One realizes that reading his book had some misunderstood concepts, such as “monogamy.” What is considered a practice is actually a system.

Until recently, love issues have been entrenched, as the main spaces for debate are the public, and therefore the masculine, and there was no talk about it. Monogamy has been considered a practice directly, and it is not. If it were a practice, how could we explain that we all have the same practice? This can only be explained systemically. Considering monogamy as a system requires us to situate what we do and what happens to us collectively and politically.

If the pyramidal structure of monogamy is not noticed, it states that polymericity is condemned to repeat it.

That is the case, and consequently the same exclusions are given as in monogamy, also in polimicity. As long as the pyramid exists, there will be no place for everyone at the top. Also, making a site for everyone is not as simple as it seems, it's very problematic. In this task, the ethics of justice often appears instead of the ethics of care, and relationships, among other things, begin to understand in a patriarchal and capitalist way: Logic appears like “If you have five relationships I also want so many”, which gives rise to a lot of violence. Maybe I don't need or I can't have five relationships, maybe I feel better with all three of them and everything is easier for me.

He criticizes the tendency to understand polimicity in function of the neoliberal logic. They say it's perceived as a buffet in which individuals become consumers.

The thought that often prevails in polimicity, as in the buffet, is as follows: “As it is free, go ahead with everything.” Even if it's not digestible, it's known that servers are paid little, or that this kind of consumption is not sustainable. Concluding that until then we have lived in precariousness and locked up, through irresponsible consumption we provoke disasters to feel “free”. I prefer not to feel so free, so we are all quieter and more emotionally supported.

It is said that in the name of polymericity, there are monogamous relationships at the same time or in series.

If, in the attempt to break down monogamy, we only look at the number of couples, we will continue to practice monogamy. These are examples that we constantly see: individuals relate in this way in the “adventurous” era of life, but when it comes time for truth, whether or not they have the intention to reproduce them, they form a breeding couple and a stable life. What is considered revolutionary becomes a mere anecdote, worthy of being told to his nephews, who will probably be bourgeois.

Do practices that are in fact monogamous infiltrate polymericity?

Complexity has become fashionable, and that has caused it to be built around an identity, not necessarily around practices. “If it is ethical it is polimicity, if it is polimicity it is ethical” is the expression of this statement. All of this is happening on an identity level, but where are the practices? Where is it and what is ethics? Who defines it?

We have considered natural monogamy, although this is a rule that has been forcibly inscribed upon us. You have done an exercise in observing where your implementation is in history and you have come across the creation of a clerical and capitalist state. How did it influence their relationships?

Definitively. In southern Europe, a clear alliance was established between the powers of the capitalist state under construction and the Catholic Christian Church. In particular, they joined forces to build a society that responded to their needs. Thus, the Church destroyed the different forms of life, many Christians. The ways of life that did not correspond to their interests were called ‘heretic sects’, although in reality they were not sects or heretics. The Inquisition gave them that name to begin their destruction.

In the communities considered sects, there were varied sexual intercourse, community-based and without the need for reproductive goals. In addition, the genders were more diffuse, less rigid than the ones that have become, and the inequality was much smaller. But all of this was destroyed, because capitalism needs very masculine men and women. And that's built by monogamy.

In your book you have the record mark to talk about these very masculine men and women.

Yes, because when we talk about women with registration marks © and men © we don't talk about any of us. Men and women with registration marks are in our lives, but as an example, and that's the model that the system is constantly pushing us towards. This, on the one hand, influences our lives; on the other hand, our lives feed the model itself. It's a vicious circle. The registration mark seems useful to me to make all this visible and to link these models of men and women with capitalism.

You've also put the record mark on what you've called Disney Amor.

Disney's love © is at the base of the tendency to think that your love story, unlike others, is eternal and is written in capital letters. Proof of this is, for example, a song by Jennifer Lopez, which says: “Neither I nor you have control.” And I ask myself: Who's in control then? No one? If neither one has control, it's clearly in the hands of the system. You have to realize that Disney's love doesn't exist and that we have the ability to decide what love is. In addition, we must be clear that we are responsible for the affections of both us and the people with whom we relate.

In other words, we have a good job in raising awareness.

One study said that the brain that falls in love behaves like the one that consumes cocaine. Thus, it is understood that, as a consequence of the consumption or fall in love with cocaine, the brain has a certain behavior. And I say: Isn't it that we relate to love as drugs, and that's why it behaves like the brain when it falls in love? If we observe the symptoms, we can say that it is like this: insomnia, shortness of breath, closed stomach, anxiety, paranoia, lack of memory, etc. How is it possible that something as beautiful as falling in love causes so much discomfort?

I find it interesting to place all this within the system to reflect on it. I think we have to talk, it's imperative to recognize that the ruinings of love pass on to all of us. Otherwise, it may seem that there are people who are able to get out of the system, and that doesn't make any sense, because we all live in this world, doing things the best we can. In addition, the community is of great importance in this place: others may come to reflections that do not arrive, which makes the community aware of some things that we do not see in the loving relationships. In the realm of love, which encompasses so many violence, this is very important. Because we're not only talking about our headaches of love, we're also talking about feminicides.

I often encourage feminists to hang photos of their partners on social media. It is enough to make propaganda about romantic love, we have a collective responsibility in this matter.

He has stressed the importance of the community. Its decadence is also directly related to the birth of the clerical and capitalist State.

In the Caliban eta Sorgina (Elkar) essay about that time, Silvia Federici does not speak of monogamy, but does speak of community festivities that included sexual relations. Sex was community and had no reproductive goal, sex was nothing but a way of relating, because it's what it really is. But through criminalization and inequality, control over bodies and sexuality was established, which has complicated us the pleasure and existence itself.

He says that in the monogamous system, the individual constructs identity in function of his partner. If so, we live the ruptures as a loss of identity.

The rupture codes are set, they are very clear and violent and we follow strictly if we do not become aware of all this and we raise other ruptures. From my experiences I can say that other ruptures are possible, even though they require a reaction against the system, and often refute what those around you say to you. We can choose not to start a war on the partner who was a couple and give way to a nice fracture. That doesn't mean it's not painful, you have to feel pain and mourning. The thing is, you can choose how to experience grief and grief. Breaking a relationship and giving someone a heart is something different.

Since the monogamist is an oppressive system, he argues that he must be resisted.

Yes, from love to possibility. Because resisting doesn't help if it's going to come against us. We have a long journey ahead, we have to avoid continued exhaustion. We need constant, daily resistance that generates awareness. What are we not ready for? Or to destroy capitalism, who is capable of anything? But I think that's no excuse for not fighting and continuing to feed this system that generates violence. And fighting the monogamous system doesn't mean you have seven couples. It would be simplistic to deduct it from such a complex problem. Our reasoning must live up to the complexity of reality.

I compare it with anti-capitalism: we realize the dimension of capitalism and its influence on our lives and seek solutions. Solutions like “I’m going to live on the mountain, and I’m going to produce on my own everything I need” are not the most appropriate. However, there are many practices of resistance to capitalism, which we put in place in order to alleviate it. I think we have to do the same with monogamy.

On the other hand, in the face of the current neoliberal polymericity, you demand another paradigm that has as its axis community and care.

The tendency of the system to acquire dissent is not new. Making a fight fashionable is an attempt to capture it. That is where the resistance that we can put into practice in our daily lives and in our networks comes into play. There are no magic remedies, but we have processes that can be put in place, which, although they seem small, are very effective. There are many forms of relationship that are not monogamous, that I find meaningful. And they've been built in unexpected places -- on the margins. New paradigms will not be created in the most modern corners of the system. In the corners that have actually been rejected, there are resistance to the mere need. And they can teach us a lot.

You close the book by claiming the “terror of polymericity.” What does this term refer to?

The term has many lines: on the one hand, we provoke a panic with the discourse in favor of polymericity, because an idea or a simplistic discourse has been spread that makes people think that if you open up to reflections on the theme you should stop being a couple or have several relationships at the same time; on the other hand, it refers to the terror that attacks us practicing neoliberal polymmicity; the maintenance of relationships, the environment or fragility.

But above all, it is an appeal to the spread of terror on non-patriarchal roads. Sowing terror to become rebels. To do so, the system must be cracked and resisted through practices contrary to it, not through discourse.