Although the literature on male sex workers (MSWs) in most regions of the globe is extensive, little information is available about MSWs in Latin America. Moreover, many descriptions of MSWs are so context specific that they do not readily translate to other populations; thus it cannot be assumed that conclusions reached in reports on MSWs from other regions will apply to those in Latin America. To gain a better understanding of MSWs in Latin America, this chapter explores the social context, sex worker characteristics, sexual and help-seeking behaviors, and the legal context of sex work within a Latin American context.
This chapter is organized into three parts. The first, a discussion of the concept of masculinity and sexuality in Latin America, explores cultural elements of Latin American culture and assesses their potential to put the sexual health of clients and sex workers at risk. It also describes the legal contexts within which MSWs defend their right to work and to have access to health-care services. The second part reviews some popular magazines, films, and websites to highlight cultural discourses about MSWs. Finally, using results from a study conducted in Argentina, the third part provides insights into the sexual interactions between MSWs and their clients, including how that interaction moderates the decision to engage in various safe and unsafe sexual behaviors. It also reveals some of the preferences of MSWs who engage in sexual activity with other men.
Masculinity and Sexuality
The traditional stereotype of the male role in Latin America to a great extent reflects traditional Southern European and Catholic influences (Gupta & Levenburg, 2010). Within this stereotype, masculine dominance is central to the Latin America family, as exemplified by a rigid gender-based delegation of tasks and division of family activities (Beattie, 2002; Chassen-Lopez, 2009). For instance, men are responsible for producing the family’s income, while women are in charge of managing the finances and domestic tasks. Females also are responsible for attracting a husband/male partner, childrearing, disciplining the children, and seeing that their husband’s decisions about the home or family are honored (Cardoso, 2002). A Latin American man’s value also may be evaluated in terms of macho behaviors, such as drinking, smoking, and driving. Complementing this male dominance is female submissiveness, or so-called marianism (Beattie, 2002), which requires women to be self-sacrificing, to be restricted to the home, to depend on men, and to respect, obey, and serve their husbands without question (French & Bliss, 2007).
Nevertheless, the extent to which the traditional structures and roles have survived in 21st-century Latin America must be determined. Family is still an important institution in Latin American culture (Chassen-Lopez, 2009), but today both men and women must earn money to support their families. Such a change in the global socioeconomic situation may produce contradictions within gender roles and between generations, as men increase their engagement in spousal, domestic, and family life (French & Bliss, 2007; Hardin, 2002).
In this context, the ways macho and machismo are conceptualized, understood, and manifested differ across Latin American societies (Vigoya, 2001). For instance, masculinity in some 21st-century working-class Brazilian communities is defined as one’s ability to provide financially for the family—sometimes by any means necessary (Cardoso, 2002), whereas men in some areas of Mexico are considered masculine when actively involved in family life (Vigoya, 2001). Moscheta and his colleagues (Moscheta, NcNamee, & Santos, 2013), who studied the discursive stories of young men who trade sex in Brazil, revealed that the way some men make sense of their masculinity can offset the marginalized and stigmatized nature of male commercial sex. One discursive strategy, for example, is to reduce masculinity to the level of anatomy, so that one’s identity is defined by the physical, virile, and conquering attributes of the penis and not by aspects of interpersonal relationships.
There also are differences across socioeconomic status, race, religion, age, and politics (Caceres, 2002; Ramirez, 2011). As such, there is no single framework of Latin America masculinity against which Latino men can compare themselves or be compared (Vigoya, 2001). However, like several other contemporary societies, Latin America is dominated by a patriarchal Catholic framework that positions men as political, social, religious, and financial authoritarians. In this regard, men are always positioned on top in social relations.
Men on Top
To be “on top” has not only figurative relevance but literal significance. For instance, homosexual men who are the receivers or “bottoms” in their sexual relations with other men are often assumed to be effeminate (Cardoso, 2002; Padilla, 2008). As such, men who engage in “receiving” homosexual behavior are considered women, and choosing to behave like a woman by being the bottom during sexual activity often means taking on the roles ascribed to women in Latin America (Parker, 1999; Phua, 2009, 2010). In Brazil and other Latin America societies, this gender reassignment is generally widely accepted (Green, 1999; Kulick, 1998; Phua, 2010).
Nevertheless, there is much confusion about sexuality in Latin America. At most social levels, homosexuality or homosexual behaviors are strongly rejected within Latin America society (Gutmann, 2002), particularly among the older generations (Green, 2012). Under these circumstances, nonheterosexual men may hide behind a heterosexual façade (Kurtz, 2007) to protect themselves. Although homosexuality is tolerated when homosexual men are the bottoms during sexual activity with other men because they are not challenging the heterosexual notion of masculinity—that is, being on top (Green, 1999; Kulick, 1998; Mitchell, 2010; Phua, 2010; Schifter, 1998, 1999)—they cannot be both tops and bottoms in their sexual relations with other men (Ascencio, 2011; Phua, 2010). Recent research indicates that men who give as well as receive in sexual encounters, particularly with other men, may be ostracized or discriminated against because their sexuality embraces both typical male and female sexual behaviors, thus challenging and destablizing fixed cultural subjectivities (Campuzano, 2009; Padilla, 2008; Schifter, 1998, 1999).
Sexual Identity
For most Latin America societies, the Western dichotomy of male sexual orientation—straight or gay—does not speak to how men actually experience their sexuality (Caceres, 2002; Guajardo, 2002; McLelland, 2000; Padilla, 2008; Parker & Caceres, 1999; Phua, 2010). The literature indicates that there are several groups of men with respective constructions of masculinity and sexuality: (1) men who have sex only with men; (2) travesti, or men who are transvestites or transexuals (TTT) at various stages of their trans/formation, who identify as women and generally have sex with men (Infante, Sosa-Rubi, & Cuadra, 2009); (3) men who have sex with both men and women in the “top” position (Padilla & Castellanos, 2008); and (4) straight men who only have sex with women. Considering that male sexuality and sexual behavior in Latin America are fluid, the sexual services provided by MSWs are quite varied and can be fairly lucrative (Hodge, 2001, 2005a).
Male Sex Work in Latin America
In Latin America, sex work still is stigmatized (Padilla & Castellanos, 2008). However, its relatively high value allows male, female, and transsexual workers to attain and maintain social and economic mobility. In this sense, sex work is not only a means to an end—i.e., putting food on the table—but a way to demonstrate personal agency, ambition, and independence (Allen, 2007). According to Rivers-Moore (2010), sex work offers an opportunity to get ahead and to consume at a level that would have been unattainable in other types of work. Due to the social and economic rewards of sex work, MSWs are able to offset the stigma associated with providing sexual services and to legitimize their work (Infante et al., 2009; Padilla, 2008; Rivers-Moore, 2010). As summarized by Mariño and colleagues (Mariño, Minichiello, & Disogra, 2003),
sex work is an occupation where a sex worker is hired to provide sexual services for monetary considerations. In general, the commercial sex interaction involves the short term exchange of information, funds, social symbols, and meanings. These interactions are shaped by sociodemographic characteristics, work experiences, norms, knowledge, and other psychosocial factors. (p. 311)
Essentially, what is bought and sold depends on several factors, among which sexual identity and orientation are not necessarily part. They are described below.
Sexual services and sexual identity
MSWs in Latin America provide sexual services to men (and sometimes women) from a variety of backgrounds and sexualities (Mariño, Browne, & Minichiello, 2000). The services MSWs provide to their clients (locals and often tourists) also depend on the worker’s level of comfort, personal preference, the clients’ desires, and remuneration (Allen, 2007). Therefore, the sexual services solicited from male sex workers are not necessarily related to how clients (or the sex workers) describe their sexual orientation (e.g., Allen, 2007; Doll et al., 1992; Munoz-Laboy, de Almeida, do Nascimento, & Parker, 2004; Padilla & Castellanos, 2008; Tun, de Mello, Pinho, Chinaglia, & Diaz, 2008). Take, for instance, the common myth that all MSWs are homosexual or bisexual. In an Argentine study, 44.8 percent and 28.6 percent of the 145 MSWs surveyed indicated that they were either gay or bisexual, respectively (Disogra, 2012). In Brazil, however, several studies indicated that few MSWs considered themselves to be gay and made a clear distinction between their sexual behavior and their sexual identity (Parker, 1999; Phua, 2010; Schifter, 1998, 1999; Tun et al., 2008). Hence, the services MSWs are willing to engage in have more to do with financial benefits than with the clients’ or the sex worker’s sexual identity (Green, 1999; see also Allen, 2007; Padilla, 2008; Padilla & Castellanos, 2008). MSWs who identified as straight also fulfilled the macho/Casanova stereotype by sporting several girlfriends and did not have sex with men without compensation. In essence, they were “gay for pay” (see Mitchell, 2010).
Money, money, money
The cost of sexual services provided by MSWs also depends on the environment in which they work. In Mexico, for instance, MSWs who trade in public places, like parks and on the street, receive the equivalent of US$5 for oral sex and US$20 for anal sex (Infante et al., 2009). Men in this group were of low socioeconomic status and provided sexual services to earn money for food and shelter. In the same study, men who worked independently or for a pimp charged a minimum of US$50 for oral sex and US$100 for anal sex. These men were of middle socioeconomic status and engaged in sex work to maintain their lifestyle or to save money to open a business. Men who defined themselves as travesti, transvestites or transexuals, charged rates similar to those of the independent workers. The TTT worked to save for a business or to invest in altering their appearance to look more like a woman. Unfortunately, some who could not afford to invest in plastic surgery sought help from their TTT friends, who injected industrial silicone and oils into their bodies, often causing long-term adverse health consequences. Thus, payment for sex work is often underpinned by socio-economic factors.
Social context
In Latin America, social context is important when looking at the broader picture in which MSWs exist. This context includes experiences of discrimination and abuse that may drive boys away from home and education (Padilla & Castellanos, 2008). In Mexico and Brazil, for instance, MSWs who identify as gay or transgender frequently begin working in their midteens after running away from home, often due to sexual and physical abuse or social discrimination within their families or communities because of their sexual orientation (Infante el al., 2009; see also Cortez, Boer, & Baltieri, 2011, on Brazil). Due to limited financial opportunities, the street becomes both home and workplace for many Latin American runaways (Padilla & Castellanos, 2008). In this context, MSWs who trade sex in public places often are of low socioeconomic status and have between six and nine years of formal education (see also Grandi, Goihman, Ueda, & Rutherford, 2000; Mariño et al., 2003).
In contrast, those in their late teens to mid-twenties who work for pimps or independently usually have finished or nearly finished secondary school and engage in sex work (which they say they find “thrilling” and “enjoyable”) to facilitate a choice of lifestyle (Infante et al., 2009; Mariño et al., 2003). When comparing MSWs and men who have sex with men, sex workers often have significantly less education and experience a higher incidence of social and physical vulnerability and discrimination (Cortez et al., 2011; Infante et al., 2009; Tun et al., 2008). This disparity may be exacerbated in countries where sex work is illegal.
Legal Context of MSWs in Latin America