Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

tfitzgerald · 09-02-2011 04:00PM

Screaminmidget wrote: »

What if his mother writes him a note????

Very good lol

bonerm · 09-02-2011 04:01PM

hullaballoo wrote: »

But he agreed that the man, known only as Alan

Anagram perhaps?

09-02-2011 04:06PM

The_Minister wrote: »

Can we all just agree that it depends on the degree of drunkeness in question, and then move on before the thread goes waaay off topic?

Yep. I should have said drunk to the point of incapacitation. In essence, this man has been prejudged to be incapable of giving consent. It's the equivalent of a judge (with a psychiatrist) evaluating a drunk person prior to sex and ruling that they are too drunk to give consent. Of course that's impossible in real-life when it comes to alcohol, but it is possible in this case

dashboard_hula · 09-02-2011 04:08PM

There must be something I'm missing here:

A man is prevented by the court from having sex because he doesn't have the mental capacity to understand what he's doi...what?

Ok, he's a gay man, so he can't have an unwanted/inadvisable pregnancy, or get someone else pregnant.

He's already in a relationship with the guy he lives with. He'd like it to continue.

What's the issue here? If the other man doesn't want it to continue, why not move out, or break up with him, because it looks and sounds like an actual relationship to me. Why can't a man with a "low iq" enjoy an active and healthy sex life? Contraception isn't an issue, consent doesn't seem to be an issue, whats the boggle?

09-02-2011 04:11PM

dashboard_hula wrote: »

There must be something I'm missing here:

A man is prevented by the court from having sex because he doesn't have the mental capacity to understand what he's doi...what?

Ok, he's a gay man, so he can't have an unwanted/inadvisable pregnancy, or get someone else pregnant.

He's already in a relationship with the guy he lives with. He'd like it to continue.

What's the issue here? If the other man doesn't want it to continue, why not move out, or break up with him, because it looks and sounds like an actual relationship to me. Why can't a man with a "low iq" enjoy an active and healthy sex life? Contraception isn't an issue, consent doesn't seem to be an issue, whats the boggle?

Replace "man" with "child". Still ok?

Consent is the issue. He may have given consent, but it is not informed consent. You can't consent to something you don't understand.

Monty Burnz · 09-02-2011 04:31PM

Have the courts finally found a way to stop Fianna Failures reproducing?

TimeToShine · 09-02-2011 04:35PM

Thought the title said men...

Boards would have been in uproar!

jackiebaron · 09-02-2011 04:42PM

Turtyturd wrote: »

Is 'Low IQ' the new politically correct term?

Politically correct for what?

qz · 09-02-2011 04:43PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Politically correct for what?

Full blown retard.

09-02-2011 04:44PM

Morkarleth wrote: »

For what, exactly?

jackiebaron wrote: »

Politically correct for what?

For asking the same question over and over

LighterGuy · 09-02-2011 04:46PM

So its another example of people telling others what to do yet again ... :rolleyes:

AnonoBoy · 09-02-2011 04:52PM

LighterGuy wrote: »

So its another example of people telling others what to do yet again ... :rolleyes:

Oh be quiet.

minidazzler · 09-02-2011 04:59PM

biko wrote: »

I don't know about you guys but low IQ in a partner is a turn-on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV-mK-ASVMI

I see your HIMYM and I raise you Boardwalk Empire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwPWpmvBbOU

jackiebaron · 09-02-2011 04:59PM

28064212 wrote: »

Replace "man" with "child". Still ok?

Consent is the issue. He may have given consent, but it is not informed consent. You can't consent to something you don't understand.

But he is a grown man. No need to replace that with child. Stop twisting the issue. And before you say that he's got the "mental age of a child" we can get pedantic and say that many normal adults have less mental capacity than genius children. On those grounds one could formulate law as well. Informed consent? Hmm. Do you think the guy he's having sex with has never even spoken to him about sex? Do you think that he just gets shagged in the ass by someone who never asks him if he's enjoying himself? If he likes sex?
What next? They're going to prevent this guy from eating candy or cheesburgers or chips because, like sex, it's harmful and he doesn't know what he's doing?
Gimme a break.

This guy has not been deemed criminally insane. He has not been deemed a threat to himself or others. Keeping him under supervision is bordering on unconstitutional and satisfies my definition of unlawful imprisonment or even kidnapping.

jackiebaron · 09-02-2011 05:00PM

bluewolf wrote: »

For asking the same question over and over

hur! hur! Good one!

09-02-2011 05:11PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

But he is a grown man. No need to replace that with child. Stop twisting the issue. And before you say that he's got the "mental age of a child" we can get pedantic and say that many normal adults have less mental capacity than genius children. On those grounds one could formulate law as well. Informed consent? Hmm. Do you think the guy he's having sex with has never even spoken to him about sex? Do you think that he just gets shagged in the ass by someone who never asks him if he's enjoying himself? If he likes sex?

Look at the post I quoted:

dashboard_hula wrote: »

A man is prevented by the court from having sex because he doesn't have the mental capacity to understand what he's doi...what?

Ok, he's a gay man, so he can't have an unwanted/inadvisable pregnancy, or get someone else pregnant.

He's already in a relationship with the guy he lives with. He'd like it to continue.

What's the issue here? If the other man doesn't want it to continue, why not move out, or break up with him, because it looks and sounds like an actual relationship to me. Why can't a man with a "low iq" enjoy an active and healthy sex life? Contraception isn't an issue, consent doesn't seem to be an issue, whats the boggle?

Now replace it with this:

A 12-year old boy is prevented by the court from having sex because he doesn't have the mental capacity to understand what he's doi...what?

Ok, he's a 12-year-old boy, so he can't have an unwanted/inadvisable pregnancy, or get someone else pregnant.

He's already in a relationship with the guy he lives with. He'd like it to continue.

What's the issue here? If the other man doesn't want it to continue, why not move out, or break up with him, because it looks and sounds like an actual relationship to me. Why can't a man with a "low iq" enjoy an active and healthy sex life? Contraception isn't an issue, consent doesn't seem to be an issue, whats the boggle?

That's not "twisting the issue", that is the issue. 12 year olds are deemed incapable of giving informed consent. This guy, after a complete psychiatric evaluation, is deemed incapable of giving informed consent. What's the difference?

Morag · 09-02-2011 05:57PM

If his IQ is that low, is he even really gay? or has he only had sexual experience with men and doesn't know any better?

jackiebaron · 09-02-2011 06:00PM

28064212 wrote: »

Look at the post I quoted:

Now replace it with this:

That's not "twisting the issue", that is the issue. 12 year olds are deemed incapable of giving informed consent. This guy, after a complete psychiatric evaluation, is deemed incapable of giving informed consent. What's the difference?

Eh....NO!

A 12 year old having sex is ILLEGAL!!!

And how do you know that this 41 year-old guy needs to give consent?
The only person who needs to give consent is the person other than the initiator of sexual activity.
He could be the one groping his partner all the time...i.e. the one to initiate proceedings.

Buceph · 09-02-2011 06:06PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Eh....NO!

A 12 year old having sex is ILLEGAL!!!

Because they are deemed to be incapable of giving informed consent.

Or do you blindly agree with all laws, just because?

LighterGuy · 09-02-2011 06:09PM

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Oh be quiet.

Ah Anonoboy. Trying to troll again are we? :rolleyes:
this person is a special needs person from the sounds of it. But do we really have a right to say its illegal for him to have sex? ... dont you think as a person, regardless of his "IQ", you me or anyone does not have right to 'ban' him from not having sex!?

whats a persons rights then?

Buceph · 09-02-2011 06:14PM

LighterGuy wrote: »

Ah Anonoboy. Trying to troll again are we? :rolleyes:
this person is a special needs person from the sounds of it. But do we really have a right to say its illegal for him to have sex? ... dont you think as a person, regardless of his "IQ", you me or anyone does not have right to 'ban' him from not having sex!?

whats a persons rights then?

Do we have the right to ban him from driving?

LighterGuy · 09-02-2011 06:22PM

Buceph wrote: »

Do we have the right to ban him from driving?

Ah... deceptive of you Buceph

you are comparing driving to a basic human desire.

look, I know the problems. If he has a baby. Implications will follow. I aint no "moral crusader" - its just where does the line get drawn? thats my point.

At what point is do we accept we are just doing 'whats for the best' and also keeping his human rights? ... or does human rights become a 'grey' area when someone has a mental condition.

09-02-2011 06:23PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Eh....NO!

A 12 year old having sex is ILLEGAL!!!

And how do you know that this 41 year-old guy needs to give consent?
The only person who needs to give consent is the person other than the initiator of sexual activity.
He could be the one groping his partner all the time...i.e. the one to initiate proceedings.

As Buceph said, the reason someone having sex with a 12 year old is illegal is because they are unable to give informed consent. Similarly, a person who is given a date-rape drug is incapable of giving informed consent. In both of those cases, they could be the initiator of the sexual activity, it does not give the other party the right to take advantage

LighterGuy wrote: »

Ah Anonoboy. Trying to troll again are we? :rolleyes:
this person is a special needs person from the sounds of it. But do we really have a right to say its illegal for him to have sex? ... dont you think as a person, regardless of his "IQ", you me or anyone does not have right to 'ban' him from not having sex!?

whats a persons rights then?

Do we have the right to tell a child it's illegal for them to have sex with a 40 year old man?

LighterGuy · 09-02-2011 06:35PM

28064212 wrote: »

Do we have the right to tell a child it's illegal for them to have sex with a 40 year old man?

its a very senstive subject alright.
After all, this man has mental issues. So in a sense, has the mind of a child.

Disagree with me if you like, but wasnt it illegal for someone (with mental capibilities, ie me you everyone else) to have sex with someone who had a 'mental condition' ...

I remember reading something a few years ago about how he father of a mentally challenged daughter (a woman, not a child) allowed 'a friend' to have sex with her for money. (sick) the man was charged with rape and the father was also charged. Rightfully so.

I think that a person shouldnt have sex banned. personal rights. however, if its a mentally challenged person... if anyone with cabilities has sex with them they get charged.

09-02-2011 06:39PM

LighterGuy wrote: »

its a very senstive subject alright.
After all, this man has mental issues. So in a sense, has the mind of a child.

Disagree with me if you like, but wasnt it illegal for someone (with mental capibilities, ie me you everyone else) to have sex with someone who had a 'mental condition' ...

I remember reading something a few years ago about how he father of a mentally challenged daughter (a woman, not a child) allowed 'a friend' to have sex with her for money. (sick) the man was charged with rape and the father was also charged. Rightfully so.

I think that a person shouldnt have sex banned. personal rights. however, if its a mentally challenged person... if anyone with cabilities has sex with them they get charged.

From what I understand of the article, that's exactly what is happening. Preventing someone from having sex and preventing anyone from having sex with them are equivalent approaches. The state is essentially acting as a guardian in this case

Where it gets truly tricky is people with equivalent levels of capabilities have sex with each other (be it two 12 year olds or two 'low-IQ' adults)

ScumLord · 09-02-2011 06:53PM

28064212 wrote: »

Replace "man" with "child". Still ok?

Consent is the issue. He may have given consent, but it is not informed consent. You can't consent to something you don't understand.

I understand he's diminished metal capacity puts him at risk of being taken advantage of but he is 41 and while he needs protection mollycoddling him isn't going to help. He's obviously been filled up with children's storeys as people have taken it upon themselves to describe sex as bad, he clearly doesn't agree with that at all.

At the end of the day he is an individual person and that has to be respected too, he needs re-education not what is essentially a jail sentence for doing what normal adults do.

Buceph · 09-02-2011 06:55PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I understand he's diminished metal capacity puts him at risk of being taken advantage of but he is 41 and while he needs protection mollycoddling him isn't going to help. He's obviously been filled up with children's storeys as people have taken it upon themselves to describe sex as bad, he clearly doesn't agree with that at all.

At the end of the day he is an individual person and that has to be respected too, he needs re-education not what is essentially a jail sentence for doing what normal adults do.

He is being educated. You're ignoring what the judge ruled. Read the article.

09-02-2011 07:03PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I understand he's diminished metal capacity puts him at risk of being taken advantage of but he is 41 and while he needs protection mollycoddling him isn't going to help. He's obviously been filled up with children's storeys as people have taken it upon themselves to describe sex as bad, he clearly doesn't agree with that at all.

At the end of the day he is an individual person and that has to be respected too, he needs re-education not what is essentially a jail sentence for doing what normal adults do.

Once again, replace 41 with 12 in that post. What's the difference? If we tell a 12 year old about the consequences of sex and they want to go live with a 40 year old, is that ok? Why not?

azezil · 09-02-2011 07:22PM

*wonders how long it'll be before we have to get a licence to have sex, IQ test required on application*

Hell that's probably a great idea, far less morons having kids :cool:

pwd · 09-02-2011 07:28PM

azezil wrote: »

*wonders how long it'll be before we have to get a licence to have sex, IQ test required on application*

Hell that's probably a great idea, far less morons having kids :cool:

He has a mental age of 8 and thinks the stork brings babies.

He is not informed, and therefore he is incapable of informed consent. The judge decided this and said he should be educated so that he can give informed consent.

It's straightforward. It's a reasonable rational decision as far as I can tell. Not really a big deal; shouldn't be dramatised.

Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

Comments