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.

 

UK court bans man from having sex because of low IQ

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


I see the path you are pushing as ultimately and inevitably leading to the legalization of pedophilia. What about an age is an objective metric? Teenagers do consent to sex with each other, so why cant they consent with an adult? If the whole basis for an age restriction is not based on something rational, sexual liberalization dictates that it should go. If the whole basis of age laws is teens do not have mental development, allowing this man to choose would set an unpleasant precedent.




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
We must remember this guy's iq is just 48, far less than a teenager. The court has a duty to protect this man from those who would take advantage, it also seems that sex education would confuse him? that says to me that he is not gay by choice, and is being taken advantage of by his "boyfriend".
If he was in a relationship with a female my views would be the same.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I worked for more than 20 years in this field. I learned that an IQ test can often be a very poor measure of what a person may or may not be able to understand. Many, many times we were shocked by the wisdom that came from someone we had low expectations of. IQ by itself is not to be relied upon to make major asssumptions about anybody.

Intelligence is multifaceted and a person who does poorly on a test may yet have many aptitudes at which he/she excells that the test does not, or cannot account for. People should remember that learning difficulties or delays do not go hand in hand with physical or emotional development. The man in this report is fully developed in sexual maturity. You can't just pretend he is a kid, because his body says otherwise.

He has to be considered as an individual and not a number or "mental age". It is not so simple as people, some so-called experts, or even the courts aparently would have it. He is a person after all, and deserves that respect before anything else.


edit on 2/10/2011 by wayno because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/10/2011 by wayno because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective


This is an extremely BIZZARE case, and it kind of has an undertone of creepiness to it.

Should a court system be able to determine what two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home do, if one of them is deemed of a lower intellectual capacity?

This seems like an AWEFULLY invasive and authoritorian measure to tell this man what he can and can not do with his own body, and that Big Brother knows what is best for him and must "protect" him from himself.

And the part about him being "closely monitored" in his own home, literally gives off a 1984-like vibe to it...

Maybe others will see this decision as just and can offer a counterpoint to my unease about this...

Please discuss...

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



bloody hell i knew my country was gettin silly ideas,but to ban and monitor some one(1984 creeping in) just for there iq level,i c people on a daily basis and believe me theyr iq is that low you have to dig for it lol(joke) seriously though this gettin very silly i suppose soon enough unnatractive people will be banned from consensual sex



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


So having sex with another man is a life or death decision?

How ludicrous is this law. What makes it more baffling,not even on peep in the news about this.

And no Rights Groups have come forward to defends this individuals rights.

Just because he has a learning disability does not give anyone the right to infringe or restrict his choices. Afterall that is what the Disability act is all about.

Allowing individuals with learning disabilities to go for thier goals in life without prejustice or discrimination.

I do wonder if the male he is invloved with, what will happen to him, will he be questioned, will he have to ed the realtionhip, with this individual.

The UK Has definately gone back to victorian times I swear.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Abductee001
 


So if it was a female he was involved with. Would you be making the same comment? How do you know the couple is not in love? Or is your assumption is that since he has alow iq, he is incapable ofl Love?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Why not just have him executed. I would rather die that give up sex personally. WTF. i'm suprised that this hasn't happened in the US, except for the fact that a low IQ generally leans to the person having a lot of sex to survive here.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laurauk
reply to post by Abductee001
 


So if it was a female he was involved with. Would you be making the same comment? How do you know the couple is not in love? Or is your assumption is that since he has alow iq, he is incapable ofl Love?


Please read all of my posts in this thread, or just read the last line of my last post
"If he was in a relationship with a female my views would be the same"

So you think it's ok for a grown man or WOMEN to have a sexual relationship with someone who has the iq of a young child? I don't think the judge has gone far enough.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Abductee001
 


Here is the primary point of contention I see from both you and 547000: The IQ of a child would suggest to you the emotional development of a child. I believe this is not the case and I still believe that the precedent is too dangerous making laws based off of subjective assumptions.

First off an IQ test is ridiculous and subjective. Inuit people originally scored very very low on IQ testing in general (many indigenous peoples did) but these same people could look at some fuzzy marks in the snow and tell you what animal left it, how much it weighed, what its gender was and how many there were etc etc... I wouldn't call this stupid.

Second the primary difference between a child or teenager of normal intelligence and a fully grown adult with a low intelligence is the way sexual relations will effect them and sets no precedent for allowing teens to have sex. The difference is that this man stands to lose nothing at his age from engaging in sexual activities whereas a child / teen stands to have their futures effected in ways they do not yet understand thus the law.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Laurauk
 


As I said, I do not agree with the ruling, it is indeed quite ridiculous. I was merely pointing out that the ridiculousness may stem from British age of consent laws, 16 years is too high, IMHO. Indeed the argument in the OP was that the man is incapable of consenting to sex, so if all sexual endeavours of disabled people are legalized, it could lead to some of them being molested. It is a delicate subject, but this mans relationship should not be banned, IMHO. And age of consent should be lowered to 14 years IMHO.

edit on 10/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


So what your saying is because of his age it doesn't matter?
He is a person who needs protecting. Let's not forget he has an iq of just 46(or 48), charts iv'e seen go down as low as 50 and if you think about the fact that there are 5yo kids who have iq's touching 100 we must assume that he is in a very vunerable state.
We don't know the full facts and maybe if we met him we would change our minds, but with the tiny bit of evidence we do have we must assume the court is right. To me his age/sex don't come into this.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Abductee001
 


I would not fixate on the IQ alone very much, emotional intelligence is much more important in this case. Altough this should have been all considered by a professional before the verdict.
edit on 10/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Abductee001
 


That is exactly what I'm saying. Because of his age the government shouldn't dictate what he can and can't do anymore than they would a normal citizen. The reason for this is simple: No subjective laws. Any measure of intelligence or emotional ability is subjective. This is why the age of consent where I live is 18 and not subject to an IQ test.

How would it be if a person of any age could just go take an IQ test, or some other test and prove they are mentally competent to make decisions for themselves? Lets say the consent laws are based on test competency. Hell on the surface I even like the idea! Keep those 19 year old girls from getting manipulated by some 40 yo scum when they don't know what they're doing. But the reality is if we begin down this path it sets a precedent that I don't think society should take: Letting TPTB control people through the ability to think like them.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Abductee001
 


I would not fixate on the IQ alone very much, emotional intelligence is much more important in this case. Altough this should have been all considered by a professional before the verdict.
edit on 10/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


Having a low iq shouldn't really matter, but if it is so low he is at risk then the court was right to do something.





Originally posted by Jinglelord
reply to post by Abductee001
 


That is exactly what I'm saying. Because of his age the government shouldn't dictate what he can and can't do anymore than they would a normal citizen. The reason for this is simple: No subjective laws. Any measure of intelligence or emotional ability is subjective. This is why the age of consent where I live is 18 and not subject to an IQ test.

How would it be if a person of any age could just go take an IQ test, or some other test and prove they are mentally competent to make decisions for themselves? Lets say the consent laws are based on test competency. Hell on the surface I even like the idea! Keep those 19 year old girls from getting manipulated by some 40 yo scum when they don't know what they're doing. But the reality is if we begin down this path it sets a precedent that I don't think society should take: Letting TPTB control people through the ability to think like them.


I agree that allowing tptb dictate what a person can do is utter madness! but this must be an exceptionable case.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Honestly i think this is a really sad case and i don't agree that tptb be allowed to do this in general, but they must have evidence that this guy needed help, but i can't help thinking that anyone having sex with a person the court sees as vunerable should be investigated futher!



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Well, I'm 100% in favor of eugenics in certain circumstances. We can clearly see that there is a correlation between criminal behavior and below-average intelligence. The majority of people in prison are in the 80-95 range. We're obviously experiencing dsygenics from allowing the stupid to breed like wild rabbits, and this causes all sorts of societal ills.

I think it should be mandatory to test for IQ at various points in one's life. If the score is below 95, limit the amount of children they can have to 1. After their first born, the parents should be sterilized. If the person's IQ is below...say 80 or so, sterilize them before they get a chance.

The greater evil is providing the ability for the stupid to have as many kids as they want. You don't believe me? Educate yourself before you reply with knee jerking: evil this, nazi that, nonsense.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Abductee001
 


If the court was truly protecting him they would have gone after his partner for rape or some such thing. They are not protecting him, they are controlling him. No matter his intelligence depriving a person of free will is wrong. If his partner was coercing him and he hated it they need to go after the partner.

Perhaps that is one of the hidden travesties of this whole thing: They are going after the victim?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
The court/system treats you as a child in stewardship if you are not of 'full adult mind' e.g. can take responsibility, that's how horrible decisions like this are made. That's why they really do not react well when you going in to court properly with full comprehension acting as adminstrator for your 'berth' certificate fiction... you have shown ultimate responsibility to learn and free yourself.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Evil fascist!


Okay here is the rub: How do you define intelligence? IQ testing isn't 100% effective and it is clearly shown that ethnicity and culture weigh highly in the results.

If we do this we essentially get ethnic cleansing. This is different from Eugenics and not what it proposed to begin with.

I will support Eugenics the day they can get a true measure of what makes a better person. That day is not here as we are all still suffering from the subjective tests devised by scientist educated in a particular paradigm with little ability to measure worth outside of that paradigm.

Besides, we don't need to decide who is best to survive and breed, nature will take care of that for us. The thing that pisses off Eugenics supporters is that being smart or strong, or whatever measure they espouse may not be the true best course for humanity...



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Lets cut through the hype and all of this knee jerk reactions and look at the facts shall we?

The guy has the mental age well below that of the age of consent. In hearings before the court, psychiatrists found that he “believed that babies were delivered by a stork or found under a bush”, and that “sex could give you spots or measles”.

Also, the Court ruled that Alan did not have the capacity to consent to sex, but also ordered that the council should provide him with sex education “in the hope that he thereby gains that capacity”.

So, the part of the OP about him not receiving education on it weas bogus. Part of the ruling is that he should be taught about Sex before being allowed to engage in it. This is beneficial to him and is not the draconian ban that some seem to hint at. This is protecting someone who is unable to make informed decisions for himself.

I am sure the same people here whining about "1984" and Big Brother would spit feathers if he ended up being taken advantage of, the very same as young children are taken advantage of by predatory sex fiends.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join