Court: "You're too stupid to have sex."
 

A man has been banned from having sex by the UK courts on the grounds that his IQ is too low.

This is the latest in a line of "You're too dumb to _____" imposed by the social services over here, which includes a couple whose children were confiscated and a woman who was banned from getting married to her fiance (can't find article *stabs the internet*), all because they had below-average IQs.

The story about the man who is no longer permitted to have sex has only blown up today, and is now being covered everywhere, including a blog on human rights. The others happened some time ago, and I've read hard-copy articles on and interviews with the people involved, and what really infuriated me was the fact that the ruling of the courts has devastated their lives. These are PEOPLE, adults nonetheless, who have been in ongoing relationships for years, who have suddenly had authorities step in and strip them of the most basic human rights.

It's painful - for them, and for everyone who has to watch their suffering on account of the police state.

Well, his IQ wasn't just low, it was 48. 70 and below is considered to be a sign of "moderate mental retardation", and he is not far from "severe mental retardation", which starts at 35 (What Different IQ Scores Mean). We do not allow children to have sex because, due to the (usual) mental development at that age, they are unable to be fully consenting -- they cannot properly weigh all the pros and cons to having sex, judge the consequences, and then freely consent without a high risk of having been manipulated, even unintentionally, by an adult. This man is not much different. Now, did they handle this as well as they could have? No. Did they most likely target him because of his same-sex partner? Almost certainly. But this is what a system of consent laws that is based on actually protecting those who would otherwise have no legal protection even though they need it would most likely look like. It is, in my opinion, no more monstrous or cruel than not allowing a twelve-year-old to have sex.

I know nothing about the other cases you mention, so I will assume your anger is fully justified in those. Unless they actually found that she was neglecting or abusing her children, I'm certain it is in the case involving a woman's children being taken away. If her IQ is as low as the man in this case, it's likely a struggle for her, but it's not impossible by any means and preemptively taking her kids away is just cruel to everyone involved.

I totally agree with you, Phil, but I'd like to point out a few things like I did over MSN. Firstly, the validity of "Intelligence Quotient" has been disputed by professionals since its inception. A few of the criticisms can be found on the easily-accessible wikipedia page. Further to this, depending on which IQ scale you rely upon, different numbers have different meanings. For example, my own IQ is 128, which according to the chart you provided indicates "Very Superior Intelligence," only one rank down from "Genius." ROTFLMFAO with a heap of BBQ sauce upon a ROFLCOPTER. On other scales I've seen, 128 is ranked as "Gifted" or "Above Average" and is placed several ranks down from "Genius."

For example:

IQ tests themselves may be standardised, but the interpretations of the results are far from such.

Your source also states:

I would highly contest these definitions, as they suggest that a person's capability to achieve a certain kind of academic qualification is dependent upon their IQ. This is incorrect, and could also be deemed offensive. There's no such thing as a "cap" on human ability.

Now, all of that said, back to where I agree with you. Yes, this man is possibly a danger to himself and to others. Yes, it may be safer for him to not have sex, many factors considered. Perhaps the idea that he was manipulated is also valid, but I'm teetering on the verge of calling it a step too far. How easy is it to make the assumption that a child or a mentally deficient adult is only doing what they're doing through the power of suggestion? If you ask a child if they want sweets, the child (unless, like me, they dislike sweets, lmfao) will reply "Yes, please!" regardless of whether or not they've been told to eat sweets or not. Sex is like sweets to this man. He wants it because it's enjoyable, and it would "make him happy" for his relationship with this other man to continue. There's nothing sinister or ulterior in that.

The most outrageous thing about this case, as you have said, is how it was handled. This is a 41 year old guy. He's doubtlessly had sex innumerable times, and then the men in suits suddenly go "Wait, maybe we shouldnt allow this." Surely there were better ways to handle it than getting a court to put an injunction on engaging in sexual activity?

What does that mean exactly? If he has sex again it'll be punishable by law? The very reason that they've stopped him is because he cant understand the consequences of his actions - are they going to punish him for something they himself deem that he can't understand? Won't taking away this privilege just confuse and hurt him more, seeing as they themselves say that they have not actually provided him with sex education which may have helped him make better decisions and understand why sex could be dangerous to him? Why on earth would he understand why this is happening to him?

The words of the mother of the woman who was almost forced to be put on contraception after having her children taken away, found in an article linked to within the link I linked in my OP (link within a link, woohoo!), illustrate this perfectly.

Every effort should be made to integrate people with mental disabilities, not dehumanise them.

IQ is certainly a poor indicator of mental ability, but it is an indicator nonetheless. For instance, in your case, you are above average by every version, something I'd certainly agree with. The only difference is in how above average you are. Likewise, this man has some fairly serious mental handicaps, and even if you throw out an IQ number altogether, that fact does not change. It's not a borderline case.

I do not doubt that he enjoys sex. And in all likelihood, his boyfriend does truly love him. The problem is, these very same arguments could be used with children. They *have* been, by adults who it's very possible did love them and were not attempting to manipulate them or force them into anything. We don't assume that's the case, and we shouldn't here either. The stakes (and/or steaks) are just too high. And as important as I believe sex is, and that's more than most, I would rather someone not have sex and want to than have sex and not want to.

Of course, I should note here that I don't believe the government is attempting to protect him. Given their treatment of others, it seems like their goal is exactly as you suggested: dehumanization. And that is entirely unjustifiable, no matter their reasons.

As much as I would like to claim IQ is a foolproof test of determining mental capacity (being as my score was 148), I would agree that is is flawed. There are numerous culture-and-education-related factors that can misrepresent the score. However, if a society wants to have a notion of intelligence and have it be useful in a legal system, they need a standardized test to measure and currently no other one has risen to the occasion. (though possibly because of apathy about whether IQ system is that bad) Ultimately I don't believe they should be able to do this on a purely anti-state level. Another thing, if the government's goal was to protect the man, they would instead seek legal course on his partner. I believe this is either (as Philomel suggested) because he is homosexual, or possibly a pre-emptive strike at the Idiocracy situation. Either, way its discriminatory and anyone who supports human rights in the least should be up in arms.

I would strongly challenge your assertion that IQ tests provide an indicator for a person's mental ability. Rather than measuring a person's mental level, they quite simply provide a measurement of their ability to perform cultural tasks. This is not accidental as they were designed as a means through which schools could test the academic progress of their students. They are however as Feral alluded to, hindered by numerous cultural and social factors. Even if we are to pretend that these cultural tasks provide an indicative snapshot of human mental performance, we would not be clear of the many social & cultural factors which can play a role in the individual's performance. To demonstrate the wide variety I will look at two points which do not seem to be so commonly acknowledged.

Anthropologist, Ashley Montagu for instance identified numerous environmental factors which can create interference. One example he identified for instance is how a person's emotional state can alter their score by up to 20 points!

Medical Anthropologist Cecil G. Helman identifies that as a culture bearing species we find ourselves in a situation where symbols can exert an incredible level of influence over us. In the case of stigmatized identities, through a placebo effect, these can serve as self fulfilling prophecies!

Putting the IQ aspect to the side, I am more inclined to agree with your stance that one of the important issues here is whether or not the person in question is able to consent.

I don't think it's any of the court's business.
He is what he is, and he should be allowed to live his life as he pleases.
He's gay and he's happy, he isn't hurting anyone.
If he had a disease, he should be treated like everyone with a disease like HIV, and should be required to warn his partners, and THEN if he couldn't, well, I might be more okay with it (them ruling that he "can't have sex").

But just because he's mentally handicapped does not mean he is unable to consent, and does not mean that he is incapable of understanding anything.

It's a violation of human rights, plain and simple.
They probably were targeting him because he's gay.
If it's against the law to be mentally handicapped and have sex, then, it should be against the law to be an ignorant asshole and still be able to speak.

AHAHAHAHAHAAHA

I see wut u did thar ;D [/inside joke]

Whether or not he was mentally deficient is completely irrelevant. The problem here, is the state being allowed to do this to him.

No government should ever have the right to control a person on that level. It's sick. It was attempted here in the U.S. in the early 1900's, and many people were basically maimed against their will. They were sterilized. Aside form that many people were forbidden from marrying, which at the time really stopped most of them from breeding. The state should never have this kind of power over people. It's wrong.


Btw: I see what you did there too. :P

Sarofset: So you believe children should be allowed to have sex?

@philomel: No. And that's not what I said, and it's not what I meant. And you know it.

Also, the federal government doesn't have any control of those laws in the U.S. The states do. And the age varies a bit from state to state. Also in some states there are exceptions based on how close the ages of the people involved are.

Ages of consent in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would look up the specific examples, but I have to get to my next class.

Fun fact about that map. It used to be 14 in parts of Canada until just recently.

Yup. A few years ago when I looked it up, I think Nevada was the same.

I think that Phil probably phrased her objection a little bluntly. It's a valid objection, but I'd question why in general terms a mentally disabled adult can be classified as "a child." They're adults. Perhaps they may have retained the naivety of a child to some extent, but that really depends on the case. These people have been exposed to adult situations and adult questions, and have more often than not been given some kind of sex or real world education.

In addition, children tend to have thousands of possibilities, in the present and the future, open to them. People with mental disabilities are limited, both by their own problems and the perceptions of society.

...No, that was a genuine question. You said his mental deficiency was irrelevant. The reason it was brought up is because it is likely he is as capable (or incapable) of giving informed, genuine consent as a child. Mentality is the entire reason for age-of-consent laws, so declaring it not a factor has some serious implications.

I am unsure as to the relevance of the rest of your post. Please explain so I know how to respond.

Lorika: I am not suggesting he definitely does. I have based all of this, all of my argument, on the assumption that he is, because that is the only circumstance under which this could possibly be even a little justifiable (which I suppose is a bit like being a little pregnant, but you know what I mean). If, however, he does have the mentality of a child, while that does not make him not an adult, it does affect how we treat him, what responsibilities we give him and what we ask of him (it would be unfair, for instance, to charge him as an adult if he were to commit a crime). And if he is easily manipulated and intimidated, letting him have sex is just as risky as letting children have sex. It's not punishing him, it's attempting to keep him from being used.

Phil: I understand what you mean now. However I think that if he has the mental capabilities of a child we should first decide what that means in itself. First off, what age makes someone a child? Or is it based on whether they have reached puberty? Is it based on their intelligence? How do we measure and determine intelligence? IQ measurements are highly suspect, as others have already argued in this thread.

Also averages can be thrown way off. For instance the average income in the U.S. is around 100k, however the mean income is around 30k(according to my psychology book). Therefore more people actually make much less than the study might suggest if you go by the average. So what do we go by when we are determining if someone is more or less intelligent than the rest of the populace.

I think if he is actually incapable of taking care of himself (my personal definition of child) then he should be in an institution, and this whole court case should be rendered mute. I think it should have been up to his personal doctors, and perhaps his family, but not the federal government. They shouldn't have that kind of invasive influence in people's lives.

My problem is with the fact that the government was able to decide something so personal for someone. It's kinda George Orwell stuff. Don't you think?

No matter what method we use, he is way below the norm. That is the key difference here.

As I said, there is no argument about whether or not he's an adult. He is. Mentally, however, he is not. IQ does not determine this, though I believe it is an indicator. If his mental processes are like that of a child -- limited understanding of cause and affect, susceptibility to suggestion and mental bullying, inability to consider all factors in a given situation, etc. -- then it is safe to say he has the mind of a child. Children, actual children, can take care of themselves. Some, if they were allowed to work and maybe drive, would not need anyone. That is unrelated to their ability to consent.

No, I don't. Provided their concern is his consent, it is no different from what they've been doing to children for years.

What do you consider a child? what age, or level of understanding? If it falls to knowing the results of the decision to have sex, then I've been an adult since I was about seven years old.

If it falls to age, then what age? In antiquity it wasn't uncommon for people aged around their mid to late teens to move out, and get married (which required consummation... sex). So what is his mental age, and what age should people be considered old enough?

And the most important question of all, Why is it the government's business?

I somehow doubt the bolded. Further, I've explained what constitutes a 'child-like mentality'. Please go back and re-read, or ask me to clarify if you need it. I don't feel like repeating myself.

The same reason it's the government's business if a 5-year-old has sex. Governments should exist solely to better the lives of their people. If they do not do this, they should not exist. They will only cause problems. It is very much their business if someone is being coerced into sex.

In my opinion the purpose of the federal government is not to better the peoples lives, it is to protect them from outside threats, and beyond that, leave them the heck alone. The state government can set things like age limits for sex, and if one doesn't like their state's specific limit, they can vote, or move somewhere with one they prefer.

Also I would ask you just how easily influenced is too easily influenced for someone who is physically an adult? There are plenty of people with mental issues (commonly referred to as "daddy issues" in women.), or addictions (nymphomania), which make them give it up in the space of a smile from a member of the opposite sex. How is that different? Should the government step in there too? No. Their families should. Their psychiatrist should. Their friends should. A ruling like this gives the government too much power. The last time something like this was done by a government it lead to eugenics, and that's sick. When does it stop?


(I love subjective debate. :) )

Would it be coercion if the person the person whose IQ was too low was having sex with another person whose IQ was too low?

If this were Facebook I would Like this post.

I was actually wondering if this were the case with the man, because it says that he lives in an "establishment" of some sort, which I assume is a care home or complex for people who need care, and it's implied that the man he's in a relationship in is another resident. I decided not to point it out since everyone was on a roll... XD;

But there we go, yeah. How do we feel about two mentally disabled people receiving care in a relationship with each other?

I'm not really sure how to respond to the OP but as for two mentally disabled people I think it is fine. I'm not sure I was ready to consent to sex as a child but I was certainly curious about sex and couldn't wait to get older so I could explore and experiment. It would suck terribly to never be able to get to the point of being able to decide for myself when to have sex. I think the ability to have sex is sort of a basic right.

Then you support a militaristic model of government? That's turned out well in the past.

Not sure what the relevance of this is. This happened in the UK; they do not have states, as far as I know.

An Electra complex simply refers to preference; they are not coerced into sex by any stretch of the imagination. Nymphomania is an unhealthy obsession with sex, but nymphomaniacs still choose to have sex, with whom, and under what circumstances (pyromaniacs still choose to light things on fire). There is a vast difference between someone being more into sex than most, or more likely to sleep with a specific person than they would have been otherwise, and someone not mentally being able to consent. And that is the issue here. Children are not able to consent, period. It stands to reason that if they cannot, someone with similar mental abilities cannot. If you disagree, you disagree with a legion of child psychologists, but you are free to do so. But the issue of consent based on mental maturity cannot be separated from this.

If it's not the government's place to decide who can and cannot have sex, why is it anyone else's? I don't understand the differentiation. I'd actually prefer my government controlling my sex life over my family or psychologist, given that so many shrinks are still incredibly homophobic and my family most definitely is. At least with the government I have a chance; oppressive or not, they will be objective on an individual level in a way any single individual, especially one who knows me, will not. Either way it's still someone intruding on someone else's privacy and I don't get how you can condemn one and support the other.

As for the slight hint of Godwin at the last, yes, letting the government control sex (in limited cases; more on this in a second) could potentially contribute to eugenics. You know what else could? A belief in evolution. Abortion*. Contraceptives. The study of genetics. A multitude of very good things could lead to something horrible. Not really a surprise, most of the bad in the world can start out as or draw support from good. But it's not a direct path. Slippery slopes are considered a fallacy for a good reason; while sometimes A does directly lead to B, it's not always the case. Most non-fascist governments operate on this very principle.

And I don't think it's comparable to eugenics, anyway. They aren't telling him not to have sex because, as has been suggested, "he's too dumb". They're not trying to keep him from "breeding"; given that he's gay, he would be an odd target if that were the case. If what I have suggested is correct and it is actually about consent issues, his reproduction is not even a concern. It is the sex itself.

*This one's actually pretty popular among pro-lifers, who will suggest that because so many recipients of abortions are African American, they are the targets of genocide and "allowing" abortion is just a cover for eugenics.

Lorika: The same way I do about two children having sex (here, there are still likely to be sexual assault charges filed, though whom is the defendant in such a case is complicated; usually, it's the oldest). Being vulnerable to manipulation does not mean you cannot be manipulative yourself.