. . . that person relegates themselves to maybe one available weekend a month (that he is not with the family) and 3 or 4 nights per month, depending on what city he is in . . .
I find it interesting that you look at that kind of schedule as something to which one would be
relegated, a word which generally has a negative connotation, since it means to consign or dismiss someone to an "inferior" rank or position, or even to banish them in some cases. It seems like you view that kind of scheduling as something that would prevent a relationship from becoming "serious" or deep and meaningful, like it really couldn't develop into deeper feelings, etc., on that kind of timetable, or like anyone who would accept that isn't going to invest much into it.
It's odd to me, because I look at what you wrote and thought, "Hmm, 3 or 4 nights/month averages out to seeing someone nearly every week - cool!" That is something I wouldn't consider to be infrequent at all. And to have the added bonus of spending a whole weekend a month without any pressure to befriend my metamour and do things with any kids he has, well Ooh-la-la! For me, it would be a rather perfect arrangement in my opinion - and I know I would even want a break from that kind of frequency every now and then. I would need time for my other relationships as well, of course, in addition to my job, hobbies, friendships, and so on.
Does it mean that those kind of parameters would keep the relationship at only a casual level? No, not at all! If I was seeing someone and that was how often we could see each other, well of course I could love him - well and deeply - and be passionate about the man and our relationship. I certainly could invest my heart, see us developing intimacy (emotionally, physically, intellectually) together, and view the relationship as something quite meaningful. We would use the time spent together as well as we could, so as not to waste it. People have loving, committed LDRs with much less time together than that!
Obviously, once a new person joins the family, we'd all spend time one on one (or maybe it would be only my girlfriend or only his, I dunno). But neither he nor I have capacity to have the full on kind of relationship we like with partners who don't interact.
This I am not following - are you saying that someone he would be involved with, even at the 3-4 times + 1 weekend per month example you gave, would be considered as having "joined" your family? Or they have to work their way up to that? Or is this person joining your family (theoretically) a completely different person from the one with the aforementioned weekly schedule?
Balancing 100+ hour work weeks, travel, family, future family, and two separate relationships (by which I mean two different lives with two different families) is just too much for me to handle. If he could do so, great, but he says it sounds too tedious for him at the moment.
To me, it's strange to think of it that way. I don't see having two relationships as balancing two different lives and two different families. If a lover of mine was married and with all the responsibilities you mentioned, his time with me would just be like any amount of time he would spend with a friend. Just come over, hangout, go to dinner, do fun things, have deep philosophical discussions, fuck each other's brains out, whatever. I am childfree, live alone,and have no desire to cohabit with anyone ever again - so there wouldn't be a need to become a part of my family or create a whole new life for himself to be with me.
