I get a lot of email from my polyamory site. The majority of that email is very positive, but every so often someone takes issue with the idea of polyamory (not so much of the idea of being polyamorous, so much as the entire existance of polyamory), and objects to polyamory in principle as well as in practice.
One of the most common objections to polyamory is based on time management, and betrays a fundamental worldview which, I think, is not necessarily accurate, but which is buried so deeply in assumptions about the way relationships work that it’s nearly inaccessible.
Now, before I go any further, I do think it’s important to say that there is a kernel of truth in complaints about polyamory from a time-management perspective. Love isn’t infinite, press releases to the contrary; but more important, time and energy are definitely not infinite, and are sometimes in very short supply indeed. It is not possible, philosophically or practically, for a person to have an indefinite number of partners; eventually, even the most patient of people will simply run out of time.
But that doesn’t happen as quickly as people think it does, because love is not a poker game.
A poker game is a classic example of a zero-sum system. In game theory (and in economics), something is said to be “zero sum” if all the gains and losses in the system, added together, always equal zero.
In poker, it’s easy to see how this works. If Alan and Bob play poker, then for every dollar that Alan wins, Bob loses exactly one dollar. The total of the winnings and losses added up equals zero; each dollar in the pot that one person wins, the other players have lost.
Many people approach relationships in much the same way. The assumption is that relationships are also zero-sum; every minute of time, every bit of attention you give to one partner is a minute of time or a bit of attention that is taken away from someone else. If Alan is dating Betty and Cindy, the net sum of the time Allen spends with Betty is time taken away from Cindy, and if you add the total amount of time one partner gains and the other loses, you always end up at zero.
Now, hidden deeply within this idea is another, related idea, and that is that a person who is in a relationship has a rightful claim on his partner’s time and attention. If I am dating Alice, then Alice’s time and attention rightfully belongs to me; if Alice spends that time and attention on someone else, i have lost something which I am entitled to and which is mine by right. Her time is mine; she has no right to take it away from me and spend it on someone else.
Both ideas are wrong, though for different reasons.
The fact is, my partner’s time does not belong to me. Nor is it anything I should legitimately feel entitled to. Two people engage in a romantic relationship for the mutual benefit of each; should the relationship not be a source of joy for each person, it’s certainly reasonable for them to look for relationships which are satisfying. More importantly, though, it’s neither beneficial nor necessary to lay claim to a person’s time and attention.
It’s not necessary because if a person is interested in you, it’s reasonable to assume that person will dedicate time and attention to you; people tend to spend their time on things which are important to them, and to find time for those things. Behavior is an emergent phenomenon; people behave the way they do as a result of the things they believe. Someone who does not believe that his partner is a priority or that his relationship is important is not likely to focus a lot of time on it, and compelling him to do so won’t make him feel like it’s important to him.
It’s not beneficial because a person who gives his partner time and attention only because his partner forces him to is not likely to provide high-quality time. Just the opposite, in fact; he’s likely to resent it. You can’t compel someone to find you important, which is precisely what you’re doing when you believe that his attention is something you can lay claim to.
Getting back to the point, though, love is not a poker game. Time and attention are not zero-sum, and time spent with one person does not necessarily mean time taken away from another.
It’s reasonable for the people in any romantic relationship to expect to have a certain amount of “alone time” with their lovers, of course. This is something healthy relationships need in order to grow and develop; and because time is not infinite, it’s reasonable to say that no person can really expect to build high-quality relationships with a vast number of people.
But even considering that healthy relationships do need some measure of alone time, it’s still not a zero-sum game. This is because it’s possible for a person to spend quality time with two or more partners concurrently.
If–and this is important–that person does not see his relationships as separate and discrete things to be kept isolated from one another.
here is a model of polyamory I call the “free agent” model. People who subscribe to this model tend to isolate and compartmentalize their relationships, and one of the hallmarks of free-agent polyamory is that the people who subscribe to it will often present themselves as “single” when meeting new people, and behave in public as if they were unpartnered, even when they have existing relationships.
On the other end of the continuum from free agents is people who subscribe to an “inclusion” model of polyamory, one that sees all the relationships as interconnected, and that seeks to build relationships which are mutually compatible and supporting. This does not necessarily mean that people with an inclusion ideal of polyamory want their partners to be dating each other, or sleeping in the same bed; it means that they seek to find partners who will respect the existing relationships, who can spend time together, and who don’t view each other as competition. It also means that they seek to find relationships in which everyone involved feels comfortable with everyone else involved, and tend to be aware of the effects of each of their relationships on all the others.
One of the primary drawbacks of the free-agent model is that it can lead to resource competition, in which time and attention given to one person is taken away from someone else. If Alice is dating Bob and Charles, and Alice compartmentalizes those two relationships–by spending time with Bob or with Charles but not with both, for example–then the relationships are zero-sum. Time given to Bob is time not available to Charles, and vice versa.
But it doesn’t have to be that way.
The benefit of seeking relationships which are mutually supportive and which aren’t compartmentalized is that Alice can spend quality time with Bob and Charles simultaneously, without competition. When this happens, suddenly those two relationships aren’t zero-sum any more; it’s possible for the sum total of time spent with Bob and time spent with Charles to exceed 100%. It is not necessary for Bob and Charles to be romantically connected with each other, and it certainly is not necessarily for Bob and Charles to be sleeping with each other; all that’s necessary is that Bob and Charles be able to function together without competing for Alice’s time.
Of course, there’s a drawback. It means thinking about relationships, and choosing partners who fit into the existing network of relationships well. It means finding partners who are philosophically compatible with one another. And, it means being aware of the effects of each of those relationships on all the others, and taking responsibility for those effects.
I have in the past been involved in situations where my relationship with someone is a source of pain or discomfort for that person’s other partner. When that happens, i don’t try to isolate myself from her other partner; instead, I’ll tend to put the brakes on that relationship until I and her other partner can work out where the problem is. Doing this means I don’t always get to pursue all the relationships I want to as quickly as I want to–but it also means that I’m not participating in a system that’s hurtful to someone else, even though that person’s happiness is not directly my responsibility, and it means that, in the end, the relationships I build are healthier and more inclusive.
When you build relationships this way, something magical happens.
If Alice is dating Bob and Charles, and each of them is equally important to her, and Alice wants to give each of them equal time, but she compartmentalizes those relationships, at the end of the day Bob and Charles can have no more than 50% of her time and attention. But if Alice does not compartmentalize her relationships, then at the end of the day each of them can get much more than 50% of her time and attention; each of them may get 70%, or 80%, or more, of her time and attention. The relationship isn’t a poker game.
I have been involved with people who do not believe it’s possible to spend quality time with two partners concurrently. I’ve also seen it often in other people’s relationships. In fact, this belief often lies beneath many enforced primary/secondary structures; people will construct primary/secondary relationships out of fear of losing importance or losing a partner’s time and attention, and see primary/secondary as a means to keep the time and attention they feel rightfully belongs to them.
I remember one night when Shelly and my ex-wife and I had gone out to dinner together after I came home from work. We went to a Thai restaurant, spent a while lingering over dinner and talking, then came home. On the way home, my ex-wife asked me “When am I going to get to spend some time with you?”
The fact was, she’d spent the entire evening with me. But the fact that another person was present somehow invalidated that time in her mind; even though we’d had a wonderful dinner together, it “didn’t count’ for her, because she believed that love is zero-sum. Time with her had to be time spent away from any other romantic partner, or else it wasn’t really “her” time. (Interestingly, the same was not true of time spent together with friends who were not romantic partners–far from it, my ex loves to entertain, and was extremely happy spending time with me and with friends, provided they were not lovers.)
When a person approaches a relationship with that philosophy, it cannot help but become zero-sum. he sad part of that is that in a zero-sum relationship, everyone loses. The total amount of time and attention spent on all the members of the relationship can never exceed 100%; the pot is smaller, and there is no win-win scenario.
Love does not have to be a poker game. When it is, it becomes a game nobody wins.
I’d be interested to see a take on this from a non-polyamorous perspective. I know that for me, when I’ve been in a serious relationship, poly or otherwise, I have fallen prey to this vision of time as being rightfully mine, and any time spent elsewhere as a theft.
On another note, I used to be in your friendslock as and then – can I get back in? 🙂
No problem–welcome back!
I’m not poly, although I don’t have any ideological problems with the idea at this point in my life.
I don’t think that the mono perspective is all that much different than the poly one. wrote about this with an emphasis on resolving time problems with other partners, but you could just as easily extend the concept to friends, hobbies, one’s job, one’s personal time, etc.
In mono relationships, you still have the questions of “how much time is my time, and how much of it am I obligated to give to my partner?” and “how much of my partner’s time is he or she obligated to give to me?” At the root of that is the concept that the amount of time that Person A spends with Person B is a direct reflection of how much Person A loves Person B. They’re related, but not identical, and it’s very difficult to find a middle ground.
I’d be interested to see a take on this from a non-polyamorous perspective. I know that for me, when I’ve been in a serious relationship, poly or otherwise, I have fallen prey to this vision of time as being rightfully mine, and any time spent elsewhere as a theft.
On another note, I used to be in your friendslock as and then – can I get back in? 🙂
No problem–welcome back!
people seem to have widely varying opinions on this– well, as you note. i have poly friends who mock the idea that it might ever be interesting to have more than one lover in bed together at the same time, and poly friends who mock the idea that one might necessarily expect all of one’s lovers to be able to speak civilly to each other.
and, of course, poly friends who go on the most tremendously cute multiple-dates. 🙂
people seem to have widely varying opinions on this– well, as you note. i have poly friends who mock the idea that it might ever be interesting to have more than one lover in bed together at the same time, and poly friends who mock the idea that one might necessarily expect all of one’s lovers to be able to speak civilly to each other.
and, of course, poly friends who go on the most tremendously cute multiple-dates. 🙂
Focus
Ya know, it occurs to me that this may be an introvert/extrovert thing. Being “together” in a group of people doesn’t make me feel connected to someone. In fact, it makes me TIRED. Oh sure, I like parties, and they’re lots of fun in small doses, but for intimacy, that’s about on par with watching TV for me in terms of interaction. To be social with non-intimates requires a certain level of mental preparation — a sort of “girding my loins” even if it is fun. I can only really focus on one person at a time. So in a group, the person speaking is really the person getting my attention (re: Bob and Charles getting Alice’s attention).
I like one on one time. It’s doesn’t need to be great swathes of time, nor does it have to be “special, put on my diamonds and spend money” time. A half hour drinking coffee together and chatting on a Saturday morning, or talking while we make dinner is just fine, but I want that very much in a relationship, I would not enjoy ANY relationship — friendship, family member, romantic partner, without the occasional one on one conversation mixed in with any group socializing. Hell, I like that with my kids as well!
The only partner I have at present lives with me. He likes to spend several nights a week out with friends. I don’t see this as time taken away from me. It’s just what he likes to do, ya know?
I dunno, it doesn’t seem to me to be so much of a romantic partnership thing with me as a personal taste thing for relationships in general.
Re: Focus
What says about different values of “attention” and “together” for introverts versus extroverts makes a lot of sense to me. I am an introvert. I don’t, logically, veiw attention or love as zero-sum, but I do find that the more people there are around (even if they are equally-beloved intimates, but moreso if some of them are not), the less I can connect with any of them, and the more work I have to put in to just be present & interactive. Spending time with multiple people, even if enjoyable, taxes my emotional resources–a tax that must be paid off in alone-time (just me, no other humans at all) or one-on-one-time. Time spent with multiple people is seldom “quality time” for me, unless the situation allows me to focus specifically on one or 2 of them at a time (e.g., small conversation groups at a larger party).
This seems true of all my relationships, not just the romantic ones, and it does allow workable options for non-zero-sum interactions, though it can take some extra planning or attention depending on the type of interaction and number of people I want to connect with. I have strategies for parties, team sports… certain typesof dancing work especilly weel, because I can simultaneously focus on a partner and cooperate with a larger group. Still haven’t figured out how to optimally manage sexual interaction with multiple partners except by being less involved than I really want. I expect practice and experimentation will yeild strategies for that too.
Re: Focus
I knew that struck me as completely wrong, but couldn’t pin down why. Thanks.
Re: Focus
“I like one on one time. It’s doesn’t need to be great swathes of time, nor does it have to be “special, put on my diamonds and spend money” time. A half hour drinking coffee together and chatting on a Saturday morning, or talking while we make dinner is just fine, but I want that very much in a relationship, I would not enjoy ANY relationship — friendship, family member, romantic partner, without the occasional one on one conversation mixed in with any group socializing. Hell, I like that with my kids as well!”
I also like a lot of one-on-one time, even as an extrovert, and will even go so far as to say that one-on-one time is absolutely necessary, and vital to the health of any relationship.
I do not, however, believe that all quality time must be one-on-one time. I believe it’s possible to spend “quality time” with more than one person at the same time, which I don’t think is necessarily related to introversion or extroversion at all. Shelly is a very strong introvert, yet I know that she’s capable of feeling energized when she spends time with both me and with her other partner simultaneously, and feels that this time is also ‘quality time.’
Of course, this does require a certain amount of compatibility between partners. Her other partner and I have a great friendship ourselves, and enjoy one another’s company; were that not the case, then it’s reasonable to expect that she would feel differently when spending time with both of us.
What it comes down to, I think, is not a matter of introversion or extroversion so much as a philosophy that relationships are not separate and discrete things; they can and do affect one another, and they can overlap in positive ways.
Focus
Ya know, it occurs to me that this may be an introvert/extrovert thing. Being “together” in a group of people doesn’t make me feel connected to someone. In fact, it makes me TIRED. Oh sure, I like parties, and they’re lots of fun in small doses, but for intimacy, that’s about on par with watching TV for me in terms of interaction. To be social with non-intimates requires a certain level of mental preparation — a sort of “girding my loins” even if it is fun. I can only really focus on one person at a time. So in a group, the person speaking is really the person getting my attention (re: Bob and Charles getting Alice’s attention).
I like one on one time. It’s doesn’t need to be great swathes of time, nor does it have to be “special, put on my diamonds and spend money” time. A half hour drinking coffee together and chatting on a Saturday morning, or talking while we make dinner is just fine, but I want that very much in a relationship, I would not enjoy ANY relationship — friendship, family member, romantic partner, without the occasional one on one conversation mixed in with any group socializing. Hell, I like that with my kids as well!
The only partner I have at present lives with me. He likes to spend several nights a week out with friends. I don’t see this as time taken away from me. It’s just what he likes to do, ya know?
I dunno, it doesn’t seem to me to be so much of a romantic partnership thing with me as a personal taste thing for relationships in general.
I’m not poly, although I don’t have any ideological problems with the idea at this point in my life.
I don’t think that the mono perspective is all that much different than the poly one. wrote about this with an emphasis on resolving time problems with other partners, but you could just as easily extend the concept to friends, hobbies, one’s job, one’s personal time, etc.
In mono relationships, you still have the questions of “how much time is my time, and how much of it am I obligated to give to my partner?” and “how much of my partner’s time is he or she obligated to give to me?” At the root of that is the concept that the amount of time that Person A spends with Person B is a direct reflection of how much Person A loves Person B. They’re related, but not identical, and it’s very difficult to find a middle ground.
As always, I love your takes on things.
Thanks for summing things up so nicely. *grin*
As always, I love your takes on things.
Thanks for summing things up so nicely. *grin*
You seem to think alot like I do. Although you put it into words in a way that I’m not able to yet. Thank you for that.
You seem to think alot like I do. Although you put it into words in a way that I’m not able to yet. Thank you for that.
Excellent post.
In a similar fashion, I end up having to explain to people that the only reason “love” is a scarce resource is when you insist on treating it within the context of an economic model…
I Flisted you btw, I’m looking forward to more of your posts.
Re: Excellent post.
Welcome aboard!
Re: Excellent post.
I just posted a mild rant about Poly and BDSM over on btw…
Re: Excellent post.
And just made some excellent comments on it – I’d love to see what you had to say to any of it. I invited Pepper to tear it apart and he made some excellent comments.
Excellent post.
In a similar fashion, I end up having to explain to people that the only reason “love” is a scarce resource is when you insist on treating it within the context of an economic model…
I Flisted you btw, I’m looking forward to more of your posts.
As always, your wisdom is welcome and awesome, and it’s a pleasure to be networked with you.
You need to come visit us more often. 🙂
As always, your wisdom is welcome and awesome, and it’s a pleasure to be networked with you.
You present your positions with sound logic. Great entry. Thanks for the read. 🙂
You present your positions with sound logic. Great entry. Thanks for the read. 🙂
I needed to hear this just now, thank you for articulating so well something that I’ve been trying to get to grips with.
I needed to hear this just now, thank you for articulating so well something that I’ve been trying to get to grips with.
Re: Focus
What says about different values of “attention” and “together” for introverts versus extroverts makes a lot of sense to me. I am an introvert. I don’t, logically, veiw attention or love as zero-sum, but I do find that the more people there are around (even if they are equally-beloved intimates, but moreso if some of them are not), the less I can connect with any of them, and the more work I have to put in to just be present & interactive. Spending time with multiple people, even if enjoyable, taxes my emotional resources–a tax that must be paid off in alone-time (just me, no other humans at all) or one-on-one-time. Time spent with multiple people is seldom “quality time” for me, unless the situation allows me to focus specifically on one or 2 of them at a time (e.g., small conversation groups at a larger party).
This seems true of all my relationships, not just the romantic ones, and it does allow workable options for non-zero-sum interactions, though it can take some extra planning or attention depending on the type of interaction and number of people I want to connect with. I have strategies for parties, team sports… certain typesof dancing work especilly weel, because I can simultaneously focus on a partner and cooperate with a larger group. Still haven’t figured out how to optimally manage sexual interaction with multiple partners except by being less involved than I really want. I expect practice and experimentation will yeild strategies for that too.
Thanks for the post. It’s rather well-timed and speaks to a situation I find myself having to deal with right now. Love is not a zero sum game. Love is slippery in that regard. As cheesy as it sounds, the quote from a rather popular movie about “the more you tighten your grip, the more will slip through your fingers” seems to sum it up quite nicely.
Thanks for the post. It’s rather well-timed and speaks to a situation I find myself having to deal with right now. Love is not a zero sum game. Love is slippery in that regard. As cheesy as it sounds, the quote from a rather popular movie about “the more you tighten your grip, the more will slip through your fingers” seems to sum it up quite nicely.
Well said. I could go on, but I’ll leave it at Well Said.
Well said. I could go on, but I’ll leave it at Well Said.
Re: Focus
I knew that struck me as completely wrong, but couldn’t pin down why. Thanks.
Re: Focus
“I like one on one time. It’s doesn’t need to be great swathes of time, nor does it have to be “special, put on my diamonds and spend money” time. A half hour drinking coffee together and chatting on a Saturday morning, or talking while we make dinner is just fine, but I want that very much in a relationship, I would not enjoy ANY relationship — friendship, family member, romantic partner, without the occasional one on one conversation mixed in with any group socializing. Hell, I like that with my kids as well!”
I also like a lot of one-on-one time, even as an extrovert, and will even go so far as to say that one-on-one time is absolutely necessary, and vital to the health of any relationship.
I do not, however, believe that all quality time must be one-on-one time. I believe it’s possible to spend “quality time” with more than one person at the same time, which I don’t think is necessarily related to introversion or extroversion at all. Shelly is a very strong introvert, yet I know that she’s capable of feeling energized when she spends time with both me and with her other partner simultaneously, and feels that this time is also ‘quality time.’
Of course, this does require a certain amount of compatibility between partners. Her other partner and I have a great friendship ourselves, and enjoy one another’s company; were that not the case, then it’s reasonable to expect that she would feel differently when spending time with both of us.
What it comes down to, I think, is not a matter of introversion or extroversion so much as a philosophy that relationships are not separate and discrete things; they can and do affect one another, and they can overlap in positive ways.
Re: Excellent post.
Welcome aboard!
You need to come visit us more often. 🙂
Yuppers
And from the point of an extro-verted introvert, I have had wonderful time spent “together” with both partners, that I believe they also enjoyed.
The hubby enjoys sex as a way to have “quality time” or “connect”. For me, it’s the talking before or afterwards that makes the “sex” time a quality thing.
I’ve found that as I appreciate people more and more as individuals (sure, they still tire me out, piss me off, frustrate me or hurt me) I can deal better and better with group situations. Better still, I can make any opportunity to be together a “quality” one.
I have two seperate relationships. I am glad that they are friendly with each other. Neither of them have a lot of deep meaningful friendships. In a way, we all add to each other’s ability to enjoy friendships and relationship. I get better and handling something with Daddy, I get better at handling something with the BF.
Just because I’m spending time with one or another partner doesn’t mean I’m taking away from some great time bank the other one has stored up. If I talk about something that really gets my brain turning with one, I have something interesting to share with the other. When we’re all together we can get along, even if there is tension, troubles or other frustrations.
I see a middle path here. You can have relationships that are interconnected and yet have relationships that have grounding in their own private interactions.
Or else I’m reading too fast cause I’m at work.
Yuppers
And from the point of an extro-verted introvert, I have had wonderful time spent “together” with both partners, that I believe they also enjoyed.
The hubby enjoys sex as a way to have “quality time” or “connect”. For me, it’s the talking before or afterwards that makes the “sex” time a quality thing.
I’ve found that as I appreciate people more and more as individuals (sure, they still tire me out, piss me off, frustrate me or hurt me) I can deal better and better with group situations. Better still, I can make any opportunity to be together a “quality” one.
I have two seperate relationships. I am glad that they are friendly with each other. Neither of them have a lot of deep meaningful friendships. In a way, we all add to each other’s ability to enjoy friendships and relationship. I get better and handling something with Daddy, I get better at handling something with the BF.
Just because I’m spending time with one or another partner doesn’t mean I’m taking away from some great time bank the other one has stored up. If I talk about something that really gets my brain turning with one, I have something interesting to share with the other. When we’re all together we can get along, even if there is tension, troubles or other frustrations.
I see a middle path here. You can have relationships that are interconnected and yet have relationships that have grounding in their own private interactions.
Or else I’m reading too fast cause I’m at work.
Re: Excellent post.
I just posted a mild rant about Poly and BDSM over on btw…
Re: Excellent post.
And just made some excellent comments on it – I’d love to see what you had to say to any of it. I invited Pepper to tear it apart and he made some excellent comments.
Confused…
Hi, I’ve been reading your journal and enjoying your posts on a yahoo group… but i’m confused about this statement. I’ve been working under the impression that contrary to popular opinion, Love itself *is* infinate. Was this a typo? and if not, can you explain further? Time is definitely in short supply and I feel like i’m constantly trying to juggle my priorities between my lover, my wife, my friends, my obligations and gods forbid, my job and my Self. I love my lover, i love my wife, i love my friends but i cannot devote as much time as i want to each.
Thanks,
Eithne
Re: Confused…
When you say “love is infinite,” what do you mean?
I say love is not infinite, by which I mean that, even with time and resources aside, it is not possible for any human being to love an infinite number of people. There are biological constraints on it; human beings in general seem capable of forming meaningful connections with no more than about a hundred and fifty people at once, past which those people simply become a blur. It’s not possible to love, say, six thousand people; in fact, it’s not even possible to remember the names of six thousand people!
Re: Confused…
i definately have no doubt this is indeed true. i would love to know if you have resources to share that corroborate this fact. do you?
Re: Confused…
One of the best essays on the subject (and it’s fun to read, too) is the article Inside the Monkeysphere. A more scholarly article on the relationship between brain size and the size of a social grgoup can be found here. Another article by the same researcher is here.
Confused…
Hi, I’ve been reading your journal and enjoying your posts on a yahoo group… but i’m confused about this statement. I’ve been working under the impression that contrary to popular opinion, Love itself *is* infinate. Was this a typo? and if not, can you explain further? Time is definitely in short supply and I feel like i’m constantly trying to juggle my priorities between my lover, my wife, my friends, my obligations and gods forbid, my job and my Self. I love my lover, i love my wife, i love my friends but i cannot devote as much time as i want to each.
Thanks,
Eithne
Re: Confused…
When you say “love is infinite,” what do you mean?
I say love is not infinite, by which I mean that, even with time and resources aside, it is not possible for any human being to love an infinite number of people. There are biological constraints on it; human beings in general seem capable of forming meaningful connections with no more than about a hundred and fifty people at once, past which those people simply become a blur. It’s not possible to love, say, six thousand people; in fact, it’s not even possible to remember the names of six thousand people!
Re: Confused…
i definately have no doubt this is indeed true. i would love to know if you have resources to share that corroborate this fact. do you?
Re: Confused…
One of the best essays on the subject (and it’s fun to read, too) is the article Inside the Monkeysphere. A more scholarly article on the relationship between brain size and the size of a social grgoup can be found here. Another article by the same researcher is here.
even more reason!
Another point as to why love is not a zero-sum game, is that the value of time given is neither constantly nor objectively valuable. Rather, quality-time has, at least in my experience, some degree of diminishing marginal returns. As such, even when I am in a relationship with only one person, I won’t spend all of my free time on quality time with her. Rather, I spend some time alone, and some time with specific individuals or groups that do not include her. I have noticed that too much alone time spent with a lover (or anyone) eventually starts to have negative consequences, and so if someone were to spend all 100% of their free time on a lover, that lover would not be receiving the same sort of 100% win that you’d get in a poker game of the same result.
Moreover, anyone who’s been in a long-distance relationship knows that the dose of quality-time following a separation is the most potent.
These facts make it so a 50/50 divide, even without overlap via simultaneous quality-time-spending, might result in a much higher subjective total for each recipient than if either were to get more.
even more reason!
Another point as to why love is not a zero-sum game, is that the value of time given is neither constantly nor objectively valuable. Rather, quality-time has, at least in my experience, some degree of diminishing marginal returns. As such, even when I am in a relationship with only one person, I won’t spend all of my free time on quality time with her. Rather, I spend some time alone, and some time with specific individuals or groups that do not include her. I have noticed that too much alone time spent with a lover (or anyone) eventually starts to have negative consequences, and so if someone were to spend all 100% of their free time on a lover, that lover would not be receiving the same sort of 100% win that you’d get in a poker game of the same result.
Moreover, anyone who’s been in a long-distance relationship knows that the dose of quality-time following a separation is the most potent.
These facts make it so a 50/50 divide, even without overlap via simultaneous quality-time-spending, might result in a much higher subjective total for each recipient than if either were to get more.
From a mono perspective
You don’t say how the night went for your ex-wife other than she appeared to you to be enjoying it. The possibility that you and your sweetie were so wrapped up in each other that you were basically ignoring your ex-wife exists. Yes she was in your presence, but if she was sitting there watching you and your sweetie canoodle, can you really say she had “quality” time with you? Maybe she was saying, “When do I have your attention?” rather than “When do I get to have some time with you?”
I really don’t see how three people, unless there is a romantic/sexual relationship between all three, can be balanced in a group date. Every pic I’ve ever seen on poly blogs with three people, two are embracing, serious eye contact, and the third is awkwardly trying to get some kind of contact. Really not conducive to feeling “special”.
From a mono perspective
You don’t say how the night went for your ex-wife other than she appeared to you to be enjoying it. The possibility that you and your sweetie were so wrapped up in each other that you were basically ignoring your ex-wife exists. Yes she was in your presence, but if she was sitting there watching you and your sweetie canoodle, can you really say she had “quality” time with you? Maybe she was saying, “When do I have your attention?” rather than “When do I get to have some time with you?”
I really don’t see how three people, unless there is a romantic/sexual relationship between all three, can be balanced in a group date. Every pic I’ve ever seen on poly blogs with three people, two are embracing, serious eye contact, and the third is awkwardly trying to get some kind of contact. Really not conducive to feeling “special”.