Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

Rabble Rabble · 09-02-2011 10:39PM

bluecatmorgana wrote: »

Its because people keep taking them and turning them into insults. Basically society doesnt look upon people with intellectual disabilities very well and they are generally secluded and marginalised.

So you are going to keep chaging the terms, fully cognisant that in the playground whatever term you invent is going to be used as an insult.

Ridiculous. Just pick one term and ignore the abuse.

bluecatmorgana · 09-02-2011 11:01PM

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

So you are going to keep chaging the terms, fully cognisant that in the playground whatever term you invent is going to be used as an insult.

Ridiculous. Just pick one term and ignore the abuse.

Actually its society's attitudes that need to change.
Its not just abuse ( not that abuse should just be ignored, it should be challenged and punished) its affects peoples quality of life and how they make friends and their choices in life.

09-02-2011 11:14PM

clln wrote: »

once they have reached the age of consent that is were the state should get lost IMO.

So all I need to do is drug someone to the point where they'll say yes to anything and I'm golden?

The entire body of sexual legislation is based around the concept of informed consent. The age of consent is picking an age where people below that are deemed incapable of giving informed consent. Drugged people can't give informed consent. And people who have intellectual disabilities can not give informed consent

ScumLord wrote: »

One's 12 and the other's 41.

...and? Or since that's the only difference, does that mean you're ok with the 12 year old being in that situation?

bluecatmorgana · 09-02-2011 11:21PM

28064212 wrote: »

So all I need to do is drug someone to the point where they'll say yes to anything and I'm golden?

The entire body of sexual legislation is based around the concept of informed consent. The age of consent is picking an age where people below that are deemed incapable of giving informed consent. Drugged people can't give informed consent. And people who have intellectual disabilities can not give informed consent

...and? Or since that's the only difference, does that mean you're ok with the 12 year old being in that situation?

Yes they can if they are taught and educated correctly

09-02-2011 11:41PM

bluecatmorgana wrote: »

Yes they can if they are taught and educated correctly

Oh I totally agree, that's why borderline cases need to be treated on an individual level (like this one), with an independent psychiatric evaluation (like this one), and ideally with a view to providing the relevant education (like this one). I'm at a loss to understand how anyone could criticise the court's actions in this case. Or bring up completely irrelevant points like the fact that he's gay

Cybertron85 · 09-02-2011 11:43PM

He may not be able to properly voice consent, but even people with such a low IQ will make it clear when they do not approve of doing something or something being done to them.

They're implying he just lies there watching cartoons with a smile on his face while this other guy drills him because he doesn't realise what's happening?! Come on, give him some credit.

BickNarry · 09-02-2011 11:45PM

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

So you are going to keep chaging the terms, fully cognisant that in the playground whatever term you invent is going to be used as an insult.

Ridiculous. Just pick one term and ignore the abuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory

AH obvious question in reply; but someone of a low i.q will not be aware/affected by this etc.

Well it affects all people with developmental and intellectual dissabilities. For those with high functioning dissabilities this is a major concern. It affects self identity,behaviour and creates expectations and goals (often both of a low standard.)

''Ignore the abuse''. Well I think we will wish we could, but this is the most practical step in ensuring those who are vulnerable are not hurt by those who don't care.

09-02-2011 11:46PM

Cybertron85 wrote: »

He may not be able to properly voice consent, but even people with such a low IQ will make it clear when they do not approve of doing something or something being done to them.

They're implying he just lies there watching cartoons with a smile on his face while this other guy drills him because he doesn't realise what's happening?! Come on, give him some credit.

Consent isn't the issue. Informed consent is. A 12 year old can voice consent quite clearly, doesn't mean sex with them is ok

drkpower · 09-02-2011 11:59PM

Cybertron85 wrote: »

They're implying he just lies there watching cartoons with a smile on his face while this other guy drills him because he doesn't realise what's happening?! Come on, give him some credit.

No; they are stating that he does not (yet) possess the requisite capacity (that involves understanding, comprehension, the ability to weigh information) to make a decision with regard to having sex.

If he wanted to transfer an inheritance he received from his auntie to his partner, would you be happy for that transaction to go ahead, even if a psychiatrist had indicated he did not have the requisite capacity to make that decision.?

Cybertron85 · 09-02-2011 11:59PM

28064212 wrote: »

Consent isn't the issue. Informed consent is. A 12 year old can voice consent quite clearly, doesn't mean sex with them is ok

A 12 year old is a minor, this is a fully grown man regardless of his IQ. He can't be saddled with an unwanted pregnancy so it's not important if he thinks babies sprout from the cabbage in his back garden.

If he doesn't want the other lad ridin' him, he'll give him a dig.

Also: How in the hell are they going to enforce a sex ban?! Constant supervision?!

10-02-2011 12:09AM

Cybertron85 wrote: »

A 12 year old is a minor, this is a fully grown man regardless of his IQ. He can't be saddled with an unwanted pregnancy so it's not important if he thinks babies sprout from the cabbage in his back garden.

If he doesn't want the other lad ridin' him, he'll give him a dig.

Also: How in the hell are they going to enforce a sex ban?! Constant supervision?!

You could at least read the thread before bringing up ground that's been gone over a dozen times. What is a minor? Someone who is considered (because of their age) incapable of giving informed consent. This man is also considered (because of his mental capacity) incapable of giving informed consent. Saying "a 12 year old is a minor" means nothing. A 12 year old is probably more informed than this man

And if you actually read the article, it tells you how they're going to enforce it

johnnyskeleton · 10-02-2011 12:44AM

hullaballoo wrote: »

From the Telegraph:

I'm unsure if this is to be enforced. The ruling would suggest that any of his future sexual partners could be guilty of rape, since he has been deemed not to have the capacity to consent.

A court declaration in a civil proceeding cannot amount to proof of an ingredient in a criminal charge. The UK is a signatory of the ECHR so this would be prohibited by Article 6.2.

However, it is part of the UK Sex Offences Act 2003(?) that capacity to consent can be determined in the trial. The same is not true in Ireland, where recently it was commented on by Mr. Justice White who said that it is a serious flaw in our law.

Terry · 10-02-2011 01:07AM

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

I'm thinking that Alan being gay probably had more to do with this decision rather than his mental capacity.

I agree.

Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »

Who knows, maybe the partner is also of low IQ or borderline impaired.

http://www.jasonrivera.com/images/articles/20050130_2_199/motts.jpg

I'll get my coat.

Leave your coat.
The picture you showed was of two people with Down's syndrome.
It's quite common for people with Down's syndrome to marry and have regular sex, and they occasionally have children without anything wrong with them

bluecatmorgana wrote: »

Firstly the correct term for mentally handicapped is a person with an intellectual disability or developmental disability.[/URL]
I stopped reading there.
I'll call people with mental disabilities whatever the **** I want to call them.
If I think someone is retarded, I'll call them retarded.
Look up the meaning of the word.

At the end of the day, this judge has prevented a man from having sex because of his IQ.
IQ tests do not measure common sense.
I've an IQ of 180 or 170 or something. I can't remember because I've drank so much beer over the past 20 years that my brain cells are ****ed.

IQ tests do not measure common sense, and common sense is the most important thing when it comes to sexual relationships.

The judge is a dick.

Metallitroll · 10-02-2011 01:16AM

ok then we need some sort of CS test. not intelligence, that'd just be a bonus. indeed intelligence can hinder relationship potential..
having too much carnal knowledge is creepy!

10-02-2011 01:17AM

Terry wrote: »

At the end of the day, this judge has prevented a man from having sex because of his IQ.

No, that's what the 9-word newspaper headline suggests. This judge has prevented him having sex because, based on a psychiatric evaluation, he does not have the ability to give informed consent. Or from another perspective, he has prevented anyone else from taking advantage of the fact that he can not give informed consent. He is certainly not 'a dick'

This is no different than a judge in a rape trial involving a drugging ruling that the victim was incapable of giving informed consent. The only difference in this case is that the judgement can be made before the event

Metallitroll · 10-02-2011 01:20AM

you know me so carnally well

that has nothing to do with my low IQ!

The_Minister · 10-02-2011 01:29AM

Cybertron85 wrote: »

He may not be able to properly voice consent, but even people with such a low IQ will make it clear when they do not approve of doing something or something being done to them.

They're implying he just lies there watching cartoons with a smile on his face while this other guy drills him because he doesn't realise what's happening?! Come on, give him some credit.

There is an really old legal case where a doctor had sex with a innocent young woman by convincing her that sex was an operation to improve her singing voice.

That was held to be rape.

Someone cannot consent to sex if they don't understand what it is, and the implications thereof.
You can perform an act without understanding it, in the same way that a baby can pull a trigger on a gun, without realising the enormity of what he has done.

Capability to perform an action does not mean that one comprehends that action.

Once the man has been taught about the birds and the bees, and can comprehend it, then he can have sex again; until then, it's pretty close to rape.

A similar comparison is if an intellectually capable man had sex with someone with severe Downs Syndrome - it would be a completely unequal relationship, and would represent the man taking advantage of the girl.

10-02-2011 01:34AM

To me, it sounds like he has the mind of a three year old and literally has no understanding of what sex is and what it can do... The fact that he is being lewd in front of children shows this. He has no notion of what's going on.

But, this is a pointless debate because we really don't know anything about the case... Like why did it even end up in front of a judge? Something must have happened.

johnn · 10-02-2011 01:36AM

Was this man on the dole?

Dudess · 10-02-2011 01:46AM

LighterGuy wrote: »

Ah Anonoboy. Trying to troll again are we? :rolleyes:

It was a light-hearted quip?

ArtSmart · 10-02-2011 01:54AM

Anonoboy is banned from sex?

probably no harm...

pwd · 10-02-2011 03:50AM

QuimWedge wrote: »

You been watching Linda Lovelace movie's?

I think she tried something similar...:pac:

really!?
/looks up wikipedia enthusiastically.
/rereads the bit I must have read wrong
You bastard :eek:

LighterGuy · 10-02-2011 04:09AM

Dudess wrote: »

It was a light-hearted quip?

You should read alot of his posts.
An opinionist in my eyes. I'm sure he'll come back telling me off :rolleyes:

ScumLord · 10-02-2011 12:22PM

28064212 wrote: »

...and? Or since that's the only difference, does that mean you're ok with the 12 year old being in that situation?

Of course not your argument is preposterous. There is a huge difference in experience and experience is just as useful as actual intelligence. This particular man has been lied too so his experience is corrupted but he has been around for 41 years. He may have the mental capacity of a 12 year old but he still has years of added experiences that a 12 year old simply does not have.

Cybertron85 wrote: »

Also: How in the hell are they going to enforce a sex ban?! Constant supervision?!

Yup, clipboard carrying council men will follow him around with a cricket bat.

10-02-2011 12:37PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Of course not your argument is preposterous. There is a huge difference in experience and experience is just as useful as actual intelligence. This particular man has been lied too so his experience is corrupted but he has been around for 41 years. He may have the mental capacity of a 12 year old but he still has years of added experiences that a 12 year old simply does not have.

And after a psychiatric evaluation, he has shown no ability to actually make use of his 41 years of experience. Years of experience don't mean anything if you can't process them. If a normally-mentally-capable 41 year old is drugged to the point where they say yes to anything, is it ok to have sex with them because they have years of experience? This guy is essentially like that all the time

jackiebaron · 10-02-2011 12:37PM

28064212 wrote: »

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

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

Look....drop the 12 year old scenario ok. You're only doing that for shock value. When does consent become grounded? Age 16? 17? It doesn't matter. If you want to talk about consent then don't just limit it to sex. At what age is your consent reliable for other activities. The basis upon which this guy is being detained and forbidden from having sex with his partner is that they deem that he doesn't recognise the ramifications of his actions....NOT that he's being taken advantage of.

In your 12 year old scenario it is illegal for a kid to engage in sexual activity in order to protect a proportion of that age group from being taken advantage of. Many 13, 14, 15 year olds are fully sexually developed and aware but are punished to protect the many. That's just how it has to be because many in that age group are NOT yet sexually developed so sex for them is an alien concept.
Unless it can be proven that this 41 year old is being taken advantage of then I feel quite certain that he and his partner are in a mutually consensual sexual relationship.
This guy might not understand why he gets a hard on and why he masturbates but I'll be damned if he doesn't enjoy it. Are you going to ban him from **** purely because he has no clue about the science of hormones, testerone, etc?

10-02-2011 12:53PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Look....drop the 12 year old scenario ok. You're only doing that for shock value.

No I'm doing it because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that it's exactly the same scenario. The only difference is that he's been alive longer. If you actually manage to come up with a reason why it's any different I'll drop it. And "it's illegal" is not a reason

jackiebaron wrote: »

When does consent become grounded? Age 16? 17? It doesn't matter. If you want to talk about consent then don't just limit it to sex. At what age is your consent reliable for other activities.

Ehh, this guy can't drive, he can't sign a mortgage agreement or any other contract, he can't do many, many things because he can't give informed consent. That's the whole point

jackiebaron wrote: »

The basis upon which this guy is being detained and forbidden from having sex with his partner is that they deem that he doesn't recognise the ramifications of his actions....NOT that he's being taken advantage of.

Those two are exactly the same thing. He is being taken advantage of because he doesn't recognise the ramifications.

jackiebaron wrote: »

In your 12 year old scenario it is illegal for a kid to engage in sexual activity in order to protect a proportion of that age group from being taken advantage of. Many 13, 14, 15 year olds are fully sexually developed and aware but are punished to protect the many. That's just how it has to be because many in that age group are NOT yet sexually developed so sex for them is an alien concept.

So what, once you've hit puberty you're fair game? Your physical development is all that matters?

jackiebaron wrote: »

Unless it can be proven that this 41 year old is being taken advantage of then I feel quite certain that he and his partner are in a mutually consensual sexual relationship.
This guy might not understand why he gets a hard on and why he masturbates but I'll be damned if he doesn't enjoy it. Are you going to ban him from **** purely because he has no clue about the science of hormones, testerone, etc?

And once again, replace 41 with 12 in that paragraph. A 12 year old may not understand why he gets a hard on, but he can certainly derive enjoyment from sex. Yet any sane person would see that he is being taken advantage of because he can't give informed consent.

jackiebaron · 10-02-2011 01:09PM

28064212 wrote: »

No I'm doing it because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that it's exactly the same scenario. The only difference is that he's been alive longer. If you actually manage to come up with a reason why it's any different I'll drop it. And "it's illegal" is not a reason

Ehh, this guy can't drive, he can't sign a mortgage agreement or any other contract, he can't do many, many things because he can't give informed consent. That's the whole point

Those two are exactly the same thing. He is being taken advantage of because he doesn't recognise the ramifications.

So what, once you've hit puberty you're fair game? Your physical development is all that matters?

And once again, replace 41 with 12 in that paragraph. A 12 year old may not understand why he gets a hard on, but he can certainly derive enjoyment from sex. Yet any sane person would see that he is being taken advantage of because he can't give informed consent.

Let me ask you a very simple question. Let's just say that 50 percent of 13 year-olds have hit puberty and let's just say that 10 percent of that group have started engaging in sexual activity. That's a sizeable chunk of persons. Do you think that it is warranted to have that large group of young people placed effectively as wards of the state amd under supervision to prevent them giving each other blowjobs behind the disco?

Because if you're rubber-stamping this guy's detention then (it being the exact same thing according to you) you should also sanction the imprisonment of the demographic I have just mentioned.

10-02-2011 01:12PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Let me ask you a very simple question. Let's just say that 50 percent of 13 year-olds have hit puberty and let's just say that 10 percent of that group have started engaging in sexual activity. That's a sizeable chunk of persons. Do you think that it is warranted to have that large group of young people placed effectively as wards of the state amd under supervision to prevent them giving each other blowjobs behind the disco?

Because if you're rubber-stamping this guy's detention then (it being the exact same thing according to you) you should also sanction the imprisonment of the demographic I have just mentioned.

How many of those are orphans? This man has no guardian. And how many of those are engaging in sexual behaviour with adults? I've already stated that nothing I've said relates to two people of equal levels of informed consent

jackiebaron · 10-02-2011 01:41PM

28064212 wrote: »

How many of those are orphans? This man has no guardian. And how many of those are engaging in sexual behaviour with adults? I've already stated that nothing I've said relates to two people of equal levels of informed consent

Ah, the old "answer a question with a question" ploy. You should work for Cowen.

Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

Comments