by Poppy Coburn
Wednesday, 17
March 2021
Spotted
11:59

Why are universities so keen to support prostitution?

Doctor or cam girl? Our universities don't think there's much difference
by Poppy Coburn
Will these two be encouraged to embark on a thrilling career in sex work too? (TOLGA AKMEN/AFP via Getty Images)

The discovery that the University of Leicester has created a ‘Student Sex Work Toolkit’ shouldn’t surprise anyone. The kit itself is comprehensive, and could presumably be used as a helpful ‘how-to’ guide to get into the sex trade: the legality of sex acts is listed in a handy chart, with ‘selling underwear online for sexual gratification’, ‘escorting’ and ‘sugaring’ all placed in the legal category.

Additionally, the guide provides a kind of ‘sex work do’s and don’ts’ guide for staff, with the rather chilling announcement that staff should avoid ‘assuming the student wants to leave sex work’ or ‘perpetuate myths regarding sex work’. One hopes that the omission in the guide that staff mustn’t pay for the ‘services’ of prostituted students was as to not state the obvious.

Of course, scorn should not fall on Leicester alone. Several prominent universities, including Bristol, Goldsmiths and my own university of Cambridge have either created their own versions of this guide or are in the process of doing so. Today, we live in a bizarro-world where, on one hand, universities will smother their students in endless courses in safe sex, consent and student welfare — while simultaneously ‘supporting’ students working in the most dangerous ‘profession’ on the planet.

Credit: University of Leicester

Teaching staff are (rightly) reprimanded for sexual improprieties with students, thanks to the imbalance of power between them — yet presumably, should a man in a position of power buy sex from a student, those nasty questions of consent disappear into the ether. There is something unsightly about universities plunging its students into debt while holding up prostitution as a valid choice for financial aid.

Increasingly, it seems that the more ‘radical’ you style yourself as, the more likely you are to start unwittingly repeating ancient libertarian talking points. The radicals approach to sex is something like this: “Out with those stuffy moral arguments! They’re SO 19th century!” What are you really left with once that’s done?  Sex is a commodity, women are market actors and universities are giant careers fairs. Whether that student’s future profession will be that of a doctor or an e-prostitute is of no consequence.

Perhaps there is nothing shocking about universities, in their endless quest to produce the best ‘product’ for student consumers, taking on the role of pimps. A brief examination of the reaction from contemporary student feminist groups reveals the sort of logic one would expect from the johns themselves — ‘sex work’ has always existed, will always exist, women have a right to choose to sell sex — and this is a closed debate.

Perhaps the Leicester example shocks only because so few people see just how cynical young people have become about our socio-political futures. A sense of belonging, public morality, community bonds — all of these structures have fallen away in the face of cold, hard market logic.

Join the discussion


  • There is something unsightly about universities plunging its students into debt while holding up prostitution as a valid choice for financial aid.

    Put like that, it sounds remarkably close to pimping or living off immoral earnings.

  • The students should rewarded with a degree for all their hard sex work. At least it would be some compensation for the degrading way the university perceives them. There could be a market oversupply, mind you, as many students might not want to pay for a service when they can get it for free in common with so many men. Will the uni provide an STD and counselling service for these sex workers? Part of its duty of care? I can feel a dissertation coming on here with some suitably incomprehensible research findings. It would be funny if it wasn’t so dreadful. A new variant on ‘In loco parentis’.

  • Just to add, this is entirely to destroy the Family. That is why promiscuity is pushed because excess promiscuity will make one’s belief in a spouse never really be the same as if the other showed restraint in sex because they were waiting for a life partner they could commit to.

    It is all in “The Frankfurt School 11 Points”. Marxists always seeked to destroy the family, the ratting out of family members under Stalin and Mao were exactly like Orwell’s 1984, as they destroy trust, and so love. Brave new world had an utter extreme of destroying the Family, as does BLM, if you read their manifesto. Destroying the Family is in every Dystopia as it destroys the soul. It is why the Liberals all promote single mothers.

    To destroy the family is to make the people alone, helpless, lost, and completely vulnerable to the state as they have no one to aid and nurture them.

  • To get involved in the discussion and stay up to date, become a registered user.

    It's simple, quick and free.

    Sign me up