Eugenics used to be associated with free love... why?

Today eugenics is associated with the extreme traditionalism of Nazism, people were to build traditional families, though Himmler did propose state-run polygamy programs devoid of marriage where women would raise their children communally and be supported by the state (Lebensborn). However, the earlier era of eugenics was associated with free love. John Humphrey Noyes was an American spiritualist who established the Oneida Community. He coined the term "stirpiculture" which was an early form of selective breeding where only the most spiritual members of the community would breed. However, he also advocated free love outside marriage because he believed that monogamy represented selfishness, a trait he did not want to propagate in the community. Victoria Woodhull was an early suffragette and ran for President, she advocated free love and eugenics. Alice Vickery was the first women in Britain to gain her pharmacy degree... she advocated birth control and free love and campaigned to end the stigma attached to being born outside of wedlock. 

Today many find it funny that eugenics was first associated with free love, but it might not be all that hard to understand. Noyes was on to something when he spoke about monogamy being "selfish", it is associated with possessiveness and a lack of confidence. How does selfishness affect society and what kind of society would be built if we were all less selfish? Would it be a more cooperative society? Would it be a society filled with less pettiness? Would it be a society filled with less greed? The early eugenicists saw something in those who were capable of practicing free love, a sort of evolved spirit. Free love in my opinion is associated with intelligence, a free and inquiring spirit, self-confidence, and generosity. What would happen if these qualities were bred into the human over jealous monogamy?

Margaret Sanger advocated birth control partially on the premise that the release of inhibitions and fears in the human race would bring upon us rapid and profound perceptions and increase our intelligence and that free access to sex was the best way for us to lose our inhibitions (perhaps outside of bloody warfare... which free love should not replace). If interest in ecstatic sex were a sign of intelligence and virility, then free love would need to be made normal so as to find and select for those who were most enthusiastic about the ritual... in nature a lack of interest in sex would indicate a lower level of reproductive fitness and would thus be dysgenic. Eugenicists have lamented that the Christain obsession with homely women had deteriorated the race as a woman who was deemed to be too sexually provocative in appearance (even if she were chaste) was frowned upon and a more simple type of woman who seemed sexless was preferred. Thus Christain obsession with anti-sex may have had a deteriorating effect on the race. 

Perhaps free love should not be practiced among the average classes as they are not ready for it and its institution could wreak social havoc, however it should be promoted among cults which are formed and organized for no other reason than eugenics. People would be selected based on their ability to responsibly engage in free love. Birth control would be used so that when the time came to producing children it could be done selectively. I would suggest that an adeptness at sexual proclivities and a particularly generous spirit when it came to sex should be used as selective criteria for mating, if less sexed and generous persons are needed to maintain society then this would be brought forward by the monogamous laity. Free love should be used to produce a leading eugenic class who are open, tolerant, generous, not selfish, intelligent, creative, and adventurous... all aspects which may be associated with those who can practice free love.