Cheating; a term used to denote any deviation from a monogamous relationship, devastating to the core. Controlled by the norms of societal evolution, mating and the family unit are two terms which have been discussed again and yet again, to varying definitions and contradictions. It seems entirely vile of me to take up the discussion again. But, sometimes such discussions are necessary.
In the old world when sexual exclusivity was just an idea, the men with faster sperms won the race. Scientists confirm this particular piece of evolutionary biology and apparently the sperm count of men are more when they are sexually competing with other men for the attentions of a fertile female. Thus every little piece of evolution points to acknowledge two phenomena. One, men were programmed to impregnate as many women as they could. Two, women were programmed to be more choosy when it came to mating, accepting the attentions of the male who could ensure better genes. This notion is so twisted from its pure form to justify men who ‘wander’.
Let us go another facet of evolution. Familial. A child who has both its parents to care for it survives better. Thus, family is a necessitated extrapolation of species propagation. Biologically, the testosterone level in a man is low when caring for an infant. This is a mechanism developed through evolution to make sure that the father cares for the child too, instead of leaving the mother and child vulnerable, to fend for themselves. Gradually, this association became a pre-approved contract, wired with religious connotations and legality, thus making it a necessary obligation that an individual has to provide the society what it wants (not needs) in an exact straight line that it draws.
Thus, in the present society, a man who cheats, though perhaps stigmatized a little, is accepted into the society without much qualms while a woman, a mother who cheats is looked up on as a ‘whore’ or a ‘slut’. The man is just doing nature’s bid, while the woman is going around it. Societal evolution also requires that the man provides for the family. However unfair it might be, after 200,000 years of Homo sapien history, these norms still persist. On one hand there is the demand of family and on the other, there is the need to ‘beget’. Either way, modern man tends to remain primeval in this aspect. The absence of diversity confirms conformity and persistence of guilt.
The most distinctive feature of having an affair is that it is extremely power skewed, especially in the gender plane. Women are subjugated and the helplessness of the husband having an affair is thrust on them, without a choice. There is hardly any doubt that women are more forgiving than men when it comes to such instances, often offering the man a second chance. There is a loss of trust, mutuality and freedom. Oppression and submission go hand in hand in most cases.
That is where the idea of polyamory comes in. Though it is established that in many cases polyamorous relationships are products of insecurity, inability to form committed relationships and co-dependency, in many other cases, they are the result of trust, personal evolution and freedom to choose. Does not mean they are chasing every skirt and pants on the street. In relationships where jealousy is minimum, the children are brought up in a secure environment, with more people caring for them and more adults to trust in.
Now the question arises, to what extent should polyamory or open relationships be permitted in a society? After all, morality thickly veils every single decision of the heart. But the right question is, shouldn’t the individual be given a choice? Of loving one or more than one? If his/her partner is comfortable with that choice, shouldn’t it be left to the individual to see how the choice unfolds? On the other hand, the approval of the partner should not be coerced in any manner. There are many instances where an emotionally unready partner might go along with the idea because he/she doesn’t want to lose someone he/she loves very much. That could be heart wrenching for the partner, especially if there are children involved or promises of exclusivity to the partner from the start. Instead, there should be a personal evaluation where every person understands him/herself properly so that such harm could be minimized from the start. The ones who know themselves enough to realize they cannot love just one person should refrain from entering into a false relationship and society should sanction them such freedom, to co-exist with the majority, to contribute to nature’s diversity.
After all, in the words of Sophocles,’ One word frees us of all the weight and pain of life: that word is love.’ Love should hence be free and not coerced, whether in monogamy or polyamory. The power should be mutual and if desired, shared by many.
No comments:
Post a Comment