Social Freedom Parts I – III Hulda Lumis, 1905

Republished from our predecessor publication Lucifer the Light Bearer

The term “social freedom” is of recent origin; at least it is not to be found in Webster’s unabridged
dictionary, where other terms—such as social interests or concerns, social pleasures, social love,
social benefits, social happiness, social duties, social communications, and social relations—are
all mentioned. This naturally leads us to the inference that whoever coined the term “social freedom”
was of the opinion that the world had advanced to the point where human beings might be accorded
a fuller measure of freedom in their social relations than they have enjoyed under the restrictions and
limitations established in ages past. There are many phases of social life, and there are many persons
writing and lecturing upon most of these phases; while there are but a few courageous ones who are
willing to discuss the phase which pertains to freedom in the sex relation. Thus I am taking this opportunity
to advocate that which seems to me the underlying principle of all the other phases of our human social
relations. Many physicians and scientists who are quoted as authorities on insanity do not hesitate to
declare that restrained or restricted sexual desire has been the cause of insanity in thousands of cases,
while the gratification of sex desire by unnatural means has been the cause of insanity in thousands
of other cases. Experts in matters relating to criminology agree that crime is the result of perverted
sex instinct or desire, yet none of these authorities have the courage to advocate freedom of sexual
intercourse as a remedy for the cases now in hand, or as a preventive of future possible cases. When
human reason hangs in the balance, when human lives and happiness are imperiled, when insane asylums,
jails, penitentiaries, and so-called reformatories are filled to overflowing and constantly increasing in
number, can we afford to be biased by petty prejudices and hypocritical forms of conventionality and
custom? Shall we refrain from putting forth our best efforts to establish a new and better order of things?

New and better structures are continually being erected upon the ruins of the old. The wheels of progress
will never advance while they remain embedded in the ruts of past centuries. Surprising discoveries await
mankind in the depths of unexplored forests. Still untrodden fields hold vast treasures of gold and silver
and precious stones for the courageous ones who will venture there. Why should we hesitate to leave
the long-traveled highway of conventionality and custom? Whatever these may have contributed to the
welfare of society in the past, they cannot be expected to contain all of wisdom, nor all of happiness for
humanity. To be happy is the chief end and aim of human existence. No one can be happy while chafing
under the restrictions which society now enforces upon the strongest and, without doubt, the best instinct
of our natures—namely, that which manifests itself through the affections. Strange as it may seem, while
the clergy—who are largely responsible for this state of affairs—recognize the evils which have grown out
of the restrictions and limitations referred to, they steadfastly refuse to place the blame where it rightly
belongs, and vainly suppose that they can overcome these evils by still greater restrictions. They are
using every effort to get them established by law. Their efforts with regard to uniform divorce laws are
only one instance of this, and we do not object to being put on record as making the prediction that they
will utterly fail to accomplish their object, if the result of past effort is any criterion to judge by. Moreover,
we predict that their refusal to remarry divorced persons will result in the determination of such persons
to dispense with the services of clergymen and justices of the peace as well, when they desire to remarry,
and thus set the fashion for those who have never been married to do the same.

Thus unconsciously does man overreach himself when he presumes to set up limitations to nature; for
nature knows no limitation and will not be restrained without causing much havoc and destruction. Thus
believing, we have no hesitancy in advocating the utmost freedom in sexual relations, as in all other
relations, in order that human health, human happiness, and human progress and development may
be hastened. We are well aware that whoever conceives of, or advocates, or practices anything which
is contrary to that which is called “the established order of things” is called “radical” or “extremist,” and
is liable to be misjudged and roundly abused. For radicalism means root-work—the uprooting of all
falsehoods and abuses. It is not saying too much to say that the one who attempts to uproot all the
falsehoods, errors, and abuses which have become established through social limitation has set for
himself or herself no easy task. We are encouraged to make some slight attempt in this direction,
knowing that whatever measure of freedom has been secured by mankind has come through the
efforts of individuals who were far-seeing and courageous enough: first, to conceive of greater
benefits to be derived from a new and different order of things; secondly, to openly advocate the
same; and thirdly, to put their ideas into practice in their own lives, in defiance of adverse opinion
and social ostracism—aye, in defiance of persecution and even death itself. It has become more
or less unpopular in these days to put to death those who differ in opinion from the powers that be
—perhaps owing to the fact that the more dissenters were put to death, the more numerous they
became. It is still customary, however, to criticize, ostracize, and even persecute in various petty
ways those who dare to show their contempt for conventional decrees and customs, and who are
honest enough to satisfy, as far as possible, all the needs of their threefold natures—physical,
mental, and spiritual—in the simplest and most natural manner, without recognizing any necessity
to practice hypocrisy and deceit, or to suffer shame or condemnation because thereof.

One kind of people who doubtless would be most severe in their criticism of the idea of freedom in sexual
relations can only be classified as the fig-leaf contingent of society, because the Bible story of Adam and
Eve in the Garden of Eden clothing themselves with fig leaves to cover their nakedness seems the most
fitting illustration of those who clothe themselves with pretended virtue (it is nothing less). This only serves
to direct attention to the shameful thoughts generated in their own minds, which none might discover if they
did not, like old Adam, cry out and confess: “I was afraid because I was naked, and I hid myself.” The fig
-leaf contingent is but little, if any, worse than the class which I shall speak of as the white-feather brigade
—those who hate the sham and pretense, the hypocrisy and deceit of conventional life, and realize the
possibilities for human happiness in a larger measure of social freedom, yet are afraid to stand firmly
by their convictions. So they continue to wear their particular badge of slavery, which might as well be
a fig leaf as a white feather, except that it represents a slightly different stage of development—like
one who has advanced from the primary department into an intermediate grade of schooling. There is
another species of critics who are certainly in a class by themselves, who apparently pose as the advance
agents of reforms and reformers. The only difference between them and the advance agents of Barnum and
Bailey’s circus is this: the circus agent goes ahead of the circus, bills the town, and stirs up enthusiasm
in order to get the people ready for what is surely coming; while the advance agent of reform tells the
reformer that his ideas are all right, but the people are not ready for them yet, and that he had better
get under cover and stay there until the dear people have all the time there is in which to get ready.

The Chicago newspapers have a full staff of these advance agents of social freedom. Next in order
are the past masters, who are not wearing fig leaves and have forgotten what a white feather looks
like—it is so long since they wore one—and they are so far ahead of the advance agent that the
agent cannot even see the dust they raise to blind the eyes of those toiling after them. This class has
discarded the cloak of orthodox religion and conventionality and is not afraid to have it known that
they have exercised the utmost freedom in all their social relations. But they have “got wise,” so to
speak, and having “run the gamut” of human experiences, they consider themselves eminently
qualified to advise others. Thus they tell us that while it is natural and right, and therefore not to be
condemned, to fully satisfy sex desire, it is better to rise above it—or overcome it—by the power of
our wills governed by Reason. How grand, how lofty and sublime it sounds, and how the idea suggests
to our minds a state of development in which we might find ourselves monarch of all we survey
—a consummation devoutly to be wished. But unfortunately, as we seek to climb toward that dizzy
pinnacle, we meet so many returning travelers that we naturally conclude they became weary
before reaching the goal and retraced their steps discouraged. We learn better after a while—at
least such has been my own experience, and I am willing to stand in the confessional if by so
doing I can better illustrate my point. I confess to having tried the queenly act of sitting triumphantly
upon Reason’s throne for a whole year, and at the end of that time I cheerfully and willingly abdicated
that position in favor of the next aspirant, who was bound to find, as I did and as so many others
have found, that the throne of Reason, so called, is a cold, barren place—absolutely devoid of every
element calculated to add to human comfort and satisfaction, except as a place of contemplation
or retrospection for those who possess full consciousness of having enjoyed every experience
they ever desired.

Many persons pose as occupants of Reason’s throne whose intellectual faculties have been developed
at the expense of the physical, and therefore they have never possessed a desire for sexual intercourse,
and are unconscious of having missed any experience common to humanity. Such persons are frequently
held up as models of so-called virtue and morality, and are often found sitting in judgment upon their
fellows, giving utterance to the severest condemnation of their immoral acts. We do not hesitate to say
that such persons are credited with a virtue they do not possess, and even their reason and judgment
may be questioned, since no one is, or can be, qualified to pass judgment upon so vital a matter who
knows nothing about it. Hearsay evidence is challenged in any court, and in the case in question the
evidence of those who have qualified as witnesses through actual experience is overwhelmingly in
favor of more freedom and less restriction in the natural expression of our sex natures. I realized all of
this only when I attempted for a year to occupy the position of judge while fully conscious of having
missed an experience I longed for with all the strength of my nature—the experience of loving and
being loved without limitation. So I climbed down off the throne and came back to earth, so to speak,
to qualify. So much for those who are the chiefest among the objectors to the establishment of greater
freedom in the sex relation. Every objector is entitled to choose his own class. I now pass on to a
consideration of the objections generally advanced by those referred to, and shall bring such arguments
to bear as I am able, in this effort to break the chains which the past has fastened upon humanity, and
to establish true freedom in self-expression for all.

PART II

It is said that any religious doctrine can be sustained by Scriptural authority, and while I might also turn
to the Bible and find ample justification for the sentiments I have expressed upon the subject of social
freedom, I consider I have a better source from which to draw conclusions, and therefore turn to Mother
Nature for a fitting illustration to use as a basis in the argument in favor of the condition under discussion.
I find the illustration I desire in the trees upon the plain and in the forest. On the plain or in the open field
the tree towers in majesty toward the sky, or spreads itself around, or slants along the ground, according
to the innate bent of its nature, or in harmony with the providential breeze that sways it; but in full expression
of its own needs and desires it responds lovingly, silently, and tenderly to the warmth of the sunshine and
the caress of the raindrop. Its roots draw grateful nourishment from the soil, and harmony and peace
prevail while the tree develops and expands to the fullest extent of its nature. In the forest it is different.
There the tree is forced to conform to its environment and the limitations placed upon it by its surrounding
companions. It grows, as best it can, toward the light wherever light may be. Forced to modify its natural
habit, in obedience to the pressure of circumstances over which it has no control, it takes such form and
grows to such height and breadth as its neighbors allow it to do; all its energies being directed to the
preservation of life in any shape, and at any sacrifice. May we not justly draw a comparison here between
the trees and ourselves? Left to ourselves, or surrounded only by Nature, we become outwardly that which
the spirit within would fashion us to be; but placed among our fellows, crushed and crowded against each
other, shackled by conventionalities and customs, restrained by unjust and unnecessary laws, pruned
and bent by the force of public opinion, we grow to be much like the trees in the forest, differing from
each other only according to the light we can get which straggles through the intermingling of the heavy
foliage of traditions, creeds, and dogmas.

The tree, however, has less power to choose or reject its own environment than we have, and our power to
do this should be governed wholly and entirely by our own human desires, unrestrained by the dogmatic
authority of others. Human desire is the true spur to human progress, and we mark our progress by the
fulfillment of our desires. Thus I unhesitatingly and unqualifiedly reassert that human desire in all matters
pertaining to social intercourse should be the sole guide to individual action, just as our appetite is our
sole guide in the choice of food, and that all legal and conventional restrictions should be removed in
order that absolute freedom in the expression and development of every natural function may be established.
I also confidently assert that according to the strength of our individual desire, this happy condition will
be attained. It may be argued that many people have abnormal desires, and for that reason should be
restrained. While it is doubtless true that some are abnormal, let us ask, who of us might not be considered
abnormal if others than ourselves are to decide as to which of our desires are normal and which otherwise?
Moreover, who shall say that abnormal tendencies would not become greatly modified or even wholly
overcome if undue and unnecessary restriction were removed? Such desires or inclinations as are
generally considered abnormal in mankind are unquestionably the result of the abnormal conditions
of environment into which we are born, just as a tree is handicapped in its growth and development
by the crowded condition it finds itself in in the midst of the forest. Is it not reasonable to suppose
that if that same tree could be transplanted into an open field, or given more space and freedom
in which to grow and expand in its native soil, it would develop to the utmost possibility of its nature?

We know that this is so, and just why we cannot apply the same logic to the case of the human being
is hard to comprehend. One of the objections usually made to this principle is that it is so contrary to
the established social condition or custom that its acceptance would overturn the very foundation
upon which society rests. Strange to say, this objection invariably comes from those who are most
frequently heard deploring present social conditions. Would it, then, be such a terrible calamity if
the deplorable social conditions now existing should be overturned even to their foundations? If a
building is old and unfit for human habitation it is torn down before a new structure can be erected in
its place. We may seek to refashion, remodel, and repair the old building as we will; the strengthening
of one part but weakens another, and sooner or later the collapse of the entire structure is inevitable.
In Matthew ix:16–17 we find this old truth presented: “No man putteth a piece of new cloth into an
old garment; for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
Neither do men put new wine into old bottles; else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and
the bottles perish; but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.” And yet, at the
beginning of the twentieth century, we find society trying to accommodate itself to laws and customs
two thousand years old, using itself as a patch upon a conventional garment woven by a medieval
priesthood. Is it not time that a garment which requires such continual and extensive patching be
considered to have outlived its usefulness and be rejected altogether? There is always a swinging
backward of the pendulum which at the same time means a forward movement. Would it not appear
at this time that the force of legislation, conventionality, and custom which has been brought to bear
so heavily upon mankind in the past two thousand years has exhausted itself, and that humanity
stands at the portal of an era of freedom such as the world has never known before?

Let us now briefly consider the subject of sexual freedom in comparison with institutional marriage.
The most striking difference between the present restrictive condition and the one herein advocated
is that the first-named prevents many individuals—who for one reason or another do not enter into
institutional marriage—from giving any expression to perfectly good and natural impulses, and
causes them to go through life unloving and unloved, thus cheating them of the sweetest and
dearest experience that is given to mankind to enjoy. It too often compels men and women who
have entered institutional marriage to remain in a condition that is unbearable to them, where
the element of hatred is engendered and they look forward to no relief from it save the death
of one or the other. And the so-called Christian church still fosters such a relation to the extent
that it would fain use its influence to secure the enactment of legislation which would render it
still more difficult for people to free themselves from such a hell, under the plea of “preserving
the sanctity of the home.” To the average married man and woman the terms “home” and “hell”
have become synonymous, although each and every one of them without doubt entertains a
higher conception of what “home” should be; yet all the churches and all the legislatures cannot
create a home where love, the one indispensable element, is lacking, any more than a builder
can erect a brick house without brick. Anyone who will conscientiously study this question cannot
fail to arrive at the conclusion to which many of our most enlightened thinkers have already
arrived, namely, that the chief doctrine of institutional marriage—which is the ownership by
the husband of the wife’s sexual organs and all that pertains thereto—is the rock upon which
so many “homes” have foundered. The promulgation of this doctrine has led to the practice of
hypocrisy and deceit; it has promoted selfishness and jealousy; created discord and inharmony;
engendered strife, hatred, and misery; and caused the murder of many hapless men and women.

In the name of a long-outraged humanity, let us abolish such doctrines, for surely the mind of man
can conceive of nothing more hellish and undesirable than this. It is unnecessary to say that in absolute
freedom of sex relation the evils above enumerated would be overcome, because each individual
would be taught from childhood that the sex organs were not vile and unclean, and that they were
worthy of all respect and consideration; that they should be as freely spoken of as to their use in
the promotion of health and happiness by magnetic contact with the sex organs of others, as well
as for the propagation of the species, even as the uses of the heart, stomach, and liver are now
freely spoken of. We would, under this system (if it can be called such), soon learn that the magnetism
of some people which did not benefit us might rightly be avoided, just as we now avoid eating certain
kinds of food which we have found by experience do not agree with us or are a positive injury to us.
This is not an unreasonable proposition to anyone who will fairly eliminate long-established prejudice
from his mind in a desire to assist in the establishment of a new and better condition than the old.
Neither is it so difficult to put into operation as some might suppose. The effort most needful is to
destroy the idea that one individual has any right to control over any function of the body of another
individual. For the sake of illustrating my point, take a married man imbued with the doctrine of institutional
marriage, who therefore believes that he is the owner and controller of his wife’s sex organs and
consequently would be thrown into a fit of ungovernable rage at the knowledge that she had engaged in
the sex relation with another man, thus robbing him of something which he believed to be his own exclusive
property; yet this same man is most frequently found arranging clandestine meetings with other men’s
wives, who doubtless hold the same opinion of ownership of their wives’ sex organs that he himself does.

Just what the psychological condition of this man’s mind is that permits him to contemplate with
equanimity the prospect of sharing one woman with another man and not the other woman is past
all human comprehension, especially when he is actually better and happier with the one he shares
than with the one he does not. The only reasonable conclusion is that it is because in the one case
he is limited by his idea of ownership of the woman and in the other he is not. What, then, is the
remedy? What but the one we advocate—the elimination and utter destruction of the idea of ownership.
This argument might be extended indefinitely, but it has been sufficiently considered from the standpoint
of meeting general objections, and I desire in the closing part of this paper to dwell to some extent
further upon the benefits to be derived from the conditions herein advocated.

PART III

Ella Wheeler Wilcox, in an article entitled “Woman’s Passions and Trials,” published in the New
York World, said: “I have known suicide to be attempted by one weary of virtue; one who felt that
in her case virtue was not its own reward, since it left her facing the shadows of middle life with no
lamp of human love to light the way. There are some women to whom the lack of male companionship
is as great a tragedy as the loss of virtue to others. The despair of the unpossessed can be as wearing
as the remorse of the erring. We hear little of the one and much of the other. Sorrowing virtue is more
ashamed of its woes than unhappy sin, because the world has tears for the latter and only ridicule
for the former.” As we recognize the truth of what Mrs. Wilcox says, we cannot help wondering how
she could be content with simply voicing a condition which could be so easily overcome if only women
had the courage of their convictions. It would need but the leadership of one or two such women of
influence as Ella Wheeler Wilcox to start a movement in the direction of freedom in love and all that
pertains to it—a movement that would become irresistible and would, at once and for all time, make
it unnecessary that virtue should be held at so great a price as the death of any woman who grew
weary of living without love. How much better to make possible the other alternative of giving and
receiving the love she yearned for. Nor is this the only good to be attained by such an effort. With the
established recognition of the innate right of men and women to love one or a dozen other men and
women according to their desire or capacity, the shame, the sorrow, and remorse which the “unhappy
sinner” is now forced to suffer and endure because of the ostracism and condemnation that the world
heaps upon her would no longer be possible; for, after all, the world sheds very few “tears” for the “erring one.”

It is easier to condemn than to weep. Why not change a point of view which makes either condemnation
or tears seem necessary? How much more time the people of this mundane sphere would have in which
to mind their own business and make progress in their individual unfoldment. Then let us consider those
who in the past have refused to ignore their natural right to love and sexual indulgence, although unmarried,
and have consequently found themselves in a condition of prospective maternity. The maternal instinct is
not governed by law; it is as natural for women to desire children as for the sun to shine. It is unquestionably
true that by far the great majority of such women would have been happy to give birth to their children and
would have taken as good care of them as any woman has ever done in institutional marriage, had she not
been hounded by the fear of the scorn of her friends and relatives, and of being looked down upon by people
in general as a creature beneath the respect usually accorded a yellow dog. Thus, many of them have become
suicides, while thousands have placed themselves at the mercy of medical sharks and pirates who thrive on
the money they extort from their victims for the miserable service they perform for them. Many of these unhappy
women die from the effects of the operations performed upon them, but the number of lives thus sacrificed is
as nothing compared to the murder of the infants born of those unhappy mothers who do not submit to abortion.
Stifling the mother instinct that yearns and pleads for her offspring, she arranges with the particular medical
shark who has had her case in charge to find a home for her little one, which, for “a consideration,” he willingly
promises to do if she will pledge herself never to make any inquiries after it. She then tears herself away, little
dreaming that before she reaches her home her child will have been forced out of existence. Every large city
is infested with hundreds of such “medical practitioners,” whose only excuse for existence is that our present
standard of conventionality and custom makes them necessary.

Why should we not do away with a conventional code of ethics that can make us indifferent to such cruel and
inhuman practices, rather than allow our ideas of morality and virtue to remain unshocked? What a “whited
sepulcher” our temple of virtue and morality is, and what hypocrites we are who bow before its altar! Would
to heaven that “the veil of the temple” might once more “be rent in twain,” and the fires of such sacrifice be
forever quenched. Love is the only Savior of the world, and the world will not be saved until it ceases to crucify
Love. Let the women of this fair land build a new temple, and let its altars be dedicated to Love, Liberty, and
Light—a new trinity, as it were. Let new fires be built thereon that shall create new warmth of hope and cheer
in the hearts of men and women, and let its rays shine forth like the rays of a star, bringing “glad tidings of
great joy” and happiness to the people of all lands throughout the earth. If each and every one will endeavor
henceforth to do this in their own heart and life, the time will speedily come when our poets will no longer sing:

“I’m sorry for the anguished hearts that break with passion’s strain,”
But I’m sorrier for the poor, starved souls that never knew love’s pain;
Who hunger on through barren years, not tasting joys they crave,
For sadder far is such a lot than weeping o’er a grave.”