What I DO dispute is this heavy implication that it's required for life to be worthwhile, that anyone not getting regular healthy sex is leading a miserable existence, and anyone VOLUNTARILY doing without it is warped and maladjusted to boot. People with healthy sex lives will almost without exception be happier and have less stress than people without them. Stress weakens the immune system, and a happy healthy sex life is usually conducive to a will to live and general happiness. That does NOT mean that lacking a healthy sex life, especially voluntarily, is some kind of cruel and unusual punishment. When you call sex a "fundamental human right" you're equating it to things necessary for bare survival--not greater happiness and marginally longer life spans, but mere existence. If you were simply being hyperbolic, that's fine, but it didn't seem like you were exagerrating to illustrate a point, rather that you were being literal, and I can't agree that there's a fundamental human right to sex. Again, if that's the case then every vice squad on the planet is guilty of crimes against humanity for denying consenting adults access to safe (and lucrative) sex that would make them all happier and healthier.

Meanwhile, we're not talking about sex in general: What does WebMD (are there no JAMA or Lancet studies on the subject...? ) have to say about how much "Sexual activity has been conclusively linked with increased health and stronger relationships" for people with STDs, particularly the lethal variety represented by HIV and AIDS? I haven't checked, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say they haven't shown a link between having sex with HIV positive people (with or without condoms) and increased health or stronger relationships. If they're saying sex with HIV positive people is perfectly safe, is even healthier than abstinence, I dare say they're guilty of negligence (at the very least).