When the folks promoting this DVD, a re-release, got in touch, I couldn't resist taking a look at their film: Private Practices: The Story of a Sex Surrogate. It was originally released in 1985 and directed by Kirby Dick, the same guy who did This Film is Not Yet Rated.
It's about what it sounds like--turns out that there is a field within sex therapy, in which trained practitioners try to help their clients get over sexual anxiety and disorders by literally having sex with them. The film follows one of these therapists, Maureen Sullivan, as she rehabs two very different men, 25-year-old Kipper, a virgin grad student, and 45-year-old John, a newly divorced fella with a lot of insecurity to battle.
I felt so torn while watching this highly provocative film. On the one hand, I can understand why this form of therapy exists. Americans are so hung up on sex, but rarely deal with it in a straight-forward open way. This approach feels very European--it's sex, so what, get over it.
On the other hand, it all felt rather creepy too. Sullivan creates real relationships with her clients, as do all good therapists, but I wonder how much their experiences with her actually translate into the real world. She has to have sex with them, after all. She has to pretend that she enjoyed it and enjoys being around them. The real world is a far messier place, where your sexual partner has his or her own nexus of desires, anxieties, and moods to contend with. Sullivan is like a blank slate sexual partner. I hope these guys don't go out after their experiences with her expecting other women to be as singularly focused or servile (I mean, she is being paid).
And apparently this practice is very much alive and well. I uncovered a 2003 article in New York Magazine on sex surrogacy and lots of websites offering it up. Anyone else know any good feminist analysis on this phenomena?
If you want a dose of super 80s fashion inspiration and a glimpse into a thought-provoking and bizarre subculture, check it out on Netflix.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sex Surrogacy. Who knew? .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12572
This is a gross violation of ethical principles surrounding the client - therapist relationship. As someone in training to be a psychologist, I find this dangerous. Quite simply it is taking advantage of that client - therapist bond.
Word..I haven't seen the movie or anything, but the concept creeps me out. Will another form of therapy address "anger issues" where the client gets to stab the therapist to get over his insecurity?
Feminista_84, a sex therapist is not a psychologist. A sex therapist is a sex therapist. Having sex with your sex therapist no more implies that you must have sex with your psychologist than getting a melanoma evaluation at the dermatologist implies that you must strip down and let your psychologist examine you naked. Further, clients are not required to have sex with a sex therapist, although that is the point of seeing one. Going to a sex therapist and not having sex would be like going to a dentist and refusing to open your mouth - or like going to a psychologist and refusing to speak.
Going to a sex therapist and not having sex would be like going to a dentist and refusing to open your mouth - or like going to a psychologist and refusing to speak.
Wait, what????
I think you simply must be mistaken. Perhaps there is a handful of therapists who utilize this technique, but I cannot for one minute believe that is what sex therapists are FOR. I have certainly heard plenty about sex therapists in the past, and even sex classes -- but this???? NOTHING like anything I have ever heard about, and yet you seem to be suggesting not only is it common, it is the definition of a sex therapist. I call bullshit.
Did you even read the article? It's obvious that's he's not talking about all therapists that specialize in sex, but the subset that this article is about.
"turns out that there is a field within sex therapy, in which trained practitioners try to help their clients get over sexual anxiety and disorders by literally having sex with them."
Did you even read the comment? If Frumious meant a SUBSET of sex therapists, /she could have and should have said so. S/he did not, but instead simply said "sex therapists." The reference was a comparison of sex therapists to psychologists, which makes it sound like a comparison of two different fields of work and NOT like a discussion of a particular subset.
Not to be a hardass, but what 'he' are you referring to? This post was written by Courtney, a female. The NY Mag article Courtney links to was written by Amy Sohn, a female. To my knowledge, the commenter The Law Fairy was responding to, Frumious B (please correct me if I'm wrong), is a female. Maybe you should be more careful with and aware of your pronouns on a feminist site, rather than defaulting to a male one.
I was referring to frumious, my apologies.
Actually, after further reflection, fuck it, apology retracted... I feel no remorse about using 'he' as the singular pronoun when the gender is unknown, as it happens to be the least awkward and shortest way, but that's a discussion for another thread.
Are you joking? You don't see how using a gender-specific pronoun that happens to include only the dominant gender– male- is sexist? It really would have killed you to reword your sentence and use 'they'? Or to type a measly two extra letters and write 's/he'? Hell, 'ze' is the same amount of letters as 'he.' Fuck it is right!
"It really would have killed you to reword your sentence and use 'they'?"
That's the main thing that prompted me to change my mind... I know the shift has been going for 'they' to be the more acceptable word to use in the situation, but it just feels too wrong for me to use it at the time being... and that would be awesome if 'ze' were a word with that meaning.
She has to pretend that she enjoyed it and enjoys being around them.
Does she? I mean, your psychologist and your dermatologist don't have to pretend they enjoyed treating you.
News flash: it's SEX. I would hardly compare having SEX with your client to treating your client's teeth or listening to your client's problems.
Word. It cracks me up how some folks love to compare sex to mundane services such as cleaning teeth, until the conversation flips to the psychological ramifications of people not getting sex or not getting enough of it. Then, all of the sudden sex is this universally shared human need intertwined with all of the complexities of life...
why? ok, for you, there's more emotion there, but you're not the whole world. for some people, sex really is like any other job.
It can be either or both. It doesn't always have to be either filled with emotion or as "mundane" as cleaning your teeth. Personally, I've had plenty of passionate sex and I've had plenty of dispassionate sex; I've had sex so good it made me cry or made me feel healed emotionally, and I've had sex that did what I needed it to do: give me the physical release of an orgasm.
Does anyone have any information on why this is not considered prostitution? She is having sex for money? [For the record, I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with prostitution or sexual surrogacy, I just don't understand what the difference is.]
There have been a couple of court cases related to it. Some sex therapists are ultimately charged with prostitution. They end up showing that they keep patient files and treat the person as a therapy client rather than a john. Some have not been successful, however, because I think it is such a fine line.
Porn stars have sex for money too, and they get to bypass the "prostitute" label. I imagine the reasoning is similar.
I don't understand the difference, either, except that the so-called sex surrogate is expected to have more formal education than the so-called prostitute.
And, this is anecdotal, but when I asked a girlfriend of mine (who's a practicing sex therapist, and saw said film) about whether or not sex surrogacy is standard practice in her field, she replied that while some therapists employ (mostly female) surrogates for their (male) clients, "sex therapists [themselves] are simply psychotherapists who focus on sex-related issues, not glorified hookers".
oh please, somebody just wants a "valid" excuse to make money while having sex with random people. Nothing's wrong with that, but don't pretend otherwise.
Seems like it might be a way to reclaim the role of the sacred prostitute. I do wonder how this doesn't get prosecuted as sex for money though.
I've got to say that as someone with a sexual dysfunction I find a lot of the above comments disturbing.
In the past, all sex therapy I have read about had the objective of improving the patient's sex life with hir partner. It seems odd to improve someone's sex life by having sex with them and not working out the emotional, intellectual, and physical problems hir might be having with a person hir is actually emotionally attached to.
However, I see nothing wrong with two adults having consensual sex whether money is involved or not. Maybe this alternative type of therapy really could help people with no other options.
But let's hope this isn't a women-dominated field that works to heal the sexual lives of men. Where are the male therapists? Straight women are sexual beings too and I think people of every gender should have an equal opportunity for therapy so it doesn't become as sexist as the field of sex work.
there are men who do this for women. I don't know what the stats are, but I have seen a detailed article about at least one. and honestly why do you assume that this would be a substitute for talking about the relationship with the partner? in the article above, they were both used, depending on the goal of the treatment.
In at least some cases the therapy is for people who don't currently have a partner, and part of the goal is to help them gain the confidence to go out and find someone.
I don't have any immediate problem with sexual surrogacy in general and can envision it being something potentially very helpful and healthy, when done right, but regarding this particular therapist/movie:
She has to have sex with them, after all. She has to pretend that she enjoyed it and enjoys being around them.
That's what creeps me out, and that's also probably what's at the core of the complaints of people who would say that this is basically prostitution framed so as to be legally murky (although, that's a whole other can of worms that I'm going to leave alone for now). Anyway, is this really true? It doesn't seem very therapeutic to me if this is really the way it is. The healthy version I can envision involves sexual acts only as one element of a more complex professional relationship, where the sex stuff is done to explicitly teach something particular or work through some particular fear and so on, not the sex therapist being "a blank slate sexual partner."
(fwiw, I don't think anyone trying to "reclaim the role of the sacred prostitute," as tiggrrl said, should have the "pretend that she enjoyed it" approach either...)
I just find it interesting that these men, "a 25-year-old virgin and a divorced man with low self-esteem", with their dysfunctions, came to agree to opening up, being naked, and engaging in sexual activities in front of the camera for anyone to see. Doubly therapeutic?
On a second read-through -- I wonder how much about this field is different now, given that the movie was made almost 25 years ago?
(And how much of it will be portrayed differently by a 'documentary' crew?)
this reminds me of a movie i recently rented called Bliss(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118742/). i was just renting anything that sheryl lee had been in (as a big twin peaks and david lynch fan) and didn't expect much from this film that was described as a "soft porn" about a woman going to a sex therapist because she couldn't orgasm. i was actually surprised to find it to be quite sensitively and tastefully made and it did not tie things up in a neat little bow once she orgasmed like i was afraid of. unfortunatly the male characters are the focus of the film and way more developed than sheryl lee's character - despite her mental and sexual health being the focus of the film, and there is a healthy dose of fuzzy movie psychology, but it has some moments that are pretty progressive and a satisfying ending. now i'm interested in checking out this documentory to see how it compares and contrasts.
I'm kind of sick of the idea that it's weird and uptight to not think of sex as "just sex". Sex for most humans is a lot more complex than that.
it's not wrong and uptight, but it is not universal. It's also not at all f-ing universal for women but not for men(though that's a different rant). Nothing is wrong with you if you say that you want sex to involve more emotions than that, and not use this kind of sex therapist, or have casual sex. Nothing is wrong with someone else who doesn't want/need that many emotions involved and does use this kind of sex therapist. Nothing is wrong with telling partner A that you couldn't do casual sex with them, it's full emotions or nothing then telling partner B that you will do casual sex with them. Every set of partners/circumstances are different.
Wow, I am incredibly offended by everyone's response to this. Especially on behalf of agoodshinkickin.
Courtney, you say that you watched this movie, but were you paying actually paying attention? I fear for your understanding of therapy on a basic level. Therapists do NOT pretend to care about their clients, they actually DO care otherwise they would not BE therapists. Of course they're human and there are bad therapists just like there are bad plumbers.
Sexual surrogacy is very important and it is not prostitution. People above seem to be very ignorant about this. A very basic explanation may be found on wikipedia:
A sex surrogate is a member of a sex therapy team who engages in intimate physical or sexual relations with a patient in order to achieve a therapeutic goal. The practice was introduced by Masters and Johnson with their work on Human Sexual Inadequacy in 1970.
Most surrogates are women, a few are men, and there are married couples that practice surrogacy together. Some surrogates work at counseling centers while others have their own office. Some surrogates offer additional services besides surrogacy such as telephone counseling or sexological bodywork.
The majority of surrogates have professional certification in the fields of sexuality, psychology or counseling. This allows them to work closely with psychiatrists, psychologists, sexologists and other therapists in the best interests of the patient.
Sex surrogates use a combination of three techniques — talking, listening and demonstration — to help resolve a patient's sexual problems.
Patients frequently present these specific problems:
1. Trouble with intimacy
2. Lack of confidence
3. Communication problems
4. Dating anxiety
5. Sexual inhibitions.
6. Erectile dysfunction
7. Premature ejaculation
8. Diseases that cause painful intercourse.
There are people who have experienced a change in sexual lifestyle due to an acquired disability (accident, paralysis, disease, trauma), and a surrogate can help them explore and develop sexual potential. The causes of sexual dysfunction are numerous and the methods a surrogate might use to help improve sexual function are varied.
Since many sexual problems are psychological rather than physical, communication plays a key role in the therapeutic process between a patient and the sex surrogate, as well as between the surrogate and the therapist.
Surrogates offer therapeutic exercises to help the patient. These may include relaxation techniques, intimate communication, teaching social skills, and some sexual touching.
I'm pretty sure prostitutes don't work WITH a group of therapists to help their clients.
This, this!!
I'm a massage therapist; in my line of therapy we don't have sex with our clients and can still choose to not work with one based on any number of reasons. There is no HAVE to work with someone in therapy. Personal reasons, professional reasons, all can inhibit the theraputic relationship and be cause for a cessation of therapy or a recommendation to another therapist.
Care is very, very much a factor in any client/therapist relationship, and sex therapists do not violate that relationship simply by performing their therapy. A massage therapist or psychologist would be in violation of that relationship for sleeping with a client, but a sex therapist very much wouldn't. Its an incredibly vital form of therapy; the sexual psyche is a large part of who we are as human being, and sexual dysfunction can reflect on our lives and those of our family and friends' lives just as much as depression can.
Heartily agreed.
Perhaps it was the movie's portrayal, I haven't seen it so I can't say, but Courtney's critique did seem to draw heavy comparisons between sex surrogacy and prostitution.
Having a close friend who has been through this first hand, I can say that it is very important work that is so beneficial for the patients. I really don't think prostitution can provide those kind of results.
Thanks for this response, since it really adds to the conversation.
An honest question (for you or anyone who feels like they can answer it): Isn't part of the problem the idea that there is "sexual dysfunction" in the first place? I mean, I would consider something like pedophilia or necrophilia to be a sexual dysfunction but not something like being unable to orgasm or keep an erection - I think those are more common than our virile young sex-obsessed culture would like to admit. Doesn't everyone have different ways of acting out their sexual selves, ways that shouldn't automatically be considered "dysfunction"? Or am I missing something?
"An honest question (for you or anyone who feels like they can answer it): Isn't part of the problem the idea that there is "sexual dysfunction" in the first place? I mean, I would consider something like pedophilia or necrophilia to be a sexual dysfunction but not something like being unable to orgasm or keep an erection"
Umm... I don't understand this comment.
Why would not being able to orgasm or keep an erection NOT be a sexual dysfunction? That seems like the very definition of it to me. Just because they are common issues doesn't mean they aren't dysfunctions. Am I missing something?
Well, we act like the only possible way for a sexual part to "function" is to do something. But having that part do nothing is as normal and natural and predictable as having it do something, so why do we automatically call it doing nothing "dysfunction"?
It's like the idea that all women will have an orgasm from PIV sex. For a long time in the past, and for many people still, women who don't or can't come from PIV sex are considered "dysfunctional". But as I think we all know, that doesn't mean there is actually something wrong with her - she might be experiencing a sexual dysfunction or maybe it's the concept itself that she should be able to orgasm from PIV sex that is the real dysfunction.
I'm specifically thinking of a guy I used to be friends with who had had a botched circumcision. Though we weren't ever sexual with each other at all, he talked to me about it sometimes and his biggest problem was that he couldn't find a partner who would treat the rest of his body besides his penis as erogenous zones. Because our society has this weird concept that men's pleasure is focused almost exclusively in their penises, but his largely wasn't, he couldn't find a partner who could satisfy him sexually. That didn't mean, though, that his penis wasn't "functional" - it still "worked" just fine, according to him. The dysfunction was in the lack of comprehension of the women he had been with that his sexual focus was on other parts of his body.
Yes but surely if someone wants to seek treatment for something like that - whats wrong with that? Sex is also for procreation remember, so I'd say it's pretty important overall to most people.
Where did I say there was something wrong with the person for seeking help with something that s/he considers a problem?
sorry--I meant to hit reply instead of "liked."
Not orgasming from PIV sex is not comparable to a real dysfuction. There are physiological reasons why most women do not orgasm from PIV sex. The real dysfunction comes from when she is unable to orgasm at all. Also, we only call it a dysfuntion if it has been going on for some period of time, and if it is causing the person some amount of distress. The people who go to therapist don't go so they can be told they're healthy--they go because there's something that they feel is wrong. This has nothing to do with whether the therapist thinks not orgasming, for example, is normal or not, but with how much it is interfering with the client's life. You have to have both personal distress and a time period of that distress/disorder/dysfuction to get any sort of disgnosis within the field of psychology or counseling. Dysfunction may not be the best term for it, granted, but a label really does help most people cope with their problem. How do you feel when you go to the doctor and s/he says they have no idea what's wrong with you? You, and I, and most people, need that diagnosis so that we can make our problem more concrete and start to deal with it in a more construtive manner.
That's a really good point, beth. I hadn't thought of it like that. Thanks.
I'm going to take a stab at answering this, but I'm certainly not an expert on the subject :)
I don't think the term is being used in the sense of your botched circumcision example -- the fact that he said it worked just fine means it wasn't dysfunctional. Even if there's scar tissue, its still a perfectly good penis. :)
The sense of dysfunction I've been taking away from the conversation is something like an inability to orgasm, whether or not through physical nerve dysfunction or an emotional blockage. Sex therapy can help determine what the issue is; if the nerves physically don't work, they can refer to a doctor, but in the case of emotional blockages, inexperience, lack of exploration, etc. sex therapy can help.
The reason dysfunction is being used as "something not doing something" is because sexual organs are capable of doing these things. I don't mean someone being asexual, that's perfectly fine. For example, erectile dysfunction. The penis is meant to be able to get increased bloodflow to hold an erection; it can be a physical or emotional problem preventing it, but either way, it is outside the "norm". (I really hate the word normal, but I'm not sure what to use in its place. Apologies =/)
Ultimately, that person's erectile dysfunction is dysfunction by text book example, but whether or not its truly dysfunctional (in my opinion) is up to the person who has it. One man who struggles to get an erection may be perfectly okay with it while another isn't, and the sex therapist would be there to aid the person who wasn't.
Just about everything is subjective and relative, but in terms of therapy its generally safe when describing a condition to use textbook definitions of dysfunction. However, when talking to a client, that's when it may or may not be a dysfunction, depending on their lives, who they are, everything.
This was much longer than I intended. o.O I hope it helped and was clear, haha.
Yeah, that does make a lot of sense. Thank you.
I definitely prefer the idea that it is ultimately the person who's body parts they are who gets to decide whether it is "dysfunctional" or not. I just hate to see the kind of pressure that is put on people to try to be "normal", to think of themselves as having something wrong with them, when "normal" is really such a wide range of different possibilities. And like any other question about these things, I wonder where society's pressure ends and the individual's own beliefs begin (if we can even know that).
Its really true. As an LMP, I tend to adopt the attitude of "If they're fine with it, I'm fine with it." Its of course easier for me to do that because I'm far from being a doctor, but I mean... if I have a client with scoliosis who is happy with their spine and body's adjustment to it, is pain free, or doesn't want me to work on it, who am I to judge their condition dysfunctional because its "abnormal"? My job is to help make quality of life better, as is all therapist's, really; but quality of life is determined by the human being in front of you, not a book.
Did you even read my post? "Sullivan creates real relationships with her clients, as do all good therapists"
Yes Courtney, I read and re-read your post MANY time. But you contradict yourself here. You may SAY that the therapists relationships are real. But you immediately retract it with this remark: "She has to pretend that she enjoyed it and enjoys being around them."
That is not how ANY kind of therapy works. It isn't pretending. I also find your comment about sexual surrogacy being a "bizarre subculture" very insensitive. Especially coming from a liberal feminist blog that discusses issues of gender and sexuality so much. Would you use this type of language if you were discussing Transgender people and their sexuality?
What salymander said.
In my own words, I am a bit shocked by the comments above. As for the main entry, perhaps Courtney found it disturbing because it was a woman who was the sex surrogate and an immediate parallel to an escort is somehow attained when lines are blurred.
I do wonder what Courtney would think about a man being the sex surrogate?
Society considers birth a personal and spiritual event too (as it instructs sex to be). Doesn't stop people from hiring surrogate mothers (whatever their reasons may be). When that isn't a problem, why is this?
Also, this reminds me of an Irving Wallace book I had read that dealt with sex therapists. Forgot the name unfortunately.
-anin
I will point out that lots of people have problems with birth surrogates.
I ask with genuine curiosity, are these the same people who have problems with sex surrogates? In other words, are their reasons the same?
-anin
I think it would be so much easier to take this seriously if it weren't nearly all women therapists treating heterosexual men. Do women not have sexual issues? Or gay men? Or lesbians?
well, I have seen articles about a male who does this for women. So they do exist. Now, there's a good point to be made about who was included in the movie, but that doesn't mean no other permutations exist. I can't really say about gay or lesbian therapists.
I share this concern. The fact that a handful of men in this line of work exist, compared to significantly more women, bothers me immensely. If anything, my experience has been (based on communications with friends and my own personal sexual experience) that straight women often tend to need more help achieving a satisfying sex life than do straight men. Logically, then, if this profession equitably reflected needs being met, there should be a lot more MALE therapists out there. That there aren't makes me question the legitimacy of the practice to some extent. This is NOT to say that it is inherently illegitimate, or that sex surrogates are dressed-up prostitutes, or anything remotely like that. Just that I wonder how healthy a sex-related profession can be when it is so obviously steeped in a sexist culture, without making apologies or attempting to correct for that fact.
I suspect alot of men would love to go into this field, but that the demand is low.
The demand for male prostitutes is alot less for for female prostitutes... so I would assume for the same reasons as that that alot of women might not be into this either.
Then again personally... were I not married and in need of this, I might consider it!
See, but I think that's exactly the problem. If this is NOT like prostitution, then there SHOULD be more demand for male therapists. The fact that this world appears to mirror that of prostitution is what concerns me.
Same disclaimers about not saying it IS prostitution, etc., etc., etc.
This might be a case of dealing with the sexist pressures for men, though. Men in our society are often expected to perform sexually on demand because, you know, "men are all horny beasts who only ever think about sex and can't control themselves". (*eye roll*) If they don't live up to this expectation, their masculinity comes into question and that is, from what I can tell, the ultimate insult to a man.
On the other side of the coin, women have to deal with this expectation too but the response is a little bit different since there is the old stereotype of the sexually frigid woman that doesn't deny her her gender (or sex, depending on how you want to look at it) even if it is damaging in other ways.
So in that way, it makes some sense that there would be more men seeking help in the sexual arena than women. I'm not saying this is the reason for sure, but I would consider it a strong possibility.
Fair enough, wax ghost, but there's also the sexist pressure for men not to admit to anyone, least of all themselves, that they are having problems being sexually satisfied. In that cultural paradigm, prostitution is acceptable but sex therapy is most definitely not. So I would think the same kinds of pressures that make women reluctant to see a sex therapist would have a similar effect on men. It's the fact that you only seem to see one side of that -- the sexist pressure effect on women -- that makes me wary.
That's true. But I can see the need to be good in bed outweighing the taboo against admitting to any "weaknesses" for some men.
I don't think we'll ever know without a serious study.
And even if the need to be a stud is the reason, that doesn't erase the potential for oppression/exploitation of women, of course.
but there's also the sexist pressure for men not to admit to anyone, least of all themselves, that they are having problems being sexually satisfied. In that cultural paradigm, prostitution is acceptable but sex therapy is most definitely not.
There may be sexist pressure for men to not admit to anyone else, not even to their best friends, that they are having problembs being sexually satisfried, but the sexist pressure that waxghost mentioned, that men are judged as men by their sexual capabilities (being a good lover in bed) and their sexual appetites (ready to have sex any time, any place), tends to overrule the first. And unlike waxghost, who specifically mentions "from what I can tell", I am a man and, though not being American, might give me more insight into the male mind.
I mean afterall, if your whole life, society has told you that you want sex 24/7, men will be men, and that your sexual capabilities and libido is one aspect that makes you a "man", do you not think that it would be reasonable to assume that sex(as in the act), makes up more of a man's identity than it would be for a woman? And if it is reasonable to assume that sex makes up a significant portion of a man's identity, would it not be reasonable to assume that if something threatens that portion of his identity (erectile dysfunction, not being easily satisfied, problems with intimacy during sex, etc), the one thing that makes him "a man" as sold to him by society, that he would one to get help with that? Is it f_ked up that a man would tie so much of his identity down to sex? Sure, just as it is bad that society make women tie so much of their identity down to how they look and connect with others.
Also,one cannot make the assumption that because a man feels inadequate and not satisfied that he would prefer to go to a prostitute rather than a sex therapist/sex surrogate. Is our image of men so faulty, so laden with stereotypes, that we assume that men would rather go to prostitutes than a therapist/surrogate? There are men out there, YES they exist!, that would never think about going to a prostitute, and might actually care to visit a sex therapist/surrogate to try and improve his sex life.
The above definitely ties in with what waxghost said that if men can't perform/have sex problems/don't like sex this goes AGAINST what Men are supposed to be like (masculine), while for women, not enjoying sex/having sex problems does not threaten her feminity in such a manner, because the stereotype is "Women don't reallyy like sex...." (which is f'ed up as well).
This then may provide a reason as to why women might not seek sex therapist/sex surrogates because if sex (the act) does not form as much of a woman's identity as it does for a man, then wouldn't it then be reasonable to assume that most women (who are brainwashed by society with the message that women just don't enjoy sex as much as men) who can't find happiness in sex just think "Meh, it's only sex. The most important thing is the relationship" ? Afterall, I'm sure how we see in popular culture all the time that women are the ones who initiate couples therapy, because society tells that having relationships are what women enjoy and is important for the well-being of women. Could it be that this has caused them to place a lower emphasis on sexual problems as they have acknowledged the meme that "women don't enjoy sex as much as men" ?
Add to that most women are cautious of men. Would this not extend to a woman who might be thinking of a male sex therapist/surrogate? She might be thinking, Can I trust him to be professional, What if he loses control, etc. In a culture that glorifies rape and where we teach our children that "men will be men", having such thoughts would only be prudent. This notion would certainly be less of a concern with men, who believe that they can overpower the female sex therapist/surrogate should anything happen.
If men can get Viagra to solve problems with EDS, where erections are seen as VERY important for a sex culture that sees sex as PIV sex, would it not be reasonable to assume that men would do anything to improve their sexual performance, to be gods in their bedrooms, where their performances are often translated into being a good lover/or a bad lover. Afterall, this culture constantly laughs at the notion that men can't satisfy women (ie. can't find the clitoris, premature ejaculation, goes to bed after sex, etc...these are All humour points made in mainstream movies), so therefore, being a "good lover" in bed increases the desirability of a man in bed ("Finally! A man who actually knows what he's doing!). Would it not be reasonable to assume that this might affect how men view their own performance (good, inadequate, bad, etc)?
I think another reason why more men might go to a sex therapist/sex surrogate is due to problems of intimacy. It is no surprise that men have more problems with intimacy than women; afterall, Aspegers' and autism strike more men than women. That and a culture where "Bro-mances" and close friendship among men are made fun of, and the widely-held selfbelief of quite a handful of men that displaying feelings of intimacy show weakness, show reliance on another human being. Even on this blog people sometimes make jokes about men that never meet a real woman (nerds, guys who live in the basement in their parent's house playing WArcraft and computer games 24/7, etc)....it does seem that problems of connecting with other people, of being intimate with another human being, seem to strike men more than women.
In my opinion, I think these are some plausible reasons as to why there might be more men seeing female sex therapists/sex surrogates than vice versa.
My psychologist friend reminded me that it is also important to note that sex surrogacy is not JUST about sex. It is about basic human contact. We're talking about people who have been raped, people who were abused, people with phobias, and people who are disabled. In many cases, the sexual surrogate is simply teaching their client to sit in on a sofa next to another person, to hold hands, and to not be afraid of (again) BASIC HUMAN CONTACT.
I haven't seen this documentary, so it's possible that in this instance sexual surrogacy was not portrayed well. But that should not color the entire spectrum of what this kind of therapy can do for people.
As a sociology grad student who studies embodiment and paid work, I find this topic just endlessly fascinating. I even find the immediate zomg!prostitute! jump fascinating. The discussion really reminds me of a lot of the work built of Hoschild's The Managed Heart about emotion work. People don't "pretend" to like clients in therapy, etc. They carefully manage their emotions to benefit the client. I see the same thing in sex surrogacy. Now I don't know much about this line of work, but I can imagine that it's not all just straight PIV take your clothes off and get busy sex. I'm sure it's very nuanced and based on exploring the body and sexuality.
Knowing people who have had sexual issues due to disability, it can be a huge barrier to intimacy because of how it can feel like a lot of baggage to bring into a new relationship. Some people unhappily avoid romantic relationships altogether for this reason. Working through it with someone who isn't there to judge you or have expectations of you, or be tangled up emotionally with you, who is knowledgable and experienced with sexual disfunction/trauma - it could be a very healthy way of getting through something.
Of course, like anything in a patriarchal culture that sexualizes and exploits women, there are potentially issues. But honestly I don't think a woman can safely pursue relationships at all in this culture without a risk of abuse/rape - don't we all navigate this all the time when choosing who we date? But that doesn't mean things are black and white, and that everything related to sex with men has to always be bad for women.
Yes, we have to consider the way sexism impacts prostitution, porn and sex work, how it causes women working in these industries to be victimized and exploited, and how this impacts the lives of women who aren't even directly involved. But that does not mean that all sex work is bad for women by any stretch. Many women who participate in sex work, esp. done within a feminist framework, find it a very empowering and positive, when it is on their terms.
On another note, My first sexual experience was rape. A few years later, I was lucky to have a male partner who had also had been raped, who worked through it with me in a way that is similar to what some sex surrogates do. Without this experience, I don't think I could have ever had healthy sexual relationships in adulthood. This type of relationship is probably not going to happen by chance for most people.
Wow that's really amazing, thank you so much for sharing your experience. I heartily concur that it takes a special kind of person to help other through traumatic sexual experiences.
I just want to make clear what sex therapy, in fact, is treating. Reading the description of the documentary, we're talking about fears of sexual inadequacy and virginity. I haven't seen the documentary either, but there is a lot to be said here about how sexism hurts men too.
This idea of sexual inadequacy morphs into new kinds of diagnosable "sexual disorders" such as premature ejaculation, retarded ejaculation (wtf?), and a bunch of other things that make men look sexually inadequate. I don't know about you, but I don't think premature ejaculation is a sexual disorder: the creation of such a disorder shows society's - and ultimately patriarchy's - inability to recognize that sex is also extremely pleasurable for men, physically and emotionally, and it allows for them to be sensitive and vulnerable (which, unfortunately, has been deemed a more "womanly" characteristic).
I can understand how the fear of being deemed sexually inadequate could literally take over a man's life, given that a man's sexual prowess is significant to a heterosexual man's socially constructed identity, but the idea that virginity is a sexual disorder?! Firstly, this is a horrible double-standard. Women virgins are a-ok! But men virgins? Something can't be right! In fact putting the words men and virgin is oxymoronic!
What makes me reconsider how legitimate sex surrogacy is is that it can easily perpetuate gender and sexual double-standards, especially if the program is targeting the "sexual disorders" I spoke about above - which are the targets of the documentary. How exactly are these sexual disorders being treated? Are these programs offering women to be subservient, and reinforce the sexist masculine ideal by letting him know that he can in fact take control of a woman without having to pay for her services? I took a look at a sex surrogacy program based in NYC. It had profiles of sex surrogates, and it creeped me out a bit. The website was full of softcore pornographic pictures of white heterosexual "couples" experiencing intimate moments, and the profiles of the surrogates gave age, which is fairly reasonable, but weight? and ethnicity? She'll at a little latina to your life? To me this says DANGER: REINFORCED WHITE MALE DOMINATION OF SEXUALITY!!!!
Nothing in the websites I found worked towards helping sexual abuse survivors creating healthy sexual relationships. Also, none of these websites target women. I'm a woman and a survivor, and I never once thought I need to purchase a man's attention to show me that healthy sex is in fact possible. But that's just perhaps too many men were already propositioning me for sex - is it me or does sex seem a lot easier to find for anyone who looks feminine? I do enjoy the idea of creating a safe space for sexual abuse survivors to take control of their own sexuality and sexual experiences, but I'm not sure a sex surrogacy program can initiate or even imitate an experience similar to what a. spoke about.
I'm not saying that I don't disagree with the idea of sex surrogacy, and I'm not arguing that I'm an expert because I've done a little online research. I'm just extremely skeptical as there are a lot of problems that can arise. Sex surrogacy looks like a slippery slope of either extreme liberation or utter perpetuation of society's sexual horrors.
I think the fact that there is a noticeable imbalance in the utilization of these services by men and women is a cause for concern; at the same time, I'm not convinced this isn't a result of general sexist social norms (i.e. that men expect more pleasure/less dysfunction from sex) rather than inherent sexism of the profession.
I think it's important to note that there are a very large number of late-life male virgins with varying pathologies. This isn't particularly surprising to me, given the "man pursues woman" template for relationships in our society--it seems that if a man were sufficiently passive it would be entirely possible to never have relationships with the opposite sex, where I'd imagine that a similarly predisposed woman would at least be occasionally approached. I suspect this is the main group of people treated by sex therapists.
Now, is that the proper use for "sex therapy"? I think probably not--the situation I'm describing here, while it has "sexual dysfunction" (being a virgin at age 45, say) as a symptom, that's not ultimately the cause of the problem (which is probably more self-confidence/social skills). But like most psychological issues, I think it's difficult at some point for the sufferer to separate cause and effect--so it's not surprising that one would try to treat the symptom rather than the cause of the disease. And it's entirely possible that, psychological issues being interconnected, it may help.
I googled around and the "training" these people receive to become certified consists of approximately a week or two of mostly exploring their own sexual make-up and activities with others in the classes combined with some book study. From having explored this before it does seem that the "coursework" is lovely sexual exploration. How it is supposed to qualify anyone to call themselves a "therapist" is beyond me.
These women are then "certified" to go out and basically...get paid to have sex. Almost all "therapists" are female and almost all "patients" are men. The sexual surrogate websites that I found on google had scantily clad "therapists" in seductive positions. Basically, they looked like escort sites that take themselves a bit too seriously. Inherently there is something skewed with that system and it reeks of male dominated society where male sexual desires/issues take forefront to anything that women might actually feel/need/desire. Just
I've never in 15 years of work in the field of psychology seen or heard of any licensed therapy practitioner of any actual degree program recommending that their clients with sexual dysfunction seek a sex surrogate. Ever.
I have no problem at all with prostitution, and firmly believe in and support sex workers. I do however take issue when prostitutes try to convince the masses they are therapists. It's not fair to the consumer in the least to set up expectations that there will be "treatment" or "cure" for sexual and intimacy dysfunctions by using sex surrogates and there is NO data to suggest such a thing.
It sounds like sex therapists vary in quality and professionalism in the same way that "nutritionists" do.
This site seems closer to what people would hope for from a professional sex therapist: certified sex surrogate & sex educator, working in conjunction with a regular therapist (and no lounging pin up photos to be found). She mentions that one of her certifications comes from the International Professional Surrogates Association. It looks like the initial course work is 60 hours of classes, followed by an internship supervised by a therapist combined with mentoring from an already certified sex surrogate. She also mentions the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality. (both organizations have websites if you want to look them up)
For contrast here's the website of another woman who's a sex surrogate who takes a very spiritual attitude to her work. I find the different approaches interesting.
Courtney: I find your analysis of this video interesting and agree on a few points. Given the situation, and reasons why this sex therapist does what she does; are there heterosexual male sex therapists and homosexual female and male sex therapists out there? Someone else might have already asked this question, but I'm also curious.
Otherwise, it's only to serve heterosexual men and I think those men (and maybe others too), should begin regular therapy if need be and then develop a real relationship with someone and go to couple's (sex) therapy. I think this would result in less of this sex therapist as being "used" and possibly move away from any lines beng crossed in terms of her mental and emotional well-being, and maybe even those of the man.
There do appear to be male sex surrogates.
Regarding your second paragraph, I gather it's common (usual?) for a patient to see a regular therapist who works in conjunction with the sex surrogate on the patient's treatment plan.
@rhowan: In his (pretty good) book "The New Male Sexuality," a bestseller several years back, the Bay Area psychologist Bernie Zilbergeld wrote that he offers sex-surrogate therapy. He teams up with a female worker to serve each client. The clientele--mainly rich men from Middle Eastern countries, he implied--pay a double fee, part to Bernie and part to the worker. Zilbergeld said that his surrogates admit that "bodywork" can be emotionally complicated and so it's better to keep it separate from the clothes-on office therapy that he does.
Sounds a bit patriarchal to me, and I suspect the male doctor's hourly rate is higher than the surrogate's!
It would be interesting to know the male/female ratio of therapists who choose to work with sex surrogates.
I'm not clear, was Zilbergeld implying that he was pimping out the sex surrogates he worked with for non-therapeutic purposes? Or was he just reflecting on the sorts of clients who are comfortable with and able to afford the services of a sex surrogate?
The issue of remuneration is definitely an interesting one, since as a society we tend to devalue physical work, and place a higher value on intellectual labour especially if higher education is required. A therapist would probably have at least a Bachelors degree, whereas becoming a sex surrogate requires much less formal education. My knee jerk reaction is to think "Well of course the person with a doctorate degree is paid more!", but that's not necessarily right given the potential physical risks and emotional rigors of sex surrogacy.
Yeah, it's really nice hearing so many people just being dead sure that sex surrogacy is prostitution. Really nice. It's like all those small-town types who are just as dead sure that massage therapists are prostitutes (the customer undresses; the therapist touches them; prostitution Q.E.D.)
And hey, it's not even a *totally* bogus conclusion to draw: during the 1970s "massage parlour" was basically a legal euphemism for "brothel." That this mistake drives actual non-sex-worker massage practitioners absolutely insane (from the community accusation, stigma, and avoidance standpoint) and puts them at risk of physical danger and professional embarrassment (from confused customers hoping for "happy endings) should *not* be "just a cost of doing business."
But please, by all means, go ahead and assume based on very little knowledge and a 1985 movie that sexual surrogates, like massage therapists, are glorified whores.
---
Let's think for a minute about the premise of this post. Hmm. Let's see. A movie maker decides to make a movie. His backers hint that they'd like to see a return on their investment. Society is a big knee-squeezing, voyeuristic, patriarchal mess. So the movie maker makes his decision to... surprise!... choose scenarios that he hopes are informative but that, necessarily, have maximum salacious value. Which would be, what? Women taking money to have sex with men with cliche dysfunctions like 40-year-old virginity and bad divorces.
Riiigght! Why don't we base *all* our assumptions on Hollywood contingencies. Did you know Vulcans can interbreed with humans? That CSI labs are all glass, chrome, and edgy lighting with multi-million dollar machines that work every time? Did you know innocent bystanders always dive out of the way in the nick of time during high-speed car chases?
Yeah, and sex surrogates are really just prostitutes with no training, really mostly women, really working mostly with men, really working with problems they should just suck up and get over, yada yada yada.
Hey, sometimes it's true. More often not.
I don't know what the state of the art in surrogacy is, but I used to know someone who did. She wasn't a sex therapist, she was (if I recall correctly) a psychiatric nurse who moonlighted on a largely volunteer basis and took what she did *very* seriously. She didn't work to "cure" erectile dysfunction, she worked with mostly men who for various reasons wanted to be able to have sex but had (mostly) psychological problems that weren't always related to sex itself but to, say, body boundary issues, PTSD. Other times the point was to overcome conditioned aversions to sexual contact, to overcome childhood sexual trauma, or to overcome issues of emotional trust. Also I'm not sure where people got the idea that surrogates only work with single men. Many patients are, or at least were, in partnerships.
And finally, it's just not the case that sexual surrogates have *actual sex* with their clients. Because unless you've *totally* drunk the coolade of "sex" meaning only PIV intercourse there are generally *quite* a few steps... and roadblocks... before you get to intercourse. Or even get *close* to intercourse.
But no, please, let's all squeeze our knees together and insist it's illegitimate, insist it violates ethics, insist therapists "pimp out" surrogates to their clients, insist it's all about patriarchy, insist that all clients are men and all surrogates are women, insist they're all heterosexual, insist clients are all unkempt shlubs who should get over it, insist (dear sweet mother of pearl!) that it's some kind of "sacred temple" revival thing, and insist it's all about Teh Intercourse because what else could something related to sex therapy *possibly* be about? Because we all feel *so* much better when we do that we don't have to actually, you know, *think* about whether it a) serves a purpose, b) meets a need, or c) might be undertaken competently, professionally, and, believe it or not, sometimes surprisingly non-salaciously.
Clue? Eight seconds with Google (try it some time) turns up lewd, suggestive code words like "These therapeutic experiences include partnerwork in relaxation, effective communication, sensual and sexual touching, and social skills training."
"Effective communication?" Nudge, nudge, eh? "Social skills training?" A wink's as good as a nod to a bloind man, say no more!
Another clue? (21 seconds with Google): "Often female clients will ask their therapists, or seek out therapists who are open to the possibility, to find a male surrogate with whom they might work. Largely because of the sexual double standard that continues to operate in many, if not most, therapists, however, most clients of surrogates continue to be male." (Admittedly that was from a 1984 paper.)
Final clue? From a 2007 post about sex therapy: "a study published earlier this year in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found surrogate therapy was significantly more effective than couples therapy alone in treating vaginismus."
Sheesh!
figleaf
Just to be clear, Courtney, I thought your post itself was a perfectly ordinary and sensibly inquiring. Sorry about totally foghorning in your comments about something I could have just posted about elsewhere.
figleaf