Lately in the extravaganza known as my life there have passed a few individuals who have run up on the short end of the stick in their relationships. Sure there are always countless people who seem to run into issues when it comes to the opposite sex but lately I have been bombarded by a few hand full of fellow friends faulty fancied infatuations. Yes I make no mistake about the relationship in calling it an infatuation, but still an infatuation can be a very real, productive, and healthy thing to be involved with if both parties are included equally. You see every relationship, infatuation or otherwise, is simply an easy fractional statistical analysis away from determining the end result of the relationship. I hear hopeless romantics screaming like naysayers against the fact that any and every relationship can be reduced down to a fractional analysis to determine the end result but let me explain before you get bent out shape. Before we get into any really difficult equation(s) let me first debunk a few common notions that must remain and be seen unequivocally the way I set them straight. These variables can not and will not change, ever.

The first of these barbarous notions is that one person can effectively complete equivalent required responsibilities as efficiently as two people. Barring the fact you have entered into a relationship with a completely inept individual two people can spread the work load between the two and more efficiently complete all tasks and responsibilities. For those who are mathematical in their ways lets analyze this with a trusted formula W(work) = F(force) * D(distance) / T(time). Now some of you may geeks might be thinking I have never seen this formula, email me and I'll give you the derivative break down of how physics works as for the rest of us, lets take a few examples of this to prove it. Jane has a yard to mow so the distance will remain constant for all variable equations and seeing as how it is a constant constraint can be eliminated from this example equation. To mow her yard takes the force of her exerting leverage behind her push mower to cover the entire yard and takes approximately and hour to complete. Billy has the same scenario with the same mower and same sized yard and it takes him an hour to complete the yard mowing duties. Knowing that Jane gave Billy the eye last week and they moved in together this week we can assume that the mowing of the one common yard will not take an hour to mow because now there are two individuals mowing versus the one. So after Billy moved in with Jane they started doing all the household chores this way, effectively each persons true work load would decrease in some manner because now instead of one person doing all the chores the two share the chores between them. Now instead of taking an hour to mow, the entire yard is cut in thirty minutes, the dishes are done in 5 instead of 10, the house is swept in 10 instead of 20, and so on an so forth. Now instead of having chores 5 out of 7 nights they have cut chore days down to 2.5 out of 7 nights which leaves more play time. Fractionally speaking they went from a 5/7 or 71% work load to a 2.5/7 or a 35% work load. Now granted this is with an equally shared work load and doesn't take into consideration that perhaps one of the two might do more around the house than the other. Despite the fact they survived just fine without the other for so long and the knowledge that they could in fact be single again if they wanted or circumstances lead to the demise of their relationship, should this in fact happen it would take them them an increased 2.5 days of work load or an additional 35% to complete the same work the team completed in record astonishing time. Assuming they shared the household chores equally amongst themselves then all of this remains true. Granted there are certain items that might stay stagnant in work load percent or in some cases increase in time consumption due to the fact there is not a shared medium, such as laundry. This, my fellow men, is a large contributing factor as to why women are so amazed when men do laundry. Mainly because this is one of the tasked items that only increases as the family increases and for some reason most women pick up these duties. (As a side note the majority of women pick up these duties because they are picky about how laundry is done. Being a man with fitted clothes I know how to wash and what not to dry but even in my world it doesn't make sense why the white bra can be dried but the pink one can not.) So as Billy and Jane go about their business and doing the chores until we slap some realism into this equation. Billy takes over the mowing duties because he doesn't feel like Jane, being the petite smoking hottie that she is, should be out there mowing the grass. So Jane allocates her 30 minutes of yard mowing to something else most likely picking up around the house which was one of Billy's chores but since he mows all the grass for her, she picks up his half of the house. Now generally speaking in a healthy relationship all responsibilities are split 50/50, however, when it really comes down to it generally the man is bringing home more bacon at night and therefore he feels he can allow himself to slip a little on the household side of things regardless of whether this is fair or not is not to question in this writing it is simply stating a fact. With this in mind, and the fact that most men tend to be a little less tidy than most women, Jane's house work load now is increased by two variables she didn't figure into the equation. So I'll leave you with this first notion debunked but just remember that this work load fraction will come into play later.

The second of these notions is that a person can complete you. This silly idea has always been foreign to me. At what point did you become a fractional version of yourself? Are you less than one person? Did you have a leg amputated? Then yes you are less than one of yourself, however, barring any major surgeries there is no way that you can be equal to any less than 1 of yourself. You are whole in and of yourself without anyone else but I do think I know what you are trying to say. What you are trying to say is that a certain someone may not meet their potential all of the time or may not bring as much to the table as another person. For example: If we take 3 random males (James, John, Jeremy) that one woman, Jenny, is dating but has not yet stamped out the 'one' for her she may start to calculate total net worth of these men derived by assets minus liabilities to help her choose between the three. James scores exquisitely high on the activeness asset but his finances are a heavy liability where on the other hand John scores medium in the asset of being attractive and finances are a heavy asset as well however his liability is his inconsistency, demeanor, and attitude. Finally our friend Jeremy has the asset of being the sweetest man alive, has the asset of being medium attractiveness, and a fair asset in finances however has the liability of being a 'friend' for many years to Jenny. So Jenny calculates dependent on her past experiences weighing on these three lads and for some reason Jeremy, because he is a friend and has always been there for her, comes out to a total net worth of 65% compatibility. John's liability of inconsistency and attitude land him at 75% and James, as we all know because he looks good and Jenny is shallow, scores an 80%. Now this does not mean that giving James an 80% means he is only 80% of a man, because surely he is a whole unit of himself and 100% male but rather her analysis of his compatibility to her required needs. So Jenny and James get together and Jenny finds out James has more liabilities than she had anticipated because as we found in our last calculations in regards to work somehow James is lazy. This is probably the reason he finds himself with the heavy liability of finances as well but now Jenny realizes she is forced to consume a large portion of his work load around the house and suddenly other men's net worth are being calculated.

So on to our final calculation. This calculation I don't believe will be in any math book but should make relative sense. Say we take our first calculations on who is, or who is not, doing the work and we set it next to in a multiplication fashion that second calculation which is compatibility and we set all of that over or to be divided by Stress multiplied by time for a solution of one of two answers, Pass or Fail. Now obviously all solutions can and will change on a regular, daily, hourly basis. However, for the most part the more compatible you are by the more work you place into your relationship all divided by a low amount of stressing times equates to a higher possibility that you and your significant other will have a greater likelihood of passing the test of time. There is only one catch to this entire mathematical equation, you only posses the ability to change your half. You have no control over the other half of the equation which would be your partners side to calculate, maintain, adjust, and analyze for corrective actions when and if necessary. Then again maybe they will ultimately calculate that you were not worth the time any longer even though your half of the equation had a solution was coming out just fine for you. This my friends is life. Sometimes certain things simply fail because the other side of the equation doesn't add up to passing.

Take it easy,

Derrick Lee Myers