web
counter
 

Sorry, You’re too Dumb to Have Sex

By Dr. Pisaster | Posted Under Pajiba Dirty Talk | Comments (18)



no_sex_stamp.gif

A couple of weeks ago a UK court ruled that a mentally disabled man shouldn’t be allowed to have sex. The man in question, Alan, has an IQ of 48 (which qualifies as a moderate handicap), and had been engaged in a sexual relationship with another man who lived in his assisted living home. The judge concluded that Alan did not understand the mechanics of sex or the health risks involved and should therefore be kept under supervision and prevented from engaging in it. In the UK, the Court of Protection has the authority to make life or death decisions for people who are considered to lack the intelligence to make such decisions for themselves. Since sex falls somewhere in between life and death, judges do indeed have the authority to tell a person with mental disabilities that they can’t fuck. Which sounds pretty goddamn awful, on the surface, but this ruling isn’t really as bad as it sounds.

Some people reporting this case have given it a homophobic spin, suggesting that Alan would have been allowed to continue a sexual relationship if his sexual partner had been a woman. Frankly, I doubt it. The fact that Alan’s relationship was homosexual just means the court didn’t have to deal with the thorny issue of eugenics, since Alan and his partner are in no danger of passing their genes on to another generation from gay sex. Most, though, are just taking the “outrage at the court’s trying to control an adult’s sex life,” angle. I think this too is mistaken. The judge is on record as acknowledging the delicacy of the issue and the need for caution in deciding such cases. Importantly, he did not rule that Alan can never have sex, only that he must first demonstrate understanding of the implications of sex, and he further ordered Alan’s caretakers to provide him with sex education (something that one psychiatrist argued should not be allowed because it would just ‘confuse’ Alan). In other words, the judge doesn’t want to stop Alan from having a sex life, just to make sure it’s an informed and safe sex life. (It’s also worth noting that Alan has been accused of making lewd gestures at school children, indicating that he lacks an understanding of what is sexually appropriate.)

The real question the court had to decide was not whether it’s okay for a mentally handicapped person to have sex (gay or otherwise), but whether this particular handicapped person had a thorough enough understanding of sex to protect his own health, as well as his partner’s health, and to avoid being exploited. Alan testified that he enjoyed having sex, and that it would “make [him] feel happy,” to continue, but that doesn’t mean he was ready to have it. The human body is designed to respond to sexual stimulation with pleasure. Children, for example, can experience sexual pleasure at the hands of a molester, but that doesn’t mean the abuse won’t be incredibly emotionally damaging. The same could potentially be true for people like Alan, who lack an understanding of what sex is and the mental capacity to protect themselves from sexual predators. The news reports don’t give any details about the mental state of his partner, so it’s impossible to tell if there was any exploitation in this particular case, but regardless, it makes sense that the court would wish to protect someone who is unable to evaluate such situations for himself.

This case does highlight, however, the need for people like Alan to be given adequate sexual education. Alan’s mind may not be as developed as most adults, but he is an adult and deserves the opportunity to express himself sexually. And he deserves to be given the tools to do so safely. It’s disturbing that he had not previously been given such information and that at least one mental health professional believed that he shouldn’t be given such information. People, even disabled people, will develop sex drives, whether it’s convenient for their caretakers or not. Alan has already shown inappropriate behavior that could put himself or possibly others in danger (if, for example, his sexual behavior towards children were to go beyond gestures). There may be people who’s mental capacity is so low that it would be a bad idea for them ever to engage in sexual activity with a partner, but a moderate mental handicap does not seem like enough to justify denying someone such a basic right. I think the judge made the right decision in mandating that Alan receive sex education, but I suspect there are a lot of disabled people out there who won’t be so lucky, which may leave them vulnerable to both sexual predators and over-protective caretakers. The worst of both worlds, in other words. Especially in the US, where we can’t even seem to provide non-mentally handicapped teenagers with comprehensive sex ed. There is a real question of how intelligent one has to be to safely engage in sex and how such issues as potential pregnancy when the adults involved are incapable of understanding the process or raising a child should be handled (Alan, it is noted, believed babies were delivered by storks). But these are questions that can’t be answered by simply denying people with mental handicaps information.

Sex is a major biological drive. People will engage in it whether they understand the implications or not, so it’s better to arm them with knowledge than to assume that just because someone has the mental capacity of a child, it’s safe to treat them like a child in all aspects of their life. With luck Alan will be back in the saddle and enjoying a healthy sex life before too long, but many others in his position will likely be denied such a chance because of our culture’s twisted view of human sexuality.

Dr. Pisaster has a doctorate in biophysics, not actually anything sexy. She does however enjoy having sex, reading about sex, and talking about sex. Especially when she’s had a little whiskey.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Khan In Sixty Seconds | Is This A Glock I See Before Me? Shakespearian Modernizations: The Good, The Bad and The Coriolanus









Comments

Dr P, I love you for always being a columnist who researches her stories thoroughly. I'm sure this story is all over Yahoo and various other sites with far too little information and too much speculation. In a polluted news age you honor your craft.

Posted by: Paultera at February 15, 2011 5:33 PM

Man, if only the courts would rule like that here. "Sorry, you're too dumb to have sex" might be harsh, but "Sorry, you're too dumb to have kids" would be nice to see mandated. Its hilarious to me that I require a license to fish, but not to have children, especially when there are hundreds of thousands of, for lack of a better word, men, out there spreading their seed to every vulnerable and impressionable flower they can find. I daily deal with the offspring of this population, and I can tell you they aren't rocket scientists. Still worse, but not by much, are the crackwhores (again, for lack of any better word) who are giving birth to babies addicted to a dangerous drug, which I have also seen with some frequency. This is dangerous territory, to be sure, but we've all heard the stories of welfare mothers with 7 kids, and I assure you, its not a myth. I routinely am called to filthy houses filled with 20 individuals where a drunk mother of X is fighting with her most recent boyfriend over Y, and she wants him out of the house, and ohbytheway said boyfriend has an illegal Z, officer. Most of these people are too dumb to live, much less reproduce. Its too bad that this is our society, but it is.

Posted by: EJ at February 15, 2011 5:34 PM

Nevermind the clinically mentally handicapped, is it possible to outlaw sex for people who are behaviorally stupid and devoid of common sense? These are people who perhaps are a little short in the IQ Savings & Loans, but could still actually be positively contributory if not for the overwhelming urges of their peckers over their brains.

Why is the only people that seem to be smart enough to only have children within their means are the truly intelligent ones? It's like the human race is poised to split off into two related but different species. Those that use their brains and further develop them, and those that often treat it like a second appendix. We are now stuck with a boom in the last century where only smart people regularly partake in contraceptive practice, and stupid people are given access to such medical marvels as vaccines (which they obviously had nothing to do with) thus eliminating their one true predator that did a far better job keeping the ratio of stupid to smart much closer than all the wars could ever do. You want proof? Look at the box office receipts. The music charts. The TV ratings. Stuffed Crust Pizza. Members of Congress. Fox News. Something's gotta give, people!

When left to their own devices and desires, stupid people will fornicate and thereby repopulate regardless of available resources. No money? No problem, do me anyway. No clean water and no food? Let's drop a few more litters here. Disease running rampant? Let's not take steps to prevent it, let's keep having kids. Live on a giant garbage heap? Let's not try to figure out what's wrong, let's just keep fucking! In fact no advancement in the history of the human race has ever come from a stupid person, probably because they're too busy getting their freak on to care. I know this sounds psychopathic, but the fact is that the world continues to let the stupid masses repopulate at a rate that only viruses could truly appreciate. Since there couldn't be an anti-sex law any stupid person would abide, is it possible we could just treat stupid people in the world like a giant safari preserve? We'll just go around in jeeps nailing stupid people with contraceptive darts, assuring that if we can't keep them from screwing one another, we can at least stave off the tsunami of morons we're inevitably going to get.

*After some thought, I'd better copyright this before Uwe Boll makes this his next movie plot.

Posted by: bleujayone at February 15, 2011 6:07 PM

bleujayone, you wouldn't happen to know the people in my dad's family would you?

I find it ironic that I'm the only one on that side of the family that went to (and graduated, yay me!) college, and I'm the only one incapable of having children. The rest of them have at least three little bastards running around.

Posted by: dahlia6 at February 15, 2011 6:22 PM

My cousin was born severly retarded. Physically healthy as a horse, but with the mental and emotional development of a 3 yr old. When he hit puberty, this became a major problem... at 6'3" and a good 250 lbs, the man was a menace when the mood struck him. After one incident where he almost raped my aunt, his parent opted to have him castrated (this was done overseas). No amount of sexual education and no judge telling him he couldn't attack people was going to do the trick.
Granted, this was a good 20 yrs ago, and there are probably drugs nowadays that would work as effectively, but the point is someone had to take that "right" away from him before he really hurt someone.

Posted by: witheld at February 15, 2011 6:31 PM

You should have to obtain a license to procreate before you have kids. I've said it since i was sixteen and I stand by it. Hell, I'd benefit from a class that taught me what to expect/how to change a diaper and I'm pretty sure 99% of 20-30somethings would too.

Posted by: jvo at February 15, 2011 6:31 PM

"Idiocracy is real!"
"God the world is being overrun by morons!"
"Let's make sure stupid people can't procreate!"

Never. Going. To. Happen.
Equality works both ways. For my part, I wish it wasn't this way. I'm delighted my parents decided to procreate and have three bright chillens, but that doesn't extend to me wanting to make Ian-copies, and it's probably going to be outside my emotional means for the foreseeable future. And yes, I wish there were some way to mandate who can produce more beings to suck up resources...but that's because I'm pretty sure I'd end up on the mandating side of that stick. But what if I wasn't? What if all that power was only vested in people with 160 IQs, BY people with 160+ IQs? Then I'd probably feel pretty put out, in a pitchfork-and-torchy sorta way, and I could probably get the ACLU to come screaming to my side with the barest of suggestions.
Put more simply, who gets to decide who gets to decide? The "smart folk"? Who decides who's smart?
Do we let everyone vote?
If so, Square fucking uno. Procreation is a basic human right, it's the rallying cry now and it will continue to be as long as it's in the top three of "things we do best" according to our species as a whole.
If you'll excuse me, I have some darts to make.

Posted by: Ian at February 15, 2011 6:50 PM

i'm all for eugenics.

Posted by: causaubon at February 15, 2011 8:09 PM

It's possible for people who are less than brilliant to actually still be good parents, so in some ways it is less a matter of intelligence than commitment and being willing to do the hard work of parenting. I mean, my dad is a blue collar guy with a GED, but he was a great dad. What we need is the perfect birth control method: it's a shot or implant that works until removed/reversed, works on males and females, and has no side effects. You can have it removed/reversed once you graduate from mandated parenting classes. If you can't make it through the classes, or can't be bothered to take them, well then so be it. This eliminates telling someone they can't reproduce and puts the onus on them; they have to want to reproduce and they have to commit to spending the necessary time and effort to achieve what they want. Kind of like taking driver's ed before you're allowed to get a license. I guess I can dream anyway!
And good for Alan, I hope he gets the education he needs and can go back to being happy!

Posted by: peachfish at February 15, 2011 9:57 PM

My sister is high functioning Autistic and my family works with those with severe mental illness and physical and mental handicaps. My whole life my mother has been saying that special education, group homes, and therapy places need to start dialoging with the children's parents and the children themselves. Because guess what? They grow up to be adults! My sister is 26, and she understands that she's different and has aides with her for work and when she wants to go places. But she was intuitive enough to say on her own "You know, if I have sex, I don't want to have a baby because I don't want them to have what I have. But I want to get married." With the big wave of Autism Spectrum disorders in this country, people NEED to start talking about the handicapped having sex and normal relations with the opposite sex, the same way people realized that "Hey, old people still fuck and they need condoms." Obviously the severely mentally handicapped cannot have normal sex lives. But what about people with Down's Syndrome? There needs to be dialogue and classes, the same way we had sex ed when we were growing up. But that requires time, energy, and money, none of which many people want to put into the handicapped. All I can recommend is if you live with or work with people with special needs, they probably already masturbate or watch porn or think about sex, so you or your family needs to talk about what's going to happen next.

Posted by: scorzi at February 15, 2011 9:58 PM

Peachfish has a great point. It's not so much intelligence as much as it is common sense and commitment. One of the most brilliant, successful people I know is also one of the crappier parents I've ever known. Her husband, not nearly as intelligent as she is, is also a craptastic parent. They're just totally unwilling to put in the work needed to be a decent parent.

Ian's right, too: we don't really want to go down the road of dictating who does and does not get to be a parent. It's a satisfying thing to say when you see bad parenting, but in practice it would be a clusterfuck.

Posted by: Snuggiepants at February 15, 2011 10:36 PM

Slightly off point, but I was reading this the other day and I think it resonates...

Using "energy" as a reference, this studdy asked how much energy a child from X country used in its lifetime in comparison with a child from Y country. Despite the interesting nuanced results, the extremes were fascinating.

In particular, that one US child will consume as much energy as 55 Bangladeshis. I mean, fuck me.

Puts into perspective controversy surrounding second and third world reproduction rates.

Can't be arsed finding it, but I'm sure it's googleable.

Posted by: Peter G at February 16, 2011 12:32 AM

I volunteer with a Down Syndromes home and navigating the difference between friendly affection and sexual advances is a daily issue, made especially difficult because you need to be clear without anyone feeling rejected or hurt.
Slightly off-topic here, but the big fear in some parts of Europe is that Muslim immigrants are having far more children than the country's native citizens. By the time I'm retired I'm fairly sure the Alps will be alive with the sound of muezzin. I'm neutral on the subject, but it is a highly flammable issue.

Posted by: cinekat at February 16, 2011 4:56 AM

My mother works with disabled children and constantly fights for them to a) have access to vibrators and other instruments of pleasure b) have privacy and c) have the right to pleasure themselves without being sanctioned. Though these are children and severely disabled, most can't move very much.

But eugenics ... well ... if the whole prenatal implantation diagnostics or whatever it is called is allowed in the western world (eh, China will probably allow it first), pretty soon we'll have the "smart people" dabbling in eugenics anyway. Too bad it will probably be too expensive for the unwashed masses, who clean up our shit, pay our taxes and will be supporting the European social system (or actually, that will crash in a few decades, so) and we'll have to put up with the stupid people (oh sarcasm yay).

If the system actually supported smarter people a little more, they'd maybe have more children as well. It's not like I don't want them, but as it is, I'm not sure I'll have any because my job won't pay enough to support them. Oh and the fact that I'm a reclusive nerd doesn't help that much (ok, that can be changed). Ah well.

Personally, I still favor a global plague (which I will survive, of course) and I'm waiting for 2063 when the invention of the warp drive brings out the Vulcans. Sure, I'll be 83 by then and WW III would have happened, but who the fuck cares.

Posted by: capitainejanvier at February 16, 2011 6:24 AM

It's all fun and games until you're the one who walks in on your significant other doing something that makes you realize that the slogans "Sex is a major biological drive" and "an informed and safe sex life" really mean that you're just one kind of meat on the menu.

Posted by: Hater from Siloam Springs at February 16, 2011 8:55 AM

"We're here, we're queer... APPLES!"

(I'm sorry, I just love Patton Oswalt so much and that's what immediately popped into my head.)

Posted by: piedlourde at February 16, 2011 9:05 PM

funny you mention the whole 'can't teach sex ed properly in America'

as there have been a number of studies done that have basically shown the states/areas that teach abstinence, I.E. the one's that have NO sex ed policy for teenagers, are the areas with the highest # of teenage mothers, teens with STD's etc.

since kids (by which i mean teens etc.) are GOING to have sex, we as a species are wired to want to have sex etc.

but in the 'christian' states these kids have no information or education and look at what happens.

lil angel becky is pregnant at 16.

Posted by: mergedloki at February 17, 2011 3:43 AM

How do we turn the sex drive itself off? THAT would solve a lot of problems.

Posted by: AmbroseKalifornia at February 17, 2011 10:55 AM