Okay, I can concur with that.
The Wechlser scales, which are some of the most widely used ability measures, will yield FSIQ’s as low as 40. But not much is being measured by the test at this level.
Yes…and a lot of mentally retarded people have MAJOR social issues. They tend to have a very circumspect social life…but when they get attention from normal IQ people, they think it’s OK…There’s a book called Our Guys, about a gang rape in Glen Ridge NJ, where a bunch of Jocks gang raped a retarded girl (with a bat and broomstick) and she thought it was OK and that they were her friends!!!
Seems unfair to me.
Yeah, I know he’s like a “child” mentally and emotionally, but at least kids aren’t banned from having sex with each other. And they aren’t banned for life. This guy is being punished for being handicapped, the way I see it. And it seems doubly cruel since he IS handicapped. Perhaps having sex is one of the few things he can really enjoy…that makes him feel half-way normal. Maybe he doesn’t have anything else to look forward to in life. Cruel.
Having sex with a “normal” adult is creepy, I concede. But maybe the attention should be focused on the “normal” adult, not on the guy who has fewer options in sex partners.
He’s not only being denied sex, but he’s also under, as the article says, “close supervision” by the local authority that provides his accommodation. I take that to mean something like house arrest.
Of course, I don’t know all the facts, and there might well be something more to the story (in fact I’m betting there is for the court to have come to this conclusion), but I think it’s unfair, so far as the facts have been presented in that article.
An appeal against a judgment handed down by a High Court Judge is to theCourt of Appeal.
Missed edit window
The Order is Interim. It can also be taken back to the Court for variation.
Missed Edi Window.
His appeal lies to the Court of Appeal under Rule 181 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007.
The full court judgement is linked in this thread.
I wouldn’t call it punishing the handicapped man. I would call it protecting him. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn’t agree that this man was dealt a rotten hand, and as a result, he has to live a restrictive lifestyle through no fault of his own.
While it’s crummy that this might hold him back from having sex, what would you suggest? That they have a special program for mentally challenged people to get together and have sex?
I agree that the focus should be on the “normal” adult, in the sense that the normal adult presumably has a greater sense of self-awareness and appropriateness. But unless we have some sort of court ruling that officially deems his actions inappropriate, it’s hard to give the matter any more weight than simply frowning on the “normal” adult.
I think it might be appropriate to allow and adult of limited mental capacity to have sex with someone else, but the situation is fraught with pitfalls. I think it’s legitimate to ask if this man is being exploited or abused. I would prefer that he be allowed to live as normal a life as possible, including sex and relationships, but there may be no realistic way for that to happen without a high risk of harm.
Have I missed the reason that many posters in this thread are assuming this guy’s partner is not intellectually disabled himself?
Are you discounting the notion that even if the other person is disabled he might still be abusive or exploitative?
Because the article doesn’t mention it, so the assumption seems to swing opposite of what is most likely if any logic is applied to the situation.
No, I asked the question because so many people are running on about how the “normal” person must be exploiting Alan.
If the other party is abusive, why is he not the one who is being corrected? They both seem to live in care.
Whats the big deal, he is to use that charming old term; “a lunatic”. He does not possess sufficient mental capacity to properly undertake such action. We do not allow minors (or at least those under 16 in England and Wales) to partake in sexual activity for the same reason.
Mental Health cases are a long established exception to “consenting adults”, since they are adults in name only and consenting questionably.
After reading the ruling, it seems to me that “Kieron” wasn’t a normal adult, since their relation began after they began to share the same accomodation provided by the same authority. So, in all likelihood, “Kieron” suffers too from mental retardation.
It is also mentionned that a third adult was involved, but no detail is provided.
It’s also mentioned that the guy has already had sexual relations with various individuals, male and female. Including mutual masturbation, oral sex given and received, anal sex given and received. Everything apparently apart from full intercourse with a woman.
There’s no clear statement about why this particular relation with Kieron led the council to be alarmed about the man’s sexual life. In fact it seems that the issue arose when the mentally deficient guy began to have improper behavior in public, in particular in relation with children. So, my best guess is that people in charge of him thought that his too active sexual life (in particular with his roomate Kieron) was leading him to those improper behaviors.
I too feels it’s unfair. Even though he’s said to have the IQ of a six year old, I don’t believe he can be equated, sexually or even emotionnally with an actual 6 yo child.
Besides, one of the arguments given is that he has essentially no clue about sexuality (as in the example of the storks delivering babies). However, apparently, he had already been placed under close supervision and denied sexual relationships before this judgment. And since he still is clueless, it seems that zero efforts were made previously to educate him about sex, and someone (or several people) decided he just shoudln’t have sex, because of whatever problem real or perceived. Maybe they had good reasons for it, but I’m left wondering why he wasn’t, first thing, given some sex education (and/or some education about behavior, like the fact that children are off-limit)
My perception of the whole issue is that people in charge thought “This guy has too much sex drive and is going to do something very wrong someday. Let’s not even try to educate him but rather let’s make sure he doesn’t have any sex at all so that hopefully he will become asexual or something”. Of course, this opinion might be very unfair wrt the actions of the caregivers involved, since we don’t have enough informations.
Except that they are, of course. Or at least they are in England and Wales, which is the relevant jurisdiction in this case.
But “normal” children grow up.
No, the term you want is “idiot”. A “lunatic” would be (for example) someone who suffers from schizophrenia.
^
I stand corrected, though IIRC legally bought would have been under the Lunacy Act (now known as the Mental Health Acts).
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
I too feels it’s unfair. Even though he’s said to have the IQ of a six year old, I don’t believe he can be equated, sexually or even emotionnally with an actual 6 yo child.
[/QUOTE]
Disagree. He was touching and making lewd comments at young chidlren, something six years olds do not generally do.
There’s no evidence of lewd comments, nor do we have any understanding of what the touching was about. The presumption is, that because he is chronologically an adult who has had sexual contact with other adults that his contact with the girls on the bus (the only reported touching) was sexual as well. But that’s presuming facts not in evidence; his intent toward the girls could easily have been wholly innocent.
Considering the lack of sexual education he’s been given, it shouldn’t be surprising that he’s also never been taught about appropriate behavior with strangers, especially children. And given the British panic over paedophiles and the general thought that people with mental disabilities are dangerous, it’s not surprising that what he did started a furor. It’s just not sensible that the response to potentially non-sexual touch of children (in a public place, in full view of many witnesses, upping the likelihood of lack of sexual intent, IMO) is to say that he can’t have sexual contact with his adult partner.