The government control (or lack thereof) over sexual behaviour

"The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" is a rather well-known statement by Pierre Trudeau back in the 1960s. That statement came back to mind today upon reading a story in the Calgary Herald entitled Judge bans sex for man with low IQ.

It's a British case, but it quickly brought to mind some of the Canadian associations with the eugenics movement that most Canadians now probably want to forget. However, the story does make clear that that this is a homosexual relationship that the judge appears to have banned (and one which appears to have involved only a single partner). The judge's reason:

... the man, known only as Alan, should not be allowed to have intercourse with anyone on the grounds that he did not have the mental capacity to understand the health risks associated with his actions.

The article goes on to note that:

It is the latest controversial case to come before Britain's Court of Protection. Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, its judges have the power to make life-or-death decisions for people deemed to lack the intelligence to make them for themselves - such as ordering that they undergo surgery, have forced abortions, have life-support switched off or be forced to use contraception.

Thus is does appear that behaviours typically associated with the eugenics movement (forced abortions, enforced contraception) may at times be coerced - although in this specific case we're talking about a slightly different angle.

It also made me wonder how consistent this is with the attitudes that most Western governments have towards teenage sexuality. If the argument goes that kids are going to end up doing it even if they're restricted, then why should the judge expect that a ban of this sort be effective - i.e. why won't this guy just do it anyways? Similarly, if he's unable to consent, why not apply the same logic to kids?