Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Steam Log In with Google Sign In
  • Create Account
Photo

Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1
Urine_Sample

Urine_Sample

    L3: Novice

  • Regular User
  • 99 posts
2
Unknown at this point
  • Admin:0
  • Server:None
Posted Image

.

Posted Image Surprisingly, this isn't from the Onion News Network

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.

...

Storeez


Well, if this doesn't give you motivation to be good in school, i don't know what else would


Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!

#2
milli vanilli

milli vanilli

    L8: Grand Teacher

  • Honored Veteran
  • 1,564 posts
116
On the road to fame
  • Admin:20
  • Server:None
Contributor
yeah, gonna let this one go. way too many people to insult here

#3
Corey

Corey

    :omgcat:

  • Staff
  • 3,129 posts
847
I am just really nice
  • Admin:18
  • Server:Silent #1
  • Alias:Panda
  • Steam ID:STEAM_1:0:29015803
Contributor
............. speechless

#4
Crasher

Crasher

    ok

  • Inactive Member
  • 2,245 posts
142
On the road to fame
  • Admin:14
  • Server:TF2
  • Steam ID:STEAM_0:1:42748548
  • T-M:TF2: 1-1
Contributor
You can't "ban" anyone from having sex. They gonna be by his side 24/7?

edit: upon reading further, I guess they are lol.

Edited by Crasher, 09 February 2011 - 10:39 PM.


#5
RoosterCogburn

RoosterCogburn

    L6: Expert

  • Regular User
  • 881 posts
45
Getting Better
  • Admin:14
  • Server:Silent #1
cant they give him some toys or something. If he figures out how to jerk it I bet he will never leave the house again.

#6
OCELOT.

OCELOT.

    L3: Novice

  • Regular User
  • 305 posts
92
On the road to fame
  • Server:None
What is the difference between sterilization/eugenics and this?

#7
Razzled

Razzled

    L5: Journeyman

  • Regular User
  • 766 posts
14
A step in the right direction
  • Admin:0
  • Server:None
Control. All about controlling an individual from polluting, is all.

#8
Ch11m33y aka. ChiLLy<3

Ch11m33y aka. ChiLLy<3

    L6: Expert

  • Regular User
  • 987 posts
151
On a distinguished road
  • Server:COD4 #1
  • T-M:1-0
i...just... WTF?

#9
speedfact

speedfact

    God of Speed

  • Leader
  • 6,760 posts
4,391
Glorious beacon of light
  • Admin:20
  • Server:COD4 #1
  • Alias:=F|A=Speed/Sexy
  • T-M:28-22

Donator

ummm no comment on this one.

#10
Chuckun

Chuckun

    The Chuckunator

  • Co-Leader
  • 5,935 posts
1,658
Name known to all
  • Admin:19
  • Server:Hardcore ET
  • Alias:=F|A=TeaAndScones
Contributor
What the.. This is wrong.

#11
Wifestein

Wifestein

    L11: Assassin

  • Regular User
  • 6,309 posts
20
A step in the right direction
  • Server:None
LOL...WTF? LMAO

#12
AntiThought

AntiThought

    L7: Teacher

  • Honored Veteran
  • 1,332 posts
58
Getting Better
  • Admin:14
  • Server:None
Contributor
Ok I will be the one to say it. Put simply, this sort of thing should happen far more often if we want to exist as a species in the long run. If we prevent those who have poor/damaged genetics and/or certain diseases from reproducing (and in certain cases denial of sex with another living being) we, in the end, will have a smarter stronger humanity for our efforts. It only seems wrong if we place the rights of the individual above the well being of the species as a whole. I am more a fan of sterilization instead of a ban on sex for several reasons most of them logistical.

The only problem is by what measure do we use to judge who can reproduce and who can not and how to keep corruption out of the system.

If we as a species continue to think in terms of the small picture (what is good for ourselves and individuals) instead of big picture (what is good for the community/species) then we are doomed to diminish and eventually fail as a species and enter into extinction.

#13
Chuckun

Chuckun

    The Chuckunator

  • Co-Leader
  • 5,935 posts
1,658
Name known to all
  • Admin:19
  • Server:Hardcore ET
  • Alias:=F|A=TeaAndScones
Contributor
I see where you're coming from anti, but nobody should be disallowed such a given natural right.. :/

#14
AntiThought

AntiThought

    L7: Teacher

  • Honored Veteran
  • 1,332 posts
58
Getting Better
  • Admin:14
  • Server:None
Contributor

I see where you're coming from anti, but nobody should be disallowed such a given natural right.. :/


Given natural ability not a given natural right. Remember before we became "civilized" people like this person would not have survived long enough to reproduce. Nature is all about the best surviving it cares not for the feelings and emotions of the weaker specimens.

#15
Fb!N!nJa

Fb!N!nJa

    L7: Teacher

  • Regular User
  • 1,141 posts
9
A step in the right direction
  • Admin:3
  • Server:None
remember darwins survival of the fittest theory? i think this goes with that.. im wit anti when he says theres a point for him not reproducin, think if 1 man has a disease like hiv, cancer, or an disorder and has 5 children, all of them would be affected unless theres a manipulation in genes prob 1 or 2 would not be affected but it would make life a livin hell for them.. giving life to children is right when needed, abortion isnt needed but @ the process is where it matters. Rooster is right, they can give him a toy or somethin idk




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users