What Is The Free Love Movement - Essay Example

What Is the Free Love Movement? Understanding the Basics

Human beings have trouble giving a standard definition of the word 'love.' Cultures, philosophers, and lovers have different definitions. A popular body with its own interpretation of the phrase and phenomena is the Free Love Movement. The movement has its different stands on the issue, which has prompted many people to wonder; what is the Free Love Movement? At a glance, it is an organization that does not agree with the concept of marriage. It believes that marriage is a social, personal, and financial prison that no one should willingly subscribe to. The movement believes that marriage is the core of many problems between people and even causes problems in the state. In this essay, I will look into why the movement is against marriage. We will expound on the issues they put forth and touch on how feminism relates to the movement's standing on the matter.

The history of the movement goes back to the mid 19th century. It is a product of the libertarian socialism of the era. It draws its name from a phrase coined by a philosopher, John Humphrey Noyes. Noyes came up with the words 'free love' to define a relationship devoid of external constraints and has ultimate sexual emancipation. Even though the movement has stands that vary from time to time, the primary goal remains the same. The institution specifically seeks to take back the power given to the government when it comes to controlling fidelity, procreation, marriage, and divorce. Other than this, the movement discredits the validity of marriage for several reasons.

The biggest reason why the movement believes that women and men are better off without marriage is that the institution focuses on consolidating the financial, social, and emotional lives of two people. The movement back then was more about feminism because it was born when divorce and other concerned issues left a woman with nothing from the marriage. Custodial and property division rights did not favor women exiting the institution. Feminists in the movement also insisted that marriage went beyond financial oppression and became a tool to harass women sexually. Specifically, activists like Francis Barry were known to direct attack this part of the institution. In one instance, he claimed that 'marriage is a system of rape.' He was concerned that women in marriage are constantly mistreated by their husbands and cannot leave because the prevailing law will not cater to their interests in case of a divorce. This shows how many people in the movement support freedom. They are keen on getting rid of the traditional matrimonial system and giving people a free love tool that does not imprison anyone at all. Barry's involvement is an excellent way to see that even though the movement mostly addresses women's issues, it is powered by men and women alike. However, we cannot deny the fact that the Free Love Movement is specifically a feminism organization that champions the rights of women. With time, this might change as new rules put mean in the crossfire too. I will look into how feminists and their stances on the given subject have also affected the movement's being.

Feminists like Mary Wollstonecraft, who do not believe that marriage is the embodiment of affection, have bolstered the association since they are concerned about its goals. Specifically, radical feminism opposes all forms of patriarchy. A marriage that gives the man more power than the woman is downright oppressive, given that the institution is not based on gender equality. Germaine Greer is among notable feminism champions who uses radical feminism to send her ideas of love and marriage home. She thinks that marriage reinforces patriarchy and has nothing to do with affection. In addition to this, socialist and Marxist feminism also does not believe that marriage addresses any critical issues to warrant its existence. Other anarchist feminists also weigh in on the matter and express their stand that marriage should be done away with. The state has no point in claiming to be standing against gender oppression yet facilitating and standing by a construct that is specifically the root cause of the evil the movement, and other strands of feminism focus on fighting. The above reasons and many more form the basis of the association, its stand on marriage, and why it thinks that it should be done away with. It is important to note that not all feminists are pro abolishing marriage. A good number focuses on other issues affecting women and is agitating for simpler and easier to implement feminism solutions. They agitate for equality in marriage and equal distribution of resources and responsibility to ladies long before they get into marriage. This, though against the core stand of the movement, has not stopped the two schools of thought from joining forces every now and agitating for a common goal.

The movement rejects the concept of marriage. After all, it is already rigged against women because it is a construct born of patriarchy. To start with, the organization believes that the construct opens up avenues of emotional, financial, and physical oppression. This is contrary to the unsettled definition of love that though non-existent is unanimously agreed to be the very opposite of this. This is the core reason feminism is specifically interested in society and helps it fuel its efforts. The other reason that makes free love believers despise marriage is that it allows the state to meddle with personal affairs. This makes members concerned. A state claims to have the power to issue a marriage or divorce certificate to men and women. The movement feels this authority makes it interfere with private matters of the heart. The movement feels that this is not right. People who like each other should be free to leave life; however, they please, given that the state was not involved when the two people got to know each other. The society feels that no legislation can change their stand regardless of whether it appeases feminists or not. While protecting both parties in a marriage setting is achievable, the notion of doing away with the institution or getting the state off such a union remains a tough decision. Many laws were first instituted to mitigate passion crimes that arise when relationships based on this philosophy go awry. Amending these laws to protect the interests of all participants is possible. However, many lawmakers feel that doing away with all that progress will be a retrogressive decision that will open up more problems. Time will tell if free love proponents will ever get things their way.