alt-text (full)
Screenshot of news:
“Dying boy, 15, gets wish: losing virginity Chicago Sun Times ^ | 12/23/01 | BY BENJAMIN ERRETT Posted on 12/23/2001, 6:26:24 AM by Mopp4
A terminally ill boy had his dying wish granted in Australia this month, but ethicists are still at odds over whether it was the right thing to do. The wish was not for a trip to Disneyland or to meet a famous sports star. Instead, the 15-year-old wanted to lose his virginity before he died of cancer. The boy, who remains anonymous but was called Jack by the Australian media, did not want his parents to know about his request. Because of his many years spent in the hospital, he had no girlfriend or female friends. Jack died last week, but not before having his last wish granted. Without the knowledge of his parents or hospital staff, friends arranged an encounter with a prostitute outside of hospital premises. All precautions were taken, and the organizers made sure the act was fully consensual. The issue has sparked fierce debate over the legal and ethical implications of granting the boy’s request. By law, Jack was still a child, and the woman involved could in theory face charges for having sex with a minor. The debate was sparked by the hospital’s child psychologist, who wrote a letter to “Life Matters,” a radio show in which academics debate ethical and moral dilemmas. The scenario was presented in the abstract, with no details about the boy’s identity.
“He had been sick for quite a long period, and his schooling was very disrupted, so he hadn’t had many opportunities to acquire and retain friends, and his access to young women was pretty poor,” the psychologist said recently in an interview with Australia’s Daily Telegraph newspaper. “But he was very interested in young women and was experiencing that surge of testosterone that teenage boys have.” Hospital staff initially wanted to pool donations to pay for a prostitute, but the ethical and legal implications prevented them from doing so. The psychologist presented members of the clergy with the dilemma and found no clear answer. “It really polarized them,” he said. “About half said, ‘What’s your problem?’ And the other half said [it] demeans women and reduces the sexual act to being just a physical one.”
Dr. Stephen Leeder, dean of medicine at the University of Sydney and a “Life Matters” panelist, said the issue was a difficult one. “I pointed out that public hospitals operated under the expectation that they would abide by state law,” he said. “While various things doubtless are done that are at the edge of that, it’s important the public has confidence that the law will be followed.” Jack’s psychologist, who works with children in palliative care, said the desire was driven in part by a need for basic human contact. “In a child dying over a long period of time, there is often a condition we call ‘skin hunger,’” he said. The terminally ill child yearns for non-clinical contact because “mostly when people touch them, it’s to do something unpleasant, something that might hurt.” Leeder called the diagnosis “improbable.” Judy Lumby, the show’s other panelist and the executive director of the New South Wales College of Nursing, argued that the details as presented made it abundantly clear the boy’s wish ought to be granted. “I said that I would try my darndest as a nurse to do whatever I could to make sure his wish came true,” she said. “I just think we are so archaic in the way we treat people in institutions. Certainly, if any of my three daughters were dying, I’d do whatever I could, and I’m sure that you would, too.” National Post”
the ONLY thing that I find gives me a side step was the statement:
I think it has some merit. Though I didn’t actually pick up on the gender of the prostitute (I guess we’re all assuming). It still breaks the importance of the emotional connection to a sexual partner as you’re learning about early adulthood. I don’t think real harm came to the boy in this instance particularly, but I couldn’t imagine being that sex worker. I would do it, but shit, that’s gotta follow you a little bit your entire life and something you would always think about. Probably would be my last “John” to be honest.
The other harm comes from people reading the article, especially young boys. It encourages the mindset that the sex act is the important thing one must conquer, not opening up and being vulnerable to a partner to share that experience with. It’s super fucking tough though, like finding him just a date would be better but all the implications of what that would entail for the people involved is just heartbreaking.
Sex isn’t always just a physical act, but it certainly can be. I’ve for sure had meaningless sex just for the fun of it. It isn’t some sacred act. If for you it always has an emotional component, that’s cool. It doesn’t for everyone though. To say it’s demeaning is implying that particular view is the only acceptable one, and it isn’t. That quote came from a clergyman IIRC though, and he’s welcome to his opinion, but it shouldn’t be used to imply his view is the “correct” one.
So, um, dont take this the wrong way but that sounds like a female viewpoint, am I correct?
If I’m right, what you cant know viscerally is that 15 year old males are unlikely to appreciate that level of nuance and I dont think its a viable target to expect that from them. The hormones rage extremely hard at 15-- its not a matter of willingness, but one of irretrievably stolen focus. A 15 year old male’s response to stimulus is extraordinary and singular. What you look for comes after age 28 or so. Maybe I’m not average in this regard but I think its fairly universal for my peers as well.
Am male, stupidly so and grew up in the south where an active sex life as a youthful-lad was encouraged and I definitely filled that role. I concur that what you’ve said is the most common perception in our circles and definitely in western media as a whole. After getting older and actually talking to people about their childhoods and those from other areas of the world, I don’t believe it to be a “destined/hormone raging” outcome that’s necessary, but often taught/learned from peers.
If it was, we wouldn’t be encouraging male individuals to find an outlet for their anger besides violence. You’re also completely scapegoating like females don’t have urges or hormones of which they have to battle with. There’s whole societies out there that don’t have the problems we run into because of our views on sexuality (but come with their own side effects like loneliness or low birth rates). It’s also individualistic, everyone has different things they’re dealing with on puberty and chemical changes. The fact that all males get the “it’s hormones” excuse should be a red flag automatically that triggers further evaluation.