I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love. Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving! We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
I do understand that this court decision is about protecting this man Alan who has a low IQ. I would hate to think this ban on his sex life is because he was sleeping with a man.
I read this as Alan has a roof over his head and a man in his bed. He may not be bright enough to hold a job but he is keen about survival. The court decision makes it sound like he is being taken advantge of, but then there seems to be no penalty for the gentleman in Alan's bed.
Sex is such a basic instinct, how much intelligence do you need to have? Imagine having a court order restricting you from having sex...no thank you!
Age appears to be best in four things; old wood best to burn, old wine to drink, old friends to trust, and old authors to read. (Sir Francis Bacon 1561-1626)
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13773
This is a highly unusual court order. An IQ of 48 is extremely low, and yet such people are not as stupid (if that is the right word) as one might believe. I was entertained at Christmas in the parental home of one such chap. He also has a sex drive. His parents are concerned about it. But regulating sex for him is, at best, a challenge. What he knows is that he enjoys it.
But what if he has children? He is incapable of raising a child, but he can father one. What if the child suffers the same low IQ? At what point should the state step in?
Does having sex require intelligence? Certainly not and neither the article nor the Justice's ruling implies such. In fact the Justice referred to sex as “a basic human function”. As the Justice said, what requires intelligence is the “capacity to understand the health risks”, and I might add, in regard to heterosexual intercourse, to understand the risk of pregnancy. Many schools have what they call “Sex Education” but most of what is taught is anatomy and disease control. For thousands of years mankind has engaged in sex and procreated without regard to either intelligence or education.
The question the Justice raised is: Should society require a person to have a minimum level of intelligence to be allowed to have sex? As the Justice said, that is certainly a “legally, intellectually and morally complex” question but he concluded the answer is yes. We attempt to prevent young people from engaging in sex because they are ill-equipped to deal with the consequences and, right or wrong, the courts have chosen to treat Alan the same way.
I'm not sure this would be accepted, legally, in the US because of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Does Alan have a right to engage in sex with another person?
Location: USA
Registered: April 2009
Messages: 429
Alan is a human being and has all full rights, sexual and others. He is being grossly discriminated against having sex. The judge is a total "moron" himself, thinking that this man is a lower level human being. Jeez, the judge should have some consequences thrown at him. His thinking is par with Nazi belief of inferior humans. I have my dander up with this article. It seems like no gains have been made since I began working with developmentally disabled people 30 years ago.
Alan deserves sexual contact. The judge deserves, well, something. Damn trogolite thinking!
Location: USA
Registered: April 2009
Messages: 429
Alan knew he wanted sex and was lucky to find sex. Now that judge forced Alan to not have sex. Does being a judge require intelligence? Hopefully a whole lot more that the judge in question. And a heart too.