Emotion Definition Essay On Freedom

Back to Dmytro Taranovsky's home page.
Author: Dmytro Taranovsky
Date: 2007-2012
Last Modified: July 10, 2012
(Last Small Change: September 17, 2015)

An Essay about Sex

Sex is a fascinating subject because of the strong feelings involved, because of its potential for pleasure, and because of the deeply held cultural beliefs surrounding sex. In this essay, I explain the nature of sexual feelings, discuss morality of sexual behavior, discuss what should and should not be legal, and explain some of the current cultural views on sex. Technical details of sexual interactions are unnecessary for a general discussion of morality and are not discussed here.

List of Sections:The Nature of Sexual Feelings, Sex in an Ideal Society, Sex and the Law, Morality and Sex, Cultural Beliefs about Sex, Sex versus Drugs, Sex and Fundamental Rights

The Nature of Sexual Feelings

Sexual feelings are defined as feelings with a very strong localized physical pleasure component, or feelings that are closely connected/associated with such feelings. Evolutionary, sexual feelings are closely connected with reproduction; however, the connection is not ordinarily a part of the feeling. Sexual feelings are closely connected towards love and attraction, but these are not necessary for feelings to be sexual. As with all feelings, the essence and identity of sexual feelings lies in the understanding and perception of the feelings. As such, sexual pleasure cannot exist without an appropriate mental context. For example, otherwise pleasant feelings may be not truly enjoyable when the sex is coerced, and the victim may be confused over whether he or she enjoyed the encounter. It is also possible for a victim to enjoy the physical feelings, yet suffer much more from the emotional distress.

Sexual conduct refers to conduct with a sufficient nexus to sexual feelings. Throughout this essay, sex will be used to mean touching with intense sexual feelings, especially touching by another person. This differs somewhat from the standard usage. In particular masturbation, especially mutual masturbation, is treated as a type of sex. The term "sexual intercourse" is used in the conventional way.

As the definition suggests, sexual feelings are not special. The primary difference between sexual and non-sexual feelings is cultural, and the primary non-cultural difference is in the magnitude of the feelings. Consequently, the correct morality for sex is similar to morality for ordinary non-sexual massage. Although sexual feelings may be very strong, sexual behavior can quickly become a normal part of life, with the person's personality largely undisturbed.

Sexual feelings are likely to be stronger when equivalent stimulation is done by another person rather than oneself because with stimulation by another person, you lack a mental preimage of the feelings. Feelings are likely to be stronger when having sex first time (assuming that the physical behavior is equivalent to subsequent times) because of lack of mental constructs to deal with the feelings, and similarly for particular sexual behaviors/situations.

Physical feelings from comparable physical contact tend to be stronger in children partly because to some extent the strength of feelings is relative to other feelings experienced, and partly because of a reduced capacity to internalize feelings into routine mental constructs. (However, biological changes such as puberty may make analogous stimulation incomparable.)

The strength of sexual feelings can create a temporary mental state of altered reality. Basic properties of objects such as shape and color will be remain the same, but the perception will be different, the sexual experience will be the dominant feeling, and the physical world may appear less real.

Physical risks of sexual behaviors are not discussed here. The reader is encouraged to learn about the risks elsewhere, especially if the reader is planning on having sex. Here, it suffices to note that strong sexual feelings and interactions are often physically safe.

Most people in most situations sexually prefer a person of opposite sex. (By contrast, on average people tend to socialize with people of the same sex.) However, it is not possible for one to be sexually attracted to just males or to just females. Sexual orientation is a matter of degree, and your primary sexual orientation does not extend to all possible situations.

On an abstract level, homosexuality has the benefits of equality and inclusiveness. Specifically, in homosexual sex, (when desired) one partner can have approximately the same physical experience as the other. Furthermore, mutual attraction is possible even if there are more than two people. However, there are practical advantages to heterosexuality, such as are diversity (having two types of bodies may provide richer experience), certain biological adaptations, commonness of partners, cultural acceptance, and possibility of procreation.

Sexual feelings are on average pleasurable, but even then, they are not just pleasure. Sexual feelings contain other components and may even include significant pain.

Sexual urges are sexual feelings with a significant desire/suffering component: desire for sexual feelings, and suffering from lack of these sexual feelings. Sexual urges can be satisfied by creating these sexual feelings, usually through some type of genital massage (such as masturbation or sexual intercourse). Sexual urges are generally caused by sex-related thoughts and feelings and can be quite strong. For many people, sexual urges occur quite frequently. Although sexual urges involve suffering or something closely related to suffering, they may have pleasurable aspects as well.
Suffering is necessary for pleasure to exist, and sexual pleasure is not an exception. When done in moderation, unfulfilled sexual desire and sexual abstinence can increase sexual pleasure.

Sex in an Ideal Society

Eventually, technological advances may make human biology irrelevant, but until then, sex as we know it will play an important role. Here is my vision of its role. The role represents both freedom and restraint.

On the one hand, sex is practiced openly, publicly, and casually. Sex is guilt-free. Most people are not shy about soliciting strangers for sex. Exchange of sex for money or favors is generally accepted. The right of everyone to have sex is respected both by law and private parties. Among other things, parents do not prevent children from having sex. A spouse does not get mad when the husband or wife has some casual extramarital sex. Sexual images are uncensored.

On the other hand, a majority are in (mostly) monogamous relationships. The family as we know it continues to be important. Sex is practiced in moderation, with people confident in declining it. The right to privacy and individual objections to sex and even (to a reasonable extent) sexual images are respected. Generally, no money is exchanged for sex--sex is generally enjoyable to both/all participants.

While humans will eventually transcend biological bodies, sex-like experiences will likely remain because of their emotional value. Future technology will overcome the limitations of wrong gender and of physical ugliness that currently prevent people from enjoying sex with each other.

Sex and the Law

This section discusses the correct legal system for dealing with sex.

Consent to Sex

Sexual behavior should be legal when it is safe and consensual. For legal consent, it suffices that all of the following are met
  1. The conduct has no unacceptable physical risks (including any physical pain that persists after the activity).
  2. The conduct can be terminated immediately upon request.
  3. The person is either aware of the feelings that the interaction will involve, or the feelings are introduced gradually and the person is not deceived about the feelings involved.
  4. The conduct is not in exchange for money or other consideration, and the person knows that (see the next subsection about sex for money).
  5. The person is not deceived about the benefits of the conduct, or about any suffering that occurs during the conduct.
  6. The person is conscious and is readily capable of making and communicating an objection and knows or expects that an objection will be honored.
  7. The person makes no objection to the conduct or all objections are honored.
  8. The person affirmatively grants consent.
Notes on the Conditions:
  1. Physical risks should be acceptable in sex if they are acceptable in other activities such as sports. Which physical risks are acceptable strongly depends on the presence of informed consent (or partial informed consent) to such risks. Psychological risks are excluded here since psychological harm is caused primarily by thoughts, and the right to have harmful thoughts is protected by the core freedom of thought. In addition, the concept of psychological risk is too amorphous, and psychological risks of safe consensual sex are mostly cultural and unpredictable.
  2. The second requirement refers to the technical ability to stop the conduct, and is usually satisfied for sex. By contrast, most mind altering drug use does not meet this requirement since drug effects ignore the user's request to become sober.
  3. Given the strength of sexual feelings, even with the availability of immediate termination, an additional protection is needed, namely a basic understanding of what feelings to expect. The person has to understand the feelings well enough to decide whether they are enjoyable or otherwise evaluate the feelings. Understanding the expected feelings as if from memory is sufficient. Also, gradual introduction of feelings in a state where the person is ready to object is sufficient, as the person is given ample opportunity to evaluate the feelings. However, a person may not be deceived into painful sex through a misleading promise of pleasure at the end. Real moral or psychological understanding of the feelings is not required; as of 2012, very few people have such understanding.
  4. Money can be a strong coercive force.
  5. It is not acceptable to trick a person into having sex by fabricating various benefits of sex (such as "sex will make you rich", "sex will make your skin beautiful"). 'Benefits' is construed broadly to include moral benefits and benefits to third parties. Moreover, deception can be indirect.
  6. Without an expectation that an objection will be honored and not trigger penalties, a person may be unlikely to object even to unwanted sex. Also, some psychological states make a person unlikely to object; if a person in such a state is unlikely to object to moderate pain, the person may be deemed incapable of objecting to sex. Also, a person may be incapable of objecting if he or she does not connect the sexual act with the other's intent; an example is when the person is deceived into believing that the sexual touching is unintentional.
  7. This is the basic element of consent.
  8. The requirement of affirmative agreement should be waived in the ordinary case where the person is expected to enjoy conduct and there are no special risks.
Other Notes:
  • In defining legal consent, the key factor is what the person is consenting to. In case of safe sex, the consent is to the immediate feeling. The issue of informed consent arises in case of tangible harm that cannot be undone. Because safe sex involves no such harm, consent to sex is treated more like consent to an amusement park ride than a consent to surgery. No intelligence test is required for consent to safe sex.
  • Meeting the conditions of legal consent may require communication, explaining to the person certain aspects of the interaction.
  • It is difficult for a person having sex the first time or having a new sexual experience to know exactly how it will feel, which necessitates the right to introduce unexpected feelings gradually. However, sudden sexual conduct (even when an objection is immediately honored) can still be criminalized; without affirmative consent, touching should be started gradually. Conditions (2) and (3)--to the extent they are required by law--may not be construed so as to prohibit ordinary orgasm, including the first orgasm.
  • Videotaping and other recording of sexual interaction should be permitted if all participants are given a fair notice. In cases of sexual abuse, recording without notice should be permitted. Such recordings are, among other things, useful to secure a criminal conviction.
  • Although explanation of psychological risks and of cultural perception of the conduct should not be required, it is a nice thing to do anyway.
  • An affirmative 'yes' to sex should not ordinarily be required since much of clearly consensual sex is done without it. In addition, if one person is unsure of whether to have sex, a common practice is to introduce sexual touching/behavior gradually, letting the person decide on the limits as the interaction proceeds.
  • A person can be indirectly deceived about the benefits of sex from claims (even such as "everyone your age has had sex") that imply a special benefit without explicitly stating it. Moreover, even in the absence of a specific claim, deception can occur through the presence of a special trust to act only in beneficial (or otherwise special) ways. Doctors, parents, teachers, and police officers are commonly entrusted in this way.
    Religious deception should be handled carefully so as to protect both the right to persuade a person to a religion, and the right not to be deceived into sex. Deception about things other than the benefits of sex should not invalidate the consent to sex (provided the other conditions of consent are met). However, such deception (for example, slander about the person's other sexual partners) can in certain cases be treated as a separate offense.
  • The penalty for sex without legal consent should be determined on a case-by-case basis, some violations are much more serious than others. People should not be punished for activity that they non-negligently and in good-faith believed to be safe consensual sex.
  • The eight proposed conditions are sufficient but not always necessary for consent. However, since sexual feelings may be unbearably strong, the right not to have sex (including the right to terminate an ongoing sex) is fundamental, and as such must be honored. Forced sex is unacceptable even in the rare cases when it is enjoyable and beneficial to the victim (even if such enjoyment and benefit was the intended and likely result). Consent refers to choice and will and is different from desire (which refers to feelings). Thus sex may be consensual but unwanted (legal) or wanted but nonconsensual (unlikely, but still illegal and unacceptable). Also, consent cannot be given retroactively.
    Sexual stimulation may be a permissible side-effect of a necessary treatment for a physical illness. However, forced sex may not be used as a treatment for mental illness, even if it is "medically" necessary and the person is a danger to self or others.
  • Bondage role-playing should be permitted as long as the consent conditions are met. In such role-play, it is not necessary for word "No" to count as an objection provided that both of the following are met (a) given the totality of circumstances, the person does not appear to object, and (b) the person is clearly capable of giving a genuine objection.
  • Deprivation of sex should not ordinarily be used as punishment. However, some punishment, such as incarceration, properly involves physical segregation and the corresponding deprivation of sex.
  • Intoxicated persons should not be prohibited from having safe consensual sex. A later regret of sex is not very different from regret of a number of other choices the person may have made while being intoxicated.
  • A person should be allowed to make directions about possible sex in case the person becomes unconscious. The legal default should be no sex, except perhaps in narrow circumstances (such as some cases waking up one's sexual partner through sexual contact).
  • Laws about sex should ideally be written in age neutral terms.
  • Infant circumcision that is not medically necessary should be criminalized, without religious exceptions. Circumcision amounts to a permanent body mutilation. One's religion is not a legal excuse to harm other people.
  • Although infants cannot be meaningfully give consent, they can still give a positive or a negative response. Genital stimulation of infants by parents and other authorized caretakers should be permitted provided that the immediate response is positive and the stimulation is harmless or beneficial to the infant.
  • Corporal punishment (by parents, educators, and other people) must not be permitted. This is a matter of fundamental rights. The fundamental freedom from physical restraint includes the right to engage in safe consensual physical interaction (excluding commerce). This right applies to people of limited intelligence and experience (such as children) and to conduct that is traditionally regarded as immoral (such as sex). However, there is more to consent than lack of objection. In addition to the eight conditions, it is probably constitutional to require provision (but not understanding) of reasonable additional information clearly specified by the law. Parents must not be permitted to violate the children's fundamental rights, including the right to engage in safe consensual sex. Distribution of all information (including pornography) to all people is protected by the fundamental right of freedom of expression.

Sex for Money

Because sex for money is commercial, and because of the inherent risk of coercion, such sex is not (in my opinion) constitutionally protected. However, a ban on prostitution would be unwise. Instead, laws may require (using more specific phrasing than here) that (1) sex is consensual, (2) sex is physically safe, (3) the payment is fair, and (4) all involved parties receive appropriate information, and know what the compensation is. Part of the fairness involves the right to terminate the sexual conduct at any time without undue penalty. Non-monetary compensation may be used provided that it is not based on special authority of one person. Use of special authority as compensation should ordinarily be prohibited. For example, the government may not shorten someone's jail term in exchange for sex.

A contract to abstain from sex should not ordinarily be enforceable, as such contract is in tension with the fundamental freedom to physical interaction.

When both people and rational and informed, their relationship is (usually) mutually beneficial even if it involves monetary exchange. Informal use of sex in exchange for something is very common, and cannot, consistent with fundamental rights, be entirely prohibited. For example, a person may terminate a friendship (and its benefits) in part because of a lack of sexual satisfaction. Much of pornography production involves paying actors to have sex. Also, many people, including children, rely on money from sex to buy food and other necessities; these people cannot reasonably be expected to stop having sex for money.

Sex Education

Sex education should be accurate and comprehensive. The core sex education should either be mandatory, or the opt-out should require consent of both the student and (if appropriate) a parent or legal guardian. However, public sex education should be non-sexual in nature, with minimization of unwanted sexual arousal. Disagreements about sex should not be suppressed. Controversial moral opinions (such as this essay) should not be presented as fact. The students should not be officially told whether they should have sex.

Public Nudity and Indecent Exposure

In deciding to what extent to prohibit nudity, indecent exposure, and outdoor sex, the enjoyment of the participants should be weighted against the offense to the observers. In evaluating offensiveness, one should consider the offense from ugliness of the appearance, rather than the moral offense from violating cultural norms. Considerations of offensives should be significantly discounted because the viewer can avert his or her eyes, and because there is no right not be offended. Moreover, because the sole reason for prohibition is visual offensives, indecent exposure should be treated as pure speech, thus magnifying the value of the perpetrator's interests.

Nudity should be legal in most outdoor areas, including inside cities. Nudity is a natural state of the human body, and is comfortable for sunbathing and swimming. Nudity can be very beautiful, and is frequently used in art. The right to be without clothing is an important freedom that should be respected. The right to nudity should include the right to have an erection (erections can arise spontaneously and prohibiting them would cause anxiety and limit freedom).

Outdoor sex should be legal when it is done discreetly, "not in your face". While there are substantial offensiveness considerations, they are ordinarily outweighed by the liberty of the participants, as the right to have sex is part of the freedom from physical restraint and sex can be one of the most meaningful activities humans engage in. Current (as of 2012) laws may effectively require postponement of sex for hours (or worse) and otherwise impair sex.

Morality and Sex


In the section "Morality and Sex", I list various recommendations relating to sex. These recommendations are directed to the present society rather than a hypothetical society with correct views about sex. The reader should keep in mind that I am not perfect and can make mistakes.

The essay does not advise you whether to have sex. The decision whether to have sex is a personal manner, and it is ordinarily wrong to pressure people to have sex. Moreover, to the extent that sex is enjoyable and without impediments, people usually end up having sex, so it is unnecessary to advise here for people to have sex.

The main reason to have non-reproductive sex is that sex can be a source of happiness. In addition to directly causing happiness, sex can enrich one's experience and promote human bonds. (This essay does not discuss whether and when to have children.) I subscribe to utilitarian theory of morality. The good is to maximize happiness, with equal consideration of everyone's interests.

However, in receiving pleasure, there is a risk of other activities becoming less enjoyable, which decreases (and can even reverse) the net effect of the pleasure. The key is to have sexual pleasure in a meaningful and enriching way.

Sexual conduct has no moral significance beyond the feelings that it causes. (Here, the feelings include long-term feelings as well, such as suffering from a disease.) Sexual feelings have no moral significance beyond the significance attached to them by the mind. For example, when sexual feelings are perceived as pleasurable and without negative connotations, their presence (all other things being equal) is good.

Different societies have attached various moral and religious significance to sex. Examples include "sex is wife's sacred duty to the husband", "boys should be masculine and girls feminine", and "homosexuality is wrong". These beliefs are wrong, and ultimately, irrational. However, there are sufficient historical reasons for their prevalence.

Morality and Law

In ordinary cases, you should respect the law. In choosing to break the law, you should evaluate its effect on you and (with equal consideration of interests) on other people, and then apply a strong weighting towards compliance with the law. The weighting towards compliance is decreased if the law is routinely ignored and unenforced, or if the law is profoundly unjust or irrational or inconsistent with important freedoms.

However, if a law violates fundamental rights, then feel free to act as if the law does not exist except to the extent that you may be caught. Fundamental rights take precedence over the sovereignty of the people to enact laws, and laws that violate fundamental rights are illegitimate. A risk of being caught should be given a comparable weighting as a corresponding risk of, say, getting a disease. If you choose to violate such laws, learn about the consequences and about avoiding getting punished.

A List of Suggestions

  • It is important to learn about sex.
  • Sexual relationships with love and commitment are likely to be more fulfilling than anonymous purely sexual encounters.
  • It is very difficult to learn how sex feels without trying it. It is difficult to know whether one would enjoy sex without trying it. A reasonable suggestion is to try sexual conduct to gain understanding and to see whether sex is something that you like.
  • Sexual relationships should ordinarily be non-exclusive. Do not pressure your partner to not have sexual relationships with other people.
  • Try to be open about your feelings and relationships. It is especially important to be open with your partner about your feelings. However, to the extent that you may be discriminated against because of erroneous beliefs other people have about sex, you should balance this factor against the natural benefits of openness.
  • You should ordinarily respect your commitments to keep someone's sexual interactions and preferences private. This is not an absolute rule, particularly in cases of sexual abuse. You can also discuss the relationships anonymously. Ordinarily, you have a right not to disclose you sexual preferences and activities, and ordinary you should not pressure other people to reveal their sexual preferences and conduct. It may be best to be assertive about your right to sexual privacy.
  • Relationships where one party does not like sexual conduct but accepts it as a debt of friendship are likely to be unfulfilling and problematic. Consider making such a relationship non-sexual. If you and your partner choose to continue the sexual relationship, then make sure you both understand the role of sex in the relationship, and consider whether using explicit compensation for sex is better.
  • Following your sexual orientation--even if it is considered unacceptable in your society--can lead to great joy and emotional fulfillment. If seeking counseling about sex, it is important that the counselor accepts your sexual orientation.
  • If you have strong deeply held beliefs against sex, then consider them as an important argument against sex since your enjoyment of sex may be marred by guilt and anxiety. You may want to delay sex until you resolve these (erroneous) beliefs. However, it is important to learn about sex, even if such learning is expressly contrary to your religion.
    If objecting to sex for moral reasons, then state your objection early. By waiting until the latest possible moment, you may find your morals compromised.
  • Sexual intercourse need not be the best way to achieve sexual satisfaction. Other possibilities include solo and mutual masturbation, which can be done in a variety of ways. (Masturbation tends to have much lower physical risks then sexual intercourse. In this essay, masturbation is treated as a type of sex.)
  • Sex is sometimes wrong. Here are some valid reasons against sex
    - you may not enjoy sex, especially if it is done in a wrong way or with a wrong person
    - a longer interval between instances of sex can make sex more enjoyable
    - sex may involve physical risks (direct injury, pregnancy, sexual transmitted diseases)
    - guilt and shame you may have about sex (however, it is important for you to resolve these feelings)
    - the society may discriminate against you (or your partner) for having sex
    - your partner does not consent, has valid reasons against sex, or believes that the particular instance of sex is wrong. A person's moral opposition to sexual conduct should be given due respect and not ignored.
    - your partner expects sex to imply commitment of a kind that you do not wish to make
  • Spiritual relationships can be stronger than even very strong (physical) sexual feelings. It is wrong to explicitly limit your relationships to (for example) people of a particular sex. While sexual attractiveness is frequently an important factor in one's relationships, other factors can be more important.

Morality of Adult-Child Sex

There is a general scientific agreement that most children are sexual beings, and the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that many children can enjoy sexual contact even before puberty. Many adults delight in being sexual with children. In a welcoming society, children are not prohibited from having sexual feelings and satisfaction, and safe consensual adult-child sex is treated with the same full acceptance as sexual self-stimulation by a child or sexual play between children of the same age. Sexual feelings can be just another source of happiness. However, strong societal opposition (explained in a section below) and lack of correct advice in other sources make a more detailed discussion of morality of adult-child sex necessary.
If you plan to initiate sexual conduct with a person of limited knowledge, intelligence, and experience--hereafter referred as the child--special considerations apply. Here is a list of suggestions and considerations if you live in a society where such relationships are not considered acceptable, but choose to have such a relationship anyway.
  • As the more powerful and knowledgeable person, you have a duty to ensure morality of the relationship.
  • Ensure that the relationship is consensual.
  • Chronological age of the child is not relevant per se. What is relevant are the child's understanding, the societal views of sex with children, and the child's sexual preferences and anatomy.
  • Avoid conduct with unacceptable physical risks. It may be best to avoid conduct with significant physical risks.
  • You may have to keep your conduct secret (even from the child's parents and counselors), and instruct the child to do the same. Even in the absence of criminal prosecution, both you and the child may be discriminated against if the relationship becomes known.
  • Since the relationship is secret, you will have to provide any necessary counseling to the child. Provide appropriate counseling before, during, and after the sexual conduct.
  • If you are in a position of authority over the child, some counseling may even be necessary to ensure that the relationship is truly consensual.
  • Do not have the relationship if you believe it to be wrong.
  • Convince the child that the conduct is morally right before doing it. Do not have sex with the child if you fail to convince the child that the conduct is right. If child later feels guilty and betrayed, serious psychological harm may follow, even if he or she enjoyed the sexual experience. Also, make sure that the child wants the sexual relationship. It make take time for a child to overcome his or her irrational opposition to sex.
  • Explain the nature of the child's sexual feelings to the best of your ability. Also, if appropriate, explain that other people are wrong in their condemnation of adult-child sex. A partial explanation may sound like "Genital massage is like ordinary massage. However, your feelings will be much stronger. It will feel very good. If it feels weird, just relax and enjoy it, or ask me to slow down. Contrary to what others may have told you, there is nothing wrong with these feelings or with such massage. It is harmless. If you don't like it, just tell me to stop. Do you want to do it?"
  • Do not deceive the child. Do not make false statements like [as of 2012] "Genital fondling is a standard component of therapeutic massage."
  • The risks of such a relationship include legal punishment and social discrimination, and for the child, harm from his or her erroneous beliefs related to the relationship. However, the existence of such relationships adds to the richness of the human experience, and such relationships are a source of joy for millions of children and adults worldwide.
  • If you pay a child to have sex, then
    - ensure that the payment is fair and that the transaction (sex plus payment) is in the child's best interests
    - ensure that the child understands what the payment is
    - ensure that the payment is concrete and is not part of any special authority you may have over the child
    - if necessary, explain to the child that getting paid to have sex is OK, and is consistent with human dignity, and is not like selling one's body, etc.
    - If you act as the child's parent, then paying the child to have sex with you is probably a bad idea.
    - Even if the above conditions are met, this does not necessarily mean that the conduct is right.
  • The above need not fully apply if the child is the one initiating sexual conduct, or if the child has sufficient experience.
If you are a child about to be involved in sexual interaction with an adult, then
  • Verify that your participation is consensual. If not, then it is child sexual abuse. For victims of sexual abuse, a good coping strategy is to try to make the best of the experience. Also, counseling with a qualified person is important (however, unfortunately, current reporting regulations may deny you the option of keeping the sexual relationship confidential).
  • In choosing whether to have sex, you are exercising your fundamental right to privacy, which is a part of your fundamental right to be free from arbitrary physical restraint. Your privacy is yours to keep or share. You have a right not to have sex, and if you do have sex, to set your limits, and to decide whether to allow recording of the sex for others to enjoy.
  • Be careful if the adult only appears to care about you sexually. Trust and emotional connection are important.
  • Do not accept alcohol, tobacco, or other recreational drugs from the adult. An adult offering you recreational drugs is probably disregarding your well-being; beware of such adults.
  • Verify that the interaction is physically safe; some adults are reckless about this.
  • Do not consent to sexual conduct that you do not want.
  • If you feel overwhelmed with feelings, then consider asking the other person to stop. Ponder and contemplate your feelings and then decide whether to proceed.
  • Do not tell other people (including parents and counselors) about your sexual relationship unless it amounts to sexual abuse, with the exception of those people who are likely to accept your relationship.
  • On the other hand, do not hesitate to discuss your feelings with the adult, and with other people whom you can trust to keep your secret.
  • Take time to think about what happened, but do not become obsessed with it. Sexual feelings are a healthy part of life, but should not be the dominant part.
  • If you like the experience and choose it continue, then take a positive exploratory attitude toward your new feelings. Societies are often irrational about sex. Sex is not a guilty pleasure, and it does not make you impure.
  • Be cautious and discreet about initiating sexual conduct with other people. Many people do not like it or have moral objections to it.
  • Legal issues aside, getting paid to have sex is OK. However, do not let what may be a sudden access to money by a corrupting influence over you; moral corruption hurts not only other people but yourself as well.

Cultural Beliefs about Sex

This section explains why societies have erroneous beliefs about the morality of sex, specifically the general opposition to sex, and the current opposition to adult-child sex. In part because of the apparently special and highly emotional nature of sex, many people hold with near-certainty beliefs about sex on flimsy grounds, and also suspend rational deliberation about sex. Societal misconceptions about sex are often self-persistent.

The Belief that Sex is Evil

A number of societies, including many in the Western civilization hold that sex--except reproductive sex between married persons--is evil. In such beliefs, individuals tend to follow the society around them, so to explain these beliefs, we have to ask why societies have adopted them.
  • Given the central role of sex plays in reproduction (and hence in societal survival), and given the intense feelings accompanying sex, sexual intercourse (whether or not it can lead to reproduction) is viewed as a special class of conduct, with its own moral rules and restrictions.
  • Human nature--and romantic love, in particular--has a tendency towards monogamy. This may cause sexual monogamy to be viewed as the best state. Moreover, human nature (for evolutionary reasons) has a tendency towards disapproval of sex between a marriage partner and a third person. This may cause the society to consider such relationships immoral.
    Treating sex outside marriage as evil may help to channel sexual energy towards raising families.
    The evolutionary tendency is to disapprove of extramarital sex by your spouse (especially if you are heterosexual male) but not yourself: Extramarital sex by your spouse may cause you or your spouse to spend resources to raise a child who does not have your DNA. However, with contraception and paternity testing, this reason is less valid today.
  • Sexual feelings are (in many cases) so exceptionally strong and pleasant that they impair the judgment and cause people to discount other moral considerations when seeking sex. Treating sex as immoral acts as a counterweight against the bias towards having sex. (Sex-related impairment of judgment may also be considered evil in itself.)
    Because of the strength of sexual feelings, people continue to have sex in the face of social opposition. Such defiance can increase the harshness of the societal intolerance as the society tries to take stronger measures.
  • Because genitals are concealed in many cultures, and because genitals look different from the rest of the body, genitals may appear very ugly (as if they are abnormal) to many people. This causes a visceral aversion to most forms of sexual conduct, especially towards "unnatural" sex. Homosexual sex may be seen as contrary to the traditional gender norms.

Opposition to Adult-child Sex

Our present society (especially in the United States) has a strong aversion to adult-child sex. The root cause of this aversion is the belief that sex is evil (or partially evil) and that children need protection from evil.
In some cases, consensual sex is actually harmful to children. The causes of this harm are primarily cultural.
  • The primary mechanism of harm is moral conflict. The children involved often believe that they have done something wrong and therefore feel guilt or shame. This is reinforced by the society having a negative attitude toward sex (and by the need to keep sex secret). Moreover, if the child believes that the adult was wrong in choosing to have sex, the child may feel betrayed by the adult, and suffer from this feeling. Such harm is particularly strong if, for example, the adult is a priest who is otherwise preaching abstinence until marriage, or if the adult is a parent or a caretaker. The strength of both sexual feelings and sexual taboos magnifies the moral conflict.
  • Given the current legal and social climate, adult-child sexual relationships are usually secret, which denies the child of opportunity to discuss and resolve the issues with the relationship.
  • If the relationship becomes known, then the child may suffer from discrimination, as well as from the likely termination of the emotional relationship with the adult.
  • Additionally, some types of sexual interaction involve substantial physical risks.
In addition to the actual harm, there is a strong public perception of harm from adult-child sex:
  • On an individual level, people tend to follow the society in their beliefs, and are pressured by the society not to say that adult-child sex is often good for children.
  • Adult-child sex is viscerally viewed as horrible and immoral, and therefore harmful.
  • For children, having consensual sex with adults is correlated with being physically, emotionally, and sexually abused. Statistically, adults who like sex with children are more likely to select children who have been abused: Protecting children from abuse often includes "protecting" them from sex, so children protected from abuse are less likely to have sex with adults. Since the predominant moral view is that adult-child sex is wrong, adults who have sex with children are more likely to do what they or the society think is wrong, and hence are more likely to harm the children. Also, sexual abuse can break a child's moral opposition to sex and can cause the child to learn that sex feels good, which makes the child more likely to have consensual sex.
  • When the relationship becomes known, the children involved are expected to behave like victims, and therefore they may behave that way, which leads to the appearance of harm (and can lead to actual harm as well).
  • The media often fails to separate consensual from non-consensual adult-child sex, causing the public to conflate the two. Non-consensual sex is often very harmful.
  • Most importantly, in the present society, notifying the public about the relationship would mean that the relationship will be terminated and the adult (and quite often, the child) punished or otherwise harmed. Consequently, the children are only likely to report the relationship if they view it as harmful or immoral, creating a strong sampling bias toward harmful cases.
Besides the argument from harm, opponents claim that children cannot consent to sex, and therefore sex is a violation of their rights, and that children need to be protected from the evil of sex. The inability of children (sometimes of everyone under 18) to consent to sex is an illusion and legal fiction created to reconcile the society's commitment to freedom with opposition to sex with children.
While a child can obviously say 'yes' or 'no' to sex, the argument is that their consent is not genuine because
  • Adults are supposed to supervise children, and therefore be in control of children. A child will not (or should not) say "No" to an adult. Children (especially victims of sexual abuse) may fail to object to non-consensual sex because they are not aware of their right to object.
    Correspondingly, adult-child sex is viewed as much more objectionable than sexual play between children. For example, many people believe that it is normal and morally fine for a 10-year old boy to masturbate, and at the same time support mandatory prison terms for adults who massage genitals of 10-year old boys.
  • Children do not really understand the meaning and moral implications of sex and therefore their consent is invalid. The view is that the children do not understand that sex is a poison for the soul, and thus adult-child sex is no more consensual than unknowing ingestion of poison.
  • Sexual desires can cloud children's judgment. A sexual urge can short-circuit their consideration of the moral elements of sex and of the physical risks.
  • Some sexual interaction involves physical risks which many children are ill-equipped to evaluate.
  • The typical limitations of children's judgment are (it is argued) universally applicable to all children. Alternatively, because sex with children is so wrong, rational and informed children will always say 'no', so all children who say 'yes' are deceived, seduced, or coerced into sex.
Reality Note: Children have sexual feelings and may enjoy sex even before puberty. Sex is not significantly harmful to children, except for cases with (1) physical risks, (2) lack of consent, or (3) societal opposition to sex with children. Most children are capable of genuine consent to sex.

Sex versus Drugs

Sex and drugs are often grouped together because both of them are considered by many to be immoral, both involve aspects that many find disgusting, both can be very harmful, both can involve strong pleasure, and both can cause an altered state of consciousness where normal concerns are suppressed. Such grouping leads some people to believe that since sex is moral, so are drugs. This belief is wrong.

In my opinion, most recreational use of existing mind altering drugs is immoral since (in most cases)
  • drugs are harmful
  • drugs are addictive
  • drugs impair judgment to the point of making their users temporarily less human. Once the drug is taken, this impairment is not consensual, that is it continues regardless of whether the user wants it.
By contrast, as a general matter (but there are important exceptions):
  • sex is not harmful
  • sex is not physically addictive (but all good things can be psychologically addictive)
  • sex is consensual
  • sexual desire tends to be self-limiting in that a person will want to spend only a small portion of his or her time having sex.
The reason for such drastic difference between sex and drugs is that millions of years of evolution has ensured that no undue harm should come from sex, but no such evolution has taken place for human response to drugs.

Sex and Fundamental Rights

This section is not a general essay on fundamental rights. Instead, it is a detailed explanation of fundamental rights related to sex. Fundamental rights are a difficult topic, and parts of this section are more abstract than other sections.

Fundamental rights are the indispensable rights of the people in the civilized society. Fundamental rights exist independently of the government or popular will, and laws that contradict them are illegitimate. Protection of fundamental rights should be written in the Constitution so that the rights can be enforced through judicial review, and whenever possible, existing Constitutions should be construed to protect all fundamental rights. The United States Constitution protects all fundamental rights through the guarantee of due process, "no person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (with the exception of proportional representation for the Senate and for the presidential election).

A collection of rights

With respect to sex, the key general fundamental rights are (1) freedom of speech, (2) physical freedom of the body, (3) right to privacy, and (4) freedom from arbitrary punishment. The following laws violate fundamental rights:
  • prohibitions on distribution of certain information and ideas (such as child pornography) to certain people (such as children) (excluding reasonable non-disclosure agreements).
  • prohibitions on safe consensual sex (excluding commerce)
  • prohibitions on recording of sex when all participants give consent
  • blanket prohibitions on nudity and sex in forests and other such public places, excluding cases with reckless disregard for the offensiveness of the conduct.
  • laws requiring reporting of the above activities
  • laws requiring parental notification or permission for exercise of children's fundamental rights
  • general prohibitions on condoms or sex toys

The first right is the core of the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech includes the right to communicate arbitrary information to an arbitrary person. (Note: Reasonable penalties for breaking reasonable non-disclosure agreements may often be imposed since the person has agreed to the penalty through signing the agreement, provided that appropriate safeguards are met.) Freedom of speech is a necessary component of any democratic society. Information is equivalent to an integer or a binary sequence that encodes information. Thus, information is logically separate from claims about information. False claims are not (at least not always) constitutionally protected.

The right to receive information includes the right to view the information in visual form. For the blind, an analogue of visual image is high-resolution tactile stimulation. This right is necessary due to the limitation of typical human cognitive skills. It is very difficult to fully appreciate a painting just by reading its verbal description or by viewing a binary sequence that encodes the full picture. Some argue that conceivably, some visual pattern will directly cause fatal brain hemorrhage or some other such severe harm. However, the right to view information in visual form should still be construed categorically since

  • It is very unlikely such harmful pictures actually exist.
  • Given the nature of the human brain, it is difficult to separate harm of understanding of the picture from harm that occurs independent of the understanding. In both cases, feelings can cause physical distress, and the government must not be permitted to censor visual display of a picture based on harm from its understanding. Thus, misery (and even suicide or physical illness) from falling in love based on a picture cannot be grounds to prohibit its visual display.
  • Categorical protection gives security and freedom that a partial protection lacks.

The third prohibition is invalid since the videotaping does no harm except through recording of information. To protect freedom of speech, the government is prohibited from arbitrarily suppressing information gathering. Thus, videotaping may not be prohibited unless an information source is privileged. However, a person is entitled to ownership of his or her body, and that right includes allowing collection of information about the body. This is particularly true for videotaping since it records only those pieces of information that are available anyway--the benefit of videotaping over remembering and telling is rather the easiness, reliability, and completeness of the recording.

The fourth prohibition is invalid since it serves no legitimate governmental purpose. The fact that the activity takes publicly is irrelevant if there is no overriding danger of unwilling persons being offended in a visceral way. Some amount and risk of visual offensiveness must be tolerated to protect fundamental rights. The government's sole interest is visual expressiveness of the act, and therefore the act receives substantial protection from the freedom of speech.

The fifth prohibition violates the right to privacy. The right to privacy is necessary to protect against discrimination by private people or misguided governmental officials. For example, by keeping sex private, a person may be protected from being fired from his or her job.

The sixth prohibition is invalid since fundamental rights may not be violated by any authority. Parental consent cannot be required for having safe consensual sex.

The right to manufacture, sell, and use condoms (consistent with general laws about business, safety, and manufacturing) is fundamental since a ban on condoms would be arbitrary but for the impermissible governmental interest in suppressing sex. A general ban on sex toys is similarly invalid.

The second prohibition is a particularly difficult one to analyze, and is the subject of the next section.

Freedom from Physical Restraint

The nature and scope of freedom from physical restraint

Although freedom of communication is at the center of liberty, biological humans are more than just communicating entities. They have bodies, which are essential for survival, and thus protected through fundamental rights. Even if the issues of health are set aside, governmental control of human bodies would amount to a power too great and potential for coercion too strong to be acceptable. Thus, freedom to control one's body is (subject to certain restrictions) fundamental. This control implies freedom from arbitrary physical restraint, such as the right (again, with restrictions) not to have one's hands tied behind the back. The core scope of freedom from physical restraint is the right to choose the location and position of the body and its parts, both the location in itself, and the location relative to other people. This right (as explained below) in turn implies a right to engage in private physically safe consensual physical interaction.

However, while fundamental, physical freedom of the body is by itself too broad to be granted as an absolute right. The resolution to this dilemma is to analyze potential government interests and their effect on the liberty to determine the permissible legal grounds for restraint. Then, within the scope of these grounds, but not outside of them, governmental interests are balanced against the liberty of the person. The resolution is discussed below.

One legitimate interest is to prevent harm to other people. The harm need not be physical harm; for example (in some cases) unwanted sensory input can be prohibited. However, the relationship to harm must be sufficiently direct. For example, the government may not restrain person A because B threatens to kill C (or B) if A is not restrained.

The government also has an interest in protecting a person from causing physical harm to himself or herself, and it may (in some cases) restrain the person accordingly. This power is necessary to prevent victims from being coerced or deceived into committing suicide.
However, the restrictions must be narrowly tailored. For example, when an activity is unsafe but for acceptable safety equipment (such as condoms), the government may not overreact and prohibit both the activity (on safety grounds) and the equipment since a more narrowly tailored regulation would be to require the equipment to be used. Moreover, if activity is protected, the government may not indirectly deter it by prohibiting the safety equipment (that would have been clearly legal but for the deterrence interest).
If the danger is from a (human) third party, the government may (sometimes) restrict the person's location with respect to the third party (ex. prevent a meeting if the person is likely to be killed) and require other safety measures, but the government may not prohibit conduct merely because the third party is opposed to it, even in cases of clear and present danger (for example, A may not be prohibited from having sex with B even if C is likely to kill A because of the sex provided that the sex does not make it physically easier for C to kill A).

Especially with regard to children, the government -- in combination with parents/guardians -- has an interest that much (but not all) of the person's time is spent valuably (for example, for education). In pursuit of this interest, a reasonable limitation may sometimes be imposed on the timing and duration of interactions so as not to displace other valuable activities.

A restriction of interactions with other people as a natural consequence of incarceration or analogous punishment may also be imposed. However, the consequence must be a natural one. For example, in the absence of a physical danger, the government may not prohibit back massage as a condition of probation. Restraint to a certain body position (such as having hands tied) may not be used as punishment (as opposed to a reasonable restraint) because of unacceptable danger of cruelty and coercion.

The physical freedom includes a liberty interest in tools that enable the freedom. For example, the government may not prohibit walking canes to discourage the weak from walking, nor may the government prohibit sex toys to discourage sex.

Also, the government interests must be balanced against the significance of the restraint imposed. Safety regulations on sexual activity (ordinarily) must not be arbitrarily severe compared to generally applicable regulations (such as safety regulations in sports).

Human interactions are within the literal scope of freedom from physical restraint. Human interaction that goes beyond communication is central to the lives of biological humans. In consensual interactions, in so far as a certain movement of person B is intended by A, then with respect to harm to A, it is qualitatively similar to that movement being done by A. Thus, the government may not ordinarily prohibit the movement of B on the ground of harm to A beyond the government's capacity to prohibit A's movement on the ground of self-harm. (However, at least with respect to the policy, there are exceptions. For example prohibiting killing on request while permitting suicide is reasonable because it helps to ensure that the intent to kill/die comes from the victim.)

While physical harm provides a legal limitation on the freedom from physical restraint, consensual mental harm does not. The notion of mental harm is too amorphous and its scope too broad for the freedom from physical restraint to receive needed protection if there is a psychological harm exception to the freedom. While physical harm is clear, even profound mental changes can easily be morally unclear. While following certain rules prevents physical harm, the sources of mental harm are endless. Finally, mental harm comes essentially from thoughts, which are protected by the freedom of thought and thus outside of government regulation.

Appraisal of psychological consequences may not be required

Nor may the government require here an appraisal of the psychological consequences. Freedom generally implies freedom to act irrationally. The power to require an appraisal of certain consequences implies a power to suppress based on those consequences. It is one thing to require that certain (easily available) information be provided, but appraisal requires more. The requirement of appraisal implies a possible prohibition on the conduct if (1) the person does not understand the consequences stated, or (2) the person unreasonably disbelieves the stated consequences, or (3) the person is unreasonable in producing a decision based on these consequences.

These requirements are so flexible and open-ended that a hypothetical society of hyperintelligent beings could easily construe them so strictly as to effectively prohibit ordinary humans on Earth from giving informed consent to anything serious. For example, understanding the consequences may require an ability to research foreseeable consequences, as well as sufficient intelligence, linguistic ability, and background knowledge to understand the text. Properly reaching a decision may require integrating the moral value function over the space of possible consequences--something that few ordinary humans actually do.

In addition, the notion of being unreasonable is sufficiently ephemeral so as to permit the judges (even judges in advanced societies) to classify many true beliefs as unreasonable. For example, in a purely atheist society, evangelical Christianity may be misdiagnosed as schizophrenia (in particular, as bizarre delusions that cause significant mental distress).

Moreover, if the government could prohibit an action because of inability to understand the consequences, then presumably the government could prohibit the action when the consequences are unknown since in both cases, the person makes the decision without understanding the likely consequences.

Finally, psychological consequences are exceptionally difficult to predict, understand, and appraise, thus magnifying the danger of requiring informed consent to psychological harm. Informed consent is best described not in binary terms but as a matter of degree. The above is not intended to disparage the ordinary use of informed consent to balance interests, but merely its use as a qualification on a categorical right. The degree to which the consent is informed is important, for example, with regard to elective surgery.

Mental harm and physical harm

Finally, we address attempts to characterize psychological consequences as physical ones, thereby obviating the right to be touched in a psychologically harmful way. It is argued that all mental processes are physical processes in the brain and that therefore all psychological harm is brain damage. However, there is a qualitative difference between affecting brain through a physical injury, and affecting the brain through consensual sensory input. The government has a broad authority to regulate the former, but only a narrow authority to regulate the later. The difference is the mechanism by which the brain is affected. Moreover, while brain trauma can easily be characterized as harmful, the effect of sensory input is much more subtle and whether it is harmful or beneficial is usually a value judgment, not a medical one.

I do not believe that the right to choose sensory input is categorical. For example, the government may prohibit intentional self-inducement of brain seizures through flashing lights. However, such authority must be construed in a very narrow way.
First the harm must be an inherent neurological harm and not a consequence of the person's or society's appraisal of the feelings or behaviors.
Second, the government bears the burden of proving that the harm is inherent neurological harm.
Third, even if the above conditions are met, the governmental action is subject to strict scrutiny review with respect to this harm.
(Note: If technology creates new and qualitatively different types of sensory input, the government may have a broader authority with respect to these new types of input.)
These conditions are necessary to deny governmental authority to prohibit on the basis of psychological harm. The burden of proof requirement is somewhat analogous to the requirement that a person must be proved guilty before being punished for a crime.

I am not aware of any case of consensual touching (with no direct physical harm) with normal persons where these conditions are met. Certainly, daily sexual stimulation to orgasm does not constitute such harm even if the orgasm is unusually powerful and even if the subject is a young child. (A conceivable exception is the presence of certain rare brain conditions; however, having a level of sexual desire comparable to that of a normal adolescent does not constitute such a condition.) Psychologists generally agree that masturbation in children is not inherently harmful to the brain (an exception is psychologists with a religious agenda). Millions of years of evolution have ensured that affectionate touch has a nurturing value, and that masturbation is not harmful.
Moreover, the difference between self-massage of genitals and such massage (including oral stimulation) by an adult is primarily a mental one. (At the least, there is no proof of inherent neurological harm arising from the physical differences in the mechanism of touching.) Thus, guilt, anger, shame, powerlessness, and other such alleged dangers of consensual adult-child sex arise because of thoughts about the feelings rather than through involuntary low-level reactions to the signals emitted by the sensory neurons. Therefore, these consequences do not deprive the act of its constitutional protection.

An example of protected action

To illustrate the extent of the fundamental rights, here is an example of a protected action. A man performs oral sex on an ordinary seven year old boy about once a day. Sometimes, the boy performs oral sex on the man. Sometimes the man massages and penetrates the boy's anus with a lubricated finger. There is no unacceptable physical risk. The boy agrees to the sex because it feels good and recklessly disregards (or just does not understand) the usual warnings about possible psychological harm from adult-child sex. The parents of the boy object to the sex, but the boy chooses to do it anyway.

  1. The example is deliberately sexual and involves a child since the conflict between fundamental rights and current practice is greatest in sexual behavior, particularly with respect to children.
  2. Penetration is included in the right of relative positioning of one body relative to another.
  3. The interaction would be protected even if the adult is the child's parent or caretaker.
  4. The interaction would be protected even if there are additional (consenting) persons involved.
  5. The interaction would be protected even if the boy had orgasms.
  6. Videotaping of the activity would be protected if the boy agrees to it and understands the general nature of videotaping. An ordinary 7 year old is clearly capable of that. Specific understanding of the likely consequences of videotaping cannot be required.
  7. Fundamental rights are (predominantly) rights to make choices. Full exercise of the freedom from arbitrary physical restraint requires a (conscious) choice to act in that way. There is a wide disagreement between people on the point at which the human organism (or its soul) becomes sentient, or starts to make choices, or even about the nature of human choices. I will not address the disagreement here other than to state the following: Most children are fully conscious and are capable of making genuine choices before their seventh birthday. While 7-year old children may understand less than adults, they are not living in a non-sentient or in a dreamlike state. Also, one's consistent inclination to choose in a certain way merely indicates a preference and does not make the choice less genuine. In the example, the choice of the boy to have sex can be inferred from the clear appearance of such choice.

Consent to orgasm

We conclude this essay on a more immediately entertaining topic. So positive is the experience of orgasm, that the issue of consent to orgasm is often overlooked. A ban on orgasm would be silly for practical reasons, but here we are concerned with orgasm as a fundamental right.

Orgasm presents special issues of consent because

  • Orgasm is involuntary, and thus it will continue regardless of the will of the person.
  • The feelings during the orgasm may be extremely intense, and conscious thought may be suppressed during orgasm.
  • For the first orgasm, the person may not know how it will feel.

However, the presence of a significant consequence does not automatically negate the fundamental right. Instead, a balancing of the interests must be performed. For the combination of the following reasons, an ordinary orgasm (including the first orgasm) is constitutionally protected:

  • Although orgasm is involuntary, the physical stimulation as an act is voluntary. Orgasm is not under control of another person and is thus different from forced sex. Moreover, withdrawal of consent during the orgasm will dramatically diminish the usual mental impact of the orgasm. Suppression of conscious thought during orgasm is to a large extent a voluntary consequence as the person concentrates on the feelings. Additionally, since orgasm often takes place in a relaxed environment (such as in bed), a person's reduced responsiveness to the environment is fine. After all, most people spend hours sleeping in bed.
  • Orgasm is a biologically natural and ordinarily a psychologically harmless event.
  • The intensity of the feelings is compensated for by the short duration of the orgasm.
  • For a majority of people, orgasm is an overwhelmingly positive experience.
  • The naturalness and usefulness of the orgasm as the sexual climax, and the pleasure and intensity of the feelings magnifies the person's interests in having an orgasm.
  • A person who previously had an orgasm can ordinarily appraise the feelings to decide whether to have an orgasm. This appraisal overrides the governmental interests against the orgasm.
  • For the first orgasm, the issue of consent is exacerbated because the person may not know how it will feel. However, the person has a special interest in having the first orgasm because (1) by having an orgasm, the person will learn how it will feel, (2) the first orgasm is necessary for any subsequent orgasms. Also, there is no unacceptable risk of unbearable pain.
  • The above analysis of orgasm is confirmed by the practically complete lack of legislation that ban orgasm in particular (as opposed to sexual stimulation in general).

Freedom stands for something greater than just the right to act however I choose—it also stands for securing to everyone an equal opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

To most reasonable people, freedom means more than just ‘free to do whatever I want’. Taken literally, that approach would produce anarchy—every man, woman, and child for himself or herself. Fortunately, none of us has to live that way (unless you’re reading this in Somalia or a similar disaster area).

Certainly freedom does mean the right to do as one pleases—to think, believe, speak, worship (or not worship), move about, gather, and generally act as you choose—but only until your choices start to infringe on another person’s freedom.

This still leaves a great deal of latitude. There is a long list of things that one can say, and say freely, for example, that excludes shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

One way to think of this is the difference between “freedom of” (or “freedom to”) and “freedom from”—a point eloquently made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his State of the Union Address delivered on January 6, 1941:

We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation.

The Four Freedoms

Securing freedom from fear and freedom from want is very likely to entail some collective, organized action. That kind of activity is often carried out most effectively and efficiently (although, admittedly, not perfectly) by the government. If we want to live in a society where freedoms are protected and where the opportunity to exercise freedom is assured, we have to rely on some form of governance. So far, liberal representative democracy seems to do the best job of it.

Note also that Roosevelt spoke in “world terms.” He and his colleagues (including his wife, Eleanor, one of the greatest women of the 20th century) operated according to a vision in which the United States belonged to a family of nations. This family was interdependent, cooperative, and shared common values. The U.S., in their eyes, would act as a member of that family—a leading member, to be sure, but not a belligerent or domineering one.

In the same speech, Roosevelt said:

There is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:

  • Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
  • Jobs for those who can work.
  • Security for those who need it.
  • The ending of special privilege for the few.
  • The preservation of civil liberties for all.
  • The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.

These are the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations.

This message is now nearly six decades old, but still rings as true today as when first spoken. We can hardly improve on FDR’s description of the fundamental goals and objectives of technoprogressive policies.

Of course, in 2009 we must take into account new issues and possible new areas of freedom—and potential infringements on freedom—that could not be anticipated in 1941.

In the next 50 years, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, and cognitive science will allow human beings to transcend the limitations of the human body. Our senses and cognition will be enhanced. We will have greater control over our emotions and memory. Our bodies and brains will be surrounded by and merged with computer power. We will use these technologies to redesign ourselves and our children in ways that push the boundaries of “humanness.”

One central mission of the IEET is to protect what we call “morphological freedom”—the right for individuals to manage, maintain, augment, and upgrade their own bodies as they see fit—so long, of course, as their actions don’t negatively impact somebody else’s freedoms.

It is interesting that in his 1941 State of the Union Address, Roosevelt spoke of heath care issues that sound immediately familiar in light of the current debate on the U.S. over health insurance reform. He said:

We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance. We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care.

The argument about health care as a human right and access to basic medicine as an important part of freedom is not a new one. Nor is the effort by opponents of expanded coverage to cast the provision of benefits as a threat to freedom.

As Thomas Frank points out in this important op-ed from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal:

Conservatives of the 1930s, led by an upper-crust outfit called the American Liberty League, certainly felt that way. “That Roosevelt was a dictator there was no doubt; but Liberty Leaguers were not quite sure what kind,” wrote the historian George Wolfskill in “The Revolt of the Conservatives,” a 1962 study of that organization. “Some thought he was a fascist, others believed him a socialist or Communist, while others, to be absolutely sure, said he was both.”

Frank’s piece is titled “The Left should reclaim ‘Freedom’—The Right was wrong about FDR too.” He says:

There are few things in politics more annoying than the right’s utter conviction that it owns the patent on the word “freedom”—that when its leaders stand up for the rights of banks to be unregulated or capital gains to be untaxed, that it is actually and obviously standing up for human liberty, the noblest cause of them all. . .

Any increase in the size or duties of government, the right tells us, necessarily subtracts from our freedom. Government is, by its very nature, a destroyer of liberties; the Obama administration, specifically, is promising to interfere with the economy and the health-care system so profoundly that Washington will soon have us all in chains.

“What we’re going to end up with is higher taxes, bigger government and less freedom for the American people,” House Republican Leader John Boehner said on Fox News in July. “We’re going to have a real fight for how much freedom we’re going to have left in America.”


Today, of course, we know that the right’s tyranny-fears [about FDR] were nonsense. Most of Roosevelt’s innovations have been the law of the land for 70 years now, and yet we are still a free society.

In closing, Frank makes this vital point:

The reality of misgovernment, meanwhile, is not something you can grasp simply by donning a tricorn hat and musing on the majesty of Lady Liberty. It requires, among other things, close attention to the following irony: That many of the most destructive and even corrupt policies of the past few decades were engineered by exactly the sort of people who claim to be motivated by freedom and liberty.

During the recent horrible administration of George W. Bush, I often pleaded with people not to view Bush, Cheney, et al., as conservatives. They were clearly and profoundly not interested in conserving the liberties or the general welfare of Americans, as was their Constitutional duty. Rather, they were intent on maximizing the security and strength of powerful corporations, on whose boards they and their cohorts have so comfortably sat.

Have you ever taken the World’s Smallest Political Quiz? While it is far from perfect, it does offer a useful alternative to the traditional left-right spectrum, opting instead for a diamond-shaped depiction of U.S. political positions.

The red dot shows where I score on the quiz. I would submit that supporters of Bush-style politics, including many of today’s alleged ‘conservatives’, are really much closer to Big Government Statists. Bush, after all, increased the size of the federal deficit far beyond what any of his predecessors had done, while at the same time overseeing the most heinous incursions into civil liberties of any President since, well, perhaps ever.

Although I’ve openly stated my displeasure with the extreme positions of certain declared libertarians, I am not at all opposed to many of the tenets of libertarian thinking. I’ve even at times declared myself to be a “libertarian socialist.” Social freedoms should, in my view, be free from government restraint in almost every case.

Being a technoprogressive means being in favor of freedom. What we have to make clear, though, is that freedom stands for much more than just the right to act however I choose—it also stands for securing to everyone an equal opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Mike Treder is a former Managing Director of the IEET.

subscribe Facebook Stumble Upon Reddit Digg Tweet Google +

COMMENTSYOUR COMMENTLogin or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Futures Thinking: The Basics

Previous entry: The Sky Is Falling Now!

One thought on “Emotion Definition Essay On Freedom

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *