A few days ago I chanced to read a response
from Sadguru Vasudev on the relevance or otherwise of multiple (read extra
marital) relationships.
Let me
at the outset admit to being a fan of the Sadguru. I have always benefited
listening to him over the years. The response to the relationship question,
however, disappointed me. The Sadguru links relationships to the “physical” act
of touch, and opines that it is a distraction that is best avoided. The
distraction is in the context of ones’ quest for spirituality. He goes on to build a theory on the perils of
the “physical” touch, which hinders spirituality. In all of the 10 minute
response the word “sex” appears just once. There was mention of “Namaskaram” as
evidence of the ancients understanding of the evils of touch.
I find the linking of relationship and physical
touch as a tad weird. To ignore the mental desires for a relationship and to
conclude that the desire is totally physical, in my view, is taking a very
limited perspective of relationships. Man is truly a social animal as evolution
has proven. Loners are a minority. As a social entity human beings desire to
stay in “touch” and find meaning in interacting with those around. ( I got to
read the article through a friend in the Facebook- the ultimate social media !!
) .
My own view of relationships ( in the context
referred in the first line and restricted to the non homosexual kind) goes somewhat
like this . I resort to a series of hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
The need for
relationships starts first with the libido …I cannot comment on the female of
the species , but men in their teens fantasize and would have sex if there were
no social and family issues involved- witness the sexual freedom in many parts
of the world – mostly western . In the Eastern world the family and religious
sentiments still keeps this out of bounds till marriage. Over time as the
sexual energy diminishes relationships take on a “companionship” dimension,
with the need to be mutually present together still a dominant factor.
Hypothesis 2
Marriage is a social
and cultural act that has undergone a sea change in norms in just the past 200
years. Women have driven the change. Till the early twentieth century, married
women were resigned to their husbands having extra marital affairs. These
affairs were largely with unmarried women or those in the sex profession.
Married women saw their role as that of bringing up a Family and “enjoying”
domestic stability and bliss. The man was performing a socially acceptable role
of being a Father and providing a living for the family. His extra marital acts
never came in for any criticism .
Hypothesis 3
Women have “evolved”
in the last 200 years to show a great deal of independence both financially and
emotionally. Whilst “motherhood” is a dominant desire it now is not accepted as
being a sole purpose of marriage. Women seek the independence that men have (
to use their time and money as they desire) and when that is not given, the
stronger of them rebel. I know girls having walked out within a week of
marriage! In many countries in the Western world divorce rates are in the 50% +
and in some European countries “live-in” couples matches married couples in
numbers.
Hypothesis 4
My fourth hypothesis
is that human being as he or she ages seeks for companionship. I define
companionship as an “environment” where he or she feels relaxed and forgets the
trials and worries of daily existence. Such moments of companionship re charges
the physical and mental system to face the world. In such moments of
companionship the freedom to “converse”, as distinct from a debate or scoring a
point is the prime factor.
Hypothesis 5
Unfortunately a
spouse does not fit the requirement of companionship. This is for a very simple
reason. Living together day to day builds a mindset that refuses to accept the
other as worthy of any beliefs or thoughts worth discussing. Owing to years of
striving mutually to build a family, both the wife and the husband become
immune to varied opinions from the other. Companionship to me is all about
sharing the inanities of the world in a “conversational” environment. Why this
environment gradually deteriorates and finally disappears in married couples is
yet to be clearly enunciated
Hypothesis 5
The “relationship”
between a man and a women is bound to turn sexual if one or both parties are so
inclined. Is that wrong? Does it go against the vows of marriage? Is in unfair
to the spouse- of which ever sex?
The moot point here is the definition of “wrong”.
If the sexual act affects the married environment (and I agree, in 95% of the
cases it may), then it is wrong. It is wrong because the responsibility to a
family can be fulfilled only if both spouses are committed to the family.
Commitment takes a knock when an extra marital act impinges on the relationship
at home. Two hundred years ago, women were subservient and did not even dream
of letting the husbands’ extra marital sex affect them one bit. Not anymore and
rightly so.
What about the 5 % of relationships where the
man and the women are mature enough to not let their extra marital
relationships affect their families? If anything these, people would I think be
more committed to their Families, having found a lasting solution to the
“relationship” requirement.
Would this 5% proportion increase? I think well before that, the very institution of marriage may change within the next 100 years. The declining population is much of Europe and Japan, is indicative of the changing priorities of both sexes. If the woman does decide to have a child to fulfill her motherhood need, she would put in places covenants that would protect her independence and choice of living.
