| Related sites for http://www.punkerslut.com/articles/freeloveisfreeexpression.html |
| Poly_MatchMaker An online personals site for poly people. Requires registration (free). | | Poly_Ring,_The A growing collection of websites about polyamory or by polyamorous people. | | Polyamory_Awareness_and_Acceptance_Ribbon_Campaign Products and resources for those interested in responsible non-monogamy. | | A_Polyamory_Community A LiveJournal community, for those who are interested in polyamory, to discuss the philosophy and practice of the polyamorous lovestyle. | | Polyamory_Place Information on alternative lifesyles, catering to couples, triads and biual relationships. Includes personal ads, postcards, bookstore, contests, links, chat and information. | | Polyamory_Pride_Flag Design and explanation of the polyamory pride flag. Graphics available for inclusion in web pages. | | Polyamory_Society,_The The Polyamory Society is a nonprofit organization which promotes and supports the interest of individuals of multipartnered relationships and families. | | Poly-friendly_Professionals Listings of counselors, therapists, lawyers, and other professionals who are open-minded about polyamory. | | Sacred_Space_Institute SSI's intention is to 'create a context in which the arts of whole systems healing, sacred uality, polyamory, community development and new paradigm relating can be taught, developed, applied, give | | The_Simple_Guide_to_Relationships A short, simple guide to maintaining healthy relationships in your life, including relationships with friends, family, lovers, and partners. Did we say simple? We meant it. Simple things stick in t | | Society_for_Human_uality_polyamory_info The Society is a social and educational organization whose purpose is to promote understanding and appreciation for the many forms of intimate relationships and consensual ual expression. | | Star\'s_Polyamory_Page Articles on polyamory, and links to resources. | | An_Unconditional_Love Explores ideas related to polyamory. | | What_Psychology_Professionals_Should_Know_About_Polyamory Paper by Geri D. Weitzman, written for psychologists and psychiatrists. | | Yahoo_Groups__Polyamory A place for the polyamorous community to meet and discuss poly issues. | | AAEC_-_The_Association_of_American_Editorial_Cartoonists View daily editorial cartoons and caricatures by professional and student political cartoonists in the United States and Canada. | | All_Hat_No_Cattle Political cartoons, phototoons, animations, and other humor satirizing the conservative right in the United States. | | American_Political_Cartoons__An_Introduction Focuses on the American political cartoon's rise to fame, the ethics of cartooning, and the elements that make it effective. The site also provides discussion of the composite portraits of women and e | | American_Political_Prints_1766-1876 Provides electronic catalog of prints from the Library of Congress collection. | | Art_Faux\'s__Gallery Political and editorial cartoons in a fine art setting, offering a new image each Monday, Wednesday & Friday. | | Artizans Offers global political cartoons. | | Baldy_Editorial_Cartoons Online collection of over 2500 editorial cartoons dating from 1946 to 1997, by Clifford H. Baldowski. | | Bendib_Cartoon_-_Independent_Political_Cartoons_for_the_Free_Thinking A gallery of 120 recent political cartoons by K. Bendib aimed at both readers and editors. | | Bill_&_Hillary\'s_Cool_Cartoon_Slide-Show Cartoon slide-shows about the whereabouts of Bill and Hillary Clinton. | | Bongo_Toons Virtual exhibition showing over 200 cartoons by 11 leading Tanzanian cartoonists. | | Brick Cartoons, caricatures and illustrations by UK cartoonist/writer Brick (John Stuart Clark) covering international development issues. Includes UNICEF Children's Rights comics and workshop programmes. | | Cartoon_Free_America__Bringing_back_liberty_with_laughter Allows creative artists to donate their work to worthy political and social causes for non-commercial use. Work available on various political topics including environmentalism and activism. | | Cartoon_News Cartoon political magazine. | | Cartoonista_com Works of Lalo Alcaraz. | | Cartoons-political_com A gallery of political cartoons and comments on the right-wing's plunder of our constitutional liberties and living standards. | | The_Confederate_Flag Political cartoons about the Confederate Flag Flap in South Carolina. | | Contagion_Media_Group Left wing perspective on European policy issues. | | Corn_Valley_cartoons Political alternative comic strip appearing weekly in the Eugene Comic News, Funny Times and Z Magazine. | | Cox_and_Forkum Editorial cartoonists for the objectivist magazine The Intellectual Activist, and others. | | Creators__Editorial_Cartoons Gateway to recent cartoons from artists carried by Creators Syndicate. | | CSL_NewsCartoon_Service Online marketplace where professional cartoonists can upload news related cartoons and clients can search, license and download the images for web or print publishing. | | Danzinger_Cartoons Cartoons by Jeff Danzinger of the Los Angeles Times, syndicated by Tribune Media. | | Dave_Granlund Editorial cartoonist and illustrator's gallery. | | The_Doonesbury_Electronic_Town_Hall Access to a searchable database of Doonesbury comic strips, and daily news updates. | | Dr__Seuss_Went_to_War Political cartoons by children's author, and cartoonist Theodor Seuss Geisel, during the war years of 1941-1943. |
|
Free Love Is Free Expression
Main
Books
Essays
Critiques
About
Links
Free Love Is Free Expression
By Punkerslut
Image: "Intertwined" by NiD
Start Date:
Friday, January 11, 2002
Finish Date:
Friday, January 11, 2002
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. , 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 ually abstinent! Rationalist Humanitarians will admit that being moral means something other than ual abstinence; 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 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. , jogging, watching films, playing chess, and talking are all bodily functions. There are no intrinsic differences between these different actions. Sure, 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 abstinence 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 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 partner and that multiple ual 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 ual 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 ual partners for the sole reason that they are more ually active. Such a stereotype is flagrantly foolhardy 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 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 ery. Even the Bible confirms it when it states: "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed ery 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 ual ethics? The reasons have always been disgusting: greed and dogma. Actually ual 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: restriction 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 Civilization Monogamist will say that if you have 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 squabbling 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 ual content to be spread through the mail system. With the trial of Reynolds in the late Nineteenth 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 Scarlet Letter was assigned to those who had committed ery. 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 ery? If you were to ask a Western Civilization Monogamist, practically the majority of humans on this planet, you would be told that ery is ual activity which arouses the 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 ery. If you ask an Arabian Monogamist, you would be told that seeing any skin of a woman that is not your wife is ery. 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 ually 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.
Punkerslut,
copyleft notice and responsibility clause
(read this first before reading anything else on the site)
|
|
