Some years ago, I read an interview with a French prostitute. She was in her late twenties and she had, as one of her clientele, a 15 year old boy. The boy was the son of a wealthy Parisian family.
They paid for his visits in order that he might learn about sex, avoid getting a girl his own age in trouble, and gain confidence in himself. The prostitute and he had a relatively close relationship since the boy had been seeing her frequently. She would even check his homework to make sure it was done. If it was not done, she would make him do it before allowing him to have sex with her.
Do you think the boy was being abused? Why or why not?
I would understand abuse(as a victim of such) to imply an ulterior malevolent intent, or at least a lacking concern for otherwise potential injury. If neither were true, then "no'".
However...
If the boy was being abused, who was abusing him: His family or the prostitute? Why?
While I would not qualify the specific instance you detail as abusive per se
I would consider such an arrangement as poorly chosen (and at minimum, potentially counter-productive) behavior put forward to be any sort of education. As a either/or proposition, it ignores more promising alternatives of instruction and erudition prospectively available as sound alternative. The fallacy of the excluded middle comes to mind...
If the boy were a girl, and the prostitute were either a woman or a man, but everything else was the same, would the girl be abused? Why or why not?
Again, the circumstance begs a larger question...
Not a particularly spot-on analogy, but seems somewhat akin to inquiring whether or not it is best to swat a fly with a nylon swatter pad on a stick, vs. employing a hammer, or a grenade, or nuclear bomb instead. Any of the potential remedies offered may indeed rid oneself of a troublesome flying pest, but there remain consequences of choice to attend to in whichever/whatever tool is employed to obtain that strategic and satisfactory outcome/result. Is hiring a prostitute the best/only tool available to swat away teenage ignorance of human sexuality?
If so, who would be the abuser?
I guess one might attempt to parse the logic of destroying the village to save it
, or alls well that ends well.
Hiring a hooker to educate a minor as to the means and mechanics of sexual intercourse/activities is not abusive in the strictest sense of the word as qualified by yourself here
but neither would it be more conducive to any better understanding of human sexuality beyond simple and direct expositions and details provided within any ordinary and clinically accurate instructions proffered within a serious and honest classroom environment.
I acknowledge that the ideal of an honest and fact based classroom environment to educate minors about human sexuality is hardly mainstream, or popular in either application or community support
But then, parenting skills and the incumbent responsibilities for insuring a well-rounded exposure to useful and elemental knowledge is rarely or ever best served by contracting out such duties to third party surrogates with no invested long-term interests in any clients maturation into adulthood. Parents retain the chosen and direct accountability for their own kid's preparedness for ascension into adulthood.
Theres always the raised by wolves in the wilderness argument to put forward as exception I suppose as some last-choice alternative, but perhaps we might agree that such a scenario is both so absurdly remote and statistically rare enough a possibility/probability to consider further without indulging any serious debate upon as topical issue any longer
)
