Observing the relationship between the complexity of relationships, and the consequential contentness

Definitions

Definitions of "hook-up" vary, so I will go ahead and define it for the sake of the situation as "a non-committed relationship incorporating a physical connection beyond that of a platonic friendship." Furthermore, I use the word "relationship" to mean any connection between two people (or concepts), not just a relationship status as defined by the Face book. This includes friends, siblings, colleagues, etc. That is, the dealings with others, and, probably oneself.

So.

Hook ups are an extremely complicated aspect of my current culture. We are liberal, young adults in an age of understanding and widely available birth control; sexual relationships without commitments are plentiful and confusing the modern lady and/or gentleman as to the minimalist-yet-complicated question: "What are we?"

Who knows? If an acquaintance acquiesced to admit she had been hittin’ it, hooking up with the frosted tip prick from physics, you would know nothing more than you did in the immediate past; ten seconds of statement require ten minutes of explanation. Additionally, individuals can be "hooking up" for YEARS without attempt (or success) at "defining the relationship."

The recognition and fear of acronyms like "DTR" and "FBO" further define the waters in which we wade: The former pop-machine options for interpersonal titles continue to exist in theory, but their borders continue to fade and ripple. I have begun to assume that these nice conciseities curb belief in the possibility that our relationships exist on a spectrum.

Now, in a seemingly unrelated question: What is a word? I propose to define a word simply as "a verbalization with the purpose and probability of communicating." As such, these WORDS we use to define relationships ARE words, however… How can one break down the countless media – jealousy, love, needing nothing to say vs. having nothing to say, days, weeks, sleepovers – how can we chop these down and form them into easily digestible figurines? Our words spin through the listener’s gears and filters from society, religion, one’s nation, 'how mama raised me', and spits out it’s own definition.

"Dating" "Boyfriend/Girlfriend" "Lover".

I suggest that one cannot truly define a relationship in these colloquial lies,

They are all either too ambiguous or constricting to explain something as complex as the sub-textual points in physical conversations; motions, emotions, oceans of interaction curbing traction, tracking attraction remit of commitment.

The verbal definition conflicts with the delineation posed by our physical collaboration. What one meant when met by the dissonance between the audible, tacit, and the unspoken contracts we sign with another individual are not represented in

TRUE WORDS and PROMISES,

but by

ACTIONS and REACTIONS holstered in HONESTY.

One cannot use words to fathom expressing effort, emotions, trials, passion, fear; we can only label the cardboard box into which these experiences are placed along a shelf next to dusty printers that weren’t worth the price of new ink. I now measure my relationships in the quantity and quality of relationship related things, or RRTs. The quantity of relationship related things: spending time together, love, respect, sex, proximity, exclusivity, bond, etc. can help define the relationship much better than using 1-3 word basic titles.

But there’s a huge *ASTERISK*

In my own meandering experience, it is not simply MORE RRTs=HAPPIER RELATIONSHIP.

There’s a balance to it… One that is very unique: Relationships are the only thing I can think of where ½ is less than both one AND zero.

See…

The very left would be “just friends”,

A few centimeters down would be a “physical only hook-up" without being friends,

The far right would be a committed, close proximity, loving, sexually fantastic relationship.

Now have any of you have fallen in the middle, and found yourself unhappy? There is sex, there is fun, you like each other… but there’s no commitment, it lacks honesty, it lacks… something? Something that brings it past the middle point…

Whereas

.5 is less than 1

and

.5 is less than 0

…Why then is it so hard to get out of the middle?