| Paradoxically,
although the present laws are designed to protect mentally retarded people from sexual
coercion, such Laws may also indirectly effect the legitimacy of sex" expression. For
example, the absence of sex education often precludes mentally retarded individuals from
demonstrating competency to give consent, especially the ability to convey
"understanding of the sex act, its nature, and its possible
consequences" (Nielton & Scott, 1984). Therefore, caretakers are sometimes
reluctant to permit sexual access for mentally retarded individuals because of the
potential legal complications resulting from the absence of competency (i.e., developments
relating to pregnancy, abortion, sexual viaimization). Obviously, this was not the intent
of legal consent. What alternatives exist to permit sex expression for mentally retarded
people without compromising protections against sexual abuse? Conversely can a mentally |
|
retarded individual
be denied the freedom of sexual expression because of potential complications? The
propriety of sexual expression for mentally retarded individuals is obviously a
problematic area (Burgdorf, 1980; Kindred, Cohen, Penrod, & Schaeffer, 1976),
complicated by longstanding prejudice (Braginsky & Braginsk@, 1971; Gould, 1984).
Furthermore, the sexual arena, in general, is a legal morass (Richards, 1982). Finally,
administrative policy for mentally retarded people has been limited to isolated structural
features (i.e., consent) relevant to sex abuse, without reference to the broader ethical
and psychological implications of sexual expression (Hall, 1974; Nielton & Scott,
1984). Consequently, our purpose in the present paper is to provide an overview of the
relevant psychological literature and case and sexual law that supports the legitimacy of
sexual expression without compromising protection from sexual abuse. |
