Главная > Relationships, Science > The Problem of Demoralization of Society due to Development of Notion of “Free Love”.

The Problem of Demoralization of Society due to Development of Notion of “Free Love”.

Principles of Ethics, KIMEP University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

by Anzhelika Osmanova


The paper starts with the idea that all people’s actions are motivated by the only goal – to achieve happiness, and according to Freud’s theory, the only way to do that is to be free in sexual desires. In this paper I threw light on the problems which “free love” (taking possession of many different people) contains arguing that such notion is the core of demoralization within society. I referred to works of famous philosophers and scholars to prove that the deliberate wish not to be faithful with regard to one partner not only contradicts the concept of absolute truth, but also can be considered from the medical point of view as dangerous because of the possibility to catch any of the sexually transmitted diseases. According to statistical data, three men out of four prefer to have more than one woman, while among females such figure is much less – 15 percent. To find out the causes of such behavior I focused on works of S.Freud. The paper also contains a description of one scientific experiment during which a nature of faithfulness was discovered. The results showed that presence of the particular hormones in the blood can determine the behavior of a person with respect to either faithfulness or “free love”. Nevertheless, the paper ends with the idea of pure and faithful love as the absolute truth which should be valued as the highest moral principle, no matter what hormones the one’s blood contains.


For the duration of history humanity has been trying to achieve happiness arguing about different ways towards it. If Ancient Greek philosophers thought that happiness can be found in knowledge, love, friendship, ideal state, in the contemporary world the situation is different. Despite the fact that people are looking for happiness till now, their ways to achieve it have been changed under the aegis of Sexual Revolution in 1960s and Freud’s doctrine.  At the present time the desire of youth to show their freedom reached the point where borders between notions of “morality” and “immorality” became indistinguishable, especially in the question of aspiration to have more than one sexual partner. This aspiration is called “free love”.

S.Freud, the Vena psychotherapist argued that it is the sole possible approach which leads a man to “happy life”. Nowadays the ideas of Freud became central in the forming of ideology within today’s society due to active participation of mass media, resulting in obvious demoralization. The problem is that the vice is becoming popular attracting more than 40% of under-ages, what results in spreading of sexually transmitted diseases and, what is not less important, the loss of concept of absolute truth among new generation. In this paper I investigated the problem of immorality of “free love” as a contrast to Platonic love which, in its turn, is a part of absolute truth.

The purpose of the study is to show the nature of the problem, the consequences of its development and to prove the unsoundness of Freud’s theory of happiness through free sexual desires without thinking of faithfulness. I also wanted to put a moral question in front of readers about either morality or immorality of free sexual relationships. I approached to the problem using the works of Plato and my own investigation to achieve all goals which I set by this work.


The subject of the study is human and its attitude towards faithfulness and “free love”. In order to investigate this question I used several methods: collection of scientific data, observation method, analyzing of philosophical texts and scientific experiments.


(Women's Forums, 2007)

Fig.1 (Women’s Forum, 2007)

Looking at the statistics, we can say that the percentage of males who consider themselves as polygamists (aspirating to having more than one constant sexual partner) is much higher than females. Referring to this data we can say that males are more exposed to the influence of mass media that broadcasts advertisement of “free love” almost in every translation.

In addition to the obvious problem of loss of morality, there is another problem – issue of sexually transmitted diseases. If people consider “free love” as a priority in their lives, they can become victims of hard illnesses. For example, according to statistics, the number of people who are the victims of HIV has increased by four times to compare with the last year. Of course, it is a moral choice of every person in what way to behave and what relationships to follow, but if such behavior causes a disease, it is hardly possible to call such behavior as “natural”.

Analyzing of philosophical texts

I used two ways to achieve the purpose of my study: investigation of ancient Greek philosophers’ statements and analysis of Freud’s approach. In turn, I used the book of P.Coelho “11 minutes” where the legend of Plato was given. After analysis I can say that Freud’s ideas oppose Plato’s approach. Plato assumed that in the very beginning of humanity there were no any separate genders: people had two heads, four arms, four legs and two connected genders, i.e. man and woman in the one body. These people were very strong what made Gods angry, that’s why Gods decided to divide such people by two parts. Plato said that when man and woman fall in love and connect their bodies into the one, they become as strong as they were many thousands years ago. That’s why people should choose each other very attentively. I understand this approach as a rejection of concept of “free love” because if people have sexual relationships with many different people it will not make them stronger as it could happen if they had the only partner they in love with. I can regard this idea as negative attitude of Plato towards “free love”. Freud, in turn, thought that there is no any love as spiritual feeling, but sexual affairs. And we can say that he would support the desire of some to have several partners.

Faithful mice equal faithful men

According to biological experiment which was conducted in 2004 in the USA in the University of Emory (state of Georgia), the behavior of people can be compared with behavior of either steppe or meadow mice. Scientists found out that the amount of vasopressin (the hormone in the blood) determines mice’s faithfulness towards a spouse. While meadow mice can be considered as creatures preferred “free love” and disorderly liaisons, steppe mice that differ from meadow mice by the greater amount of vasopressin, are faithful to one spouse during the whole life. Scientists concluded that principles of secretion of amount of the hormone vasopressin in a mouse’s organism are similar to a human’s (Lagovskiy, 2008). This means that people’s attitude towards “free love” is predetermined by the work of hypophysis (the part of brain). Scientists also argue that if an organism produces little amount of vasopressin it is pathology of hypophysis. To emanate from this statement it is possible for me to argue that “free love” contradicts the human nature.


Platonic love as a contrast to “free love”

Looking at the statistics (fig.1), we can unsoundly argue as many times as we want that it is natural for men to want to have more than one woman, referring to the Freud’s notion of happiness but it is obvious that such statistics is only an index of changed moral attitude to eternal values. Active broadcasting of intimate scenes and development of the notion of “free love” and the term “macho” made men behave this way. In addition to that, people just see some kind of justification in words of Freud who said that it is normal, and sexual desires are “life drivers”, no matter with how many partners.  Nevertheless, we can consider such idea as not very relevant to the notion of happiness in its classical understanding of life of virtue, knowledge, love. To counter the theory of Freud, I want to give an example about our today’s life. Everyday an ordinary person gets up, eats, and goes somewhere, works, sleeps. Even if we assume that such man prefers “free love” to relationships with one partner, his life will not consist of the only sexual desire to many women. If the person is thirsty and hungry he will not be happy even if there are many beautiful women with whom he could have a contact. This means that sexual freedom doesn’t lead to clear happiness.

According to the concept of Platonic love, people meet each other with the aim to connect their souls. Love is what supposes faithfulness because otherwise, there will not be unity of two people’s feeling. According to Platonic love, sexual relationships are just the part of pure and absolute love, manifestation of love but not the goal. And if sex is the part of absolute and real love between man and woman, what for to aspirate for other partners? Today there is a choice which should be made by any individual: either to keep faithfulness to one partner or follow the fashion of free relationships. The second idea leads to the loss of moral virtue because sexual affairs without love during all the times were considered as vice or sin. If we rely on works of Plato, soul is more important than the body, and if people commit sins their souls loose the “cleanliness”. I understand it as demoralization of a personal virtue and personality itself. If we come back to the legend of Plato about people who were divided by two parts and analyze it, it will become possible to say that a sexual contact with people who were not the part of a person many eras ego will not bring him happiness but will destroy his soul.


Some people would argue that the approach of faithfulness to one partner doesn’t meet requirements of the contemporary time, i.e. not fashionable. But if we plunge into the history of human civilization and retrace the development of human nature we will understand that such argument does not have a solid ground. From the very beginning of existence of humanity one of the main features of human nature was an instinct which determined all actions of ancient ancestors of homo-sapiens. People acted as animals did in their aspiration to reproduce themselves. Since the development of human nature and its evolution, people became stronger, more intelligent and conscious. Individuals reached the point where they could act according to a reason, not to instincts. Facing the question of either fashion or conservatism I can argue that a desire of “free love” is a way to the past, i.e. “free love” is not fashionable because it contradicts the evolution of human personality as a thinking creature.

The question of nature

There is an opinion that it is natural to strive for possession of many different people which can be disputed. Looking at the results of scientific experiment with mice (Section “Methods and Materials”) we can say that it is not right. The amount of vasopressin coming to blood is controlled by hypophysis (section of brain), and the only factor which can influence a little production of the hormone is a pathology in organism. This means that unfaithfulness is some kind of disease. Perhaps, according to this reason some people consider “free love” as unhealthy relationships. The second argument which is rational to consider is the fact of hard diseases spread due to “free love” lifestyle. Would the problem of HIV and AIDS appear if the desire of people to sexually posses many different partners was natural? If it was so, there would not appear any diseases connected with disorderly sexual interactions.


The concept of free sexual relationships is a problem which leads the whole society to demoralization and loss of moral virtues, one of which is real love as absolute truth. In addition to such sad possible consequences of development of the issue, there is another concern which is connected with spread of diseases.

It is reasonable to say that the term “free love” is morally impermissible because it has nothing with love itself. In turn, it is a deed of every person to decide himself whether to accept the notion of “free love” or not. It is a moral choice of everyone.


Anounymos, . Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato&gt;.

Anounymos, . Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud&gt;.

Coelho, P. Solomko.. .. <http://solomko.net/paulo/&gt;.

Gusman, Deliya S. Platonic Love <http://www.newacropol.ru/love/platoniclove/&gt;.

MedLinks <http://www.medlinks.ru/article.php?sid=771&gt;.

Рубрики:Relationships, Science
  1. 11 февраля, 2010 в 5:06 пп

    Thanks for sharing the link — but unfortunately it seems to be down? Does anybody have a mirror or another source?

  2. 1 июня, 2010 в 6:04 пп

    I agree with most of what is said here.

  3. 9 июня, 2010 в 11:55 пп

    Very nice site!

  1. 2 января, 2011 в 3:31 пп

Добавить комментарий для Tomika Vielman Отменить ответ

Заполните поля или щелкните по значку, чтобы оставить свой комментарий:

Логотип WordPress.com

Для комментария используется ваша учётная запись WordPress.com. Выход /  Изменить )

Google photo

Для комментария используется ваша учётная запись Google. Выход /  Изменить )

Фотография Twitter

Для комментария используется ваша учётная запись Twitter. Выход /  Изменить )

Фотография Facebook

Для комментария используется ваша учётная запись Facebook. Выход /  Изменить )

Connecting to %s

%d такие блоггеры, как: