The Relationship Mall

Welcome to the modern era of social interaction. Take your pick of ‘friend with benefits’, ‘fuck buddy’, ‘office spouse’…

There is so much walking down the aisle these days. After all, the supermarket shelves are overflowing with special offers. The proposition is simple and enticing: don’t pick anything that doesn’t perfectly match your requirements. Shopping, it would seem, has come to characterise a generation that is hooked to choice.

When consumerism is the new life context, relationships will reflect it. Opportunities for multiple relationships are immense now. So are opportunities for practical and convenient ones.

As pretensions of tradition are blown away by new work environments, tools of communication and the changing role of women, there is a lot more experimentation with relationships that don’t fit into traditional notions of friendship or love. Intimacy has become more accessible. Both sexual and emotional.

This is not to suggest that these relationships—variously labelled ‘friends with benefits’ or ‘fuck buddies’ or ‘liberated friends’ or ‘office spouses’—are modern creations. Only, that they have become more available and acceptable now.

Social networking sites, where most of the world now meets, reflect this. On Facebook, ‘complicated’ is as valid a description of relationship status as ‘single’ or ‘committed’ or ‘married.’ Though relationship troubles are as old as the hills, the idea of a ‘complicated’ relationship status being recognised as a lifestyle choice is a bit of a novelty.

Mihir, 30, a Delhi-based journalist with a ‘complicated’ relationship status on Facebook, explains, “Complicated to me is a situation where two partners are at different stages in their relationship with each other. While one partner is serious and ready to make a long-term commitment, the other still needs time. In the absence of any commitment, both are free, in an open relationship, and this is best described by the term ‘fuck buddy’.”

Here, declaring the absence of commitment is not a dealbreaker. Rather, it is the dealmaker. This acceptability of the unconventional is more than just about individual choice. It also derives from a new collaborative social context. Hear Mihir out on why such a relationship is meaningful to him:

“I think people guard their personal space a lot more these days. It could be either because they are temperamental or because they are marrying late and so are less willing to make adjustments beyond a point. A regular relationship requires partners to plan their life as a unit, where both will have to make some adjustments on career, place of work, or lifestyle, just to be together. And that is asking far too much. So, people are looking for a relationship that suits them, their professional requirements and their lifestyle, so that it puts no extra burden on them. A regular relationship is demanding in that it changes life like never before, and some people are just not willing to make those changes. Today, when issues other than relationships figure higher on the list of priorities, people seek partners who already suit those priorities.”

This non-traditional, highly-choice driven approach to relationships is encouraged by the availability of like-minded partners and an enabling environment.

According to Chennai-based psychiatrist, columnist and author, Vijay Nagaswami, “A preference for unconventional relationships reflects a frustration with existing patterns of committed relationships in a nation obsessed with marriage. Until new and more ‘friendly’ relationship prototypes emerge, these ‘transitional’ forms of relationships that are more than friendships—but not quite marriages—are bound to increase in importance and frequency.”

The woman’s assertion of her individuality and sexuality seems to be the game-changer here. Says Sanjay Srivastava, Professor of Sociology at New Delhi’s Institute of Economic Growth, “Traditional definitions of friendship or love tended heavily to favour men. This has changed somewhat, and women no longer bear the same burden of being ‘faithful’, ‘loyal’ and so on. The rise of a new consumer culture has meant the rise of more widespread notions of individualism. And this is also reflected in the fact that women are choosing to take part in activities that not so long ago would have been unacceptable for the ‘good’ middle-class woman. You can also see this in Indian cinema, where the vamp has completely disappeared. The heroine’s sexuality is no longer taboo.”

Nandini (name changed), 28, works in a knowledge process outsourcing (KPO) firm in Chennai. Working in a city, she experiences a privacy that would not be available to her were she living with her parents in Kerala. Single, she is in a ‘friend with benefits’ scenario with a colleague of hers. And she is fairly clear that wanting to satisfy her sexual needs is independent of her wanting to be in a committed relationship.

“It is a mutual agreement and I’m rational about it. I don’t feel the need to talk to him about personal and emotional stuff. I don’t want to go beyond the sex. That is not to say it isn’t a warm and fun experience,” she says.

Nandini initiated the relationship. And she treats this relationship quite differently from how she would a regular one. “I don’t go out with him to dinner or to movies. I don’t want to be spotted with him. Of course, if we were dating or seeing each other, it would be different. But this is not like that,” she says.

She does, however, qualify her partner as her friend, who, incidentally, is single too. “He is a friend, he is a nice guy. But the friendship isn’t the kind I share with my good friends. There are different levels of friendship.” Does growing up in a traditional set-up interfere with her making such a choice? “If I were not staying away from home, I wouldn’t have done something so daring. Here, I am not answerable to anyone,” she says.

Her only conflict is a religious one. A believer in the concept of Karma, she worries that her indulgence could bring her sufferings later on. So why didn’t that stop her? “One, he is irresistible. Two, I have a good friend who tells me it is possible to control negative emotions. Perhaps there is ‘good lust’ and ‘bad lust’, I don’t know!”

The absence of a controlling family and the ability to temporarily shrug off the fear of divine retribution allows Nandini to experiment with new kinds of relationships.

Indeed, Nandini represents a whole generation of working women experiencing freedoms and choices that were not available to their mothers. Says Rima Mukherji, a Kolkata-based psychiatrist: “I see a lot more women than men pursuing casual relationships and seeking sexual gratification. A lot of them are quite honest about such relationships and have no problems admitting to it. The age at which women are getting married is getting older, and as you get older you question more. A lot of them don’t want a repeat of their parents’ marriages that carried on even when the two were incompatible.”

It has now become possible, says Mukherji, for young women to compartmentalise relationships. “Distinctions like ‘he is a friend, not husband material’, ‘Good for now, wouldn’t work long-term’ are being made. The more you date, the more people you meet, the more discerning you become.”

Another game-changer is the revolution in communication technology. The mobile phone and the internet have created an alternate universe of relationships that seem to exist independent of the real world.

Texting and online chatting—silent modes of communication (as one psychiatrist calls them)—have engineered a ‘personal space’ where inhibitions that govern regular human interactions seem to disappear. What can’t be said face-to-face is quite easily communicated through text messages. New dimensions to an existing relationship are test run in this quasi-real place.

Nandini, for example, made her sexual advance to her colleague through a text message, although his cubicle was right next to hers. She calls it ‘sexting’.

There seems to be a perception of control about relationships that are initiated and conducted in the realm of text messaging and online chatting. Sometimes, two people may share an online intimacy that is either possibilities for part real/part virtual, part emotional/part sexual, part romantic/part friendly types of relationships. Intimacies are flexible as well as multiple.

As with every new generation, relationships are being re-imagined to cope with and to make the most of the demands of the times. So have our priorities changed? Srivastava says, “In relationships, the current thinking appears to be that ‘non-traditional’ relationships don’t necessarily involve moral judgement—as was the earlier view—and that what is important is the satisfaction of individual desires. This appears particularly true of women, who are most bound to obey the dicta of moral rules about relationships, family life and so on.”

The fundamental change, he says, is that India, at least in the cities, now has a ‘threshold culture’. “That is to say that we are living in a era where we are willing to try different things, rather than say ‘this is against Indian culture.’ Simultaneously, we are still conerned about being Indian. So, Rakhi Ka Swyamvar represents the woman who wants to both exercise choice as well as be seen as the traditional, demure Indian woman.”

Can intimate relationships be fit neatly into boxes that come with labels? Are we really that much in control? Can we be so brutally practical all the time?

Mihir admits, “Things get complicated when one of the ‘fuck buddies’ becomes emotional about the whole affair, while the other remains adamant about not losing his freedom by making any sort of long-term commitment.”

Perhaps there is something to be said about the detachment with which Mihir talks about his own situation. Does the honesty of his intentions somehow sanitise him from his or his partner’s emotional reflexes?

It cannot be easy to carry on a sexually intimate relationship with a friend and keep emotions out of it. These are not one-night-stands with strangers. These are on-going relationships.

Nandini had her own doubts before she entered into the no-strings-attached relationship with her colleague. What of the emotional risk? It was after months of considering it that she finally took the chance. That it is possible for her to be in a purely physical relationship, she says, is a revelation to her.

Most women are conditioned to believe that a sexual experience comes with an emotional dimension to it. “Who says getting emotional is inevitable?” says Nandini. It is quite possible for a woman to define emotional borders in a sexually intimate relationship.

This is a new experience for Nandini. And she has to regularly remind herself of the scope of the relationship she is in. She makes a conscious effort to control the influence the relationship has on her life. It is a mistake, she says, to place your happiness in the hands of another. And so far, she has managed to keep the physical separate from the emotional.

To less sure souls, constantly having to check one’s emotional ‘transgressions’ can be a huge strain. Perceiving growing feelings or attachments as problematic could weigh on partners’ minds. The refusal of a partner to accept changed circumstances could leave the other with a sense of betrayal or feeling of being used.

The build-up to breaking point could then be an emotionally exhausting experience.

The risk of an emotional fallout is real. There is no guarantee that a ‘no-strings-attached’ arrangement between two people will remain as such. It could lead to plenty of extra unresolved emotional baggage.

Another point. Mukherji observes, “While in a casual relationship, one is more likely to enter into a series of such relationships. Each begins with an initial rush and then there is a plateauing of emotions. If one gets used to the thrills and highs, settling down can become difficult.”

To repeatedly confuse relationships for its advantages of sex and possession, says Delhi-based marriage and relationship therapist Kamal Khurana, is to miss its core purpose—growth.

An open relationship is less likely to encourage two people to make compromises in order to save the relationship. If one is constantly looking out, there is less motivation to fix problems in an existing relationship.

For women there are added complications of the pill and pregnancy. And these could take an emotional toll. Women are more likely, says Mukherji, to experience feelings of being used.

Also, they will find themselves up against harsher social judgments. Says Srivastava, “I think people who suffer most in these kinds of experimentation are women. Men still expect the women they marry to be different from the women they go out with. While it is considered alright for a man to have several relationships, it is still not considered okay for a woman to have several relationships.”

Being part of a fairly traditional family means to constantly struggle with the idea of being independent while having to comply with social structures. For both men and women, these choices then come with their share of social anxieties, insecurities and what have you.

Says Mukherji, “With the metamorphosis taking place within society, traditional relationships can no longer fulfill all the needs of individuals. These relationships are established to partially fulfill such needs even though they might create complications in the future emotional well being of such individuals.”

The disillusionment with long established relationship norms and older experiences of sexuality within strictly governed family structures is apparent from the willingness to experiment with newer forms of relationships.

But experiments are still experiments, their outcomes unpredictable. So there also seems to be a tendency now to be more easily disillusioned with the choices that are available. The greater the illusion of choice, greater the possibility of getting disillusioned, it seems. And so the constant shopping. The propositions at the Relationship Mall may be part cathartic, part catastrophic. But the point is, we are inside it.

About The Author

Pallavi Polanki