Homelessness and the Sexual Rights of Adolescents: An Ethical Analysis

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the sexual rights of homeless adolescents. After a brief presentation of the ethical foundation of these rights in the capabilities approach and noting the relevance of the concept of relational autonomy, an ethical analysis of a specific problem is performed, namely the risky sexual behavior of homeless adolescents. It is argued that although these young people have moral agency it is not fully developed and thus they cannot be held to the same standards of responsibility as are adults. Thus, we can see the importance of interventions that empower homeless youth to protect their own sexual health through risk-avoidance or harm reduction strategies.

1. Introduction

This paper explores the sexual rights of homeless adolescents from an ethical perspective applying the capability approach. Homelessness among youth is, fortunately, not a widespread phenomenon in the affluent countries of the Global North, compared to its prevalence in the Global South, but it does exist (Mayock & Parker, 2023; Embleton et al., 2016; Morton et al., 2018). In every larger and many smaller cities in Germany, France, or Austria, there are youths who have no permanent home; they are defined as living on the streets permanently or periodically because they do not reside in apartments or shared accommodations, nor do they live with parents, relatives, acquaintances, or in residential facilities of child and youth services. These adolescents are also sexual beings; some of them engage in sexual activities, and all of them have specific sexual needs and interests. It can be assumed, and it follows from a lack of privacy and material deprivation, that sexual health under conditions of homelessness is precarious and vulnerable. Various ethical standards and theoretical approaches could be used to analyze and criticize the risks to the sexual health of homeless adolescents. The capabilities approach serves as the normative basis to infer why adolescents have sexual rights in the sense of moral rights and what those rights are. In a subsequent step, the situation of homeless adolescents will be analyzed, and the argument will be made that these youths’ sexual rights are violated. This violation is structural, caused by homelessness. In the final step of the argument, two options will be discussed. The first option is that the sexual rights of adolescents can only be adequately ensured and protected if there is no homelessness. The second option acknowledges the persistence of homelessness and examines how, under these adverse conditions, sexual rights can be violated as little as possible. This second option is somewhat more “realistic” because, even in wealthy welfare states, it is not foreseeable that youth homelessness will entirely “disappear” under current conditions. While it would be better if no adolescents were homeless, unfortunately, this cannot be expected; hence, the goal is to ensure a minimum level of sexual rights in this precarious living situation. Focusing on sexual rights means that this paper can only touch minimally on the many other problems–injustices–that homelessness entails. However, at certain points, the intersection of material and social hardship brought about by homelessness (often preceding it) with sexuality and sexual health will become evident.

It is crucial to recognize right away that the risky behaviors analyzed in the case study in this paper are only a small part of homeless youth sexuality and sexual health. One important aspect of how homelessness structurally restricts sexual agency is the phenomenon of transactional sex, also known as “survival sex”—the trade of sexual activities for material necessities, shelter, protection, or drugs (Tyler & Johnson, 2006; Greene et al., 1999). Although condom use and STI risk management are the main topics of this paper, they are part of a larger context where sexuality and sexual health is discussed ethically in relation to adolescents sexual rights. Beyond what housed adolescents experience, this instrumentalization radically alters the nature of consent, autonomy, and sexual decision-making. Furthermore, there are notable differences in the experiences of homeless youth across identity dimensions, such as race, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability status, and migration background (Robinson, 2018; Ecker, 2016). Although useful, the case study under consideration only covers a portion of this intricate reality; this limitation must be taken into account when evaluating the analysis’s wider ethical implications for the youth involved.

2. Adolescents and Their Sexual Rights

In this paper, I follow an analytically clear distinction between sexuality, sexual health and sexual rights, grounded in the WHO framework and the capability approach. Sexuality refers to a fundamental dimension of human life. According to the WHO (World Health Organization, 2006), sexuality encompasses identity, embodiment, intimacy, desire, emotions, social relations and behaviors. It is a broad anthropological and psychosocial sphere in which individuals understand themselves as sexual beings, engage with their bodies and emotions and relate sexually to others. Sexuality is therefore not limited to behavior but describes a domain of human development and self-understanding. Sexual health builds on this broader conception of sexuality but designates a more specific set of conditions. The WHO (World Health Organization, 2006) defines sexual health as a state of physical, emotional, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality. In the capability approach, this corresponds to a positive and fertile capability or set of capabilities that enable individuals to pursue sexual well-being and sexual autonomy (Schweiger, 2023). Sexual health therefore comprises the real opportunities a person has to develop, maintain and exercise the physical, psychological, cognitive and social aspects that make a sexually flourishing life possible. This includes the capability to avoid harm, the capability to access relevant knowledge, the capability to act safely, and the capability to form and sustain meaningful relationships. Sexual health thus specifies what it means for the broader sphere of sexuality to be lived under conditions of safety, dignity and agency. Sexual rights follow from this capability-based understanding of sexual health. They express moral entitlements to the capabilities that constitute sexual health. Sexual rights therefore protect and enable the capability to achieve sexual well-being, the capability to make informed and autonomous decisions, the capability to receive support and care when needed and the capability to be free from coercion, violence and harmful conditions. Sexual rights safeguard the capability for sexual health so that adolescents can navigate their sexuality in a manner consistent with their dignity and developmental stage. While sexuality describes the general human domain of sexual being, sexual health names the capabilities required to inhabit that domain in a healthy and autonomous way, and sexual rights secure those capabilities as entitlements.

The sexual rights of adolescents are a controversial topic because, on one hand, youth sexuality is still often taboo, and on the other hand, concerns about protecting the sexual integrity of adolescents can quickly lead to “moral panic”, viewing all youth sexuality as dangerous or even abusive (Egan & Hawkes, 2012; for Germany in particular: Klein, 2009). Underlying this, and philosophically noteworthy, are concepts, stereotypes, or narratives about youth—what youth is, what adolescents can and should be allowed to do—which can only be understood when seen in the context of intergenerational relationships, i.e., the relationship between youth and adults (Linders, 2017; Harring & Schenk, 2018). Positioned between childhood and adulthood, adolescence is a conflicted phase during which, as Klaus Hurrelmann emphasizes, essential socialization tasks must be tackled by adolescents in a productive manner (Hurrelmann & Quenzel, 2018). Adolescents are no longer, like children, solely understandable as passive and innocent but are actors in their socialization. While their autonomy is not yet fully mature, it is nonetheless relevant for understanding their actions. This highlights an essential point of adolescents’ sexual rights: these rights are not only based on physical grounds. Adolescents have these rights not just because they have sexual organs or undergo sexual development. They also have sexual rights because they need to relate to and learn to responsibly enjoy their own sexuality. Adolescents have reflexive access to their sexuality; they can consciously engage in sexual actions, perceive themselves as sexual beings among other sexual beings, and must position themselves accordingly. This is a crucial distinction from childhood sexuality.

Since the term “adolescence” differs greatly depending on cultural, historical, and disciplinary viewpoints, it is imperative to define it precisely in this context (Arnett, 2014). Anthropological viewpoints highlight how adolescence is socially constructed with diverse cultural markers and expectations, in contrast to Western psychological frameworks that frequently define adolescence chronologically (roughly ages 10–19) and developmentally (from puberty onset to relative psychosocial maturity) (Schlegel & Barry, 1991). Adolescence has extended in many Global North contexts to allow for longer schooling and postponed economic independence, but in other contexts—especially those experiencing financial hardship—the shift to adult responsibilities may happen much sooner (Furstenberg, 2010). While acknowledging that this framing reflects particular cultural assumptions that are not generally applicable, this paper primarily uses a conceptualization of adolescence rooted in the social sciences and developmental psychology and prevalent in European welfare states. Given that homeless youth frequently take on adult-like responsibilities for survival despite their developmental capacities and chronological age, their experiences may contradict traditional developmental frameworks.

Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach offers a significant normative basis for thinking about adolescents’ sexual rights (Sen, 1999; Nussbaum, 2000, 2011; Schweiger, 2023). Sen’s approach, particularly as articulated in works more directly relevant to human capabilities and rights (Sen, 1999), emphasizes freedom as the goal and the means of development, as well as Nussbaum’s articulation of fundamental human capacities as the minimal requirements for justice, provide strong conceptual frameworks for comprehending the ethical significance of adolescent sexual rights. The actual possibilities for achieving sexual health, autonomy, and expression—known as sexual capabilities—represent essential aspects of human flourishing that institutional frameworks ought to uphold and foster. The capabilities approach places more emphasis on actual freedoms to achieve valued sexual functionings than on merely formal rights or resource distribution, in contrast to utilitarian or resource-based approaches (Schweiger & Graf, 2015; Schweiger, 2021). This approach also acknowledges the importance of choice and agency—even as adolescents continue to develop the capacity for fully autonomous choice, they must be able to make meaningful decisions regarding their sexuality. Since adolescent sexual agency arises through social interaction and support rather than in isolation, applying capabilities thinking to adolescent sexuality necessitates carefully examining how capabilities develop and are exercised within relationships and communities (Unterhalter, 2003; Walker, 2006). The capabilities approach emphasizes that moral rights concern opportunities and freedoms. Rights protect those capabilities that are necessary for a good and sufficiently dignified life. This applies to sexual rights, where the focus is on the sexual capabilities that constitute sexual health. However, the rights of adolescents are not equated with those of adults and are distinct from the rights of children (Schweiger, 2023; Betzler, 2021). This inequality can be justified by referring to two particularities or differences.

Firstly, the capabilities approach centers on autonomy. Autonomy serves two functions here. Autonomy is the reason why rights pertain to capabilities-opportunities and freedoms. Individuals should be able to choose and decide for themselves how to use their rights to shape their lives and whether to realize the contents of those rights. Autonomy is also why individuals have these rights. In the capabilities approach, a good and adequately dignified life is one where individuals find sufficient opportunities and freedoms, which is morally valuable because people are autonomous (Nussbaum, 2011). The question of whether humans possess libertarian free will is a separate philosophical debate from the practical recognition of autonomous decision-making capacity, which is what concerns us here. Adolescent autonomy must be viewed in a nuanced way. There is much to suggest that adolescents, at least in certain areas, are as autonomous as adults (Franklin-Hall, 2013; Anderson & Claassen, 2012). Nevertheless, adolescence is the phase of heightened autonomy development, particularly the experience and testing of autonomy. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that adolescents are typically less autonomous than adults and thus may handle freedoms and opportunities less effectively. However, exercising their autonomy is fundamental to the life phase of youth—it is essential for proper development. The capabilities approach thus emphasizes the value of autonomy in adolescence and for adolescents (Schweiger & Graf, 2017).

Engagement with relational autonomy theory, which views autonomy as a capacity that develops and is exercised within social relationships rather than as an isolated individual achievement, is beneficial to this understanding of adolescent autonomy (Mackenzie & Stoljar, 2000; Nedelsky, 1989). Relational theorists emphasize how supportive relationships and social conditions foster autonomy, rejecting the atomistic view of the autonomous agent as independent and self-sufficient. This viewpoint is especially helpful for adolescences because it recognizes how their ability to make decisions on their own gradually grows via interactions with peers, parents, teachers, and other caring adults. Crucially, a relational autonomy framework shows how homelessness essentially erodes the social framework required to cultivate and exercise autonomous abilities. The relational underpinnings of autonomy are seriously jeopardized in the absence of stable housing, dependable supportive relationships, and fundamental material security (Christman, 2004; Anderson, 2014). The fact that homeless adolescents’ autonomous capacities are subject to structural limitations that their peers who are not homeless do not face does not imply that they completely lack agency. In addition to avoiding the false dichotomy between paternalistic protection and abandonment to total “freedom,” acknowledging autonomy as relational helps focus attention on the relationships and social conditions that support autonomous development.

Secondly, and what I consider the ethically weightier argument, is that it is plausible to view adolescence as a socially constructed period of moratorium on moral responsibility (Erikson, 1994; Walther & Stauber, 2024; Zinnecker, 2003). The concept of such a moratorium can be used descriptively, referring to how our modern societies are arranged so that adolescents are assigned less responsibility and are not expected to take on adult responsibilities despite similar capabilities—they have other tasks, particularly concerning their own psychosocial development and education. For example, adolescents typically do not work to support themselves, rehabilitative functions are emphasized in juvenile law over punishment, and they are not allowed to do certain things associated with high responsibility, like raising children alone. Ethically, the question is whether such a moratorium is justified. Several reasons can be cited (Anderson & Claassen, 2012), some referring to the aforementioned limited autonomy, others to different normative points—such as the idea that even if adolescents are as autonomous as adults in some areas, it makes sense to relieve them from some burdens of responsibility so they can better accomplish other developmental tasks (like education or self-discovery). Successful socialization enabled by the moratorium is valuable both for adolescents and society. Another reason for such a moratorium is the protection of adolescent well-being. Treating adolescents as adults would make them more vulnerable to harm (Schweiger, 2025). The moratorium has two dimensions: withholding certain rights from adolescents—a paternalistic measure to protect their well-being from themselves—and mitigating the consequences of their actions without holding them fully accountable, whether they act within or outside their rights.

The application of the moratorium concept requires critical examination, particularly given its differential application across social groups. While the psychological concept of moratorium describes a developmental stage of identity exploration before commitment, its implementation in social policy reveals significant inequalities. Young people from marginalized communities—particularly those experiencing poverty, racial discrimination, or involvement with juvenile justice or child welfare systems—are frequently “adultified” and denied the protective benefits that the moratorium theoretically provides (Burton, 2007; Goff et al., 2014; Epstein et al., 2017). For homeless youth, the moratorium concept becomes especially problematic: their homelessness often results from premature assumption of adult survival responsibilities without adequate support, while their developmental needs for identity formation persist despite these harsh circumstances. This requires reconceptualizing the moratorium not as a universal developmental stage, but as a socially constructed privilege that should be extended more equitably to all young people, including those experiencing homelessness, rather than treating it as an individual developmental deficiency (Côté, 2014; Furstenberg, 2000).

Against this, here strongly condensed, background, the sexual rights of adolescents should be understood. These rights relate to adolescent autonomy, acknowledging that it is still in development. More importantly, they recognize a moratorium that both restricts these rights and mitigates the negative consequences of adolescents’ actions to ensure their well-being and development. What this means in specific cases should be detailed in relation to the particular sexual rights concerned and the areas of sexual health they protect. In the further course of this contribution, this will be exemplified by examining the sexual rights of homeless adolescents.

3. Youth Sexuality Under Conditions of Homelessness

It is crucial to clarify the definition of “homelessness” used in this analysis before moving further. In addition to actual street homelessness, homelessness includes a range of unstable living arrangements, such as couch-surfing, short-term shelter stays, or living in cars or other non-human-habitation spaces (Gaetz et al., 2016). It is important to qualify the assertion that youth homelessness is “not widespread” in wealthy Global North nations—youth homelessness is significantly more common than official point-in-time counts indicate, according to recent research, with many young people experiencing “hidden homelessness” that is statistically invisible (Morton et al., 2018; Clarke et al., 2020). For instance, about 20% of homeless people in Canada are young people between the ages of 13 and 24 (Gaetz et al., 2016), while 4.2 million youth and young adults in the US are thought to be homeless each year (Morton et al., 2017). Rather than reflecting individual pathology, these figures are a reflection of systemic problems like poverty, housing insecurity, family strife, and institutionalized discrimination (Schweiger, 2019). Furthermore, among homeless populations, some groups are overrepresented, such as LGBTQ+ youth, Indigenous and racialized youth, and youth with a history of foster care or juvenile justice systems (Abramovich, 2016; Gaetz et al., 2016). These overrepresentation trends underscore the significance of structural analysis in comprehending youth homelessness since they are a reflection of larger social injustices rather than personal shortcomings.

I want to approach youth sexuality and sexual health under conditions of homelessness based on qualitative research, which provides material for the ethical analysis. This involves the limitation that no generalized statements in terms of statistical frequencies or correlations can be made. However, this is also not a priority for ethical analysis. Instead, the well-founded assumption that the situation described in the cited research literature applies to many homeless youths is sufficient. Even if this is only the case to some extent, generalizable ethical considerations can be made on this basis. This means that the aim is not to determine whether all homeless youth or what percentage (for example, in Germany) are exposed to risks to their sexual health but to argue that this constitutes a violation of their moral sexual rights, requiring action.

Firstly, let us briefly touch on the macro perspective. Homeless youth in Germany and Austria—the two countries I will focus on—are not a well-researched group, and their numbers can only be estimated. The German Youth Institute reported in 2017 that about 36,000 young people live on the streets (Beierle & Hoch, 2017). However, most of them are within the age group of 18 to 27, and thus not the primary focus of the ethical analysis in this contribution. There are just over 6500 minors, with the vast majority being adolescents between 14 and 18 years old. In Austria, according to Statistics Austria’s figures for 2021, nearly 2000 adolescents are considered homeless (APA, 2023). The discrepancy between these numbers—Germany has almost ten times the population of Austria—cannot be resolved here. It is enough to note that the problem exists on a relevant scale.

For a variety of reasons, these official figures probably underestimate the actual rate of youth homelessness. Youth experiencing hidden homelessness are usually not included in point-in-time counts, and accurate measurement is made more difficult by jurisdictional definitional discrepancies and data collection issues (Gaetz et al., 2016). Because of their bad experiences in institutions, their fear of being placed in foster care or returned to unsafe family situations, or both, many homeless youth deliberately avoid formal services. Furthermore, it is particularly difficult to obtain accurate statistics on youth homelessness due to its fluid nature, as many young people move between temporary housing. Research techniques that use more expansive definitions and creative sampling techniques routinely find prevalence rates that are significantly higher than those suggested by official statistics (Morton et al., 2017; Clarke et al., 2020).

Unlike in the USA, there is very little quantitative and qualitative research on the sexuality and sexual health of homeless youth in German-speaking countries. Although findings from the USA are not directly transferable due to higher homelessness rates, many of their observations are also reflected in German-speaking literature. The consistently noted issues can be summarized as follows (Thompson et al., 2010): Homelessness increases risky behaviors (more and variable sexual partners, less contraception and protection from sexually transmitted diseases), a much higher risk of sexual victimization (sexual violence, abuse), prostitution, and sexual favors (especially for drugs or temporary shelter), higher rates of pregnancies and abortions, lack of access to sexual health services (preventive examinations, medications, and treatments for sexual diseases), and frequent discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation or identity (it is also frequently noted that LGBTQIA+ youth often become homeless because they are thrown out, beaten, or discriminated against by their parents due to their sexuality). This macro perspective will now be complemented by details from a qualitative study from Germany that examined sexual risk behavior and risk management strategies among adolescents. The fact that this study is several years old is not relevant for the ethical analysis since the fundamental problem has not changed.

Before moving on to the case study, it is important to discuss transactional or survival sex, which is a crucial aspect of homeless youth sexuality, their sexual health and may be the most serious violation of sexual rights. Research continuously shows that between 25 and 45 percent of young people experiencing homelessness trade sex for necessities like food, shelter, safety, or drugs (Greene et al., 1999; Walls & Bell, 2011; Tyler & Johnson, 2006). Sexual consent and autonomy are fundamentally altered by this instrumentalization of sexuality. The context of severe material deprivation severely restricts meaningful choice, making trading sex what Faden and Beauchamp (1986) refer to as “controlling influences” that undermine autonomous decision-making, even though it may seem “voluntary” at first glance. The phenomenon of survival sex calls into question simple applications of sexual ethics that rely solely on consent because formal consent is obtained under structural coercion (Tyler & Johnson, 2006). While trying to preserve their sense of agency by distinguishing their activities from “official prostitution” (which in the German context typically refers to regulated sex work) and focusing on their decision-making, young people involved in survival sex frequently report feeling they have “no choice” because of their urgent survival needs (Gwadz et al., 2009). In addition to highlighting the need for relational and structural approaches to sexual ethics, this intricate negotiation of agency within extreme structural constraint serves as an example of the shortcomings of individualistic autonomy frameworks. While the case study presented below focuses on condom use, it must be situated within this broader context of how homelessness fundamentally transforms sexual decision-making beyond what is experienced by housed adolescents.

Despite making up only 5–10% of the overall youth population, LGBTQ+ youth experiences deserve special attention because they account for 20–40% of homeless youth populations (Choi et al., 2015; Robinson, 2018). These young people frequently experience homelessness not because of their sexual or gender identities per se, but as a direct result of family members’ and others’ homophobic and transphobic attitudes towards people so identified (Abramovich, 2016). Compared to their heterosexual and cisgender peers, LGBTQ+ homeless youth experience higher rates of sexual victimization, survival sex, and targeted violence (Choi et al., 2015; Keuroghlian et al., 2014). These increased vulnerabilities are a reflection of the ways that oppressive systems-housing instability, transphobia, and homophobia-intersect to create compound disadvantage. Instead of treating homeless youth as a monolithic group, an ethical examination of sexual rights must take these intersectional vulnerabilities into consideration.

Uwe Flick and Gundula Röhnsch conducted a study, interviewing 24 adolescents (average age 16.75 years; 12 girls and 12 boys) (Flick & Röhnsch, 2006a). They found widespread sexual risk behavior, to which the adolescents responded with different strategies. Sexual risk behavior here refers to engaging in heterosexual intercourse without condoms. The statements cited here intertwine aspects of sexuality, such as pleasure and embodied experience, with aspects of sexual health, such as risk management. For analytical clarity, the ethical argument focuses on the latter. What is morally at stake is not sexuality itself but the capability deprivation that prevents adolescents from protecting their sexual health. Flick and Röhnsch identified three strategies among the adolescents: risk avoidance, risk play, and conscious risk-taking. Six of the twenty-four adolescents adopted a risk-avoidance strategy, using condoms for protection. Six adolescents engaged in risk play, meaning sporadic condom use despite being aware of the risk. The reasons for this varied, including the belief that some risk is a normal part of life or not delaying sex until a condom is available. One adolescent also cited a financial consideration:

“They forgo protective measures because they consider condoms unaffordable. Consistent condom use appears superfluous luxury under street life conditions where securing daily survival is difficult: ‘When you don’t even have money to buy food, you hardly think about buying condoms. That’s clear. And I think that’s the stupid part of it. That it costs so much.’ (Helen, 14 years old) The possibility of getting both contraceptives and basic foodstuffs for free from aid organizations is apparently unknown to some of the affected individuals.”

(Flick & Röhnsch, 2006a, p. 180, translated by the author)

The adolescents who engage in risk play instead of using condoms adopt other risk minimization strategies-strategies that are not considered very reliable. Like the first group of risk avoiders, they are aware of the risks but choose to forego condom use. Two such strategies are “visual inspection” and “trust,” where the latter means asking the sexual partner if they have any diseases or assuming they would disclose such information. Regarding the first strategy of “visual inspection,” Flick and Röhnsch write:

“Through an ‘inspection’ of the partner, they try to assess the dangers of potential sexual intercourse. They avoid sexual contact if the partner shows visible signs of illness. In such cases, the adolescents feel fear of a potential similar ‘fate’ and at the same time disgust, as the partner appears unclean and ‘sexually exhausted’: ‘…that is also a turn-off when you see, oh, they have severe open sores or something, or there are little critters crawling around, that’s also not exactly pleasant.’ (Silke, 14 years old)”

(Flick & Röhnsch, 2006a, p. 180, translated by the author)

The third and largest group of adolescents, twelve of the twenty-four interviewed, knowingly take risks, being mostly aware of sexually transmitted diseases, but still almost always or generally abstain from using condoms. These adolescents predominantly do not see themselves as responsible for protecting themselves or their partners. Various reasons are cited for this risky behavior. Some adolescents find condoms interfering and detrimental to their satisfaction; others are aware that they become sexually active under the influence of drugs or alcohol and sometimes do not even remember the encounters, while others wrongly assess the risk of infection or consciously repress it. Here’s another quote from the study:

“Expressing sexual needs is seen by the respondents as contributing to their current well-being, which in turn is a central component of their understanding of health. Condoms are perceived as an unpleasant, interrupting ‘intervention’ that makes pleasurable sensations impossible. They can also evoke disgust due to their texture: ‘I hate condoms. I might as well get a dildo; it feels the same. … like a vibrator. Like rubber stuff.’ (Irina, 15 years old)”

(Flick & Röhnsch, 2006a, p. 182, translated by the author)

Since it reveals a complex interplay between agency and constraint that characterizes homeless youth sexuality more broadly, the concept of “risk play” as defined by Flick and Röhnsch merits further theoretical investigation. Risk play is a type of bounded agency in which adolescents make decisions and feel in control of their lives despite being in extremely limited situations (K. Evans, 2007). A complex balancing act between short-term desires, resource constraints, and health concerns, risk play differs from conscious risk-taking in that it entails acknowledging danger and putting alternative (if ineffective) risk management strategies into practice. This phenomenon can be explained by Bourdieu’s idea of habitus, which refers to embodied dispositions influenced by social circumstances that direct practical action without completely dictating it (Bourdieu, 1990). Risk play arises for homeless youth as a result of a habit formed in an environment of material deprivation, where short-term demands frequently take precedence over long-term planning, and where institutional mistrust may erode health messaging. Risk play is a type of practical rationality that has been adjusted to situations of uncertainty and scarcity, rather than being just irrational behavior (Cockerham, 2005). Risk play questions oversimplified divisions between structural determinism and free will from an ethical standpoint. These young people are active agents navigating extremely limited options rather than passive victims of circumstance or fully autonomous decision-makers. Approaches that address the structural factors that make risk play seem reasonable in their life contexts while also acknowledging youth agency are suggested by this complexity, which has implications for intervention strategies (K. Evans, 2007; Spears Johnson et al., 2016).

The findings of this study are particularly interesting for ethical analysis because they do not primarily target social deprivation—which plays a significant role—but highlight the agency of the adolescents. Therefore, it is irrelevant for the ethical analysis that the study and the underlying research are almost two decades old. The fundamental issues have not changed. These adolescents are not merely victims; they are actors who develop and implement different strategies and provide reasons for their decision-making, regardless of how one might initially assess the quality of their statements. This excerpt naturally leaves out many of the aforementioned risks to the sexual health of homeless adolescents since it focuses on self-chosen sexual behavior and managing the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, without addressing the risk of unwanted pregnancy, which is not discussed in Flick and Röhnsch’s study but is worth noting here. Additionally, the discussions of condom use in the context of heterosexual intercourse implicitly address pregnancy risk, as condom use reduces the likelihood of unwanted pregnancy alongside STI prevention. The conditions under which these sexual activities take place are not further explored, or are only briefly mentioned—when and where do these adolescents have sex? Before moving on to the ethical considerations, it’s noteworthy that the presented practices—and these risk management strategies—are neither exceptional nor surprising, as indicated by studies focusing on the macro perspective. Many homeless youths exhibit high-risk behavior, leading to a high incidence of unwanted pregnancies and a significant burden of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, in this group (Halcón & Lifson, 2004).

From the ethical perspective of adolescent sexual rights, two assessments are particularly relevant here. Firstly, the behavior of many of these homeless adolescents involves significant risks. Most of them frequently or occasionally take the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases or, in the case of girls, becoming unintentionally pregnant. It should be clarified that labeling pregnancy as a risk does not mean equating it with a disease—far from it. Nonetheless, the ability to control whether a girl becomes pregnant is part of her sexual rights. An unwanted pregnancy, along with all possible complications and the associated physical and psychological burdens, should be avoided from the perspective of sexual rights. As previously discussed, sexual rights empower girls to decide for themselves if, when, and by whom they get pregnant (Liang et al., 2019). In conclusion, understanding youth sexuality and sexual health in the context of homelessness through the lens of sexual rights involves recognizing both the agency and the significant vulnerabilities of these adolescents. The highlighted risky behaviors and inadequate risk management strategies underscore a critical need for targeted interventions and support systems that respect and uphold the sexual rights of homeless adolescents while mitigating the profound risks they face in their precarious living conditions.

4. Adolescents’ Responsibility Revisited

One might suppose that, from a sexual rights perspective, consensual adolescent sexual behaviour is behaviour for which participants should be expected to take responsibility. Even though this behaviour is often risky for homeless adolescents, they are largely aware of the risks they are taking. However, there are two important considerations—the autonomy deficit and adolescent moratorium—that reveal this to be a mistakenly oversimplified view. A third consideration combines the first two by situating them in relation to the social and material contexts of homeless youth.

It is necessary to explain the idea of “autonomy deficit” carefully in order to prevent misunderstandings. This phrase does not denote a complete lack of autonomy in adolescents or a dichotomy between young people who are not autonomous and adults who are. Instead, it speaks of particular aspects of decision-making ability that continue to develop during adolescence and the early stages of adulthood. According to neurobiological research, brain development continues well into the mid-twenties. The prefrontal cortex, which is linked to executive functions like impulse control, planning, and long-term consequence consideration, is given special attention (Casey et al., 2008; Steinberg, 2008 and others). This course of development results in what Casey et al. (2008) refer to a “maturational gap” between the development of the prefrontal control systems and the limbic system, which is linked to reward-seeking and emotional reactivity. Adolescent decision-making is qualitatively different from adult decision-making, especially in emotionally charged situations like sexual encounters, according to this neurodevelopmental research. However, environmental factors like stress, trauma, and the availability of resources interact with these developmental patterns. Chronic stress brought on by housing instability and survival concerns may further impair prefrontal functioning in homeless youth, making decision-making more difficult than would be predicted based only on developmental factors (Blair & Raver, 2016; G. W. Evans & Kim, 2013). This empirically supported interpretation of the “autonomy deficit” acknowledges the actual developmental and contextual factors that may limit optimal decision-making, especially for those who are homeless, while avoiding oversimplified depictions of adolescents as fundamentally irrational.

The first objection points to the fact that adolescent autonomy is not yet fully mature adult autonomy, and therefore their capacity for assuming responsibility is limited. This does not mean that the adolescents in the given case study—or adolescents in general—are incapable of autonomously deciding on their sexual behavior. It is important to distinguish here between adolescents’ sexuality, which concerns identity formation, desire and relational agency, and their sexual health, which concerns their capability to avoid serious risks such as infection or unintended pregnancy. The present discussion of responsibility concerns this latter capability. Adolescents’ sexuality is not the object of moral evaluation, whereas their sexual health raises questions of support, responsibility and rights. There is no fundamental deficit in their ability to be autonomous, as is the case with children (thus, sexual decision-making is prohibited for them). The autonomy of these adolescents, as reflected in the quoted statements, seems to lack mature adult reasonableness, leading them to act irrationally. Of course, it cannot be denied that adults also act irrationally and engage in risky sexual behaviors. However, it seems plausible to assume that for adolescents, the ability to make autonomous, sexual decisions is still in development, and their lack of maturity plays a role. The comparison to adults does not stem from the case study, which focuses on adolescents, but can be substantiated with insights from youth research—both social scientific research on adolescent behavior and psychological research on adolescent development, which suggest that adolescents typically still exhibit autonomy deficits in sexual decisions and actions, making it difficult for them to make reasonable, reflective, and self-consistent decisions. An important reason for this is the experiential deficit of adolescents and the unfinished developmental task of forming a stable sexual identity. This means that these homeless adolescents, by engaging in risky sexual behaviors and making decisions that endanger their own sexual health, indeed impact their sexual rights, as these rights also include protection from certain kinds of risk-taking and support to help them make better decisions. It’s not about prohibiting sexual activities—which likely would not be practically enforceable—but recognizing that their risky behavior cannot be considered morally “neutral” or harmless simply because it is seemingly voluntary. Adolescent autonomy is not yet mature autonomy, indicating a need for intervention to help these adolescents protect their own sexual health and that of others by reducing risky behaviors.

To prevent misunderstandings, the term “experiential deficit” needs to be defined. This phrase refers to the cumulative nature of decision-making competence through exposure to a variety of situations and their outcomes rather than to innate cognitive limitations. Experience serves as a resource and a teacher, giving people a repertoire of situations, results, and feelings that help them make decisions in the future. This experiential foundation is still being formed for adolescents in general; for homeless adolescents in particular, their experiences may be both comparatively extensive in some areas and restricted in others. Crucially, experiential deficit should not be viewed as a personal weakness but rather as a reflection of societal trends in information, education, and guidance. Numerous homeless youth have been routinely denied access to stable peer groups where sexual norms and values are gradually established, comprehensive sex education, and reliable adult mentorship. These young people also frequently have exceptional firsthand knowledge of resource navigation, survival, and adaptability to difficult situations, which many adults do not have (Bender et al., 2007). Rather than labeling homeless youth as merely “lacking,” this nuanced understanding of experiential differences acknowledges the actual repercussions of limited access to particular kinds of information and guidance. While acknowledging how social arrangements systematically deprive some young people of the experiential foundations that support sexual health decision-making, the ethical implication is not to discount youth decision-making capacity (Aggleton & Campbell, 2000; Ingham, 2006).

The second objection pertains to the moratorium on adolescent responsibility and their well-being, particularly their sexual health. This implies that, independent of whether the homeless adolescents are sufficiently autonomous to make their own decisions, a paternalistic justification can be used to protect them from themselves. Unlike the previously discussed autonomy objection, this objection considers whether it is morally legitimate or even necessary, from the perspective of the adolescents’ sexual rights, to intervene even if they do not wish it and if no autonomy deficit were present. Both arguments can and should be intertwined, suggesting that the paternalistic argument holds even if we assume developing autonomy rather than a complete lack of autonomy. Adolescents’ sexual rights aim to protect their sexual health. Homeless adolescents, whether they indulge in risk play or take conscious risks, endanger their sexual health (and that of other adolescents). The consequences, which are important here, can be severe, particularly in cases of HIV infection—other sexually transmitted diseases can also have long-term or severe implications, especially under the deprived conditions of homelessness. As mentioned earlier, the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, with its significant psychological (and physical) burdens, can be substantial. The consequences of an adolescent girl becoming a mother come with numerous disadvantages (more frequent school dropouts, difficulty in managing the child, poorer job prospects, etc.) (Cook & Cameron, 2015). In the sense of a responsibility moratorium, the aim is to ensure well-being and preemptively protect adolescents from the negative consequences of their actions or mitigate them afterward. Both approaches can be advocated here, although it seems plausible to assume that preventive intervention is more sensible than retrospective support, especially since some negative consequences, such as HIV infection, may be irreversible. Now, sexually transmitted diseases, which are the focus here, represent negative consequences that, in modern societies with a solidarity-based public health system, are mitigated for adults regardless of the role their voluntary decisions have played in their health status. Adults who consciously take the risk of infection by forgoing condom use are treated free of charge (in modern welfare states like Germany or Austria with a functioning public health system, of course). This is due to the nature of the negative consequence or because (sexual) health remains largely outside the responsibility paradigm (adults who eat unhealthily are also treated free of charge). However, this does not change the fact that in the case of adolescents, the moratorium can serve as an ethical justification, particularly justifying special programs and services for adolescents, especially in the realm of prevention.

The paternalistic argument provides an ethical foundation for intervention, but it needs to be properly qualified to steer clear of strategies that jeopardize the very autonomy development we are trying to promote. Even with the best of intentions, paternalism runs the risk of infantilizing children, making them feel even more helpless, or turning them off of all forms of assistance. Respecting someone’s autonomy, according to Christman (2014), entails more than just refraining from interfering with their decisions; it also entails fostering the circumstances in which autonomous capacity grows—what he refers to as “autonomy-constituting care.” This qualification means that when working with homeless youth, paternalistic interventions should be planned to support their growing autonomy rather than to avoid it. Harm reduction philosophy (Marlatt, 1996; Pauly, 2008) suggests that interventions should strike a balance between short-term risk reduction and the development of longer-term autonomy through progressive responsibility, education, and nonjudgmental support. Such interventions are ethically justified not because adolescents are thought to be incapable, but rather because society has a responsibility to foster an environment that allows for the development of meaningful autonomy. According to Mackenzie (2008), autonomy necessitates not only immunity from outside influence but also constructive encouragement of self-governance, such as access to resources, acknowledgment, and involvement opportunities. This implies that for adolescents experiencing homelessness, sexual health interventions need to be combined with more comprehensive initiatives to address social exclusion, economic marginalization, and housing instability. Without addressing these underlying issues, paternalistic policies that only target sexual behavior run the risk of exacerbating the very vulnerability they are intended to address (Brijnath, 2015; Pauly, 2008).

The third objection addresses the specific situation of homeless adolescents, particularly their homeless condition, and questions to what extent this condition influences their behavior and frames the ethical analysis. In my assessment, this influence is significant. While it is accurate to state that typically all adolescents, regardless of their background, do not possess fully mature autonomy and that all should be protected under a moratorium, homelessness exacerbates both the vulnerability of these adolescents and affects their autonomy capacity. In qualitative studies like the one by Flick and Rönsch, only homeless adolescents are considered. The macro perspective, however, clearly shows that adolescents in deprived situations, particularly homelessness, are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior. It is plausible that homelessness influences these adolescents, shaping their attitudes and behaviors, making them more inclined to gamble with risks and consciously take risks. The inadequacy of their risk-avoidance strategies correlates with their deprived living conditions. Flick and Rönsch also observe that these adolescents’ bleak future prospects influence their behavior. As shown in other studies, these adolescents lack a positive outlook on the future and aspirations.

“The problem faced by the adolescents we interviewed arises, on the one hand, from the living conditions ‘on the street,’ under which the decision for (or against) safer sex is made. Condoms are deemed financially unaffordable, causing some respondents to engage in risky behavior due to cost constraints. On the other hand, the situation of poverty that characterizes these adolescents means they focus on survival in the here and now. Preventive behavior in general and safer sex, in particular, seem like a ‘costly’ investment in an (uncertain) future.”

(Flick & Röhnsch, 2006a, p. 185, translated by the author)

This observation correlates with the intensive consumption of alcohol and drugs by homeless adolescents, as discussed by Flick and Rönsch in another publication (Flick & Röhnsch, 2006b). Other studies confirm this finding. Alcohol and drug consumption make the experience of homelessness more bearable, and similar to risky sexual behavior, many adolescents take the risk of health damage because intoxication offers them more immediate relief. The escape from reality provided by alcohol and drugs, especially when consumed in high doses and regularly, destroys long-term developmental prospects. Under the influence of alcohol and drugs, risky sexual behavior becomes easier and more likely. Similarly, under these conditions, particularly when there is addictive behavior, their autonomy capacity is significantly restricted (Flick & Röhnsch, 2009).

“Intensive (mixed) consumption of alcohol and drugs (cannabis, amphetamines, hallucinogens, or even heroin) must be seen as a central risk factor. For adolescents, this consumption is functional in helping them endure their current life situation, which is increasingly viewed as uncontrollable, both psychologically and physically. The substances ‘serve’ the affected individuals as a multipurpose medication, heat source, and food substitute, as well as a means to buffer the discrimination experienced from the social environment or to maintain social relationships with peers within their scene.”

(Flick & Röhnsch, 2009, p. 51, translated by the author)

From a certain, significantly shortened perspective, the focus of these adolescents even appears “rational”—because the future offers them nothing, they seek sexual pleasure (and intoxication) in the present without regard for potential negative consequences, which may only become apparent years later, such as an HIV infection. The seemingly self-chosen compromise of their sexual rights through the endangerment of their sexual health should then be seen as the result of a combination of typical adolescence, deprived living conditions, and a lack of positive future outlook. This does not imply that it would be right or reasonable to deny these adolescents any agency or autonomy. They operate within the constraints of their (individually varying) capacities, their homelessness, and their unique life stories, making decisions within these contexts—decisions that are bad for themselves (and potentially others), though from their severely limited perspective these decisions may correctly assess their limited prospects. Thus, decisions which would be unduly risky if they had longer-term prospects may in fact be the most reasonable options available, getting them through the short term, e.g., preventing suicide or violence to others. There is no trade-off with future harms if they can’t realistically expect much of a future. The case study also indicates that there is principled room for maneuver, given that six adolescents practice safer sex and place a high value on it. This raises the question of how to respond to this situation: How can these adolescents be supported so that they do not endanger their own sexual health and so that they become active agents better able to protect and safely exercise their sexual rights?

When compared to typical temporal orientations of middle-class youth that presume stable futures and predictable life trajectories, the finding that some homeless youth prioritize instant gratification over long-term health may seem irrational. However, present-focused orientations might be an adaptive reaction rather than merely faulty reasoning in situations of extreme uncertainty. Both behavioral economics and sociology research show how scarcity and uncertainty radically alter the temporal horizon of decision-making, with those who are materially deprived showing higher discount rates for future events. This pattern is consistent across socioeconomic levels when resource availability is taken into account (Shah et al., 2012; Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013). This viewpoint challenges us to reevaluate what “rational” sexual decision-making looks like in the context of homelessness. A rational prioritization within severely limited options, rather than impulsivity or irrationality, may be demonstrated by sexual activity for immediate pleasure, connection, or resource acquisition when daily survival is uncertain, institutional distrust is widespread, and long-term prospects seem to be the most reasonable options (Bourgois et al., 2004; Spears Johnson et al., 2016). While emphasizing how structural conditions essentially shape the parameters within which decisions occur, this analysis refrains from pathologizing the decision-making of homeless youth. The moral implication is that interventions that only target changing an individual’s behavior without addressing underlying structural issues may essentially misunderstand the logic at play in deprivation-related situations. In the limited opportunity structures that homeless youth traverse, effective strategies must concurrently address urgent harm reduction needs and endeavor to change the material circumstances that make present-focused, high-risk behaviors seem to be the most reasonable options (Bourgois et al., 2004; Rhodes et al., 2005).

5. Protection of the Sexual Rights of Adolescents Under Conditions of Homelessness

The sexual rights of adolescents are precarious and frequently violated under conditions of homelessness. As the above analysis of a specific dimension of sexual health-protection against sexually transmitted diseases and responsible behavior towards them—has shown, this is also relevant where adolescents are active agents. Indeed, the ethical challenge of sexual rights becomes particularly apparent here, as the protective function and autonomy function of sexual rights are in tension with each other. Two strategies will now be discussed on how to respond to this issue.

The first strategy, likely to find much support, is to call for the end of youth homelessness. There are many reasons for this, which, of course, are not limited to sexual health or the risky behavior of these adolescents. Homelessness represents severe deprivation, both materially and socially. The protective moratorium of youth, the phase during which they can develop healthily, is severely disrupted, making the successful management of developmental tasks of socialization almost impossible (unfortunately, studies on the life courses of severely deprived adolescents show this) (Stablein & Appleton, 2013; Heerde et al., 2021). It is expected that the elimination of homelessness would also reduce the violations of sexual health rights-fewer sexually transmitted diseases, violence, abuse, unwanted pregnancies, developmental disorders of sexual identity formation, etc. However, not all issues would be resolved. All these violations and risks to the sexual rights of adolescents also exist, though less frequently, among non-homeless adolescents. Nonetheless, focusing on the discussed case study, these adolescents would be substantially helped regarding their sexual rights if they were not homeless, which also involves the absence of the reasons for their homelessness—largely failed family histories. After all, as has been demonstrated numerous times, residential care in youth groups does not solve all social problems. Most psychosocial disruptions originate in childhood, in broken families, violent and abusive parents, parental addictions that minimize their parenting abilities, neglect, and the trauma of being separated from their family of origin by child and youth services. The greatest help would have been if they had never become homeless. But ending their homelessness would open up new forms of assistance and support, perhaps even enabling them, with appropriate support, to have a positive outlook on the future. Finally, it should be noted, without delving deeper into the issue, that homelessness can also be “self-chosen,” perceived by the adolescents as a “lesser” evil compared to living at home or in a shared living group.

It is necessary to critically reevaluate how the causes of youth homelessness are framed in order to steer clear of stigmatizing terminology that places the issue in specific families rather than structural factors. Without recognizing the structural forces and limitations that lead to family instability, especially for those who are facing racism, poverty, housing insecurity, and other types of structural disadvantage, the term “failed family histories” may pathologize families (Toro et al., 2007). Similarly, rather than consciously choosing housing instability, the idea of “self-chosen” homelessness runs the risk of misrepresenting complex situations in which young people make limited decisions between untenable options-often escaping abuse, conflict, or rejection (Hyde, 2005; Mayock et al., 2013). A more fitting definition acknowledges that the interplay of structural (poverty, housing insecurity, insufficient social safety nets), institutional (failures of the child welfare system, exclusionary school policies), interpersonal (family conflict, abuse, rejection), and individual (mental health, substance use) factors leads to youth homelessness (Gaetz et al., 2013). By showing how socioeconomic circumstances produce environments where family dissolution is more likely to occur and has more serious repercussions, this ecological understanding moves the emphasis from individual pathology to systemic responsibility. Young people who leave unsupportable home situations without safe alternatives are not making a “choice” to become homeless; rather, they are being forced to choose between dangerous options without the proper assistance and interventions (Mayock et al., 2013). Because it shifts accountability from “fixing” individuals or families to addressing structural issues, this rephrasing is morally significant. It also steers clear of stigmatizing narratives that may further marginalize homeless youth and their families of origin.

In an ideal world, youth homelessness would not exist. Unfortunately, this does not seem like a realistic short-term goal. In the near future (within a few months or years), there will still be homeless adolescents. Other approaches are needed in the interim to support the sexual rights and well-being of these adolescents. The large number of homeless youths and the removal of children and adolescents from their families show this reality. Even if this were achieved in a few years, it remains a task to address the present problems, thereby doing everything possible to ensure the sexual rights of these adolescents. One can differentiate between the macro and micro levels: what policymakers should do to eliminate youth homelessness and what constitutes appropriate actions in the local environment and direct work with these adolescents. Social work cannot simply be reduced to political demands, nor can the ethical challenges it faces be dissolved into political imperatives alone.

What, then, would be an ethically feasible approach? If the previous arguments are plausible, it would not be justified to ignore these adolescents and their risky sexual behavior and leave them to their own devices. They are not yet capable of being entirely responsible for themselves, even if they have grown up faster than other adolescents due to their homelessness. While indifference is not the answer, neither are proposals to suppress youth sexuality with prohibitions. Such prohibitions are known to be ineffective, especially on the streets, and also not in residential settings. The specifics of ethical challenges concerning the sexual behavior and conduct of adolescents in residential care will not be detailed here (Helfferich et al., 2020). Social workers are not parents. The rules set by professional organizations acting on behalf of the state are not comparable in their justification needs and enforcement to those set by parents. Regulating sexual behavior through house rules in youth shared living groups (e.g., who can be in whose room and for how long, or whether the door can be locked) may be sensible, but when adolescents want to have sex, they will find ways to do it. Moreover, these youths are not criminals and their accommodation is not a prison. Adolescents living on the streets are entirely outside the reach of such measures. In any case, such regulation contradicts the adolescent right to sexual health, which includes the experience and expression of one’s sexuality. Protective measures can only intervene when the risk of exploitation and abuse due to age or power imbalances is too significant.

Harm reduction philosophy provides valuable conceptual resources for addressing sexual health among homeless youth. It resolves the dichotomy between prohibition and non-intervention, ignoring a crucial middle ground (Marlatt, 1996; Pauly, 2008). Approaches to harm reduction acknowledge that risky behaviors fall on a continuum and that any step in the right direction is a significant advancement. This strategy accepts that homeless youth engage in sexual activity while attempting to reduce related risks through nonjudgmental, useful interventions (Cusick, 2006; Rew, 2001). Providing low-barrier sexual health services, such as STI testing and treatment; offering contraception without parental notification requirements; providing post-exposure prophylaxis and pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention; facilitating easy access to free condoms, lubricants, and other safer sex supplies without requiring program participation; and establishing safe spaces for open discussion about sexual health without judgment or moralization are some examples of harm reduction for sexual health among homeless youth (Rew, 2001; Ensign & Santelli, 1998). According to research, these practical methods work better than prohibition or non-intervention tactics, especially for underserved groups (Marlatt, 1996; Cusick, 2006). By emphasizing the growth of genuine opportunities and freedoms while recognizing the limitations that influence decision-making, the harm reduction framework is consistent with capabilities theory. It offers an ethically sound compromise between paternalistic control and abandonment to “freedom” by addressing the structural factors that restrict meaningful choice while also respecting youth agency (Pauly, 2008; Rhodes et al., 2005).

Securing Sexual Rights and thereby Protecting Sexual Health—both in terms of disease prevention and supporting safer consensual sexual activity—essentially involves empowering homeless adolescents. From a capability perspective, empowerment must be understood at two levels. Adolescents need support in developing their sexuality in the broader sense, including identity development, bodily awareness and relational skills. At the same time, they require the concrete capabilities that constitute sexual health, such as safe spaces, knowledge, access to contraception and supportive social environments. Distinguishing both levels makes clear which interventions strengthen the general development of sexuality and which secure the specific capabilities protected by sexual rights. Empowerment in this context means educating them about risks and options, providing condoms, supporting and guiding them in case of questions, fears, or uncertainties, and a significantly important measure: supporting the development of a positive outlook on the future, confidence in their abilities, and the understanding that life need not be determined by experiences of deprivation and homelessness. Flick and Rönsch emphasize this, albeit without explicitly stating or discussing the ethical foundation underlying their view:

“Another essential goal of interventions should be to convey life perspectives beyond the street to homeless adolescents and to build or restore a supportive social network beyond their scene, in collaboration with the affected individuals. This would enable them to break away from the generally health-damaging norms of their scene network and to forego risky behavior in anticipation of a more rewarding future.”

(Flick & Röhnsch, 2006a, p. 186, translated by the author)

It is crucial to understand that successful “future orientation” interventions cannot be solely psychological; rather, they must be based on tangible change, even though Flick and Röhnsch’s advice to cultivate optimistic future views is worthwhile. Positive future outlooks cannot be merely instilled in young people without accompanying material circumstances that make them realistic rather than idealistic. According to Bourdieu (1984), one’s relationship with the future is essentially influenced by objective possibilities; people whose lives are extremely precarious adopt dispositions that are tailored to those circumstances, such as temporally oriented present-oriented views. This realization implies that encouraging optimistic views for the future needs to be combined with real advancements in the material circumstances and opportunities available to homeless youth. The foundational security required for longer-term planning and lower risk behaviors can be effectively created by housing-first strategies, which offer stable housing without behavioral prerequisites (Gaetz, 2014; Kozloff et al., 2016). Realistic future orientation is further developed through educational opportunities, job training, and steady supportive relationships (Slesnick et al., 2007). When the structural conditions that limit young people’s options are left intact, interventions that only aim to change youth attitudes without addressing their material circumstances run the risk of placing the onus of transformation on the young people themselves. To effectively support the development of both capability and functioning in the area of sexual health, comprehensive approaches must concurrently address material conditions, psychological resources, and immediate health needs (Rhodes, 2002; Slesnick et al., 2009).

What is also highlighted here, which is central from the perspective of the capabilities approach, is the recognition of the agency and autonomy of adolescents, even if this is not fully mature autonomy. The balance between freedom and protection is particularly challenging in the case of adolescents who are “too” free, as homelessness strips away many resources and familial support while simultaneously granting increased freedoms. Their relationships of trust with adults are likely to be disturbed and fractured. Therefore, the goal is to work together with these adolescents to restore, secure, and guarantee their sexual rights. While they cannot be forced not to endanger themselves, they can hopefully be supported in making wiser decisions. This can only succeed if actions are taken with them and not just for them, unlike with children.

Adolescents experiencing homelessness may face resistance to interventions aimed at promoting their sexual rights due to both structural and personal factors. It makes sense that many homeless youth would be skeptical of intervention efforts given their past bad experiences with institutions, authority figures, and social service systems (Ensign & Gittelsohn, 1998; Hudson et al., 2010). Given societal tendencies to either problematize or completely ignore youth sexuality, this skepticism may be especially noticeable (Egan & Hawkes, 2012). Therefore, restoring institutional trust by earning it must be vital to the success of attempted ethical interventions. This can be done by establishing dependable, consistent, and nonjudgmental relationships that respect youth agency. Particular promise has been shown in overcoming resistance and fostering meaningful engagement through peer-based approaches that treat homeless youth as partners rather than intervention targets (Medlow et al., 2014; Slesnick et al., 2009). These methods acknowledge young people’s knowledge of their own lived experiences while connecting them to resources and assistance that might not otherwise be available. The political and religious viewpoints that might be against access to contraception, comprehensive sex education, or acceptance of LGBTQ+ identities must also be addressed in interventions. Those who are homeless and other vulnerable youth are frequently disproportionately affected by these objections (Santelli et al., 2006). In order to resolve these conflicts, ethical arguments for comprehensive sexual health care must be ready to draw on capabilities-focused defenses of fundamental dignity, evidence-based results, and harm reduction theories that cut across ideological boundaries (Breuner & Mattson, 2016; Santelli et al., 2006).

6. Conclusions

The exploration of youth sexuality, sexual health and rights, particularly under the precarious conditions of homelessness, reveals critical dimensions where ethical considerations and practical responses intersect. This paper underscores that homeless adolescents, despite their challenging circumstances, remain active agents with sexual needs and rights. However, their capacity for autonomy is still developing, and their unique situation makes them particularly vulnerable to the consequences of risky behaviors and threats to sexual health.

Firstly, the analysis affirms that homeless adolescents frequently engage in risky sexual behaviors, posing significant threats to their sexual health and overall well-being. The qualitative study by Flick and Röhnsch highlights the diverse strategies these youth employ to manage sexual risks, albeit often inadequately, due to financial constraints, lack of access to protective measures, or substance abuse.

Secondly, the application of the capabilities approach to the sexual rights of adolescents emphasizes that these rights encompass more than just the absence of disease—they include the healthy development of sexuality, sexual health, sexual autonomy, and positive self-regard as sexual beings. This description of adolescents as sexual beings refers to the broad domain of sexuality understood as identity, embodiment and affective development. It does not yet describe their sexual health. Sexual health, in the capability sense, refers to the concrete opportunities adolescents have to engage with their sexuality safely and autonomously. Distinguishing these two dimensions helps to clarify how homelessness restricts both the broader development of sexuality and the specific capabilities that constitute sexual health. Given the developmental stage of adolescence, these rights must be protected and nurtured, balancing autonomy and protective measures. The ethical framework proposed in this paper suggests two primary strategies to address the sexual rights of homeless adolescents. The first, more idealistic strategy calls for the elimination of youth homelessness, recognizing it as a profound deprivation that disrupts healthy socialization and development, including sexual health. However, acknowledging the persistence of homelessness in the near future, the second strategy focuses on mitigating the risks and protecting sexual rights through immediate, pragmatic interventions. Practical measures at the micro-level include targeted education about sexual health risks, providing access to condoms and sexual health services, and fostering supportive relationships with trusted adults. Importantly, empowering homeless adolescents involves helping them to be able imagine and reasonably expect a positive future beyond their current circumstances, thus encouraging healthier behaviors. Overall, protecting the sexual rights of homeless adolescents requires a nuanced balance between respecting their emerging autonomy and providing necessary support and interventions to safeguard their well-being. Interventions should be collaborative, recognizing their agency while guiding them towards making safer, more informed choices. Through these efforts, we can better uphold their sexual rights and contribute to their overall health and future potential.

Numerous significant limitations of this analysis should guide future investigations and ethical deliberations. First, the used case study mainly examines condom use as a window into heterosexual decision-making, failing to sufficiently address a wider range of sexual health issues, such as sexual violence, transactional sex, reproductive health beyond pregnancy prevention, and the unique difficulties LGBTQ+ youth face. Second, when applied to other cultural and socioeconomic contexts, the paper’s conceptual framework of adolescence, capabilities, and sexual rights—which is primarily Western European-may need to be modified. The significance of structural factors in influencing sexual behaviors is acknowledged in the paper; however, further effort is required to create intervention frameworks that successfully connect structural change and individual empowerment. Participatory approaches that involve homeless youth as co-researchers rather than merely subjects should be used in future studies to guarantee that their viewpoints directly influence theoretical advancement and real-world interventions. Furthermore, the ethical basis for intervention would be significantly strengthened by intersectional approaches that address how homelessness interacts with gender, sexuality, race, disability status, and other aspects of identity to shape sexual rights. Lastly, longitudinal studies that look at the long-term effects of various intervention strategies would offer important empirical support for moral arguments regarding the tactics that best support homeless adolescents’ sexual rights and capacities over time.