Long distance relationships are terrible

# Long distance relationships are terrible Long-distance relationships are like looking at dessert though a glass, or like being chained to a rock that resembles your partner. The words we have to describe relationships are pretty inadequate. Pedantically, we have a relationship with everyone we now. When we say “a relationship” we actually mean a specific but nebulous bundle of characteristics and roles. Long distance relationships are terrible in part because they not only prevent us from fulfilling some of those roles, but they create tension between them. There are commitments and expectations that are bundled into the idea of a relationship that cannot be met with ranged weaponry. Physicality is a key part of a relationship. Sure, there is the physical part of a relationship that provides comfort and intimacy. But I think there’s something more than that. Even when you’re not physically touching, there’s an illegible feeling of someone literally being *there* for you that disappears in a long distance relationship. It raises the interesting question — relationships between two people who live in different parts of the same town aren’t long distance. Why? I think it’s the fact that one *could* see the other persona at the drop of a hat, if need be. Could we perhaps think of long distance relationships as ones where seeing the other person *requires* planning or special circumstances? If this is the case, situations that constrain people who are physically proximate from seeing each other whenever they want should invoke many of the feelings of a long distance relationship. The feelings that come through in Romeo and Juliet would suggest that is indeed the case. The planning barrier means that you can’t actually fulfill your partners needs at any moment and they cannot fulfill yours. More abstractly, it illustrates that [[potential is to a relationship, regardless of whether it’s actualized]]. Relationships involve becoming dependent on one another, to some extent. Even for the most independent individuals, a relationship that doesn’t involve some growing together seems cold and barely a relationship at all. In a long distance relationship, you just can’t meet all of those needs. But the nature of the relationship means that short of ending it, you must either continue being dependent on the other person or unwind that dependence, both of which are painful! Long-distance relationships also involve more uncertainty. A lot of this uncertainty comes from the tools we’re forced to use — phone, text, letters all just carry so much less information than an in person interaction. This leaves much more room for interpretation and for imagination to leak in the cracks. That imagination leaking is exhausting because either you have to actively fight it or it can carry you away. Imagination fills in the holes left by the absence of shared context. Shared context is a big and underrated glue that holds relationships together. Even if you spend the same amount of time together as you would if you lived in the same city, the farther apart you are the less shared context you have: it may be a rainy day for one person and sunny for the other. The stone fruit flowers may be just starting to bloom for one person while they have already fallen for the other. Local happenings. The ‘vibe’ or a city or community. There’s also a component of soothing a partner that is entirely non verbal and that cannot be done at distance. So if these are the reasons that long-distance relationships suck, [[What is the alternative to a long-distance relationship]]  [Web URL for this note](http://notes.benjaminreinhardt.com/Long+distance+relationships+are+terrible) [Comment on this note](http://via.hypothes.is/http://notes.benjaminreinhardt.com/Long+distance+relationships+are+terrible)