Taking her cue from Adrienne Rich, Angela Chen introduces the term, ‘compulsory sexuality’, in her book, ‘Ace: What asexuality reveals about desire, society, and the meaning of sex’. Compulsory sexuality is the assumption that all human beings are sexually attracted to others and desire sex. Such an assumption implies that all those who do not desire sex are a bit less human than those who do. This is quite ironic, considering the status celibacy enjoys in most societies. Running parallel to this compulsory sexuality is the de-sexulization of certain sections of population like those with physical and mental disabilities. Often a coupling happens between sexuality and romance, though it doesn’t go either way. Sexual attraction without romance is far more understood and accepted than romance without sexual attraction. Just like sexual attraction romance is also assumed to be felt by everyone without fail.
When someone says that they live with their partner it is thought to be their romantic/sexual partner if not mentioned otherwise. This assumed ubiquitous nature of romance and sexuality has created a hierarchy of relationships with romance (including sexual attraction) occupying the highest rung. People internalize this and learn to prioritize their romantic relationship over others. A sense of permanence and stability unlike no other gets attached to such relationships. It also arranges relationships in a timeline with romance at the climax. Once you find romance you don’t need to make meaningful connections any more. Such beliefs push other relationships into a secondary position. Even the thought of having a relationship that is not romantic as one’s primary relationship seems revolting.
In Netflix’s ‘Indian matchmaking’ one of the participants discusses with her friend what happens if a suitable match doesn’t happen and she says, “Worst comes to worst, all of us friends can live together”. Her friend corrects her and says, “Best comes to best, we will all live together”. Friendships often risk the danger of being pushed to the sidelines when one enters a romantic relationship. Maybe it is because the future is always imagined with such a partner. But, it is never questioned why we have come to believe so or why can’t we share it with someone else. It is this very belief that prompted her to consider living with friends as a worst case scenario. Somehow we have come to accept that without a romantic partner our lives are not wholesome.
Popular culture has a huge role to play in our perception and understanding of relationships. When intimacy and deep attachments are depicted only in relation to romance, we reach a point where we cannot even think otherwise. Words like ‘passion’ and ‘intimacy’ are more often than not only associated with romance even when there can be so many other connections which are greatly intimate and passionate. Any relationship that goes deeper than what is usually thought as normal gets interpreted as a romantic/sexual attraction/attachment. Interpretations are what make art wholesome and every piece of art is open to that. But it is the thought that only romantic relationships can be deep and that any connection between people that is deeply affectionate ends up being considered only as romance/ sexual attraction is the problem. The constant barrage of such portrayals hijacks our thoughts and skews our understanding of human connections.
This compulsory notion has robbed us off our vocabulary. We find it difficult to express our feelings or describe the attachments with others if these fall outside certain pre-drawn boundaries. Words are loaded with assumptions and notions. So if something goes beyond these notions it becomes hard to label it. Either we have to come up with new words or redefine existing ones. We can do away with labels all together but sometimes words help us to navigate through our emotions and find connections. Redefining existing words can be quite a task. If we take the word ‘marriage’, it is associated with a lot of duties, responsibilities and even gendered roles and biases. It is possible to reimagine the word and expand it into something that you consider it to be. But, at times it feels easier to come up with a new word and start afresh as all the notions associated with the existing word can be difficult to shake off. As our understanding of human connections expands so does the vocabulary and the scope of each word.
What compulsory sexuality/romance is endangering is the possibility of a variety of human attachments. Attachments do not come pre-labelled and stick to prescribed rules. There can be and are myriad ways in which humans connect to each other. When we accept the compulsory notion without doubt we are preventing ourselves from exploring these very connections. Given time and priority strong attachments that are not just romantic happen. Nurturing these varied kinds of connections lifts the weight off one’s shoulders to prescribe to some ‘nobody-knows-who-wrote’ rules that govern relationships and lives. It creates a world that values every connection and makes room for all. People will be free to form relationships based on what they want and what they don’t. Instead of fitting in it allows people to form connections that fit.
Author: Gayathri
Author Bio: She hopes to listen to and tell as many stories as she can.
Author Notes: The piece discusses how the notion of compulsory sexuality and romance restricts human relationships.
Right here is the perfect webpage for everyone who would like to understand this topic. You understand a whole lot its almost tough to argue with you (not that I really will need toÖHaHa). You certainly put a fresh spin on a subject that has been discussed for a long time. Wonderful stuff, just excellent!
I have to thank you for the efforts you have put in penning this website. Im hoping to see the same high-grade content by you in the future as well. In truth, your creative writing abilities has motivated me to get my own website now 😉