Last Wishes: Sex, laws and consent

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2006-09-13 09:39am

Assume you have care of a young man of 16 in Nevada. He's dying of a non-contagious neurological illness. His body will remain largely functional but his cognitive faculties will slowly degrade until he is in a persistant vegitative state. There is no treatment or cure. Faced with this, he is asked if there is any dreams or wishes he hopes will come true before the inevitable. He responds that he really wants to have sex before he dies. It is expected that he will reach the point where there is nothing more to be done but pull the plug before his 18th birthday.

Now, prostitution is legal in Nevada, but the age of consent is (I believe) 18. Would you find it morally acceptable to go under the table and pay for a clean, willing, safe, legally commissioned prostitute who's willing to take a risk on breaking the rules for the sake of this teen's last wish (assume one exists), or do you respond that he is not old enough to consent to sex, and therefore it's an unrealistic wish and he should pick something else?

McC · Post by **McC** » 2006-09-13 10:03am

Sex laws are more or less unrealistic anyway, in my opinion. If you're physically sexually mature, that's pretty much the full shebang. That we as a society don't educate people until they're way older (and have likely found out more on their own than their parents or teachers have told them) is not something to be revered.

So, hell yes, would be my answer.

Also, wikipedia seems to indicate that federal age of consent is 16, not 18, with no mention of an exception for Nevada. Don't know for sure, though.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-09-13 10:51am

I was fapping to porn well before I was sixteen, so. Sure. What the hell. Most sex laws generally lack anything resembling logic anyways.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-13 10:58am

I'd get him the hooker, pronto. If the poor bastard is already 16 years old and he's going to slide into a vegetative state soon, he deserves to know the touch of a woman before that happens.

Really, the only ethical objection to this, since it would not cause any harm, is the fact that it is currently illegal in some jurisdictions. And since I reject legalism as an ethical philosophy, that means very little to me.

Kojiro · Post by **Kojiro** » 2006-09-13 11:01am

What's the worst that can happen? It's a last request for a harmless, basic human want. Of course I'd make it happen.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-09-13 11:13am

There is the problem if you get caught. If this young man was in a hospital, it would be very hard to be discrete and the consequences of being caught would be pretty staggering if it could be demonstrated that I hired a prostitute for an underaged male in my car. And you know some Fundie group would make sure I was prosecuted. It would still be morally acceptable, of course, but it would be highly impractical. In that case, I'd call for volunteers first before anything else.

If the kid were in a personal care home or home treated and I was the visiting physician, by all means get the boy laid. I started having sex at sixteen, their ain't nothing wrong with it as far as I can see.

SVPD · Post by **SVPD** » 2006-09-13 11:13am

I'd get him as many hookers as he damn well pleased.

That said, sexual maturity does not necessarily mean one is able to meaningfully consent to sex. My wife was, at the age of 15, tricked into having sex by an (in-law) relative who promised her he loved her and wanted to marry her. Before too long she was sneaking out of the house to see him and ended up pregnant with my stepdaughter (who will become -- at last -- my daughter next week!

)

Of course once she was pregnant he wanted nothing more to do with her and was even coming around the house at night taunting her outside the bedroom window until my father-in-law chased him away with a baseball bat.

My wife was (and still is) a shy and rather naive person (not that that's a bad thing, she's also a tremendously loving and caring wife and mother) and at 15 it didn't even occur to her to wonder why a 34 year old man was so interested in "marrying" her.

On the other sid of the coin, I had a female friend in high school who, at 15, was the most mature teenager I've ever met. If she'd been finished with high school at that point I'm quite sure she could have handled life on her own just fine. She was more than confident enough to go buy condoms without a hint of embarrassment, as well as to get permission from both her and her boyfriend's parents to have sex as long as they used condoms.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2006-09-13 11:21am

SVPD wrote:That said, sexual maturity does not necessarily mean one is able to meaningfully consent to sex.

Of course it doesn't. But an age threshold to consent to sex is equally as meaningless, as your own counter-examples show. I think that if education targeted equipping everyone with the proper knowledge on sexuality before they hit sexual maturity (i.e. let's get the sex ed done before 12-13), then problems of informed consent and such would be significantly reduced.

Of course, this is all in my utopian world where education is of good quality, and is unencumbered by the clamoring of irresponsible, illogical, and usually highly reprehensible parents.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2006-09-13 11:31am

I actually find this scenario interesting for several different reasons. I noticed that there have been cases where I've seen people condemn 25 year old women sleeping with 15-16 year old boys as paedophiles. Of course, in the case of the hooker, she's neither the boy's teacher (removing the responsibility of in loco parentis) nor is she attracted to him - it's just business. But I find myself saying yes to the 16 year old and no to a 15 year old despite feeling that in the majority of cases both are probably sexually mature. Never mind that if I had a boy at 14 in that scenario I'd presume he was being unrealistic almost out of hand.

The boy as well has been freed from one of the major objections people have to underage teens having sex - the lack of responsibility for pregnancy and irresponsible sex in general. A regulated hooker insists on penis checks, hygiene in the work place and uses condoms and likely other protection, and the boy will die before he can ever suffer or be held responsible for his actions.

spikenigma · Post by **spikenigma** » 2006-09-14 01:30am

IIRC, this actually happened in Australia with a 15 year old didn't it?

ah yes, yes it did

SVPD · Post by **SVPD** » 2006-09-14 08:58am

McC wrote: Of course it doesn't. But an age threshold to consent to sex is equally as meaningless, as your own counter-examples show. I think that if education targeted equipping everyone with the proper knowledge on sexuality before they hit sexual maturity (i.e. let's get the sex ed done before 12-13), then problems of informed consent and such would be significantly reduced.

Of course, this is all in my utopian world where education is of good quality, and is unencumbered by the clamoring of irresponsible, illogical, and usually highly reprehensible parents.

I partly agree with you. Sex ed clearly helped my friend in high school, who behaved more responsibly than most adults. She was fortunate enough to have caring, realistic parents as well. She was also having sex with a boy only a few months different in age, and age-of-consent never became an issue.

However, sex ed didn't help my wife. My in-laws have no objection to sex ed, and my wife did have it prior to getting pregnant. She was a 15-year-old girl who'd never had any interest from a boy before, and sex ed does not stop such a girl from feeling overwhelmed that a grown man is interested in her, or fearing that no one else will ever come along.

All the sex ed in the world will not cure basic teenage naivete or the "it can't happen to me" invincibility attitude that's very common at this age. Responsible behavior is at a premium amongst teenagers. Teenagers are overly trusting. I'm sure you've seen the dateline NBC predator shows. Predators aren't taking advantage of a mere lack of sex ed; they're taking advantage of basic teenage mental weaknesses. That's what age of consent is really about; protecting teenagers from being victimized by people who take advantage of their incomplete maturity.

Sex ed will go a long way towards reducing the frequency of such things, but relyting on sex ed by itself would be a mistake.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-14 09:09am

The big problem with teenagers is that they believe they are mature and they're really not. It's often child's play for an adult to manipulate a teenager because the teen's behaviour is about as transparent as plate glass.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2006-09-14 09:54am

SVPD wrote:All the sex ed in the world will not cure basic teenage naivete or the "it can't happen to me" invincibility attitude that's very common at this age. Responsible behavior is at a premium amongst teenagers. Teenagers are overly trusting. I'm sure you've seen the dateline NBC predator shows. Predators aren't taking advantage of a mere lack of sex ed; they're taking advantage of basic teenage mental weaknesses. That's what age of consent is really about; protecting teenagers from being victimized by people who take advantage of their incomplete maturity.

Sex ed will go a long way towards reducing the frequency of such things, but relyting on sex ed by itself would be a mistake.

I think you're generalizing too much. Unfortunately, your generality is correct, but not for the reasons -- at least, not in my opinion -- that you cite: teenagers do frequently suffer from naivete, particularly in this realm. But I lay the blame at the feet of parents, not at anything inherent about teens. It's rather clear that some teens can and do behave responsibly about this, so it's not an inherent trait of being a teenager.

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2006-09-14 10:42am

In a better world there would be way to test someones mental and emotional maturity and that would determine adulthood and ability to consent. The idea of 'proving' adulthood appears in many cultures, and in my opinion not a bad idea. (most notably Maori, thoose facial tats still rock)

This would by the way never get passed into law even if feasible, most really obnoxious people of faith (christians mostly but not only) aren't mature enough to buy cornflakes much less procreate under that system.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2006-09-14 10:50am

Setesh wrote:people of faith aren't mature enough to buy cornflakes much less procreate

If only this were a common sentiment.

SVPD · Post by **SVPD** » 2006-09-14 03:24pm

McC wrote:Sex ed will go a long way towards reducing the frequency of such things, but relyting on sex ed by itself would be a mistake.

I think you're generalizing too much. Unfortunately, your generality is correct, but not for the reasons -- at least, not in my opinion -- that you cite: teenagers do frequently suffer from naivete, particularly in this realm. But I lay the blame at the feet of parents, not at anything inherent about teens. It's rather clear that some teens can and do behave responsibly about this, so it's not an inherent trait of being a teenager.[/quote]

Some teenagers can and do behave responsibly. Teenage responsibility tends to be a very haphazard, inconsistent thing.

Sometimes you can lay the blame at the feet of the parents, but not always. That's an awfully big generalization too.

Sex ed makes a kid more informed but it doesn't make them more mature. It doesn't cure curiosity to know what it feels like, or stop that feeling of "wow, someone thinks I'm special" nor does it prevent peer pressure. It does an excellent job of reducing teenage vulnerability to uninformed sex with other teens, but it really doesn't stop teenagers from being vulnerable to manipulation from adults who have already been teenagers and can read them like a playbook.

I'd draw a parallel between teen sex and teen drinking. There's no shortage of information about the dangers of drunk driving, and parents as a whole are much more responsible about making it clear that drunk driving/underage drinking is unnacceptable than they are about sex.

Yet teens still drive drunk. They think "I won't get in a wreck" or "I won't get caught" or "I didn't have THAT much". Not only are they doing this in defiance of a virtual barrage of anti-drinking information, they're ridiculously transparent when they get caught. They're terrible liars and you can read them like a book; much easier than an adult drunk. I can tell if a teen has been drinking without even waiting to smell anything or ask any questions; body language and attitude gives it all away.

Sex predators use the same transparency that I use to catch them driving drunk to get them in bed. It's very easy because they are so predictable.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2006-09-14 08:26pm

I don't have time to make a full reply now, but one thing I wanted to say briefly: likening drinking and sex is abhorrent. Teenagers should not be discouraged from having sex, as you're insinuating with the comparison to drinking. This is one particular aspect of the society in which we live that I find disgusting.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-09-14 10:16pm

One wonders what the Make-A-Wish Foundation would handle this!

Anyway, yes, let him have what he wants. He hurts no one in getting what he wants, that's all that matters.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2006-09-14 10:18pm

Part of the idea of age of consent laws is so there decisions won't mess them up as adults

He's not going to have an adulthood, or rather, this is it, so yeah, dude, you're getting laid

Lord Woodlouse · Post by **Lord Woodlouse** » 2006-09-15 04:32am

I'd get him the hooker, sure, but I'd be happy for the law to remain. Age of consent laws do tend to be a little arbitrary, but since we can't very well perform spot-checks on the maturity of each and every individual bloke (or lass) having a shag some kind of arbitrary cut off is necisary.

Though I tend to think if the age of consent for sex is 16, the age you can hire a prostitute should be the same, and visa versa.

SVPD · Post by **SVPD** » 2006-09-15 09:32am

McC wrote:I don't have time to make a full reply now, but one thing I wanted to say briefly: likening drinking and sex is abhorrent. Teenagers should not be discouraged from having sex, as you're insinuating with the comparison to drinking. This is one particular aspect of the society in which we live that I find disgusting.

I'm not likening sex and drinking, nor am I suggesting that teenagers should be discouraged from having sex. I'm not insinuating that at all. Don't strawman.

I'm using it to illustrate that teenagers will often behave in an irresponsible fashion even when they have abundant education on the dangers involved. Sex is not special. There's nothing about sex that makes teenagers any more responsible about it than any other subject assuming they are equally well-informed about both.

Age-of-consent laws are there to prevent adults from having sex with younger teens, not to prevent teens from having sex. In Ohio it's perfectly legal for anyone between the ages of 13 and 17 to have sex with anyone else in the same age range, and it's legal for an adult to have sex with a 16 or 17 year old. What the law is designed to do is stop people who are significantly older and more experienced from taking advantage of teen inexperience, while at the same time avoiding "gotchas" where one half of a relationship has a birthday and now all of a sudden sex is illegal.

The fact of the matter is that many teenagers would simply dispense with a condom if one wasn't available, and especially would do so if an adult told them "it'll be fine, you're teacher was just trying to scare you".

Sex Ed is great for reducing irresponsible sexual behavior, but it's not a substitute for the force of law to deal with predatory adults who prey on lack of experience.