Real love doesn't cost anything so the term "free love" is another empty slogan from a time that is thankfully past.
This question has been discussed before, but new questions about "free love" are always welcome. The last time that I saw this question discussed in this forum a couple of older hippies, a man and a woman, described free love as having the same definition as unconditional love. Now, those wise old sages have been around hippie culture longer that I have, so I have much respect for them, but I respectfully disagree with them. Free Love - as it is meant to be in this sexual forum is - the freedom to love more than one individual at the same time. If the person is single, or in a relationship, they have given themselves the freedom to love more than one person at the same time. Most references to free love as used in this exact forum, the free love forum, pertain to sexual love, which may or may not include romantic love. My evidence for this statement is the sentence used to describe the free love forum which reads as follows: "Is promiscuity wrong or the way we were meant to be?" Personally, I believe that sexual monogamy is not natural, but social monogamy, or forming a pair bond with an individual person is. The book The Monogamy Myth explains this well.
^good post. And fromehat I have read(though there seems to be lots of versions) it's basically that. Thanks for your input!
I believe the term "free-love" was coined in Haight Ashbury, San Francisco in the 1960's. Many hippies gravitated to the Haight and to Golden Gate Park to listen to music, dance and make love on the grass in the park. Free love was a movement whereby people would have sex with one another without any hang-ups - no commitments. Free love was not without its problems. A lot people got the clap and crabs. But hell, like Janis Joplin said, "if it feels good, do it!"
