Men have more sexual desire than women, therefore there is a male 'sex deficit'. Why put it that way, I wonder? Is it because stating there is a 'deficit' tends to suggest you should do something about it, that it must be made up?
In fact, if you read the whole report - surprise! the headline is not what it says. It says that the sex industry should be completely decriminalised because there is a permanent male sex deficit which means that there will always be a sex industry to cater for it, and that decriminalisation is likely better for women as they can choose how to work within the sex industry if not being criminalised for e.g. working in brothels, and that the evidence for relationships to crime is poor but appears to lean towards less sexually violent crime with greater availability of prostitutes, because rape does have a relationship to sex and is not purely about power as in more usual feminist analysis.
The whole is dressed up with lots of phrases from Hakim's previous work and ideas, and liberally coated with references to, erm, Super Freakonomics (to be fair, she does refer to other more academic texts, and not only the ones she has written). Hey presto, a discussion paper that can have a pair of sexy time woman legs on the front and gets splashed in every media outlet.
BTW I don't agree with most of what she says, I think it's pretty crap. But it's not what the IEA press office is presenting it as, either.