form of arguments, threats, sexual aggression and, in some cases, violence. The degree to which these actions are premeditated and predatory is debatable, though their disposition to street-based environments and, in some cases, alcohol and drug infused experiences, is suggestive of seeking out spaces and people in which they can act in a disruptive  168 way with minimal consequence. The negative valence for companionship and strong volition of some respondents in Class 4 suggesting that providers have less power and say in the transaction is supportive of Lowman’s characterization of a predisposition based on the perpetrator’s attitude toward women and sexuality. Compounded with the absolute future clarity that they will likely get an STI at some point and the experiences with unsafe sexual practices is further expression of the degree to which these respondents are unconcerned by future outcomes and rely and relish on acting in the present – an in-the-moment disposition that is, when taken in the context of the unregulated street based spaces where they tend to purchase, prone to situational conflict, violence, and victimization.   It must be emphasized that present-oriented respondents prone to disruption constitute a small proportion of the sample. The majority of respondents express a much stronger relation to future projections towards planning, preparing, and researching practices and spaces they perceive as being risky. Among these respondents are those classes with experiences of passive and lateral forms of disruption that would be characterized as passive forms of situational violence and conflict which are non-predatory. These passive forms of situational conflict are emergent in the sense that they are unanticipated and outside of the expected regularity of transactions, such as the presence of a third party, bait and switch situations, experiencing or observing verbal conflict with a provider, or in physical violence or robbery. Where Lowman emphasizes how these conflicting situations can escalate into violence and victimization, this study illuminates the processes that clients employ to navigate and de-escalate risky situations. Clients in Class 9 are particularly well attuned to disruptive past experiences with negative social reactions when revealing their history purchasing services, passive volition, and to their concern and worry about being victimized, arrested, or encountering substances during their interactions. Their reactions to passive situational  169 conflict are uniquely aversive and non-confrontational with intent to not escalate the situation in a way that would compromise their anonymity and personal safety. Similar processes to maintain balance and not escalate the disturbance are expressed by respondents in Class 1 who share a similarly strong orientation towards perceptions of future risk and fear of arrest, victimization, or encountering substances. Unique to those who have experienced passive disruption is a heightened awareness of situations with disruptive potential and risk avoidance habits and practices to ensure discretion and anonymity. With these strong connections to the future come a stronger disconnect/distance from the present (see Figure 9.1), where dispositions are characterized by avoidance and awareness of risk. For these two classes, aversive valence and awareness of future risks and potential outcomes are impactful forces in shaping actions.  There are also clients like those in classes 7 and 8 who exhibit strong valence towards emotional and personal connections with escorts and independent service providers. These respondents have very little in the way of past experiences with disruption, engage in practices to research and know the providers they see, express little worry or concern about being victimized or arrested, have a positive and open view of the future and are generally unconcerned about the social risks associated with being outed. While these respondents do not fit within the situational or predatory violence framework, they are privy to risks associated with sexual safety practices. As revealed in this dissertation, the nature of the relationship fostered with service providers and the extent of experience they have with particular ‘regular’ providers fosters familiarity and relaxed sexual safety practices. Where these sorts of relaxed sexual safety precaution among familiar clients and provider have been noted to resemble non-commercial relationships to the point of ignoring norms of sexual safety as regular long-term non-commercial partners might (Atchison & Burnett, 2016; De Graaf, 1995; Freund et al., 1991; Sanders, 2008), results of this  170 study provide some additional context regarding why safety precautions are relaxed and whether or not the practices can be considered risky. A common narrative when describing decisions to engage in unprotected sexual services relate to the level of discussion that clients would engage in to mutually assess the level of risk. Alongside the open and communicative dispositions clients have with providers, the process of navigating unprotected oral or vaginal sex is interpersonal and communicative, emerging from the relations between two acting parties. With this being said, the majority of descriptions of ‘unsafe’ sexual practices among classes 7 and 8 are related to mutual bareback oral sex rather than to bareback vaginal or anal sex. Most clients emphasize their awareness of the risks associated with unprotected penetrative sex and act in ways that protect themselves but are also expressive of their recognition of the sexual safety of the provider.   What is common to many of the respondents in classes who have very little to no experience with situations of violence or conflict is their positive valence towards planning, research, and preparation, and their desire to control uncertainties and assure stability and regularity in their transactions. Certain classes ensure this consistency by visiting managed venues, doing their research, and only engaging in less risky practices like hand jobs. Processes of investigation in present planning and visiting reputable providers and venues are relationally bound to a future clarity and sense of control and security over what is likely to transpire. In a way, the process of planning and working to ensure control, stability, and regularity of action provides the starkest juxtaposition with the comparatively risky clients from classes 3 and 4 whose relation to unplanned and in-the-moment actions further highlight the different ways that people relate to the present more forcefully than their past experiences or future projections. Some plan in the present to ensure a predictable future while others act in the present with disregard for a predictable future.   171 9.2 Attuned to Rhythms: Detection and Recognition of Disruption Contrary to various prohibitionist perspectives that employ sensationalized anecdotal ‘evidence’ to cast an essentialist view on clients as the primary and dominant source of violence against service providers (Dworkin, 1997; Farley et al., 2009, 2011; Macleod et al., 2008; Raphael & Shapiro, 2004), this study reveals that some clients are sources of risk and violence but that the majority are acutely aware and conscious of risky situations and actively averse to conflict and disruption. When it comes to the safety of those involved in transactional sex, essentialist arguments casting all clients as perpetrators of violence against women implicitly assume that clients cannot be catalysts to safety or voices against violence. The evidence from this study suggests otherwise – that clients are positioned to observe, reflect, assess, and communicate when situations or interactions appear to be unsafe, abusive, or exploitive. Furthermore, I argue that experienced clients with an attuned sense of the patterns and rhythms of transactions are in a unique position to realize when something is ‘not right’ or ‘a little off’ with a provider or the environment within which they are working. As opposed to law enforcement actors who investigate victimization and conflict from the outside in, clients can be inside observers of irregularities, both subtle and overt, that are generally inaccessible to law enforcement officials.  The embodiment of past experiences into a sense of the rhythms of the interactions and expected outcomes recalls the concepts of habitus, habits, social crust, or stock of knowledge described in section 2.1.2. Clients with higher levels of experience like the members of classes 7, 8 and 11 – who also seek out more intimate forms of services – provide notable examples of the subtle forms of irregularities that they observe, such as vague statements about providers’ seemingly unsafe or unhealthy relationships, signs of depression, loud voices over the phone, drunk clients, verbally abusive or aggressive interactions, abusive boyfriends or pimps, and  172 bruising, sores, or scarring. Even respondents from Class 3, who have high experience with active and interactive disruptive situations and frequent spaces where violence and victimization are most likely to be a regularity, express an observational ability to identify unusual or out of the ordinary situations (refer to section 6.3.3: Attuned to Disruptive Rhythms) such as indicators of physical abuse, changes in advertisement styles, arguments with pimps, and signs of fear. While these classes similarly express how knowledge of the rhythms and expected outcomes of interactions make them more attuned to realize and recognize the subtle and overt signs of disruption and variations from the norm, stark differences emerge in the ways they relate to the situations and the people involved and project the likelihood of taking actions to help resolve the witnessed or perceived disruptions.  The reporting of social disruptions, victimization, and unsafe situations in the sex industry is a complex barrier that is challenging to break through. Strong forces such as discrimination related to the perceived illegitimacy of transactional sex (Brock, 1998), stigma associated with purchasing or selling sexual services and the fear of being ‘outed’ or socially ‘marked’ (Benoit, McCarthy, & Jansson, 2015; Lewis, Maticka-Tyndale, Shaver, & Schramm, 2005; Sanders, 2018; Weitzer, 2018b), fear of harassment, victimization, mistreatment, or simply not being taken seriously or refused action by law enforcement (Benoit et al., 2016; Lewis et al., 2005) all inform decisions to report situations of violence or victimization. The results of this study add insight into these forces, revealing that clients experience disruption in different ways and to varying degrees over time, and express diverse perceptions of the social barriers related to their likelihood of acting to resolve or report disruptive situations. The consideration of clients’ relation to past, present, and future time dimensions help us better understand barriers to action.   173 9.3 Social Time and Barriers to Reporting Disruption There are clients in this study—classes 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11, in particular—who express strong future clarity in their resolve to intervene in a situation they perceive to be troublesome, be it through gathering additional information from the provider, communicating with them about whether they would like support, suggesting courses of action, communicating with a third party on their behalf, or anonymously contacting a third party without consulting the provider. Accompanying this resolve are positive previous experiences with providers, limited or non-existent experiences with disruption, present dispositions and valence for safer sexual activities and generally more intimate or socially open relations with providers, positive volition perceiving the balance of power to be tilted in the direction of the providers, and particularly unencumbered concerns over the social ramifications associated with being revealed or outed as a purveyor of sexual services. Where many of these clients maintain a sense of concern for their sexual and physical safety, they express a certain comfort and freedom regarding their social safety wherein many would not hesitate to communicate with various third parties about situations of violence or victimization. Though willing to speak up and act when necessary, the contexts described by these clients allude to some of the subtler relational barriers that shape action, such as the common practice of communicating with the parties involved and assessing whether they want action to be taken. As many respondents described, perceptions of disruption, concern for the safety of a provider, and willingness to contact a third party can be diffused and nullified by the desires and wishes of the provider. Perceptions of disruption does not equal confirmation that disruptive events have actually taken place nor does it always result in reporting of disruption. Regardless of clients’ willingness to report, the processes associated with recognizing and reporting conflict or victimization among these classes is in large part a communicative process between involved parties.   174  Notable to these classes is the fact that they are among the least likely to have experienced disruption, and rarely of the active or interactive variety. Being drawn to reputable off-street providers and generally employing research habits to ensure positive history and status, these clients who express the most clarity towards their projected futures and likelihood to intervene in cases of disruption are arguably also the least likely to encounter the extreme cases of abuse and violence more commonly found in street environments. Put another way, those most open to intervene and report the disruptive types of situations described by classes 3 and 4 are actively averse to inhabiting the same contexts and venues frequented by these two classes. Classes 3 and 4 who are more actively engaged within spaces with disruptive rhythms and who have more impactful past experiences with all forms of active, interactive, lateral, and passive disruption, also happen to be among those who express a dissuasion from reporting observations of conflict: “not my problem”, “it’s up to them”, “too much work and bs”, “no emotional investment in seller”, or “they don’t want help.” Similarly, in situations where they are robbed or threatened, conducive with their investment in the present, respondents describe actions that are averse to engaging with police or other third parties, leaving the situation alone, exiting, “chalking up to a learning experience”, or taking action in the moment. The inaction of these two classes are not shaped so much by future perceptions or concern over what others might think about them but rather by the prevalent social and personal disconnect they have with providers. They express very little sense of obligation to put themselves at risk for others they have no personal investment in. In a way, the general lack of concern for their own personal future translates to a corresponding lack of concern for the future of the providers they engage with. Furthermore, the narratives suggest that respondents in these classes seem to accept that disruption is part of the rhythms of the game, something that is to be navigated and expected but not reported.   175  Finally, some clients express strong aversions to helping were they to witness or suspect disruption. Classes 1 and 9 are made up of respondents whose actions are shaped strongly by the unknown future, expressing a strong sense of what other people would think and how they would be differently treated if others knew about their purchasing habits. The prominent fear of arrest, being victimized, contracting an STI, or encountering providers who are under the influence is balanced with their self anonymizing habits and impersonal relations with providers and emerges in the narrative where they explain why they would not help. Their clarity for a disengaged future is largely about physical and social preservation, limiting the chances that their partners will find out, securing their identities from being revealed, and ensuring they are not publicly named. Of all the classes revealed in this study these two classes are particularly interesting in the context of addressing safety. They represent respondents who have experienced unexpected passive and lateral disruptions in the past and do not express dispositions towards particularly risky or disruptive behaviours. Though the strong social forces associated with being outed or publicly exposed act as barriers to act in situ, Class 9 finds some resolve through the process of posting their negative experiences on online message boards. As several respondents noted, posting negative experiences on these community boards is to warn others but not to take direct action to resolve the problem. The degree to which these anonymous posts of disruptive experiences are observed and followed up on by law enforcement cannot be known. However, the process of publicizing events on anonymized spaces raises an important point about the role that online spaces can play as conduits for clients whose actions are bound by their fear of the future and alludes to broader discussions about the role of communication as a vector for change.     176 9.4 The Dimensions of Social Stigma Recent commentaries from Teela Sanders (2016, 2018) and Ronald Weitzer (2018a, 2018b) have focussed on the roles that social stigma and social status play as social barriers to action and change in the sex industry. Presenting important reviews of the ways in which stigma—defined as a deeply discrediting attribute that applies to entire categories of people (see Goffman, 2009)—permeates the sex industry at varying individual (internalizing discredited attributes), interpersonal (perceptions of others’ views), and structural levels (stigmatizing narratives in media, law, and popular culture), they argue that altering and reducing social stigma and the way society views and treats people in the sex industry is part of the solution to increasing safety. The results of this study support and extend this position in several important ways.  First, social stigma is a prominent force between clients and providers. The narrative of clients who express the strongest clarity that they would speak up and help in situations of observed or perceived situations of violence or victimization conveys a clear perception of the service provider as a person deserving of support, dignity, and human rights. They do not attribute the stigmatized label of dangerous, diseased, disposable or uncivil to providers, nor do they fear becoming stigmatized with similar labels themselves in the eyes of those in their close social circles. The narrative common to a minority of respondents in classes 3 and 4 expresses a comparatively stigmatized view of the provider and the nature of their relation to them, wrought with derogatory names and terms that enforce and reproduce asymmetrical power relationships (see Weitzer, 2018b, pp. 720–721). The stigmatized view that these clients have of the providers they engage with finds expression in their readiness to pressure them for services, challenge agreed upon terms, take advantage of situations shaped by the presence of alcohol or other forms of substances, and their aversion to help in situations of observed or perceived violence or  177 victimization. In these ways, clients’ perceptions of providers as people deserving of support and rights or as disposable actors who are not worth the risk is a relational dimension of stigma that can shape safety a client’s willingness to act and react to disruptive situations and communicate these experiences to others.  Second, with respect to Sanders’s assertion that “violence can only be reduced where there is significant effort to make cultural attitude changes in how society views and treats sex workers” (2016, p. 110), the results of this study suggest that addressing violence should also include efforts to adjust the cultural attitude and views of sex buyers. They are the other half of the story and are in a unique position to observe, react to, and report violence of all types. If we only focus on changing social perceptions of and attitudes towards sex workers, we risk leaving clients facing the same cognitive barriers that currently shape their likelihood of taking action against violence and victimization in the sex industry. Though many in this study expressed a lack of concern over social awareness and clarity in their desire to take action and confront or report disruptive situations, there is a notable proportion whose past experiences with disruption and fear of social consequences lead to an aversion to confront or take action. The degree to which changing cultural perceptions of clients would change their desire to speak up on behalf of someone else or to report personal experiences is unknown. What this study has shown is that clients hold a valuable insider position in the transactional sex industry as informed observers of ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ situations and interactions. It seems that we can proceed in one of two ways: we can continue to essentialize this population as violent criminals who universally contribute to violence against service providers, or we can begin to investigate the role that clients can play in making the transactional sex industry safer. The contextual examination of the 12 classes presented in this study suggest, at the very least, that clients cannot be essentialized. They differ in their experiences,  178 habits, desires, and future projections, and each has the potential to contribute in different ways to the conversation around increasing the safety of those involved in transactional sex.     179 Chapter  10: Conclusion The sex, safety and security research project is one of the most ambitious studies ever undertaken on clients. It is one of the largest voluntary samples of sex buyers ever collected and is also notable in terms of its breadth of themes, number of questions, and level of commitment from participants. The multiple complimentary methods used to sample, recruit and retain participants offered the unique opportunity to examine patterns and obtain better insights into the diversity of situational interactions, motivations, and practices of clients. Where much of client-oriented research in the past has focused on the characteristics and activity patterns of this population, this study set out to better understand how clients might view and understand their interactions with others they encounter in the industry. By also asking about perceptions of how their actions influence others and how others influence their own, this study was able to implement a uniquely relational perspective that emphasizes the interactive nature of the transactional sex industry. Counter to the prevalent perspective that clients impose their will upon sex workers, this study was able to focus on what takes place between people, places, and things over time, depicting the client as a social being whose actions are tied to complex histories, dispositions, and perspectives on their future. The mixed-form data provided a uniquely detailed look into the practices of people who pay for sexual services in Canada.  The decision to employ a theoretical framework that is somewhat arcane in its development and integration into contemporary sociological theory and nearly non-existent in terms of empirical application was among the largest calculated risks taken during this research. There is a prominent body of work examining how past experiences inform the dispositions that are thought to shape practices but very little in the way of considering how one’s relation to an unknown future contributes to shaping practices. While there has been recent interest in sociological theories that  180 consider the ways in which social processes span time horizons (Abbott, 2016; Martin, 2018; Mische, 2009), there are few contemporary examples of empirical applications of a time-oriented framework. My attempt to operationalize dimensions of time required a degree of mental gymnastics and some theoretical liberties. In particular, I found the distinguishing line between variables operationalized as valence and variables operationalized as future orientation to be somewhat blurred given that indicators of being worried about victimization, for instance, also speaks to one’s perception of future outcomes. However, this may very well be a positive revelation and indicator of the tight bind that exists between dispositions and the draw or push one feels towards an event or situation and how one projects the way they will act. That being said, the intent of the analysis was not to create entirely distinct operationalizations that only capture elements of past, present or future dimensions. Rather, it was an exercise in embracing the fact that many of the variables reflect each of the dimensions in some way. A mixed-methodological analytic strategy was needed in order to understand the ways in which they overlap and interact.  While this was a large and ambitious study of a highly understudied population, there are several noteworthy limitations. First, the sexual orientation variable had too much missing data to allow me to investigate differences between clients who identify as straight, bisexual or gay. Future research should prioritize utilizing multiple measures of the diverse and fluid identities that pertain to sexuality. Furthermore, we were only able to recruit eight clients who identified as female and accordingly could only focus on the experiences of men in this study. Though women likely form a minority of the client population, they represent a unique dimension of the sex industry that warrants further investigation (see Cabezas, 2004; Herold, Garcia, & DeMoya, 2001; Sánchez-Taylor, 2001).  181  Because it is not possible at this time to obtain a complete and accurate list of every person in Canada who has purchased sexual services it is impossible to obtain a statistically representative sample of this population. As a result, the sample consists primarily of people who were willing to volunteer a considerable amount of time answering an extensive range of personal questions about their attitudes, beliefs, behaviours and experiences relating to the sex industry. There is no way of knowing whether the sample underrepresents people who are affected by stigma or guilt, people who hold more extreme or socially disapproved attitudes and beliefs about the sex industry, or people who exhibit particularly violent or exploitative tendencies. Nevertheless, all ethical research is susceptible to volunteer bias since people cannot be forced to participate and they have a right to refuse to answer any and all questions asked of them. We attempted to minimize the potential negative impacts of volunteer bias by seeking to obtain comprehensive and nuanced information from a large and diverse sample of adult Canadians who purchase sexual services. Furthermore, people involved in the sale and purchase of sexual services are subjected to a great degree of social stigma. It is quite possible that the stigma surrounding the act of purchasing sex and the sensitive nature of the questions that were asked within the survey or might have resulted in participants providing answers that reflected socially desirable responses as opposed to ‘truthful’ ones. Allowing participants to remain completely anonymous when completing the survey, phrasing questions about sensitive and potentially incriminating attitudes and behaviours in non-threatening ways and providing participants with an opportunity to offer details about the reasoning and context behind their responses were some of the strategies we employed to minimize the potential impact of social desirability bias on the information we acquired.  It is important to comment on the interpretation of classes and warn against typifying clients based on their characteristics. Classes are not types. In the context of this relational study,  182 classes are collections of people who tend to share certain similarities more than with other people. These similarities are not identical: they vary in intensity, scope and context. A client located in Class 3, for example, has not necessarily had unprotected bareback sex with a service provider. It could be that they only engage in unprotected oral sex but share other common experiences and/or traits with other people who may regularly pursue particularly unsafe sexual practices. It is the job of the researcher to tease out the commonalities that bind together these individuals in space. As I experienced in previous applications of MCA (Burnett & Veenstra, 2017), the line between reifying characteristics of respondents and revealing the underlying forces that draw people together is a fine one. The integration of the open-ended qualitative content was intended to be a means to express variation within classes, to encourage the reader to remember that people who hold similar positions in the modeled space can be substantively distinct in their experiences. Having published MCA studies unaccompanied by qualitative context, I can confidently assert that there is immense value added with the integration of contextual exposition. The ability to provide ‘why’ and ‘how’ context to the reasons certain people come together in modeled space is invaluable. The only difficulty opening new analytical horizons is managing the presentation of the data.   Because this method of mixed data analysis did not exist prior to this study, I had to do my best to craft a presentation style that allowed for the voices of many of the 852 participants to be expressed. The strategy crafted consisted of only presenting open-ended responses of respondents who answered in the affirmative to questions located in their class. This was a calculated decision given that the majority of respondents in a classification would have answered in the affirmative. In retrospect, it would be interesting to do a sub-analysis of the dissenting positions within classes to more fully reveal the contextual differences that undergird these classes of respondents. One of  183 the goals of MCA should be to continually find ways to highlight the differences within classes. The integration of qualitative context certainly helps in this regard and provides much needed support to MCA. Furthermore, the process of identifying individual respondents in the 4D space and then attributing commentary to them revealed itself to be a humanizing process that gave character to the categories in the model, constantly reminding the researcher that this study is not about data points but about people.  What I have presented in this dissertation is only the beginning of a journey to unpack the heterogeneity of purchasers of sexual services. At the very least, it is my hope that the richness of the analysis and discussion encourage people to think a little differently about a population that evokes strong and polarizing preconceived beliefs. Regardless of one’s position on the morality of transactional sex, I hope that we can all agree that people of all walks of life have a right to be safe and secure in what they do. Undertaking an in-depth investigation of clients is an important step towards increasing the safety of all those involved in the sex industry. Where shame, fear, and stigma have been prominent forces keeping clients hidden and silent about what they experience and witness, research can help demystify this population and encourage a shift in perspective where clients can be viewed and catalysts to change and not just purveyors of harm. While there are certainly predatory people who target and victimize service providers out in the world, we must not continue to attribute the predatory label to all people who pay for sexual services. This tendency only pushes further underground the legitimate clients who can bear witness to and report predatory and criminal activities. A simple goal for us to work towards is to increase the likelihood of clients responding that they would definitely take action if they were to witness or experience situations of victimization or violence. How to achieve this goal is a complex question that requires further consideration and debate informed by empirical evidence rather than moral posturing.  184 Though this study has not provided an answer to this question, at least it provides a solid empirical footing for the conversation.    185 Bibliography  Abbott, A. (1988). Transcending general linear reality. Sociological Theory, 169–186. Abbott, A. (2001). Time Matters: On Theory and Method. University of Chicago Press. Abbott, A. (2016). Processual Sociology. University of Chicago Press. Adam, B. (2008). Future matters: futures known, created and minded. Twenty-First Century Society, 3(2), 111–116. Atchison, C., & Burnett, P. J. (2016). The social dynamics of safe sex practices among Canadian sex industry clients. Sociology of Health & Illness, 38(6), 939–956. Atchison, C., Fraser, L., & Lowman, J. (1998). Men who buy sex: Preliminary findings of an exploratory study. In J. Elias, V. L. Bullough, V. Elias, & G. Brewer (Eds.), Prostitution: On whores, hustlers and johns (pp. 172–203). California: Prometheus Press. Atchison, C., & Thomas, J. (2000). The internet and the state: Instrument of social control or subversive technology? Critical Criminology, 9(1–2), 163–170. Benoit, C., Atchison, C., Casey, L., Jansson, M., McCarty, B., Phillips, R., … Shaver, F. M. (2014). A “working paper” prepared as background to Building on the Evidence: An International Symposium on the Sex Industry in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.understandingsexwork.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/Team%20Grant%20Working%20Paper%201%20CBenoit%20et%20al%20%20September%2018%202014.pdf Benoit, C., McCarthy, B., & Jansson, M. (2015). Occupational stigma and mental health: Discrimination and depression among front-line service workers. Canadian Public Policy, 41(Supplement 2), S61–S69.  186 Benoit, C., Smith, M., Jansson, M., Magnus, S., Ouellet, N., Atchison, C., … Reist, D. (2016). Lack of Confidence in Police Creates a “Blue Ceiling” for Sex Workers’ Safety. Canadian Public Policy, 42(4), 456–468. Bergson, H. (2001). Time and free will: An essay on the immediate data of consciousness. (F. L. Pogson, Trans.). Courier Corporation. Bernstein, E. (2001). The meaning of the purchase: Desire, demand and the commerce of sex. Ethnography, 2(3), 389–420. Bloor, M., McKeganey, N., & Barnard, M. (1990). An ethnographic study of HIV-related risk practices among Glasgow rent boys and their clients: Report of a pilot study. AIDS Care, 2(1), 17–24. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge university press. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard university press. Bourdieu, P. (1985). The social space and the genesis of groups. Information (International Social Science Council), 24(2), 195–220. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations. Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago press. Brewer, D. D., Potterat, J. J., Garrett, S. B., Muth, S. Q., Roberts, J. M., Kasprzyk, D., … Darrow, W. W. (2000). Prostitution and the sex discrepancy in reported number of sexual partners. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(22), 12385–12388.  187 Brock, D. R. (1998). Making work, making trouble: Prostitution as a social problem. University of Toronto Press. Brooks-Gordon, B., Bilby, C., & Wells, H. (2006). A systematic review of psychological interventions for sexual offenders I: Randomised control trials. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 17(3), 442–466. Brown, K., & Sanders, T. (2017). Pragmatic, progressive, problematic: Addressing vulnerability through a local street sex work partnership initiative. Social Policy and Society, 16(3), 429–441. Brunschot, E. G. V. (2003). Community policing and “john schools.” Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie, 40(2), 215–232. Burnett, P. J., & Veenstra, G. (2017). Margins of freedom: a field-theoretic approach to class-based health dispositions and practices. Sociology of Health & Illness, 39(7), 1050–1067. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12544 Busch, N. B., Bell, H., Hotaling, N., & Monto, M. A. (2002). Male customers of prostituted women: Exploring perceptions of entitlement to power and control and implications for violent behavior toward women. Violence Against Women, 8(9), 1093–1112. Cabezas, A. L. (2004). Between love and money: Sex, tourism, and citizenship in Cuba and the Dominican Republic. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 29(4), 987–1015. Campbell, R. (1998). Invisible men: Making visible male clients of female prostitutes in Merseyside. In J. Elias, V. L. Bullough, V. Elias, & G. Brewer (Eds.), Prostitution: On whores, hustlers and johns (pp. 155–71). California: Prometheus Press.  188 Castro, F. G., Kellison, J. G., Boyd, S. J., & Kopak, A. (2010). A methodology for conducting integrative mixed methods research and data analyses. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 342–360. Cooper, B. (1989). Prostitution: A feminist analysis. Women’s Rts. L. Rep., 11, 99. Coughlan, E., Mindel, A., & Estcourt, C. S. (2001). Male clients of female commercial sex workers: HIV, STDs and risk behaviour. International Journal of STD & AIDS, 12(10), 665–669. Crago, A., Rakhmetova, A., & Sheilds, A. (2010). The police beat you up, demand money and will detain you if you don’t pay’: Police violence against sex workers in eleven countries in Europe and Central Asia. Research for Sex Work, 12, 3–8. Davis, K. (1937). The sociology of prostitution. American Sociological Review, 2(5), 744–755. Day, S., & Ward, H. (2001). Violence towards female prostitutes: Violence in sex work extends to more than risks from clients. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 323(7306), 230. De Graaf, R. (1995). Prostitutes and their clients: Sexual networks and determinants of condom use. Hague: CIP-Gegevens Koninkijke Bibliotheek. De Nooy, W. (2003). Fields and networks: Correspondence analysis and social network analysis in the framework of field theory. Poetics, 31(5–6), 305–327. Deering, K. N., Amin, A., Shoveller, J., Nesbitt, A., Garcia-Moreno, C., Duff, P., … Shannon, K. (2014). A systematic review of the correlates of violence against sex workers. American Journal of Public Health, 104(5), e42–e54. Diana, L. (1985). The prostitute and her clients: Your pleasure is her business. Charles C. Thomas Pub Ltd.  189 Dubois, V., & Méon, J.-M. (2013). The social conditions of cultural domination: Field, sub-field and local spaces of wind music in France. Cultural Sociology, 7(2), 127–144. Dworkin, A. (1997). Life and death. Free Press. Elias, N. (1978). The history of manners: The civilizing process, Vol. 1. New York: Pantheon. Elias, N. (1992). Time: An Essay. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Oxford. Ellis, A. (1959). Why married men visit prostitutes. Sexology, 25, 344–347. Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317. Farley, M., Bindel, J., & Golding, J. M. (2009). Men who buy sex: Who they buy and what they know. Eaves London. Farley, M., Schuckman, E., Golding, J. M., Houser, K., Jarrett, L., Qualliotine, P., & Decker, M. (2011). Comparing sex buyers with men who don’t buy sex. San Francisco, CA: Prostitution Research & Education. Fischer, B., Wortley, S., Webster, C., & Kirst, M. (2002). The socio-legal dynamics and implications of diversion: The case study of the Toronto John School diversion programme for prostitution offenders. Criminal Justice, 2(4), 385–410. Freund, M., Lee, N., & Leonard, T. (1991). Sexual behavior of clients with street prostitutes in Camden, NJ. Journal of Sex Research, 28(4), 579–591. Gelo, O., Braakmann, D., & Benetka, G. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative research: Beyond the debate. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 42(3), 266–290. Gibbens, T. C. N., & Silberman, M. (1960). The clients of prostitutes. British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 36(2), 113.  190 Giusta, M. D., Tommaso, M. L. D., Shima, I., & Strøm, S. (2009). What money buys: clients of street sex workers in the US. Applied Economics, 41(18), 2261–2277. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840701222561 Glover, E. G. (1945). The Psycho-pathology of Prostitution. Institute for the scientific treatment of delinquency. Goffman, E. (2009). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon and Schuster. Government of Canada, D. of J. (2014, December 1). Technical Paper: Bill C-36, Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/p1.html Greenacre, M. (2017). Correspondence analysis in practice. CRC press. Greenacre, M., & Blasius, J. (1994). Correspondence analysis in the social sciences: Recent developments and applications. Academic Press. Hammond, N. (2018). Researching men who pay for sex: Using online methods for recruiting and interviewing. Methodological Innovations, 11(1), 2059799118768408. Hammond, N., & Kingston, S. (2014). Experiencing stigma as sex work researchers in professional and personal lives. Sexualities, 17(3), 329–347. Herold, E., Garcia, R., & DeMoya, T. (2001). Female tourists and beach boys: romance or sex tourism? Annals of Tourism Research, 28(4), 978–997. Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2006). Emergent methods in social research. Sage. Holt, T. J., Blevins, K. R., & Kuhns, J. B. (2008). Examining the displacement practices of johns with on-line data. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(6), 522–528. Holzman, H. R., & Pines, S. (1982). Buying sex: The phenomenology of being a john. Deviant Behavior, 4(1), 89–116.  191 Horswill, A., & Weitzer, R. L. (2018). Becoming a client: The socialization of novice buyers of sexual services. Deviant Behavior, 39(2), 148–158. Howe, M. (2004). Clients of prostitution: A sociological analysis (PhD Thesis). University of Ottawa (Canada). Hughes, D. M. (2005). The demand for victims of sex trafficking. Women’s Studies Program, University of Rhode Island, 26. Jacomy, M., Venturini, T., Heymann, S., & Bastian, M. (2014). ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. PloS One, 9(6), e98679. Jordan, J. (1997). User pays: Why men buy sex. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 30(1), 55–71. Kinnell, H. (2013). Violence and sex work in Britain. Routledge. Kolar, K., & Atchison, C. (2013). Recruitment of sex buyers: A comparison of the efficacy of conventional and computer network-based approaches. Social Science Computer Review, 31(2), 178–190. Krüsi, A., Pacey, K., Bird, L., Taylor, C., Chettiar, J., Allan, S., … Shannon, K. (2014). Criminalisation of clients: reproducing vulnerabilities for violence and poor health among street-based sex workers in Canada—a qualitative study. BMJ Open, 4(6), e005191. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford university press. Latour, B., & Johnson, J. (1988). Mixing humans with non-humans? Sociology of a few mundane artefacts. Social Problems, 35(298–310).  192 Lemert, E. (1967). Human deviance, social problems and social control. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Leonard, T. L. (1990). Male clients of female street prostitutes: Unseen partners in sexual disease transmission. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 4(1), 41–55. Lever, J., & Dolnick, D. (2000). Clients and call girls: Seeking sex and intimacy. In R. L. Weitzer (Ed.), Sex for sale: Prostitution, pornography, and the sex industry (First edition, pp. 85–100). Routledge. Lever, J., & Dolnick, D. (2010). Call girls and street prostitutes: Selling sex and intimacy. In R. L. Weitzer (Ed.), Sex for sale: Prostitution, pornography, and the sex industry (Second edition, pp. 187–203). Routledge. Lewis, J., Maticka-Tyndale, E., Shaver, F., & Schramm, H. (2005). Managing risk and safety on the job: The experiences of Canadian sex workers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 17(1–2), 147–167. Lowman, J. (2000). Violence and the outlaw status of (street) prostitution in Canada. Violence against Women, 6(9), 987–1011. Lowman, J., & Atchison, C. (2006). Men who buy sex: A survey in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie, 43(3), 281–296. Macleod, J., Farley, M., Anderson, L., & Golding, J. (2008). Challenging Men’s Demand for Prostitution in Scotland: A research report based on interviews with 110 men who bought women in prostitution. Glasgow: Women’s Support Project & Prostitution Research & Education. Mannheim, K. (2013). Ideology and utopia. Routledge.  193 Martin, J. L. (2003). What is field theory? American Journal of Sociology, 109(1), 1–49. Martin, J. L. (2009). Social structures. Princeton University Press. Martin, J. L. (2011). The explanation of social action. New York: Oxford University Press. Martin, J. L. (2015). Thinking through theory. WW Norton, Incorporated. Martin, J. L. (2018). Getting off the Cartesian Clothesline. Sociological Theory, 36(2), 194–200. Martin, J. L., & Gregg, F. (2014). Was Bourdieu a field theorist? In M. Hilgers & E. Mangez (Eds.), Bourdieu’s theory of social fields: Concepts and applications. Routledge. Martin, J. L., & Vandebroeck, D. (2014). (Explaining) 2: John Levi Martin Talks Explanations, Causality and Social Aesthetics. Irish Journal of Sociology, 22(2), 102–126. Mawani, R. (2014). Insects, War, Plastic Life. In B. Bhandar & J. Goldberg-Hiller (Eds.), Plastic materialities: Politics, legality, and metamorphosis in the work of Catherine Malabou (pp. 159–87). McKeganey, N. (1994). Why do men buy sex and what are their assessments of the HIV-related risks when they do? AIDS Care, 6(3), 289–301. McKeganey, N. P., & Barnard, M. (1996). Sex work on the streets: Prostitutes and their clients. Buckingham: Open University Press. McMillan, K., Worth, H., & Rawstorne, P. (2018). Usage of the terms prostitution, sex work, transactional sex, and survival sex: Their utility in HIV prevention research. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(5), 1517–1527. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society (Vol. III). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Milrod, C., & Weitzer, R. L. (2012). The intimacy prism: Emotion management among the clients of escorts. Men and Masculinities, 15(5), 447–467.  194 Mische, A. (2009). Projects and possibilities: Researching futures in action. Sociological Forum, 24(3), 694–704. Monto, M. A. (1999). Clients of street prostitutes in Portland, Oregon, San Francisco and Santa Clara, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada, 1996-1999. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. Monto, M. A., & McRee, N. (2005). A comparison of the male customers of female street prostitutes with national samples of men. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49(5), 505–529. 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. Moore, S. (1999). Characteristics, attitudes and risk behaviours of Australian men who visit female sex workers. Venereology, 12(1), 7. Morse, E. V., Simon, P. M., Balson, P. M., & Osofsky, H. J. (1992). Sexual behavior patterns of customers of male street prostitutes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 21(4), 347–357. O’Connell Davidson, J. (2003). ‘Sleeping with the Enemy’? Some problems with feminist abolitionist calls to penalise those who buy commercial sex. Social Policy and Society, 2(1), 55–63. Overall, C. (1992). What’s wrong with prostitution? Evaluating sex work. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 17(4), 705–724. Palys, T., & Lowman, J. (2014). Protecting research confidentiality: What happens when law and ethics collide. James Lorimer & Company. Pateman, C. (1983). Defending prostitution: Charges against Ericsson. Ethics, 93(3), 561–565.  195 Perkins, R. (1999). ’How much are you, love? The customer in the Australian sex industry. Social Alternatives, 18(3), 38. Plumridge, E. W., Chetwynd, S. J., Reed, A., & Gifford, S. J. (1996). Patrons of the sex industry: Perceptions of risk. AIDS Care, 8(4), 405–416. Plumridge, Elizabeth W., Chetwynd, S. J., Reed, A., & Gifford, S. J. (1997). Discourses of emotionality in commercial sex: The missing client voice. Feminism & Psychology, 7(2), 165–181. Raphael, J., & Shapiro, D. L. (2004). Violence in indoor and outdoor prostitution venues. Violence against Women, 10(2), 126–139. Raymond, J. (1995). Prostitution is rape that’s paid for. Los Angeles Times, B6. Remple, V. P., Patrick, D. M., Johnston, C., Tyndall, M. W., & Jolly, A. M. (2007). Clients of indoor commercial sex workers: Heterogeneity in patronage patterns and implications for HIV and STI propagation through sexual networks. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 34(10), 754–760. Rouanet, H., Ackermann, W., & Le Roux, B. (2000). The geometric analysis of questionnaires: The lesson of Bourdieu’s La Distinction. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 65(1), 5–18. Sánchez-Taylor, J. (2001). Dollars are a girl’s best friend? Female tourists’ sexual behaviour in the Caribbean. Sociology, 35(3), 749–764. Sanders, T. (2008). Male sexual scripts: Intimacy, sexuality and pleasure in the purchase of commercial sex. Sociology, 42(3), 400–417. Sanders, T. (2009). Kerbcrawler rehabilitation programmes: Curing the “deviant” male and reinforcing the “respectable” moral order. Critical Social Policy, 29(1), 77–99.  196 Sanders, T. (2013). Paying for pleasure: Men who buy sex. Routledge. Sanders, T. (2016). Inevitably Violent? Dynamics of Space, Governance, and Stigma in Understanding Violence against Sex Workers. In Special Issue: Problematizing Prostitution: Critical Research and Scholarship (Vol. 71, pp. 93–114). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1059-433720160000071005 Sanders, T. (2018). Unpacking the process of destigmatization of sex work/ers: Response to Weitzer ‘Resistance to sex work stigma.’ Sexualities, 21(5–6), 736–739. Sanders, T., & Campbell, R. (2007). Designing out vulnerability, building in respect: violence, safety and sex work policy. The British Journal of Sociology, 58(1), 1–19. Sanders, T., Connelly, L., & King, L. J. (2016). On our own terms: The working conditions of internet-based sex workers in the UK. Sociological Research Online, 21(4), 1–14. Sanders, T., Scoular, J., Goodyear, M., Cook, H., Smith, N., Farley, M., … Weitzer, R. L. (2008, April 29). A Commentary on ‘Challenging Men’s Demand for Prostitution in Scotland: A Research Report Based on Interviews with 110 Men who Bought Women in Prostitution’ (Jan Macleod, Melissa Farley, Lynn Anderson, Jacqueline Golding, 2008). Retrieved from http://www.scot-pep.org.uk/sites/default/files/download-files/a_commentary_on_challenging_mens_demand_for_prostitution_in_scotland.pdf Schutz, A. (1959). Tiresias, or our knowledge of future events. Social Research, 71–89. Schutz, A. (1962). Choosing Among Projects of Action. In Collected Papers I (pp. 67–96). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2851-6_3 Shively, M., Jalbert, S., Kling, R., Rhodes, W., Finn, P., Flygare, C., & Wheeler, K. (2008). Final report on the evaluation of the first offender prostitution program: Report summary. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice.  197 Shrage, L. (1989). Should feminists oppose prostitution? Ethics, 99(2), 347–361. Small, M. L. (2011). How to conduct a mixed methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly growing literature. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 57–86. Stoller, R. J. (1976). Sexual excitement. Archives of General Psychiatry, 33(8), 899–909. Stoller, R. J. (1986). Sexual excitement: Dynamics of erotic life. Karnac Books. Tarde, G. (1901). L’action des faits futurs. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 9(2), 119–137. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage Publications. Thomas, R. M., Plant, M. A., & Plant, M. L. (1990). Alcohol, AIDS risks and sex industry clients: Results from a Scottish study. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 26(3), 265–269. Thompson, E. P. (1967). Time, work-discipline, and industrial capitalism. Past & Present, (38), 56–97. Weinberg, M. S., Worth, H., & Williams, C. J. (2001). Men sex workers and other men who have sex with men: How do their HIV risks compare in New Zealand? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30(3), 273–286. Weitzer, R. L. (2005). Flawed theory and method in studies of prostitution. Violence against Women, 11(7), 934–949. Weitzer, R. L. (2009). Sex for sale: Prostitution, pornography, and the sex industry. Routledge. Weitzer, R. L. (2010). The mythology of prostitution: Advocacy research and public policy. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 7(1), 15–29. Weitzer, R. L. (2018a). Additional reflections on sex work stigma. Sexualities, 21(5–6), 747–750. Weitzer, R. L. (2018b). Resistance to sex work stigma. Sexualities, 21(5–6), 717–729.  198 Winch, P. (1958). The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. Routledge and Kegan Paul. Winick, C. (1962). Prostitutes’ clients’ perception of the prostitutes and of themselves. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 8(4), 289–297. Winick, C., & Kinsie, P. M. (1971). The lively commerce: Prostitution in the United States. Quadrangle-New York Times Book Co. Xantidis, L., & McCabe, M. P. (2000). Personality characteristics of male clients of female commercial sex workers in Australia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29(2), 165–176.    199 Appendices  Appendix A    A.1 Frequencies of Everyday Spaces Variables  Variables Mapping Labels Frequency (%) Theme in Model Legend Relationship status Single - Never Married 263 30.9 1-Everyday-Spaces Single - Was Married 98 11.5 1-Everyday-Spaces Dating < 2 years 53 6.2 1-Everyday-Spaces Common-Law <= 5 years 61 7.2 1-Everyday-Spaces Common-Law > 5 years 65 7.6 1-Everyday-Spaces Married <= 15 years 153 18.0 1-Everyday-Spaces Married > 15 years 155 18.2 1-Everyday-Spaces Missing 4 0.5 1-Everyday-Spaces Personal income $19,999 or less 90 10.6 1-Everyday-Spaces $20,000 to $39,999 131 15.4 1-Everyday-Spaces $40,000 to $59,999 159 18.7 1-Everyday-Spaces $60,000 to $79,999 149 17.5 1-Everyday-Spaces $80,000 to $99,999 105 12.3 1-Everyday-Spaces $100,000 or more 192 22.5 1-Everyday-Spaces Missing 26 3.1 1-Everyday-Spaces Education High school or less 124 14.6 1-Everyday-Spaces Some trade-tech 83 9.7 1-Everyday-Spaces Compl trade-tech 128 15.0 1-Everyday-Spaces Some post-sec 111 13.0 1-Everyday-Spaces Compl dipl-college 86 10.1 1-Everyday-Spaces Compl uni-Bach 191 22.4 1-Everyday-Spaces Compl Masters 77 9.0 1-Everyday-Spaces Compl PhD,LLB,MD) 44 5.2 1-Everyday-Spaces Missing 8 .9 1-Everyday-Spaces Occupation Management Occupations 82 9.6 1-Everyday-Spaces Business, Finance and Administrative Occupations 114 13.4 1-Everyday-Spaces Natural and Applied Sciences 113 13.3 1-Everyday-Spaces Health occupations 25 2.9 1-Everyday-Spaces Social Science, Education, Government Service and Religion 32 3.8 1-Everyday-Spaces Occupations in Art, Culture, Recreation and Sport 30 3.5 1-Everyday-Spaces Sales and Service (incl administrative assistant) 104 12.2 1-Everyday-Spaces Trades, transport and processing 145 17.0 1-Everyday-Spaces Retired 51 6.0 1-Everyday-Spaces Disability, or Unemployed 44 5.2 1-Everyday-Spaces Student 25 2.9 1-Everyday-Spaces FT-Empl/Missing-OCC 69 8.1 1-Everyday-Spaces Missing 18 2.1 1-Everyday-Spaces Prostitution only source of sex over past 12 months? No-$ only sex 566 66.4 1-Everyday-Spaces Yes-$ only sex 274 32.2 1-Everyday-Spaces Missing 12 1.4 1-Everyday-Spaces     200  A.2 Frequencies of Transactional Sex Spaces Variables  Variables Mapping Labels Frequency (%) Theme in Model Legend Street experience over time Never-Street 510 59.9 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Street (not recent >1 yr ago) 191 22.4 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Street 1-3 times (recent <1 yr) 95 11.2 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Street 4+ times (recent <1yr) 56 6.6 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Missing 0   2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Escort experience over time Never-Escort 440 51.6 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Escort (not recent >1 yr ago) 187 21.9 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Escort 1-3 times (recent <1 yr) 143 16.8 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Escort 4+ times (recent <1yr) 82 9.6 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Missing 0   2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Bar/Club experience over time Never-Bar 696 81.7 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Bar (not recent >1 yr ago) 122 14.3 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Bar 1+ times (recent <1 yr) 34 4.0 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Missing 0   2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Massage parlour experience over time Never-Massage 300 35.2 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Massage (not recent >1 yr ago) 155 18.2 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Massage 1-3 times (recent <1 yr) 208 24.4 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Massage 4+ times (recent <1yr) 189 22.2 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Missing 0   2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Independent out-call experience over time Never-Out_Call 389 45.7 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Out_Call (not recent >1 yr ago) 186 21.8 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Out_Call 1-3 times (recent <1 yr) 188 22.1 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Out_Call 4+ times (recent <1yr) 89 10.4 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Missing 0   2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Independent in-call experience over time Never-In_Call 156 18.3 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces In_Call (not recent >1 yr ago) 139 16.3 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces In_Call 1-3 times (recent <1 yr) 245 28.8 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces In_Call 4+ times (recent <1yr) 312 36.6 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Missing 0   2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Brothel experience over time Never-Brothel 671 78.8 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Brothel (not recent >1 yr ago) 90 10.6 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Brothel 1-3 times (recent <1 yr) 52 6.1 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Brothel 4+ times (recent <1yr) 39 4.6 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Missing 0   2-Sex-Ind-Spaces BDSM experience over time Never-BDSM 789 92.6 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces BDSM (not recent >1 yr ago) 23 2.7 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces BDSM 1+ times (recent <1 yr) 40 4.7 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Missing 0   2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Online experience over time Never-Online 544 63.8 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Online (not recent >1 yr ago) 91 10.7 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Online 1-3 times (recent <1 yr) 115 13.5 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Online 4+ times (recent <1yr) 99 11.6 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Missing 3 .4 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Venue exclusivity Ind. In-call MOST 255 29.9 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Ind. In-call ONLY 127 14.9 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Ind. Out-call MOST 59 6.9 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Ind. Out-call ONLY 23 2.7 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Escort MOST 43 5.0 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Escort ONLY 20 2.3 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Masg-Broth MOST 131 15.4 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Masg-Broth ONLY 58 6.8 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Street-club MOST 35 4.1 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces  201 Street-club ONLY 29 3.4 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Online MOST 38 4.5 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Online ONLY 25 2.9 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Missing 9 1.1 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces General sexual activities respondent pays for No- Conversation 507 59.5 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Yes- Conversation 344 40.4 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces No- Companionship 498 58.5 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Yes- Companionship 353 41.4 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces No- Kissing 415 48.7 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Yes- Kissing 436 51.2 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces No- Masturbation/H-J 359 42.1 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Yes- Masturbation/H-J 492 57.7 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces No- Massage 386 45.3 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Yes- Massage 465 54.6 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces No- Give oral sex 375 44.0 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Yes- Give oral sex 476 55.9 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces No- Receive oral sex 129 15.1 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Yes- Receive oral sex 722 84.7 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces No- Vaginal sex 184 21.6 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Yes- Vaginal sex 667 78.3 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces No- Anal sex 649 76.2 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Yes- Anal sex 202 23.7 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces No- receive anal sex 771 90.5 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Yes- receive anal sex 80 9.4 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces No- Girlfriend Exper 328 38.5 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Yes- Girlfriend Exper 523 61.4 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces No- 3(+)somes 743 87.2 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Yes- 3(+)somes 108 12.7 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces No- Porn Star Experience 638 74.9 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Yes- Porn Star Experience 213 25.0 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces No- BDSM/Fetish 780 91.5 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Yes- BDSM/Fetish 71 8.3 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Same seller over past 12 months No same SP 311 36.5 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Yes same SP 462 54.2 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Only same SP 74 8.7 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Missing 5 .6 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Purchased outside of Canada? Only $ in CAN 502 58.9 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces $ 1 place out CAN 211 24.8 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces $ 2+ places out CAN 136 16.0 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Missing 3 .4 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Past sexual partners No-FEM sex past 24 2.8 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Yes-FEM sex past 828 97.2 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Missing 0  2-Sex-Ind-Spaces No-MALE sex past 608 71.4 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Yes-MALE sex past 244 28.6 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Missing 0  2-Sex-Ind-Spaces No-Trans-M (F-M) sex past 821 96.4 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Yes--Trans-M (F-M) sex past 31 3.6 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Missing 0  2-Sex-Ind-Spaces No-Trans-F (M-F) sex past 731 85.8 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Yes-Trans-F (M-F) sex past 121 14.2 2-Sex-Ind-Spaces Missing 0   2-Sex-Ind-Spaces     202  A.3 Frequencies of Time in Spaces Variables  Variables Mapping Labels Frequency (%) Theme in Model Legend Age 18-30 yrs 107 12.6 3-Time-in-Spaces 31-40 yrs 216 25.4 3-Time-in-Spaces 41-50 yrs 252 29.6 3-Time-in-Spaces 51-60 yrs 193 22.7 3-Time-in-Spaces >60 yrs 76 8.9 3-Time-in-Spaces Missing 8 .9 3-Time-in-Spaces Number times paid for sexual services in lifetime 1-5 times $ 101 11.9 3-Time-in-Spaces 6-10 times $ 103 12.1 3-Time-in-Spaces 11-20 times $ 117 13.7 3-Time-in-Spaces 21-40 times $ 112 13.1 3-Time-in-Spaces 41-75 times $ 132 15.5 3-Time-in-Spaces 76-100 times $ 123 14.4 3-Time-in-Spaces >100 times $ 164 19.2 3-Time-in-Spaces Missing 0   3-Time-in-Spaces Age first paid for sexual services <=18 yrs-First pay 101 11.9 3-Time-in-Spaces 19-21 yrs First pay 143 16.8 3-Time-in-Spaces 22-25 yrs-First pay 201 23.6 3-Time-in-Spaces 26-30 yrs-First pay 150 17.6 3-Time-in-Spaces 31-40 yrs-First pay 140 16.4 3-Time-in-Spaces >40 yrs-First pay 115 13.5 3-Time-in-Spaces Missing 2 .2 3-Time-in-Spaces     203  Appendix B    B.1 Frequencies of Active Disruption Variables  Variables Mapping Labels Frequency (%) Theme in Model Legend Have you ever tried to get sexual services for free from a sex seller? No-try get free sex 735 86.3 4-Active-Disruption Yes-try get free sex 117 13.7 4-Active-Disruption Missing 0  4-Active-Disruption [Open ended] If you have tried to get sexual services for free, why did you do this? 107 91.5 4-Active-Disruption [Open ended] If you have tried to get sexual services for free, what was the result of your attempt to get free services? 102 87.2 4-Active-Disruption Have you ever pressured a sex seller into doing something sexually that they were not prepared to do? No-Pressure SW 787 92.4 4-Active-Disruption Yes-Pressure SW 59 6.9 4-Active-Disruption Missing 6 0.7 4-Active-Disruption [Open ended] If you have pressured a sex seller into doing something sexually that they were not prepared to do, what caused you to do this? 57 96.6 4-Active-Disruption [Open ended] If you have pressured a sex seller into doing something sexually that they were not prepared to do, what happened after you did this? 53 89.8 4-Active-Disruption Have you ever refused to use sexual safety precautions when a sex seller has asked you to use them? No-refused Condom 801 94.0 4-Active-Disruption Yes-refused Condom 47 5.5 4-Active-Disruption Missing 4 0.5 4-Active-Disruption [Open ended] How do sex sellers react when you refuse to use sexual safety precautions? 42 89.4 4-Active-Disruption Has respondent ever engaged in Vaginal, Anal, or Group sex without a Condom? NO unsafe sex 734 86.2 4-Active-Disruption YES unsafe sex 115 13.5 4-Active-Disruption Missing 3 .4 4-Active-Disruption How often do you use sexual safety precautions when you are with a sex seller? Prophylactic 100% time 385 45.2 4-Active-Disruption Prophylactic 75-99% time 240 28.2 4-Active-Disruption Prophylactic 50-74% time 84 9.9 4-Active-Disruption Prophylactic 25-49% time 33 3.9 4-Active-Disruption Prophylactic < 25% time 72 8.5 4-Active-Disruption Prophylactic Never 38 4.5 4-Active-Disruption Missing 0  4-Active-Disruption [Open ended] In what situations do you not use sexual safety precautions such as condoms, female condoms, dental dams or medical gloves when you are with a sex seller? 760 89.2 4-Active-Disruption On average, how often do you drink more than three alcoholic beverages just prior to or during your visit? Drink alch. >=25% times 120 14.1 4-Active-Disruption Drink alch. <25% times 139 16.3 4-Active-Disruption Drink alch. never 591 69.4 4-Active-Disruption Missing 2 0.2 4-Active-Disruption     204  B.2 Frequencies of Passive Disruption Variables  Variables Mapping Labels Frequency (%) Theme in Model Legend Experience with bait and switch? No-Bait & Switch 362 42.5 5-Passive-Disruption Yes-Bait & Switch 486 57.0 5-Passive-Disruption Missing 4 0.5 5-Passive-Disruption [Open ended] If a sex worker you have seen did not match the way they were advertised, how did you react when this happened? 441 90.7 5-Passive-Disruption Has a sex worker ever refused to provide you with the services you negotiated or paid for? No-SW refused after $ 633 74.3 5-Passive-Disruption Yes-SW refused after $ 218 25.6 5-Passive-Disruption Missing 1 0.1 5-Passive-Disruption [Open ended] If sex workers you have seen have refused to provide you with the services you negotiated or paid for, how did you react when this happened? 193 88.5 5-Passive-Disruption Experience verbal conflict from sex worker? No-Conflict by SW 635 74.5 5-Passive-Disruption Yes- 1 Conflict by SW 115 13.5 5-Passive-Disruption Yes- 2+ Conflict by SW 102 12.0 5-Passive-Disruption Missing 0  5-Passive-Disruption [Open ended] How did you react when [insulted, harassed, or gestures] happened? 199 91.7 5-Passive-Disruption Experienced theft? Never exp theft 640 75.1 5-Passive-Disruption Exp theft 1 time 140 16.4 5-Passive-Disruption Exp theft 2+ times 72 8.5 5-Passive-Disruption Missing 0  5-Passive-Disruption [Open ended] How did you react when [property stolen, robbed by sex worker]? 197 92.2 5-Passive-Disruption On average, how often do you think the sex seller you are with is under the influence of alcohol during your visit? SW alch. >=25% times 156 18.3 5-Passive-Disruption SW alch. <25% times 381 44.7 5-Passive-Disruption SW alch. never 313 36.7 5-Passive-Disruption Missing 2 0.2 5-Passive-Disruption     205  B.3 Frequencies of Interactive and Lateral Disruption Variables  Variables Mapping Labels Frequency (%) Theme in Model Legend Have you ever argued with a sex seller over the length of the encounter? No-Argue encounter time 758 89.0 6-Interactive-Disruption Yes-Argue encounter time 91 10.7 6-Interactive-Disruption Missing 3 0.4 6-Interactive-Disruption [Open ended] What do you think caused the argument? 81 89.0 6-Interactive-Disruption [Open ended] What was the result of the argument? 80 87.9 6-Interactive-Disruption Have you ever argued with a sex seller over the terms of service (e.g., the types of activities you will engage in)? No-Argue terms service 768 90.1 6-Interactive-Disruption Yes-Argue terms service 78 9.2 6-Interactive-Disruption Missing 6 0.7 6-Interactive-Disruption [Open ended] What do you think caused the argument? 61 78.2 6-Interactive-Disruption [Open ended] What was the result of the argument? 59 75.6 6-Interactive-Disruption Have you ever argued with a sex seller over the price of the service(s) you have negotiated? No-Argue price 762 89.4 6-Interactive-Disruption Yes-Argue price 88 10.3 6-Interactive-Disruption Missing 2 0.2 6-Interactive-Disruption [Open ended] What do you think caused the argument? 71 80.6 6-Interactive-Disruption [Open ended] What was the result of the argument? 68 77.3 6-Interactive-Disruption Witness or suspect conflict? Never wit/susp CONFL 624 73.2 7-Lateral-Disruption No wit- Yes susp-NO act 108 12.7 7-Lateral-Disruption No wit- Yes susp-YES act 38 4.5 7-Lateral-Disruption Yes wit OR susp-NO act 34 4.0 7-Lateral-Disruption Yes wit OR susp-YES act 45 5.3 7-Lateral-Disruption Missing 3 0.4 7-Lateral-Disruption [Open ended] What did you witness or suspect?  213 94.7 7-Lateral-Disruption [Open ended] Why or why not did you do something about it? 210 93.3 7-Lateral-Disruption     206  Appendix C    C.1 Frequencies of Actor—Actor Valence Variables  Variables Mapping Labels Frequency (%) Theme in Model Legend Do you use your real name when you meet with sex sellers? No-real name 309 36.3 8- A & A Valence Yes-real name 538 63.1 8- A & A Valence Missing 5 0.6 8- A & A Valence How often do you talk to the sex sellers you visit about your personal life? personal 100% time 76 8.9 8- A & A Valence personal 75-99% time 123 14.4 8- A & A Valence personal 50-74% time 133 15.6 8- A & A Valence personal 25-49% time 214 25.1 8- A & A Valence personal <25% time 228 26.8 8- A & A Valence personal Never (0%) time 76 8.9 8- A & A Valence Missing 2 0.2 8- A & A Valence What age range do you prefer for sex sellers, in general? Under 20 SP 82 9.6 8- A & A Valence 21-25 SP 233 27.3 8- A & A Valence 26-30 SP 172 20.2 8- A & A Valence 31-35 SP 87 10.2 8- A & A Valence 36+ SP 278 32.6 8- A & A Valence Missing 0   8- A & A Valence How frequently do you purchase sexual services from a sex seller whose racial background is different from your own? SW diff race 100% time 53 6.2 8- A & A Valence SW diff race 75-99% time 92 10.8 8- A & A Valence SW diff race 50-74% time 110 12.9 8- A & A Valence SW diff race 25-49% time 240 28.2 8- A & A Valence SW diff race <25% time 253 29.7 8- A & A Valence SW diff race Never 0% 101 11.9 8- A & A Valence Missing 3 0.4 8- A & A Valence Ever talked to someone about purchasing sex? Did they treat you differently? No talk someone 388 45.9 8- A & A Valence Yes talk-No diff 399 46.8 8- A & A Valence Yes talk-Yes diff 44 5.2 8- A & A Valence Missing 18 2.1 8- A & A Valence [Open ended] In what way did they treat you differently? 42 95.5 8- A & A Valence     207  C.2 Frequencies of Actor—Non-Human Actor Valence Variables  Variables Mapping Labels Frequency (%) Theme in Model Legend How worried that sex seller you are with could be under the influence of alcohol when you are with her/him? No Worry-SW alch. 606 71.1 9- A & NHA Valence Little Worry-SW alch. 110 12.9 9- A & NHA Valence Worry-SW alch. 88 10.3 9- A & NHA Valence Very Worry-SW alch. 40 4.7 9- A & NHA Valence Missing 8 0.9 9- A & NHA Valence How worried that sex seller you are with is under the influence of illegal drugs during your visit? No Worry-SW drugs 414 48.6 9- A & NHA Valence Little Worry-SW drugs 148 17.4 9- A & NHA Valence Worry-SW drugs 146 17.1 9- A & NHA Valence Very Worry-SW drugs 134 15.7 9- A & NHA Valence Missing 10 1.2 9- A & NHA Valence How often do you worry that you might contract an STI/STD as a result of your visits with sex sellers? Always worry STI 83 9.7 9- A & NHA Valence Usually worry STI 110 12.9 9- A & NHA Valence Occ. worry STI 404 47.4 9- A & NHA Valence Never worry STI 171 20.1 9- A & NHA Valence Not sure worry STI 79 9.3 9- A & NHA Valence Missing 5 0.6 9- A & NHA Valence [Open ended] How do you protect yourself from HIV or other STIs? 708 83.1 9- A & NHA Valence     208  C.3 Frequencies of Actor—Event Valence Variables  Variables Mapping Labels Frequency (%) Theme in Model Legend Worry about being victimized No worry being victimized 424 424 10- A & E Valence Yes worry being victimized 424 424 10- A & E Valence Missing 4 0.5 10- A & E Valence [Open ended] Could you tell us a bit about the specific forms of victimization that you worry about when purchasing sexual services? 391 92.2 10- A & E Valence How often have you posted a negative review in lifetime? No Post Neg 649 76.2 10- A & E Valence Yes 1 Post Neg 72 8.5 10- A & E Valence Yes 2+ Post Neg 127 14.9 10- A & E Valence Missing 4 0.5 10- A & E Valence [Open ended] If you have posted a negative review, why did you do it? 181 91.0 10- A & E Valence [Open ended] What happened after you made your post? 171 85.9 10- A & E Valence Do you ever worry that you may be arrested for soliciting sexual services? Little worried arrest 206 24.2 10- A & E Valence Worried arrest 109 12.8 10- A & E Valence Very Worried arrest 98 11.5 10- A & E Valence Not Worried arrest 429 50.4 10- A & E Valence Missing 10 1.2 10- A & E Valence Do you take any precautions to ensure your safety when visiting sex sellers? No-Don't take precautions 246 28.9 10- A & E Valence Yes-Do take precautions 597 70.1 10- A & E Valence Missing 9 1.1 10- A & E Valence [Open ended] If yes, what precautions do you take? 554 92.8 10- A & E Valence [Open ended] If no, why don't you take any precautions? 220 89.4 10- A & E Valence Safety concerns [Open ended] What types of safety are of most concern to you when you are purchasing sexual services? 727 85.3 10- A & E Valence Missing 125 14.7 10- A & E Valence Time with sex worker [Open ended] What influences the average amount of time you spend with a sex seller on each visit? 758 89.0 10- A & E Valence Missing 94 11.0 10- A & E Valence     209  Appendix D    D.1 Frequencies of Future Clarity Variables  Variables Mapping Labels Frequency (%) Theme in Model Legend If you ever did witness a person purchasing sex being victimized in any way, how likely would you be to do something about it? WIT-100% no help SB 80 9.4 11-Clarity WIT-Not Likely help SB 182 21.4 11-Clarity WIT-50% likely help SB 240 28.2 11-Clarity WIT-Very likely help SB 148 17.4 11-Clarity WIT-100% likely help SB 60 7.0 11-Clarity WIT-Not sure help SB 130 15.3 11-Clarity Missing 12 1.4 11-Clarity [Open ended] Not likely to help, why not? 334 85.2 11-Clarity [Open ended] Likely, what would you do? 417 93.1 11-Clarity If you ever did witness a sex worker being victimized in any way, how likely would you be to do something about it? WIT SW-100% no help 59 6.9 11-Clarity WIT SW-Not Likely help 110 12.9 11-Clarity WIT SW-50% likely help 237 27.8 11-Clarity WIT SW-Very likely help 229 26.9 11-Clarity WIT SW-100% likely help 114 13.4 11-Clarity WIT SW-Not sure help 89 10.4 11-Clarity Missing 14 1.6 11-Clarity [Open ended] Not likely to help, why not? 205 79.5 11-Clarity [Open ended] Likely, what would you do? 511 88.1 11-Clarity If you ever suspected sex worker was being victimized in any way, how likely would you be to do something about it? SUSP SW-100% no help 108 12.7 11-Clarity SUSP SW-Not Likely help 204 23.9 11-Clarity SUSP SW-50% likely help 208 24.4 11-Clarity SUSP SW-Very likely help 136 16.0 11-Clarity SUSP SW-100% likely help 62 7.3 11-Clarity SUSP SW-Not sure help 122 14.3 11-Clarity Missing 12 1.4 11-Clarity [Open ended] Not likely to help, why not? 346 79.7 11-Clarity [Open ended] Likely, what would you do? 334 82.3 11-Clarity How likely do you think it is that you will get an STI/STD in your lifetime? 100% Never get STI 67 7.9 11-Clarity VR SM chance get STI 461 54.1 11-Clarity 50% Likely get STI 137 16.1 11-Clarity VR Likely get STI 30 3.5 11-Clarity 100% Likely get STI 33 3.9 11-Clarity Not Sure get STI 118 13.8 11-Clarity Missing 6 0.7 11-Clarity If I asked a sex seller not to use a condom, he or she would get angry DAG-no cond angry 148 17.4 11-Clarity NE-no cond angry 211 24.8 11-Clarity AG-no cond angry 485 56.9 11-Clarity Missing 8 0.9 11-Clarity    210      D.2 Frequencies of Sociality Variables  Variables Mapping Labels Frequency (%) Theme in Model Legend My friends would willingly accept me if they knew I had purchased sexual services. SDG-friends accept me KI$ 119 14.0 12-Sociality DG-friends accept me KI$ 217 25.5 12-Sociality NE-friends accept me KI$ 207 24.3 12-Sociality AG-friends accept me KI$ 237 27.8 12-Sociality SAG-friends accept me KI$ 63 7.4 12-Sociality Missing 9 1.1 12-Sociality Most people I know would think less of me if they knew I had purchased sexual services. SDG-think less KI$ 32 3.8 12-Sociality DG-think less KI$ 108 12.7 12-Sociality NE-think less KI$ 147 17.3 12-Sociality AG-think less KI$ 353 41.4 12-Sociality SAG-think less KI$ 202 23.7 12-Sociality Missing 10 1.2 12-Sociality If my close friends knew I had purchased sexual services, they wouldn’t trust me as much. SDG-trust less KI$ 142 16.7 12-Sociality DG-trust less KI$ 265 31.1 12-Sociality NE-trust less KI$ 217 25.5 12-Sociality AG-trust less KI$ 155 18.2 12-Sociality SAG-trust less KI$ 63 7.4 12-Sociality Missing 10 1.2 12-Sociality My friends and family would see my sex buying as a sign of personal failure. SDG-see as pers fail KI$ 70 8.2 12-Sociality DG-see as pers fail KI$ 134 15.7 12-Sociality NE-see as pers fail KI$ 194 22.8 12-Sociality AG-see as pers fail KI$ 294 34.5 12-Sociality SAG-see as pers fail KI$ 151 17.7 12-Sociality Missing 9 1.1 12-Sociality     211  D.3 Frequencies of Volition Variables  Variables Mapping Labels Frequency (%) Theme in Model Legend In general, the sex sellers I visit have more power in our relationship DAG-they more pwr 148 17.4 13-Volition NE-they more pwr 298 35.0 13-Volition AG-they more pwr 401 47.1 13-Volition Missing 5 0.6 13-Volition The sex sellers I visit get more out of our relationship than I do. DAG-they get more 378 44.4 13-Volition NE-they get more 335 39.3 13-Volition AG-they get more 131 15.4 13-Volition Missing 8 0.9 13-Volition The sex sellers I am with generally have more say than I do about the terms of service. DAG-they more say 135 15.8 13-Volition NE-they more say 226 26.5 13-Volition AG-they more say 484 56.8 13-Volition Missing 7 0.8 13-Volition When I am with a sex seller, I am generally pretty quiet. DAG-Im quiet 225 26.4 13-Volition NE-Im quiet 155 18.2 13-Volition AG-Im quiet 463 54.3 13-Volition Missing 9 1.1 13-Volition     212  Appendix E    E.1 List of Influential Variables by Dimension  Dimension 1 EV Approximately, how many times have you paid money for sexual services in your lifetime?  .423 STREET Venue experience over time and recently within 12 months.  .272 Total experience of THEFT indicator. .230 On average, how often do you think the sex seller you are with is under the influence of alcohol during your visit? .215 Have you ever arranged to meet a sex worker over the phone, email or online only to find out that he/she was not who you had assumed they were based on how they were advertised? .213 Has a sex worker ever refused to provide you with the services you negotiated or paid for? .195 Preferred venue, ONLY that venue .187 Do you ever worry that you may be arrested for soliciting sexual services?  .174 Have you ever been insulted or put down and/or verbally abused/harassed, and/or gestures directed at you by a sex worker?  .172 Brothel Venue experience over time and recently within 12 months.  .161 Online Venue experience over time and recently within 12 months.  .160 Escort Venue experience over time and recently within 12 months.  .153 In which countries outside of Canada have you purchased sex? Multiple Countries. .147 How often do you use sexual safety precautions such as condoms, female condoms, dental dams or medical gloves when you are with a sex seller? .129 Over the past 12 months did you visit the same sex seller never, sometimes, always? .126 Out-Call Venue experience over time and recently within 12 months.  .123 In-Call Venue experience over time and recently within 12 months.  .121 Composite of witnessed and suspected questions. Sex worker or Sex buyer conflict witness or suspect questions. .118 Have you ever argued with a sex seller over the terms of service (e.g., the types of activities you will engage in) .114 Bar Venue experience over time and recently within 12 months. .109 Have you ever argued with a sex seller over the price of the service(s) you have negotiated? .109 Generally speaking, when you are with a sex seller, what activities do you pay for?  (Anal sex where you penetrate the sex worker) .102 Dimension 2  Generally speaking, when you are with a sex seller, what activities do you pay for?  (Kissing) .318 Generally speaking, when you are with a sex seller, what activities do you pay for?  (Girlfriend Experience) .281 Generally speaking, when you are with a sex seller, what activities do you pay for?  (Companionship) .274 Preferred venue, ONLY that venue .273 Generally speaking, when you are with a sex seller, what activities do you pay for?  (Conversation) .265 Have you ever worried about being victimized in some way (e.g., being robbed, assaulted, verbally abused/harassed, insulted, having your property damaged or stolen, etc.) when you are purchasing sexual services? .228 Generally speaking, when you are with a sex seller, what activities do you pay for?  (Giving oral sex to the sex worker) .204 If you ever did witness a sex worker being victimized in any way how likely would you be to do something about it? .158 If you ever suspected sex worker was being victimized in any way how likely would you be to do something about it? .137 In-Call Venue experience over time and recently within 12 months.  .127 How often do you use sexual safety precautions such as condoms, female condoms, dental dams or medical gloves when you are with a sex seller? .126 If I asked a sex seller not to use a condom, he or she would get angry .123 If you ever did witness a person purchasing sex being victimized in any way how likely would you be to do something about it? .121 Escort Venue experience over time and recently within 12 months.  .118 STREET Venue experience over time and recently within 12 months.  .107 Generally speaking, when you are with a sex seller, what activities do you pay for?  (Vaginal sex where you penetrate the sex worker) .103 What is your occupation? National Occupation Classification NOC .100 Dimension 3  Preferred venue, ONLY that venue .241 My friends and family would see my sex buying as a sign of personal failure. .240 If my close friends knew I had purchased sexual services, they wouldn’t trust me as much. .221 Most people I know would think less of me if they knew I had purchased sexual services. .218  213 My friends would willingly accept me if they knew I had purchased sexual services. .196 Massage Venue experience over time and recently within 12 months.  .181 Generally speaking, when you are with a sex seller, what activities do you pay for?  (Anal sex where you penetrate the sex worker) .122 Generally speaking, when you are with a sex seller, what activities do you pay for?  (Massage) .121 If you ever did witness a sex worker being victimized in any way how likely would you be to do something about it? .115 Generally speaking, when you are with a sex seller, what activities do you pay for?  (Masturbation or Hand Job) .107 What is current relationship status?  .094 Out-Call Venue experience over time and recently within 12 months.  .092 If you ever suspected sex worker was being victimized in any way how likely would you be to do something about it? .090 What is the highest level of education that you have completed? .087 Dimension 4  What is your age? .355 Most people I know would think less of me if they knew I had purchased sexual services. .250 My friends and family would see my sex buying as a sign of personal failure. .243 Generally speaking, when you are with a sex seller, what activities do you pay for?  (Vaginal sex where you penetrate the sex worker) .205 My friends would willingly accept me if they knew I had purchased sexual services. .174 What is current relationship status?  .167 What is your occupation?  .166 If my close friends knew I had purchased sexual services they wouldn’t trust me as much. .137 How often do you use sexual safety precautions such as condoms, female condoms, dental dams or medical gloves when you are with a sex seller? .118 What was your personal income (before taxes) from all sources in 2011? .112   

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0375843/manifest

Comment

Related Items