UK Court Bans Man with Low IQ From Having Sex

[Pavlov's House Party]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8301100/Court-bans-man-with-low-IQ-from-having-sex.html

I honestly thought it was a satirical article at first, some fucked up shit.

[Queercommie Girl]

Opinions?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

what the fuck...

[Kalifornia]

Fuck this shit right now.

The state showing such overbearing and immoral reaches into our personal lives is an absolute disgrace.

The stigma attached to mentally challenged members of our communities is disgracefull, and banning this man from having sex with his boyfriend is not ok, no matter how you spin it.

Sex is a basic human urge, and seeing as this sexual relationship was consensual and did not appear to show signs of leading to uncontrollable behaviour or develloping into something dangerous, what the hell is the problem?

[Queercommie Girl]

I'd say that while there is some wisdom in restricting such a man's "dating field", so to speak, since he might hurt other people, there is no point in preventing him from having a sex life with his boyfriend, since it seems his boyfriend is acting as his guardian and can take care of him.

[TC]

He obviously had the ability to express simple consent to sex, but seemed no more able, and probably less able, to give informed consent to sex than many children. Why is it an abomination to ban this man from consenting to sex but its apparently an abomination to even discuss issues around the age of consent for far more mentally developed but younger people? This seems like an example where one set of moral intuitions are inconsistent with another.

[Princess Luna]

wtf is “close supervision” , are they going to put cameras in his bedroom , have someone follow him around to make sure he isn't sneaking in a hand-job?

He obviously had the ability to express simple consent to sex, but seemed no more able, and probably less able, to give informed consent to sex than many children. Why is it an abomination to ban this man from consenting to sex but its apparently an abomination to even discuss issues around the age of consent for far more mentally developed but younger people? This seems like an example where one set of moral intuitions are inconsistent with another.
because regardless of his intelligence , he can still feel sexual urges , Pre-pubescent children can not feel sexual urges and as such all sexual relations with a adult would have to be forced.

[TC]

since it seems his boyfriend is acting as his guardian and can take care of him.

Surely that might make it worse though - we especially don't want guardians to have sex with their legally incompetent charges because of the power dynamics involved.

[Widerstand]

What the fucking hell?

[Queercommie Girl]

Surely that might make it worse though - we especially don't want guardians to have sex with their legally incompetent charges because of the power dynamics involved.

Off-topic, but why don't you reply to me on the issues of transgenderism first, before I answer to you on this one.

I sent you a PM.

[Queercommie Girl]

He obviously had the ability to express simple consent to sex, but seemed no more able, and probably less able, to give informed consent to sex than many children. Why is it an abomination to ban this man from consenting to sex but its apparently an abomination to even discuss issues around the age of consent for far more mentally developed but younger people? This seems like an example where one set of moral intuitions are inconsistent with another.

He isn't a child.

We don't ban children from having sex primarily due to their IQ, but due to their age. Hypothetically a child of 8 with an IQ of 250 would still be banned from having sex even if she is the smartest human being on earth, because she is too young.

IQ shouldn't be used as the main discriminator in most things, it's too unfair, people can't help but have the IQ that they do.

[TC]

Off-topic, but why don't you reply to me on the issues of transgenderism first, before I answer to you on this one.

I sent you a PM.

Yes, I know you sent me a PM. I am not obliged to reply to every comment, especially when someone basically declares that they categorically and without argument reject (and misunderstand) a feminist theoretical position that I'm operating from, before commenting on other topics. If you don't want to reply to this thread until/unless I continue the other thread, thats your prerogative. I might reply to the other thread or I might not but writing off topic posts in this thread isn't going to motivate me either way.

[TC]

He isn't a child.

We don't ban children from having sex primarily due to their IQ, but due to their age. Hypothetically a child of 8 with an IQ of 250 would still be banned from having sex even if she is the smartest human being on earth, because she is too young.

IQ shouldn't be used as the main discriminator in most things, it's too unfair, people can't help but have the IQ that they do.

Age is relevant only as a proxy for competency to offer informed consent or sometimes simple consent (governments presume that those below a certain age lack that capacity) otherwise age would be an entirely arbitrary and capricious basis - similarly IQ is relevant only as a proxy for competency to offer informed consent - but here we have a case where his basic understanding clearly shows a lack of competency to give informed consent since he doesn't seem relevantly informed about sex. The issue is not his IQ its his lack of understanding.

[Queercommie Girl]

Age is relevant only as a proxy for competency to offer informed consent or sometimes simple consent (governments presume that those below a certain age lack that capacity) otherwise age would be an entirely arbitrary and capricious basis - similarly IQ is relevant only as a proxy for competency to offer informed consent - but here we have a case where his basic understanding clearly shows a lack of competency to give informed consent since he doesn't seem relevantly informed about sex. The issue is not his IQ its his lack of understanding.


He can't help it. It's not his fault. While underage children will all naturally grow older into adults, his IQ will never improve. You are denying him any chance of sexual satisfaction simply due an abstract interpretation of competence.

"Don't do to others what you do not wish others do to you". That's the basics of ethics. How would you feel if you were such a man?

[Widerstand]

Age is relevant only as a proxy for competency to offer informed consent or sometimes simple consent (governments presume that those below a certain age lack that capacity) otherwise age would be an entirely arbitrary and capricious basis - similarly IQ is relevant only as a proxy for competency to offer informed consent - but here we have a case where his basic understanding clearly shows a lack of competency to give informed consent since he doesn't seem relevantly informed about sex. The issue is not his IQ its his lack of understanding.

Right, but banning people from sex because they aren't educated about it is a very questionable practice. Aren't children usually banned from sex with older people (admittedly, in some countries they are banned from all sex, but I oppose that) because their ability to consent is called into question by the serious power imbalance involved (combination of emotional and material dependency, physical force imbalance, unequal intellectual capacity, etc.)? I don't quite see the reason to ban people from sex because they aren't educated about it. Of course sex education should be available to everyone, but a) people shouldn't be forced to do it, and b) I don't quite think a measuring of everyone's understanding of sex is quite operable (but would be a prerequisite if we were to ban those who don't have it from sex).

[Blackscare]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that he is engaging (whether or not he understands it to be) in healthy sexual practices. He's in a relationship with one person, I don't imagine he's going out to clubs having unprotected sex in bathroom stalls or the like. Maybe in an abstract sense he doesn't understand the dynamic of his relationship that makes it healthy, but he's not engaging in any high-risk behavior. Also, if he gesticulated at kids or whatever, this could indicate (I believe the article says as much), that his low IQ is coupled with an abnormally high sex-drive.


Depriving such a man of a healthy outlet for his urges is not only cruel, it's a potential trigger for him to vent them in less healthy ways.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes, I know you sent me a PM. I am not obliged to reply to every comment, especially when someone basically declares that they categorically and without argument reject (and misunderstand) a feminist theoretical position that I'm operating from, before commenting on other topics. If you don't want to reply to this thread until/unless I continue the other thread, thats your prerogative. I might reply to the other thread or I might not but writing off topic posts in this thread isn't going to motivate me either way.


Well, if you think I "misunderstand", why don't you inform me how I have "misunderstood".

The only reason why there has been no "argument" is because there has so far been no "discussion".

My basic position is very simple: a trans-woman or trans-man has the right to be treated 100% as a woman or a man in the social, legal and cultural senses, otherwise it's a case of transphobia.

And I don't think transgenderism is just a subset of LGB issues.

I won't derail this thread any further, I've sent you another PM.

If you refuse to discuss this issue with me, that's your choice obviously, but I will have to assume that you basically have somewhat of a transphobic position, since I see no reason why you would refuse such a discussion unless you have something to hide.

You seem to be very pro-Cuba, but for me it's just another deformed worker's state with insufficient worker's democracy and bureaucratic deformation, only much better than China is now.

From my perspective, I feel that you might be deliberately ignoring me because I am trans and you do not believe trans rights have the same level of seriousness and importance as LGB rights, or other kinds of civil rights issues.

[Blackscare]

Also, I'd like to point out the danger in using such arguments based on a person's personal level of ignorance of sex-related information; it opens the door (if only slightly) to the argument that this can be applied not just to the mentally challenged, but also poor under-educated people (perhaps in the interest of curbing "over-population" or some such nonsense).

Why not ban Catholics from having sex? They seem to be quite mislead when it comes to taking mature and responsible steps involving sex! Lets ban sex in Africa, since the church there has prevented people from using condoms and these mystical beliefs have cause a massive up spike in aids! Clearly they don't understand the risks or have a rounded idea of the "mechanics" of a situation, people have sex with virgins thinking it's a cure! :rolleyes:



If this judge was really looking to express his concern for this man, and wanted to foster a level of understanding in him, he would have mandated that he receive sex-education rather than cruelly separating him from his partner. Instead he mentioned it as a side note.

[Queercommie Girl]

In cases like this one has to consider the rights of the man involved as well, rather than just the rights of society.

[Manic Impressive]

I remember a case last year of a mentally disabled man who had been acting violently which psychologists said was due to a lack of sex. So the local council decided to pay for him to go to Amsterdam to sleep with a prostitute.

I remember a TV phone in thing where someones only objection was that they had to send him to the Dam saying "whats wrong with him using local British prostitutes?" that brings new meaning to buying British.

[TC]

He can't help it. It's not his fault.

Its not a horny 15 year old boy's fault either.


While underage children will all naturally grow older into adults,
Not necessarily, they might die as teenagers


his IQ will never improve.

This is actually not true - IQ is not a fixed thing its a highly flawed and alterable measure - raw scores increase with both training and increased experience and knowledge, and final reported scores are age-adjusted (this is because raw scores are actually expected to change over someone's lifetime)

But in any case his IQ score is just flavor, its the fact that he doesn't understand the l“mechanics of the act” and “that there are health risks involved” that are relevant...that he is not informed about sex and thus cannot give informed consent.

and since the judge "also ordered that the council should provide him with sex education “in the hope that he thereby gains that capacity”" - the assumption seems to be that this isn't necessarily permanent for him.



You are denying him any chance of sexual satisfaction simply due an abstract interpretation of competence.

You're mistaken, I am not Justice Mostyn. I am not denying him anything. I am pointing out the apparent inconsistency in revleft attitude to presumably uninformed children compared to demonstrably uninformed adults on the basis of their lack of information (whereas apparently the bourgeois court system has taken an internally consistent position).

In any case, all interpretations of competence are abstract - certainly those around age!



"Don't do to others what you do not wish others do to you". That's the basics of ethics. How would you feel if you were such a man?

How could I possibly know what it would be like to have a very different mental experience than anything I've had? In any case such an argument applies equally to teenagers - I can remember being 15 (or in places like California, 17).

[L.A.P.]

This has proved me wrong about comparing the Conservatives in the United States with Conservatives in the United Kingdom, British Conservatives are way worse. The shit that they're pulling is shit that only the craziest of American Conservatives that no one takes seriously would pull.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Why are they picking on George W Bush?:(

[TC]

Well, if you think I "misunderstand", why don't you inform me how I have "misunderstood".


Because its time consuming


My basic position is very simple: a trans-woman or trans-man has the right to be treated 100% as a woman or a man in the social, legal and cultural senses, otherwise it's a case of transphobia.

I didn't argue otherwise here or anywhere else.


And I don't think transgenderism is just a subset of LGB issues.


I didn't say it was.



I won't derail this thread any further, I've sent you another PM.

You say that but then you go on accusing me of being transphobic, of taking a socially reactionary position, based on basically nothing except your own paranoia.

I don't think you can say you wont derail a thread further, and then slander someone. That basically demands a reply.



If you refuse to discuss this issue with me, that's your choice obviously, but I will have to assume that you basically have somewhat of a transphobic position, since I see no reason why you would refuse such a discussion unless you have something to hide.

It might occur to you that I follow up on only a fraction of the threads that I engage with and I try to stop when they get annoying. That one got annoying.


You seem to be very pro-Cuba, but for me it's just another deformed worker's state with insufficient worker's democracy and bureaucratic deformation, only much better than China is now.

Well obviously I disagree with you, as I am very pro-Cuba - however what particular trotskyist line you happen to adop is totally irrelevant to this thread and only very tangentially relevant to the other thread.


From my perspective, I feel that you might be deliberately ignoring me because I am trans and you do not believe trans rights have the same level of seriousness and importance as LGB rights, or other kinds of civil rights issues.

Has it occurred to you that 1. this is the internet 2. we've never discussed this before 3. you didn't say you trans and - therefore - I had absolutely no way to know that you were trans prior to this post?

If I seem to deliberately ignore you in the future, please assume its because you're being tedious and taking the discussion on off topic tangents.

[Queercommie Girl]

You say that but then you go on accusing me of being transphobic, of taking a socially reactionary position, based on basically nothing except your own paranoia.


It's certainly not "paranoia" my suspicions are based on, but practical experience. Basically I don't take a very optimistic stance of LGBT politics. The fact of the matter is that the majority of revolutionary socialists I have personally interacted with happen to be homophobic and transphobic, including the majority of socialists in China, (I'm from China) so obviously based on such statistical evidence, I tend not to give people the benefit of the doubt when their comments are sitting on the line.

You obviously don't know what being on the receiving end of homophobia and transphobia is like, so you are not qualified to make a judgement of me.



I don't think you can say you wont derail a thread further, and then slander someone. That basically demands a reply.
It's not a slander, since I never said you are transphobic. There is nothing wrong in having some suspicions over things, that's completely different from "slander".



It might occur to you that I follow up on only a fraction of the threads that I engage with and I try to stop when they get annoying. That one got annoying.
Annoying in what way? Just because you don't happen to agree with other people's cultural views doesn't make them "annoying". That's a very egoistical thing to say.

I joined in the debate with you because you seem to be treating transgender issues as a sub-set of gay issues.

You explicitly said:

Supporting transgender surgeries in a social context where it is understood as part of being gay, and being gay constitutes a 'sin' - is progressive - since it constitutes part of the fight against patriarchal gender relations and homophobia (homophobia itself being a symptom of patriarchal relations).

However, being transgender is NOT "part of being gay", it's a different issue.

Even in a hypothetical society where all patriarchy, sexism and homophobia is smashed, transgenderism will still exist. It's related to LGB issues, but it's not the same issue.

You also said:

Frankly, avoiding execution is probably a pretty good reason to do something that dramatic - in fact its hard to think of a better reason.

This sounds like you think the only real reason for trans people to change sex completely is to "avoid execution".

The debate on culture is secondary as far as I am concerned, my primary concern here is over trans rights.



Well obviously I disagree with you, as I am very pro-Cuba - however what particular trotskyist line you happen to adop is totally irrelevant to this thread and only very tangentially relevant to the other thread.
No it's not irrelevant at all, because in case you have forgotten, Cuba only had a relatively progressive position on LGBT issues quite recently. If direct worker's democracy existed from the beginning, it would have had a relatively progressive position on such issues from the beginning.

It's also why in Stalinist countries being gay was illegal and punishable by hard labour, even though Lenin initially legalised homosexuality. It's related to the bureaucratic caste around Stalin taking away the political powers of direct worker's democracy in the state.



Has it occurred to you that 1. this is the internet 2. we've never discussed this before 3. you didn't say you trans and - therefore - I had absolutely no way to know that you were trans prior to this post?
If you actually read what I posted in that Iran thread, you would certainly recognise that I'm trans. The implication there is quite obvious actually.



If I seem to deliberately ignore you in the future, please assume its because you're being tedious and taking the discussion on off topic tangents.Being trans, I'm used to being treated as a "2nd class citizen" by almost everyone. Just because you say you are not transphobic doesn't mean I necessarily believe you. People generally tend to say one thing and mean another.

[Queercommie Girl]

Not necessarily, they might die as teenagers


That's such a pedantic response which is largely useless.

Technically, every breathe I blow out, I cannot absolutely guarantee that I will draw another breathe in, I might die suddenly before that, if you wish to be completely pedantic.

In most cases, underage children would have a chance to have sex when they are older.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes, I know you sent me a PM. I am not obliged to reply to every comment, especially when someone basically declares that they categorically and without argument reject (and misunderstand) a feminist theoretical position that I'm operating from, before commenting on other topics. If you don't want to reply to this thread until/unless I continue the other thread, thats your prerogative. I might reply to the other thread or I might not but writing off topic posts in this thread isn't going to motivate me either way.


There are many many different kinds of "feminisms". Which one are you?

You see, how can I know if you don't say?

You are absolutely right in that I oppose bourgeois feminism as a reactionary ideology, both the "liberal" and the "radical" versions. The only kind of feminism which I support would be socialist feminism, which is completely different from bourgeois feminism.

Bourgeois feminism is also the kind of ideology that produces LGB transphobia, e.g. Julie Bindel here in Britain.

[Hiero]

Pre-pubescent children can not feel sexual urges and as such all sexual relations with a adult would have to be forced.


Actually they do. Parents often stop their their children from masturbating, such as prepubescent females rubbing on furniture. Parents may deny this is what the child is doing (masturbating), but parents who are more aware and less freak out by this action are well aware what is happening. Also as a youth worker I have know of children as young as 8-9 having penetrative sex with a sibling.

Paedophilia is wrong because it is about the emotional damage caused by an unequal power relationship, it is expliotative and damaging. Pre-pubescent children can't deal with the social, psychological and also the physically implications of sexual content that is normall traumatic. It is not about sexual urges, if society thinks it is then society is choosing to deny physiology.

[Princess Luna]

Actually they do. Parents often stop their their children from masturbating, such as prepubescent females rubbing on furniture. Parents may deny this is what the child is doing (masturbating), but parents who are more aware and less freak out by this action are well aware what is happening. Also as a youth worker I have know of children as young as 8-9 having penetrative sex with a sibling.

Paedophilia is wrong because it is about the emotional damage caused by an unequal power relationship, it is expliotative and damaging. Pre-pubescent children can't deal with the social, psychological and also the physically implications of sexual content that is normall traumatic. It is not about sexual urges, if society thinks it is then society is choosing to deny physiology.
i stand corrected

[Invader Zim]

I agree with TC on this matter, it seems to me that the issue of 'informed consent' is at the heart of this matter and I agree that there is a certain inconsistency in attitude.

[Means to a end]

How can such a rule be enforced. However stupid it is anyway.