[NB_ide]

Though it varies from place to place, there is usually some concept of the age of consent [to sexual activity], below which a person is not allowed to touch other people (or be touched) in certain places, in certain ways, in most circumstances.

This is because we consider that people of this young age are, compared to the average adult person or the person they may grow up to be, prone to making very different decisions and understanding differently the consequences of their actions.

Now, it's completely impractical to treat everyone individually in this case so we just set an age threshold and that's that. Just like we do for lots of other things - we have generalise according to age to estimate what an individual will be like. We're no longer allowed to generalise according to a number of other important personal qualities such as gender, but for now age is OK to talk about.

Now, I don't know about you but I have met plenty of grown adults who are thick as pig ****, and a good few 12-16 year olds, say, who are really switched on and with it. Surely if we forbid certain activities to younguns because they're basically still too stupid to understand them like an adult does, shouldn't we forbid them to adults who are as stupid as the average sub-16 year old?

If there's a 25 year old woman who has a very low IQ and gets along fine in life like most of us do, but just is basically thick and not as smart as the average 15 year old girl (quite plausible), then isn't it just as wrong for a man to **** her as a 15 year old? Would he be "taking advantage of her" and should he be punished?

How can we deal with this? I think it's a pressing issue, actually, and we should basically ban people with an IQ under some threshold from engaging in sexual activity or doing many other things children aren't allowed to, for example entering into legal contracts and so forth. It would be for their own protection.

This is quite a novel suggestion so I expect most of you will object to it immediately - but do explain why. There may well be something I haven't thought of.

[Zhy]

69

[gmseahorse]

Unfortunately this borders on eugenics, ie thick people shouldn't be able to breed. Also how on earth are you proposing to police the issue, police barging into bedrooms of those to thick to have sex.

[avupa]

tl;dr

You not getting any pussy nerd?

[Schemilix]

Well from an objective standpoint IQ isn't always indicative as there are multiple forms of intelligences and the test itself isn't infallible. Not to mention that it indeed borders on eugenics, and would lead to already strained police having to police it even more than underaged nonsense. Very few people are so thick they're not self-aware and developed; we all change throughout our lives but the age limit is also a physical thing, in case of accident.

[BusinessJ]

Infringement of human rights really.

I personally don't think age of consent is about intelligence, more about maturity and more importantly life experience.

A stupid 25 year old will have experienced enough of life and know enough to make her own decisions.
A clever 15 year old, in all honesty, will possibly even think themselves above the rules due to said intelligence despite lacking knowledge of the effects this can have on later life.

[markrush]

Why just this? Throw in the the right to reproduce, vote or hold a position of genuine power?

As much as this pains me to say. We need to let everyone have equal rights...even if it does dilute the gene pool

[TheHansa]

Being a genius doesn't make a person physically or emotionally ready for secs.

[Stacy93]

Whatcha saying dude?
Ya can't allow other folks to mate unless they pass your idea of smart euough?
Sounds a lot like eugenics! A guy named Adolf thought that was a good idea 'bout eighty years, or so, ago!
Not been many people since then given much credable tought to it since. Maybe there's a reason for that?

[NB_ide]

(Original post by Stacy93)
Whatcha saying dude?
Ya can't allow other folks to mate unless they pass your idea of smart euough?
Sounds a lot like eugenics! A guy named Adolf thought that was a good idea 'bout eighty years, or so, ago!
Not been many people since then given much credable tought to it since. Maybe there's a reason for that?

Because it's essential to the morale of our country after a devastating war which crippled us and ended our position as a world power that we condemn and mark as evil everything our opponents stood for even though before the war everyone had pretty similar ideas?

[BusinessJ]

(Original post by Stacy93)
Whatcha saying dude?
Ya can't allow other folks to mate unless they pass your idea of smart euough?
Sounds a lot like eugenics! A guy named Adolf thought that was a good idea 'bout eighty years, or so, ago!
Not been many people since then given much credable tought to it since. Maybe there's a reason for that?

Because people instantly attribute it to Adolf and think that since he was bad this must be bad.

Not saying that I think it will ever work, or even should happen - but you can't dismiss it just because someone you don't like agrees with it.

[karateworm]

You must have a very odd life OP, I don't envy you.

[isitinyet?]

a 15 year old girl isn't some mindless sex zombie walking around wiling to **** anything just because she's below the legal age. Also, i don't see the point of banning stupid people from having sex? I bet this sounded like a good idea in your head...

[Hopple]

(Original post by NB_ide)
Though it varies from place to place, there is usually some concept of the age of consent [to sexual activity], below which a person is not allowed to touch other people (or be touched) in certain places, in certain ways, in most circumstances.

This is because we consider that people of this young age are, compared to the average adult person or the person they may grow up to be, prone to making very different decisions and understanding differently the consequences of their actions.

Now, it's completely impractical to treat everyone individually in this case so we just set an age threshold and that's that. Just like we do for lots of other things - we have generalise according to age to estimate what an individual will be like. We're no longer allowed to generalise according to a number of other important personal qualities such as gender, but for now age is OK to talk about.

Now, I don't know about you but I have met plenty of grown adults who are thick as pig ****, and a good few 12-16 year olds, say, who are really switched on and with it. Surely if we forbid certain activities to younguns because they're basically still too stupid to understand them like an adult does, shouldn't we forbid them to adults who are as stupid as the average sub-16 year old?

If there's a 25 year old woman who has a very low IQ and gets along fine in life like most of us do, but just is basically thick and not as smart as the average 15 year old girl (quite plausible), then isn't it just as wrong for a man to **** her as a 15 year old? Would he be "taking advantage of her" and should he be punished?

How can we deal with this? I think it's a pressing issue, actually, and we should basically ban people with an IQ under some threshold from engaging in sexual activity or doing many other things children aren't allowed to, for example entering into legal contracts and so forth. It would be for their own protection.

This is quite a novel suggestion so I expect most of you will object to it immediately - but do explain why. There may well be something I haven't thought of.

There should be two tests. One is a theoretical one where you have to know what goes where, how to be safe, some laws etc. The second is a practical one where you are placed naked in a room alone with an attractive member of the sex you have the hots for, and you have to talk with them about sex. The theoretical test can be passed with a certain number of correct answers, and the practical requires you to keep your brain from melting.

[Jennie027]

So what you're saying is basically people who don't meet a certain IQ shouldn't have a sex life? I, for one, disagree. Not because I'm stupid but a healthy sex life, for a fully consenting, physically and emotionally ready adult, is part of being healthy. Also, you're saying that 12 year olds should be able to have a sex life if they meet a certain IQ? They're children, it's perverse!
Also, you don't take into account people who have some sort of disability or problem which may affect their IQ but they may be completely competent in other areas. I don't think anyone has a right to state what adult individuals can and cannot have a relationship - because basically that's what you're trying to ban them from having, seeing as sex is a part of that. You'd also be denying them children and a future in a way. You need contracts etc for mortgages and many other things! Then where would the line be cut for jobs "I see you don't have the standard IQ, you're obviously not capable for this job." Are these people just supposed to die out because they're 'stupid.'
You also state that this 25 year old woman "gets along fine in life like most of us do" so why deny her of things most people do because she's not smart. I don't think he'd be taking advantage of her, she'd of had enough experiences to make her own mind up.
Not to mention the IQ test itself - it's not totally infallible. It would be hard to control these people not deemed 'worthy' as well.

[SilverArch]

IQ intelligence is one thing, emotional intelligence is quite another....and responsible sexual activity usually requires the latter. How do you measure that?

And no to your suggestion, I don't support eugenics. And IQ tests are not some be all end all infallible measure of intelligence

[avupa]

You're supposing that IQ measures for anything other then your ability to see specific sets of patterns (which is linked a little to your capability to process information). You could probably program a computer these days to do the questions on some of the tests if you know what type of questions will be asked.

You saying that that the program has more right to shag someone else if it managed to get higher then lets say 120 (higher then a good deal of the functioning populace)?

Humans are more complex then that. They are able to grasp simple concepts like 'sexually transmitted disease' pretty well by the time they are 16. Sex and knowing the dangers of being a slut is not the most complex thing in the world. You don't really need a degree for that.

You're just sticking your head where it doesn't belong to feel better about yourself, and to think you're some deep intellectual. ****ing lefties who want to use the government to control everything to suit your faggoted ideas ~ opinions ~ of what the world should look like.

Know your place and mind your own business. Fagbat.

[Muffled Snuffles]

(Original post by avupa)
****ing lefties who want to use the government to control everything to suit your faggoted ideas of what the world should look like.

It's almost as bad as the people who throw buzzwords such as 'lefties' into every random conversation they come across. It signals the time has come for a new Godwin's Law.

[avupa]

(Original post by Muffled Snuffles)
It's almost as bad as the people who throw buzzwords such as 'lefties' into every random conversation they come across. It signals the time has come for a new Godwin's Law.

It's the truth though. These are the type of people who think they know it all, they see a problem and they come up with a 'solution'.

Then of course, they can't implement it practically, so instead they go to the government to implement that solution because they believe they are the saviours of human kind.

Forgetting that real life is not like the mind, where the assumptions don't always hold, and more importantly, a lot more **** is going on. Which leads to unintended consequences. And not to mention whether it's practical or not and the opportunity costs and so on.

You people should all just mind your own business. Maybe play a video game or something, if you really must feel as if you're doing something.

[NB_ide]

[QUOTE=Jennie027;36902409]So what you're saying is basically people who don't meet a certain IQ shouldn't have a sex life?[quote]

basically.

I, for one, disagree.

Oh?

Not because I'm stupid but a healthy sex life, for a fully consenting, physically and emotionally ready adult, is part of being healthy.

Well I am talking about adults who are NOT emotionally ready, aren't I. Furthermore "consent" is a legal term so is not relevant here, since I propose that consent be immaterial when given from someone who is not very clever, just like consent from a drunk woman doesn't count, or consent from a child.

Also, you're saying that 12 year olds should be able to have a sex life if they meet a certain IQ?

I'm pretty sure I'm not saying that.

They're children, it's perverse!

!!!

Also, you don't take into account people who have some sort of disability or problem which may affect their IQ but they may be completely competent in other areas.

It's complex, I don't know how we'd work it but the principle is that some adults are not fit to consent to sex and shouldn't be getting involved with it.

I don't think anyone has a right to state what adult individuals can and cannot have a relationship - because basically that's what you're trying to ban them from having, seeing as sex is a part of that. You'd also be denying them children and a future in a way. You need contracts etc for mortgages and many other things! Then where would the line be cut for jobs "I see you don't have the standard IQ, you're obviously not capable for this job." Are these people just supposed to die out because they're 'stupid.'

They get low-level jobs that require, indeed demand, limited brain power.

You also state that this 25 year old woman "gets along fine in life like most of us do" so why deny her of things most people do because she's not smart. I don't think he'd be taking advantage of her, she'd of had enough experiences to make her own mind up.

So what about the first experiences she had? At some point she'd have had no experience, and that first person surely was wrong to do anything with her?

Not to mention the IQ test itself - it's not totally infallible. It would be hard to control these people not deemed 'worthy' as well.

(Original post by SilverArch)
IQ intelligence is one thing, emotional intelligence is quite another....and responsible sexual activity usually requires the latter. How do you measure that?

And no to your suggestion, I don't support eugenics. And IQ tests are not some be all end all infallible measure of intelligence

(Original post by avupa)
You're supposing that IQ measures for anything other then your ability to see specific sets of patterns (which is linked a little to your capability to process information). You could probably program a computer these days to do the questions on some of the tests if you know what type of questions will be asked.

You saying that that the program has more right to shag someone else if it managed to get higher then lets say 120 (higher then a good deal of the functioning populace)?

Humans are more complex then that. They are able to grasp simple concepts like 'sexually transmitted disease' pretty well by the time they are 16. Sex and knowing the dangers of being a slut is not the most complex thing in the world. You don't really need a degree for that.

You're just sticking your head where it doesn't belong to feel better about yourself, and to think you're some deep intellectual. ****ing lefties who want to use the government to control everything to suit your faggoted ideas ~ opinions ~ of what the world should look like.

Know your place and mind your own business. Fagbat.

Yea it would be tricky to implement but I'm sure we could come up with some way to judge an adult's suitability for it. We already only grant certain powers to people who are deemed physically and/or psychologically fit for it (e.g. holding certain jobs, having positions of power, owning weapons, etc.)