The site that brought us ‘Lad of the Year’ and ‘Britain’s Horniest Student’ have made the controversial decision to invite lecturers to join their website. Shag at Uni (self-proclaimed naughtiest hook-up site for students) has attracted over 150,000 members over the last 18 months, its purpose being to help students meet up for casual, no-strings-attached sex.
‘Who is going to be more attractive to an 18 year old student than someone older and in a position of power?’ Tom Thurlow, Shag at Uni creator and quoted above, seems to believe that this is not inclusive enough. Lecturers are advised not to sleep with students they teach, must be willing to travel, and are given free membership to encourage them to sign up. He also thinks that universities should revise their policies about lecturers having relationships with students, saying ‘Teachers need to be professional and do their job, but how does this impact their job if they have a sexual relationship with their own student?’
Relationships between students and lecturers do happen. Everyone seems knows someone, or someone who knows someone, who has slept with a lecturer, or even had a relationship with them. In a recent survey, 54 percent of the users of Shag at Uni claim they have been sexually attracted to a lecturer, 61 percent of these have admitted to indulging in ‘flirtatious behaviour’ with said lecturer, with 19 percent claiming to have had ‘sexual encounters’ (though admittedly this includes hugging).
‘There are students in vast numbers who want to get it on with the person who stands in front of the blackboard’ claims the Shag at Uni blog. This inevitably leads to some questions regarding certain ‘advantages’ that potentially could be issued with regards to marking assessments, although obviously every case would be variable. However it is difficult to look at this situation with a positive approach.
The decision by the website created a mixed response, from cases of outrage from certain students and family members to those who see no problem whatsoever in it. The website has taken down the picture within this article, suggesting public response won in this case.