What romantic tension, social movements, and global politics all get wrong about connection
Why do so many relationships—personal, political, or professional—fall apart despite good intentions?
At first glance, it seems simple: two people with different needs and perspectives try to work things out. One leans masculine, the other feminine—each bringing their own biases, histories, and desires. But they often struggle to truly understand each other. Conflict brews. Compromise feels like defeat. Eventually, the connection frays.
We see this everywhere—from marriages to international diplomacy. And yet, there’s something missing in how we usually talk about relationships. We often focus on the opposing sides, but overlook the thing in between—the space they both inhabit.
This post explores that missing element: the third force in every relationship. For fun, let’s call it Bob. Bob is the relationship itself—not him or her, not you or me—but the us. And when Bob dies, so does the connection.
Let’s dig into what that means—and why Bob matters more than ever in today’s polarized world.
The Dialectic of Sex (and Everything Else)
In a traditional relationship, you often have one person expressing more masculine-coded interests, biases, and tastes. Their counterpart tends to express the feminine-coded equivalents. This basic binary—male and female, giver and receiver, logic and emotion—has shaped human experience for millennia.
The problem? These differences are hard to reconcile. The other person can feel foreign, even irrational. Misunderstandings pile up. Motivations clash. And without a shared framework, the space between them becomes a battleground.
This tension—this push and pull—is what philosophers and sociologists describe as the dialectic: two opposing forces locked in a dynamic of conflict and synthesis. It’s an idea as old as Hegel and as politically charged as Marx. And in our modern discourse, it shows up in everything from gender debates to global movements.
Feminism. Black Lives Matter. Indigenous reconciliation. These are all important, valid causes—but often framed through the same dialectic lens: us vs. them. Power vs. oppression. Identity vs. assimilation.
But here’s the catch: while the dialectic can explain tension, it doesn’t explain connection. That’s where Bob comes in.
Meet Bob: The Relationship Itself
In the early days of a relationship—the so-called honeymoon phase—both people feed Bob. They invest time, compromise willingly, communicate thoughtfully, and make decisions with “us” in mind. It’s easy, even intoxicating, thanks to chemistry and optimism.
But that’s just the beginning. Over time, Bob needs more than just pheromones and date nights. He needs intentional maintenance. When both people consciously shift focus from themselves to the shared space between them, Bob grows stronger. That shared identity—the overlap between “me” and “you”—is what keeps the relationship from flying apart under pressure.
But Bob is high maintenance. His needs change. If one person stops showing up for him—puts their individual wants above the relationship—he starts to weaken. At first, it’s subtle. Then it gets painful. Resentment grows. Eventually, one person might carry the relationship alone while the other checks out. That can work—for a while. But it’s not sustainable. Bob gets neglected, then withers, then dies.
When Bob dies, all that’s left is politics. You and your partner become two camps negotiating turf. No connection. Just coexistence, or worse—conflict.
From Couples to Countries
Now let’s zoom out.
Think about how countries interact. Or political parties. Or cultural groups.
Each has its own identity, interests, and priorities. Often, they struggle to understand each other. The narrative becomes: they’re taking from us, they don’t get us, they’re trying to change who we are. Sound familiar?
It’s the same dynamic—just scaled up.
Institutions like the United Nations or the World Health Organization exist to serve as Bob on the global stage. They’re imperfect, sure. But the intent is to create shared frameworks where different entities can meet, communicate, and compromise. When those institutions are neglected—or used only when convenient—the relationship between nations breaks down. It becomes pure power play. No connection. Just competition.
Without Bob, even the most peaceful-looking coexistence is just cold war.
So… What Do We Do?
Relationships—whether romantic or political—aren’t just made up of individuals. They’re made of the space between individuals. That space needs nurturing, attention, and intention. It can’t run on autopilot. It can’t survive on good vibes alone. And it sure as hell can’t be one-sided.
Bob needs both of you. And when Bob is healthy, so are you.
This isn’t about erasing difference or pretending conflict doesn’t exist. It’s about choosing to build something in the middle. Something shared. Something worth staying for.
If You Remember Nothing Else:
Relationships fail not because people are too different—but because they forget to feed the thing that connects them.
So maybe it’s time to stop seeing each other as rivals in a dialectic and start seeing the relationship as its own living thing.
Because if you want to go far together—you’ve got to take care of Bob.
Have you fed your Bob today?
Be First to Comment