The journalist Sandra Bravo is expert in the topics predicted in the subtitle of her book: polymericity, sexuality and feminism. From the platform Let's talk about poliamor does a great informative work in networks, conferences and workshops. In addition, she uses her training in Gestalt therapy to help people with non-monogamous relationships or who want to explore them.
All this that I do not know how to explain to my mother (Plan B, 2021) gathers feminist authors who have accompanied in their empowerment and political awareness: Brigitte Vasallo, Irantzu Varela, Norma Mogrovejo, Laura Latorre or Virginie Despentes, among others. She thanks the feminist movement, aware that in the past free women like him were killed in witch hunting, were arrested for being adult or psychiatrized for being bisexual. The following is an adaptation of the presentation talk at the ANTI library in Bilbao.
We are not smoked in the fire today, but the stigma remains very serious. Have you been able to cope with that writing the book?
To say aloud that I am promiscuous and that I am proud is a way of insulting, the very exercise that queer movement has done. I mean, there's nothing wrong with me, even though others think I'm vicious, I'm afraid of compromise, or I don't know how to really fall in love. Diversity is wonderful: it shows that we have the ability to imagine and live identity, affections and relationships in very different ways. To think that there is one way to organize relationships for everyone is boring; it is impossible for us all to adapt to the same way. The exercise of sharing and visibilizing experiences is also empowering, many will think that “it happens to me too”. This will help us defend ourselves against the following argument: that we are so rare that nobody wants us.
It's very difficult to get out of the closet of nonmonogamy, especially in the family, right?
When I go to my village and Mrs. Maria asks me if I have a boyfriend, I feel like saying: “Let me see how I explain it to you. Do you have fifteen minutes to talk about bisexuality and relationship anarchy?” It's hard to have to come out continuously. It is prudent to assess when it is worthwhile, to foresee the violence we are going to suffer, the benefits or the losses. In addition, some people cannot break their relationship with their family of origin for material or emotional reasons. The book has not helped me get out of the closet with my family, because they prefer that they didn't understand anything and keep asking when I'm going to stabilize my head. They don't understand my life model, they think that someday I'll realize that I was wrong, that I have to form a happy family, preferably with a man or a woman. Because if I continue like this, how will I be a father? Who will I age with? I have often been asked: “And in the future, when you are older, who wants you?” Many people hope so. I relate it to the stigma my single aunt suffered.
"Saying aloud that I am promiscuous and proud is a way to become aware of the insult."
The title of the book has squeezed me because polymerization can be interpreted as a millenial fashion.
You're right: we haven't invented anything new, it was much discussed [XX. In the sexual revolution of the 20th century, when you talked about free love. But past experiences have barely had visibility outside activism. There are many families that are not monogamous, but they prefer to appear in public as normative families to avoid violence. It is urgent to recover and expand their stories.
The first chapter describes how sexuality lived in her childhood. Thirty years later, conservative sectors boycott all sexual education initiatives.
Sex education should be transversal in the school curriculum, not just a subject, and now it does not exist either. You're lucky if a person comes to your center to give a workshop or a one-time talk. Sex education is highly oriented towards condom, intercourse, ways to avoid sexual infections and pregnancy. Fear is the central axis of this sex education: protecting yourself because sex is dangerous. On the other hand, emotional education is not working: it would be good to teach from childhood what consensus is, that nobody has the right to touch your body if you don't want, to start you don't have to give two adult kisses. It would explain to children that they are entitled to pleasure and that exploring bodies among children of the same age is nothing bad if it is done in a concerted manner.
"There are many non-monogamous families, but they prefer to appear in public as normative families to avoid violence. It is urgent to recover and disseminate their stories"
I would say that we have a lot of how children experience the pleasure for adults to relearn…
When we talk about children's sexuality, we get upset because we believe that they will do the things we do. I think they're much more original. We forget that human sexuality is much broader than heterosexual intercourse. It includes asexuality, absolutely invisible. It seems wrong that she likes sex a lot, but also that she doesn't have sexual passion. This can lead asexual people to feel great guilt and to have unwanted sex.
The propaganda of romantic love seems more worrying to you than porn.
The orange media message is widespread even in non-heterosexual relations. Thinking that your partner has to give you everything leads to not caring for your friends and that leads to isolation. So if you do everything together and there's violence in that relationship, who are you going to address? That seems to me one of the most dangerous things about the monogamous model. In addition, there are more erroneous beliefs that are rooted in society, such as “those who fight are wanted” (those who fight are desired) or that the beans are cooked in every house. Thus, in the sphere of the couple, we find acceptable those violence that we would never justify in any other type of relationship. On the other hand, the propaganda of romantic love makes it difficult to recognize that we are not happy, which can lead us to silence pain and violence.
It talks about polimicity, because the word is known, but it lies in the anarchy of relationship. What is it about?
It is a philosophy that comes from the fundamentals of political anarchism. It is about giving up the orders that determine how relationships should be to expand and diversify the links between people. We've learned that when we label someone as a couple, we have to love more, live with them and have children. On the contrary, when we label someone as a friend, we understand that we cannot have sex with him. Relational anarchy invites us to move away from the bark of labels and see what we want to share with each person, what we like to do together. Not only in the sexual or loving sphere, but also in relations with the family of origin, for example. In addition, it seems to me an interesting structural view because it places relations in a sociopolitical context capitalist, patriarchal, racist and capacitist.
I'm going to give you the question you ask in the book. How can we balance individual freedom with affective responsibility?
One key is to take it calmly. We live very fast and when you get tired you don't know what you feel. It is difficult to stop and observe the relationships: if I am taking care of someone carefully, if I am taking care of myself… It is about not living with the autopilot. I believe that the speed imposed by capitalist society makes it very difficult to maintain interpersonal relations and self-care. It's also important to identify our relationship privileges. For example: normative beauty; possibility of psychological therapy; availability of money and time to go to juerga or for a type of leisure; greater age and life experience or simply being a heterosexual, white and powerful man. In a non-co-responsible heterosexual family, if the relationship opens, who will have more time to search for other relationships?
What can we do with guilt? Especially in women, guilt greatly limits sexuality.
When we have time and time to listen to each other, we can see what that guilt is like, what it is telling me, if I’m inflating too much… Socializing guilt among friends can help a lot. Social standards are often to blame, because they have told us what is right and what is wrong. As a kid, I tried to understand and practice monogamy, but I couldn't, and guilt ate me. Until I said: “Perhaps relationships can live differently.”
"At the level of the couple, we find the violence that we would never justify in any other type of relationship acceptable"
I feel another kind of guilt in feminist and quirris environments: a kind of monogamous relationship of couple or complex with conventional sexual practices.
In the book I warn that the goal is not to leave one order to enter another, but to broaden the look and possibilities. We seem to have to take the card out of a good bag, a good feminist or a perfect polymer. Thus, we keep marking what is “good” and “bad” and judging the choices of others. Let us try to learn from the structural violence begging us.
And how can we work jealousy?
Jealousy is an umbrella term that describes various emotions: fear of abandonment, envy, insecurity… We must not demonize, but understand that they are a reflection of our experiences and our emotional construction, to understand how it has been constructed. It is possible that a given situation raises fears of the past or that the zeal will tell you that that person is treating him badly. On the contrary, if a person shares your emotions, offers you a quality time and makes you feel seen, that can give you peace of mind. On the other hand, a myth is that polymers don't feel jealous. Sorry, it's a way to manage inequality. It is true that when we understand that we relax, the partner is not ours, it doesn't have to touch us alone and we don't have to love ourselves. However, in a person's life there may be different moments: for example, we can bring to relationships the anxiety caused by economic gravity. I recommend a book recently translated into Spanish, A Safe Network, which talks about attachment, trauma and not monogamy.
"Relational anarchy invites us to move away from the bark of labels and see what we want to share with each person, what we like to do together."
In some countries, legal recognition has been obtained for families who break with binarism, such as the registration of children or the collection of the widowed pension. How can we fight in us?
It's complicated and it brings us to the debate we had with homosexual marriage, whether we have to integrate into the system or exploit it. It is reasonable that the first step is to secure the rights of others. At the same time, it would be interesting not to be content with this but to represent other forms of protection for the family and growth. We will have to do an ant job that requires a lot of discussion and sharing of experiences.
You end the book with a letter addressed to your mother. Have you taken it right?
The worst. He doesn't understand why I have to tell all this to the four winds. Now it's harder to ignore it because it's published. I don't understand my profession, my aesthetic, or that I have a magnificent network of people, without the need for a boyfriend to take care of me.
So let's look for a happy ending for the interview: What satisfaction has this book given you?
A lot. I've received a lot of messages saying, "I understand that I'm not so weird, I'm not alone." Some, unlike me, have served to reconcile with their mother and to talk about it. The most beautiful messages have been the mothers of a certain age who have bought the book to understand their children.
The word friend has many meanings in Basque. It can be a person, a member, a neighbor, a camera, an helper, a couple, a friend. In short, they tell us that he is a travel companion throughout life or at specific times, helping us along the way. Accompaniment, sometimes others do... [+]
Now you hear more about the issue of romantic love, and also, and fortunately, critically. In the end, we have begun to analyze in depth the issue of affective sexual relations, the great expectations we make about what should be and should be a relationship of couple, the... [+]
We present education as indispensable for social transformation. Children and young people who will build the society of the future (transforming the present and the future as if it were not in the hands of adults...) is a way to move away from oppressive thoughts, attitudes and... [+]