Anyone believe in free love?

Ya know, like you don't have to love someone, you could just meet them and then have sex? I don't know too many people who think likewise at my school, but I'm sure someone out there still believes in it.

 

Normally I would have said yes, of course, of course! But now I don't know...get back to me in a week or so when I can straighten things out in my mind.

 

Good luck with that; I haven't even lost my virginity but I stopped carring when I looked into free love.

 

Hell no. That concept was thought up by some horny loser who couldn't get laid unless he went around telling people they were uptight prudes unless they slept with everyone. Not saying all people who believe in free love think that way, but that's how the modern movement began.

Now, lets forget about my opinion and just consider the consequences of such a reality...STDs, unwanted pregnancy, children growing up not knowing who their father is, people dying of AIDS...and all because a few short-sighted individuals were too stubburn to buy a fucking vibrator (or pornos for the guys).

Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

 

No I'm not of the mind-set. Personally it takes a connection physically and mentally before I think of anything like sex.

 

That's true Strawberry, STDs weren't as big of a problem back around the 60s though. I'm not talking about having sex left and right though, just the concept of free love; that you don't feel that intimancy is imperative to having sexual relations with someone.

 

im not sure thats what the concept free love was all about...


but that type of free love can be dangerous, they would have to be a pretty cool stranger.

 

Is "free" the same as "No payments till January"?

 

Yes, I'm sorry for being so unclear in my first post; that's not exactly what I meant.

 

You cant do that anymore it isnt the 60s, there are lots of bad stds now. Id rather stick to one mate that I will love and do her. But I'm still a virgin.

 

I agree. One mate makes things less confusing and it means more.

 

I'm sure that STD's and pregancy were a problem in the 60s but I think that some people take a little responsibility in their actions and use protection nowadays ... I know I would anyway. I'd say 'yay' to free love if more people took this on board!

 

No, they weren't the big of a problem. There was no such thing as aid's or all of the std's that are around today. People didn't have as much to lose now as they did then. Hence why a lot more people had casual sex.

 

If you want to have an orgasm without being intimate with anyone, why don't you just masturbate? Because ultimately, that's all that non-intimate sex is--masturbation with a partner. What makes sex different than masturbating (besides the obvious) is that sex is a way of physically, emotionally and spiritually CONNECTING with someone other than yourself.

Biologically speaking, it doesn't make sense for women to believe in free sex, because when a woman has intercourse (particularly if she's young and hormonal) her body sends out hormones that make her emotionally attatched to the owner of the penis inside her (unless of course she's raped). Most women who do practice free sex have had to do some degree of emotional self-training to avoid these feelings of attatchment.

I don't understand why your so hell-bent on losing your virginity. I'm 17 (older than you) and still a virgin and I really don't care.

Look, sex without emotional attatchment is always a bad idea because there is ALWAYS the risk of pregnancy and STDs. And to the person who said that protection should be used, I must warn you of this: Crabs, genital warts, and genital herpes (the last two of which there is no cure) CANNOT be protected against even with a condom. So there you go.

And about pregnancy...If just one baby was born without knowing who their father is and suffered significant emotional distress because of it (which has already happened hundreds of millions of times before), ALL the justifications for free "love" would be thrown out the window, because to jepordize the future of an innocent child just because you were horny one day and too lazy to masturbate is completely and utterly WRONG. Even if you use birth control, NO method is 100% effective.

When you say you want to have sex without intamacy, I read that as "Women are sex objects and I deserve as many of them as I want." Bullshit. I hate to tell you this, but vaginas are a PRIVELEDGE, not a RIGHT. You're just going to have to learn to deal.

-Kate

 

Free love doesn't work in this world, and there wasn't much of a point in the concept of free love in the past either. If that floats your boat, do whatever you want.

 

I beleive in loving evrybody but not fukin everybody...like many of you said...too many diseases out there...

 

Hey Kate. I just wanted to "applaud" you really for your posts. I agree with absolutely everything you said. You definitely know what you're talking about, and it's nice that you had all of that to say, to justify your opinion. I agree! Great job!

 

See above.

Great post Kate, very intelligent. I too totally agree.

Rumour has it sex without emotional attachment is crap anyway, so why bother. (Not that I'd personally know, having never met anyone worth sleeping with)

But hey whatever floats your boat.

TTFN

Sage

 

For some reason i dont think that is at all what free love is. I believe in free love, but i dont sleep around, in fact, i too am a virgin. I feel that free love is no different than polyamory... you still sleep with whomever you feel an emotional bond to, but you dont restrict it and say "i can only have an emotional atachment to one person". Free love is realistic, in that it is very possible to be in love with multiple people. It is relationships without the possesive aspect. It is free because you are not tied down to one person, rather than unpaid prostitution. I have actually been in a relationship like that, and it was very good, it broke down all of the ownership aspects and was much more healthy than a "you belong to me" type relationship.

 

There is always a risk involved with something. However some risks aren't as big as others.

free Love is fine with me as long as I'm not in a relationship. If both people agree then why not? If both people understand and willing to take the risk of STD's or pregnancy then I see no problem in it.

Sometimes we do things that are "spiritual" or like that in some sense. And some times we just want to do that with the "spiritualness".

Example: I smoke pot to see multiple perspectives of situations and to meet new people ect. ect. But sometimes I just want to smoke to get high because I like the feeling of being high.

Is it wrong? Maybe so, but we all have urges and sometimes it can be worse to supress them.

Just my opinions so please don't slam me for them.
-Peace