I think I was responding to the previous version, which seemed to presume jealousy is intrinsic to human intimacy and hence speculated a Free-Love Future was unlikely without significant mechanations.
Removed this:
- In Anne McCaffrey Dragonriders of Pern series, dragonriders consider it detrimental to their dragons to be strictly monogamous and will sleep with whichever rider is bonded to the dragon that mates with their own. It makes sex literally a way of promotion among dragonriders. You want to be a Weyrleader? Get a senior queen's rider into your bed and make sure she stays there long enough. Even if dragon mating isn't involved, the dragonriders have a habit of taking multiple lovers and most (heterosexual/bisexual) riders will have many children by several different partners. In a bit of a Rule-Abiding Rebel moment though, the "best" of the characters — such as F'lar and Lessa — are all in exclusive partnerships. A Double Standard is involved here — most women are monogamous, and those that aren't were either unpleasant (Kylara), raped (Tai) or romantically unfulfilled (Moreta). In-Universe, non-dragonriding women can sleep with who they like until they marry, while men (particularly Lord Holders) retain this privilege even after marriage.
- Outside of the Weyrs (the dragonrider's home bases), Pern is rather conservative when it comes to sexuality. Fathers used to hide their daughters from riders when they came to search for new riders, out of fear that their daughters would be turned into some sort of sex slave by the promiscuous Dragonriders, if they didn't Impress a dragon.
- The free love applies mostly to Dragonriders (and to Weyrfolk to a lesser degree). Being quasi-military and in a life-threatening calling, they frequently blow off steam with sex. Sometimes with each other, sometimes with non-rider Weyrfolk, sometimes with friendlier Holderfolk.
- Inhibition on the rider's part, not monogamy is what harms a dragon during a mating flight, as any hesitation on a rider's part will reach their dragon through their mental link and effect their performance. This is particularly bad for queen riders, as the higher a queen rises, the bigger and better the clutch of eggs she lays will be. Most of the important riders portrayed have chosen monogamous partners (some of whom aren't Weyrfolk). Tai's problem was that no one told her that she had some agency in who she ended up in bed with and that the aftermath of a mating flight didn't have to be her getting used by whatever Brown or Bronze rider won the day. That she could influence her dragon to go for a chosen partner or even arrange for a third party to serve her needs (as plenty of male riders did, especially on Queen flights).
I think there is some confusion on the trope page between non-monogamy in the purely sexual sense, and polyamory. The way the page is written seems to imply that being free to have sex with anyone even outside of romantic relationships means being free to become romantically involved with anyone. This also makes the reader believe that polyamory always means sleeping and dating freely with as many people as you want.
Take for example Al Steiner's A Perfect World:
In the novel, sex is considered completely separate from love and is part of normal social interaction between consenting individuals. Complete strangers, casual aquaintances, coworkers and friends engage in sexual activity as readily as they talk about work, play cards or grab a drink at the bar. Sex is just that - mutual physical gratification with no baggage attached.
On the other hand, romantic partners are expected to be faithful on an emotional level, and most people end up marrying one or sometimes several partners, in which case the relationship is usually portrayed as polyfidelitous (each person is involved with and faithful to each of the others). The key here is that love is viewed as a purely emotional concept (although it is said to make sex better). New romantic partners actually date for several months without having sex with each other (but still having sex on the side) until both are absolutely certain that what they feel for the other is true love, and sex after the first date is the standard way of rejecting a potential love interest. Jealousy exists - but it stems from emotional rather than sexual infidelity: your girlfriend will not mind you doing the nasty with your college classmate, but she will very much mind you taking said classmate on a romantic date without her consent.
I could go on and on about the different forms that non-monogamous relationships can take, but my point is that there is a rather profound difference between
Free Sex Future
and
Free Love Future
Why ? Because SEX =/= LOVE.
I'll probably add some clarification to the article myself once I can formulate an effective explanation that does not confuse people, take fifteen pages, or involve re-writing the whole thing (which would not be respectful to the other contributors).
Hide / Show Replies
But sex is the reason romantic love exists, biologically. Because humans are so poorly built for it (no penis bone, no method of preventing escape like the spines or knots most mammals have, upright posture makes the genitals not line up as well), it takes us a longer time and more effort than it takes other mammals, so we evolved to have emotional attachments to our sexual partners. Also, it helps guarantee paternity if you're emotionally attached. LACK of connection between sex and love is the social construct.
Not sure I agree with the Dresden Files example, having read the book it seems to be coming from. All evidence there suggests the White Court is trying to lead the human population toward a near opposite of the trope - a combination of a collective Sex Is Evil, and I Am Horny and changed tastes and expectations which make it harder for humans to obtain sexual satisfaction from each other or even approach each other. The more repressed and disconnected people are, the better the White Court has it. Especially as we tend to only see the strongest and least resistible members of the Court in the books, and there may be vampires who regular people can say "no" to. A Free-Love Future wouldn't be a disaster for the Court, but it would both dilute their power and food supply. From their standpoint, it would mean increased chance of only having sated people around when you're hungry or need to control somebody, decreased chance of being there being no attractive and available humans in your vicinity, and worst, a societal change which could lead to cases where somebody can be immune to your power in a way not dependent on maintaining a monogamous relationship.
Edited by DanaO
This Free Love not to be confused with the 19th century social movement advocating a rejection of marriage, acceptance of alternative sexual norms between consenting adults, and especially raising awareness of spousal rape. Polyamory ≠ Free Love.
Dramaturg, troper, theatre reviewer. (Please hire me.)
Shouldn't there be a comment on Polyamory in the Real World section?
Don't feed the plants!
I note that to prevent this trope from being an inherent dystopia, as per the IJBM forum we might have to reword a few phrases.
I'm feeling strangely happy now, contented and serene. Oh don't you see, finally I'll be, somewhere that's green... Hide / Show Replies
Where are the "problem phrases?" There's a bit specifically about dystopian FL Fs, and a two sections on the Fridge Logic aspects, but I don't see anything that automatically assumes and FLF setting is bad (then again, I just woke up...)
Link to forum, please..?
EDIT: Never mind, found it
.
The main point of your argument seems to be the line "everyone has sex with everyone" - you're reading too much into it. It was just a more straightforward way of summing up the trope that seems to cover both its utopian and dystopian aspects. If it bugs you that much, I can rephrase it into "everyone is assumed to be polyamorous — those who are monogamous may be treated with anything from polite surprise to outright hostility." But frankly, that's pretty clunky, and we get into those issues later in the trope.
I do agree that some of the other Unfortunate Implications need to be more clearly addressed though. Give me a bit, I'll see if I can work it in without turning the trope into a wall of text.
Edited by FantiSci
It's not the "everyone has sex with everyone" bit, it's the "and has a right to do so" bit.
I'm feeling strangely happy now, contented and serene. Oh don't you see, finally I'll be, somewhere that's green...
Lale: I was pondering something I think the page description should suggest. What's the view of rape in societies like this, such as in Brave New World? Would it still be considered wrong to have sex with someone against their will, or wouldn't it matter, since honor and purity are no longer connected to sex? It's frighteningly logical that no sexual taboos would mean no sexual taboos.
Hide / Show Replies
Good point. I don't know about Brave New World, but I know that in the Dragonriders Of Pern books, rape is pretty much glossed over (see Values Dissonance for the rapes of Brekke and Tai), since there's an undertone of "they really want it, they just need the right guy to show them the joy of sex, and if he has to force himself on her to get her to enjoy herself that's okay". Which made for some really odd dissonance in Dragonseye/Red Star Rising, where a rape trial is held and the rapists are CompleteMonsters. Apparently, rape is only okay if you have a dragon and you know your victim is secretly in love with you. You're right, the Free-Love Future is a maelstrom of Unfortunate Implications. The only way those issues can really be dodged is if absolutely everyone is a highly moral Ethical Slut.
Edited by FantiSci
Brave New World was written in England, 1932 and was intended to be a cautionary tale (not unlike Orwell's 1984, sixteen years later), where stability and social contentedness are attained at the cost of personal individuality. The maxim everyone belongs to everyone else tends to suggest consent is compulsory, making rape legally impossible (though obviously still possible from an individual perspective). The violence of coerced sex may be recognized as a crime, but not necessarily as a sexually motivated one.
Consent is a very big deal within free-love cultures in contemporary Real Life. A common maxim is "If you don't want any, you can't have some". Though there are incidents of coercion within such communities, they are certainly frowned upon, and sometimes even prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But true to FantiSci's suggestion, such communities try to encourage everyone who participates within them to be Ethical Sluts, just as mainstream society encourages everyone to be ethical.
These points are good, but they probably belong on the jealousy tropes rather than the Free-Love Future. As it is, it sounds just a little bit like a slap on the wrist for monogamists in the present day (Free-Love Future aside, many people don't think "faithfulness" is an unreasonable demand in a relationship). Also adjusted some of the language to keep a more informal tone throughout.
In response, many 20th century authors who would imagine a Free-Love Future render love into an outdated concept. Contemporary sociological views of interpersonal jealousy identifies it not with love (it occurs plenty outside romantic relationships) but personal insecurity, usually about one's self and the stability of a given relationship. Jealousy breaks down into issues of possession (as above, giving us tropes such as Rape Is Love) and social inclusion, the need to have a stable place in a community, and to consistently get one's needs met, including those of intimacy.]]
Hide / Show Replies