Online Sex Seeking: Beyond Digital Encounters

  • Chris Haywood


This chapter explores the world of online sex seekers. The chapter focuses on men who use the internet specifically to have sexual encounters. The semi-structured telephone interviews with 11 publicly identified heterosexual men highlight the difficulties of describing sexual encounters organized online as lacking emotional depth. The chapter begins by discussing the difficulties of researching online sex seekers and then explores the ways in which men understand sex seeking through risk and risk avoidance. It then highlights the issues of emotional investment and the intensity of sexual encounters experienced by these men. Finally, one of the surprising results to emerge from the data collection was the ways in which men who seek sex online tended not to want penetrative vaginal sex. In other words, this group of men that should embody classic masculine penile centred sexual subjectivity found satisfaction beyond this widely attributed characteristic of men. In conclusion, the chapter suggests that there is scope in future research to identify men’s experiences that stand outside of monogamous-focused relationships.


  1. Aboim, S. (2009). Da pluralidade dos afetos: trajetórias e orientações amorosas nas conjugalidades contemporâneas. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, 24(70), 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. (2010). ‘At Least with Cheating There Is an Attempt at Monogamy’: Cheating and Monogamism Among Undergraduate Heterosexual Men. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(7), 851–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attwood, F. (2005). Tits and Ass and Porn and Fighting’ Male Heterosexuality in Magazines for Men. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 8(1), 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Attwood, F. (2011). Sex and the Citizens: Erotic Play and the New Leisure Culture. The New Politics of Leisure and Pleasure, 82–96.Google Scholar
  5. Baudrillard, J. (1993). The Transparency of Evil: Essays on Extreme Phenomena. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  6. Bolding, G., Davis, M., Hart, G., Sherr, L., & Elford, J. (2006). Heterosexual Men and Women Who Seek Sex Through the Internet. International Journal of STD & AIDS, 17(8), 530–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braun, V., Gavey, N., & McPhillips, K. (2003). The Fair Deal’? Unpacking Accounts of Reciprocity in Heterosex. Sexualities, 6(2), 237–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks, G. R. (1995). The Centerfold Syndrome. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  9. Byers, E. S. (1996). How Well Does the Traditional Sexual Script Explain Sexual Coercion? Review of a Program of Research. In E. S. Byers & L. F. O’Sullivan (Eds.), Sexual Coercion in Dating Relationships (pp. 7–25). New York: Haworth.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, M. (2005). “Manners” Make the Man: Politeness, Chivalry, and the Construction of Masculinity, 1750–1830. Journal of British Studies, 44(2), 312–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Da Silva, T. T. (1999). The Poetics and Politics of Curriculum as Representation. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 7(1), 7–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Desroches, F. J. (1990). Tearoom Trade: A Research Update. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elder, W. B., Brooks, G. R., & Morrow, S. L. (2012). Sexual Self-schemas of Heterosexual Men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13, 166–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Epstein, M., Calzo, J. P., Smiler, A. P., & Ward, L. M. (2009). “Anything from Making Out to Having Sex”: Men’s Negotiations of Hooking Up and Friends with Benefits Scripts. Journal of Sex Research, 46(5), 414–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farvid, P. (2010). The Benefits of Ambiguity: Methodological Insights from Researching ‘Heterosexual Casual Sex’. Feminism & Psychology, 20(2), 232–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farvid P. (2011). The Social Construction of Heterosexual Casual Sex. Doctoral Thesis, The University of Auckland, Auckland.Google Scholar
  17. Farvid, P., & Braun, V. (2013). Casual Sex as ‘Not a Natural Act’ and Other Regimes of Truth About Heterosexuality. Feminism & Psychology, 23(3), 359–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foucault, M. (1992). The Use of Pleasure: The History of Sexuality, vol. Il, trans. Robert Hurley. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  19. Friday, N. (1973). My Secret Garden: Women’s Sexual Fantasies. New York, NY: Trident Press.Google Scholar
  20. Garcia, J. R., & Fisher, H. E. (2015). Why We Hook Up: Searching for Sex or Looking for Love? In S. Tarrant (Ed.), Gender, Sex, and Politics: In the Streets and Between the Sheets in the 21st Century (pp. 238–251). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Garcia, J. R., Reiber, C., Massey, S. G., & Merriwether, A. M. (2012). Sexual Hookup Culture: A Review. Review of General Psychology, 16(2), 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glimore, D. (1993). Manhood in the Making. Cultural Concepts of Masculinity. Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hughes, A. (2007). Working Class Culture, Family Life and Domestic Violence on CLYDESIDE, c1918–1939: A View from Below. International Review of Scottish Studies, 27, 60–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Illouz, E. (2012). Porque duele el amor? Una Explicación sociológica. Madrid: Katz Editores.Google Scholar
  25. Kalish, R. (2013). Masculinities and Hooking Up: Sexual Decision-Making at College. Culture, Society and Masculinities, 5(2), 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kimmel, M. (1997). Manhood in America: A Cultural History. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kjaran, J. I., & Jóhannesson, I. Á. (2016). Masculinity Strategies of Young Queer Men as Queer Capital. NORMA, 11(1), 52–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ko, N. Y., Koe, S., Lee, H. C., Yen, C. F., Ko, W. C., & Hsu, S. T. (2012). Online Sex-Seeking, Substance Use, and Risky Behaviors in Taiwan: Results from the 2010 Asia Internet MSM Sex Survey. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(5), 1273–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. LaPlante, M. N., McCormick, N., & Brannigan, G. G. (1980). Living the Sexual Script: College Students’ Views of Influence in Sexual Encounters. Journal of Sex Research, 16, 338–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levant, R. F. (1997). Nonrelational Sexuality in Men. In R. F. Levant & G. R. Brooks (Eds.), Men and Sex: New Psychological Perspectives (pp. 9–27). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  31. McFarlane, M., Bull, S. S., & Rietmeijer, C. A. (2000). The Internet as a Newly Emerging Risk Environment for Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Jama, 284(4), 443–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morrison, D. M., Masters, N. T., Wells, E. A., Casey, E., Beadnell, B., & Hoppe, M. J. (2015). “He Enjoys Giving Her Pleasure”: Diversity and Complexity in Young Men’s Sexual Scripts. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(3), 655–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pelúcio, L. (2015). Unfaithful Narratives: Methodological and Affective Notes About Experiences of Masculinity in a Dating Website for Married People. Cadernos Pagu, 44, 31–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Philaretou, A. G., & Allen, K. R. (2003). Macro and Micro Dynamics of Male Sexual Anxiety: Theory and Intervention. International Journal of Men’s Health, 2(3), 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1989). Young Singles’ Scripts for a First Date. Gender & Society, 3, 258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young Singles’ Contemporary Dating Scripts. Sex Roles, 28, 499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sevcikova, A., & Daneback, K. (2011). Anyone Who Wants Sex? Seeking Sex Partners on Sex-Oriented Contact Websites. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 26(2), 170–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simon, W. (1996). Postmodern Sexualities. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tewksbury, R. (1995). Adventures in the Erotic Oasis: Sex and Danger in Men’s Same-Sex, Public, Sexual Encounters. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 4(1), 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van der Watt, J. S. (2012). The Peril of Patriarchal Power: Distorting Dignity and Intimacy in (Male) Sexuality. In D. Louw, T. D. Ito, & U. Elsdörfer (Eds.), Encounter in Pastoral Care and Spiritual Healing: Towards an Integrative and Intercultural Approach (Vol. 1, pp. 90–111). Zurich: LIT Verlag Münster.Google Scholar
  41. Ward, J. (2015). Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wong, M. L., Koh, T. T., Koh, T. T., Tjahjadi, S., & Govender, M. (2014). Men Seeking Sex Online Practise Riskier Sexual Behaviours than Men Frequenting Brothels: Survey Findings from Singapore. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 90(5), 401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ylivuori, S. (2017). Time Management and Autonomous Subjectivity: Catherine Talbot, Politeness, and Self-Discipline as a Practice of Freedom. Journal of Early Modern Studies, 6, 113–132.Google Scholar
  44. Zhang, D. (2008). HIV/AIDS Behavioral Surveillance Among Men Who Have Sex with Men in China Community and Internet Based Surveys. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Haywood
    • 1
  1. 1.Media, Culture and HeritageNewcastle UniversityNewcastle-upon-TyneUK

Personalised recommendations