"There is anxiety talking about the issue. And normally one feels shy to go to a chemist's shop and ask for a smaller-size condom."
-- Dr. Chander Puri, responding to a survey that found the standard international size is too large for most Indian men (Newsweek, 18 Dec 06)

I came home last week finding Indonesia amidst a debate on polygamy. I had to admit, I was at a loss of words. The concept did not exist in my universe, nor in my discursive habitat, nor in my mental dictionary. While the country's neighbors are engaged with developmental issues, foreign investments, green life style, sustainable growth and so on, Indonesia is occupied with polygamy and sleazy video clips!

After a while I realized that I can't go on pretending that polygamy does not exist. And now that I've regained my language, I have to say that those endorsing polygamy might have a point. At the very least, they are honest. Stripped of the religious rhetoric used to cloak lust, they are quite ingenuous in wanting to have more than one partner.

I have for a long time been suspicious of monogamy. It is, as philosophers and psychoanalysts have come to believe, against human nature. In the state of nature, well illustrated even by "domesticated" animals, lust does not correspond with fidelity.

In its life time Bonnie, a female herder at my parents' house, hooks up with several different male canines. Yet, her loyalty is not to her first mate, nor to the youngest and finest looking one. Bonnie was faithful only to my parents.

Fact is, among beasts, monogamy is an exception rather than the rule. Chimpanzees, with which human beings shares 94% of their DNA, are among the most promiscuous creatures.

Don't get me started on rabbits.

I mean, think about it. When you get hitched, are you sure s/he is the only person you will ever want to be with for the rest of your life?

I doubt it. That's why matrimony is such a demanding commitment. It is against our natural inclinations, our primal instincts. That's why I made it a rule to tie the knot with a man I can live with not only when I am in love.

But the state, as always, has to get its fishy hands even on the most private domain. It regulates desire by institutionalizing marriage. It mobilizes women, men, and their sexual energy for the goodness of the nation, seeking to transform their offspring into law-abiding, productive, and patriotic citizens.

And so does religion. It invents concepts like morality, ethics, matrimony and fidelity, which make adultery a transgression. What was natural, with the advent of religion, became sinful. By confining desire within the space of matrimony, the argument goes, human being progresses from promiscuous primitivity to civilized existence. It's supposed to separate us from animals as it transforms us into cultured beings.

This, perhaps, is the underlying purpose of matrimony -- evolution. Freud considers the regulation of desire constructive to our social and psychological development. With (monogamous) matrimony, we contain erotic desire and deny ourselves the natural impulse to be promiscuous. Those untrained to discipline their desire generally end up being rapists, psychos, and criminals. So repression itself is supposed to be enabling -- it generates willpower that makes us determined, striving beings.

So my objection is not with the monogamist law, but with the legal clause (and frankly the culture) that permits men to take more than one wife in case of failure to bear offspring or to perform wifely duties. As both man and woman are naturally "configured" to be promiscuous, why is this absurd discrimination?

In some cultures, the men have successfully "reprogrammed" woman's brain into thinking that she can desire only one man. But for those who are lucky enough to escape such malicious ideological hijacking, where is justice?

For if women have to repress their basic instincts to marry only one man, then men should only be allowed as many. If infertility can justify polygyny, women should also be permitted to practice polyandry for the same reason. Chances of male infertility are just as high as female ones.

As for the clause "inability to perform spousal duties," supporters of polygamy might have just opened the Pandora's jar. While Viagra helps men fulfill some of their husbandly duties, its popularity only indicates a wide-spread deficiency in this area. While women are blessed with the capacity for multiple orgasm -- their "hardware" is created that way -- not many men can keep their side of the bargain. Isn't this sufficient ground for unhappy wives to take more husbands?

As a woman and rightful constituent of this nation, I demand fairness in our law. If polygyny is permitted under certain clauses, so should polyandry. There are many competent, self-sufficient and fair-minded women out there. Either that or ban polygamy altogether. Take your pick.