Solosexual, with detours and self owned

Venus, at her mirror, by Diego VelaquezVenus, at her mirror, by Diego Velaquez




I have rather radical thoughts about love, sex and . I wish to state them, because I am getting increasingly itchy about the compulsive prudery pervading everything these days, even as divorce rates soar, premarital sex thrives and acceptable public opinion continues to chase some vampire romance-like view of love as an absolute – one true soul mate, etc.

I’ve been married twice, had a long live in relationship that was better than the marriages, divorced once, separated twice. And I have learned from all those.

Currently, I describe myself as solosexual with detours and am happier than I’ve been in a long time. I no longer believe in marriage and even less in monogamy as a commitment. I have successfully ruined excellent friendships by marrying them. Some have even improved after breaking off. What have I learned?

About myself, I have learned that I am not a suitable candidate for 24/7/365 relationships. Too intense, too close. I am too idealistic, too uncompromising and too unwilling to accept the mediocrity of daily life once a relationship mellows into a comfortable habit that usually settles comfortably into the woman making compromises for a happy family life. I don’t stop working at it, and I feel betrayed by my partner stopping working at it. I most certainly don’t do well relating with the world as someone’s belonging – even a cherished, precious one.

I am also quite asocial and even when things are going well and like ample space for me to be left alone with my thoughts. I’m not interested in anyone’s socks, playing 20 mushy messages or how their day went, unless they have something to share or something seems off… or on. In turn, I like a man leading a happy and fruitful life not needing rescued from himself or his tanhai. Together for joy, not compulsive habit.

It isn’t easy for the man either to be held answerable for the actions of a woman who does not even notice convention, let alone toe it. Even one who accepts my freedom feels resentment over being asked questions he feels obliged to defend over things he never felt strongly about. Why? Because I’m his woman! Apparently that means he is responsible for all I do and for running a customer care service for unsolicited opinions about bringing me in line – which he is most incapable of doing. This pretty much decimates a man’s ego in today’s society, so a wife like me ain’t exactly happiness for the man either.

I find the best intentions eventually collapse into a resignation of “too much headache”. Yet of course, I am incapable of being someone I am not. Someone tame, someone who colors within lines, someone society will approve of. Nor would I, if I could.

I have stopped believing in love as a relationship. Love, to me is moments of intense affinity that we chain together with a relationship in some desperate hope of more sense of belonging coming from the same source. To me, love is a feeling that simply is or isn’t. It cannot be controlled by rules about where it should manifest and where it shouldn’t. It also never goes away entirely. A memory can trigger it about someone you don’t even like anymore.

I have learned that relationships die because the people in them stop making them work. In my experience of myself and others, more relationships have died from willful hurt and neglect than from someone “straying”. From simply being too lazy to improve on a good thing till it goes broke and then too lazy for the phenomenal effort it would take. For those who believe in monogamy, any straying comes much after a sense of belonging is lost. For those who don’t believe in it, the straying is irrelevant to the relationship anyway. Yet such a big fuss is made of loyalty to a partner, and so little about continuing to nurture a relationship. I believe in loyalty. Intense, committed loyalty, but not rights, including exclusivity over what another person is allowed to feel.

I do not wish to limit another. I do not wish to be limited by another. Love ought to be what expands us, not preventatively limits us.

Does this mean I no longer love? I do. But I don’t set it in concrete. I feel it, am enriched by it, and am free of it once the moment passes without obligation. I feel no need for love to have a consequence. To turn into sex or marriage or a proposal or resentment over being unrequited. Or even be expressed. I have nothing against a relationship evolving either. Sometimes it does. But it doesn’t “have to” and have to with “the right one”. There are many right ones, with people who resonate and moments of meaning, and there are none that are always, tediously right.

Do I not believe in relationships? I do. But I’d like my partner to walk along. Independent, together. Our relationship is between us. I commit to nurture it, to treasure it and to fight for it when it is in trouble. But I do not commit to being owned by it. I do not commit to it overshadowing all other relationships or limiting their potential – including the potential for genuine, heartfelt intimacy. I would not want to own another either.

For someone who has never had simultaneous relationships and is absolutely disinterested in casual sex, it is surprising how strongly I have started feeling about rejecting monogamy. Would I have had? I honestly don’t know. I’m quite content as a “solosexual” and currently feel no need for anyone in order to have a happy sexual life. The issue is the principle of it. Having thoroughly disliked the chains of being one half of a couple, where I have to dumb myself down and cater to expectations of what a part of a couple should be, I no longer am willing to get into all that. It is unpleasant.

And I have found there are many kinds of love, with many kinds of people. Many kinds of intimacy, that enrich, expand, grow with time, fade, metamorphize. There are many kinds of togetherness, of independence. They stretch across ages, genders, locations. There are even loving, caring relationships with men (gasp!), where both feel attracted, stated, yet there is no sexual relationship. Because there are no rules that say that “you’re repressed if you don’t sleep with people you love and are attracted to while you are single” either.

If there is one thing I have found common to these relationships, it is that there is a sense of grounding. Of being exactly who I am. Of being cherished, and of cherishing in turn. Of being accepted, appreciated and accepting and appreciating in turn. Of freedom, and yet being securely held. And it is all love.

 

My relationship is with the person. It is between the two of us. If it gets between me and the world, that is not acceptable to me. Because my first commitment is to myself. Self owned.

Related Post

About the Author

Vidyut
Vidyut is a blogger on issues of National interest. Staunch advocate of rights, learning and freedoms. @Vidyut

14 Comments on "Solosexual, with detours and self owned"

  1. No one in the world it seems is a suitable candidate for 24/7/365 relationships.Somehow world goes taking it a manadatory condition for existence!!

  2. This is beautiful beyond myimagination.”My relationship is with the person. It is between the two of us. If it gets between me and the world, that is not acceptable to me. Because my first commitment is to myself. Self owned.”thanks for sharing

  3. Bhuvnesh Sehgal | September 4, 2015 at 4:46 am | Reply

    Thanks for this wonderful blog. Beautifully written. Loved each word. I agree with every word.

  4. When a mind loves another, there’s neither “owning” nor conscription.

    The mind can love a variety of veins of thought. This is known.

    Monogamy is a security blanket imposed by society.

    Genghis Khan, while his troops pillaged and looted the towns that he conquered, was busy being the most successful Alpha Male. He wasn’t into Monogamy surely. He was into “posterity” : most Asians have his signature genetic code.

    Did he find love? Cerebral compatibility? Togetherness? Unconditional love? I wonder.

    Of such mindsets are societal norms built : thou shan’t covet thine neighbor’s whatchammacallit.

    This, however, is universally known. This is a constraint. But this is how it is.

    Excepting of course, for the likes of the Italian ex-PM, Ayatollah Rahul Khomeini, (?) Yasser Arafat, or even Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

    Lesser mortals live by the “rules” ; pay taxes and live lives of quiet desperation. Such is the fate of the mediocrity. An exception to this mindset is what all humans perhaps dream of but aren’t enterprising enough to pursue.

    Y’speak for, perhaps, most humans : I want what I need. But, I can’t. For a variety of reasons as well as a variety of lack of confidence.

    Consider this apparent individuality or this apparent sea change in mores : I own myself.

    Is this new? Has this not been seen history since the ice ages? Are we here merely flouting norms or sparking flames of individuality or espousing the hippy life style?

    I think not. I suspect that many shall opine, “been there;done that and bought the t-shirt too”.

    So then, the point is? 😉

  5. slacker boudu | July 28, 2015 at 4:33 pm | Reply

    i sometimes feel that in school they ought to have a subject “do what you like” with chapters like “free love” and “who needs rules and regulations and roles?”!
    as for the “social order” myth of golden book i think the study of this place camden (where 75% kids grow out of wedlock) by edin proves that social order can be kept by humans too

  6. I absolutely loved what you have written. I agree to most of it, though I could not have articulated it so well. Following reminded me of Kahlil Gibran’s Prophet –
    I’d like my partner to walk along. Independent, together. Our relationship is between us. I commit to nurture it, to treasure it and to fight for it when it is in trouble. But I do not commit to being owned by it. I do not commit to it overshadowing all other relationships or limiting their potential – including the potential for genuine, heartfelt intimacy. I would not want to own another either.

  7. I actually felt that this was an amazing coincidence. I understand your thoughts completely, and as I’m currently writing online fiction, I had a character voice this sentiment just 2 days before your post was published (Sherry Mody on http://www.facebook.com/ItsComplicatedOnlineFiction, on 23 July). All I can think is, it’s a sign that women are starting to say honestly what works, not what society expects us to.

  8. nicely written… its the frustration that is within almost everyone, because of overly binding society we live in . some have courage like you and some don’t. Both kind of flower shall be free to move around and mingle the way they want without being afraid of what will happen to kids…parents…honor… blah balah… More worried about the future you don’t have control of ? and ruining the present. the point is most of us lack the courage to stand for ourselves and vivid thinking to understand what actually does makes us happy. Marriages are not just for staying together and licence for sex… they have some purpose if it cease to delivery the very cause it is institutionalized for it shall ceased that moment….

  9. In the interests of transparency and disclosure:

    Four comments on this post have not been approved by me, at my own discretion, as I thought that they would discourage some views from being expressed in the comments. They added nothing of value to the dialogue as well. If you were the author of one of the comments, feel free to submit another without the extreme character judgments.

  10. Wonderful thoughts. Emancipation of women is important and I support it. First, the problem is the biology part of it. How long can a woman move from one flower to another ? The second issue is social order. The role of a woman in bringing a child to this world and rearing her/him to become a good human being is important. It is not possible to support the disorder arising out of a situation when mother leaves for the next flower. As long as such incidences are small in number, the problem, or should I say the situation could be ignored. Not otherwise. Society needs an order to function smoothly. The women are like the corner stone on which an orderly society is built.

    • This is my personal choice, not a recommendation for society at large. Incidentally when I “moved to the next flower”, as you put it, I moved out of an abusive home to living on my own. Currently have my parents living with me after my father fell ill. My husband had no interest in keeping our son, nor would I have let him. The child most certainly thrived from “moving to the next flower”.

      Incidentally, I have a problem with this whole flower mentality. As though a woman cannot survive without being attached to a man. I’m glad to report I’m doing much better on my own than I ever did with some “flower”. Incidentally, when is the last time you have thought of a male having multiple sexual partners as moving from flower to flower or harming children, or whatever?

      It is precisely this thinking that I am tired of. I am not some man’s appendage, moving on, only to be a parasite on someone else. In fact, this post is exactly about how I am NOT interested in that. I may have no “flowers” around me, or live in a bloody garden. I don’t even need to “move on” from one “flower” to enjoy another. With your description, I’d do better than most women counting on only one, ususally unreliable flower :p

      What flowery rubbish is this?

  11. So well written, so lucid and affecting! You speak for so many of us and express it in ways which we won’t be able to! Cheers

  12. envy you….running a customer care …. do not wish to be limited by another…..commitment is to myself.
    not regular blog enthusiast….But..haven’t come across which is clear as crystal

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*


Share
Contact information || Privacy information || Archives