Part of me thinks this is entirely sensible.

A social worker has been jailed for having an affair
with a married woman who was suffering from post-natal depression, even
though she consented to sex.

Christopher Bradford, 41, took advantage of his 31-year-old client during weekly counselling sessions, a court heard yesterday.

Betrayal of trust, violation of professional duties, taking advantage of the vulnerable….yes. And yet, there’s both a nagging worrying part and also a chance for a cheapish joke. The actual wording of the offense is:

…admitted a charge of "engaging in sexual activity with a mentally-disordered female".

Just how mentally disordered does she have to be for it to be a crime? There are those like me where any woman willing to engage in producing the two backed beast is showing prima facie evidence of mental disorder. As I say, I can understand the point that she was delivered to him for treatment, and not treatment of a Prescottian cocktail sausage kind, but isn’t that offense a little widely defined?