I was at a raucous and bouncy party a few weeks back, where the topics ranged from sports to spirituality and relationships as the drinks went from water to orange juice to rum – straight up. Now, with the friends I hang out with, any conversation worth its time occurs only when folks are drunk, any topic of a consequential nature is brought up only when we are smashed. This is also when people speak the truth, the absolute sweet-sour truth. As we trudged back and forth to the bar table to refill our (and others’) drinks, a possibly-devastating question in the form of an innocuous thread made its way across the room. “Have you seen the movie No strings attached”? Now for most of us, who were familiar with the urban phrase, it wasn’t even necessary to have watched the movie to jump headlong into the conversation and contribute our two bits.
While someone said that the concept doesn’t exist in Indian culture, another was quick to refute and illustrate with a personal example (citing a friend of a friend of course!) saying that it only exists but is even alive, kicking and breeding! Setting aside what society does and thinks, we decided to question ourselves (with the limited thinking abilities we had then) and reveal our familiarity with the notion of forming physical connections without any accompanying emotional baggage.
Man has emotional, physical, intellectual and spiritual needs – agreed? Now, we have been brought up with the rather unsustainable belief that the person you co-habit with/love/marry will meet all your above needs. He has to. That’s what our religion and society expect and perhaps, most often observe. Note that I say “observe” here because we are getting incredibly good at pretence and sham and hence, cannot assume that what we see is what is. In the fleeting time we spend even with our closest friends, we can only notice what they want us to notice. I am digressing…but if you are with me still, have some “paciencia”– I am taking you somewhere.
So, we have established that your partner needs to meet every need you can possibly have through your lifetime. On second thought, I should rephrase – social norms have decreed this about your partner. But do we actually abide by this diktat? Can you rely on one person for needs ranging from intellectual stimulation to spiritual solace? It doesn’t sound unreasonable or bizarre at all to me that we connect with different people depending on interests and wavelengths. If I were frazzled because of work deadlines, my boyfriend could probably take the edge off it by making sympathetic noises over the phone, but the person who could understand and offer to resolve it would be my colleague or friend at work thereby fulfilling my most immediate need of the day. When I get back home, less worried, my boyfriend would, no doubt, fulfil my other immediate physical need – a relaxing massage, that is…you smug, omniscient beings. He would also undoubtedly appreciate the fact that I am not getting on his nerves , frustrated with my job.
This is a common instance that we come across, first or second hand and we accept the outcome without batting an eyelid. This is primarily because, the relationship we share with a colleague is purely professional and it ends at 6pm. It is perfectly acceptable to spend time with him over lunch or tea discussing things unrelated to work just because we know that it is temporary, not binding and hence above the purview of any social/moral/religious authority.
I have a friend who is very religious – he is a stickler for tradition, customs and rituals and has the conviction to back up his beliefs. We have had many conversations about our diametrically opposite views on religion – since I am an opportunistic agnostic – choosing to have faith in the supernatural when it is convenient, and each time, I come back with more questions than before, leaving him with more doubts than before. We are able to tickle the right nerves of reason and get us both wondering like children. Again.
His wife is as religious and pious as he is and that’s one of the reasons that he got married to her. They don’t talk to each other about their religious convictions or faiths mainly because there is nothing new to discover in their understanding of this weighty subject. Here’s my question - is he committing a sin by baring his soul to me about his beliefs? Am I committing one by encouraging this sort of conversation-based relationship outside his marriage? No. Because we are friends having an intellectually stimulating talk for a short period after which he goes home happily to his wife to talk about sundry matters and engage in domestic activities.
Our generation finds sources of delight in trivial, untangible objects, sympathy from unexpected strangers and succor from random friends. Yes, as a modern adult, there are multiple resources at my disposal to satiate and provide comfort. When I can lean on friends for emotional, intellectual and spiritual intimacy, why not physical? The body desires engagement and stimulation as much as our brain does. Why then, do we deny ourselves simple pleasures like a hug, kiss or a caress when we spend hours entertaining thoughts on the same lines? Why is having a physical relationship outside marriage called adultery but having an emotional connection not called the same? In my opinion, the word adultery should be tagged to any emotional, physical, intellectual or spiritual relationship that is sought outside any committed relationship.
Now that I have ranted enough about the hypocrisy of “adultery”, let me jump straight into matters that affect me today.
There are times when I desire physical intimacy – it’s just a short-lived yearning to be held and comforted by actions rather than words. There is no clause in the treaty of life that I remember signing, about not having a physical relationship with someone that I am not in love with. Yes, you may say that I am walking on that tight-rope where I could easily slip up and fall into the emotional depths of unrequited love but if that is a risk I am willing to run, then why is it morally unacceptable to be physically intimate? To twist Gandhi’s words, “in my matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place.” If two adults are consenting, there need not be anyone else passing judgement.
Now, welcome to the real world of the dangers of uninhibited physical intimacy. They say that the HIV virus is man-made; they say that religious and scientific organizations colluded to engineer the virus and spread it since this was the only way to encourage and sustain the institution of marriage in the 70s, when western hippie culture was at its most alluring, giddy peak. I don’t know how much truth lies in this but I do see why this would be a good solution. And indeed it has been proven that there was more stress on having stable families after the alarming discovery and rapid spread of the HIV virus.
Hypothetically speaking, if there was no fear of sexually transmitted diseases, would couples still remain faithful? Can stable relationships not evolve from a one-night stand? Isn't physical compatibility as important in a marriage as an intellectual match? Questions for another day, another blog post, perhaps.
