By Punkerslut
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 persistthat Free Love is immoral. They have yet to prove a causalrelationship. An individual may have multiple partners withwhich they do many things: chess, jogging, movie going. Theseare things that people can do together. When they do ittogether, they do not expect their partner to only do such anaction with them only. Sex, as far as our society is concerned,is the only thing which we should limit to one individual. Thereare few, if any, individual who persist that it is a moral dutyfor individuals to have only one chess partner, or only onejogging partner. You can be moral without being monogamous.However, there are certain groups which believe that the word"moral" itself means sexually abstinant! RationalistHumanitarians will admit that being moral means something otherthan sexuall abstinance; we will admit that being moralconstitutes being generous to our fellow men, being kind to ourfellow creatures, and always endeavoring for justice.
The answers for having only one sex partner have all too oftenfallen short of logical and reasonable foundations. There is nocorrelation 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 areno intrinsic differences between these different actions. Sure,sex may be different from jogging or chess in how much pleasureyou can attain, but that is a useless point to make: I amdiscussing intrinsic values here. There are certain drugs whichare fully capable of making someone feel hundreds, if notthousands of times better than they would from on orgasm, yetthere are no philosophical or abstinance groups which areworking to make it so that drug addicts must get high only whenwith one other specific addict. The point is: the amount ofpleasure from sex does not mean it should be limited to only oneperson.
It is obvious that Free Love is not unethical at all. Thearguments used against it are often brought from amidst thecontradictory pages of the Bible or from some other profanesource. There will still be those who assert that you can getall you need from only one sex partner and that multiple sexualpartners are unnecessary. There may be those who assert that onepartner is all you need. And there will be those who stillassert that a one-on-one sexual relationship based on theprinciples of monogamy will last longer than any friendship. Itis often stipulated by monogamists that Free Lovers choose tohave more sexual partners for the sole reason that they are moresexually active. Such a stereotype is flagrantly foolhearty andignorant. Free Love is about the freedom of expression. Ifsomeone can express their lust with lust, then why should theyhold back? There will be bountiful amounts of monogamists whowould hold back. It is a lack of expression. If you lovesomeone, or if you're aroused, there is certainly no reason atall that you should prevent yourself from sex other than forpractical reasons (such as lack of available contraceptives).
The Puritans would have considered holding hands to benon-monogamous when not in marriage. Certain Arabian culturesrequire that females be entirely covered head to toe because tolook at another woman constitutes adultery. Even the Bibleconfirms it when it states: "But I tell you that anyone wholooks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery withher in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-29) The Bible never promised togrant freedom of conscience, and with this cruel moral, this"ethic" if it deserves such a title, restricts freedom ofexpression. If two individuals are close to each other as far astheir character goes, then why should their bodies not be close?If a person loves another, then why refuse to look at eachother, all for the sake of morality and sexual ethics? Thereasons have always been disgusting: greed and dogma. Actuallysexual penetration, kissing, touching, and looking have all beenthings which the army of cruelty and vice have restricted andlimited. The cultures which strongly favored monogamy have alsobeen the cultures which have been fond of viciousness and quickto be malicious in their behaviors. Physical expression wasbanned. To touch one's face affectionately, even if it was yourown child, was considered perverted and demented. To sharekindness and compassion through your body, by making others feelgood about themselves, was ultimately considered evil. This isthe foolishness that is monogamy: restrictiveness of expression.
Such expression is inappropriate, some will claim. The Puritanwill say that if you touch the face of an individual, you are asinner bound to hell by a cruel and vicious god. The ArabianMonogamist will say that if you look at another woman other thanthe wives in your harem, that the woman must be killed. Andtoday, the modern Western Civilizationist Monogamist will saythat 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 falsepropaganda to express their contempt for Liberal ideas. All toooften, their religious squabling is bent on controlling howother people live their own lives. The Puritans aggressivelypunished those who showed affection for each other publicly.Today, if a man is known for having many girlfriends, if he is aFree Lover, lies and slander will be spread about him likewildfire. Freedom of expression has never been the agenda of theRight Wing. Senator Comstock disallowed sexual content to bespread through the mail system. With the trial of Reynolds inthe late Ninteenth Century, the legal system held blasphemy asillegal. In the Seventeenth Century, in the colonies, blasphemywas punishable by death. Oppression has been the only motive ofthe religious right. In the days when the government wasentirely influenced by the corrupt officials who killed andtortured individuals because divine authorities ordered it, theScarlett Letter was assigned to those who had committedadultery. Both men and women were property: both abused ineither the system of African Slavery, Feudalism, or WageSlavery. In this day, this era of abuse and greed, thosegovernments which ordered their citizens to become monogamouswere monsters of their time, incapable of knowing compassion,distant of justice, and beyond any reasonable knowledge ofhumaneness.
What constitutes adultery? If you were to ask a WesternCivilizationist Monogamist, practically the majority of humanson this planet, you would be told that adultery is sexualactivity which arouses the sex organs of any of the participantswhen they are committed to someone else. If you ask a Puritan,you would be told that simple touching is adultery. If you askan Arabian Monogamist, you would be told that seeing any skin ofa woman that is not your wife is adultery. Down and down thelines of various monogamist cultures, and the same basicprinciple is set: expression of affection and love is banned.From tracing the ethics of various monogamist cultures, anyintelligent person would believe that the most monogamistculture would be one which banned the emotion of compassion anddid not tolerate the existence of affection at all. For whocould stand to live under a government which did not permit youto touch the faces of your most loved ones, except under theprovision of such individual being your spouse? Who could liveunder such a tyrannical government which made it so thataffection was only allowed between two who were in marriage?Those who are devoutly and uncompromisingly monogamous are theindividuals who would enjoy this government.
Even if being a Free Lover means I will be less sexually activethan being monogamous, I will absolutely choose the position ofa Free Lover. I value my freedom over pleasure. And for myselfto know that I can be as kind, compassionate, welcoming, andsoothing, and to express myself physically, to express myselffreely, is a right I hold to be undeniable.
www.punkerslut.com
For Life, Punkerslu
Article Source: www.ArticlesBase.com
