There must be more to this than The Mail reports.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354025...w-IQ-having-sex.html

Extraordinary story!

George Orwell will be spinning in his grave.

The Judge seemed quite sensibly in his comments but still 'banned' him from having sex.

It is the moat bizarre tale and although I cringe reading of other's sex lives, I'd like to know more about this from a legal angle.

Perhaps the man is under some kind of social services care order, and conditions can be added or taken away from that in order to look after his health: I don't know. But wouldn't it be better to make some efforts to educate him about a healthy sex life, rather than impose a blanket ban on sex? What is reported seems too paternalistic.

Perhaps the concern is that the man's partner may be "taking advantage" of someone with a very low intellectual level. So should we ban all thickies from having sex? Or what about banning the very intelligent from having sex with people of average IQ? Incidentally, JK's level of intelligence is often complained about by his false accusers, as if it were some kind of black magic he uses to take possession of peoples minds: a convenient fantasy, because it shrugs off responsibility for their own actions onto someone else.

Returning to this case, I'll have to refer to J S Mill again, who writes that the only justification for restricting the freedom of someone is if his actions cause harm to another. So if the rationale for the sex ban is that it prevents the subject from harming himself, then I think that is inadequate, because we should only be restricted from harming others. It may seem a very nice point, but it's one that I think should be defended. If the principle is conceded, we then find ourselves at the top of a slippery slope where all sorts of things can be imposed directly upon us for our own good.