Kartikey Sehgal

The second page of a two page write-up called “Polyamory in India: Then and Now”, published in Psychology Today,  prompted me to write this story. The author “Deborah Anapol, Ph.D” guides a married woman named Leela towards sleeping with her friend Karna. According to the author, Leela’s husband Sandeep must come to terms with his jealousy. In my opinion, the application of polyamory here is utter rubbish and a subtle form of radical feminism that is making weaklings out of men.

Here’s the first paragraph about Sandeep and Leela and how Leela wants to sleep with another man, Karna, who won’t inform his wife about his affair.

“I arrived in Bombay a few weeks after the 2008 terrorist attack that left residents and tourists alike in a state of shock. Sandeep, an Indian man in his early forties who runs a small consulting firm in Bombay, was still reeling and grateful that his immediate family was unharmed. Sandeep has been married to Leela for fifteen years, and they have a six-year-old daughter. Theirs was an arranged marriage, as is still common in India; nevertheless, they came to love each other deeply. Sandeep told me that Leela is his best friend, that they tell each other everything, and that they started their business together as well. Two years ago, Leela told Sandeep that she wanted to become sexually intimate with their good friend Karna. Sandeep was very uncomfortable about this, partly because Karna was not telling his wife but also because his own jealousy was painful and intense. He’d already downloaded my Compersion e-book by the time we met and had found it helpful, but he was still struggling.”

This is bizarre. The onus of all discomforts lie on Sandeep. He is asked to easily understand and accept that his wife wants to sleep… become sexually intimate with another man. And notwithstanding the biological impulse of a man to be possessive about his woman, he is supposed to read the author’s e-book and accept the idea easily, and be selfless and not selfish. And all that the wife is to do is to prepare herself for the affair, or rather explore her ‘inner self’, ‘inner desires’ ‘sexual personality’ etc.

My first deductions on reading this paragraph (We’ll return to them eventually):

1. Leela is not sexually satisfied with Sandeep. He is too ‘soft’ for her. She wants a ‘better’ man; richer, better-looking, violent.
2. Karna must be an aloof ‘higher’ male which is supported by “…Karna was not telling his wife…” about the proposed affair.
3. The polyamory angle is just an excuse to cheat without getting caught in the entanglements. Woman’s liberation angle.

It didn’t seem like polyamory to me; it appeared like a doctor prescribing elaborate measures for a cut on your knee when a few drops of Dettol would do the job. Or telling you that you got a cut on your knee because you don’t listen to your mother and make her unhappy.

The doctor then writes that

“…I suspect that Sandeep and Leela are on the leading edge of a growing polyamorous movement in India. Sandeep is a thoughtful, insightful man and a professional communicator with a Western education.”

She is making a case for herself. She is informing us that Sandeep is not an idiot. He is very good, in fact; educated and successful; and my client.
She then brings in advaita philosophy and purports to explain in brief how it applies to her sense of polyamory.

“He is a student of Bombay advaita master Ramesh Balsekar, who teaches that it is only our thoughts about what should or shouldn’t be happening that disturb the natural state of peace and happiness.”

And therefore the wife must not think about Karna and the affair and proceed to solve her issues with her husband Sandeep. No?
No Sir. It is Sandeep who must do the thinking. He must be clear and all accepting about his wife sleeping with another man. What applies to Sandeep must apply to Leela. Not according to this doctor.

“Leela and Karna also have an affinity for advaita, and the threesome have attended many satsangs (literally translated, this means "meetings in truth") together, so I figured that they had at least some chance of working this out.”

Why then is this Karna not telling his wife about the impending affair with Leela? Lessons from the “Meetings in Truth” do not apply to Karna? Or are they meant solely for poor Sandeep who must ‘bear the truth’ or ‘come to terms with jealousy’? Has the wife been truthful about her thoughts and desires to her husband all this while? This is bad usage of the concept of advaita.

The advaita angle is employed by the doctor to establish her theory. To tell you that olden Indian philosophies are concurrent with her research. Advaita does not ask men to be weak and timid. A cursory wikipedia reading will give you some idea about the the term.

But let’s read more about Leela and Sandeep. And Karna. And how Sandeep is made out to be a pitiable creature.

“After acknowledging Sandeep’s courage and willingness to let jealousy be his teacher and I inquired about his family of origin. As I’d guessed, Sandeep’s relationship with his wife mirrored that with his mother, who was a fiery and dominating figure. His father was amiable but distant, much like Karna. Clearly, this triangle offered Sandeep an opportunity to do the inner work of healing the past, and he had the necessary skills and motivation to move through these old issues quickly, but still his marriage was at risk because Sandeep and Leela had never established a satisfying sexual relationship.”

“After acknowledging Sandeep’s courage and willingness…”

Sandeep’s courage and willingness would lie in getting things right with his wife in the sack, in the social sphere or in the mind. Here courage is reduced to acceptance by Sandeep of the author’s ideas.

“…Sandeep’s relationship with his wife mirrored that with his mother, who was a fiery and dominating figure. His father was amiable but distant…”

So is Sandeep weak? Does he fear women? Is he ‘soft’ as I had predicted in point one? Yes.

“His father was amiable but distant, much like Karna.”

Refer to my point 2 about Karna being aloof. Obviously Leela loves this quality. Or at least it stands better when compared to Sandeep’s softness. She loves Karna’s personality and wants to sleep with him. Simple. Like millions of women worldwide. There is nothing remarkably ‘cutting edge’ or ‘revolutionary’ in this case.

Leela also doesn’t want to sleep with Sandeep and even without the polyamory angle, she would have gone ahead and slept with Karna. And given immense grief to Sandeep.

“Clearly, this triangle offered Sandeep an opportunity to do the inner work of healing the past…”

If I believe the author, then Karna is like the distant dad Sandeep had who stayed away or was scared of his dominating wife. The author thinks that through this three-way arrangement Sandeep will be healed. He will come to accept Karna as a part of his life. And so he will come to accept his father. Here’s an observation; Leela, is, attracted to this distant, aloof, man called Karna. Should it not occur to Sandeep that Karna is more exciting than him and ‘more of a man’ for Leela, and that he should change his ‘soft’ life to be more exciting to Leela? In which case, won’t the problem be solved by a change in approach to life?

And note. Leela, who is an advaita devotee is not telling Sandeep what she wants or how she wants her man. Despite the author telling us that, “Sandeep told me that Leela is his best friend, that they tell each other everything…”

A woman may confide in a man only that which she thinks to be true. Not the truth itself. I could write more on this but this suffices to explain the case at hand. That Leela is not honest. And doesn’t mind if Karna doesn’t tell his wife about the affair. As long as she ‘gets’ him. Just like millions of women worldwide.

Here’s more contradiction in the author’s writing. She says that:

“still his marriage was at risk because Sandeep and Leela had never established a satisfying sexual relationship.”

and in the first paragraph she had informed us that:

“Theirs was an arranged marriage, as is still common in India; nevertheless, they came to love each other deeply.”

In any case, point 1 of my assessment is again established. Bad sex, not necessarily from Sandeep’s side; Leela wants an escape; enter polyamory nonsense garnished with advaitaism and Leela has a way out.

The author is also saving the marriage by scaring the man. She seems to be telling him that ‘Save your marriage. It’s very important. Or you will suffer’. ‘Leela may leave you after the affair and she will get joint custody of the child. You would not be better off. So live with this. Give it the name of polyamory, it will sound better, better than cuckoldry at least’. Therefore, get over your jealousy. It will always be your fault, man.

The doctor then reaches the zenith of her misguided advice. I expect some of you to cringe. Unless you have a doctor like this in your life.

“I suggested that he ask Leela if she were willing to invest some time and energy in creating a sexual connection with him as well as with Karna. In India, as in the United States, it’s sometimes easier for people to access their eroticism with a new partner than with the spouse they know so well.”

Reverse this with: “I suggested that she ask Sandeep if he is willing to invest some time and energy in creating a sexual connection with her as well as with (the woman Sandeep is attracted to).” Possible? (Or spousal abuse, emotional pain, women rights)

This is not polyamory. It is bad advice to a couple wherein the man is made to suffer. It may be seen as a variation of cuckoldry. And such situations are common in society. A woman wants to sleep with another man; she may live with her husband and sleep with this new man; or she may eventually leave her husband. Except that in this case there is a doctor telling the husband that it’s okay. Perhaps the husband would be made to believe that this is good. But it would mean trampling his ego, his self, his manliness. It is anti-man. Anti-nature.

Kartikey Sehgal

Rated Mature.
Swami: A title given to a monk or a spiritual master

It may be an uncomfortable truth but swamis have hair on their body. When they recline on their bed and if the robe around their body is loosely tied, then it will pull up, exposing to anybody interested, hairy thighs. Sometimes they may even scratch those thighs.

Yet when they sit in their robes and talk about spirituality and science, many listeners don’t imagine such basic truths about the swami. They think about and talk of his mind and his spirituality, with their fulcrum in the brain that they describe as holy or brilliant.

Since sex has been relegated to a secondary or tertiary position by the society, they don’t imagine that the swami must be indulging in something so trite and lowly. This is true especially for women; consciously, many of them imagine that the swami sees them ‘purely’ i.e. without sexual thoughts. Perhaps that’s what draws them to the swamis in the first place, that he would be able to help and explain without the entrapments of a sexual brain.

They expect him to talk of worldly matters and of matters pertaining to beauty but without a direct involvement or any experience. The experience is supposed to be spiritual, which for them means that the swami should be guided by ‘pure’ thoughts and observances on matters relating to sexuality. Since he is enlightened, they imagine, he is supposed to have successfully parried the lesser affairs of life that include sex and money.

Why would you listen to a swami who talks solely out of observance and not a psychologist who has experienced stress and health and sexual issues.

The fact of the matter is that swamis are supposed to have experienced life before guiding others about its nuances. They may remain celibate and successfully preach about a better life but nothing stops them from marrying, which would include, obviously, partaking in sexual pleasures.

This shouldn’t be a surprise if you consider the fact that a swami is not like the priests of other religions. He is supposed to be guided by his own sense of propriety. He should be a thinker. This is substantiated further if you consider that the Indian scriptures are reference books and not the absolute law. To regard them would be to hold their contents in high esteem and to draw lessons or ideas from them. They were not written so that the followers could be punished for their deviance from the book.

Evidently, if the swamis are defined by their thoughts and subsequently their work, and if the thoughts and work are not binding to the book, then any common man or woman can assume the prestige associated with the title of ‘swami’. Or if not the title, then they could attain every prestige that comes with the title solely through their work. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was not a swami and he was given the title of ‘Mahatma’ because of the density of his work and ideas. But his admirers give him the respect reserved for swamis and saints. And while Mohandas gave up sex after consultation with his wife, he did mention to his associates about his failed attempts at curbing sexual thoughts and penile erections. No respect for the man was lost among his followers because of this failure. It was not considered a failure in the broader spectrum; it was an issue between a man and his beliefs.

So unless a swami announces his celibacy he should not be considered as sexually inactive. The rule shouldn’t hold the swami as sex-free, and for that to happen, the societal perception to the place of sex in life must change. Sex should be considered as a part of man and not distinct from him.

Women, especially, should not expect the swamis to not see them in the idiom of beauty and desire, for there’s nothing wrong in admitting the natural dynamics of man-woman relationship. The society that holds sexual pleasure as inferior is corrupted in it’s thoughts owing to misplaced conceptions about Indian scriptures and general miseducation.

And though they are not forceful to existing societal mores, the Indian scriptures contain insights to the nature of humans and their various relations; they are not averse to sex. The society must recognise this truth and recognise the nature of their being. And who better than the swamis to promote this thought.

Part one can be read here: Cricket and the Indian Woman–Part One
 

I have written about women who don’t know cricket but talk about it and about women who know that their interest in the sport is actually their interest in men. I shall now write about their social position in the context of the sport. Surely, they are not equals to men.

There are women who don’t like the sport and they don’t feign interest in the sport. They don’t buy tickets to go to cricket stadiums or spend hours watching live telecasts. Then there are women whose interest is solely sexual. What bonds both the types is the subservient position that this sport has given them. Globalisation and relaxation of morals has exposed several cricketing countries to India’s sexual insecurity and her attitudes towards women.

And Indian women don’t seem to mind if they know about their stature.

They are relegated to looking pretty on television, talking about male adrenaline and asking the male ‘experts’ questions about playing techniques; the women are not experts themselves.

Women who can talk about cricket (Anjum Chopra, prolific) are not media darlings like the spaghetti and noodle strap-wallas. They are not asked to promote cricketing events; at least not in the same stead as the models in mini dresses. So along with fairness cream ads and ‘item-numbers’ in movies, cricket reinforces stereotyping of women. The social position of women as aides to men is redefined every time the woman is seen as doing nothing greater than gushing over cricketers.

Last year, foreign women were brought to India to work as cheerleaders in the IPL tournament. Indian women are generally not seen as promiscuous unlike foreign women. So they were not approached to wear tiny clothes and dance every time a batsman hit a ‘sixer’.

Foreign cheerleaders (bottom) are doctors, lawyers and even students who have to earn their education and livelihood. Their bodies are supple and dances are sexy. They are not seen as scandalous in their countries. Indian cheerleaders (top) are untidy imitations grappling with fear of a conservative society.

And then the fairness cream ads have ensured that men salivate over white skin and women aimlessly apply loads of cosmetics on their skin. So, Indian women were sidelined in favour of the foreigners. The cheerleading act was criticised but men drove in large numbers to watch the dancing girls or stayed glued to the television sets waiting for the camera to show them semi-naked bodies. On one hand the white girls were being criticized and on the other hand men were whistling with joy.

The cheerleaders from foreign countries are much more honourable than the Indian women in context of the sport.

They are lawyers, nurses, sportswomen and even students who have to earn money to make it through college. They wear the tiniest dresses to excite the men and bring in more crowds. No Indian women can imitate them or take on their role without some scandal and societal problems.

The ‘white’ cheerleaders are equal to men in the sense that they can openly admit that they see sport (any sport) for the handsome men. Many Indian women would be considered shameful for expressing their sexual nature and most women in rural India would accept their desires in private or only in comfortable male company.

In addition, women in India are exposed to images of foreign women thronging football stadiums and enjoying themselves. In India, it is nearly impossible for them to enter the stadium if it is packed with men; most of them fear sexual assault.

Unlike the women in Europe who can go to stadiums with lesser fear of being attacked by men and who can wear the clothes of their liking, women in India have to take on the mantle of respect and conservatism. Men are the shouters, the aggressors; women have to be quiet and cheer or stand and clap but not as much as the man.

Not possible in Indian stadiums: It is not safe for women in India to attend packed cricket stadiums without fear of sexual assault

This may sound as an example of misogyny. If so, then women don’t seem to mind it. Actresses profess their admiration for cricketers but the journalists never ask them any tough questions. It is understood that women’s knowledge about cricket is limited and they are not to be expected to observe the sport closely.

Women are thus an accessory; they are an ornament to decorate the sport and provide it with glamour; attract men who don’t like the sport and serve as a tool to a sex starved male population. In essence, they are bought as a commodity through good money and sold as unintelligent temptresses, thereby re-enforcing the decisions of Indian men to discount the intellect of women.   

As long as the woman understands that she is masquerading as a cricket lover and walking the ramp with cricketers solely for money, there is little problem for her psyche.

Not quite 'homely': Former Indian captain Anjum Chopra will play her fourth successive World Cup this year. She is also a panelist on a cricket discussion show.

The problem here lies in the mindset of men who look at these women as show-pieces and don’t see that she is simply performing to earn money. The image of women as ‘cricket trophies’ is problematic for them in the male-dominated Indian society. It may not be a major problem for the woman if she is aware of her role in the sport and accepts it with the understanding that she has talents beyond serving as a temptress. The woman should be able to maintain her self outside the glamour of her job.

There is something for us to admire in the cricketer crazy women who watch the sport for the men alone and don’t pretend any affection for the sport. Once again, this is healthy because the woman is in control of her mind and desires. It is the woman who does not understand the gamut of their desires and the lies of advertisements that needs to be watchful.

I would like to end with a stark example of cricket consumerism that involves the nation’s heartthrob M S Dhoni. But first you should know that Sachin Tendulkar is married to a woman who is older to him and who is professionally a doctor; hardly a suitable combination for most Indian men.

The media and many Indian women went gaga over Dhoni and ignored a statement that talks about the idea of women in Indian society

“My ideal woman’ is someone who is caring, understanding and ready to compromise. Basically, I would like someone homely.”

[Rated 'Mature'. If you are below the age 16, then go here first] 

Verna was a virgin. She decided to make love.

She visited her uncle whose dress was of the same maroon colour as his drink and who wore a jacket on all occasions, except perhaps at night about which Verna knew nothing.

Verna’s uncle asked her to wait till marriage for “while there is nothing wrong in a girl of your age to make love, the wait is always sweeter’.

Then she saw some red marks around her aunt’s fair and milky wrists as her uncle arose to yell at the television and shake it so that it presented better quality of picture. At this, her village educated but milk-white aunt–a favourite of many North Indian men weaned to the fairness culture–pulled her knees closer to her chest so that she could keep her head on them.

Later at night, the aunt told Verna that fights between married couples are regular human affairs but her uncle is generally a pure man and his ‘manhood’ responded to the maximum gravitational pull before marriage and till the wedding night.

Verna grew disillusioned. Sex was wrong but violence was not. She read her grammar book and rephrased the sentence; violence was better than sex. Then she talked to her teacher whom she had always avoided because she was known to be a sl** but who never really lost her temper or her teaching skills. Her teacher disrobed to prove to Verna that her body was flawless and that all the red bite marks were in fact, red bite marks.

After Verna regained control over her breath, the sultry teacher gave her some books to read and Verna realised that virginity was an oppression forced upon women. And that a society without sex was more likely to behead and murder than a society that revelled in sexual pleasures.

Verna walked along the college corridor and remembered the Principal who often talked about sin and punishment. “God loves you… but dare you defy him…”

Now in a room, Verna was naked waist down as she approached the bed. Her man, a veteran of several sports, lay on the bed waiting for his prize to come to him. He was a good boy who touched the feet of all elders in his family and took care of all youngsters. And made sure that his sister was not seen talking to any boy for more than a few minutes for “the world is a bad place and you can not be sure of today’s boys.”

Should Verna just sit on the boy and end her quenching desire of the type found in romantic novels?  

She advertised for her virginity using a pseudonym. The boy whose pride was hurt when Verna wore her shorts and exited his room also bid for V-na. He bid only a few dollars but in an email pledged immense satisfaction of the footballer-cheerleader type. Verna’s uncle didn’t bid but sent amorous mails to her and said that when she was done playing with her toys she would need comfort and affection whose reference she must have found in romantic novels.

Sex and violence are forced fodders for the respected and widely-circulated newspapers who claim to represent public opinion. V-na was widely condemned for being a bad girl who was a sl** and who was bringing a bad name to womanhood and all that is traditionally ascribed to women. Her attackers included a house-wife who gave up painting for marriage but now wanted more respect for home-makers.

Verna asked her aunt about her opinion on the subject and she promptly wrote in slow and laborious letters that “V-na was amoral… she was going in the wrong direction…”
Then the aunt felt very happy to have expressed herself and to have used her education-whatever little she had-for a noble purpose. And then she excused herself to change into a long-sleeved dress that covered her fair and milky wrists.  

“Sin,” said the Principal, politely.

Verna wondered what was wrong in taking money for losing her virginity. She was just charging money for what men consider a very prized commodity. And it was definitely better than violence.

Later, Verna saw on television, images of women being thrashed in a metropolitan city in India. She took off her skirt and lay naked on the bed. She had nice and smooth thighs, she felt. And her teacher agreed.

During a rendezvous at a restaurant the duo discussed if it is not fair to seek happiness every day in life. Or if sex makes men and women happy, and happy men and women don’t need religion to fill in for sex. And how to spot a happy man.

Later, Verna was roaming an empty neighbourhood and she found a boy, younger to her, who made no pretence of staring at her bosom and legs. Verna asked him if he wanted to make love to her. The boy agreed and asked Verna if this would cause anguish to her.  

It’s not known if Verna found this boy to be honest or if she was simply overawed by her loneliness in the neighbourhood-a fantasy popular among women-or if she was simply persuaded by the condoms the boy carried in his wallet.

It was her decision, unfettered by morality, or by the common excuse of guilt and temptation.

You may like to read these…
Why I’m Selling My Virginity
Scarlet Keeling Raped
Scarlet Keeling: Victim many times over
Mangalore Pub Attack