"I Can Barely Keep One Happy!" - Exploring Bandwidth: Polytics with Minxy
𝓱𝓮𝔂 𝔂𝓪𝓵𝓵!
"I can barely keep one happy".
This title is inspired by all the folks who, whenever they find out that I'm not monogamous, say that exact sentence to me.
(Also…that says a lot: "I can barely keep one happy." Because even if you're monogamous, the fact that you're barely keeping your partner happy is a problem, y'all. Anyways, that's neither here nor there. Today the topic of the day is about managing multiple emotional connections - less in a logistical sense, but more in an emotional and supportive capacity.)
I really wanted to talk about this because I do think that this is a valid concern that many people have. How do I maintain multiple relationships? How do I care for them? This goes for anyone with whom you share a depth of connection, it doesn't necessarily have to be romantic relationships. If you want to deepen your friendships and you're wondering, How do I do that? Can I even do that? Or maybe you’re newly non-monogamous or considering it non-monogamy, yet you think to yourself I don't know how to handle one relationship, or I feel like I'm tired handling one relationship. How do I handle more? There are two things that I feel like one must know about themselves before they can honestly answer these questions adequately.
The first thing is figuring out the ratio of how much love and support you give vs how much love and support you receive.
There are people who can give endless love and take care of multiple people, there are people who take a lot from people, and there are folks who are mostly even, 50:50 on both. I know a lot of people who come into polyamory, specifically, because they take a lot from their partners and need more - they feel like their partners can't handle all of them, or that there's something that they are incompatible with their partners in and they want to find it somewhere else, fill in the gaps. And that's okay! However, I don't think that people consider if they can give as much love as they can receive, if they take this into account as they navigate relationships. And this is something very important that you need to recognize: where do you fall on this scale? Because I do think that the capacity that someone has for giving versus receiving love is very scalable.
I say this is scalable, because people have different needs and wants. The people that you're giving love to may want or need something different from (or more or less than) you. It may be easier to give certain folks things and harder to give other folks the same things. But this is something that you really have to self reflect about. Based off of past things and what you know about yourself, you should consider if you give more love than you receive, historically. Or do you think that you are better at receiving love and not necessarily giving it? I'm not saying that one or the other is bad pr that they can't be equal, of course, but it is something to consider. Where do you stand on this scale?
For instance, I know someone who has ADHD, and it’s not so much that he forgets about other people, but that he has issues with object permeance. If something or someone is not right there in front of him, he forgets until something pops up that reminds him. So it's not that he is incapable of giving a whole lot of love. It's more that the way in which he cares may be incompatible to some folks, because he is incapable of giving the type, level, or frequency of love and support people may need. When it comes to giving love and support via communication, i.e. words of affirmation, he is probably low on the scale - so would probably need a low maintenance person or persons to to have relationships with, whether that be friendships, co workers, romantic relationships, whatever, because there will be times where he is distracted doing other things and just forgets to hit you up. It doesn't mean he doesn't care. That just means that his ability, his capacity for giving love in that way is on the low side. And this is what I mean by the capacity for giving love versus receiving.
Based off of past things and what you know about yourself, you should consider if you give more love than you receive, historically. Or do you think that you are better at receiving love and not necessarily giving it? Think about the things that people usually complain about you not doing for them. Think about the things that our society has said are the things that you do to show love. Think about your idiosyncrasies, your patterns of thought, the way that you move around in the world. How do you express love and support, and how frequently do you express those things? You need to know this so that you will be able to communicate it to other folks t0 you can find out whether or not you're compatible with them.
After figuring out where you stand on that scale, it’s time to discover what your bandwidth is.
When I say bandwidth in this sense, I mean the capacity one has for the various human connections in their lives and their ability to maintain them along with work, health, and other responsibilities. Of course, everyone’s bandwidth is going to look and feel different and can be based on many factors. Sometimes an individual’s bandwidth changes as their life circumstances change, sometimes it stays the same their entire life. Introverts, extroverts, those with chronic health conditions, those socialized in certain ways and/or cultures – they all will have their own distinct numbers.
It’s been my experience that not many people take the time to self reflect and figure out their specific bandwidth. No matter what kind of relationship configuration you may have, I personally feel you should know what your max capacity is – for your emotional, mental, and physical health. All of these things are intertwined, and too much pressure in one area can manifest itself in another. Stretching yourself too thin is something almost all of us can confess to doing at one point or another. Although many would argue that not setting reasonable boundaries or not knowing how to say no is the main reason burnout happens, I would argue that you cannot set good boundaries without first knowing what you are comfortable with or capable of, without first knowing your bandwidth It's hard to say boundaries, about communication, about how often you're going to see somebody and all of that if you don't really know what your bandwidth is. So knowing this helps prevent burnout.
Some years ago, I came upon Dunbar’s number. Robin Dunbar was an anthropologist and evolutionary psychologist who theorized in the 90s – after studying primates and early societies – that 150 is the number of individuals with whom any one person can maintain stable relationships. (Actually, the number has been proposed to lie between 100 and 250, with a commonly used value of 150.) These complex social relationships can be broken up into different categories:
a) ~5-10 very close support relationships – people you speak to nearly every week
b) ~12-15 in your sympathy group – people who would be devastated if you died
c) ~50 other meaningful relationships
d) and ~150 currently active casual friendships
The most intimate circle is about five loved ones, reaching a maximum of 1500 people you can recognize. (Credit: Emmanuel Lafont)
Now, many have proposed fallacies to this theory – that the internet has brought the world much closer, that we need more than 150 connections to adequately network professionally, that some people’s families alone surpass this number. I, however, still insist that Dunbar’s number is pretty spot on, whether you are an introvert, ambivert, extrovert, or something yet unclassified (you special snowflake, you). What these rebuttals don’t take into account is the very loose definition that some folks put on the word “friend,” nor do they consider the depth – or rather, lack of it – of certain sorts of connections. Dunbar’s number does not include those in one’s life who are only generally known with a lack of persistent connection. For instance, those people on the periphery of your personal social circle, whom you have a more shallow relationship with (such as acquaintances, co-workers, or cordial networking-only relationships), are generally not included in what I personally feel was Dunbar’s intent.
However, everyone is different! You may find that Dunbar’s number resonates with you. You may find that your capacity is much less than outlined here. Or that it is much more. The point is, there’s so much benefit in figuring out just what your capacity is, and this provides a great framework to work that out within yourself.
I am one of those who has many internet acquaintances. I also have to network heavily for work. And my mother was the youngest of 18, where more than half her siblings went on to have 4-8 children (read: my family is huge). But I would have to say that Dunbar’s number holds true to my life, because it pinpoints how many meaningful connections and emotional ties I actively nurture and maintain.
After some self reflection and analyzing of my past, I’ve determined that I have the capacity for about 10 deeply entangled (practical, emotional, and/or sexual) connections. Back when I was diagnosed with depression, as well as struggling financially, I was still able to foster that many relationships. Although I am healthier now, I am so busy – with my job, maintaining my health and finances, and simply living out loud, plus I’ve learned that I really cherish (and NEED!) my alone time – that my number has stayed the same. As a matter of fact, I’m currently teetering the line of saturation, of being totally maxed out: I currently have four “romantic”/sexual partners, two queer platonic partners, and three platonic life partners.
Knowing my bandwidth doesn’t make me feel as if I am missing out on any connections, either. It doesn’t limit me. It actually helps me not take on too much. To more easily let go of those I’ve outgrown, or who aren’t good for me, or who are lackluster about being in any type of relationship with me. It reminds me to tend carefully to the relationships that I do have. That just because every relationship is different and some are less intense and less entangled, that does not make them any less beautiful. I talked about this before when talking about intimacy – sometimes relationships just aren’t meant to be deeply intimate, and that’s okay.
When I first read about Dunbar, I went to the back page of my planner and created a circle of “my people.” My name in the middle, with my people’s names fanning out around me, using the categories listed above. Lo and behold, without using any social media or contacts list, I came up with 127 names. What’s interesting to me today is that I took a look at this page just now, and it has changed. I’m a firm believer that life is somewhat fluid, and I like that I have a record of it: those who have moved closer to me, those who have faded away, those who have cemented their bonds, and the newcomers in the circle. It makes me smile, to see genuine connections in all forms, of all types of intensities, with all types of benefits.
So.
What’s your bandwidth?
Next time I’ll talk about what foundational steps I believe folks should take to discover what they really want in non-monogamy. And, as always, stay foxy y’all.
Minxy (she/her)
The Haux Hive’s resident non-monogamy educator, also known as DeeRae, is a digital storyteller, content creator, event organizer, Black culture devotee, and the founder of Sunny Dee Productions, LLC - which produces educational and networking events, intimate parties, and live media (such as Sunny Dee, a relationship podcast centered on non-monogamy).
Find/follow her here:
sunnydeepod.com
All links: https://linktr.ee/lilwildminx
Instagram
Facebook Page
Facebook Group
Discord
TikTok
Patreon