Talk:Free love

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, free love is an ideology, amongst other things. It is also free love, love for free (as in freedom).

Someone might one to mention that it has fallen out of favor in the last 20-30 years with the increased concern regarding sexually transmitted diseases.

Contents 1 Woodhull quote 2 Lead section 3 1001 Nights Story 4 Bravo 5 Gay marriage 6 Free union 7 USSR

[edit] Woodhull quote

Here's another quote from Woodhull that gives a picutre of the connection between free love and women's emancipation. I didn't put it in the article but will leave it here in case there's a place for it later.

"The sexual relation, must be rescued from this insidious form of slavery. Women must rise from their position as ministers to the passions of men to be their equals. Their entire system of education must be changed. They must be trained to be like men, permanent and independent individualities, and not their mere appendages or adjuncts, with them forming but one member of society. They must be the companions of men from choice, never from necessity."

ntennis 09:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

User:Patrick re-phrased the second sentence in the lead section, from (1) to (2):

1) While the phrase is often associated today with promiscuity, free love movements have historically been more interested in personal freedoms than advocating multiple sexual partners; as such, they are also distinct from institutionalised polygamy.

2) Today the phrase is often associated with promiscuity, but the sexual freedom free love movements have historically been advocating was not necessarily the freedom to have multiple sexual partners, whether or not in the form of institutionalised polygamy.

I'm very open to improvements on this section but I don't feel (2) accurately describes the spirit of free love, and is has a very confusing sentence structure. It implies that free lovers don't necessarily have anything against institutionalised polygamy — whereas I imagine they would reject it for the same reasons they oppose other institutions of marriage. Maybe Patrick, you can clarify for me what bothered you about the other version and/or what you are getting at with your new version? I'll have a go at rephasing it too. ntennis 11:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not just mention the current meaning in passing. Does "historically" mean outdated, or still applicable? Also, if two things are distinct, say in what regard.--Patrick 13:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much the current "meaning" as the association that is often made by people who are not familiar with free love writings etc. In fact the charge of promiscuity has been levelled at free love for centuries. The polygamy thing is there to emphasise that free love is not about multiple sexual partners. Hope the new version is clearer. ntennis 14:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's my revision:

3) While the phrase "free love" is sometimes associated with promiscuity in the popular imagination, the number of sexual partners is not a determining factor — free love practice may involve long-term monogamous relationships, but would not include institutional forms of polygamy.

And Patrick's changes to that:

4) The number of sexual partners is not a determining factor — free love practices range from having many partners (sometimes referred to as "promiscuity") to long-term monogamous relationships (as long as the partners have the freedom to end the relationship whenever they want). However, they would not include institutional forms of polygamy.

Can you explain your new concerns about version (3)? I'm not happy with (4) for a few reasons. Firstly, having many partners does not exactly equal promiscuity, which is defined as "the practice of making relatively unselective, casual and indiscriminate choices" by the wikipedia article linked to. However, the phrase "free love" is often associated with a promiscuous lifestyle in the popular imagination; I think it's worth noting this in the lead section as a kind of caveat to readers. Also, the crux of free love is also not the freedom to end relationships. Have you read the article, or any writings from the free love movement? Lastly, free love practises range from promiscuity, to group "marriage" (a la Noyes), to celibacy, and beyond — not from promiscuity to monogamous relationships as your revision says. I've taken the step of reverting your edit. Can we please discuss possible changes to the lead section here? ntennis 02:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There is hardly an explanation what is meant by free love. For example, "the number of sexual partners is not a determining factor" is a cryptic way of saying that the movement seeks freedom in the number of sexual partners (if that is meant). Also, mention what other freedom is sought. And what are the objections against marriage? One might be that it is difficult to end (although divorce may be easy in some jurisdictions), but you deny that that is important. What freedom makes a long-term monogamous relationship a form of "free love", relative to a marriage?--Patrick 00:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The point of free love as I understand it is to demand freedom in love — love relations which are freely agreed to by participants should not be regulated by (for example) the law. Particulars differ from one free love advocate to another, but commonly objected to are laws preventing an unmarried couple from living together, or laws regulating adultery, divorce, age of consent, and birth control. Some object to laws regulating same-sex sexuality, abortion and prostitution. The abrogation of individual rights in marriage is also a concern — for example, property rights, or laws that do not recognise marital rape, or treat it differently to other kinds of rape. See self-ownership. Similarly problematic is the social expectation of marriage, policies that require(d) a female teacher to be a virgin, or policies that discriminate against children of unmarried parents. The freedom to be celibate is just a much a part of it as freedom to screw around. These are just examples from the Western world (the particulars would of course differ in another social context, e.g. arranged marriage, kings or emperors with concubines, etc.), and most of it is already in the article. I think there is a place for a general discussion of the issues before the history section; I just haven't gotten around to writing it yet. ntennis 00:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. For now, I added part of this to the article.--Patrick 06:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1001 Nights Story

I removed the claim that "The Tale of Abdullah the Fisherman and Abdullah the Merman" from The Book of One Thousand and One Nights reflects a vision of a free love society. I haven't seen the cited reference (Irwin, Robert, Political Thought in The Thousand and One Nights, in: Marvels & Tales - Volume 18, Number 2, 2004, pp. 246-257. Wayne State University Press), but the undersea society reflected in the story itself is not at all a free love society. John M Baker 17:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bravo

I think this article is very well done. I don't know how to nominate it for a public review or what the next step would be in making it even better. Ideas?

[edit] Gay marriage

I suppose the free love movement doesn't care one way or the other about gay marriage...204.52.215.107 04:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free union

I wrote an article about free unions, which are mentioned in both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and in Familiaris Consortio. The page free union now talks about unions that lack any publicly recognized bond, and was formerly a redirection page for Free Union, Virginia. Does the content in the free union page really belong in this article? Jplatts 17:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USSR

I've made some significant changes to the recent additions on the USSR in the early 20th century. I think some of the claims made (that Lenin and the bolsheviks were tackling gender oppression and supportive of sexual freedoms, but that Stalin came along and wrecked it all) are persistent myths among the left, but not supported by evidence. On the contrary, Marx, Engels and Lenin opposed sexual liberation. For example: "According to Lenin, the very notion of sexual emancipation was typical of capitalist societies and a symptom of bourgeois degeneracy." Hekma, Gert; Oosterhuis, Harry; and Steakley, James (1995). Leftist sexual politics and Homosexuality: A Historical Overview. Journal of Homosexuality, 1995, Volume 29, Issue 2/3. ISSN 0091-8369 I've added some references to the section as well. -ntennis 08:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You've left the article implying, based on a couple quotations by Lenin, that the Bolsheviks were complete moral conservatives, but the loosened restrictions on divorce, legal equality of women (even if only on paper for most people) and the legalization of homosexuality are indisputable facts and I don't see why you had to delete them. Marx et al may not have been 21st-century feminists but take for example Origin of the Family, they go into great detail about the oppression of women and their intent to resolve it. Obviously they didn't succeed; Soviet women and homosexuals were never properly endowed with their new legal freedoms, and lost even a legal claim to them from the late 1920's on. And I never spoke of Stalin, like some alien invader, "coming along and wrecking it all." The conservative backlash in the Soviet Union was unavoidable, like the aftermath of any social revolution. That doesn't mean the years 1917-1924 can be written out of history as an anomaly, any more than the early chapters of the French Revolution. Ahuitzotl (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)