Sex and Counting

I couldn't sleep last night. As a result, as I laid in bed I did what I normally do when I don't have a lot to do---I thought about numbers. Usually the numbers are related to the stock market or work but last night I was thinking about past relationships.

Usually when thinking back on past relationships I quantify them in regards to how long they lasted. A temporal criteria. In that sense my longest continual relationship was with Renée with just under 4 years though Lee edges her out in total time since we had nearly 4 years while we both lived in Atlanta and then, after nearly a 10 year gap, almost another year here.

For some reason last night I was thinking in terms of sex tho. And I came to a surprising conclusion--at least to me--while Lee might have surpassed Renée in terms of time, she hadn't in terms of sex. Now I admit my counting method here had to be estimated but I do pay attention to these types of things---for example Chris has the record for frequency divided by time but since that relationship only lasted 10 weeks the total was quite small relative to either Renée or Lee---but I think I came up with pretty realistic totals for both of them and it wasn't even close. And frankly, I was quite surprised at that, almost nonplussed.

Normally here one would say something like "...but I didn't lose any sleep over it" but while I don't think it was cause & effect, nevertheless I must admit I didn't sleep after realizing I'd been mistaken in who I'd been with the most. Maybe I'll sleep better tonight if I think about something else. I wonder if counting sheep really works...?

And here's a question--what should I name those last two rows on my abacus?

This internal conversation also had me asking if I had what it takes to maintain a normal relationship. After all, my parents have been together for over 50 years, my brother's marriage has passed the 25 year mark (I think they're in year 27) but my marriage lasted less than 4 years and only two dating relationships have made it out to the 4 year mark. Not so good, huh?

And since Renée, things have been very short term: Chris was just part of May, plus June and July; Lee and I started seeing one another again last October and I've not seen her since June. This isn't a very good track record. Maybe I should just give this all up as something I'm just not good at. Now that I have a pretty television, do I really need women anyway? Damn. I'm probably not going to get to sleep tonight either with all these questions running through my head.


kenju said…
You know, Dave, you might want to ask those women to what they attribute the shortness of relationships. It might help you to know what not to do next time - assuming you want a companion.
utenzi said…
Since all 3 mentioned have been known to read my blog in the past, they might well give me a piece of their mind, Judy. I'm just not sure I'm brave enough to read what they have to say.
SassyAssy said…
Interesting accounting system you got there. I frankly got confused over who won. Was that Chris with the frequency???

Have no advice for you however. My marriage barely eked out to the 10th year mark...two of those years being entirely apart and the remainder being miserable.

I say, sign up for the pleasure factor and to hell with a relationship. Maybe the one will lead to the other.
utenzi said…
Ha. If you knew Chris like I knew Chris, Sassy, you'd not be asking that question! Or maybe you would. In any case, the answer is no. You just can't pack as much sex into 10 weeks as you can in 4 years---though Chris seemed like she wanted to try during those first few weeks.
Kavali said…
Please don't give up yet! Cupid occasionally does a great job. Who knows -- the ideal woman might be just up the road....
utenzi said…
I dunno, Kavali. I admire your optimism but I seem to only get interested in women that are far away. I suspect I might have relationship issues. LOL Ya think?

Popular posts from this blog

ankles: the sequel

is my potato breathing?

Bread is Dangerous