KenyaOnAShoeString

We are often told not to put all our eggs in one basket. The saying is usually offered as financial wisdom — diversify your income, your investments, your risks. But somewhere along the way, we did the opposite with our emotional lives. We consolidated. We placed our need for connection, understanding, intimacy, companionship, and belonging into fewer and fewer baskets, until in many cases, there was only one left. The romantic partner. The spouse. Sometimes the nuclear family. And everything else became secondary, suspect, or threatening. This did not happen accidentally. It happened as life became more fragmented. As communities dissolved. As adulthood became increasingly solitary. In the absence of inherited social structures, romantic relationships were asked to carry what entire villages, extended families, and friendships once held together. One basket began to do the work of many. At first, this felt efficient. Romantic love promised intensity, exclusivity, and meaning....

We live in a world that prizes exclusivity — not just in material goods, but in matters of the heart. From romantic relationships to best friends, we’ve built emotional territories: this one is mine, that one is yours. But what if this idea is flawed? What if human beings are wired not for emotional possession, but for layered, plural, and dynamic connections? This article explores the tension between emotional connection and exclusivity — and questions whether our current cultural expectations align with how humans actually experience closeness. 1. The Roots of Emotional Exclusivity Many of us grow up learning that love, loyalty, and intimacy must be contained. We hear things like: “You can only have one best friend.” “If you love someone, you shouldn’t need anyone else.” “Emotional cheating is still cheating.” These statements reflect a belief that deep connection is a zero-sum game: that love given elsewhere is love taken away. But the heart doesn’t function like a bank account. Con...