Observation – From her Facebook profile photo, her slightly green eyes seem to dictate that she is from Middle Eastern Europe. But then again, her round face seems to suggest that she is from Mongolia, while her hair was fitting enough to make her Indian.

However, her profile says that she was from Nepal but was now living in England.

I could not see any clear reason for me to accept her friend request, but curiosity had the best of me. After all, a thorough check of her page seems to suggest that it was genuine.

So I clicked the “Accept” button.

Every day, people connect with strangers on social media, sometimes without thinking much of it.

For me, the flirt, the games and the regularly misused elements of Facebook do not interest my enthusiasm. But this particular request had aroused my curiosity.

So two days after accepting her friend request, we were busy chatting about London, because it seems to be the only place that we both had some common knowledge about.

I soon learnt that Ditya (her name) had gotten a chance to come to England under a special visa that was provided for refugees in response to the 2015 earthquake that had killed thousands and displaced many others in Nepal.

Many countries, as part of their relief contributions, took in a lot of people from Nepal, and allowed them to reside and work temporarily.

Ditya felt fortunate that she was one of them.

Over time, her conversations with me became more intimate and to the point, but soon became baffling.

In reality, she wanted to marry someone with residency status in England, so that she can remain there and work rather than to go back to Nepal when her right to remain in the UK ends.

But of course, it was a request that I would not have had accommodated.

Not sure how to disappoint her, I somehow inadvertently allowed the conversation to drag itself out, hoping that it would hit a dead end and she would naturally be discouraged to continue talking to me about it.

But what fired up my curiosity was a phone call from her, indicating that she had spoken to two of her husbands, and they have approved of her entering into a union with me.

What?

Her statement sounded so insane and out of order that I sought clarification of it’s supposed insanities – particular about her two husbands back in Nepal.

And each time, I asked, Ditya made the answers clear than more clear than the word itself.

Her English was not perfect, but it was adequate enough for me to understand, while her somewhat soothing voice always made me want to listen. So understanding her was not really the issue.

So she reverted me to facebook messenger and typed the words, accompanied by a picture of herself and two Nepalese men. It became clear then that she was already married and was living with two husbands before she left Nepal and came to England.

“What sort of bullsh*t is this”, I asked myself.

I was confused about the fact that she was already married and was living with two men, and had no problem trying to get a third man, while happily telling that targeted third man about the other two; and then the other two about him.

The reality of what she was trying to do, never sank in until she noticed my confused look, and chuckled before educating me on the culture of her people in a certain parts of Nepal.

By the time she was finished, I learnt that her sister was married to seven men, all brothers, and was still living in Nepal.

Rushing to investigate her seemingly crazy lessons, I soon discovered (see link)that what she was saying was only crazy to me, and would definitely not be crazy and immoral to her.

This was because there are indeed cultures in Nepal that actually allows one woman to marry or be in a known relationship with several men at the same time, and living together with them under the same roof.

What a disadvantage for men I thought to myself.

After all, in Guyana, and most countries around the world, and even by general moral expectations, relationship rules dictate that a woman must only be committed to one man at a time.

Even if the man has five other side chicks, the rule demands that a woman sticks to only one man.

To stretch it a little further, a woman is generally expected to only be married to one man.

Because if by any chance she is found to be dealing with a second or third person intimately, then separation, physical assault, or even murder becomes the price that many of these women would usually have to pay.

This is because, in its simplest form, the foundations of Guyanese relationship culture insist that there should be only one man to a woman. Case closed.

But while that may be so in Guyana and every Western society, Ditya allowed me to learn that there are still several societies and cultures where a woman can openly have several men at the same time, with the knowledge of all of them.

As a matter of fact, all of the men actually helps the women to choose other men, and they take turns to sleep with her on different nights.

According to Ditya, whoever is in the wife’s chambers must leave his shoes or slippers outside of the bedroom door, so that the others can know it is occupied.

I have since done enough research to satisfy myself that Ditya was within her cultural right when she attempted to take me in as a fourth partner.

This practices, however, is most common in the extreme parts of India, Nepal, Tibet, and Bangladesh; and has its origins, according to Indian Vedic teachings, inPrincess Draupadi the daughter of Drupada, King of Panchala, who prayed to Lord Shiva to send her five husbands, all of which she married and dwell with at the same time.

It is said that after Draupadi received permission from her first husband Arjuna, she went ahead and marry his other four brothers, who were each gifted with their own qualities, and which she had needed at different phases of her life.

But for whatever reason, this cultural following Draupadi’s request to Lord Shiva still continues to root itself high up in the Himalayas and other distant parts of mostly Nepal and India, even though established modern edicts were made to outlaw it

As a matter of fact, even now, in those societies, women still continue to marry or live-home with two or more men, mostly brothers, in the same house. And everyone is seemingly happy about it.

Several years after my encounter with Ditya, I took a broader look at the number of women in Guyana who were murdered because they were caught mingling with another man. I now wonder to myself, what would have happened if some Guyanese men actually decided to marry a girl from one of those Nepali villages where Polyandry is the order of the day, what would have been the end results.

That man certainly would not have to peep and investigate when he is getting “blow”, or when another man is eating his food. Because that Nepalese village girl would have let him know that another man would be moving into the house, to help take care of things.

After all, her culture would have allowed her to openly be in a publicly-known sexual relationship with more than one man; while her main man would have no other choice but to just shut up and simply accept it.

In such a case, Guyanese men are really lucky that they don’t have to endure that.

Because, even if there were six other men in the house, he would have had no other choice than to go to work and bring the money in each day like everyone else, and hope that he does not have to wait too long each week to get his turn to leave his shoe outside of the bedroom door.