Slog
News & ArtsMonday, February 7, 2011
Sex UK Court "Bans" Man with Low IQ from Having Sex
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:25 AM
This seems nuts:
A man with an IQ of 48 has been ordered to stop having sex by a High Court judge.
Known only as Alan, the 41-year-old was in a relationship with a man he lived with and said he wanted it to continue. However, his local council said his 'vigorous sex drive' was inappropriate so started legal proceedings to restrict the relationship.... Despite his fears for interfering in a person's sex life, [the judge] agreed that he did not have the mental capacity to know about the health risks and should be banned from having sex.
His council will now monitor him closely to make sure he doesn't breach the order.
Local councils in the UK monitor sex drives? Someone is going to get paid to make sure that Alan doesn't sneak out and have sex? At what point does someone's IQ drop so low that they can't legally consent to sex? Is this a case of a developmentally disabled person being taken advantage of and the state stepping in to stop the abuse or is it a case of a disabled person being stripped of his right to have a sex partner—being pulled away from the lover with whom he lives—because some people are uncomfortable when the disabled have sex?
WTF?
1
Thanks for linking to a fox news site.
But it's notable that the comments use this as an opportunity to bash liberals and Democrats. (I wonder if the commenters are aware that this is in the UK and not the US.)
But it's notable that the comments use this as an opportunity to bash liberals and Democrats. (I wonder if the commenters are aware that this is in the UK and not the US.)
2
Interesting, I was just reading in Gould's Mismeasure of Man about this sort of thing happening at the beginning of the 20th century. Ironically, the idea that those with low IQ should be institutionalized / sterilized / restricted was a completely American invention. Pity it seems to have emmigrated...
3
An IQ of 48? Man, your dog probably can do better than that. Sounds like he really doesn't have the capacity to consent.
4
"his local council said his 'vigorous sex drive' was inappropriate" -- so was it his vigorous sex drive being inappropriate or concern for his well being? If the latter...
Do we have laws that prevent those with autism or Downs from marrying? http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNew…
They certainly can marry. Look--they marry in the UK, too. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl…
Do we have laws that prevent those with autism or Downs from marrying? http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNew…
They certainly can marry. Look--they marry in the UK, too. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl…
5
With an IQ of 48, this guy is already in a state assisted living program (the threshold for being declared mentally retarded is 70).
@2: Umm, no, the Europeans have been locking these people up in insane asylumns like Bedlam for years.
@2: Umm, no, the Europeans have been locking these people up in insane asylumns like Bedlam for years.
9
@8 I'm more curious as to the reaction if the low IQ person had been a woman - would the other guy been labeled a rapist because she is incapable of consent?
10
Why is IQ even being used as a measure for ability to give consent? A child could have a genius-level IQ, but we wouldn't say they can give consent to have sex.
11
Well, the original story is from the UK's Daily Mail, which is notorious for shading facts and even outright lying to fit its agenda, so I'd prefer to find out a bit more about the case before jumping up and down and shrieking.
And as I understand it an IQ of 48 is pretty serious mental retardation, though it depends on what scale they're using to measure it. But since he's got this "inappropriate" sex drive it's surely better that he express it with a steady partner, unless there's something shady or abusive going on that the news outlets didn't bother to mention.
And as I understand it an IQ of 48 is pretty serious mental retardation, though it depends on what scale they're using to measure it. But since he's got this "inappropriate" sex drive it's surely better that he express it with a steady partner, unless there's something shady or abusive going on that the news outlets didn't bother to mention.
12
So, how do they know he's having sex? How does his local council know he has a "vigorous sex drive"? Is he having sex with another mentally challenged person, or a care giver? There's very little information given. Do they believe he's being taken advantage of, or is this an example of the powers that be thinking that mentally challenged people don't have the same basic needs everyone else does?
13
I really prefer my Savage Love blog without Daily Mail stories...
the article didn't tell us where this was in the UK, and for all we know 'Alan's' lover is Prince Charles.
the article didn't tell us where this was in the UK, and for all we know 'Alan's' lover is Prince Charles.
14
@5 You misunderstood. Using IQ tests as an excuse to institutionalize is the American invention, not institutionalization in general.
15
Yeah, the story does not add up at all. More info please. If this were a patient that needed institutionalization--at least part-time--do you think they are capable of partnering, though?
16
Yeah, there's a lot of sensationalism there, very little info. My guess is there's a whole story behind the "vigorous sex drive" which I'm going to guess was perhaps more public than would be appropriate.
Nevertheless many of the issues raised here already (what if he was a woman? Who is the other partner? and so on.
But the record on viewing disabled people as people with human rights or even as sexual beings is pretty dismal (again, already pointed out, in fewer than 10 comments!) so there's room for skepticism as to what kind of stunt is being pulled here.
So, if it didn't happen here as represented, it's happened somewhere else, and that's the underlying problem. But the treatment of the disabled by the abled isn't going to change all that quickly.
Nevertheless many of the issues raised here already (what if he was a woman? Who is the other partner? and so on.
But the record on viewing disabled people as people with human rights or even as sexual beings is pretty dismal (again, already pointed out, in fewer than 10 comments!) so there's room for skepticism as to what kind of stunt is being pulled here.
So, if it didn't happen here as represented, it's happened somewhere else, and that's the underlying problem. But the treatment of the disabled by the abled isn't going to change all that quickly.
17
'Morning, Canuck.
Evahbody, I looked more closely at Fox's linked Daily Mail piece, and its facts were cherrypicked from this more carefully written Daily Telegraph article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/l…
Which links to an html copy of the Order in full, which includes quite a bit of important detail even the Telegraph left out:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/COP/…
In case anyone's interested.
Evahbody, I looked more closely at Fox's linked Daily Mail piece, and its facts were cherrypicked from this more carefully written Daily Telegraph article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/l…
Which links to an html copy of the Order in full, which includes quite a bit of important detail even the Telegraph left out:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/COP/…
In case anyone's interested.
18
@17: Thanks for those links. The second one to the order in full is very interesting. Agree or disagree with the decision, I think it is clear that a lot of careful consideration went into it. It seems to hinge on a determination of whether or not Alan has the capacity to give meaningful consent to sex.
Having read it, I'm still not sure what I think. An IQ of 48 seems low, but it's at the top end of what is considered a "moderate" intellectual disability. In one sense, Alan is as far removed from "average" intelligence as is a person with an IQ of 150 - just in the opposite direction. He'll probably never manage algebra - or maybe even the times tables - but he's not in need of constant personal care either.
Reading the decision, his understanding of sex might best be described as "child-like". We don't consider children to have the capacity to consent to sex, and we permit their parents to restrict (or at least, attempt to restrict) their sexual activity. In this case, the council is acting as guardian for Alan.
Interesting, complicated, difficult case.
Having read it, I'm still not sure what I think. An IQ of 48 seems low, but it's at the top end of what is considered a "moderate" intellectual disability. In one sense, Alan is as far removed from "average" intelligence as is a person with an IQ of 150 - just in the opposite direction. He'll probably never manage algebra - or maybe even the times tables - but he's not in need of constant personal care either.
Reading the decision, his understanding of sex might best be described as "child-like". We don't consider children to have the capacity to consent to sex, and we permit their parents to restrict (or at least, attempt to restrict) their sexual activity. In this case, the council is acting as guardian for Alan.
Interesting, complicated, difficult case.
19
Interesting link, Gus, and a very well-thought-out opinion. Clearly, "Alan" does not possess the capacity to fully consent to sex. Thanks for posting that.
20
If you go by the standard of whether or not one knows the possible consequences of sex, there are a hell of a lot of non-disabled adults that shouldn't be having sex, either.
21
@5 there is a difference between locking people up in asylums and not allowing them to have sex, or sterilising them.
@2 eugenics was started by Galton, a british scientist.
This has nothing to do with stopping him from breeding, he was having sex with a man. This is all about whether he can is sound enough mind to content to sex or if he is being taken advantage of.
@10 The IQ is not being used as a measure, the courts decided based on the person and his mental state. His IQ is simply a way the media can easily convey his disability.
I find this ruling distressing because the it puts the responsibility with him. If he is mentally incapable of consenting then it is not his fault. If anything it should be considered (a form of) rape to take advantage of him. Its equivalent to banning a child from being molested, it makes no sense. The emphasis is completely wrong
@2 eugenics was started by Galton, a british scientist.
This has nothing to do with stopping him from breeding, he was having sex with a man. This is all about whether he can is sound enough mind to content to sex or if he is being taken advantage of.
@10 The IQ is not being used as a measure, the courts decided based on the person and his mental state. His IQ is simply a way the media can easily convey his disability.
I find this ruling distressing because the it puts the responsibility with him. If he is mentally incapable of consenting then it is not his fault. If anything it should be considered (a form of) rape to take advantage of him. Its equivalent to banning a child from being molested, it makes no sense. The emphasis is completely wrong
22
You bet. I just was able to finish plowing through it (ha!), and whatever the subtleties of the issues presented throughout, the judge's final words do seem to have been ignored in all the coverage so far:
I am not satisfied that sufficient practical steps have yet been taken to see if Alan can have sex, with the result that the present régime of deprivation of liberty can be lifted.
I therefore order that:
i) the declarations I have made be of an interim nature;
ii) the local authority do provide Alan with sex education in the hope that he thereby gains that capacity; and
iii) the matter be returned to Court after a period of nine months for a review in order to see what progress the education is making, with a view to making final declarations at that point.
In view of the sensitivity and importance of the matters raised by this case I grant the local authority permission to appeal.
23
Based on the court proceedings (provided by gus @17) Alan had behaved inappropriately around children, and this is one of the problems.
However, they separated Alan and his boyfriend to prevent sexual relations, which seems like no-one's business.
However, they separated Alan and his boyfriend to prevent sexual relations, which seems like no-one's business.
24
Hello, gus! Missed you on LiveSlog last night, hope you had a good weekend.
And good sleuthing! Seems like there is a big difference between things that are happening in public (touching himself, and young girls) and living with another man. Why wouldn't the issue of inappropriate public acts be addressed separately from his living arrangement? It sounds like he had a full sex life, and that it is being denied now. There's a group here in Calgary, called Right to Love, that deals with these very issues. Lots of sadness for a Monday.
*and I have to stop looking at the Daily Mail for anything other than gossip about the Queen...
And good sleuthing! Seems like there is a big difference between things that are happening in public (touching himself, and young girls) and living with another man. Why wouldn't the issue of inappropriate public acts be addressed separately from his living arrangement? It sounds like he had a full sex life, and that it is being denied now. There's a group here in Calgary, called Right to Love, that deals with these very issues. Lots of sadness for a Monday.
*and I have to stop looking at the Daily Mail for anything other than gossip about the Queen...
25
@ 23:
They separated Alan and his boyfriend (and an unnamed third person) until Alan understands enough about sex. They specifically addressed that he doesn't understand STIs and how to use condoms.
They separated Alan and his boyfriend (and an unnamed third person) until Alan understands enough about sex. They specifically addressed that he doesn't understand STIs and how to use condoms.
26
@23, @ 17
Seriously. It seems what brought this to light was the fact that he had attempted to do sexual things with children--and if he cannot tell the difference between a child and an adult as a suitable sex partner, it seems he cannot truly consent to sex. It was likened to someone who, due to delusions while sick, could not actually give informed consent as to whether they wanted their leg amputated. They were willing to keep their leg and die because of the delusions they were suffering, even though they could 'understand' what the decision was. This is the same thing in this case, they posit, because he cannot determine what is appropriate and what is not, so you can't say 'okay well he can have sex with people if we okay it!' The idea is that he cannot understand the importance of what's going on, and so he cannot really consent one way or the other; since he cannot consent, he is like a child who cannot consent to sex.
Seriously. It seems what brought this to light was the fact that he had attempted to do sexual things with children--and if he cannot tell the difference between a child and an adult as a suitable sex partner, it seems he cannot truly consent to sex. It was likened to someone who, due to delusions while sick, could not actually give informed consent as to whether they wanted their leg amputated. They were willing to keep their leg and die because of the delusions they were suffering, even though they could 'understand' what the decision was. This is the same thing in this case, they posit, because he cannot determine what is appropriate and what is not, so you can't say 'okay well he can have sex with people if we okay it!' The idea is that he cannot understand the importance of what's going on, and so he cannot really consent one way or the other; since he cannot consent, he is like a child who cannot consent to sex.
27
@20: The judge noted that.
One of the proposed criteria for the capacity to consent was "an awareness that sex is part of having relationships with people and may have emotional consequences". The judge rejected that, saying it was "much too sophisticated to be included in the low level of understanding and intelligence needed to be able to consent to sex. Apart from anything else, I would have thought that a deal of sex takes place where one or other party is wholly oblivious to this supposed necessity."
One of the proposed criteria for the capacity to consent was "an awareness that sex is part of having relationships with people and may have emotional consequences". The judge rejected that, saying it was "much too sophisticated to be included in the low level of understanding and intelligence needed to be able to consent to sex. Apart from anything else, I would have thought that a deal of sex takes place where one or other party is wholly oblivious to this supposed necessity."
28
Hey, Canuck. Yeah, I've got my fingers crossed for him:
Alan now has his own accommodation, where he is closely supervised. His relationship with Kieron has ended. The evidence of the local authority is that he has thrived in his new placement and has not expressed any wish to resume sexual activity. On the other hand, he has asked a representative of the Official Solicitor to ask me, the judge, to allow him to have sex again. When asked how he would feel if the judge would allow him to do "these things" once again, he said "it would make me feel happy". He said, as regards the persons under discussion, "say I want to kiss them again".And I did a spit-take at this line of the judge's too:
To enter into a marriage the bar of intelligence and understanding is set low.
29
@25 yes, and they are going to try to educate him on these things and review the case again later.
However, if understanding of the use of contraceptives and the risk of STIs were requisites for sex (and maybe they should be) many people would be banned from sex.
He does need to know what behavior is appropriate in public, and what ages are appropriate, however what does that have to do with a mutually consensual and adult private relationship that he would like to continue?
However, if understanding of the use of contraceptives and the risk of STIs were requisites for sex (and maybe they should be) many people would be banned from sex.
He does need to know what behavior is appropriate in public, and what ages are appropriate, however what does that have to do with a mutually consensual and adult private relationship that he would like to continue?
30
Fingers crossed here too, gus. Poor guy..."I want to kiss [him] again"...so sad.
I agree with our own Trudeau: "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."
I agree with our own Trudeau: "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."
31
@29: "If understanding of the use of contraceptives and the risk of STIs were requisites for sex (and maybe they should be) many people would be banned from sex."
I believe that in his reasoning, the judge in the case considered that. He took care to make a distinction between "capacity to consent to sex and the exercise of that capacity."
Too many people don't understand the risks of sexual activity or don't take appropriate steps to mitigate them, even though they have the capacity to do so. As "adults" that is their right - the right to make crappy decisions even though they have the ability to make good ones.
The judge here is questioning whether Alan even has that ability.
I believe that in his reasoning, the judge in the case considered that. He took care to make a distinction between "capacity to consent to sex and the exercise of that capacity."
Too many people don't understand the risks of sexual activity or don't take appropriate steps to mitigate them, even though they have the capacity to do so. As "adults" that is their right - the right to make crappy decisions even though they have the ability to make good ones.
The judge here is questioning whether Alan even has that ability.
33
One of the criteria of testing whether he understood the mechanics of safe sex involved him putting a condom on a prosthetic penis. The court document said he failed to do this properly: he put it on inside-out so it couldn't roll down.
Which leads me to the logical and unsurprising conclusion that a couple men I have had sex with are functionally retarded.
Which leads me to the logical and unsurprising conclusion that a couple men I have had sex with are functionally retarded.
34
I'm very impressed w/ the reporting skills of Slog commentors. And I think that the Stranger should put Gus on staff.
36
Michael and Canuck, that's sweet, but I cherish my freedom as much as any of us here in the peanut gallery.
38
....sigh, all the good write-in candidates decline the honour...and besides, then you'd have to put your picture up, and I'm getting the feeling the last time someone got a candid of you was in Grade 5...
39
@30:
"Poor guy..."I want to kiss [him] again"...so sad. "
He did say "them" not "him", not because he doesn't understand the difference, but because he was having sex with at least one more person at the time when he was together with "Kieron". He isn't allowed to have sex with either of them at the moment.
(Btw: the other, unspecified, person could be a woman. He has had sexual relationships with both men and women before).
"Poor guy..."I want to kiss [him] again"...so sad. "
He did say "them" not "him", not because he doesn't understand the difference, but because he was having sex with at least one more person at the time when he was together with "Kieron". He isn't allowed to have sex with either of them at the moment.
(Btw: the other, unspecified, person could be a woman. He has had sexual relationships with both men and women before).
40
It looks like it was a difficult decision, fairly decided after due consideration. I am a little unsatisffied with Dr. Hall's inability to answer certain questions. He didn't even ask Alan where babies came from? Seems like a more complete expert evaluation would be in order before restricting such a fundamental freedom.
41
I'm surprised at all the commenters saying they're sure this man can't truly consent to sex with his level of retardation. All we have to go on is an IQ number (a semi-arbitrary measurement, & in this case one that doesn't convey much to the average reader beyond "sounds hella low") and a couple of sentences in the Mail & Telegraph articles describing his mental functioning. But beyond that, the reasons we might give for saying a minor or an intoxicated person can't consent don't really apply here. With a minor, even if they have some form of sex drive, they are presumed not to have attained their full adult sexuality, and thus not to understand what they really want out of sex. With an intoxicated person, they can't consent because they might be traumatized later when they found they had consented to something they wouldn't normally want -- which doesn't apply to Alan, since this is his "normal."
And children are rightly considered incapable of consenting to sex with adults because they can't always make a clear mental distinction between doing something because they want to & doing something to please an adult. If you can't really refuse sex (due to a messed-up power dynamic), you can't really consent. This doesn't apply to Alan, either. He won't ever reach a higher level of mental maturity against which his current state can be contrasted. So the harm of letting a mentally immature person consent to sex must be weighed against the (possibly much greater) harm of denying him sex and intimate contact for life -- not the case with minors, who can afford to wait a few years.
And while his intelligence may be childlike, that doesn't mean all aspects of his mind are -- he may be adult-like in his ability to form preferences based on years of life experience, and in possessing the will (and physical strength) to reject any sexual activity he doesn't want. Again, not the case with chidren.
You'll also note that minors aren't legally banned from having sex with others of the same age -- just adults, because of the power imbalance. Similarly, if this man is shacked up with another retarded adult, it makes little sense to conclude the sex must be "rape" or coercion.
I'm glad the judge put some thought into the ethical ramifications of this, & it sounds like putting him in sex ed was a needed step. But I'm with Dan in being uncomfortable with the weirdness of putting an adult's right to a sex life up for judicial review.
More...
And children are rightly considered incapable of consenting to sex with adults because they can't always make a clear mental distinction between doing something because they want to & doing something to please an adult. If you can't really refuse sex (due to a messed-up power dynamic), you can't really consent. This doesn't apply to Alan, either. He won't ever reach a higher level of mental maturity against which his current state can be contrasted. So the harm of letting a mentally immature person consent to sex must be weighed against the (possibly much greater) harm of denying him sex and intimate contact for life -- not the case with minors, who can afford to wait a few years.
And while his intelligence may be childlike, that doesn't mean all aspects of his mind are -- he may be adult-like in his ability to form preferences based on years of life experience, and in possessing the will (and physical strength) to reject any sexual activity he doesn't want. Again, not the case with chidren.
You'll also note that minors aren't legally banned from having sex with others of the same age -- just adults, because of the power imbalance. Similarly, if this man is shacked up with another retarded adult, it makes little sense to conclude the sex must be "rape" or coercion.
I'm glad the judge put some thought into the ethical ramifications of this, & it sounds like putting him in sex ed was a needed step. But I'm with Dan in being uncomfortable with the weirdness of putting an adult's right to a sex life up for judicial review.
42
I'm surprised at all the commenters saying they're sure this man can't "truly" consent to sex. All we have to go on is an IQ number (a semi-arbitrary measurement, & in this case one that doesn't convey much to the average reader beyond "sounds hella low") and a couple of sentences describing his mental capacity. But beyond that, the reasons we might give for saying a minor or an intoxicated person can't consent don't really apply here.
With a minor, even if they have some form of sex drive, they are presumed not to have attained their full adult sexuality, and thus not to understand what they really want out of sex. And children are rightly considered incapable of consenting to sex with adults because they can't always make a clear mental distinction between doing something because they want to & doing something to please an adult. If you can't really refuse sex (due to a messed-up power dynamic), you can't really consent. Alan's case is different. He won't ever reach a higher level of mental maturity against which his current state can be contrasted. So the harm of letting a mentally immature person consent to sex must be weighed against the (possibly much greater) harm of denying him sex and intimate contact for life -- not the case with minors, who can afford to wait a few years.
And while his intelligence may be childlike, other aspects of his mind may not be -- he may be adult-like in his ability to form preferences based on years of life experience, and in possessing the will (and physical strength) to reject any sexual activity he doesn't want.
You'll also note that minors aren't legally banned from having sex with others of the same age -- just adults, because of the power imbalance.
I'm glad the judge put some thought into the ethical ramifications of this, & it sounds like putting him in sex ed was a needed step. But I'm with Dan in being uncomfortable with the weirdness of putting an adult's right to a sex life up for judicial review.
More...
With a minor, even if they have some form of sex drive, they are presumed not to have attained their full adult sexuality, and thus not to understand what they really want out of sex. And children are rightly considered incapable of consenting to sex with adults because they can't always make a clear mental distinction between doing something because they want to & doing something to please an adult. If you can't really refuse sex (due to a messed-up power dynamic), you can't really consent. Alan's case is different. He won't ever reach a higher level of mental maturity against which his current state can be contrasted. So the harm of letting a mentally immature person consent to sex must be weighed against the (possibly much greater) harm of denying him sex and intimate contact for life -- not the case with minors, who can afford to wait a few years.
And while his intelligence may be childlike, other aspects of his mind may not be -- he may be adult-like in his ability to form preferences based on years of life experience, and in possessing the will (and physical strength) to reject any sexual activity he doesn't want.
You'll also note that minors aren't legally banned from having sex with others of the same age -- just adults, because of the power imbalance.
I'm glad the judge put some thought into the ethical ramifications of this, & it sounds like putting him in sex ed was a needed step. But I'm with Dan in being uncomfortable with the weirdness of putting an adult's right to a sex life up for judicial review.
43
This is a very complex issue. Taking away anyone's right to have sex is a horrible thing, however, it is also important to note that there is a long history of people raping people with severe mental disabilities because they are incapable of sufficiently not consenting, even when they seem to be harmed by the sex. It's often not that hard to push them into voicing consent. So, it is very important to ensure that people who may be near the border of capability to give consent are truly consenting and not being abused or open to abuse. So, forbidding someone from legally being considered capable of giving consent is not always necessarily the worst possible decision. Just a necessary bad decision when faced with a handful of really bad options. In this case, given that it seems to be a temporary ban for later reevaluation after sex education steps are taken, it does seem like an attempt was made to not strip him of his right to consensual sex too readily.
44
As much as I appreciate the utility of comparing low IQ to a childlike state, it still really chaps my hide. Adults with cognitive impairments are not children! Just because someone has a brain that seriously mis-processes all sorts of important input does not mean their genitals are broken. I have known a lot of people with very low IQs with all sorts of varying levels of interest in sex and with sexual orientations all over the spectrum--including a same sex foot fetishist. Some were content with hand holding and some were seemingly interested in what fun there is to be had "in the swimsuit area" 24/7. As deeply uncomfortable and complex as this issue can be we must error on the side on doing what we can to allow adults of all ability levels to live a full life and I think we can all agree sex play is part of a full life.
Gus gets the gold star of the day for bringing to light background details that reassure me that at least the judge and others are putting some effort into wrestling with this topic and not just demanding that Alan be banned from this important area of human experience just because it squicks folks out to contemplate people with disabilities getting in on.
I could go on and on about this topic but will end by pointing out that being board can be a serious problem for people with disabilities. I know that I often become interested in all the fun things I can do with my pants off when I am bored and I know the same is true for many people with very low IQ and very high IQs. Can I get an amen on that?
Gus gets the gold star of the day for bringing to light background details that reassure me that at least the judge and others are putting some effort into wrestling with this topic and not just demanding that Alan be banned from this important area of human experience just because it squicks folks out to contemplate people with disabilities getting in on.
I could go on and on about this topic but will end by pointing out that being board can be a serious problem for people with disabilities. I know that I often become interested in all the fun things I can do with my pants off when I am bored and I know the same is true for many people with very low IQ and very high IQs. Can I get an amen on that?
45
IQs are stupid, Richard Feynman had an IQ of 125 but is one of the greatest physicists ever to have lived. The UK is such a ridiculous nanny state sometimes, it kills me...
46
@42 "All we have to go on is an IQ number (a semi-arbitrary measurement, & in this case one that doesn't convey much to the average reader beyond "sounds hella low") and a couple of sentences describing his mental capacity."
Yes, this is why we are not making the judgement. I assure you that just because the papers mention his IQ that this was not the basis of the judgement. IQs have not been taken seriously for many years, especially not legally, it has been scientifically proven that IQ tests are an ineffective way of measuring intelligence.
Some mental disabilities make you unable to give consent, many dont. It is very important that the distinction is drawn. There are many mentally disabled people, and many people with low IQs, that are able to give consent and have normal sexual relationships. "disabilities" is such an all-encompassing term, covering a massive spectrum of people. Given that we have very little of the facts, the two stories linked are very sensationalist and it is hard to glean the reality, It is in my nature to trust the people who do, especially considering the temporary nature of the ruling.
Yes, this is why we are not making the judgement. I assure you that just because the papers mention his IQ that this was not the basis of the judgement. IQs have not been taken seriously for many years, especially not legally, it has been scientifically proven that IQ tests are an ineffective way of measuring intelligence.
Some mental disabilities make you unable to give consent, many dont. It is very important that the distinction is drawn. There are many mentally disabled people, and many people with low IQs, that are able to give consent and have normal sexual relationships. "disabilities" is such an all-encompassing term, covering a massive spectrum of people. Given that we have very little of the facts, the two stories linked are very sensationalist and it is hard to glean the reality, It is in my nature to trust the people who do, especially considering the temporary nature of the ruling.
47
In addition, given that this is a unusual ruling, it would indicate that this is a fairly unique situation, of which we are not fully aware. I certainly don't think it sets a president for the treatment of people with low IQs, or mental disabilities, in general.
48
But if the guy is gay -- his partner is male -- then how on earth could any ban on his sexuality be justified by possible harm to a future progeny? He isn't going to have any progeny!....
49
I've read the court's opinion. I still think it's a bad, bad result --- and more than that, pretty much straightforward discrimination against people with disabilities. One point: there seems to be no evidence at all that Alan has been the slightest bit harmed by his sexual activity. Is there some risk of future harm? Maybe. But is that enough to justify the remedy?
The lack of outrage on this thread leaves me a little bit baffled, I've got to say.
The lack of outrage on this thread leaves me a little bit baffled, I've got to say.
50
@20, I was going to bring that up too. It sounds more like he needs socialization instead of sexual denial.
51
@48: Reading into the details of the case, it appears that Alan has had sexual relations with both men and women. In any case, the judgement wasn't based on potential harm to future progeny; it was based on an assessment of his capacity to give meaningful consent to sexual activity.
@49: I think the lack of outrage may be because this isn't necessarily a black-and-white case. Yes, we're all (trolls aside) typically sex-positive here, but we're also generally opposed to sexual abuse and sexual assault. The question at the core of the case was Alan's ability to consent to sex. The judge determined that he did not have the capacity for consent due to his intellectual disability.
Depending on the details of their conditions, persons with intellectual disabilities can have a lot of restrictions placed on them. They may not be allowed to drive, or to handle their own financial affairs, or to live on their own. Restrictions aren't just placed on "higher-order" functions either; persons with Prader Willi Syndrome, who can have uncontrollable urges to eat, may have their access to food strictly controlled. Society already accepts that it is possible for a person to be unable to give meaningful consent to sex; this is just an extension of that principle.
The problem, of course, is that typically the inability to consent is a temporary condition which eventual maturity (or sobriety) will eliminate. In Alan's case, he may never have the capacity to give consent.
I'm not at all comfortable with the decision in this case. Reviewing the judgement, I don't think the judge in this case was entirely comfortable with it either. It's a tough situation.
@49: I think the lack of outrage may be because this isn't necessarily a black-and-white case. Yes, we're all (trolls aside) typically sex-positive here, but we're also generally opposed to sexual abuse and sexual assault. The question at the core of the case was Alan's ability to consent to sex. The judge determined that he did not have the capacity for consent due to his intellectual disability.
Depending on the details of their conditions, persons with intellectual disabilities can have a lot of restrictions placed on them. They may not be allowed to drive, or to handle their own financial affairs, or to live on their own. Restrictions aren't just placed on "higher-order" functions either; persons with Prader Willi Syndrome, who can have uncontrollable urges to eat, may have their access to food strictly controlled. Society already accepts that it is possible for a person to be unable to give meaningful consent to sex; this is just an extension of that principle.
The problem, of course, is that typically the inability to consent is a temporary condition which eventual maturity (or sobriety) will eliminate. In Alan's case, he may never have the capacity to give consent.
I'm not at all comfortable with the decision in this case. Reviewing the judgement, I don't think the judge in this case was entirely comfortable with it either. It's a tough situation.
52
Just an addition. Someone with an IQ of 48 will have extremely poor understanding of social mores and very limited control of his behaviour. Whilst I imagine that this person is in some sort of secure or supported living arrangement, the inappropriate aspect of the sexual behaviour may be to do with the way they (Alan and his lover), behave in public. If him and his partner are having sex in a public place, then it becomes a criminal case (like it or not), therefor falling into a legal situation.
53
My first inclination reading this is to question your source.. However, being English I don't know all that much about Fox News except that they have a pretty bad rep over here. It seems, in the English press that this is a story only really being given attention by tabloid newspapers, which makes me think it's part of a much bigger story and facts are being omitted for the convenience of sensationalism. If it was extraordinary even with all the facts attached, it would be BBC news, Times, Independent... It just doesn't sound like we're getting all of it here.
54
@53: Up at post 17, Gus provided a couple of links that provide a lot more detail about the case. It is definitely part of a bigger story. If you are interested in the case, the links are very much worth reading.
57
I think the crucial point here is a question of consent. Is the sex partner at a great enough difference of intelligence to take advantage of Alan? I don't think its impossible of people of lower mental capabilities to have sexual relationships, but the relationship would have to be monitored for abuse. I don't like the idea of someone being deprived of a sexual relationship because of their mental status, but having a lowered mental status puts one at a disadvantage. I've read too many horror stories of people with Down Syndrome or other mental disabilities being raped--I can understand the cautious measures.
58
#53 Here it is in the Telegraph*:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/l…
*note for non-UK readers - right-wing but slighly less sensationalist than either the Mail or Fox.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/l…
*note for non-UK readers - right-wing but slighly less sensationalist than either the Mail or Fox.
59
IQ is a dicey way to measure his ability to understand his relationship. If he's impaired enough to need a guardian, maybe, but it doesn't sound like he is.
I've got a kid who had his IQ tested and we were told it was 41, and a few years later we mentioned that to his new school and they burst out laughing. It's really not a perfect measure of understanding.
OTOH, my kiddo would not be capable of giving informed consent, and he does need a guardian. He's awesome, but an appropriate romantic relationship, based on his understanding and his stated desires, is a girl to have hot cocoa with and maybe hold hands.
I have no idea how one decides, however, that a sex drive is "inappropriate". Hopefully this ruling will be appealed.
Being disabled shouldn't stop someone from having a sex life if they so choose, but this man seems to believe storks actually bring babies, according to the article linked by suebailey (#58). I would heartily endorse some appropriate sexual education for this man. What appropriate means is difficult to determine without knowing the man in question; I assume you could do like you do with kids and teach basic safety (FWIW, even though my kiddo can't really give informed consent, he knows about condoms and being safe and what to do if he doesn't feel safe - shit happens and while his cognitive development is far behind his age, his body is that of a nearly 20 year old young man.)
I've got a kid who had his IQ tested and we were told it was 41, and a few years later we mentioned that to his new school and they burst out laughing. It's really not a perfect measure of understanding.
OTOH, my kiddo would not be capable of giving informed consent, and he does need a guardian. He's awesome, but an appropriate romantic relationship, based on his understanding and his stated desires, is a girl to have hot cocoa with and maybe hold hands.
I have no idea how one decides, however, that a sex drive is "inappropriate". Hopefully this ruling will be appealed.
Being disabled shouldn't stop someone from having a sex life if they so choose, but this man seems to believe storks actually bring babies, according to the article linked by suebailey (#58). I would heartily endorse some appropriate sexual education for this man. What appropriate means is difficult to determine without knowing the man in question; I assume you could do like you do with kids and teach basic safety (FWIW, even though my kiddo can't really give informed consent, he knows about condoms and being safe and what to do if he doesn't feel safe - shit happens and while his cognitive development is far behind his age, his body is that of a nearly 20 year old young man.)
60
@59: You should read the full judgement, linked to in post #17 above. It goes into a lot of detail regarding how the judge made his decision, which was based on a lot more than an IQ measure. The judge also recognized the need for sex education and recommended it.
It is an interesting exercise to read the different levels of coverage on this story - it really makes you wonder how much we don't know about other things that we glance at in the paper every day.
It is an interesting exercise to read the different levels of coverage on this story - it really makes you wonder how much we don't know about other things that we glance at in the paper every day.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (60) RSS