Considerations on Free Love: A Trialogue


DISCLAIMER

   This story is entirely fictional.  All of the characters in
this story are entirely fictional.  Any similarity to real
persons is entirely coincidental.

   This trialogue considers three perspectives on sex and free
love.  It may be unsuitable for some audiences.  Reader
discretion is advised.


CATEGORY

   No actual sex takes place, it is merely discussed.

   nosex, mm, ff, mf, con, nc, inc, rape, sad, phil, pol


SYNOPSIS

   Three persons discuss the ethics of free love.


CHARACTERS

   The Libertarian

   The Sadist

   The Prude


STORY

THE PRUDE:  Have you heard what the homosexuals are trying to do
   in this state?

THE LIBERTARIAN:  You mean marry?

THE PRUDE:  Yeah, it’s a cryin’ shame!  Flaunting
   their sexuality at us like that.

THE LIBERTARIAN:  What’s so wrong about wanting to get
   married?

THE PRUDE:  Getting married is fine, but you’re not
   supposed to get married to someone of your own gender. 
   It’s just wrong.  You know this will only lead to other
   people wanting their sexual habits promoted.  What’s next,
   polygamy, incest?

THE LIBERTARIAN:  As long as it’s voluntary, why not?

THE PRUDE:  Why not?  Sex is supposed to be something private,
   between a man and a woman who love each other.  And who
   aren’t related!  Anything else should be prohibited for
   common decency.

THE LIBERTARIAN:  Could it be that you simply feel this way
   because you grew up in a society where heterosexual monogamy was
   the <i>status quo</i>?

THE PRUDE:  What do you mean?

THE LIBERTARIAN:  I mean, if you had come of age in a society
   that had a more libertine attitude toward sex, might you be less
   inclined to say that the voluntary sexual activities of others
   should be prohibited?

THE PRUDE:  I do not believe it is possible for such a society to
   long exist, for any society that becomes licentious quickly
   collapses.

THE LIBERTARIAN:  I believe it’s more accurate to say that
   any state that acts to debase its own currency thereby renders
   its own collapse.  If government as we know it in America
   collapses, it will not be because of our sexual liberation, of
   which I see rather little personally; it will rather be a result
   of government greed.

THE PRUDE:  And you don’t see sexual attitudes connected to
   that in any way?

THE LIBERTARIAN:  Should I?

THE PRUDE:  You don’t think a willingness to engage in
   sexual debauchery leads to a willingness to engage in other forms
   of debauchery?

THE LIBERTARIAN:  They are very distinct activities, and further,
   I cannot in all good conscience assent to your description of
   sexual liberation as debauchery.  It is not as though a society
   that engaged in free love would also consent to allowing such
   evils as rape.

THE SADIST:  My companions, I have been listening to the two of
   you speak on the current matter, and have yet to chime in with my
   thoughts, but I at this time feel I must, for I cannot honestly
   understand your objection to rape.

THE LIBERTARIAN:  You cannot?

THE SADIST:  I cannot.  For, if free love is truly free, does
   this not mean that it is free for the taking?

THE LIBERTARIAN:  Every person has a right to sex, but this is a
   negative right, as positive rights cannot rationally exist.

THE SADIST:  What do you mean by a “negative right”?

THE LIBERTARIAN:  By that I mean nobody is <i>owed</i> sex, not
   even those who are married. One certainly has no right to take it
   from another without her consent, since the right to <i>not</i>
   have sex is just as important and vital as the right <i>to</i>
   have sex when the other party has consented.

THE PRUDE:  But why does a person have a right to sex at all, if
   he has no absolute right to it?  Does it not seem to you that you
   are making an arbitrary choice here in defining what you consider
   a right?

THE LIBERTARIAN:  Not at all, my friend.  For one’s natural
   rights are derived from one’s nature.  By nature, every
   person justly owns her or his own body, her or his own will.  To
   own a thing is to have just control over that thing, and indeed
   each of us has a body that necessarily constitutes our just
   property.  As a self-owner, each person naturally has a
   legitimate authority over her or his flesh, blood, and bone, and
   may do with it as she or he pleases so long as she or he does not
   violate the rights of others in the process.  For two—or
   more—persons to engage in consensual sexual relations with
   another, no rights need be violated, and in those events where
   rights are <i>not</i> violated, we must permit the action, for it
   would necessarily be a violation of the rights of those persons
   to step in and forcibly prevent their continuation. 
   Contrariwise, when a person rapes another, the rapist is
   necessarily usurping control of the raped party’s will and body from
   her or him, thus violating her or his natural rights.

THE SADIST:  You bring up nature, but is not pleasure the only
   natural end to man’s actions?

THE LIBERTARIAN:  Man has a nature, and although desires are a
   component of this nature, they be not the sole component.  To
   imply they are is to vastly oversimplify man!  Man’s nature
   dictates what is permissible and, likewise, what is not, and as
   man’s nature requires the undeniable existence of natural
   rights, it must be so that anything that violates these rights is
   naturally criminal.

THE SADIST:  But could it not be said that he who is naturally
   stronger than another has a natural right to the pleasure of the
   other’s sex by virtue of his superior strength?

THE LIBERTARIAN:  Do I take you correctly to hold the view of the
   Marquis de Sade, that there truly is no wrong in rape if it gains
   pleasure for the rapist?

THE SADIST:  I do not see how one could call herself a libertine
   without taking this stance.

THE LIBERTARIAN:  Admittedly, the term <i>libertine</i> is vague,
   insofar as it has been used to interchangeably describe differing
   philosophies.  Allow myself to clarify therefore that I am only a
   libertine insofar as my libertinism does not conflict with my
   overarching libertarianism.

   Beyond this, I have to ask you, what about the pleasure of the
   raped party?  For, if she had anticipated that she would have
   derived more pleasure ultimately, in the final analysis, from the
   sexual interaction than from refraining therefrom, she surely
   would have consented in the first place.  The fact that she opted
   to withhold her consent is apodictic proof that she could not
   have been of the view that engaging with her rapist in sexual
   activity would derive for her greater utility than not engaging
   with her rapist in sexual activity.  How can you then condone the
   rape which constitutes an anticipated diminishing of pleasure for
   the raped party?

THE SADIST:  You say the diminishing of pleasure is anticipated.
   But then you assume too much.  How can we know that the raped
   party does not gain in pleasure despite his anticipation to the
   contrary?

THE PRUDE:  This is a weak challenge you issue, as demonstrated
   by the fact that one could issue this challenge about anything. 
   For instance, I could say to you, “Although you anticipate
   that you will not experience greater pleasure should I drive a
   nail into your skull than if I do not, you cannot truly be sure
   of that fact until I have actually done so.  Thus, I have a right 
   to commit this act.  If, afterwards, you find that you truly 
   <i>did</i> enjoy having the nail driven into your skull, then hurray;
   but, on the other hand, if you did not enjoy it, oh well, at least 
   one of us received pleasure.”  Surely, there are none who would not 
   find such a position absurd.  Even Antiphon, who shares in the view 
   that it is acceptable to engage in such lawlessness (so long as the 
   crook takes whatever precautions necessary to ensure he is not 
   caught) would not be so cavalier as to try to pretend that the mere
   potential for the other party to find pleasure in being
   victimises somehow creates a justness in the crime.

   But where I believe this conversation is most lacking is in a
   deeper consideration of human nature.  Our libertarian friend
   here keeps trumping the importance of human nature in discerning
   human ethics, but fails to acknowledge the blunt reality of the
   human anatomy.  It must surely be recognised that a man’s
   and a woman’s sexual organs perform a very specific
   purpose, namely that of procreation.  But, of course, procreation
   can only occur between a man and a woman.  Regardless of whether
   you believe man is the creation of evolution or divine
   intervention, the penis and vagina were clearly made for one
   another.  Natural law must therefore dictate that, as this is the
   natural function of the sexual organs, it is also therefore the
   <i>purpose</i> of those organs, and any use of these organs
   contrary to its natural purpose must logically be impermissible.

THE LIBERTARIAN:  I think you are misunderstanding the nature of
   <i>purpose</i>, which is never objective but rather always
   subjective.

THE PRUDE:  How so?

THE LIBERTARIAN:  That which is used as a table by a midget may,
   upon being sold to a giant, be used as a bench.  The purpose of
   any given thing is thus always defined by the owner of said
   thing.  And since an individual’s body and sexual organs
   are always ultimately owned by the individual herself, it stands
   to reason that only she can define the purpose of said body and
   of said sexual organs.  Any attempt to impose upon her an
   arbitrary definition without her consent, and to restrict her
   from nonviolently and voluntarily using—or <i>not</i>
   using, as the case may be—her body and organs as she
   pleases is therefore nothing less than a crime and usurpation
   from her of her natural right to self-ownership.  In short, this
   arbitrary imposition can be nothing other than outright and
   literal enslavement.

THE PRUDE:  So I take it then that you are an advocate of free
   love.

THE LIBERTARIAN:  Yes, so long as that isn’t taken to imply
   that one <i>“ought”</i> to surrender her or his body
   to the sexual whims of others, so long as that is taken instead
   to mean that one <i>may</i> make such a surrender.

THE SADIST:  But do you not know that the free love movement
   originated in anarchist circles?  I cannot say much more on the
   subject, having not studied the matter thoroughly, but I do
   believe that the free love movement began as an outgrowth of
   anarchism.  Insofar as you are willing to say that certain sexual
   advances are criminal, are you not therefore coming out decidedly
   against free love?

THE LIBERTARIAN:  Before answering, I must ask, do you fancy
   yourself an anarchist?

THE SADIST:  I cannot say I’ve given the subject of anarchy
   much thought, honestly, but if pressed, I suppose I would assent
   to the label.

THE LIBERTARIAN:  May I speak bluntly?

THE SADIST:  Please do!

THE LIBERTARIAN:  I do not consider your position anarchistic in
   the least.  Rather, I find your stances decidedly authoritarian.
   When a man rapes a woman, he is creating a coercive hierarchy, no
   different than the coercive hierarchy created when the state
   coercively steps in and bans sodomy or prostitution.  This
   imposition of coercive hierarchy is authoritarian to its core. 
   I, conversely, <i>am</i> an anarchist, as I reject any and all
   coercive hierarchies as naturally illegitimate, and aim to do
   away with them.  All statutory laws in violation of natural law
   should be viewed for what they are: dictates and edicts
   pretending, like charlatans, to be just and binding.  All
   statutory laws in concert with natural law, conversely, are
   simply redundancies.

   You are not an anarchist, and will never <i>be</i> an
   anarchist until the day you surrender this silly notion that
   arbitrary imposition from those persons or organisations that
   happen to have more power than their victims is somehow
   condonable.  The impositions of the rapist, of the thief, and of
   the murderer are no less authoritarian or coercive than the
   impositions of the state itself.

   Nor are you an advocate of free love.  The free love movement
   is so opposed to rape, in fact, that its advocates shun in horror
   those statutory violations of natural law that consider spousal
   rape to be in some manner not <i>actually</i> rape or not as
   serious as non-spousal rape.  Just as a person who believes that
   the state should dictate what women can do with their own bodies
   <i>via</i> banning prostitution can <i>call</i> himself a
   “feminist,” you can just as easily <i>call</i>
   yourself an “advocate of free love”; but your latent
   authoritarianism is nevertheless impossible to hide from the keen
   eye.  How, after all, is the man who rapes another person any
   different ultimately than the state that forbids sex?  In both
   cases, a coercive and arbitrary authority imposes itself and
   usurps from the victim her or his self-ownership.  And you dare
   call this coercive hierarchy <i>“anarchy”</i>?  I
   humbly request that you pay me at least enough respect to realise
   that I would so quickly and effortlessly see through such a
   shallow and unconvincing claim.

   Your position is base and arbitrary, and no less so than that
   of the other gentleman in our current trio.  But at least he has
   the virtue to not go around pretending to be something that
   he’s not.  You advocate the pursuit of pleasure—a
   fine thing, to be sure—but with no consideration toward the
   equality of rights among man.  This leaves your position, in the
   end, with no • rational • defence.


 • The above story is entirely fictional. Any
similarity to real persons is entirely coincidental. No rights
reserved. •