Man banned from having sex because his IQ is “too low”

A High Court judge has ruled that a man with an IQ of 48 is banned from having sex. Unbelievable. Is this a ruling from an interfering Nanny State or from an over-reaching Police State?

Known as Alan, the 41-year old has been banned from having sex with a man that he lived with. Alan was in a relationship with the man and stated that he wanted it to continue, however he is clearly too ‘stupid’ to be in control of his own life.

His local council stated that due to his moderate learning difficulty and low IQ of 48, the man clearly did not understand what he was doing. The council stated that his “vigorous sex drive” was inappropriate and started legal proceedings to restrict the relationship!

The High Court judge agreed that Alan does not have the mental capacity to know about the health risks and should be banned from having sex. Contact between the two men has also been restricted. His local council will now closely monitor him so he does not breach the ruling.

The story was reported in the Daily Mail, so take it with a pinch of salt or two, but regardless… ultimately low IQ is deemed a criminal offence in modern Britain and rulings will be brought against you if you continue to have a low IQ whilst engaging in sexual activities. A huge number of ethical and practical questions are thrown up by this case, among them the question of just how are they going to police this ban? How are they going to “closely monitor” him? Wasting police time to keep an eye on him and make sure he is celibate? Then there’s the question of ethics….

Perhaps they will enforce mandatory IQ tests up and down the country, to ensure that those with lower IQs are not engaging in sexual activities. Perhaps they should produce national ID cards for those who “pass” the test with a score above 50, and then only those with ID cards will be able to have sex. Or perhaps they should just “tag” people with lower IQs to “closely monitor” them…


One response to “Man banned from having sex because his IQ is “too low”

  1. an iq of 48 would mean you would have very servere learning difficulties and your article is very politically biased. this ruling is quite comprehendable to me its not about prosecuting stupid people but more rather defending vulnerable people although the entire situation is bizzare.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s