This seems nuts:

A man with an IQ of 48 has been ordered to stop having sex by a High Court judge.

Known only as Alan, the 41-year-old was in a relationship with a man he lived with and said he wanted it to continue. However, his local council said his ‘vigorous sex drive’ was inappropriate so started legal proceedings to restrict the relationship…. Despite his fears for interfering in a person’s sex life, [the judge] agreed that he did not have the mental capacity to know about the health risks and should be banned from having sex.

His council will now monitor him closely to make sure he doesn’t breach the order.

Local councils in the UK monitor sex drives? Someone is going to get paid to make sure that Alan doesn’t sneak out and have sex? At what point does someone’s IQ drop so low that they can’t legally consent to sex? Is this a case of a developmentally disabled person being taken advantage of and the state stepping in to stop the abuse or is it a case of a disabled person being stripped of his right to have a sex partner—being pulled away from the lover with whom he lives—because some people are uncomfortable when the disabled have sex?

WTF?

60 replies on “UK Court “Bans” Man with Low IQ from Having Sex”

  1. Thanks for linking to a fox news site.

    But it’s notable that the comments use this as an opportunity to bash liberals and Democrats. (I wonder if the commenters are aware that this is in the UK and not the US.)

  2. Interesting, I was just reading in Gould’s Mismeasure of Man about this sort of thing happening at the beginning of the 20th century. Ironically, the idea that those with low IQ should be institutionalized / sterilized / restricted was a completely American invention. Pity it seems to have emmigrated…

  5. With an IQ of 48, this guy is already in a state assisted living program (the threshold for being declared mentally retarded is 70).

    @2: Umm, no, the Europeans have been locking these people up in insane asylumns like Bedlam for years.

  9. @8 I’m more curious as to the reaction if the low IQ person had been a woman – would the other guy been labeled a rapist because she is incapable of consent?

  10. Why is IQ even being used as a measure for ability to give consent? A child could have a genius-level IQ, but we wouldn’t say they can give consent to have sex.

  11. Well, the original story is from the UK’s Daily Mail, which is notorious for shading facts and even outright lying to fit its agenda, so I’d prefer to find out a bit more about the case before jumping up and down and shrieking.

    And as I understand it an IQ of 48 is pretty serious mental retardation, though it depends on what scale they’re using to measure it. But since he’s got this “inappropriate” sex drive it’s surely better that he express it with a steady partner, unless there’s something shady or abusive going on that the news outlets didn’t bother to mention.

  12. So, how do they know he’s having sex? How does his local council know he has a “vigorous sex drive”? Is he having sex with another mentally challenged person, or a care giver? There’s very little information given. Do they believe he’s being taken advantage of, or is this an example of the powers that be thinking that mentally challenged people don’t have the same basic needs everyone else does?

  13. I really prefer my Savage Love blog without Daily Mail stories…
    the article didn’t tell us where this was in the UK, and for all we know ‘Alan’s’ lover is Prince Charles.

  14. @5 You misunderstood. Using IQ tests as an excuse to institutionalize is the American invention, not institutionalization in general.

  15. Yeah, the story does not add up at all. More info please. If this were a patient that needed institutionalization–at least part-time–do you think they are capable of partnering, though?

  16. Yeah, there’s a lot of sensationalism there, very little info. My guess is there’s a whole story behind the “vigorous sex drive” which I’m going to guess was perhaps more public than would be appropriate.

    Nevertheless many of the issues raised here already (what if he was a woman? Who is the other partner? and so on.

    But the record on viewing disabled people as people with human rights or even as sexual beings is pretty dismal (again, already pointed out, in fewer than 10 comments!) so there’s room for skepticism as to what kind of stunt is being pulled here.

    So, if it didn’t happen here as represented, it’s happened somewhere else, and that’s the underlying problem. But the treatment of the disabled by the abled isn’t going to change all that quickly.

  18. @17: Thanks for those links. The second one to the order in full is very interesting. Agree or disagree with the decision, I think it is clear that a lot of careful consideration went into it. It seems to hinge on a determination of whether or not Alan has the capacity to give meaningful consent to sex.

    Having read it, I’m still not sure what I think. An IQ of 48 seems low, but it’s at the top end of what is considered a “moderate” intellectual disability. In one sense, Alan is as far removed from “average” intelligence as is a person with an IQ of 150 – just in the opposite direction. He’ll probably never manage algebra – or maybe even the times tables – but he’s not in need of constant personal care either.

    Reading the decision, his understanding of sex might best be described as “child-like”. We don’t consider children to have the capacity to consent to sex, and we permit their parents to restrict (or at least, attempt to restrict) their sexual activity. In this case, the council is acting as guardian for Alan.

    Interesting, complicated, difficult case.

  19. Interesting link, Gus, and a very well-thought-out opinion. Clearly, “Alan” does not possess the capacity to fully consent to sex. Thanks for posting that.

  20. If you go by the standard of whether or not one knows the possible consequences of sex, there are a hell of a lot of non-disabled adults that shouldn’t be having sex, either.

  21. @5 there is a difference between locking people up in asylums and not allowing them to have sex, or sterilising them.
    @2 eugenics was started by Galton, a british scientist.

    This has nothing to do with stopping him from breeding, he was having sex with a man. This is all about whether he can is sound enough mind to content to sex or if he is being taken advantage of.

    @10 The IQ is not being used as a measure, the courts decided based on the person and his mental state. His IQ is simply a way the media can easily convey his disability.

    I find this ruling distressing because the it puts the responsibility with him. If he is mentally incapable of consenting then it is not his fault. If anything it should be considered (a form of) rape to take advantage of him. Its equivalent to banning a child from being molested, it makes no sense. The emphasis is completely wrong

  22. You bet. I just was able to finish plowing through it (ha!), and whatever the subtleties of the issues presented throughout, the judge’s final words do seem to have been ignored in all the coverage so far:

    I am not satisfied that sufficient practical steps have yet been taken to see if Alan can have sex, with the result that the present régime of deprivation of liberty can be lifted.
    I therefore order that:

    i) the declarations I have made be of an interim nature;
    ii) the local authority do provide Alan with sex education in the hope that he thereby gains that capacity; and
    iii) the matter be returned to Court after a period of nine months for a review in order to see what progress the education is making, with a view to making final declarations at that point.

    In view of the sensitivity and importance of the matters raised by this case I grant the local authority permission to appeal.

  23. Based on the court proceedings (provided by gus @17) Alan had behaved inappropriately around children, and this is one of the problems.

    However, they separated Alan and his boyfriend to prevent sexual relations, which seems like no-one’s business.

  24. Hello, gus! Missed you on LiveSlog last night, hope you had a good weekend.
    And good sleuthing! Seems like there is a big difference between things that are happening in public (touching himself, and young girls) and living with another man. Why wouldn’t the issue of inappropriate public acts be addressed separately from his living arrangement? It sounds like he had a full sex life, and that it is being denied now. There’s a group here in Calgary, called Right to Love, that deals with these very issues. Lots of sadness for a Monday.
    *and I have to stop looking at the Daily Mail for anything other than gossip about the Queen…

  25. @ 23:
    They separated Alan and his boyfriend (and an unnamed third person) until Alan understands enough about sex. They specifically addressed that he doesn’t understand STIs and how to use condoms.

  26. @23, @ 17
    Seriously. It seems what brought this to light was the fact that he had attempted to do sexual things with children–and if he cannot tell the difference between a child and an adult as a suitable sex partner, it seems he cannot truly consent to sex. It was likened to someone who, due to delusions while sick, could not actually give informed consent as to whether they wanted their leg amputated. They were willing to keep their leg and die because of the delusions they were suffering, even though they could ‘understand’ what the decision was. This is the same thing in this case, they posit, because he cannot determine what is appropriate and what is not, so you can’t say ‘okay well he can have sex with people if we okay it!’ The idea is that he cannot understand the importance of what’s going on, and so he cannot really consent one way or the other; since he cannot consent, he is like a child who cannot consent to sex.

  27. @20: The judge noted that.

    One of the proposed criteria for the capacity to consent was “an awareness that sex is part of having relationships with people and may have emotional consequences”. The judge rejected that, saying it was “much too sophisticated to be included in the low level of understanding and intelligence needed to be able to consent to sex. Apart from anything else, I would have thought that a deal of sex takes place where one or other party is wholly oblivious to this supposed necessity.“

  28. Hey, Canuck. Yeah, I’ve got my fingers crossed for him:

    Alan now has his own accommodation, where he is closely supervised. His relationship with Kieron has ended. The evidence of the local authority is that he has thrived in his new placement and has not expressed any wish to resume sexual activity. On the other hand, he has asked a representative of the Official Solicitor to ask me, the judge, to allow him to have sex again. When asked how he would feel if the judge would allow him to do “these things” once again, he said “it would make me feel happy”. He said, as regards the persons under discussion, “say I want to kiss them again”.

    And I did a spit-take at this line of the judge’s too:

    To enter into a marriage the bar of intelligence and understanding is set low.

  29. @25 yes, and they are going to try to educate him on these things and review the case again later.

    However, if understanding of the use of contraceptives and the risk of STIs were requisites for sex (and maybe they should be) many people would be banned from sex.

    He does need to know what behavior is appropriate in public, and what ages are appropriate, however what does that have to do with a mutually consensual and adult private relationship that he would like to continue?

  30. Fingers crossed here too, gus. Poor guy…”I want to kiss [him] again”…so sad.
    I agree with our own Trudeau: “There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.”

  31. @29: “If understanding of the use of contraceptives and the risk of STIs were requisites for sex (and maybe they should be) many people would be banned from sex.”

    I believe that in his reasoning, the judge in the case considered that. He took care to make a distinction between “capacity to consent to sex and the exercise of that capacity.”

    Too many people don’t understand the risks of sexual activity or don’t take appropriate steps to mitigate them, even though they have the capacity to do so. As “adults” that is their right – the right to make crappy decisions even though they have the ability to make good ones.

    The judge here is questioning whether Alan even has that ability.

  33. One of the criteria of testing whether he understood the mechanics of safe sex involved him putting a condom on a prosthetic penis. The court document said he failed to do this properly: he put it on inside-out so it couldn’t roll down.

    Which leads me to the logical and unsurprising conclusion that a couple men I have had sex with are functionally retarded.

  38. ….sigh, all the good write-in candidates decline the honour…and besides, then you’d have to put your picture up, and I’m getting the feeling the last time someone got a candid of you was in Grade 5…

  39. @30:
    “Poor guy…”I want to kiss [him] again”…so sad. “

    He did say “them” not “him”, not because he doesn’t understand the difference, but because he was having sex with at least one more person at the time when he was together with “Kieron”. He isn’t allowed to have sex with either of them at the moment.
    (Btw: the other, unspecified, person could be a woman. He has had sexual relationships with both men and women before).

  40. It looks like it was a difficult decision, fairly decided after due consideration. I am a little unsatisffied with Dr. Hall’s inability to answer certain questions. He didn’t even ask Alan where babies came from? Seems like a more complete expert evaluation would be in order before restricting such a fundamental freedom.

  41. I’m surprised at all the commenters saying they’re sure this man can’t truly consent to sex with his level of retardation. All we have to go on is an IQ number (a semi-arbitrary measurement, & in this case one that doesn’t convey much to the average reader beyond “sounds hella low”) and a couple of sentences in the Mail & Telegraph articles describing his mental functioning. But beyond that, the reasons we might give for saying a minor or an intoxicated person can’t consent don’t really apply here. With a minor, even if they have some form of sex drive, they are presumed not to have attained their full adult sexuality, and thus not to understand what they really want out of sex. With an intoxicated person, they can’t consent because they might be traumatized later when they found they had consented to something they wouldn’t normally want — which doesn’t apply to Alan, since this is his “normal.”

    And children are rightly considered incapable of consenting to sex with adults because they can’t always make a clear mental distinction between doing something because they want to & doing something to please an adult. If you can’t really refuse sex (due to a messed-up power dynamic), you can’t really consent. This doesn’t apply to Alan, either. He won’t ever reach a higher level of mental maturity against which his current state can be contrasted. So the harm of letting a mentally immature person consent to sex must be weighed against the (possibly much greater) harm of denying him sex and intimate contact for life — not the case with minors, who can afford to wait a few years.

    And while his intelligence may be childlike, that doesn’t mean all aspects of his mind are — he may be adult-like in his ability to form preferences based on years of life experience, and in possessing the will (and physical strength) to reject any sexual activity he doesn’t want. Again, not the case with chidren.

    You’ll also note that minors aren’t legally banned from having sex with others of the same age — just adults, because of the power imbalance. Similarly, if this man is shacked up with another retarded adult, it makes little sense to conclude the sex must be “rape” or coercion.

    I’m glad the judge put some thought into the ethical ramifications of this, & it sounds like putting him in sex ed was a needed step. But I’m with Dan in being uncomfortable with the weirdness of putting an adult’s right to a sex life up for judicial review.

  42. I’m surprised at all the commenters saying they’re sure this man can’t “truly” consent to sex. All we have to go on is an IQ number (a semi-arbitrary measurement, & in this case one that doesn’t convey much to the average reader beyond “sounds hella low”) and a couple of sentences describing his mental capacity. But beyond that, the reasons we might give for saying a minor or an intoxicated person can’t consent don’t really apply here.

    With a minor, even if they have some form of sex drive, they are presumed not to have attained their full adult sexuality, and thus not to understand what they really want out of sex. And children are rightly considered incapable of consenting to sex with adults because they can’t always make a clear mental distinction between doing something because they want to & doing something to please an adult. If you can’t really refuse sex (due to a messed-up power dynamic), you can’t really consent. Alan’s case is different. He won’t ever reach a higher level of mental maturity against which his current state can be contrasted. So the harm of letting a mentally immature person consent to sex must be weighed against the (possibly much greater) harm of denying him sex and intimate contact for life — not the case with minors, who can afford to wait a few years.

    And while his intelligence may be childlike, other aspects of his mind may not be — he may be adult-like in his ability to form preferences based on years of life experience, and in possessing the will (and physical strength) to reject any sexual activity he doesn’t want.

    You’ll also note that minors aren’t legally banned from having sex with others of the same age — just adults, because of the power imbalance.

    I’m glad the judge put some thought into the ethical ramifications of this, & it sounds like putting him in sex ed was a needed step. But I’m with Dan in being uncomfortable with the weirdness of putting an adult’s right to a sex life up for judicial review.

  43. This is a very complex issue. Taking away anyone’s right to have sex is a horrible thing, however, it is also important to note that there is a long history of people raping people with severe mental disabilities because they are incapable of sufficiently not consenting, even when they seem to be harmed by the sex. It’s often not that hard to push them into voicing consent. So, it is very important to ensure that people who may be near the border of capability to give consent are truly consenting and not being abused or open to abuse. So, forbidding someone from legally being considered capable of giving consent is not always necessarily the worst possible decision. Just a necessary bad decision when faced with a handful of really bad options. In this case, given that it seems to be a temporary ban for later reevaluation after sex education steps are taken, it does seem like an attempt was made to not strip him of his right to consensual sex too readily.

  44. As much as I appreciate the utility of comparing low IQ to a childlike state, it still really chaps my hide. Adults with cognitive impairments are not children! Just because someone has a brain that seriously mis-processes all sorts of important input does not mean their genitals are broken. I have known a lot of people with very low IQs with all sorts of varying levels of interest in sex and with sexual orientations all over the spectrum–including a same sex foot fetishist. Some were content with hand holding and some were seemingly interested in what fun there is to be had “in the swimsuit area” 24/7. As deeply uncomfortable and complex as this issue can be we must error on the side on doing what we can to allow adults of all ability levels to live a full life and I think we can all agree sex play is part of a full life.

    Gus gets the gold star of the day for bringing to light background details that reassure me that at least the judge and others are putting some effort into wrestling with this topic and not just demanding that Alan be banned from this important area of human experience just because it squicks folks out to contemplate people with disabilities getting in on.

    I could go on and on about this topic but will end by pointing out that being board can be a serious problem for people with disabilities. I know that I often become interested in all the fun things I can do with my pants off when I am bored and I know the same is true for many people with very low IQ and very high IQs. Can I get an amen on that?

  45. IQs are stupid, Richard Feynman had an IQ of 125 but is one of the greatest physicists ever to have lived. The UK is such a ridiculous nanny state sometimes, it kills me…

  46. @42 “All we have to go on is an IQ number (a semi-arbitrary measurement, & in this case one that doesn’t convey much to the average reader beyond “sounds hella low”) and a couple of sentences describing his mental capacity.”

    Yes, this is why we are not making the judgement. I assure you that just because the papers mention his IQ that this was not the basis of the judgement. IQs have not been taken seriously for many years, especially not legally, it has been scientifically proven that IQ tests are an ineffective way of measuring intelligence.
    Some mental disabilities make you unable to give consent, many dont. It is very important that the distinction is drawn. There are many mentally disabled people, and many people with low IQs, that are able to give consent and have normal sexual relationships. “disabilities” is such an all-encompassing term, covering a massive spectrum of people. Given that we have very little of the facts, the two stories linked are very sensationalist and it is hard to glean the reality, It is in my nature to trust the people who do, especially considering the temporary nature of the ruling.

  47. In addition, given that this is a unusual ruling, it would indicate that this is a fairly unique situation, of which we are not fully aware. I certainly don’t think it sets a president for the treatment of people with low IQs, or mental disabilities, in general.

  48. But if the guy is gay — his partner is male — then how on earth could any ban on his sexuality be justified by possible harm to a future progeny? He isn’t going to have any progeny!….

  49. I’ve read the court’s opinion. I still think it’s a bad, bad result — and more than that, pretty much straightforward discrimination against people with disabilities. One point: there seems to be no evidence at all that Alan has been the slightest bit harmed by his sexual activity. Is there some risk of future harm? Maybe. But is that enough to justify the remedy?

    The lack of outrage on this thread leaves me a little bit baffled, I’ve got to say.

Comments are closed.