Anyone believe in free love?

Sure. If the situation arose and I felt the need and kept it safe, then yeah.

 

i'd say no just bc i'm not into random sex. there's too much you can catch out there these days and i'm not trying to get pregnant.

 

I agree with you completely.... but, I mean, even in the 60s there were still risks. But there's no use arguing over the past, nothing wrong with loving people, it's just that the concept of free love sounds.... oh... I don't know, kind of Charles Mansonish in way that some guy was really horny so he dreamed this up and proposed the plan to a bunch of people who were on acid and they started having orgies. I don't really like the concept of free love as it is fairly pointless unless, for some odd reason, you are trying to get STDs or you are trying to get pregnant on purpose. If someone thought free love up to get child support, that would be another theory.

 

Free love is all I know. Sex is sex, as long as you don't expect anything to come of it. I don't see anything wrong with it as long as both people are aware of the fact that it is just purely all about attraction and sex. Sleeping with someone to try and get them to love you is unhealthy, but that's completely different then free love.
I'm not going to go to the trouble of dating someone, unless I know they are worth it. I've only met two guys that I thought that I could actually see myself loving them...and they both ripped my heart out and did a jig on it. So, from personal experience...sex is much less harmful then a relationship.

 

I don't think that free love was about 'fuck everything that you can't eat' I think it was more about the concept that you could have an emotional attachment to one person, and love that person deeply, and love another person physically. The problem arises when one person considers the other person the one that they have the emotional attachment to, and the other person considers them as the one they love phsically. Then there's the paranoia that feelings will begin to grow between your partner and his or her 'physical partners' and you'll be cast aside. Whether it's innate or whether this is some sort of societal programming, whatever theory you subscribe to, people get jealous. Also, besides being hurt emotionally, monogamy is a way to dodge VD. I think it was an innocent concept in the '60s, very Dionysian and poetic, but not all that applicable now, in the days of the AIDS epidemic.

 

Kate, I couldn't agree more.

You rock.

 

The idea of 'free love' is an 'archaic revival' type thing. Before civilizations, some early and tribal cultures appear to have had group sex rituals asociated with fertility and spring. Because of these rituals, the tribe members could not become isolated couples and claim any children as their own. The children of the tribe belonged to the group. That's the idea anyway...

 

Doesn't work in a society like this one. To many risks out their now. Plus as the group Outkast says "Sex is always better when there is feelings involved"

 

Not me.......it's called STD's and AIDS........

 

babyfreak, 1 in 5 men in America has some form of an std. And in a few years, it is expected that half of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will have one. Unless you demand that all of your partners get tested (a rare occurence, especially among our idiotic youth) you will most likely contract an std at some point in your sex life if that's the way you practice it.
But that's okay. I didn't expect anything more from a 13 year old child.

 

Having sex with strangers without protection is playing a very risky game, who knows what you could contract?
The only way I'm going to have sex without a condom is if he has gotten tested, and shows me that he is clean. To do otherwise just wouldn't be worth the risk.

 

the kid will tell you to do it with a preacher.

 

aye.
and good bear analogy, Tor...
who's more wise, what controls you: emotions or knowledge?
time and a place for both.

 

yeah, and if you had any knowledge, you'd realize it's a bad idea thought of by horny men to guilt women into sleeping with them. Polygamy was only necessary (And I use the term "necessary" loosely) back when there were 5 humans on earth. Nowadays, unless it's already a part of your culture that goes back tousands of years, it's a bad idea, period.

-Kate

 

oh my, you feel very strongly about this, and i admire your well-thought replies...
for every horny man there is a horny woman... and it's impossible to identify the inventor of free love, much less their sex. Maybe it was janis joplin....
romance is real, and by the sounds of it, seldom experienced in this forum. in such scenarios, love-making is the sweetest icing on the best cake ever. i hope you experience it sometime, i'm sure you will, in fact, and when it happens, you will be smart enough to use all available precautions...
perhaps this romance of yours will take place in strawberry fields?

 

Testosterone is the hormone that causes "horniness" and while both men and women have testosterone, since men generally have more, it is possible to conclude that they are horny more often. Also, men are visually stimulated, whereas women are generally emotionally stimulated. Since there is an abundance of sexual images in our society, it also adds evidence to the given conclusion.

Of course I can't pinpoint the exact person who started free love, but since nearly all societies thousands of years ago were patriarchal, it is very reasonable to assume that the societies where free love came from suppressed women and used sex as a power tool.

-Kate

 

you must own all the encyclopaedias, but it sounds as though you've not stepped out of school... into the world of lovers, ie: bars and colleges and uninhibited social life.
mind you, personally, that's a life I could do without... it's a mess really.
but i still believe in romance, corny as it sounds, it makes all practical knowledge seem unimportant...
(and i think our definitions of free love are different, but that's okay. facts, smacks, eh).

 

Wow Kate, I could not agree more than I do, with all the things you have said!

 

Why thank you...and hey, you're from redwood city, right? Isn't that right near san fran? I move there in 81 days! (okay, I'm really starting to say that a little too much )

 

Although I do live in the redwoods, I don't live in Redwood City. I live in Arcata which is about 270 miles north of San Fran. It's awesome that you're moving to around there though, I'm sure you will love it!