I agree with the Duckmeister. also think people with certain levels of development CAN maintain a sexual relationship without fear of compromising anyone’s best interest. And I think a relationship can be monitored without being too intrusive, to make sure nothing gets out of hand (i.e., relationship rape). You definitely need to consider mental age when determining if a mentally retarded adult can conduct an intimate relationship.
But they’re not 12 and 14 yo. That it could require some monitoring in order to avoid abuses I can understand but they should be granted as much autonomy as possible, and not be denied what they both wish, both sexually and emotionnally, from your description. And especially not because it grosses out the brother- in-law.
Clair, I have the feeling you’re not seeing my point. They are 12 and 14 years old–mentally. Just because their bodies may calendrically add up to “over 18” doesn’t mean that the minds inside those bodies are capable of making thoughtful, rational decisions about what to do with those bodies.
Question: if Lawn Mower decided that what he wanted to do with his body was go out and get puking drunk, do you think his AFC home operator should allow it?
The mentally handicapped are considered “children”, and as “children” they are not considered to be responsible for their acts, and as “children” their behaviors are, necessarily, monitored, in order to prevent them from doing damage to themselves, other people, and Society in general.
And it would be damaging for a 14-year-old to be allowed to have sex with a 12-year-old. No matter how old their bodies may be, their minds are still pre-teen/young teen. And Society understands that, and makes provision to see that they don’t use those adult bodies for harm.
It’s not just a question of “grossing out the BIL”. It’s a question of “grossing out” Society in general, which perceives them as children, and which finds the idea of sex between children to be “gross”.
Look at it from a feminist POV, too: the WM wouldn’t understand the sex act, because pre-adolescents don’t. She would merely lie there passively and allow him to do her. Do you think that’s a Good Thing? Do you think she would come? How are you going to make sure she was enjoying herself, so that it wasn’t simply the Lawn Mower getting his rocks off, 50 pumps and a squirt, and then it’s done, and she can go tell everybody about her “boyfriend”? I don’t consider that even a “relationship”, let alone an adult sexual relationship.
When normally-functioning teenage girls have a relationship in which they put out for their boyfriends, but without receiving sexual pleasure themselves, we consider it abnormal. Why should Wistful Maiden be any different? Looks pretty one-sided to me. Unless you’re making sure that she’s getting an equivalent amount of sexual pleasure from the act, it looks to me like all she gets out of it is being able to brag about her “boyfriend” in a pre-adolescent sort of way, whereas Lawn Mower gets actual sexual release. Sounds like he’s being served the full meal, while she only gets to tell people she was sitting at the table.
Another question: have you personally ever interacted with, or been acquainted with a mentally handicapped person who was low-functioning enough that s/he was in an institutional environment such as Adult Foster Care? I’m not talking about the ones who are high-functioning enough that they have Independent Living apartments and bus passes, nor about the Down syndrome ones who still live at home with their families. I’m talking about the seriously mentally retarded adults who are in institutions.
Let’s take a step back and ask a basic question:
When should the State intervene in sexual relationships/marriage relationships between people?
An age limit (chronological) is set by most administrations. This can range from 12 up to 18 years of age- restricting sexual relations and marriage. This transfer to adult status is automatic unless we decide something different is happening.
Lessened competence in one or both parties will affect the right of the State to intervene.
Likelihood of abuse of position of power and authority may be an issue.
Other famililial relationship restrictions may be imposed- blood relationship (incest) (and other relationship closeness) familial proximity.
These seem to be the usual tests for state intervention.
Learning Disability/Mental Handicap/Retardation does not exist as a clear and operationally valid category for making any decision. The case should be decided as above for valued citizens.
It seems to me that the four criteria above are sufficient for making such decisions. The criteria should be applied to people identified as mentally impaired as for valued people.
The questions which should be asked are these:
What restrictions would be placed on a person in a valued group with the same characteristics.
Mental Age has no meaning and has largely been abandoned by the professions- it is quite possible to have a high IQ and very limited social skills and vice versa. Competence is what matters.
The question to ask is: What is the lowest level of competence that would restrict a valued person from marrying/engaging in sexual activity.
Assume that a valued member of society experiences a dementing illness and gradually loses competence. At what point should the state intervene and stop sexual activity or marriage.
If the person still understands the concept of marriage or the postive and negative outcomes of a sexual relationship, then I can imagine no State intervention in these matters. The point at which it would be assumed that the person was unfit to consent to marriage or sexual activity would be set at a very low level- retaining a very basic understanding of what was involved and its consequences. This is likely to be well below the comprehension of the average 18 16 14 12 and even 10 year old. I would argue that the state would not intervene until it could be shown that the person’s understanding of marriage/intercourse was so impaired that they might only retain the social and life skills of a very young child. We don’t go round stopping the confused elderly from exercising their sexual and marriage rights until impairment is severe.
I would argue that the same should be applied to people labeled as mentally handicapped. So long as they are able to have a very basic understanding of marriage/intercourse, there is no argument to stop this from happening except chronological age, abuse of authority or familial relationship.
So the test should be- is the person minimally competent to consent to intercourse/marriage. The burden of proof should be on care givers, family members or other concerned people to show clearly before a court of law that the person is so incompetent that no member of society would be permitted to engage in marriage/intercourse. The person concerned should be fully legally represented and also have an independent advocate.
We do not need special rules for people labeled as mentally handicapped- we need to treat them a citizens.
This is how it’s set up: the burden of proof is on mental health workers and social workers to establish the person’s mental competence. Caregivers and relatives, with or without lawyers, are not allowed any input; it’s solely in the jurisdiction of the mental health professionals.
That’s just how it works.
And once the mental health professionals have decided how high- or low-functioning a mentally handicapped person is, that’s the label they’ll carry around with them the rest of their lives. It’s not subject to appeal by caregivers, family members, or lawyers.
And once the mentally handicapped person has been officially labeled as so mentally handicapped that they need to be in the custody of the State, then that’s the way it is, and that, too, is not subject to appeal by caregivers, family, or lawyers.
There is wiggle room there, yes, for mentally handicapped people to contract marriages, but those are very high-functioning, the ones who have Independent Living apartments and real jobs, and that, too, is a decision handed down by the mental health professionals in the service of the State. That, too, is not subject to appeal by caregivers, family, or lawyers.
An ombudsman for the mentally handicapped person is a pretty idea, but in actual practice their “advocate” is their social worker, who can sometimes be surprisingly effective at getting freedoms for their clients. However, the final decision as to whether a mentally handicapped person is competent enough to live in an apartment, hold down a job at Kroger, or get married is made by mental health professionals.
And is not subject to appeal by caregivers, family, or lawyers.
“Mental Health” and “Social Services” rule. That’s the way it’s set up.
Hmm. The mental health professionals claimed my brother would be institutionalized, never be able to work, never read or write, etc. Thank God we never listened to them. Through our encouragement and his dogged determination he’s turned out better than most would have imagined. He lives in an apartment and as a matter of fact holds down a job at Kroger.
All too often the mentally handicapped underperform because they’re expected to underperform.
I understand your point. But I’m completely unconvinced that having the “mental age” of a 12 yo is the same as actually being a 12 yo child or as having the mindset of a 12 yo.
I disagree with this part. From your description, she was very willing. So, even if he had an orgasm and she didn’t, it wouldn’t be wrong. I assume she wouldn’t have spent her time watching him and trying to be with him if it had been a traumatic experience.
Nope, never. But I can’t perceive depriving two people of something they both want as being right. What kind of life is it if you’re deprived not only of sex, which, I’m pretty convinced is as strong an urge for them as it is for us (which isn’t the case of an actual child), but also of an emotionnal bond?
What happens if the girl gets pregnant? Or one of them catches a disease? What then?
That I disagree with. The threshold shouldn’t be the same for being in custody of the state and for engaging in a relationship.
One doesn’t need to be high fonctionning enough to say take care of a house or hold a regular job in order to be able to enjoy both sexuality and companionship. Like a previous poster, I think that an invidual should have to be extremely impaired to be denied these opportunities. And it doesn’t seem to be the case of the persons you’re refering to. They both seem to know pretty well what they want, and still from your description, they have a significant autonomy.
From the posts above, I gather that women are put on the pill. I assume that they’re also medically followed.
I don’t disagree with you about the current system inthe US (it is very different in England and Scotland where capacity is the key matter.)
You have not mentioned whether the system I propose- a very low level has to be reached before any rights can be removed, and this should be decided by a legal process with full representation for the person and with an independent advocate (not a mental health or social services worker). How would you feel about that system?
I would disagree with you about the level of social functioniong necessary to carry out a loving and sexual relationship (or at least its formal denial). Each case needs to be judged on the needs and wants of the individual concerned.
Carers (whether formal, voluntary or family) often wish to infantilize and de-humanize people with mental capacity problems ion order to avoid such difficult questions as sexuality, alcohol use, social behaviour etc… Steps taken to remove such freedoms need to be legally based and limited as they are an extreme threat to the civil rights of people with limited capacity.
I think that this is easier to carry out in Europe where there is a long history of according legal rights to people who would be considered minors in the US.
In the UK children of any age may make decisions about their own medical care if the professionals involved believe that the person has the capacity to understand the reality of the treatment proposed, the likely outcomes, and if the professionals involved believe that such treatment is in the best interests of the person. This is possibly difficult for someone from a more restrictive culture to comprehend, let alone accept. European cultures (continental more than British/Irish) are also more accepting of early sexual intercourse and less condemnatory of alcohol and drug experimentation. European views on criminal culpability allow considerably more latitude to young offenders than is usual in the USA.
Because of the above background it is probably easier for the issue of capacity to be used as the sole criteria for making these decisions.
That is not to say that residential homes in this country don’t regularly engage in questionable restrictions on sexual, alcohol and behaviour issues with people with mental problems- but this is not legally protected. If given effective advocacy, such institutional responses can be overcome within the framework of the law on capacity.
There’s more to the whole Mental Health professional evaluation process than simply measuring their IQ, or “intelligence”, and then announcing, “She’s the equivalent of a 12 year old”–it also involves emotional maturity, which includes such adult skills as the ability to predict possible consequences of one’s behavior. So when I say Wistful Maiden was 12 years old inside her head, I don’t mean merely that she had the intelligence of a 12-year-old, I mean very specifically that yes, she had the very definite mindset of a 12-year-old girl, with all the emotional baggage that that entails.
And this is what I was getting at, in asking you if you’d ever interacted with severely mentally handicapped people, not just had a few casual encounters with the “cute” Down syndrome people. Having a conversation with Wistful Maiden could be a rather disconcerting experience, in that you’d be standing there talking to this statuesque 29-year-old blonde–and what was coming out of her mouth was purest Pre-Teen Female Babble. And I’ve had two teens myself, so I know what Pre-Teen Babble sounds like. 
I mean, really, Clair, it’s nothing to do with arbitrary standards of IQ, this gal was basically twelve years old.
And everybody who had more than 30 seconds of conversation with her knew it, and it was a no-brainer for everyone, from her BIL on down, her caseworker, her Mental Health shrink, her home care provider, to decree that she wasn’t mature enough inside her head to really understand what Lawn Mower was wanting to do to her out in the tool shed, and to forbid her from ever being alone with him.
And that’s the essence of why sex with children is prohibited, isn’t it? It’s because they are judged not capable of truly understanding the sex act, of what’s being done to them. A normal 12-year-old girl, being molested out in the toolshed by her uncle, doesn’t have the ability to predict possible consequences of that behavior. She’s passive, immature, she goes along with it, and she may even enjoy the experience, in the sense of “it not hurting”. She may even come. But it’s not normal, and it doesn’t constitute a “relationship”. And where I come from, sex should be something that people who are at least “friends” do with each other, even if they don’t have a romantic “love” relationship, and the relationship of “friendship that includes sex”, i.e. a “fuck buddy”, IMO constitutes a complex adult relationship that a 12-year-old can’t understand, or be capable of.
???
Excuse me? Fifty years of Women’s Lib, of women finally learning that they don’t have to be mere passive receptacles for semen, that sex is supposed to feel good for them, too–all wasted? It’s okay with you if she just lies there and allows him to rut on her passive body, then? Fifty pumps and a squirt is okay with you?
So as long as it doesn’t hurt, it’s okay, then?
I see.
[speechless]
Even if what the Party of the First Part wants involves nothing more than the exploitation of the Party of the Second Part’s body, without the Party of the Second Part’s informed, adult consent? If a normal 12-year-old girl and her uncle announced that they wanted to have sex, would you consider depriving them of that to be “not right”?
This whole thing seems to stem from your reluctance to believe that Wistful Maiden had the true mindset of a 12-year-old. You seem to be considering that it’s just an IQ thing, that she flunked the IQ tests but was still able to handle a boyfriend relationship. But that’s not how the Mental Health screening process works, as I mentioned. And the screening process isn’t just a one-time exam, like taking your SATs. It starts when the baby is still an infant and the doctor and the parents begin to realize there’s something “not quite right” with it. And from that point on, various health professionals, teachers, social services professionals, all of them with their various tests, and of course family members, begin watching that child, observing her, and gradually over the course of years (in Wistful Maiden’s case, 29 years), a consensus is reached: she’s X number of years old inside her head. And its sorrowful corollary, “She’s never going to get any older, she’s never going to grow up.”
So that’s how we all knew that Wistful Maiden couldn’t handle a sexual relationship with Lawn Mower–not because she flunked an exam and a shrink arbitrarily decided for her that she couldn’t handle a sexual relationship, but because lots of people spent years observing her, and knew this about her, that she was about 12 years old inside her head.
And that 12-year-olds don’t have sex.
Well, let’s consider that “emotional bond”. Lawn Mower, like any other normally sexed male, wanted to have sex with any female that would let him. And inevitably, he probably was going to. So let’s suppose we let him and Wistful Maiden set up an ongoing sexual relationship, in which Wistful Maiden considers him her “boyfriend”. What’s going to happen when she finds out he’s been porking someone else? How is she going to feel about that? Remember, she’s only 12. She’s not going to have the adult resilience to handle that (indeed, grown women have problems handling that situation). Is it fair to set her up for that heartbreak?
Or, conversely, what happens when Lawn Mower finds out she’s been putting out for someone else? What happens to that “emotional bond” then?
And that’s assuming they even form an “emotional bond” in the first place. The emotional bond that teen males form with the girl they’re currently fucking hinges in a large part on future plans, or at least it should, i.e. “Where are we going with this relationship in the future?”–if it’s just “this is the girl I’m currently fucking”, then we consider that dysfunctional. We expect an emotional bond to form between two people who are in a sexual relationship, even if it’s nothing more than “fuck buddy”, but it’s not safe to assume that two severely mentally handicapped people are capable of even that degree of bonding.
Well, “shouldn’t” is different from “is”.
Well, they knew what the wanted in the sense that a 12-year-old girl wants a boyfriend, and is willing to put up with a bit of strange sticky fussing with her panties off in order to be able to say that, and in the sense that a 14-year-old boy wants to get his rocks off.
Look, if Lawn Mower and Wistful Maiden really had been “in love”, or “friends”, they had ample opportunity to explore that friendship in a non-sexual way. They lived in houses a few blocks from each other in a very small one-stoplight town, they weren’t locked up or being held prisoner. They were free to walk over and visit the folks in the other house any time. There were plenty of opportunities for conversation, if they wanted to be “friends”. They just weren’t allowed to be alone with each other–upstairs, or in the basement, or out in the toolshed. But this they did not do. They weren’t “friends”. They had no “relationship”.
And they weren’t high-functioning enough that they could figure out a way to carry out hidden rendezvous, which ought to tell you something about their mindsets and mental capabilities. If you were a teenager with a boyfriend in a house a few blocks away, wouldn’t you figure out a way to get over there and see him? Even a normal 14-year-old girl would be able to figure that one out. But Wistful Maiden never did. Typical of 12-year-olds, she stayed in the house, she stayed away from Lawn Mower’s house–because her home provider and her case worker told her to. She was respectful of authority, not rebellious, and she never pushed the edge of the envelope. It was Lawn Mower who tended to come over the house when he wasn’t mowing the lawn, hoping to persuade her to come outside. But she never defied the authority figures of her providers–which technically, legally, she could have done, as she was over 18–and went outside to him. Doesn’t that tell you something about her mindset, about what kind of “relationship” and “bonding” they had?
Are you asking me, Google-ly, or Clair, rhetorically?
If they caught a disease, of whatever kind, they’d simply be treated the same as with any other illness.
Which means Medicaid, and rock-bottom basic medical care down at whatever local medical practice takes the county’s Medicaid patients.
Generally as soon as the females become sexually mature, and the possibility of sexual activity with someone around them becomes evident, they are put on BC, and thus abortion doesn’t become an issue. Also, if there are family members who consent to it, the girl will have her tubes tied. I have a friend at church whose daughter is mentally and physically handicapped, permanently frozen at age 11 because of spinal cord trauma at birth, living at home (she’s now 22), and when she turned about 14 and suddenly developed an overt interest in the boys at the Shelter Care workship, her mom had her tubes tied. And it was a huge relief to her, too, being freed from the specter of raising a grandbaby as well as an eternally 11-year-old daughter.
Sounds splendid. On what planet do you propose to set it up?
Seriously, though, there isn’t enough money to pay the caseworkers we already have, and you’re talking about setting up a whole new agency, of advocates and lawyers, and there just isn’t money for that. You’re talking about revamping the entire system. Dream on.
Planet Britain- essentially the legal position here in law if not in practice. Any agency would, if challenged by an advocate, would have to show cause for their decision to remove any freedom from a client/resident. Of course, they maight decide to throw the person out of the home/institution because they could not cope with it, or they might go out of their way to avoid advocacy being given to the individual.
See:
The Current law in Britain:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042--b.htm#30
see especially sections 29-44
especially:
"30 Sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder impeding choice
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if-
(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,
(c) B is unable to refuse because of or for a reason related to a mental disorder, and
(d) A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that B has a mental disorder and that because of it or for a reason related to it B is likely to be unable to refuse.
(2) B is unable to refuse if-
(a) he lacks the capacity to choose whether to agree to the touching (whether because he lacks sufficient understanding of the nature or reasonably foreseeable consequences of what is being done, or for any other reason), or
(b) he is unable to communicate such a choice to A.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the touching involved-
(a) penetration of B's anus or vagina with a part of A's body or anything else,
(b) penetration of B's mouth with A's penis,
(c) penetration of A's anus or vagina with a part of B's body, or
(d) penetration of A's mouth with B's penis,
is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life."I’m going to ask to a friend who’s a child psychologist and somewhat familiar with these issues (one of her jobs involved deciding about the “fate” of mentally deficient young adults) what she thinks about this and how it works over here. I probable won’t post about it, though, since I don’t know when I’ll see her. Meanwhile, I bow out of this thread. Thanks for the input.
clairobscur. Because I’m pretty much on your side. I don’t believe that poor WM is capable of consenting. It’s sad, and we all wish she could have a fulfilling romantic relationship with LM, but it ain’t happenin’. And his “oh, well, then she’ll be treated…” is far too casual for me. The idea of a mentally handicapped woman, who will be 12 years old until she dies, dealing with herpes or the clap is simply too horrifying to me.