If young women were allowed free choices on whether or not to have sexual relationships, and on whom to have them with, men with a high sexual market value would enjoy more sexual relationships, and they would enjoy them much more easily.

However, the reality is that men who rank lower and women who are no longer sexually attractive keep politicians and political systems in power that grossly restrict the sexual liberty of younger women.

From what I know about (and from) young women, most would be sexually more adventurous if they wouldn't have to fear that many sanctions.

Sanctions on sexually adventurous young women may be imposed by states, traditions, religions, societies, and families.

It is difficult, and not a promising tactic, to try convincing people who cannot expect personal benefits from a sexually freer society, to agree to such a society.

However, the idea of more sexual freedom can be embedded in a political agenda of more personal freedom for everybody. And more personal freedom for everybody is a concept that can convince even those who cannot expect either sexual or economic benefits from the implementation of more personal freedom.

More personal freedom can be achieved if state control is kept out of private lives. No state licenses ought to be required for taking up residency at any particular location within a state, nor for marriages or divorces, nor other forms of establishing or dissolving sexual unions, nor for attaining a particular education, or for having any number of offspring, nor for choosing to bear a particular name of one's liking.

States may want to establish certainty about a person's citizenship. A genetic fingerprint would be all that is needed. No other personal records are required: no name, no age, no birth place, no information on parents or children, and no information on marital status.

For personal freedom is the absence of preventive state control.