Spot on. One's sexual identity (whatever it may be) is so much a part of one's human identity, that to deny it is a denial of human rights. Everyone should have the right to express their sexual identity - provided such expression does not infringe the rights of others.

The analogy with freedom of speech is a good one. I congratulate the author for striking just the right balance here. Complete freedom of the ability to espress one's sexual identity coupled with the notion of informed free choice to participate in that expression (with another) is what matters.

That pretty much rules out paedophilia/under age and bestiality (as it should) and allows virtually everything else. Not sure what it suggests about incest though which I have a little trouble with regarding as ok?

Anton Chekov said there were only two human rights: the right not to be treated violently and the right not to be lied to. All the others are human needs.

It does not seem to me that Chekov's two rights carry any legal weight at all. The two most violent places on Earth are the home and the school yard. And we are lied to every minute of the day by people holding positions of responsibility.

These two human rights are too hard to confront. So instead we confront human needs. It's easier.

On the SBS site I read a comment from someone asking what attitude people would take to someone offering sexual services to disabled women. Plenty of issues to digest there.

I suspect as long as sex is offered as a financially compensated industry, there will be workers who engage in sex not by free choice but by necessity. I am listening right now to the OC Smith soul classic "Son of Hickory Holler's Tramp" - a great song that makes me cry - on youtube. A big hit in 1968, it is still the best version and beats the subsequent country and western versions by Kenny Rogers and others.

I'm not judging the industry, but couldn't the "right" to have sex without love be exercised through mutually-consenting voluntary agreement between two individuals with similar levels of need? Disabilities need not be a barrier to sex - we just have to drop our prejudices and allow all people the freedom to do what comes naturally.

Dear Caroline,

I think there is quite a sizeable gap between the work - and the agency - of someone like Rachel and women engaged in sex work who are "poor, abused, racially oppressed, drug-addicted, or under the control of pimps" and, for that matter, trafficked. I also think there is a sizeable gap between a "sense of sexual entitlement" and the much more humble desire for intimate human contact.

Power imbalance cannot just be seen through a gendered lens. It is not necessarily so that because Rachel is a woman and her clients are men that there is a sinister form of exploitation occurring here, either between them or because of what the market for her services suggests. If anything, it seems Rachel is in a place of power: physically, socially, sexually. Thankfully it also seems that she wields that power with tenderness and respect.

I DO think Rachel is could be seen as a kind of support worker, helping her clients to express themselves in ways more able human beings do as part of the normal course of their lives. You said that our middle class sensibilities encourage us to characterise her work this way. I actually think our middle class sensibilities are more likely to encourage us to try and fit the challenging uncomfortableness of disabled people's sexuality into conceptual boxes we already have, such as that of women's exploitation. I don't think it fits in that box.

Perhaps because I no longer mix with academics that I am having trouble understanding what this article is about. Maybe Lauren is suggesting that public money should be spent on providing prostitutes for disabled people. Please Lauren clarify. It seems that she is working on the assumption that disabled people are the only citizens not experiencing the 'human right' to enjoy sharing sexual activity with another person but when it comes to sex being ugly or poor could easily be considered the equivalent of a disability.
Overall it is a crazy idea. Imagine the legal mine-field of sex with an intellectually impaired person, just for starters. It is already absurdly difficult for competent adults.
Recently i read an article about an 80 year old man on trial for allegedly raping his wife 50 years ago and soon after I read another about a woman being ordered to pay compensation by her husband for not living up to his conjugal responsibilities. The entire area of sexuality has become too difficult, dangerous, and unpredictable which is why masturbation is the predominant form of sexual expression in our modern society. Females have their vibrators and males have the internet. That is the reality and I'll never forget the liberating feeling when a good-looking, intelligent woman I'd been out to dinner with suggested a stay the night and for the first time I had the good sense to go home and have a wank instead.
Importantly most of the contributors express the sexist assumption that all sex workers are female. Consider the desperate homeless boys (eg. at the wall in darlinghurst) who have to sell themselves to survive.

It's an awful idea. What she is suggesting is that for people who can't find a willing sexual partner the government should use coercion to recruit people for the task. But why stop there? If we really are serious about human rights and we want to guarantee sex as welll as elliminate the possibility of people being coerced into sex then how about we make all human desires a right that have to be provided by the tax payers. That would put an end to survival sex and it would put the burden of providing sex as a right on the entire population instead of just on the backs of the poor and disadvantaged.

by choice or not by choice - people should have laws that protect them and not against them. The argument for criminalizing clients makes absolutely no sense in terms of taking money away from what people are calling "poor" and desperate women (how is THIS going to HELP exactly??) and also making the interaction illegal and difficult. Trying to stop others from doing what you don't want them to do is not going to work. It's going to bring more violence against women. Why don't the radical feminist actually focus on the real issues before further oppressing marginalized groups?? Perhaps working on lowering education costs for everyone, having laws against lower wages for women for the same position, e.t.c.. will have GREATER EFFECT and outcome rather than obsessing on other people's sexuality , ideology and opinion with debatable research supporting it. I find it rather CREEPY and disgusting that white older proff. at Uni are researching heterosexual Asian sex workers in the name of SAVING THEM.