The economies of sexuality[Les économies de la sexualité]

Studying sexuality from a socio-economic perspective is difficult, which is probably why it is not so common. Politically and morally contested, as well as invisibility, activities related to sexuality are problematic. It is not easy to see them as legitimate economic activities, even from a scientific point of view. It is, therefore, necessary to fully consider the articulation between sexuality and the economy, going beyond the traditional antagonisms between these 'hostile worlds'. Studying the socio-economic dimension of sexual activities is all the more beneficial as it generally occupies a marginal place in social science research on sexuality. The analysis of sexual activities in exchange for compensation thus benefits from the contributions of (new) economic sociology and, more specifically, from the market literature. Human sexuality is part of social structures that frame practices, representations, and a set of affective and sentimental commitments. Favouring a socio-economic approach to sexuality makes it possible to challenge an individual's vision floating in social space and propose an alternative, more 'realistic' framework of interpretation. This RFSE dossier includes four research articles based on original empirical investigations. It also includes a research note and synthesis on the interest of economic sociology in the study of sexuality and a debate and controversy on the theme of the 'digital economies of sexuality. The dossier ends with an interview. The questions posed by the contributors to this issue, most of whom come from disciplinary traditions other than socio-economics, shed new light on classic themes such as work, money, the market and organisation and reveal some unthought. Their reflections contribute to lifting sexuality out of its exceptionality. The introduction is organised into three sections. The categories of 'work', 'money and market' and 'organisation' are successively mobilised to question the contributions and limits of social science research on sexuality and to show how the articles in this issue enrich the debate on the economies of sexuality.