Sex Markets and the City
This article is only a portion of the full article. If you are already a premium subscriber please login. If you are not a premium subscriber, please subscribe for access to all of our content.

Laumann et al. posit the existence of a “sex market,” which is the spatial and cultural arena in which individuals search for sex partners. The sex market differs from the “sexual marketplace,” which is an actual location one goes to in order to find a sex partner, such as a bar or a public park. The authors identify two main types of sexual relationships: the “transactional,” which are one-time encounters, and the “relational,” which are longer-term dating relationships. They present a structural theory of sex markets, which they see as embedded in a wider cultural fabric that includes social networks, institutions, and social spaces. These factors constrain the choices that individuals are able to make regarding their sexuality. For example, the culture of machismo in Latino communities limits the degree to which Latino men are able to be openly gay. Those who do choose to come out are often forced to take on the identity of the queen or the more passive role in sexual exchanges.

While the majority of The Sexual Organization of the City is concerned with the choices made by heterosexuals, one chapter in particular is of interest to gay and lesbian readers. Stephen Ellingson and Kirby Schroeder, in a chapter titled “Race and the Construction of Same-Sex Markets in Four Chicago Neighborhoods,” argue that male same-sex markets (MSSMs) tend to be transactional while female same-sex markets (FSSMs) tend to be relational. For anyone who has been to a gay bar or heard the lesbian U-Haul joke, these findings are less than surprising. In addition, Ellingson and Schroeder find that the gay community itself is the primary agent responsible for shaping and constraining the same-sex markets. If once there were outside institutions such as church and family that constrained sexual behavior, today it is the culture of the gay community that pressures participants to conform to specific identities, such as butch or femme, and to follow particular behavior patterns when active in these markets.

Chsls results show that the out gay community in Chicago is overwhelmingly white, and that gay people of color are consequently forced to resort to private house parties and social networks to meet partners. Ellingson and Schroeder argue that there are relatively impermeable boundaries between whites and nonwhites in the same-sex markets of Chicago, and that crossing those boundaries often means subordinating one’s racial or ethnic identity to one’s gay identity, which is seen as “pegged to white experience and expectations.” Unfortunately, Ellingson and Schroeder fail to unpack what they mean by “white experience and expectations,” an omission that has the effect of oversimplifying the cultural meaning of whiteness.

Although the economic and sociological approach to studying sex markets has yielded some interesting data, the authors acknowledge that it has its limitations. This approach, which is based in statistical analyses of responses to survey questions, does not easily incorporate less quantifiable factors, such as morals, values, and individual life histories, into the study of sex markets; and it does not easily incorporate sexual violence or a complex theory of human agency. These limitations are particularly apparent when it comes to understanding the same-sex markets in Chicago. Although Ellingson and Schroeder do a good job of outlining the shape of the male same-sex market—which often does resemble a “market” in the more economic sense—their analysis of the female same-sex market is particularly superficial. This is probably because the lesbian community is less overt about its sexuality than the gay male community, partially because it is forced underground due to lack of public space, but also due to cultural expectations about women’s expression of sexuality that persist despite the sexual revolution and Sex and the City. This is a situation that calls for a more ethnographic approach, which enables the researcher to spend more time with informants, thus getting to know them and their cultural group more thoroughly.  Of course, this approach would yield a different kind of data—more of an intimate portrait than the bird’s eye view of this study.

One of this book’s main conclusions is that the impact of institutions on sexuality is more limited than would be predicted by the followers of Michel Foucault. The authors’ contend that institutions such as the church and the state (via public health programs) have less control over sexuality today, not more, because individuals are increasingly alienated from these institutions. Instead, people are now more likely to be acculturated into the cultural norms of their group’s sex markets, such as those of the gay community. It would be interesting for future studies to delve more deeply into the institutional aspects of the gay community (not to mention whether or not there is one “gay community”) that constrain sexual choices for participants in those sex markets. The Sexual Organization of the City provides a good entry point for further study into such markets but doubtless will not be the final word.

Malinda Lo, a freelance writer living in San Francisco, is the assistant editor for AfterEllen.com.