Sex, work, and masculinity : a comparative sociological analysis of male-male sex workers in Hong Kong and mainland China

Abstract

This study compares and analyzes the construction of male identity by male-male sex workers in Hong Kong and Mainland China (or ‘Go-go-zai’ in Hong Kong and ‘Money Boy’ in Mainland China, from the local parlances). Informed by a qualitative research approach, this study is based on thirty in-depth interviews with Go-go-zai (n=15) and Money Boy (n=15) conducted between 2014 and 2017. Situated in both Western and local male sex work literature, this study argues that a more thorough account of gender, which analyzes the transitions in one’s life course and the specificities in one’s work and personal lives, is needed to understand men’s involvement in male sex work. Drawing on two sociological theories–the notions of ‘masculinity’ and ‘individualization’, this study thereby formulates a gender-centered conceptual framework and employs a comparative analytical model to examine the making of ‘man’ by Go-go-zai and Money Boy. Three major aspects of these men’s gendered life are discussed, namely their sex work trajectory, occupational practices and familial/intimate practices.

Instead of viewing the construction of ‘man’ as an essence or fixed role but a ‘self-reflexive gender project’, this study argues that men’s engagement in sex work should be understood as the reconfigurations of one’s “experimental life” as a man under the social transformations in Hong Kong and Mainland China. For sex work trajectory, this study identifies the changing life-situations to define one’s male identity throughout his life course. While male-male sex work offers Go-go-zai and Money Boy an opportunity to resolve a ‘masculinity crisis’ prior to their entry, new alternatives and constraints emerge following their entry to the job, which shape their continuance of engagement. For occupational practices, this study discusses these men’s work sphere by focusing on their construction of masculinities at workplace. It is argued that male-male sex work has cultivated an embattled environment to claim one’s manhood, whereas nuanced versions of occupational masculinity are performed by Go-go-zai and Money Boy, namely ‘Craftsmanship masculinity’ and ‘Guerrilla masculinity’, which allow these men to realign themselves with the mainstream hegemonic masculine discourse. For familial/intimate practices, this study reveals these men’s personal life by addressing their doing of masculine practices in their family and intimate relationship. It is argued that a conflict of interest is resulted between the heterosexual family norms and personal aspirations, whereas Go-go-zai and Money Boy adopt different patterns of filial and conjugal masculinities to achieve a balance through their sex work experience. Based on these three aspects of their gendered lives, this study concludes that Go-go-zai and Money Boy often attempt to live an ‘ordinary’ life as a man in the mainstream society while they have derived different gender strategies to respond to the ‘varieties’ of individualization process in Hong Kong and Mainland China. This study contributes to the discussion of male sex work by illuminating a gender-centered perspective in examining the experience of male-male sex workers. It also enriches our understanding on men’s contemporary lives, especially working-class men, and nuances of the individualization process in the two Chinese societies nowadays.