Skip to main content

Space, Time, Love, Sex

If you go into a romantic relationship, it costs you two friends. Those who have romantic relationships, instead of having the typical five 'core set' of relationships only have four. And of those, one is the new person who's come into their life.
It takes substantial time to establish and maintain a close relationship of any sort. My recollection is that it takes 18 to 20 hours per week to be deeply intimate, like you see with lovers. The above figures suggest that a strong friendship takes around half that much time to establish and maintain.

There are only 24 hours in the day. Most people need at least ten hours a day just for basic life maintenance -- such as sleeping, eating and hygiene -- and most people need to work for pay, which typically accounts for another forty or more hours per week (not counting commute times).

Some people can work two jobs and stay healthy and maintain their sanity, but usually by sacrificing having anything most people would call a life. Others manage to work a full-time paid job while going to school full time, though usually for only a limited period while in thier energetic youth and usually at the cost of their social life.

If you look at both sets of numbers above, it fits with what we know of historical human relationship patterns in a very practical "physics-y" sort of way.

Most human cultures value committed, long-term, monogamous relationships. This makes sense on the face of it for reasons of germ control, purposes of providing for and raising children and other fairly obvious and frequently cited reasons why monogamy is best, which is often presented not as a best pracice but more like a moral edict from on high.

But it also makes sense within the above framework. You can have one lover, three good friends and a full-time job and this provides you a healthy, balanced life in various important metrics.

At least historically, some cultures were fine with a man having both a wife and a mistress, so long as he adequately provided for both and was good to both. This fits in the above framework in that logically it still leaves time for a full-time job and one good friend. It's also reasonably tolerable in terms of issues like germ control (assuming his two lovers are faithful to him), providing for the kids, etc.

Once you go beyond two lovers, it stops making sense. The numbers don't add up. You can't have a truly intimate relationship with three or more lovers and also work a full-time job and have any friends. There simply isn't enough time in the day/week to sustain that.

You sometimes see headlines about some American guy who secretly had three or four wives. If you actually read the article, he temporarily pulled this off by having a job that involved travel and having a different wife in different cities.

You also learn he was deceiving them -- they didn't know they were one of several wives -- and so these were not truly intimate relationships. You have to be honest with someone to have genuine intimacy. It isn't something you can have based on a pack of lies.

In the end, it winds up being a short-term arrangement that typically ends with all the women hating him and law enforcement of some sort wanting to speak with him (because polygamy is not legal in the US).

As stated previously, I think polyamory is real but real polyamory is rare. It's certainly possible to be genuinely intimate with two lovers. Lots of people have done exactly that in human history, if only by having both a wife and mistress.

But the idea that you can really, truly love LOTS of people is pretty much a fiction. You can have an open relationship and you can be honest with a lot of people that "You are not the only one." but most of those relationships will lack the depth necessary to meaningfully apply the word love to them.

Footnote

This post does not cover all use cases and is not intended to do so. There are cultures that allow for multiple spouses -- typically allowing for a man to have multiple wives but not for a woman to have multiple husbands -- and I assume that if you have three or four spouses and all live together, it's possible to spend a lot of time with all of them and know all of them reasonably well.

But I don't really know enough about such to really cover that here. "So don't @ me" as they say on Twitter.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Anger Management

I was molested and raped as a child. I spent my teens and twenties filled with anger. My therapist once said something like "How did I know you were angry? Maybe it was the flames shooting out your ears." He wasn't actually talking about me. He was describing someone else. But he could have been talking about me. I took up role playing gaming in my teens and my first character was a Red Sonja-esque character with long red tresses. She was a fighter mage and she had issues. Gaming was good for me. I made a lot of friends and they were mostly male and they were protective of me. I began to put down my baggage. At some point, I retired that first character because she was so angry and toxic and I wasn't anymore. Playing her required me to put back on the mantel of so much baggage that I had worked hard to put down and it wasn't good for me to keep that alive. In my late twenties, me and my husband bought a house and it was about thirty minutes from the ...

Terminology, History and Context

From a previous post called The Closet : At one time, I thought that being a "closeted gay" meant something like you slept alone or dated same-sex people secretly. I have come to understand that term differently over the years. I've just left a comment on Reddit in a discussion about the past stating again that at one time I thought closeted meant handling things discreetly but that's not how that word gets used. I did so because of a reply to an earlier  comment of mine where the reply says "We were closeted. To do otherwise meant you'd lose your job." because I talked about the fact that we don't really know how LGBTQ stuff was handled because the written records we have don't really give you a good picture. I initially thought my "weirdo" interpretation of closeted was me being stupid or something but this little exchange has me rethinking that. I'm thinking now that perhaps at one time closeted  was used to mean handling it di...

JK Rowling

As noted by me elsewhere, a lot of people are NOT good at saying "Yes, they are famous, but they are sourcing that info from their ass. Their opinions on THIS subject aren't important." If people were good at that, JK Rowling could not be trolling planet Earth with talking smack about trans issues merely because she's famous. It's been some months since I stated a very mild opinion about JK Rowling's transphobic trolling of planet Earth. My understanding is her shit continues unabated and I'm not okay with that fact. 1. I have a serious medical condition and used to really start shit online without meaning to do so. If she's not merely a thoroughly hateful, evil person, the most charitable guess is she's got a serious medical condition and is trolling planet Earth from her sick bed for entertainment. I was not intentionally shit stirring, was not famous nor influential and I put enormous effort into figuring out how to not be so problematic. I ca...