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

reply to post by dragonridr


I understand the point. I just don't see how his IQ can inhibit him from making this decision, in certain peoples' opinions. They need people too. People need people, it's just humanity. You don't have to be smart to have sex.. Sex has more to do with your body especially in this situation. I am willing to bet his brain is telling him if it feels good do it. Anyway I digress. Leave it to the higher powers to tell us what we can and cannot do.

reply to post by Whitbit









His IQ is irrelevant its his ability to make rational decisions that the court questioned and that was not based off his IQ.As in prior case i have seen they determined he was incapable of understanding what his decision entailed.

In other words he was incapable of making any decisions on his own. And someone like that is easy to manipulate. So if they cant be certain then to protect him its better to stop the situation.

Originally posted by Whitbit


Yes, because I stand on the point that this is discrimination. Just because a person may not be able to express in words how they feel about someone to someone else does not mean their basic rights as a human being should be taken away,. That is ludacrous! People with a low IQ have human needs to connect with people just like you and I do.

edit on 6-2-2011 by Whitbit because: (no reason given)

A human need to connect is one thing - a sexual relationship is another. I have worked with intellectually disabled adults for years - they can be very vulnerable indeed, to exploitation...
Some people fail to understand that.
There was a case in New Zealand about 5 years back, of a paedophile who was supposed to be being supervised whilst living in his mother's house on parole.
The Rent a Cop doing the supervising actually connived at smuggling an intellectually handicapped 16 year old in to this guy's clutches, and allowed the paedophile to rape the girl. The age of consent being 16, the Rent a Cop, who IMO has the brains of a cabbage himself, thought it was ok.
Not okay.
I don't know what her IQ was, but it was low enough that she couldn't give meaningful consent - but she wanted that human connection you mention! Being a girl, she could have ended up pregnant, at the least, she was seriously harmed by what the paedo did to her!
A guy having sex with a guy, can gets AIDS, hepatitis, anal fistulae (google it, it ain't pretty.) Can a person with an IQ of 48 meaningfully assess the danger and decide to go ahead? I don't think so.
V.

Gee the poor guy but don't worry whoever it is can still run for president of the USA. Not a citizen? No problem. Just go to "citizens R us.com" and register. Then even if you do not get elected you can still hope for a secure future as a "body person" for TSA.

America... the land of opportunity. IQ is never an issue.

Whoop

why in the world is it the courts business to be involved in someones personal life, and how in the world did this reach the court in the first place

OK - One more time... Don't have sex with retarded people.

This is beyond belief.

OK, the man has a low IQ - so what? He is entitled to enjoy himself.

Both he and his partner are OK about it - so what is the problem?

Which leads to the question - why is some court involved? Have I missed something?

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
What an absolute load of rubbish...if he's that "incapable" he should have a handler around him at all times to make sure he isn't having constant unsafe gay sex...I mean WTF, does this guy have a job, how does he survive anyway? Is he REALLY all that stupid? I bet he likes the sex, loves it in fact...but the court believes they have a right to intervene in that?

Again, your comments could be applied to a child, as well.

If a 14-year-old is incapable of giving adequate consent, then why doesn't he/she have a ''handler'' going around with them at all times to make sure that they aren't having unsafe sex with adults.

I'm sure a lot 13-15 year-olds ''love'' having sex with adult partners; that's not the issue. Nobody is doubting that children and mentally disabled people have ''consenting sex, it's whether this ''consent'' is adequate which is the question.

In the case of children, it's simple, as we can just define a statutory age at which they are considered legally capable of engaging in sexual activities.

In the case of people with learning disabilities, then it is far more complicated as it will vary from person to person, and there isn't really an accurate ''cut-off point'' where you can say one person is capable, and another person isn't. IQ tests are not really that valid a method for ascertaining someone's capability of giving adequate consent.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
So at what age is a person no longer a child? Do they require a certain IQ before you'll ever consider them a real adult? Do they need to be of a certain appearance? What if the person is 18 but look like they're 12 years old still? What if they're 18 but have the IQ of a 12 year old? Where is the line drawn?

The age that someone is considered to be no longer a child is defined by each country's laws.

This, of course, can be arbitrary, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. There are presumably a lot of older children who are perfectly capable of having unharmful sex with adults, just as there will be some people, having reached the age of consent, who won't be emotionally ready for the experience.

If a person is 18, but looked like they were 12, then that would be up to their partner as to whether they thought that was acceptable or not, as the 18-year-old should be mentally and emotionally mature enough to make their own decision.

If it's an 18-year-old with the IQ of a 12-year-old, then I doubt that they'd be capable of giving adequate consent, just as a 12-year-old isn't.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
When does sex go from a pleasure to a perversion and for what exact reasons? What if the child and adult desire to have a sexual relationship and both enjoy it completely? That act of two people doing something they consent to and enjoy, without harming anyone else, is now perverted simply because the "child" isn't up to your specified age or IQ requirements?

Because the child isn't emotionally or mentally mature enough to engage in an activity that may cause long-lasting emotional damage.

And the adult needs to be punished for exploiting and preying on an easy target.

Cry about it all you want; this is not going to change.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
Can you explain that to the child's face why their sexual partner whom they probably loved in their own way is now spending a long time in prison because you don't think their relationship was moral?

What I think on the matter is immaterial, although I agree with locking up adults who abuse children. When that child grows up, I'm sure he or she would understand why the correct course of action was taken.

Your argument is specious, as you could ask why anybody is in prison because of another's enforced morality.

The solution, of course, is a world of complete anarchy and moral nihilism. Good luck with that one.

Originally posted by Whitbit
I have to politely disagree with you. The comment I made about the sexual nature of the relationship is absolutely relevant, and was not meant to be directed toward you. A lot of this thread seems to point out the fact that he is having a homosexual relationship, that is why I made the comment, no need to be nasty about it

Well, I didn't mean to come across as ''nasty''. I just get frustrated at times when people misrepresent my comments, but as you have clarified that your reply wasn't directed at me, I'll take back any brusqueness that may have appeared in my previous reply.

Personally speaking, the homosexual factor of this story is irrelevant, as the issue would still be the same if it had been a heterosexual relationship that this man was involved in.

Originally posted by Whitbit
And I also have to say on the second point I still stand that it is discrimination, in my opinion and it is NOT the same as a child. Children are not capable of having adult sexual relationships, but just because someone has a low IQ does NOT mean that they cannot.

Then it stems back to one of my earlier questions:

Are people objecting to an adult/child sexual relationship purely on the grounds that it's a child involved ? Or are they objecting to the relationship because the child is not emotionally developed and more vulnerable to a predatory adult ?

The low IQ is not the only factor in this, though.

A low score in this department is often indicative of other problems that are not measured in standard IQ tests, that are very pertinent to the issue of whether somebody is capable of consenting to sexual activities or not.

Originally posted by Whitbit
This is mainly what I was trying to point out. It is impossible to tell what this individual is capable of emotionally. So how can we even bring up the fact of protecting the guy when nothing seems to point to him being abused or used.

It's true that none of us really know the full extent of Alan's disability, and perhaps people on both sides ( myself included ) may have been a little rash to make a judgement on this when we only have sketchy details at hand.

However, I think most people would agree that people with severe mental disabilities do need to be protected from deviants, even if the person with the disability appears to give consent.

In these cases, it is still abuse for somebody with full mental faculties to take advantage of someone who may not be able to give adequate consent, and for who sexual relations may have a long-term, psychologically traumatic effect on them.

Originally posted by Whitbit
I have spent time around people with very similar IQ's. They are capable of connecting with other human beings in extraordinary ways. I just think people need to stop treating them like 'children', because they are very different from children. I see what your whole point is, about them needing to be protected, but ONLY if they should need it.

No, people with mental disabilities shouldn't be treated like children, but at times, they need to be protected like children, as sometimes many of the issues that are thrown up are relevant to both sets of people.

We can't just just say: ''he's an adult, so he has to be treated like an adult'', just for the sake of it, as that would allow someone to take advantage of him if he really isn't capable of giving genuine consent.

I feel that we should always err on the side of caution in these cases, but, as I say, it's difficult to truly judge this case, as we are not fully au fait with all the details.

Originally posted by Whitbit
That being said, do we know what this Alan guy has said about the situation? He wants the relationship. What about his family? Therefore, it needs to be investigated, even if that means questioning both parties in the relationship and their families until it is determined what is going on. This could be a dependent relationship as well, and they very well may need eachother to operate sort of like a family unit just as anyone else.

Again, this goes to back to the same situation as a child who wants a relationship with an adult. The child's family may be happy with it, the child may be in a dependent relationship with the adult.

Even if this was the case, then we - as a society - have to step in to prevent any exploitation.