Content uploaded by Stephan Köhler
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stephan Köhler on Feb 18, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Sex Work Among Students of Higher Education: A Survey-Based,
Cross-Sectional Study
Felix Betzer •Stephan Ko
¨hler •Ludwig Schlemm
Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Introduction
Within the recent years, the phenomenon of sex work among
students appeared in various media channels (Chrisafis, 2008;
Dixon, 2012). Several studies have investigated sex work among
high school students in Norway (Pedersen & Hegna, 2003),
Sweden (Svedin & Priebe, 2007), and Canada (Lavoie, Thibo-
deau, Gagne, & Hebert, 2010). Pedersen and Hegna found that
1.4 % of the participants (N=10,828, age of 14–17) sold sex,
three times as many boys as girls. The adolescents selling sex
were frequently involved in delinquent behaviors and substance
use. The study conducted by Svedin and Priebe provided similar
results, reporting that 1.8 % of the boys and 1.0 % of the girls
(N=4339) had sold sex. Selling sex was associated with having
an immigrant background, higher level of unemployment in the
family, and studying a practical/vocational program. Being
involved in selling sex was associated with poorer mental health,
weekly use of alcohol, and antisocial behaviors. A higher prev-
alence of sex work among high school students was reported in the
study by Lavoie et al., investigating a sample of 815 Quebecoise
high school students at the age of 15–18 years. According to this
study, 3 % of the participants reported having bought, and 4 %
reported having sold sexual services, predominantly girls. History
of sexual abuse, casual sex, and the number of stressful life events
were related to the sale of sex.
Concerning students of higher education, only few data exist.
Roberts, Bergstro
¨m,andLaRooy(2007) conducted a cross-
sectional survey of 130 students with a mean age of 22.8 years.
This study did not directly ask about experie nces in sex work, but
it asked if students knew of other students engaged in sex work. It
was found that over 10 % of participants knew of students
engaged in sex work. Poor psychological well-being, drinking
problems, and financial circumstances were associated with sex
work. It has not yet been investigated whether the prevalence of
student sex workers in higher education is in the same order as in
high school students. The circumstances of life, the social envi-
ronment, as well as the way of financing oneself are different for a
student of higher education compared to those for a high school
student. Therefore, we conducted a survey-based, cross-sec-
tional study among students of higher education in Berlin.
Method
Participants
A sample of 4,386 completed questionnaires from students from
various universities in Berlin was evaluated. Participants’ mean
age was 24.4 years (SD =3.7); 44.1 % of the participants were
female, and 13.6 % did not specify their gender. On average,
participants were in the 5.7th semester of their studies (SD =4.0).
Concerning their relationship status, 40.7 % were in a relation-
ship, 30.3 % were single, 3.7 % were married, 0.3 % were
divorced, and 23.9 % did not specify their relationship status.
Measures
We designed an online questionnaire containing general infor-
mation and questions about demographics, financial situation,
F. Betzer (&)S. Ko
¨hler
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy,
Charite
´Universita
¨tsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charite
´Mitte
(CC15), Charite
´platz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany
e-mail: felix.betzler@charite.de
L. Schlemm
Department of Neurology, Charite
´Universita
¨tsmedizin Berlin,
Berlin, Germany
123
Arch Sex Behav
DOI 10.1007/s10508-014-0476-y
personality, substance use, and sexuality. The questionnaire was
distributed via the mailing lists of Berlin’s major universities.
For a personality test, the 15-item Big Five Inventory was used
(Lang, John, Ludtke, Schupp, & Wagner, 2011). All scales in the
questionnaire were designed using 5-, 7-, or 10-point Likert items.
Data Analysis
Cross-tabulations with v
2
or Fisher’s exact test were used to
compare proportions between two groups (students who were
engaged in sex work to students who were not). Non-parametric
Mann–Whitney Utests were used to compare medians of not
normally distributed continuous data between the two groups.
Normal distribution was evaluated using Kolmogorov–Smir-
nov tests. Data are presented as percentage values or medians
with interquartile range (IQR).
Results
Seven percent of the participants indicated that they are or have
been involved in sex work (involved in sex work: N=227; not
involved in sex work: N=2998; not answered or dropped out:
N=1161). Most students involved in sex work replied that they
pursued prostitution in the narrow sense, meaning sexual inter-
course in direct exchange for money or escort services, which
may include sexual intercourse (Table 1). Thirty-three percent of
the students who were actually not involved in sex work could
imagine doing so; this percentage was summed up from all
participants who replied either‘‘yes’’(5 %) or‘‘yes, given certain
circumstances’’(28 %). The students were able to enter an
amount of money per hour at which they would be willing to
engage in sex work. The median amount was 100€(IQR =110).
Financial Situation
Sex workers received significantly less financial support from
their families than other students (35.2 vs. 59.3 %), v
2
(1, N=
3127) =47.3, p\.001. Also, among those that received any
support, the amount differed significantly between sex workers
(N=64, 300€/month, IQR =300) and other students (N=1526,
400€/month, IQR =365), p=.025. Sex workers received fewer
scholarships (2.3 vs. 10.4 %), v
2
(1, N=3127) =14.6, p\.001,
and were more often in debt (28.9 vs. 17.3 %), v
2
(1, N=2940) =
11.3, p\.001. In addition, sex workers received fewer student
loans than other students (14.6 vs. 20 %), v
2
(1, N=3127) =
3.8, p=.05. However, the overall income turned out not to be
significantly lower for sex working students (N=121, 800€/
month, IQR =525) compared with other students (N=2467,
700€/month, IQR =350), p=.201.
Sexual Orientation and STDs
A total of 87 % of students who were not engaged in sex work
self-reported as heterosexual versus 54 % in the group of sex
working students, v
2
(1, N=2909) =110.6, p\.001.
Five percent of the non-sex workers versus 13 % of the sex
workers described themselves as homosexual, and 8 versus 33 %
as bisexual. Students involved in sex work (N=123) had sig-
nificantly more sexual partners in the last 3 months than other
students (N=2799): 3.0 (IQR =7) versus 1.0 (IQR =0), p\
.001.
The group of sex workers showed a significantly higher prev-
alence of sexual transmitted diseases (STD) compared with
other students (28.8 vs. 8.5 %), v
2
(1, N=2842) =16.9, p\.001.
Substance Use
In any drug examined (marijuana, amphetamines, cocaine, etc.),
except for alcohol, sex workers showed a substantially higher
use than other students (e.g., cocaine: 28 vs. 9 %), v
2
(1, N=
2915) =46, p\.001.Concerning alcohol consumption, the rela-
tion was inverted (90 vs. 94 %), v
2
(1, N=3012) =4.3, p=.04.
Personality Traits
Agreeableness was significantly lower in the group of sex
working students: In this group (N=135), students had a median
of 5.0 (IQR =2) compared to a median of 5.3 (IQR =1.3) for the
other students (N=2660), p=.033.
Discussion
This study provided the first estimation of sex work among stu-
dents of higher education and a first psychosocial characterization
Table 1 Modalities of sex work within the group of sex working students
Modality of sex work Yes (%) Yes (n)No(n) Missing (n)
Prostitution in the narrow sense 21.6 49 93 82
Escort service including sex. Intercourse 18.5 42 109 76
Striptease, webcam or phone sex 11.0 25 126 76
Escort service excluding sex. Intercourse 9.7 22 129 76
Other 9.7 22 129 76
Arch Sex Behav
123
of this group. The prevalence of students being or having been
involved in sex work was found to be 7 %. The prevalence we
found was several times higher than those found in other studies.
Pedersen and Hegna (2003) reported a prevalence of 1.4 % in
Norway;Lavoieetal.(2010) reported 4 % in Canada, both for
high school students. In a cross-sectional sample of undergradu-
ates (N=130) in England, 10 % of all participants knew of stu-
dents who were engaged in sex work (Roberts et al., 2007).
There are several factors that could have had an impact on the
relatively high prevalence we found. The likelihood of sex work
increases with age, having a maximum in the late twenties (aver-
age age of prostitutes in Germany, 28 years, Robert-Koch-Insti-
tut, 2008). Another explanation might be the fact that we focused
on a metropolis like Berlin, while the above-mentioned studies
examined mostly whole areas. It is noticeable that the actual
prevalence diverged quite strongly from the percentage of stu-
dents who could imagine pursuing sex work: 7 versus 33 %. One
has to take into account that the 33 % assemble from 4.7 % of
students who simply responded‘‘yes’’and those who responded
with‘‘yes, under certain conditions’’(28.3 %). This implies that,
for many students, this thought remains rather theoretical than
actual praxis. Surprisingly, the above-mentioned conditions were
just on an amount of money with an average of 261€per
hour offered.
Financial Situation
We could verify that sex workers received significantly less finan-
cial support than other students. They received less financial
support in total and also had lower rates of scholarships or other
financial support. These results confirm the findings of Roberts
et al. (2007) and suggest that students are participating in the sex
industry as a consequence of financial hardship. Sex work results
in a higher income compared with poorly paid jobs and therefore
allows more time for students to devote to study (Lantz, 2004;
Moffat & Peters, 2004). This is also in line with findings of sex
work in adolescents where there was a clear association between a
higher level of unemployment/financial difficulties and sex work
(Svedin & Priebe, 2007; Tyler & Johnson, 2006).
Sexual Orientation
A vast majority of students in the non-sex worker group was
heterosexual (87 %) with 5 and 8 % homosexual or bisexual,
respectively, while a smaller percentage of sex-working stu-
dentsidentified as heterosexual (54 %) with 33 and 13 % homo-
sexualand bisexual,respectively.For homosexualmen, thereis
research underlining a new paradigm that respects personal
motivations forsex work (Bimbi, 2007). These motivations are
the view of sex work as a job and a valid source of income.
Svedin and Priebe (2007) also argued that it is possible that
young men who are trying to find out if their sexual disposition
is of a homosexual nature have difficulties in doing so among
their peers and are, therefore, left to seek more older men, with
whom they can experiment. This may also lead to more offers to
sellsex. We also could verify thatstudents whowere engagedin
sex worksufferedmore frequently fromSTDs (28.8vs. 8.5 % in
the non-sex worker group), which is not surprising and is in line
with several previous findings that sex work dramatically
increases the risk of STDs (Baral et al., 2012; Miralles,
Mardarescu, & Sherr, 2013).
Substance Use
Substance use was significantly higher in the group of sex work-
ing students as compared to other students, except for alcohol.
This was the opposite of the finding by Svedin and Priebe (2007),
who found that adolescents who sold sex had a significantly
higher consumption of alcohol than in the control group. In line
with our findings, the use of illegal drugs was 2–6 times more
common for sex workers. Also, Roberts et al. (2007) reported that
22 % of their participants knew students engaging in drug dealing
and 3–4 % reported knowing students who were involved in pros-
titution to support themselves financially. However, it remains
unclear whether drug or alcohol use are precursors or conse-
quences of selling sex (Svedin & Priebe, 2007).
Personality
Sex working students were less agreeable than students not
involved in sex work, the only significant difference in our per-
sonality data. Again, it remains questionable what are precursors
or consequences of selling sex. A bidirectional influence may be
possible: it may seem intuitive that someone who takes the deci-
sion to engage in sex work has to bring along a certain type of
personality, in order to face difficult situations with clients and to
draw clear lines. Also, it may seem as intuitive that those kinds of
situations which sex workers usually have to face do not pass
someone’s attitude and behavior without leaving certain marks or
changes which may become apparent in lower agreeableness
scores. Our data do not provide a basis to answer this question.
Limitations
Due to some methodological limitations, our data must be inter-
preted with caution. We cannot provide an exact response rate,
since we do not precisely know how many students were reached
by our questionnaire (conservative estimate would yield a
response rate of roughly over 10 %) and may result in a relevant
selection bias. The participants mayalsohavebeenmoreopento
the topic of sex work resulting in a false high prevalence.
Acknowledgments The first two authors share first authorship.
Arch Sex Behav
123
References
Baral,S.,Beyrer,C.,Muessig,K.,Poteat,T.,Wirtz,A.L.,Decker,M.R.,…
Kerrigan, D. (2012). Burden of HIV among female sex workers in
low-income and middle-income countries: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Lancet Infectious Diseases, 12, 538–549. doi:10.1016/
S1473-3099(12)70066-X.
Bimbi, D. S. (2007). Male prostitution: Pathology, paradigms and progress
in research. Journal of Homosexuality, 53, 7–35. doi:10.1300/J082
v53n01_02.
Chrisafis, A. (2008). Tales of student prostitutes shock France. The
Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/
jan/21/internationaleducationnews.france.
Dixon, J. (2012). Medical schools’ attitudes towards student prostitution.
Student British Medical Journal, 20, e913. doi:10.1136/sbmj.e913.
Lang, F. R., John, D., Ludtke, O., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011).Short
assessment of the Big Five: Robust across survey methods except
telephone interviewing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 548–567.
doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0066-z.
Lantz, S. (2004). Sex work and study: The new demands facing young people
and their implications for health and well being. Traffic, 3, 31–50.
Lavoie, F., Thibodeau, C., Gagne, M. H., & Hebert, M. (2010). Buying and
selling sex in Quebec adolescents: A study of risk and protective
factors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1147–1160. doi:10.1007/
s10508-010-9605-4.
Miralles, C., Mardarescu, M., & Sherr, L. (2013). What do we know about
the situation of women living with HIV in Europe? Antiviral Therapy,
18(Suppl. 2), 11–17. doi:10.3851/IMP2646.
Moffat, P. G., & Peters, S. A. (2004). Pricing personal services: An
empirical study of earnings in the UK prostitution industry. Scottish
Journal of Political Economy, 51, 675–690.
Pedersen, W., & Hegna, K. (2003). Children and adolescents who sell sex: A
community study. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 135–147.
Robert-Koch-Institut. (2008). Zum Infektionsstatus von Prostituierten unter
Beru
¨cksichtigung sozialmedizinischer Aspekte. Epidemiologisches
Bulletin, 13, 101–104.
Roberts, R., Bergstro
¨m, S., & La Rooy, D. (2007). Sex work and students:
An exploratory study. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31,
323–334.
Svedin, C. G., & Priebe, G. (2007). Selling sex in a population-based study
of high school seniors in Sweden: Demographicand psychosocial cor-
relates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36,21–32.doi:10.1007/s10508-
006-9083-x.
Tyler, K. A., & Johnson, K. A. (2006). Trading sex: Voluntary or coerced?
The experiences of homeless youth. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 208–
216. doi:10.1080/00224490609552319.
Arch Sex Behav
123