Free Love is Free Expression
Free Love Is Free Expression
By Punkerslut
It is doubtless that the theory of Free Love is not unethical.
There are, however, still individuals who continue to persist
that Free Love is immoral. They have yet to prove a causal
relationship. An individual may have multiple partners with
which they do many things: chess, jogging, movie going. These
are things that people can do together. When they do it
together, they do not expect their partner to only do such an
action with them only. Sex, as far as our society is concerned,
is the only thing which we should limit to one individual. There
are few, if any, individual who persist that it is a moral duty
for individuals to have only one chess partner, or only one
jogging partner. You can be moral without being monogamous.
However, there are certain groups which believe that the word
"moral" itself means sexually abstinant! Rationalist
Humanitarians will admit that being moral means something other
than sexuall abstinance; we will admit that being moral
constitutes being generous to our fellow men, being kind to our
fellow creatures, and always endeavoring for justice.
The answers for having only one sex partner have all too often
fallen short of logical and reasonable foundations. There is no
correlation between Free Lovers and individuals who are immoral.
There certainly may be people who try to make it look that way,
but no such correlation is true. Sex, jogging, watching films,
playing chess, and talking are all bodily functions. There are
no intrinsic differences between these different actions. Sure,
sex may be different from jogging or chess in how much pleasure
you can attain, but that is a useless point to make: I am
discussing intrinsic values here. There are certain drugs which
are fully capable of making someone feel hundreds, if not
thousands of times better than they would from on orgasm, yet
there are no philosophical or abstinance groups which are
working to make it so that drug addicts must get high only when
with one other specific addict. The point is: the amount of
pleasure from sex does not mean it should be limited to only one
person.
It is obvious that Free Love is not unethical at all. The
arguments used against it are often brought from amidst the
contradictory pages of the Bible or from some other profane
source. There will still be those who assert that you can get
all you need from only one sex partner and that multiple sexual
partners are unnecessary. There may be those who assert that one
partner is all you need. And there will be those who still
assert that a one-on-one sexual relationship based on the
principles of monogamy will last longer than any friendship. It
is often stipulated by monogamists that Free Lovers choose to
have more sexual partners for the sole reason that they are more
sexually active. Such a stereotype is flagrantly foolhearty and
ignorant. Free Love is about the freedom of expression. If
someone can express their lust with lust, then why should they
hold back? There will be bountiful amounts of monogamists who
would hold back. It is a lack of expression. If you love
someone, or if you're aroused, there is certainly no reason at
all that you should prevent yourself from sex other than for
practical reasons (such as lack of available contraceptives).
The Puritans would have considered holding hands to be
non-monogamous when not in marriage. Certain Arabian cultures
require that females be entirely covered head to toe because to
look at another woman constitutes adultery. Even the Bible
confirms it when it states: "But I tell you that anyone who
looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with
her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-29) The Bible never promised to
grant freedom of conscience, and with this cruel moral, this
"ethic" if it deserves such a title, restricts freedom of
expression. If two individuals are close to each other as far as
their character goes, then why should their bodies not be close?
If a person loves another, then why refuse to look at each
other, all for the sake of morality and sexual ethics? The
reasons have always been disgusting: greed and dogma. Actually
sexual penetration, kissing, touching, and looking have all been
things which the army of cruelty and vice have restricted and
limited. The cultures which strongly favored monogamy have also
been the cultures which have been fond of viciousness and quick
to be malicious in their behaviors. Physical expression was
banned. To touch one's face affectionately, even if it was your
own child, was considered perverted and demented. To share
kindness and compassion through your body, by making others feel
good about themselves, was ultimately considered evil. This is
the foolishness that is monogamy: restrictiveness of expression.
Such expression is inappropriate, some will claim. The Puritan
will say that if you touch the face of an individual, you are a
sinner bound to hell by a cruel and vicious god. The Arabian
Monogamist will say that if you look at another woman other than
the wives in your harem, that the woman must be killed. And
today, the modern Western Civilizationist Monogamist will say
that if you have sex with an individual who is not your
"significant other," then you are immoral and without values.
The Right Wing political branch is always quick to spread false
propaganda to express their contempt for Liberal ideas. All too
often, their religious squabling is bent on controlling how
other people live their own lives. The Puritans aggressively
punished those who showed affection for each other publicly.
Today, if a man is known for having many girlfriends, if he is a
Free Lover, lies and slander will be spread about him like
wildfire. Freedom of expression has never been the agenda of the
Right Wing. Senator Comstock disallowed sexual content to be
spread through the mail system. With the trial of Reynolds in
the late Ninteenth Century, the legal system held blasphemy as
illegal. In the Seventeenth Century, in the colonies, blasphemy
was punishable by death. Oppression has been the only motive of
the religious right. In the days when the government was
entirely influenced by the corrupt officials who killed and
tortured individuals because divine authorities ordered it, the
Scarlett Letter was assigned to those who had committed
adultery. Both men and women were property: both abused in
either the system of African Slavery, Feudalism, or Wage
Slavery. In this day, this era of abuse and greed, those
governments which ordered their citizens to become monogamous
were monsters of their time, incapable of knowing compassion,
distant of justice, and beyond any reasonable knowledge of
humaneness.
What constitutes adultery? If you were to ask a Western
Civilizationist Monogamist, practically the majority of humans
on this planet, you would be told that adultery is sexual
activity which arouses the sex organs of any of the participants
when they are committed to someone else. If you ask a Puritan,
you would be told that simple touching is adultery. If you ask
an Arabian Monogamist, you would be told that seeing any skin of
a woman that is not your wife is adultery. Down and down the
lines of various monogamist cultures, and the same basic
principle is set: expression of affection and love is banned.
>From tracing the ethics of various monogamist cultures, any
intelligent person would believe that the most monogamist
culture would be one which banned the emotion of compassion and
did not tolerate the existence of affection at all. For who
could stand to live under a government which did not permit you
to touch the faces of your most loved ones, except under the
provision of such individual being your spouse? Who could live
under such a tyrannical government which made it so that
affection was only allowed between two who were in marriage?
Those who are devoutly and uncompromisingly monogamous are the
individuals who would enjoy this government.
Even if being a Free Lover means I will be less sexually active
than being monogamous, I will absolutely choose the position of
a Free Lover. I value my freedom over pleasure. And for myself
to know that I can be as kind, compassionate, welcoming, and
soothing, and to express myself physically, to express myself
freely, is a right I hold to be undeniable.
www.punkerslut.com
For Life, Punkerslut