You are Here
Stuff

No sex please, we’re stupid

The High Court in London had before it a peculiar case, last week.

Mr Justice Mostyn, on hearing the petition brought by a local authority, granted that Alan [surname withheld], 41, should be prevented from having sex because ‘Alan did not have the capacity to consent to sex’.

In other words, under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, it was decided that Alan was too stupid to have sex.

The important point to make here is that it has been judged that Alan is too stupid to have sex.

It has not been judged that Alan is too stupid to reproduce, because Alan is in a same-sex relationship.

Hmm…

Here’s just a few facts to add more detail to the story:

  1. Alan is in a consensual same-sex relationship
  2. Alan has said he wants to continue the relationship with his boyfriend
  3. Alan has an IQ of 40
  4. And yet the law of the land has decided it knows better, and has prevented Alan from continuing this relationship

I don’t have any detailed thoughts on Alan’s case, other than it seems wrong for the law to enter the bedroom of two adult men, to lay down what they can and can’t do.

However, I would ask you to look around any city centre, at the burgeoning chav population, and tell me whether the 15- and 16-year old, tattooed, pierced, gum-chewing, effing and blinding, scantily-dressed girls pushing buggies and prams have sufficient intelligence to breed.

Stupids that breed?

At least Alan isn’t going to inflict any further human beings on our social support system.

The big question that Alan’s case raises is, if we accept that society has the legal right to restrict adults from having sex, where do we draw the line?

An IQ of 40? 50? 70? 85?

Not the sharpest tool in the box

When ‘the average’ IQ is 100, do we now test everyone?

And should we sterilise everyone who has an IQ of less than 100?

Another stupid breeder?

And is the IQ test an appropriate tool to be used for determining a person’s level of common sense?

6 thoughts on “No sex please, we’re stupid”

  1. The Daily Mail has spun this story and that should be taken into consideration in dissecting it.

    Yes, the state interferring in anybody’s sex life is something that repulses the free world, but the media has only focused on one part in the story – the part that sells papers and gets people’s backs up, this Big Brother threat. I’d be up in arms myself if anyone questioned my right to do what I please provided it isn’t illegal.

    But a huge angle has been completely ignored. Lying by omission.

    This isn’t about him being stupid or the state interferring with the private life of an adult man, but because of his vulnerability. Alan’s IQ is extraordinarily low – not a fault, a fact. Alan doesn’t understand sex in the way a CHILD doesn’t understand sex. He wants to continue the relationship but doesn’t understand what a relationship is. The concern for his welfare is that he is being taken advantage of.

    If it were a seven-year-old boy in a sexual relationship with an adult man saying he wants to continue the relationship, we’d be abhorrent. We’d say the boyfriend is an abuser, that the boy doesn’t understand and isn’t capable of consenting to a sexual relationship.

    Note how the media has deliberately talked about IQ as a number rather than comparing it in real terms to something tangible. If the papers were to note that Alan has the mental capacity of a young child and that his protection has been held in mind in making this decision, public response to this story would be very different.

    Media spin pisses me off.

  4. How did it end up in the courts? The links aren’t working on my stupid machine so I don’t know whether it’s in the article. Personally I think if Alan is considered intelligent enough at 41 to live independently, to vote, to buy food, to drink etc then he should be left to decide his own sexual future. If Alan had been deemed to be being manipulated by someone then perhaps it should be addressed by a social worker or someone qualified but i personally don’t think a court should be deciding whether a 41 year old man can have consensual sex with his partner. Although the notion of stopping stupid people from breeding has some merit, we could probably dispense with the public service cuts if we could just stop all the stupid chavs breeding.

  5. I do take your point about the IQ test not testing common sense. And the number of below average people who we allow to breed is scary. Good points.

Comments are closed.