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

[GoodSarmatian]

The difference with minors (and I mean young minors, 18 is an unreasonably high age of consent) is that they will be able to legally have sex sooner or later.
Such a low IQ will not simply improve.

On the other it seems inhumane to deprive people of sexual gratification.

That's why I'm against the ban in this case. If someone is legally incompetent -i.e. not able to fully understand and sign something like a mortgage- it doesn't mean they can't consent to anything.

 

[Akka]

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

The difference with minors (and I mean young minors, 18 is an unreasonably high age of consent) is that they will be able to legally have sex sooner or later.
Such a low IQ will not simply improve.

Wow, talk about completely missing the point.
Like, seriously ?

 

[BvBPL]

Here when intimate issues related to a person’s being arise and the party in question is not competent to make a decision on the matter, the court uses an substituted judgement standard wherein it determines what the party in question would do if he or she were competent to make the decision. That standards seems a pretty good one to use for these sorts of issues.

For that matter, there are degrees of competency. A party may well be deemed competent to make certain decisions and incompetent as to other decisions. Sexual relations should be one area where competency should be a low bar because of the privacy concerns.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Wow, talk about completely missing the point.
Like, seriously ?

I don't think so. The matter is too complicated to be resolved purely by legal concepts of consent. As I said in my first reply, verly low IQ people can still communicate what they do or don't want or like. That's why I (half) jokingly suggested the first time should happen under supervision, and seriously suggested that the person should talk to a therapist before and after.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Tough case. What does it take to be "qualified to give consent"?

My first sexual encounter wasn't great for either of us, and basically ended a friendship. I am pretty sure that if either of us had "understood the consequences" we would have declined. So, were we "qualified to give consent"? Was our lack of qualifications based on our age, our intellect, our our lack of experience? I lean towards lack of experience, but if lack of experience is a disqualifier for giving informed consent how do you get any experience?

I've had plenty of consensual sexual encounters where my partner lacked any real information about who I was or how involvement with me might affect their future. Were they actually qualified to give consent based on their "understanding of the possible consequences"? Do we outlaw sexual encounters between people who are not well known to each other?

I think that I side with the court here, in that I agree some sort of protection for the mentally deficient is needed, but I'm not comfortable doing so.

 

[Synobun]

Moderator Action: Thread title changed to be less crass. There's no need to define those with a mental disability as "really stupid people", especially when the subject is something sensitive.

 

[Akka]

I don't think so. The matter is too complicated to be resolved purely by legal concepts of consent.

All cases of consent are extremely complicated to begin with. The age of consent is just a pure practical convenience precisely because of that.
But the concept stays the same. If we can deny to people the ability to give consent to sex due to their mental development, then why should it apply only to children ?

As I said in my first reply, verly low IQ people can still communicate what they do or don't want or like. That's why I (half) jokingly suggested the first time should happen under supervision, and seriously suggested that the person should talk to a therapist before and after.

A child can also communicate what he does or does not like.

 

[metalhead]

Setting a low bar for competency to consent runs the risk of permissiveness when it comes to things like elder abuse. Or abuse of the severely mentally disabled. Substituted judgment makes little sense when there is already a legal standard for permitted sexual contact, namely that it be between consenting parties. It is settled law that a lack of mental capacity can prevent one from being able to legally consent to sexual contact; the question is determining what level of disability can render one incapable of giving consent.

The obvious starting point is that if someone is incapable of communicating consent, the other party has no business engaging in sexual acts with that person. It's obviously much more difficult to establish that someone who is able to communicate consent is nevertheless incapable of really giving it. I don't know the particulars of the case in the OP; obviously, tying it to IQ is rather silly, but a lot of times mental disability is described in terms of a "mental age." That could be more useful; if a person is "mentally" 8 years old, does it make sense to legally conclude they are capable of consenting to sexual contact?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

But at some point it's not a child any more. I just don't think society should prevent someone from experiencing something that is an important part of not only every human but almost every animal life.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

All cases of consent are extremely complicated to begin with. The age of consent is just a pure practical convenience precisely because of that.
But the concept stays the same. If we can deny to people the ability to give consent to sex due to their mental development, then why should it apply only to children ?

A child can also communicate what he does or does not like.

The basis of the legal question isn't whether the person can communicate whether they like it. It is whether they are capable of examining and understanding the possible consequences of it.

 

[Akka]

The basis of the legal question isn't whether the person can communicate whether they like it. It is whether they are capable of examining and understanding the possible consequences of it.

That's my whole point.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's my whole point.

I misunderstood.

Unfortunately, that brings us back to the unbreakable knot.

However we define 'age of consent' in terms of that 'able to understand the consequences,' the designated 'child' eventually reaches the standard of qualification. But what do we do with this situation where the person being 'protected' will never reach the standard so is effectively banned in perpetuity?

 

[Ryika]

I also find it weird that the judge says that sex education might give him the ability to consent. That seems like such a weird concept, one that most certainly would not work if translated onto a 10yo.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I also find it weird that the judge says that sex education might give him the ability to consent. That seems like such a weird concept, one that most certainly would not work if translated onto a 10yo.

I can't honestly address how this person would be affected by education. It seems like there would be a point where educating is realistically not possible, but I have no way to assess where such benchmark may lie.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think banning sex for people with <50 IQ is baby steps. It should be banned for anyone not judged by a mastermind to be actually in the know of what consequences may be, in a time-span of at least a few years. Maybe have them sign a contract, stating their vision of the near future for both people engaging in the act, and if it is >80% correct later on let them live. Or else. Now, one should identify what consequences mean, else they are banned from the start.

I think that the saddest thing about unfortunate people with <50 IQ is that they have to take the average person seriously.

 

[Akka]

However we define 'age of consent' in terms of that 'able to understand the consequences,' the designated 'child' eventually reaches the standard of qualification. But what do we do with this situation where the person being 'protected' will never reach the standard so is effectively banned in perpetuity?

That's the conundrum.
But I find it pretty weird how people becomes bloodthirsty and fanatical when it's about someone having sex with a person who is unable to consent to sex, but able to switch to "well, we should allow it" when it's about someone else who is also unable to consent to sex. The lack of consistency baffles me.

 

[tjs282]

I wish the article linked in the first post had itself actually linked to the newspaper article it was referring to -- or even the court record.

I don't know how it works everywhere else, but AFAIK in the UK, if one or both parties are legally unable to consent to sex because they are below the age of consent (= 16 in the UK), but they go ahead and have 'consensual' sex anyway (as teenagers everywhere have done since time immemorial) then technically the older partner (or both) may be charged. In practice this usually doesn't happen, provided that both parties are also legally minors (age of majority = 18 in the UK), and/or the age gap isn't significant (informally referred to as 'Romeo+Juliet laws'). So e.g. a case involving two 15 yr-olds would usually be ignored (unless it involved coercion and/or resulted in pregancy), a 14+16 yr old might be considered borderline charge-able on principle (depending on e.g. whether the actual age gap was 1 yr + 1 day, or closer to 3 yr - 1 day); and a 17 yr old would almost certainly face charges (as a young offender) if they had sex with a 13 yr old (and rightly so, in my view).

Extending that idea of competency-to-consent (or lack thereof) to the mentally disabled, I think it would be reasonable to argue that, provided both partners are of roughly the same mental competency (mental age, if you like), and technically adult by birthdate (even if they have a legal caretaker/ guardian), that it should not be illegal -- or at least, not generally punishable -- for them to have sex with each other. If the desire is there, then they clearly grasp the 'value' (for want of a better word) of extending their relationship into the sexual. So yes, make sure they understand the risks as well, and how to look after themselves -- even if that doesn't go any further than their learning some basic rules like "If you don't like [something], you're allowed to say no, and the other person must stop (and vice versa)" and "Always use a condom".

But if it's a question of an able-minded person wishing to have sex with a mentally non-competent person (or vica versa, and the nominal 'adult' agrees), I would consider that an abuse (or exploitation) of trust in an unequal relationship, similar to how bosses coercing employees into providing sexual services, or teachers having sex with students (especially if under 18 years old), would/should be considered abusive. And if it happens, the abuser should likewise be charged.