Jump to content
Urine_Sample

Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

Recommended Posts

icon_biggrin2.gif

 

.

 

indifferent-blink.gif 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

............. speechless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the.. This is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×