Banned From Having Sex By High Court Because IQ Is Too Low!

A man with an IQ of 48 has been ordered to stop having sex by a High Court judge.Known only as Alan, the 41-year-old was in a relationship with a man he lived with and said he wanted it to continue.However, his local council said his 'vigorous sex drive' was inappropriate so started legal proceedings to restrict the relationship.

Read More At Daily Mail


Hmmmm.....

This can only lead to no good!

I'm fairly sure that there are going to be mixed feelings on this one - perhaps the guy needs protecting from himself. But for the High Court to get involved, that's surely going to impact on us all.

Thoughts?

This sounds correct to me.

People with serious learning disabilities are incapable of giving adequate consent, so the man he was having sex with was exploiting him, and probably should have been charged with rape or sexual assault ( assuming the other man has ''normal'' mental faculties ).

It's the same as someone having sexual relations with a ''consenting'' child; that's still rape or sexual assault, because young children aren't mentally or physically developed enough to give adequate consent.

I think he should have the same rights as anyone else has. How do the courts know exactly what this guys boyfriends intentions were...

Hmm, appears I could be facing anything from 20 years to life then.

thats just a sad story, couldn't the guy doing him find some other gay fella's.
i mean if he that's sick to want to be doing some one thats mentally challenged.
i guess it goes to show ya, that perversion runs in all kinds of of sexual orientations
now don't slam me i'm not knocking gay folks just saying, you got perverts everywhere.

reply to post by Kellys


OK WHY? I mean I could understand if it was about procreation, but far as I know two men can't become pregnant from sex together. They need awoman to do that. So this is really ludicrous.

...if this report is accurate, which isnt something that rag is known for, the judge is an insane ass... if "alan" is so retarded that he cant comprehend the intricacies involved in sex - how in the hell is he going to comprehend this stupid ruling barring him from ever having sex again?... answer: he wont... so, whats the next step in nazi-land?... chemical castration - prison - solitary confinement?...

reply to post by Kellys


F&S from me.

According to the article, the Court has issues with the man's "vigorous sex drive" as well as, apparently, his homosexuality and the risk of exposure to HIV.

How dare they?!?

Can anyone spell EUGENICS POLICY ?

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
thats just a sad story, couldn't the guy doing him find some other gay fella's.
i mean if he that's sick to want to be doing some one thats mentally challenged.
i guess it goes to show ya, that perversion runs in all kinds of of sexual orientations
now don't slam me i'm not knocking gay folks just saying, you got perverts everywhere.

I didn't know it was perverted to have relations with someone of a certain IQ level....

You learn something new everyday

reply to post by Okandetre

it is if you pray on people that have that kind of handicap.
if they looked into the guys back ground i bet they would
find allen was not the 1st

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by Kellys

 

OK WHY? I mean I could understand if it was about procreation, but far as I know two men can't become pregnant from sex together. They need awoman to do that. So this is really ludicrous.

Exactly, next they will target males who never want to have sex. Society will say they are sex mad for not wanting sex, and while everyone goes around being hypocrites.

They don't really specify what this man can and can not understand.

It is entirely possible that he can umm.. enjoy/want/need the act and could have feelings for his partner while not having the intellect to cook a turkey. We have common sense, book sense, and emotions in between.

This is a very slippery slope. While I agree some people may need protection from themselves who is to say how this guy feels emotionally? His age makes him an adult while his IQ may read differently. The court may well think he shouldn't have sex anymore, but he may well be hell bent that this is what he wants.

Tricky situation to be sure. And his "vigorous sex drive" says he is going to do "it" anyway.

About time too, some people should never be aloud to breed

Originally posted by DarthPhobos
About time too, some people should never be aloud to breed

Exactly, they should keep the noise down.

reply to post by DarthPhobos


They are gay. I don't think that is an issue.


2

Personally I think that this is only going to lead to no good. The courts are taking children from parents with low IQ's and now they are attempting to stop people from having sex in the first place.

I totally understand that there are times when people need to be protected, but unless one of these males is saying that they want the relationship to stop then they need to keep the courts out of this. Unless of course the other male is abusing him - there is no real mention of this in the article.

It's big brother going overboard in my opinion.

reply to post by DarthPhobos

Originally posted by DarthPhobos
About time too, some people should never be aloud to breed

Fairly certain that two men can't.

reply to post by DisbeIief


What sort of comment is that?

Do you not think there are gays on this board. You have probably discussed issues with them while you where at school, or work, or even if you played football done the park, or what ever you do. Do you not think gays have a right to have sex, like straight males then?

On topic, this sort of thing has been going on along time.

Good to see Eugenics making a come-back. Hitler would be proud.

Originally posted by Kellys
but unless one of these males is saying that they want the relationship to stop then they need to keep the courts out of this.

What's the difference between that and an adult and child having a ''consenting'' sexual relationship ?

They are being protected for the same reasons, namely that they are incapable of giving adequate consent and that they may not be mentally or emotionally developed enough to genuinely consent to any of this kind of activity.

It's not an ideal situation, but society has got to protect those who are not able to do so for themselves.