Thursday 27 September 2007

Free Love- When Sex Is No Longer Dirty

The last of my posts on the possibilities of life ahead is possibly going to be the most controversial- because it is going to turn traditional morals on its head.

I am going to come out and candidly say, that our morals on sex are largely a social construct, and one which will soon be overthrown and inverted.
In fact that process has already begun.

Firstly, lets actually have a look at what makes biological sense.
Monogamy doesn't.
Which is why so few successful species practice it.

It is Genetic foolishness for any reproductive individual to put all its eggs in one basket, so to speak and do all its breeding with the same individual.

This is not just true of males, it is true of females.
Producing offspring with as many different partners as possible, is the best choice your genes can make to be passed on.

So why do we practice Monogamy?
Why has so much human energy been expounded in stopping people having sex?

Firstly, because we are not designed perfectly. The nature of our reproductive organs- the fact they also pass waste- makes sex a hazardous business. It spreads disease.

Secondly, in a civilised culture, people need to know what to do with the property of people when they die.
Since the concept of giving it to his children semed fair, you have to be certain you know who all his children are.
So you have to know which women he had sex with, and be sure no other men have had sex with those women too.

If everyone is going to have an opportunity to have sex, this can only be so if the culture adopts monogamy.

It involves a huge repression of human instinct- but it serves a cultural purpose.
And to further prevent unnecessary disease, you stop ALL sex, that serves no reproductive purpose.

And over the years, a fair amount of male dignity has ended up getting attached to this.
Men took pride in the idea that 'their' woman was 'pure'.

Except of course today, with primogeniture largely a thing of the past, and DNA tests around to ensure we know whose child is whose, and with a better understanding of how veneral diseases are spread- even the chance at their eventual eradication-, with contraception to mean that sex need not lead to pregnancy, there is no compelling social reason to maintain these taboos.

Except male dignity.

Men still inherit a distaste for a woman with a past- whilst both sexes are locked into the idea that their partner having sex with another person is a humiliation for them, an attack on their dignity.

Or so it would appear.
In fact, the cracks are already appearing.

An increasing number of couples lead happy lives in situations where honesty, not fidelity is what keeps them together.
I know couples who live happily in open relationships, even one open marriage.

What is more significant, perhaps, is how many women of the younger generation are keen to advertise their promiscuity.
Because increasingly, it is becoming a selling point.

Men have always wanted easy sex.
A women who advertises that she wants easy sex, and has had plenty of it, is going to receive takers.
And not, as was once the case, just to use her.
Many men now, are in fact looking for a self confident, sexually liberated female, who they can initially have a good time with, and demands will not be made.

And in fact, it's a better way to find the perfect partner. Because it actually allows two people to find eachother emotionally, physically and spiritually.

An increasing number of men realise that if you really love someone, you don't need to own them, as long as they are always with you and always give you their love.
And if they give you as much of their love as you want, then it really doesn't matter how much they give to others.

Furthermore, if you REALLY loved someone, the idea of preventing them from fulfilling their sexuality, would be abhorrent.
In a situation of TRUE love, a man and a woman would express their love for eachother, by seeing the person they loved sexually fulfilled in whatever way the person they loved was fulfilled.

If a man truly loves a woman, he will care for her children, because they are hers, not because they are his.

The idea that promiscuity is a negative, that a promiscuous man is sleazy, or a promiscuous woman dirty belongs in the past.

Both in fact, are being generous with their love and affection.
Breaking the nasty limiting ideal of witholding your sexual desires for intimacy with- and your capacity to love- every member of humanity, bar one.

This nasty idea of owning the person you purport to love is not the real us.

Future generations will look at our ideals of chastity and virginity as comparable to slavery.
Which in a sense, they are.
Imposing on anybody the request that they preserve their love for YOU, and only YOU is thoroughly nasty, selfish and symptomatic of an inferiority complex.

Put bluntly, I don't think I'm bad looking, or bad in bed, probably a seven out of ten on both, but if I really loved a woman, I'd be flattered that she enjoyed the ten out of tens regularly, yet still gave me her love every night.

Because it would mean that what we had, was a REAL connection- a connection of mind and soul.

THAT would be a special woman.

The real point is love.
We should only have sex with those we love.

But that shouldn't mean that we have sex less.
It should make us love more.

Sex also serves a purpose, as a pwerful bonding mechanism- it draws people closer together, cementing the bonds of humanity.

The real Sexual Revolution, and the real Feminist Revolution will have taken place when the women held in most respect by society, are those our culture has taught us to most despise.
When we see them, not as sluts or whores, but as true Goddesses of Love.

When a woman feels pride, not shame, in a long list list of sexual conquests.

When a real man would not want a woman who could not love others too.

Thats what Free Love means- everyone being free to give their love, without fear of judgement.

Love should never be shackled.
Love should never be judged.

Again, we need to grow up.


Anonymous said...

things that make you go hmmmm... I only know one thing and that is the difference between men and women when it comes to sex is this women need a reason to have sex and men just need a place to have sex!

Anonymous said...

I actually have to agree with a lot of what you say here. I don't think promiscuity is a negative at all and I definitely agree that all the negative connotations of sex have to be gotten over and put away.

As much as open relationships are a nice idea...maybe. I don't think I could. And I don't think it's a question of not loving someone enough to let them fuck other people. I couldn't put up with that. It would hurt and I would definitely be jealous...but like you say that could just be my problem. I would feel like I was being cheated on, whether he was open about it or not.

There's a lot of good can be taken from this idea though, a lot of good.

Anonymous said...

I just finished reading a book called Free Love...weird!

Anonymous said...

Years ago I read a book called The Red Queen by Matt Ridley.

It talks in depth about this very subject, all be it from more of an evolutionary biology perspective.

It will be a huge shift for many people but so much of the baggage we carry is given to us by our parents and educators that it will be a generational change that evolves over time.

Like Oestrebunny said, it is not for her, and I know that with some one I love totally, it is not for me either. The conditioning is hard wired from too young.

The flip side is that I know that I have more respect than say my own parents, for anyone who chooses an open sexual relationship or makes love when and with whom they want.

Anonymous said...

monogomy is beautiful and I hope to one day have it with somebody that loves me to bits.

BUT I do hear what you are saying and there is a big part of me ( the realist part) that has to give a nod of the head in agreement.

still, I like my fairytale dreams of one true love. I just do.

Anonymous said...

…it is going to turn traditional morals on its head…

No, it doesn't do that. Also, like the pornographers, it confuses the word lust with love. This is all about refusing to commit to one woman and tries to justify the unjustifiable. Very woolly headed thinking. Sorry but it's so.

Anonymous said...

I know you think monogamy is a thing of the past, but trust me when I say it is truly one of the most beautiful gifts we can give to our partners and ourselves.

There's nothing like it and people try to tear it down into nothing. It is a substantial part of who we are. Just because someone along the line said, we as a species are not meant to be monogamous doesn't mean it is true.

"...many women of the younger generation are keen to advertise their promiscuity. Because increasingly, it is becoming a selling point."

Unfortunately, I think you are right here and the age of women and girls doing it are getting younger everyday. I hate seeing 8 year old girls wearing thongs. We have to draw a line somewhere.

"The idea that promiscuity is a negative, that a promiscuous man is sleazy, or a promiscuous woman dirty belongs in the past."

I think promiscuity itself belongs in the past and people should embrace and value their sexuality by not just giving it to every Tom, Dick and Harry.

Anonymous said...

Poody- You describe current realities well, or at least perecptions of them.
But in fact there should only be one reason either have sex- the desire to express love and life.

Oestrebunny- I used to get very jealous about that sort of thing.
Then I realised over time, my jealouay was incompatible with true Love.
Also, how could I honestly say I could not forgive someone I claimed to love, for feeling desire for someone else and acting on it?

That's conditional and possessive, theefore, not love.

Jenny- It has to be one of the most misunderstood principles of human existence.
Because it is in fact, such a nicer concept than the dirty, ugly jealous concept of monogamy and sexual 'fidelity'.

Josh- Much of it is bound up in male dignity. Men kep telling themselves that is only men who should be allowed to make love when and where they want.

But I think in a few gernerations time, the whole thing will be the other way round.

What we know call a 'slut', will be seen the way we know see 'stud', highly commendable.

Betty- Again, the one true love thing is largely a social construct.
But you are looking here at my fairytale dream, I guess.

James- Lust and Love shouldn't be separate, it is our twisted society with its false monogamy ideals that make it so.
And no, it isn't to me about refusing to commit to one woman.

It is about being able to love a woman who doesn't have to 'commit' to me.
I have absolutely no particular desire to impose sexual 'fidelity' on any woman, because I think its a nasty thing to do to a woman.

Theoretically, I'm EVEN prepared to commit to a woman on condition she ISN'T sexually faithful, just to prove the point.

Alexys- Maybe, but it's a gift I don't want any woman giving me, particularly.
I'd rather she expressed herself to her full potential, and enjoyed her life to the maximum.

That would be my gift to her.

But I agree with you about the girls wearing thongs.

That is a sick side of our society.

Anonymous said...

I am willing to have sex with absolutely anybody.. hello..? HELLO??
OK ... don't all rush at once...

Anonymous said...

No, I don't agree with this at all. I've said before, and I'll say it again, when you are in a mature adult relationship (and you have listed the lengths of your past relationships, so I know you have yet to be in that type of relationship), couples work out their terms.
But to assert that society should change monogamy mores, is taking it too far. The fact of the matter is that monogamy mores aren't about possession, they are in place to ensure proper providence for children.

Values are not in place for the most high-minded in a society, they are in place for the least. Studies show time and time again that children reared with the support of mothers and fathers are better off (although my single friends are doing awesome jobs rearing their children). Studies additionally show that non-monogamous relationships do not display biparental care.

I don't know anyone who is attached to the idea monogamy=possession the way you are. A couple will work out their parameters and get past societal influence one way or another, so why not leave an institution in place that better provides for the next generation.

Anonymous said...

I like what you said about genes. It makes a lot of sense to me; choose the best sperm donors. Thing is, who's gonna raise them? As you say, most men wouldn't want to raise another man's kids (cos kids are problem enough; you'd have to love them lots for that, and it's easier to love yourself, or something you perceive as 'your own'.
On the other hand.... perhaps there are some sorts of love where everyone else is abhorrent to you, and you just want one person ('cos after all, it's not that easy to find ppl one is comfortable enough with to have sex with). And there's one more concept ppl have, I guess; that if something is 'just for them', it's special (i'm picturing a dog that will bite anyone but you - that would make you feel pretty special, wouldn't it ;-))....

Anonymous said...

as an american, we are brainwashed with puritan values, particularly sexual taboo. i visit other countries (ie. brazil, italy, france, germany, etc.) where promiscuity is nothing to be ashamed of... sex is a part of life. but, monogamy is still revered in these countries. being monogamous is a beautiful thing (as alexys eloquently stated). however, nowadays i feel people are sudden to jump ship from such relationships when things go a bit sour... the grass will always be greener on the other side. the idea of an open relationship can be a solution. but, if you really love someone, being completely dedicated and committed to them, is part of the beauty of love. i think i'm rambling some. good post, ingy.

Anonymous said...

So you are single correct?

I think we could help you.

Anonymous said...

I recall using this exact same argument (age 21) when attempting to persuade a young woman that having intercourse (despite being attached) was not necessarily an evil and selfish act...
Are you: -
1. Likewise engaged.
2. Age 21.

Anonymous said...

There are an awful lot of societies using the ideal of the "pure woman" to keep everyone down, Crushed. Have you read "L'Invitée" by Simone de Beauvoir? The trouble with open relationships is that however unpossessive you think you are, sooner or later jealousy will raise its ugly head.
But this is a great and a brave post.

Anonymous said...

Mutley- Maybe this is where you are going are going wrong.

It's not about a quick bang, it's about offering a life- changing emotional experience.

That's what I aim for.
Hey, it not only works, that is what sex should be.

Helen- I've never mentioned the two year engagement I lived through on this site.

I have loved several times in my life.
When I finally do, I want it to be PROPERLY.
Without the nastiness that most people take for granted.

Eve- I have now got to the point I will only have sex with people who have intellectually stimulated me enough to want to.

The best way to get me into bed, seriously, is to discuss Marx with me.

Raffi- Some of the most romantic and emotional experiences I have had have been with 'one night stands'.

I can recall girls I have lied next to and spent six hours sharing post coital discussion with, knowing we will never meet again.

If anyone wants to tell me, that meant nothing, they are a SOULLESS LIFELESS FASCIST.

Ian- Why would I want your help?

Did you READ my post?

Lucien- No, but I AM a person who has seen life that I guarentee you will never see.
Sorry, sex between two consensual adults ias never wrong.
Think what you like.

Welshcakes- The jealousy is a social construct.
It took me a long time to get over the distate, al,l of it dictated bt fairly unpleasant male ideas of dignity.

But yes, I believe 100% everything I have written here.

If I ever find 'true Love', it will not be with a 'faithful' girl.

And that is the very thing I will Love about her.

Anonymous said...

Crushed, you focused on one minor aspect of my comment, and not the point that I made regarding monogomous relationships and child-rearing. In that regard there should be societal standard in place.

Anonymous said...

"Lucien- No, but I AM a person who has seen life that I guarentee you will never see."

Bold claim... I trust you base your philosophy on more experience than you have of me.

Anonymous said...

There is a lot more to a monogomous relationship especially if you have children than sex. OK the sex is important in a practical way to allow children to be part of your life. Later on there is so much more to a succesful marriage internally and externally than a few minutes in the sheets on an agreed frequency.

Anonymous said...

Helen- But do you not think that a couple in an open marriage can be good parents?
The couple I referred to in the post, are parents.
The children do not know, I'm sure.

Lucien- Possibly that came across as snappy, sorry :).

What I meant was, my views are based on experience.
I have made a complete U turn in this position since I was 21- when my views were the opposite to those I promote here (Well, I pretended they were at the time. Usual male hypocrisy).

Colin- This is partly my argument. A real relationship should be a spiritual connection.
Why must it entail sexual exclusivity?