Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

hullaballoo · 09-02-2011 1:22pm #1

A man with a low IQ has been banned from having sex by a High Court judge who admitted the case raised questions about “civil liberties and personal autonomy”.

The 41 year-old had been in a relationship with a man whom he lived with and told officials “it would make me feel happy” for it to continue.

But his local council decided his “vigorous sex drive” was inappropriate and that with an IQ of 48 and a “moderate” learning disability, he did not understand what he was doing.

A psychiatrist involved in the case even tried to prevent the man being given sex education, on the grounds that it would leave him “confused”.

Mr Justice Mostyn said the case was “legally, intellectually and morally” complex as sex is “one of the most basic human functions” and the court must “tread especially carefully” when the state tries to curtail it.

But he agreed that the man, known only as Alan, should not be allowed to have sex with anyone on the grounds that he did not have the mental capacity to understand the health risks associated with his actions.

Under the judge’s order, the man is now subject to “close supervision” by the local authority that provides his accommodation, in order to ensure he does not break the highly unusual order.

The judge concluded: “I therefore make a declaration that at the present time Alan does not have the capacity to consent to and engage in sexual relations.

“In such circumstances it is agreed that the present régime for Alan's supervision and for the prevention of future sexual activity is in his best interests.”

It is the latest controversial case to come before the Court of Protection, a little-known authority whose proceedings are held behind closed doors.

Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, its judges have the power to make life or death decisions for people deemed to lack the intelligence to make them for themselves – such as ordering that they undergo surgery, have forced abortions, have life-support switched off or be forced to use contraception.

In the latest case, the man known as Alan was described as “sociable” and “presented as an able man” but who was “seriously challenged in all aspects of his mental functionality”.

He lived in a home provided by the council, where he developed a sexual relationship with a man called Kieron by the court. Alan was also accused of making lewd gestures at children in a dentists’ surgery and on a bus, although no police action was taken.

In June 2009 the town hall began court proceedings to restrict his contact with Kieron on the grounds that he lacked mental capacity, and an interim order was made to that effect.

“Since then Alan has been subjected to close supervision to prevent any further sexual activity on his part,” except when he is alone in his bedroom.
However he told representatives of the Official Solicitor, who acts in the Court of Protection, to tell the judge “I want to kiss them again”.

Mr Justice Mostyn highlighted the fact that the court cannot prevent people from merely making “unwise” decisions, and that a simple test can be carried out to see if a person is capable of consenting to sex based on the act itself rather than the proposed partner.

The judge said it requires an understanding and awareness of the “mechanics of the act”, “that there are health risks involved” and that sex between a man and a woman may lead to pregnancy.

He said that the psychiatrist thought Alan “believed that babies were delivered by a stork or found under a bush”, and that “sex could give you spots or measles”.

On that basis the judge ruled that Alan did not have the capacity to consent to sex, but also ordered that the council should provide him with sex education “in the hope that he thereby gains that capacity”.

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.

kfallon · 09-02-2011 1:25pm

Would him striking a boner be a form of consent???

martic · 09-02-2011 1:26pm

Kevin Joyce???

Wolfe Tone · 09-02-2011 1:34pm

Since he cant consent any sex would be rape

stovelid · 09-02-2011 1:45pm

Wasn't a simlar ruling overturned before?

Kerry Katona has kids doesn't she?

Turtyturd · 09-02-2011 1:46pm

Is 'Low IQ' the new politically correct term?

AnonoBoy · 09-02-2011 1:51pm

Turtyturd wrote: »

Is 'Low IQ' the new politically correct term?

More 'descriptively accurate' rather than 'politically correct' I'd say.

ejmaztec · 09-02-2011 1:54pm

They've come a long way since lunatics and imbeciles, like they've got on the old census records.

twinQuins · 09-02-2011 1:55pm

Turtyturd wrote: »

Is 'Low IQ' the new politically correct term?

For what, exactly?

Ficheall · 09-02-2011 1:57pm

Will this lead to them trying to ban people from having sex when they reach a certain level of intoxication or bakedness? One's ability to make informed decisions/complete an IQ test is certainly impaired in those situations.

lee_baby_simms · 09-02-2011 1:58pm

Morkarleth wrote: »

For what, exactly?

'Retarded' I guess.

'Mentally handicapped' seems appropriate in this case.

biko · 09-02-2011 2:02pm

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

ScumLord · 09-02-2011 2:05pm

“one of the most basic human functions”

No, it's one of the most basic biological functions. Sex is a fundamental part of pretty much every living thing, does any other animal understand what they're doing when they're having sex?

I think this is very wrong, I can understand where problems would arise with someone like him having a baby and not being able to care for the child but that problem can be dealt with by just teaching him to use contraception or by giving him the snips but he should be allowed to enjoy himself and not be denied a basic right of life.

Dravokivich · 09-02-2011 2:06pm

love... t'is a fools game anyway no?

Dravokivich · 09-02-2011 2:08pm

ScumLord wrote: »

No, it's one of the most basic biological functions. Sex is a fundamental part of pretty much every living thing, does any other animal understand what they're doing when they're having sex?

I think this is very wrong, I can understand where problems would arise with someone like him having a baby and not being able to care for the child but that problem can be dealt with by just teaching him to use contraception or by giving him the snips but he should be allowed to enjoy himself and not be denied a basic right of life.

he's gay too...

BaZmO* · 09-02-2011 2:19pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

They've come a long way since lunatics and imbeciles, like they've got on the old census records.

Is that not just a case of those words originally being the socially acceptable terms but because they are taken on board in everyday use they are then used in an insulting manor and therefore changed to the next socially acceptable term, and so on, and so on.

Like Spastic and Handicapped, etc.

09-02-2011 2:22pm

Ficheall wrote: »

Will this lead to them trying to ban people from having sex when they reach a certain level of intoxication or bakedness? One's ability to make informed decisions/complete an IQ test is certainly impaired in those situations.

Ehh... date-rape? Drunken consent is not consent.

ScumLord wrote: »

No, it's one of the most basic biological functions. Sex is a fundamental part of pretty much every living thing, does any other animal understand what they're doing when they're having sex?

I think this is very wrong, I can understand where problems would arise with someone like him having a baby and not being able to care for the child but that problem can be dealt with by just teaching him to use contraception or by giving him the snips but he should be allowed to enjoy himself and not be denied a basic right of life.

Teaching him does not seem to be an option (he still thinks babies come from storks apparently).

If he is incapable of giving informed consent, what can be done? You might as well pimp him out on the basis that he doesn't know the difference

El Weirdo · 09-02-2011 2:24pm

stovelid wrote: »

Wasn't a simlar ruling overturned before?

Kerry Katona has kids doesn't she?

As did Jade Goody.

ejmaztec · 09-02-2011 2:27pm

BaZmO* wrote: »

Is that not just a case of those words originally being the socially acceptable terms but because they are taken on board in everyday use they are then used in an insulting manor and therefore changed to the next socially acceptable term, and so on, and so on.

Like Spastic and Handicapped, etc.

I think that it was more like zero political correctness, and no-one gave a sh1t about offending anyone.

On one set of old records, I found one family with two resident lunatics. I can imagine the people asking strange questions about the inhabitants of each property.

Screaminmidget · 09-02-2011 2:27pm

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

ScumLord · 09-02-2011 2:28pm

28064212 wrote: »

If he is incapable of giving informed consent, what can be done? You might as well pimp him out on the basis that he doesn't know the difference

He didn't make that up, someone told him that. It looks more like over the course of his 41 years people have been with holding information from him which has done him no good at all. He is living in a fantasy world created for him by the people who told him all this stuff.

Intercourse > impregnation > baby is not that difficult a concept especially with so much information out there. How is it protecting him telling him storks make babies? Him acting on that information can only lead to bad things.

09-02-2011 2:30pm

ScumLord wrote: »

He didn't make that up, someone told him that. It looks more like over the course of his 41 years people have been with holding information from him which has done him no good at all. He is living in a fantasy world created for him by the people who told him all this stuff.

Intercourse > impregnation > baby is not that difficult a concept especially with so much information out there. How is it protecting him telling him storks make babies? Him acting on that information can only lead to bad things.

From the article:

He said that the psychiatrist thought Alan “believed that babies were delivered by a stork or found under a bush”, and that “sex could give you spots or measles”.

On that basis the judge ruled that Alan did not have the capacity to consent to sex, but also ordered that the council should provide him with sex education “in the hope that he thereby gains that capacity”.

BaZmO* · 09-02-2011 2:30pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think that it was more like zero political correctness, and no-one gave a sh1t about offending anyone.

Well not really. It was the correct term to use back then.
Meanings of words change all the time.

ejmaztec wrote: »

On one set of old records, I found one family with two resident lunatics. I can imagine the people asking strange questions about the inhabitants of each property.

As you've said yourself, it was an option on the old Census returns.

Dravokivich · 09-02-2011 2:31pm

ScumLord wrote: »

He didn't make that up, someone told him that. It looks more like over the course of his 41 years people have been with holding information from him which has done him no good at all. He is living in a fantasy world created for him by the people who told him all this stuff.

Intercourse > impregnation > baby is not that difficult a concept especially with so much information out there. How is it protecting him telling him storks make babies? Him acting on that information can only lead to bad things.

I've seen similar before and recon sheltering someone heavily, without telling them what's what, is far more stifling to them developing mentally.

GLaDOS · 09-02-2011 2:33pm

28064212 wrote: »

Drunken consent is not consent.

Then there's a hell of a lot of rape every weekend...

smellslikeshoes · 09-02-2011 3:02pm

28064212 wrote: »

Ehh... date-rape? Drunken consent is not consent.

What? If that was the case Ireland would be empty in a decade or two.

Turtyturd · 09-02-2011 3:05pm

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

'Retarded' I guess.

'Mentally handicapped' seems appropriate in this case.

Yeah mentally handicapped would probably have been a better way of putting it. It just seems like the headline and the term Low IQ are being used to exaggerate the story somewhat as it portrays the guy as being a bit dim rather than handicapped.

Buceph · 09-02-2011 3:30pm

Turtyturd wrote: »

Yeah mentally handicapped would probably have been a better way of putting it. It just seems like the headline and the term Low IQ are being used to exaggerate the story somewhat as it portrays the guy as being a bit dim rather than handicapped.

Handicap usually refers to a medical affliction, and retard has been used to mean Down's Syndrome for years.

There could be nothing medically wrong with this guy, he could just be the weird outlier who is extremely lacking in intelligence.

AnonoBoy · 09-02-2011 3:37pm

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

What? If that was the case Ireland would be empty in a decade or two.

If drunken consent is not consent then there are a lot* of women who have raped me.

*(for the purposes of this post 'a lot'=two)

The_Minister · 09-02-2011 3:57pm

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?

ejmaztec · 09-02-2011 3:58pm

BaZmO* wrote: »

Well not really. It was the correct term to use back then.
Meanings of words change all the time.

The meanings of words do change all the time, and so do attitudes, which is why there would be uproar if similar questions were asked nowadays.

tfitzgerald · 09-02-2011 4:00pm

Screaminmidget wrote: »

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

Very good lol

bonerm · 09-02-2011 4:01pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

But he agreed that the man, known only as Alan

Anagram perhaps?

09-02-2011 4:06pm

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 4:08pm

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 4:11pm

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 4:31pm

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

TimeToShine · 09-02-2011 4:35pm

Thought the title said men...

Boards would have been in uproar!

jackiebaron · 09-02-2011 4:42pm

Turtyturd wrote: »

Is 'Low IQ' the new politically correct term?

Politically correct for what?

qz · 09-02-2011 4:43pm

jackiebaron wrote: »

Politically correct for what?

Full blown retard.

09-02-2011 4:44pm

Morkarleth wrote: »

For what, exactly?

jackiebaron wrote: »

Politically correct for what?

For asking the same question over and over

LighterGuy · 09-02-2011 4:46pm

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

AnonoBoy · 09-02-2011 4:52pm

LighterGuy wrote: »

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

Oh be quiet.

minidazzler · 09-02-2011 4:59pm

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 4:59pm

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 5:00pm

bluewolf wrote: »

For asking the same question over and over

hur! hur! Good one!

09-02-2011 5:11pm

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 5:57pm

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 6:00pm

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 6:06pm

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 6:09pm

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?

Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

Comments