The Paradox of Sexual Freedom

Despite the impression given by platforms like OnlyFans,

young adults today are actually having less sex than ever

before in our post-sexual revolution society.

In the 1960s, the psychologist Rollo May predicted

this exact trend, outlining three paradoxes of freedom

that explain why modern society’s approach

to sex has caused young adults to pull away from it.

The Shift from External Guilt to Internal Anxiety

In Victorian times, the denial of sexual drives was the norm,

and the topic was surrounded by an aura of “sanctifying repulsiveness.”

By the 1920s, a radical change occurred:

the new dogma asserted that sexual freedom

and expression were essential for health.

Society went from acting as though sex did not exist

to being openly obsessed with it.

The first paradox is that this enlightenment did not solve

our cultural sexual problems; it merely shifted them.

While external social anxiety and guilt

(such as accessing contraception or discussing sex)

lessened, internal anxiety increased.

• The challenge shifted from “Would you or would you not?” to “Can or can’t you perform?”
• Fear shifted from societal judgment to personal inadequacy.

In the past, one could blame strict societal morals

for their choices, preserving their self-esteem.

Today, the weight of a sexual encounter rests entirely

on individual performance,

making one’s own adequacy the central issue.

Throwing a person into an empty sea of free choices

does not equal freedom; it often breeds inner conflict.

The Tyranny of Technique Over Passion

The second paradox is that the modern emphasis

on sexual technique actively backfires.

There is an inverse relationship between

the abundance of instructional sexual content

and the actual passion experienced by individuals.

While the technique itself is not inherently bad,

overemphasizing it creates a mechanistic attitude.

This goes hand-in-hand with feelings of loneliness, alienation,

and depersonalization.

The lover is effectively superseded by modern efficiency.

In this “tyranny of the orgasm,” the primary concern

is no longer whether an encounter had passion or meaning,

but rather how well someone performed.

This obsession with grandiose physical effects often covers

up a deep void of self-doubt and loneliness,

completely ignoring the tenderness

and psychological nakedness that make intimate

relationships meaningful.

The New Puritanism

The third and largest paradox is that highly desired

sexual freedom has mutated into a new form of puritanism.

This new puritanism consists of three elements:

• Alienation from the body.
• The separation of reason from emotion.
• An attitude toward the body as a mere machine.

In this modern puritanism, bad health is equated with sin.

While sin used to mean giving in to desires,

today it means not having full sexual expression.

A contemporary puritan believes it is immoral

not to express one’s libido.

For example, while a woman in the past felt guilty

for having sex before marriage,

a modern woman might feel vaguely guilty

if she refrains from sex after a few dates.

The Victorian person sought to have love without falling into sex,

while the modern person seeks to have sex without falling into love.

Many people are terrified of their passions

unless they are kept tightly on a leash.

The depersonalization of language—reducing “making love”

to merely “having sex” or less—reflects this emotional detachment.

The Return to Asexual Asceticism

With this heavy focus on mechanical performance

and the emotional detachment of modern intimacy,

there is a profound diminishment of feeling.

It is incredibly common for people to report that they

“had sex but didn’t feel anything.”

Because society is so hyper-sexualized,

young people can no longer derive a sense of personal identity

by revolting for sexual freedom;

there is nothing left to revolt against.

Consequently, the only thing left to rebel against is sex itself.

Society has come full circle, resulting in a new asceticism.

Contrary to popular belief,

we are not hurtling toward a multi-sexual society,

but an asexual one.

The underlying issue is not what we do with our physical functions,

but what happens to our fundamental humanity

and life-giving qualities in the process.