It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Banned From Having Sex By High Court Because IQ Is Too Low!

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Kellys
but unless one of these males is saying that they want the relationship to stop then they need to keep the courts out of this.


What's the difference between that and an adult and child having a ''consenting'' sexual relationship ?

They are being protected for the same reasons, namely that they are incapable of giving adequate consent and that they may not be mentally or emotionally developed enough to genuinely consent to any of this kind of activity.

It's not an ideal situation, but society has got to protect those who are not able to do so for themselves.


And just how is it possible to gauge their mental facilities with regards to ability to process these emotions? This would probably vary greatly from person to person. Even if he does have a low IQ, he still has that primitive humane urge. So what if it is toward men? That doesn't mean he can't comprehend what he is doing. If he wasn't attracted to men I am sure he would not be doing it.

Regardless of race, sex, religion OR EVEN IQ, no government has the right to treat this man like a child, and like he has no rights. There is no way for them to know what exactly it is that he can comprehend. This is discrimination, plain and simple.




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Kellys
but unless one of these males is saying that they want the relationship to stop then they need to keep the courts out of this.


What's the difference between that and an adult and child having a ''consenting'' sexual relationship ?

They are being protected for the same reasons, namely that they are incapable of giving adequate consent and that they may not be mentally or emotionally developed enough to genuinely consent to any of this kind of activity.

It's not an ideal situation, but society has got to protect those who are not able to do so for themselves.


I mentioned a moment ago that unless one of the men was taking advantage (abuse) then the courts (in my opinion) have no right to be involved in this.

So if we take this as it's written, this is not even on the same level as child abuse. It seems to be two men who are engaging in sex together and they have a low IQ.

Let's take people with down syndrome who have an average IQ of 50. Then let's look at the UK Down Syndrome Charity who say that .....



People with Down's syndrome have the right to have personal and sexual relationships, and to get married.


and .....




The DSA knows of a number of happily married couples where one or both partners have Down's syndrome.


Read More ....

Should we be 'stepping in' and protecting these people? No, people have spent years fighting for the rights of people with lower than average IQ's. This is NOT the same as child abuse - assuming that one of them is NOT being abused. Social workers would/should be able to pick up on this and the major sign that this isn't happening is that the council have gone to the High Court and not the CPA/Police.

Just my opinion of course



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
This sounds correct to me.

People with serious learning disabilities are incapable of giving adequate consent, so the man he was having sex with was exploiting him, and probably should have been charged with rape or sexual assault ( assuming the other man has ''normal'' mental faculties ).

It's the same as someone having sexual relations with a ''consenting'' child; that's still rape or sexual assault, because young children aren't mentally or physically developed enough to give adequate consent.

edit on 5-2-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)


I don't think some will understand just what that low of an IQ means. I have a Cousin who was at that level. First a fellow who was Gay used him like a sex doll for a while until his Father interferred (this was back in the 1960's). Then he somehow ended up married to a girl with the same mental capacity. Talk about a mess. Three babies in three years. Two exactly nine months appart. Two born with webbed fingers and toes and all three doomed by their Parents. Lasted five years before they had to step in and take the kids. Neither Parent was even capable of driving let alone raising children. Everybody suffered.

The guy that mollested him and yes with the mentallity of a child it is mollesting like you said, ended up attacking a Grade School kid and going to prison. He should have gone to prison over my Cousin who may have been physically a man but had the mind of small child. That creep also introduced him to alcohol which led to other issues. Had not thought of him or that happening in years. Last I heard he was in an institution for his own protection.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


An underage child does not have the legal authority to consent. If they have an IQ of 115 they still can not legally make that decision. They are children and are protected from themselves and from some in society.

The issue hereis that it is unclear exactly what this man can and can not grasp. He is considered an adult by his age. The court did not state that he was unhappy or being abused. He could easily be able to comprehend that he enjoys his partner and their activities while lacking the ability to tie his own shoes. Should he not be allowed to pursue those activities just because he can't identify all of their flash cards?

There are those who need to be protected absolutely. But this case does not mention where this mans particular deficits lie.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
and is the judges IQ 46?
"the 41-year-old was in a relationship with a MAN he lived with"
how can HE make baby's with a MAN?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


You over look that children don't have much if any ability to have sex. I understand that some biological processes are always there, but the majority and functionality that adults have is not present in a childs body.

This is a large factor that you may have over looked.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whitbit
And just how is it possible to gauge their mental facilities with regards to ability to process these emotions? This would probably vary greatly from person to person. Even if he does have a low IQ, he still has that primitive humane urge.


It's impossible to accurately gauge someone's intelligence or their mental and emotional development.

However, society has to attempt to do so to protect vulnerable people from predators. If the man he's having a relationship has full mental faculties, then he is clearly exploiting this man who hasn't.


Originally posted by Whitbit
So what if it is toward men? That doesn't mean he can't comprehend what he is doing. If he wasn't attracted to men I am sure he would not be doing it.


The fact that he's attracted towards men is irrelevant; I don't know why you would choose to bring that up when my comments made no reference to that minor fact of the story.


Originally posted by Whitbit
Regardless of race, sex, religion OR EVEN IQ, no government has the right to treat this man like a child, and like he has no rights. There is no way for them to know what exactly it is that he can comprehend. This is discrimination, plain and simple.


No it's not discrimination; it's protection, the same as it is for a child who may willingly be involved in a sexual relationship with an adult.

Society has to step in to prevent deviants taking sexual advantage of someone who cannot give adequate consent; whether that is a child or someone who has severe learning disabilities.




edit on 5-2-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Kellys
 


As I say, it's not an ideal situation, and it's not possible to get a fully measurable level of somebody's intelligence, emotional well-being and their capability to make a voluntary choice without coercion.

We do need to protect vulnerable people, and as with children, there needs to be some cut-off point.

I'm not sure about people with Down's Syndrome, as the ones I've met seem to be reasonably capable of willingly doing everyday activities, but I'm not entirely sure whether they would or would not be able to adequately give consent, and I would have to wonder whether those attempting to gain their consent are deviants preying on an easy target.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


You're really good at generalizing statements..

I don't for a moment believe that just because one man is fully competent and the other is not, means that he is exploiting the less than competent man when they have sex. There's too many factors involved. For all you know they could fully well love eachother.. But by your logic:

If I had a child, and made them do the dishes after their mother cooked, then that would clearly be exploitation of the child because the child doesn't have full mental faculties.

I realize that it's not exactly the same situation but the same logic is applied because many factors are over looked in generalized statements.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kangaruex4Ewe
An underage child does not have the legal authority to consent. If they have an IQ of 115 they still can not legally make that decision. They are children and are protected from themselves and from some in society.


Are you more concerned about whether someone is protected because they are a child, or whether they are protected because the experience may be emotionally damaging for them ?

Children are unable to give adequate consent, therefore it's illegal because, firstly, it may be psychologically and emotionally damaging for the child, and secondly, to punish deviants who wish to take advantage of them.

Sexual abuse is still sexual abuse even if the victim is ''willing''.

Some children may well be able to give adequate consent and willingly engage in an unharmful sexual relationship with an adult, but we've got to have a cut-off point. ie. the age of consent.


It is much more difficult to have a cut-off point that protects people with mental disabilities, as IQ tests are far from perfect.

However, they do need to be protected from emotionally damaging encounters and sexual predators.


Originally posted by Kangaruex4Ewe
The issue hereis that it is unclear exactly what this man can and can not grasp. He is considered an adult by his age. The court did not state that he was unhappy or being abused. He could easily be able to comprehend that he enjoys his partner and their activities while lacking the ability to tie his own shoes. Should he not be allowed to pursue those activities just because he can't identify all of their flash cards?
There are those who need to be protected absolutely. But this case does not mention where this mans particular deficits lie.


This is the difficult part of it.

Mental faculties are impossible to quantify, and IQ tests are a very flawed way to assess someone's capabilities on an issue such as this.

While I wouldn't want to deny anybody the right to consenting sexual relations, we also have to protect those who are incapable of doing so.

It's quite a fine line. but it is one that we have to be able to define in some way.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Kellys
but unless one of these males is saying that they want the relationship to stop then they need to keep the courts out of this.


What's the difference between that and an adult and child having a ''consenting'' sexual relationship ?

They are being protected for the same reasons, namely that they are incapable of giving adequate consent and that they may not be mentally or emotionally developed enough to genuinely consent to any of this kind of activity.

It's not an ideal situation, but society has got to protect those who are not able to do so for themselves.


I can tell you what the difference is.... there are 2 of them

#1. There is no child involved. You can not compare a 14 year old to a 41 year old.

#2, If he was incapable of giving consent... how was he capable to participate in legal proceedings?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


I haven't overlooked this.

I had the potential ability to ''make babies'', shall we say, when I was 10. This is not uncommon, as many children are capable to do so at this age and younger.

It would not be acceptable for an adult to have any physical relationship with a child this age because they are not mentally and emotionally developed, even if they are sexually mature.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I agree.

As far as I can see there are two aspects to cases like these:

1. Protecting someone from potentially emotional and psychological experiences.

2. Punishing predators who take advantage of vulnerable people, knowing full well that they may be an easy target.
A lot of these deviants prey on children or mentally disabled people and should be locked up indefinitely.


edit on 5-2-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I think in any situation where two partners are on unequal grounds, be it a 35 yr old man having sex with a 14 year old girl or a man with a normal IQ having sex with someone who is mentally disabled, puts one partner at risk for abuse.
That said I don't think the man should be banned from having sex ever but it should be with someone he is on equal grounds of. Two 14 year old despite not being mature enough to make proper decisions regarding sex is not looked at the same as adult with a 14 year old, because with two 14 year olds, they are on the same level, and it is less likely one will become the victim of another.
A 14 year old with another 14 year old is more capable of defending them self against acts that they don't want to commit, than a 14 year old and an adult. Same with two people with a similar mental impairment versus someone who is mentally disable with someone who is not.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
1. Malnutrition and hardships in third countries leave many with similar IQ's. IQ is something that was known to raise 10 degrees every decade in the 20th century with the standard of living going up.

2. Disabled individuals have rights, this is a man, adult, 41 years old, he has a drive and is fully able, by law, his rights are protected by law, so this judge is committing a crime, to enjoy his life and live with the dignity of his adult human needs being met.

3. As a higher functioning mentally disabled individual, this proven by the fact that he is living in the community in his own lodgings with this other, and is not requiring a full time, round the clock care facility or half way house, means they don't have a say.

4. Someone had better be taking this to the highest level and even pressing charges against whomever is thwarting his liberty, to insure that human rights aren't sent to the stone age, because the laws and rights upheld for the handicapped and vulnerable pretty much give away the state of a country. If they're non-existant for the vulnerable they are non-existant for all.
edit on 5-2-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
You needn't not look to the Third Reich for historical precedence of eugenics. Here in the U.S. for instance, we toyed with the cleaning up the gene pool idea before AND after Hitler came around. Couple examples:

Buck vs. Bell (1927)



In view of the general declarations of the legislature and the specific findings of the Court, obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and, if they exist, they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.


Stump vs. Sparkman (1978)



* In 1971 defendant Ora E. McFarlin sought a court order to have her fifteen-year-old daughter Linda Sparkman, plaintiff, sterilized. Defendant Warren G. Sunday, an attorney, prepared the "Petition to Have Tubal Ligation Performed on a Minor and Indemnity Agreement." The petition contained an affidavit by McFarlin which stated that Linda was "somewhat retarded" although she attended public schools and had been "passed along with other children in her age level." McFarlin further alleged that, without her knowledge or consent, Linda had begun dating and staying overnight with older youths and men, and that she could not maintain a continuous observation over Linda to "prevent unfortunate circumstances." The petition was presented to defendant Judge Harold D. Stump of the Circuit Court of DeKalb County, Indiana, who issued the requested order in an ex parte proceeding. No guardian ad litem was appointed to represent Linda's interests and no hearing was held. Linda received no notice of the petition, and neither the petition nor the order was ever filed in the DeKalb County Circuit Court. After Judge Stump had signed the order, Linda was taken to the DeKalb Memorial Hospital, and a tubal ligation was performed by defendant John H. Hines, M.D. Defendant Harry M. Covell, M.D., assisted in the operation and defendant John C. Harvey, M.D., was the anaesthesiologist. Linda was not informed of the true consequences of the surgery; in fact, she was told that the purpose of the hospital visit was to have her appendix removed.

Source


Not trying to get Hitler off the hook for anything but I noticed someone mentioned him and, I don't know . . . just seems like his name's thrown around whenever the concept of evil is broached, which is fine I suppose but just bare in mind we've had our own devils aplenty. Just my 2cents!
edit on 5-2-2011 by Boreas because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


I was wrong , 48, not 41. He's not a child being preyed on. Someone hates him having sex, too bad! He obviously has a say himself.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


Unequal grounds can also be determined differently between different people. If a woman stays at home to raise the children for 15 years. Has not held a job, makes no money, has no credit etc. she can be considered on unequal grounds with her husband. Open to abuse because she has no easy way to escape. Should she be made to quit having sex with her husband even if she is content in her situation?

This is what I mean by a slippery slope. We start with one thing and it snowballs.

Again, I agree certain people need to be protected from themselves and others. But who decides who loses the right to pursue sexual activities, and what qualifications need to be met before those rights are taken?
edit on 2/5/2011 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
I don't for a moment believe that just because one man is fully competent and the other is not, means that he is exploiting the less than competent man when they have sex. There's too many factors involved. For all you know they could fully well love eachother..


The same could be said about a 40-year-old having a relationship with a 12-year-old.

It doesn't matter whether they are in ''love'' or not.

The onus falls on the adult, or the person with full mental faculties, not to take advantage of the situation.


Originally posted by Miraj
But by your logic:

If I had a child, and made them do the dishes after their mother cooked, then that would clearly be exploitation of the child because the child doesn't have full mental faculties.

I realize that it's not exactly the same situation but the same logic is applied because many factors are over looked in generalized statements.


A household chore is hardly comparable to sexual exploitation.

Any sexual relations with somebody who's incapable of giving adequate consent is exploitation, as even if the person fully believes that the other is giving genuine consent, it is not for them to judge that.




edit on 5-2-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
#1. There is no child involved. You can not compare a 14 year old to a 41 year old.


Is the problem with a 14-year-old child having sex that they are a child ? Or is it because they are not capable of giving adequate consent ?

I would say the problem is the latter, which makes both a 14-year-old child and a 41-year-old with mental disabilities perfectly acceptable to compare on this regards.


Originally posted by MrWendal
#2, If he was incapable of giving consent... how was he capable to participate in legal proceedings?


Couldn't the same be said about a child who takes part in legal proceedings ?

Besides, It does not say whether this man was present during the ruling or, if he was, whether he had anybody with him to help him with aspects of the court proceedings.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join