This is a tricky issue and a sad but interesting news story. In summary a man has been banned from having sex because the court ruled that he wasn’t intellectually capable of making a big decision such as consenting to sex. I can see where the logic originates, that’s one of several reasons why children are banned from having sex until they reach the age of 16. So the court is trying to protect Alan from getting diseases and even spreading STIs.
However there’s a lot of lingering doubts. Would the court have made the same decision if the man was having consensual sex with a woman? There’s even more room for big consequences there with the possibility of pregnancy. It also sounds like Alan isn’t sleeping with anyone and anything, just a man who he lives with which sounds like many normal relationships to me. Furthermore I’m dubious about him not understanding the health risks involved. To me it sounds like he understood that you could get diseases from having sex that you’d want to avoid. Measles being a simplistic understanding of sexual warts. Also goodness knows how banning someone from doing something that gives you pleasure and doesn’t directly harm anyone else is going to be less confusing than trying to educate someone with learning disabilities about STIs, pregnancy, etc.
All in all it’s an utterly confusing issue and must have been very difficult for the court to rule on.