UK Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

Workforce, for one.

Well, we already ban incest under grounds that it's bad for the gene pool.

I don't see how this is that much different. Also, mentally challenged adults aren't able to give consent to sex. So at the very least, people having sex with them should be prosecuted.

A lot of people think it is. And woah nelly, we are suddenly whole 'nother area of Socio Biology discussion than gender. One that is really racially loaded instead of sexually loaded.

Well, there has to be some genetic component, or humans would have the same IQ as animals. Of course, humans have culture while dogs don't really have more than basic interaction. But culture only works in biological container, you can't culture a dog to go to college. Exactly how heritable it could be between humans, is the question. We only really have hypotheses for it yet, as we don't know enough about the brain to say. Or the human genome, for that matter.

I would personally hypothesize it's an "all of the above", thing. People's upbringing strongly influences how one does on IQ scores. Many Chinese Americans who are said to score very well on IQ scores, are also said to have a strict upbringing. Also, many things can go wrong and right in birthing. It might not be that a kid has "bad genes" or upbringing, but that something went wrong in pregnancy. And yet also, there may be a component of genes to IQ. I think it should be worthy of note that there are many geniuses and people in specialized fields with an average IQ, and Policemen of incredibly high IQ.

edited 7th Feb '11 8:14:17 PM by Ukonkivi

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

I wish we knew more about the case so that we could have a more informed opinion. I worry that this response has more about squick than logic to it, though.

A similar thing happens in nursing homes for the elderly, too; their kids get all squicked out that their somewhat senile elderly relatives are getting it on, get them declared incompetent, and then force the staff to stop the sexual relationships.

A brighter future for a darker age.

I'm with Morven here. I'd like to know more about the circumstances before I decide what to think. From the article alone, I'm inclined to agree with the court's decision. It seems as if the court is deciding that he can't engage in sexual relations until he can understand the responsibility involved. I think that's fair, particularly because the man in question has been accused of making lewd gestures at children, and wouldn't be able to discern a healthy sexual relationship from manipulation.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

"Bad for the gene pool" is not a justification. If it were, there are many other conditions that should also preclude someone from having sex, but don't. (See also the devolution thread in this forum.)

Besides, that presupposes that sex is being used for reproduction.

"Bad for the gene pool" is pretty much the worst justification you're likely to hear for something like that.

But I seriously doubt their reasoning was anything of the sort.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

He's being more closely supervised until he has satisfactorily completed  ^*

^{in the eyes of the judge}

sexual education counselling.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

@Re: Is IQ Genetic?: To a degree, yes. There's a lot of evidence to show that intelligence is in fact heritable to a significant degree. Related individuals will usually have similar IQ scores regardless of whether they were raised in the same/in a similar environment or not.

And IQ tests aren't arbitrary. Or nearly arbitrary. They're fairly well supported and tend to correlate highly with an individual's success in academics and in the workplace. That doesn't mean they're perfect, and they actually do have some big problems, but they're not something to simply be scoffed at, either.

Anyway, more on topic, I don't think it really matters whether he's physically an adult or not. Different degrees of cognitive functioning require different degrees of assistance and protections. You see this with how many legal responsibilities are afforded to, say, 15 year olds, despite them being sexually mature.

Individuals who function significantly below the average are in need of greater degrees of supervision and lesser degrees of freedom for the sake of their safety.

@Desertopa: Well, I imagine sex is the only thing being focused on here because that was the issue that was brought before the court.

I think the main problem here is that the courts find themselves in the position of arguing that, if someone can be allowed to have sex based on physical maturity rather than mental maturity, then the Unfortunate Implications open the door for Moral Guardians to become up and arms and make the argument "if a child-like person can have sex, then why not a child"? As it currently stands, age of consent laws are moreso to measure mental maturity rather than physical maturity.

I want to know more about the boyfriend. And the rest of the case in general, because it's hard to judge the validity of the arguments based on what little information we have here.

The owner of this account is temporarily unavailable. Please leave your number and call again later.

Eh. Most of the IQ tests I see tend to stress esoteric pattern recognition that borders on Moon Logic Puzzle than anything particularly relevant.

Granted you'll still see some general trends emerge (like, 48 is a pretty good sign you've got issues), but it's more a test of test-taking ability than actual intelligence.

edited 8th Feb '11 10:30:48 AM by Pykrete

Well, it depends on what moral system you're going from. It's subjective, and many people think it's the best, if anything.

But I personally agree, that it's not good reasoning at all to tell people who they can love and have sex with. Which is why I support the right to incest, when many do not. The only reasoning behind making incest illegal is that it's "bad for the gene pool". But if you're going to do that, you'd might as well have a full fledged Eugenics program.

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

So, if due to his high sex drive and lack of sex he accidentally rapes someone, will the judge be held responsible for causing it in part?

"That said, as I've mentioned before, apart from the helmet, he's not exactly bad looking, if a bit...blood-drenched." - juancarlos

No, it would probably be used as proof that he doesn't know enough about sex to act responsibly with regards to it.

Be not afraid...

My own.

I think parental incest is problematic due the issues of abuse and coercion and the difficulties of proving such. Regarding sibling incest, I'm inclined to agree with you.

But I was really only saying that I don't think eugenics has anything to do with the guy discussed in this thread.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

I copletely agree with the ruling. Ïntroduce him to dick sleeves, they are wonderful little pieces of technology.

"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."

Yeah, eugenics has nothing to do with preventing gay sex.

If you read, they were actually against him getting sex ed on the grounds that it would confuse him.

If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.

I'm conflicted on this, as while I can understand the comparison to sexual restrictions placed on an underage person, one of the key aspects of those restricitons is that they are removed at a certain age.

This is banning a man with an admittedly active sex drive from having sex potentially for his entire life. I don't know how comfortable I am with the courts having that level of control over the basic human functions of the populace.

Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!

But they're removed after a certain age because people are seen as typically being able to consent by that age.

If they're not able to consent in their adulthood, then the law shouldn't treat them as consenting just because they're adults.

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

the age of consent is a rough barometer of when people are mentally capable of handling sex and the ramifications. If we cannot trust regular 16 year olds to understand sex, how can we expect someone who is mentally handicapped and very misinformed about sex to make an informed decision?

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

Slightly conflicted, but I think overall I agree with the judge. An IQ of 48 is rather severe mental retardation so I don't think he really understands what he's doing. It just opens up lots of opportunities for someone to take advantage of him. Is the solution perfect? No, but I don't think there really is a perfect solution here. I think if the situation ended up in court there must have been something wrong to trigger interest in a middle aged man's sex life.

I understand all that, which is why I'm conflicted on it.

Still, though, you're possibly dooming a person to never experience sex for reasons that are completely outside of his control. It just doesn't sit well.

Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!

Does anyone know the neutral citation for this case? I'm interested in reading the opinions in the judgment.