What is Free Love?
Monogamy | Non-Monogamy
When people hear the term ‘free love’, it may evoke an image of cavorting hippies, limbs intertwined in a psychedelically-tinged orgy, resulting in sloppy emotional entanglements and multiple children from different partners. But while sexual disinhibition is certainly a central component of free love, its intellectual, philosophical, and mystical complexity cannot simply be reduced to sexual gratification.
The term is often connected to the sexual revolution of the 60’s, but it is not any sort of modern phenomena. It can trace its roots back to early Christianity — the Adamites of the 2nd century being one of the earliest Christian sects reported to have adopted non-monogamy practices (along with nudism), as did the Anabaptists of the 16th century with their practice of wife-swapping. Though long before Christianity many tribal societies had practices that reflect free love (the majority of primitive societies were polygamous, for instance), free love as a concept has philosophical, intellectual, and mystical elements that sets it apart from earlier polygamous or non-monogamous practices.
The term has connotations of being footloose and fancy-free, of being avoidant of commitment. But free love is not free because it abandons, replaces or moves on from one to the next; rather, love is free because it can inexhaustibly divide itself. And this love is rooted in the responsibility for the other. This differs from mainstream views on monogamy, which should be more accurately described as serial monogamy, and even distinguishes itself from other views on consensual non-monogamy which often tend to prioritize individual freedom over commitment and self-growth over responsibility for the other.
As a final point of introduction, the goal here is not to claim that the sexual openness (non-monogamy) implied by free love is superior to monogamy. While the mystical intuition that underpins free love is certainly of a higher caliber than that of a world view that extolls jealousy, self-centeredness, and discard culture, which is what we tend to find with mainstream serial monogamy, the practical implementation of one part of free love — sexual openness — is not without its discontents. It may be that either monogamy or non-monogamy is morally or intellectually superior to the other, or it might be that neither are, but that it depends on the individual, or on different stages of life, or different cultures. Or it may be that one way is indeed superior as an abstract concept or for the few, but damaging for society at large if implemented wholesale. Whatever the case may be, the goal here is to give an exposition of free love and to address common critiques.
The Mystical Intuition
For the mystic, the physical parallels a spiritual or cosmic dimension. The Kabbalah understanding of the edicts issued by Rabbi Gershom in 1000 AD that ended polygamy for the Jews and prohibited divorce without the woman’s consent are viewed as well as contracts between the Jewish people and God. Even if Israel is to sin, God cannot divorce her without her consent. Similarly, God cannot take on another wife (another nation) that would supplant the chosen people. Christendom concurs with the first position, but obviously broadens the concept of the ‘chosen people’. In mysticism, God and man are joined together in a creative union. “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven.” (Mt. 18:18) What is decided, what is consented to, or what is rejected, matters, reverberates on a cosmic level. Free love begins with this mystical, cosmic understanding of a universe that in both love and sex parallels a physical and spiritual dimension.
For the mystics, there is an inescapable romanticizing and sexualizing of the relationship between God and man. “God is the absolute and ultimate source of all being; but this universal principle of creation — the Logos, primordial reason — is at the same time a lover with all the passion of a true love.” (Pope Benedict XVI) It is no wonder that the mystics should see in human romantic and sexual relations, representations of the divine. Certain Christian mystics call this path to God, this path of sexual love, the ‘fifth way’.
For the mystics, the path to God is through the other, or that it is through being in communion with the other that God is found. When we relate to another authentically, as the philosopher Buber says, “God is the electricity that surges” between us. We have traveled so far and for so long to be here for this brief moment, on a speck of life in the great and dark expanse, surrounded by others like us. Behind each face a mystery, the spark of divinity cloaked in flesh. We long for connection, for our home and for our family beyond the stars. And the arbitrariness of boundaries, told that we may go this close but no closer, that we may pick one, but not any others. The goal must be to widen the circle of our affection rather than place arbitrary restrictions. This is the mystical view that underpins free love.
In Love and Sex
The love that free love describes, is this ‘ever-fixed mark’. Limerence, or being in-love, while beautifully intoxicating, is not what is meant by love. Love is a feeling, but also a commitment, and commitment is a choice. To say “I love you” is not just a statement of feeling, but a statement of responsibility for the other person. Love is a sacred bond. And love is free, not because it can be easily withdrawn and given to another, but rather because it is able to endlessly multiply itself.
Free love is a paradoxical mix of filial commitment and individual freedom. Breaking filial contracts goes against its principles, and a culture of breaking bonds is viewed with disdain. But the sacred bond is not one of selfish ownership over the other. The freedom of oneself and the freedom of the other is highly valued, and central to its conception of love. In order to safeguard the bond, various agreements may be made, and it may seem as if each party offers their autonomy to the other, but this exchange of autonomy is precisely in the service of freedom. It is giving up freedom in order to have more freedom. As Bowlby’s research into child development found, those with secure attachments are more free to be adventurous and exploratory. The goal is not to own or control the other, but to offer them the widest possible freedom, and to take pleasure in their freedom. The development of consciousness is towards freedom, but freedom means nothing if it cannot be shared with another.
And then there is sex — not simply the act of sex, but the whole sexual attitude: from the innate sex drive, to the most platonic of social human interactions, which in fact can never fully be divorced from sexuality. Sex plays a central and multifaceted role. It can be understood as an alchemical process, as a means of transcending the self to encounter the other, as a door to the unconscious, as a well-spring of pleasure.
Sex as play imagines a playful universe and seeks to engage in this beautiful dance, or in the pleasurable pursuit of fulfilling a need like eating a delicious meal satiates hunger, or as a method of stress relief as we see with the bonobos. Sex as exploration seeks to examine the human psyche, to observe one’s inner workings, to plumb the depths of sexuality and pleasure, to encounter others in an intimate context — to see the world for a moment through their eyes. Sex as self-transformation seeks to transcend the self through encountering the other; or in another way, seeks self-realization through becoming aware of our larger self that includes our connectedness to the other.
Stats at a glance
• Divorce. 40–50% of first marriages end in divorce. The rate increases to 60–67% for second marriages (with the exception of the 6% of divorced couples who remarry each other, whose success is much higher, with 72% of reunited couples remaining married)
• Infidelity. Infidelity is the 2nd leading cause of divorce (perhaps though as the final straw). According to different studies, anywhere from 20%-70% of marriages experience infidelity. Though men tend to consistently self-report higher rates of infidelity than woman, some studies question if rates are indeed more equal and that women are just less likely to self-report
• Reasons for infidelity. Research tends to show differences in male and female motivation for cheating, with a major motivation for men being variety rather than dissatisfaction in the relationship, whereas the major motivation for women tends to be perceived sexual or emotional deficiencies in the relationship
• Prevalence of non-monogamous relationships. Some studies estimate around 3–7% of adults to be currently in consensual non-monogamous arrangements (with up to 20% having done so at some point in their lives). Others put that number at 4–5% of partnered people. (These numbers are similar to the percent of the population that identifies as LGB).
• Outlooks on non-monogamy. 34% of individuals polled describe their ideal relationship as something other than complete monogamy. (At the same time, roughly two-thirds oppose legalizing polygamy). 25% say they would be interesting in an open relationship, with men (32%) expressing more interest than women (19%)”
• Monogamy and non-monogamy in the animal kingdom. Around 3% of mammal species are socially monogamous (for birds, it is the other way around, with monogamy being commonplace). Some monogamous mammals, such as gibbons, tend to mate for life, but also cheat, breakup, and ‘remarry’. The ‘free love’ bonobos now join the promiscuous chimpanzees as our closest relatives
• Why monogamy developed in human societies. While most primitive societies were polygamous, some explanations for the development of monogamy point towards monogamy as a counter to the risk of infanticide, as a way to maintain a close-knit society within a burgeoning civilization, and as a method for cooperative breeding and child-raising (with kin of either parent participating)
• Relationship satisfaction. While relationship satisfaction between monogamous and non-monogamous couples tends to be similar, there are more differences when broken down by sex and type of non-monogamous relationship. In addition, “having a match between one’s actual relationship type and one’s preferred relationship type was associated with greater relationship satisfaction.” In general, men tend to express greater interest in non-monogamy compared to woman, and yet, research seems to indicate slightly lower satisfaction for men in non-monogamous relationships compared to monogamous ones, with the opposite for woman. The highest levels of relationship and sexual satisfaction seems to be reported by female partners in swinger relationships, with the lowest levels of satisfaction among the non-practicing partner in a mixed non-monogamous relationship (where one partner is open but the other is not)
• Sexual and relationship satisfaction by relationship type* (Journal of Social and Personal Relationships). Polyamorous couples reported both higher levels of relationship quality and higher sexual satisfaction compared to monogamous couples. They were also more likely to report orgasming in their last encounter (84% versus 72% for monogamous couples). Couples in open relationships, on the other hand, reported significantly lower levels of relationship quality, though with equivalent levels of sexual satisfaction along with higher rates of orgasm (83% versus 72%). Couples in swinger relationships reported equivalent levels of relationship quality, and higher levels of sexual satisfaction, with a much higher orgasm rate of 92% versus 72%. (Journal of Social and Personal Relationships)
*Types of non-monogamy. Polyamory: partners are open to developing romantic connections with others besides their primary partner. Open relationships: partners independently pursue sex-based connections outside their primary relationship. Swingers: couples mutually engage in sexual pursuits, usually in a social setting.
Free Love, Part Two
First, let’s begin by drawing a distinction between free love as an ideal, even with its mistakes and difficulties in practical application, and a wider ‘culture industry’ that can sometimes be caught up in the consensual non-monogamy circles. Some elements of this culture include a sexual commodification where sex and even the individual is seen as a product and where relationships become transactional (each side so focused on what the other ‘brings to the table’); a hyper-individualism, where one pursues personal freedom even at the cost of constraining the other, focusing almost exclusively on one’s own ‘self-growth’; a narcissism that includes a coercive element in the desire for others’ acceptance of one’s beliefs or behaviors; and lastly, a disparaging of traditional notions of family and the lifelong commitment of marriage. Free love, on the other hand, has as its motivation, the balancing of individual autonomy with responsibility for the other; the joining in an unconditional and perpetual commitment to the other; and the loving of the other as one loves oneself.
With that distinction made, let’s turn to addressing some critiques of non-monogamy:
Free love as a cover for a shallow pursuit of pleasure. Is free love just a lofty intellectualizing to cover self-serving promiscuity, or an animalistic inability to control one’s urges? Is the diminished jealousy claimed by free love proponents simply a replacing of the biological urge for mate-guarding with the biological urge for sexual variation? The free love position would be that perhaps all impulses are from nature, and our task is to select which ones best serve us and our goals. Why should sex or pleasure be vilified, or why should it be relegated to the lower passions? It is to the embarrassment of those who talk of the higher powers of the mind (in contrast to the animal passions) that man, created in the most animalistic of acts, comes into the world from between the legs of a woman, covered in blood and goo in an experience that overwhelms any capacity for intellectualization (and to think, as the Christians do, that this is how God as well choose to enter). The goal was never to leave the animalistic behind, but to merge the passions and the powers in a kind of sexual alchemy.
But, at the same time, we can imagine, like the author of Brave New World, a society obsessed with pleasure for the sake of pleasure, driven solely by the pleasure principle. The sexual revolution of the 60s, the un-repressing of Eros, was meant as an act of political revolt. But the Machine has ways of usurping revolutions, as we can see with the modern OnlyFans-ification of society. There are inherent risks to the ‘free sex’ aspect of free love: from using sex as a distraction from the ever-present fear of death that must be contended with, to using sex to hide from love — supplanting a desire for a sense of belonging and a lasting connection with a temporary sexual encounter. This of course in addition to the various other practical risks and considerations.
Uniqueness and Respect. For free love, commitment (at least to one’s partner) is central. Infidelity, one of the main catalysts for divorce, becomes nearly a non-issue. But even if a stronger sense of security can be attained compared to monogamy, what of the desire for uniqueness, to be special, to matter more than another? This is the strength of monogamy (though it is made that much less so by the practice of serial monogamy). The free love response is that one’s self-worth, or uniqueness, is not tied to sex. One is not made special because of sex (or respected by not having sex with others), not even really because of what feelings may develop, but they become special because of the other’s choice to care for them, to take responsibility for them, to widen the circle of their heart to include them.
Immorality. This term is usually used in a religious context. What does religion (in this case, Christianity) have to say about the sexual aspect of free love? Here, let’s address polygamy (the sexual partnership between more than 2 people) rather than the broader concept we might term free sex, which would include sex with someone one is not partnered with, be the partnership marriage, concubinage (as we will see below), or some other longer-term arraignment. The purpose of this is because tackling free sex in its totality would take significantly more time and deserve its own paper. It is enough to note that a very strong case could be made against sex between unpartnered people (or people already in other, separate partnerships) using particularly the writings of Paul — although these same writings are sometimes also invoked to claim that ‘all things are lawful’. On the other hand, there are multiple accounts of polygamy in the Bible (though, as we might expect, polygamy in the Bible refers to polygyny; there are no accounts of women being allowed to have multiple husbands).
Polygamy was practiced by many central characters of the Old Testament. There are no indictments against it and it was provided for under Mosaic Law, even presumably required in the case where a man’s brother dies, leaving his wife without children (the remaining brother must marry her to carry on the brother’s lineage). There is advice for kings not to multiply their wives, but this seems an obvious reference to have wives in moderation rather than to only have one. Some say that polygamy was a case of permissive ethics rather than ideal ethics, and that the ideal was shown in Genesis with the creation of one man and one woman. But we must also note that Adan and Eve were also created naked, and were vegetarians. Some say that polygamy was an exception and that all cases showed that it didn’t have good effects. Abraham’s wife Sarah, fearing herself to be barren, gave her slave, Hagar, to her husband to be his second wife. Hagar birthed Ishmael, who in the Islamic tradition is said to be the father of the Arabs and the ancestor of Mohammed. Even if some might not consider this a good effect, we can simply turn to the 12 tribes of Israel who came into being due to Jacob having had 2 wives and 2 mistresses.
We can leave aside Solomon — said to be the wisest to have lived, and who amassed the largest haram of 700 wives and 300 concubines — as his passion for ‘foreign women’ is said to have led to him honoring other gods. His father though was said to be a man ‘after God’s own heart’, who had also many wives and concubines (with at least 8 wives mentioned by name). “For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not turned aside from anything the LORD commanded all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.” (1 Kings 15) — (David orchestrated the death of Uriah, his loyal general, by sending him to the front of the battle, in order to cover up having slept with his wife and making her pregnant).
Abraham did not commit adultery with Hagar. We might intuit from this that the concept of adultery does not apply to a case of mutual consent. The response might be that it was only not adultery because Abraham married Hagar. But then we have King David (who apart from the case with Uriah), also did not commit adultery, even with his many unmarried concubines.
The New Testament is pretty mute on the issue of polygamy, though it was presumably still in practice by the Jews. There is a passage from Paul requiring deacons (church leaders) to have one wife, but this was also in line with Roman legislation (marriage for the Romans was strictly monogamous — not sexually monogamous to be clear, but legally a marriage was only between one man and one wife).
It is a little odd that gay marriage should’ve gained so much acceptance before something like polygamy in Western (Judeo-Christian) countries, even though polygamy was historically accepted and practiced, whereas homosexuality was forbidden. It is also odd that divorce has become much more accepted, while polygamy has not, even though Jesus was shown to be clearly against divorce. In only one version (Mathew) Jesus provides sexual immorality as an allowance for divorce, whereas in the parallel passages in Mark and Luke he does not.
