When looking at society, and seeing the constant hypocrisies, the inconsistencies, the lies, a person can be inclined only towards two mindsets. They will go along with what they see, they will believe what they are told, they will find it awkward that anyone could challenge things the way they are. Or, they will see the outrightly absurd nature of things, they will see the lies, they will see the propaganda, they will see the inconsistency, and they will refuse to believe it. They will cry out for anything but this society -- they will seek out reason, logic, truth. Anything that is well-reasoned will sooth their heart, anything that is logically demonstrated will be at peace with their mind. Their life will be transformed into a journey, ceaselessly looking for the truth, wherever it is, whatever it tells us, no matter what must be sacrificed to discover it. In our society, we find that there are two people. Those who will accept what they are told, will obey authority, will exist in the way that television and radio has commanded them to exist. And there are those who will condemn the way things are, will resist authority, will point out all the inconsistencies and lies given to us. In generations to come, they will be called heroes. In our own time, they will be called instigators. Historians will regard them as the cause to a change in society. Rationalists will treat them as the finest examples of intelligent people. But what is it that they can truly be called? Searching through the expanse of human language, what name can rightly apply to someone who uses their mind? A person without shackles on their mind, without a blindfold on their eyes, without bondage on their heart, without lies in their mind... may be called a Freethinker.
The theory which may be questioned most by any Freethinker, is the theory of the modern morality. By this, I mean the theory of monogamy, that a person ought to only have one sexual partner at one time. But this theory is more than just that. Not only is it a one-sexual-partner ideal, but it covers other ideas. Those who are promiscuous with their bodies are treated as heartless and brutal. A modern moralist will paint a picture of a slut, and every vice will be given to them. They will say that promiscuous lovers are cruel, are merciless, are vicious, will do anything to get sex, they have no values, they cannot understand love, they are beyond the scope of sympathy... A modern moralist will speak such great lies about the promiscuous lover. Yet, they are wrong. I contend that there is no such thing as a human being who is beyond the scope of sympathy, who cannot understand love. Sympathy and love: these are but the most simple, most basic, most true of all principles to any mammal. I have never known a human being who didn't know the meaning behind tears; I never knew a lover who didn't know the warm touch of affection; even to those who have betrayed me or otherwise believe me to be a vicious mongrel, I know that they too are capable of knowing the truth of love. To say that a promiscuous lover breaks this very basic, scientific rule -- the rule that states that all can know love and sympathy -- is to debauch the face of truth.
The modern moralist will commit more crimes against truth. It is believed that the person who is willing to be physical soonest is of the lowest character, and it is believed that the person holding out the longest is the greatest. A person willing to give a kiss on the face to a person who has been disappointed by life, a person willing to share intimacy and kindness through the physical act of love, a person who knows that being a lover means loving -- this person will be called a "slut" or a "whore." But then, there is another type of person... There will be a man or a woman, who will refuse to touch another from the opposite sex, who will look the other way when someone is attracted to them, who will resist any form of affection. This person, who has been taught to be revolted at the thought of sex or physical kindness, will be upheld as a saint, as a "true person of goodness." These lies that we are told, they sicken me. There was once a time when, with a lover, my fingers caressed the smoothness of her palm, and she kissed my neck. A philosopher who believes in the sanctity of monogamy will look at this, and he will call her a tramp, a slut, a whore. But when I was in the peace of those most cherished moments, I see her angelic face, I feel her soft skin, and in my mind, every trouble is a thousand miles away. For those few brief moments with this lover (who I had known less than an hour), I discovered peace and love. A person who believes in monogamy can speak all they want, they can exhaust the human language as much as they can. But what they say, will never take away the sincerity my lover's affection, will never remove these memories that I tend to revisit when I loss the peace I once had.
What arguments can I offer? What reasoning can I barter with? When I feel the warmth of another's body close to mine, when I know the tender caress on my face... what can I say to defend this lifestyle? Call it "promiscuity" or "whoredom," call it what you like. All the slanders and libels in the world will not detract from the pleasure of it, will not destroy the intimacy of it. When I am looking into the eyes of a lover, I will not be thinking of what they say about me. They will condemn me to hell, but I am deaf to their damnations. They will say I have no virtue, but still, I cannot hear them. So long as my lover is running her fingers through my hair, as my fingertips run down her back, they can say all they want about me, because I am not hearing it. I remember once, as a child, seeing a statue of a man and a woman. The woman was laying back onto the chest of the man, while their hands were met together. It was made by the Etruscan culture. Looking at this statue then, I saw intimacy and kindness. I saw "I feel I can tell you anything." I saw "When I hear you breath, it makes me live." I saw the gentle emotions of a lover not wishing to cause any distress... In this small Etruscan statue, I found respect, kindness, and truth. It was only several pounds of clay, but it may have contained the secrets of the Universe.
If there is any argument that can be offered on behalf of Free Love, or Polyamory, or whatever name one desires to give the belief that we should not have one sexual partner -- if there is any argument, it is the naturalness of sex. Any person who confesses they do not have lust is a liar. And any person who wishes to convince others that their natural lust is immoral, this person is a vagrant. When the passions that exist between the sexes are natural, when they are a normal part of our minds, when they the act of love is simply a bodily function, on what grounds can it be condemned? By playing a sport, or by conversating with a friend, or by putting your sincere thoughts on to paper, a person is using the parts of their body. There is nothing wrong with it. There is no crime in it. No one is hurt. But, when a person all of a sudden decides to use their sexual organs, to please their natural desires, to express affection, to know the depths of intimacy, our moralists will call it a crime! By using our body, as we please, for the ends that we desire, and by hurting no one, they call this a crime! But the search for our soul's content, the endless journey of spirituality -- whether it manifests itself in the arms of your lover, or in the books of the ancients -- it has always been condemned by those who were too blind, too ignorant, too set in their ways, to see more than five feet ahead of themselves. The search to know what it means to feel gentle intimacy and friendly kindness, when this search becomes sexual and a person express their desires, the slanders I described above will be put against them.
A man who loves sex will be called a pervert and a woman who hates it will be called a prude. A woman who loves sex will be called a slut and a man who hates it will be called a misguided fool. We are told these lies, over and over, by a society too foolish to think for itself. It has been said by every liberal that freedom means, doing what you will, as long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others. If this is true, if liberty is not a guide but a path to happiness, then by what right can we condemn those who wish to be free form sexual dogma? Why, in fact, deny the natural instincts of one's own sexuality? When we refuse what our heart seeks out, when we turn away from our desires, when the aching to know the truth that is inside all of us, when it is treated with an anesthetic -- at this point, our soul begins to whither, and our spirit becomes something foreign from when we were first born. If all men are born free, then it is by rejecting our true selves that we become slaves to misery and vice. I do not believe, however, that all men and women seek out sex as the greatest good, nor do I believe they should. I believe that a person should look into their hearts, and see for themselves what they want. They should not be afraid of what society calls them. They should not be afraid of how their friends react. They should not be afraid of what may happen by discovering their heart's desire. Upon discovering what sex means to them -- whether it is a great means of pleasure, whether it is the most perfect way of expressing one's affections, whether it is a combination of these and other ideas -- once a person discovers what sex means to them, they should live a lifestyle accordingly.
Just take some hypothetical scenarios... If you were alone with a friend whom you cared about deeply, and you knew there was an attraction between you -- and you felt that sex was the greatest way to express your soul -- then what would be so wrong about making such a proposition? Feeling the gentle touch of a lover over your body, there is little more that can be seen as perfect security, as perfect tranquility. What then, would you have gained from such an encounter? Memories that will serve you in your darkest times, memories of kindness, peace, and intimacy; physical pleasure; and knowledge. What would be the benefits of refusing such an encounter, when you know that you longed for it in your heart? I can see little. Peace and truth are the greatest ends of every humane person. There should never be a reason for avoiding the path that leads to these humble desires. I had once heard that a person was imprisoned by the government for oral sex, what the law had regarded as a "Crime Against Nature." I contend that the greatest crime against nature is refusing what your heart tells you to do, allowing your soul to grow bitter and disenchanted with life.
By this new morality, this idea that it is no crime to rub your face in the neck of your love, to let your fingers speak for your soul... By this new morality, I propose that there should never again be a girl full of tears, because she is lonely but feels sex is immoral. I propose that there should never again be a man frustrated with sex, because his hormones are building up but he feels sex is a crime. I propose that men and women everywhere should throw off the chains of an antiquated morality, of a slavery that kept their heart in bondage. There should never again be a person who compromised the desires of their heart with a vicious society, there should never again be a person who is content with the daemons of loneliness, there should never again be a person who knows the stinging pain of being alone, there should never again be a person doomed to pain -- never again should we allow these tears to amount to nothing, never again should we allow these cries to go unheard -- I propose that every man and woman should not be afraid of sex, that they ought to do as their heart tells them, as long as they make no one suffer... I propose that our culture adheres closer to the sentiments of kindness and charity, and closer to the principles of truth and reason.