Should people with very low IQ be banned from having sex?

[Ryika]

I randomly stumbled on an article about a case from the UK where a guy with an IQ of 48 was prohibited from having sex with his boyfriend, because the judge was of the opinion that he was just too stupid to understand the risks involved, and incapable of giving informed consent.

The judge ordered that 'he undergo sex education "in the hope that he thereby gains that capacity."

That made me think. In my opinion, any person over the age of 16 (or whatever the age of consent is in your country) should generally be allowed to have sex if they want to, even if its to their own determent. But then again, a person whose intellect is so severely lacking is probably very easy to trick into doing things that they might not have wanted to do of their own will.

What's your take?

 

[Zkribbler]

The US Supreme Court ruled on this decades ago...albeit on the constitutional right to reproduce.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

This is why age-appropriate sex education is so important in the schools. Anyone who really is that clueless will be identified and either remedial education can be undertaken, or at least that individual can have whatever medical procedures as may apply so there's no risk of pregnancy and a decreased risk of STDs.

 

[Perfection]

If a person does not understand what sex is they cannot consent to it.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Hm..
What does 48 mean ? Is he able to understand sex education ?
Severely mentally handicaped people are already missing out on much of the human experience. I don't think we should make laws to keep sexuality away from them. The consent question also isn't as clear cut. If your IQ is under 50 you can't understand a contract, but you can still communicate that you do or don't like something.
Let them try it out. Maybe under supervision ? No, that would be too weird. Educate them as best as possible and offer counseling before and after.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

How can you discuss someone's IQ, when there's a homophobic judge sitting unpunished right in the capital of UK?!

 

[Manfred Belheim]

How can you discuss either of those things when global warming is going to kill us all?!

 

[MilesGregarius]

How did this end up in front of a judge?

 

[Kyriakos]

How did this end up in front of a judge?

It's the UK.

Re the issue itself: i am sure our problems aren't caused by people of <50 IQ, so i am not seeing how being tough against them helps anything.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

How can you discuss either of those things when global warming is going to kill us all?!

We can have sex and chew gum at the same time.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

We can have sex and chew gum at the same time.

Seems a bit rude.

 

[BvBPL]

Governmental interference with the private / intimate affairs of individuals is a grotesque assault upon privacy. It also raises significant concerns about prejudice and debunked eugenics arguments. It should be avoided at all costs.

 

[metalhead]

On the other hand, one of the noblest things governments do is protect people from being coerced to do things, especially sexual acts, to which they do not consent.

 

[Akka]

I'd say, if we can forbid 15-years old teenager from having sex because they're too young to be able to give consent, then it makes sense we can do the same for heavily mentally challenged people.

(of course, the practical problem then becomes : how can we, and who makes the decision, about who is "stupid enough" to enter this definition)

 

[Farm Boy]

Seems a bit rude.

Depends on what you do with the gum.

On the other hand, one of the noblest things governments do is protect people from being coerced to do things, especially sexual acts, to which they do not consent.

Agreed. I'm confused as to how this wound up in court. It seems it may be relevant. The judge just literally ordered the police to watch this man closely and make sure he doesn't have sex with other men. I think a really good justification is warranted for the state monitoring this 41 year old man's romantic homosexual relationships.

Edit: On second thought - this article is over 6 years old. How did this play out?

 

[Kyriakos]

I'd say, if we can forbid 15-years old teenager from having sex because they're too young to be able to give consent, then it makes sense we can do the same for heavily mentally challenged people.

(of course, the practical problem then becomes : how can we, and who makes the decision, about who is "stupid enough" to enter this definition)

Imo people with lower than 150 IQ should never have sex (leading to offspring). It will solve problems. Trust me. Deus Vult.

More on topic: while regulating to disable people with <50 IQ to have sex is not logical, what is very logical is to force their parents/guardians to take care of any offspring, cause a person with <50 IQ can't feed those correctly and may as well use burgers to feed them, leading to the infant dieing (it has happened).

 

[Akka]

Imo people with lower than 150 IQ should never have sex (leading to offspring). It will solve problems. Trust me. Deus Vult.

At the very least, it will immediately solve overpopulation problem.

More on topic: while regulating to disable people with <50 IQ to have sex is not logical

How is it less logical than preventing underage sex ? It's based on the same criteria.

 

[Kyriakos]

At the very least, it will immediately solve overpopulation problem.

How is it less logical than preventing underage sex ? It's based on the same criteria.

Should be obvious what the difference is: being underage tends to end at some time, while having <50 IQ likely doesn't.

 

[warpus]

Tricky question.

On one hand you need consent for sex. On the other it seems inhumane to deprive people of sexual gratification.

 

[plarq]

Yep, minors should have the right to sex?