It all started in adolescence. I could barely make sense of the monoamorous units around me. I could feel an inherent and intense aversion and repulsion towards the familiar and familial project that the society has mass-subscribed to. Commitments leading to relationship, relationships leading to marriage and marriage leading to a prolonged act of being there forever for each other—it felt like a format written in a foreign language. At 19, just before the beginning of my first affair in college, I was convinced that there could be nothing more unromantic than being with just one person—intellectually, physically, or affectionally.
It has been two decades since. After several experiences in differing intensities, the core principle of my romantic position and my sexual stance have remained unaltered. Eventually, the paternalistic advice to settle down stopped arriving after the mid-30s. Or, I had snubbed those by stating: “I can’t be content with one like you do; I need more from life”.
Though I still hear friendly taunts—“aur kab tak? ab to line pe aa jao; ab to sudhar jao”. Such banters presume that I need reformation. My track could be deviant, but there is absolutely nothing pathological about desiring more. It is a lifestyle choice that despises normative domesticity and singular couplehood. There are no moral orders to be upheld or restored by coercive deletion of the third/fourth/fifth person(s) in the world of polyamory and promiscuity.
I shall be using these two terms simultaneously. That does not imply that they are synonymous. Polyamory invariably leads to promiscuity. They are inseparable. Another clarification—polyamory and promiscuity should not be equated to, or even compared with ‘polygamy’.
Polygamy is an exploitative patriarchal practice of accumulating multiple wives for men’s pleasure and greed alone, where women have no choice to resist. Polyamory, on the other hand, is an informed, honest, consensual choice that can be exercised by both men and women. To be a polyamorous and promiscuous person is to encourage and indulge in multiple attractions with utter honesty without keeping the other person(s) in the dark. To be permissive is to acknowledge the parallel existence of several pull-variants, as opposed to the dishonesty of non-admission.
Let us return to the aversion and repulsion that I mentioned earlier. By all means, the dislike between the polar opposites is mutual. There is no dearth of apathy and contempt thrown at us by the monoamorous majority. Humans love to classify and categorise. They feel at home—linguistically and socially—with ‘wives’, ‘spouses’, ‘partners’, ‘girlfriends’ with whom you can ‘make home’, ‘date’ and ‘imagine a future’.
I have often stumbled at the rigidity of these terms and felt terribly uncomfortable during their utterance. But society prefers definitions and definitive forms of relationship statuses aligned with societal expectations— which eases its nerves. Once a female friend stated: “What’s wrong in making long-term plans, mapping them and taking the leap of faith?”
There is nothing wrong with being on a six-lane highway with fixed destinations. Conversely, I could say: “There is nothing wrong in setting out on a path devoid of pre-determined stop-overs and detours”. There is nothing unnerving about the idea of an ‘abundance of choice’ on the personal front. It is empowering to exercise that freedom in matters of romance and sex—with many. This invariably attracts a lot of disdain and social disapproval. It appears dreadful for some as it is unacceptable.
Often, I have been made to feel that polyamory and promiscuity are a lot more embarrassing than all other alternative sexualities and their acts put together. Once a married friend said in utter disgust: “I just can’t process all this. It is way too convoluted. It’s neither here nor there. I neither have the time, or the energy, or the bandwidth for such perverse things.”
This sort of frowning is a manifestation of insecurities that have forever paid lip service to fidelity, while sustaining hidden affairs, from time to time. It is futile and self-defeating to address polyamory and promiscuity without probing into the social stigma around it. Polyamory and promiscuity shake the quintessential foundations of fidelity. Because it is not centered around proprietorship and possession of one’s mind and body. By unbelonging the mind and body, it aims to undermine some of the most regressive elements imposed by patriarchy on romance such as commitment, cheating and competition.
However, society is designed for order, stability and security. It strives for kinship-clarity. It demands smooth inheritance of the most prized thing in this capitalistic world—i.e., private property. Polyamory and promiscuity hurt those vested social interests by bringing undue desire and too much disorder. It is antithetical to the sanctions and sanctity of marriage. It is a seductive nuisance for a one-man-woman or a one-woman-man. Because, here there are no prohibitions on romance and sex.
By subverting the socially-celebrated idea of singular love and loyalty, it is a pathway to freedom—freedom from confinements, freedom to generate, retain, or rejuvenate desires for many, in varying capacities. And that subversion is pleasurable. It is politically progressive and personally liberating. So, I had to tell that friend, “It is not perverse, just because you don’t have the bandwidth for it.”
To get the bandwidth right, it is imperative that we evolve and look beyond the narrow binary of ‘either’ and ‘or’. And view the world of choice through the inclusive lens of ‘and’ and ‘also’. A female friend, who at one point was too eager to possess, and did not quite comprehend my stance, kept questioning: “So where am I in the order of preference? If you were to choose just one person, could that person be me?” Such questions are redundant. I had a hard time arguing: “You cannot possibly expect what I cannot offer, or expect something that I have never promised”. Romantic interests are never unidirectional or ranked in a polyamorous scheme of things. It is not a choice between one lover and another; complete acceptance or total rejection. Equations are a lot more ambiguous, equal and inclusive.
In that equation, different people play different roles. Compatibility comes in compartments and instalments. Physical, emotional, intellectual compatibilities can rarely be found in one individual. Such all-in-one expectations can only lead to discord, dissatisfaction and despair. Therefore, multiplicity is not a problem, but a solution. It is impossible and futile to find, or even seek everything, in one individual. Why the need to talk, travel, text, sext, fuck, shop, work, watch, or intoxicate—has to converge in ONE? Well and good, if it does; but if it does not—hopping is a legitimate human right. It is not about the exclusivist vision of this person, or the other. Rather, it is about this person, and also those others too.
“So, you admit the existence of multiple partners, and on top of that, you are proposing a division of labor?”—inquired another inquisitive friend. Well, there are misinterpretations galore, as polyamory is all gray. Personally, I have always found the usage of the word ‘partner’ inappropriate. ‘Partner’ implies a tacit contract between two individuals. As if, it is like a deal—to be made or broken. It is loaded with normative expectations of constant loyalty, availability, access to each other, and also excess of each other. Partners barely provide provisions for spatial detachment unless it is demanded for creative reasons. Or, it is coaxed as a consequence of confrontations. Or, it emerges out of domestic fatigue requiring a break from each other. Polyamorous inclusivity not only accommodates several individuals, but it also recognises boredom and detachment as organic outcomes of spending time with each other. Mind and body are free to be consensually engaged or disengaged; invested or disinvested without feeling guilty.
Disengagement is built into engagements, and attachments cannot be devoid of prolonged or partial detachments. Loosing romantic, sexual, or intellectual interest in one individual is a real possibility; so is the idea of regaining it. Nothing is stagnant. Milestones do not matter.
Since people are not stagnant, the phobia of living alone is the strongest human insecurity, against which ‘family’ offers its insurance. Anxieties are thrown at you and me:
“Who’ll take care of you when you grow old?”
“Life is incomplete without a companion”
“What’s the point of living if you can’t share?”
Or the ultimatum: “At the end, there will be nobody for you.”
“If you let her go, you’ll not find anyone better”
Trust me, I am tired of explaining that I can’t possibly spoil my self-indulgent youth by being excessively bogged down by old age. I adore sharing, but with many. There is no guarantee of anyone staying for the other, anyway. Permanent-settlement is not only a passe, but more suited for control over land, and not over mind and body. So, there are no water tight make ups and break ups in our vocabulary. Departures entail return, or arrival of newness. There is no anxiety around loss because there is nothing to lose. That does not imply that it’s flimsy, frivolous and surface-centric. I have also known people and sustained communication and touch for over a decade.
Yet, I do care for my romantic and sexual freedom. It is sacrosanct. It cannot be sacrificed. I look forward to return home, knowing that there is no one waiting for me. I want to retain my freedom to invite someone over to spend the night or the weekend without anyone being offending. I want to guard my freedom to engage with someone without being answerable to someone else. Romance flows from the barrel of freewill and consensual choice. This version of romance is always in roaming mode. In its ideal form, it makes you a freelancer, who is not on the pay rolls of any one partner. If fixity and continuity are legit social choices, so is flexibility and fluidity in fragments. Transgressions are not remorseful here, as there is nothing to transgress, because there are no prohibitions. Yes, it demands a lot of romantic labour. It is tedious, as nothing is secure, stable, or taken for granted. And there lies the charm of it.
Like a perennial expedition, it is propelled by an unsatiated craving to explore more. It is never convinced that this is the best place to stop forever for there is no forever. Some may judge and say: “Oh! It’s just a matter of convenience for the morally loose men and women, who want to avoid responsibilities and just have fun.” No offenses taken, but any responsible-ethical-adult choice should be acceptable. Indulgence is not demeaning unless one is a renouncer. And society has always passed derogatory remarks on men, and more so on women, who have been active and available outside confirmative structures. In fact, society is threatened by those, who cannot be tamed and tapered into existing social norms.
Polyamory and promiscuity are libertine modes of living. It is higher-order desire and romance without a fixed framework. It defies several limits of love and sex. Romance in its extreme form and fragrance is not bound by the rule books of petty domesticity. It is restless and relentless and reckless. It is not a fixed deposit with assured returns. It is an ever-risky affair. Though in a society that has deliberately imposed unilinear romance, it is difficult to practice polyamory and promiscuity with earnest honesty.
Yet it is liberating to own one’s stance. Those who cannot, or those who refuse to own it, must have also often acted out of their polyamorous and promiscuous instincts. Such is the unacknowledged propensity to digress, divert and get distracted from ‘one’ to ‘another’, from ‘another’ to ‘yet another.’
