http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8301100/Court-bans-man-with-low-IQ-from-having-sex.html
"
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."
Alberta and British Columbia had provincial sterilization programs for decades.
Caley McKibbin: Alberta and British Columbia had provincial sterilization programs for decades.
Tommy Douglas, the brainchild of Canadian universal care, believed in eugenics and the forced sterilization of the handicapped. And the Canadian government wants us to worship him likes he a deity.
If his intelect is less than that of 10 year old boy or girl, then I think it is quite reasonable to treat him like a child. It's not the age, that makes us mature, but capacity to reason etc (I mean in a broader sense here).
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
A starship establishes orbit around a planet. Communications Officer: Captain, sensors pick up readings of life forms, who have an average IQ of 100, on the planet. Captain: Their minds are like children. Sterilize them, Weapons Officer. It is in their best interests to not reproduce. Weapons Officer: Aye, aye, Captain.
He's over the age of consent and if he's finding women willing to have sex with him, that's between him and said women. It looks like the problem in this case is that the man with which he is having a relationship may be predating on him. I think it should be up to the family, in this case. As always, the State should STFU and mind its own damn business.
Clayton -
He's over the age of consent and if he's finding women willing to have sex with him, that's between him and said women.
There was no mention of females in the article. No risk of pregnancy.
As always, the State should STFU and mind its own damn business.
This
Absolutely; and the absolute last person who should have a word of input into any of this is the government. For that matter I think Americans in general have prudish and unrealistic ideas about sex and sexuality; if a ten year old boy wanted to have sex I am not sure I would have any specific objection, and certainly not with someone around twelve. This was quite normal until everyone got rich and started treating their children like morons incapable of dealing with reality.
This was quite normal until everyone got rich and started treating their children like morons incapable of dealing with reality.
The main ex post facto justification for concern about teen pregnancy is that young people are not in a financial position to support kids. These days an employed 16 year old makes 100x more at a minimum wage job than the average income for 98% of human history. It's essentially a smear against our ancestors for not sitting back and waiting for the industrial revolution before reproducing. If the future holds greater prosperity, surely some future generation will look back upon us with the same contempt.
I say ex post facto because I don't believe that is the original reason. Fecundity was obviously more celebrated in the past and life was quicker and shorter; there was no 65 year retirement plan.
Yeah. I don't know when 'treating your children more gently' transitioned into 'failing to teach your children anything about reality and hiding everything from them'. I blame a mix of Protestant moralization of sex and delusional liberal notions of child rearing.