A lot, right? Yes, we love a lot of people, and we are united by affection with a lot of people, it's clear. The number of people we can love is not unlimited, it's also true, because love questions, and the bond is long ago, but, well, that love is a feeling that can be extended to many people, is a fact that is well demonstrated by the experience and the experiences of all of us.

In any case, most people will think that the question was about romantic love. Understood thus, some could exclude from the previous statement that “type” of love, because they consider that the sphere of the couple should be left out of this range of love. But you will, of course, be without nuances that you maintain the assertion as such. Because, as the writer Gabo rightly put it, you think the heart has more rooms than a brothel, or you're just as honest or brave as to confess it.

However, more than in the answers, I would like to put the emphasis in the unidirectional sense that we adopt to this question, which is by the way the artist Aran Santamaría has named for his new exhibition. Why the love of the couple is always the first that reminds us when listening to the word heart. Or why we have it so internalized, that couples are the most important people who can live our hearts. Because knowing that the heart is a metaphor for supreme love, because only that is what it means that that link between the two becomes so weird.

And it's not a typicity. It shows us the hierarchy of affections and that sexualized love is the one that always occupies the highest position in this hierarchy, with all the implications that this entails. In the acts of distribution and reception of love always come the other possible forms that the loser affection can adopt, mainly among friends, but also among the members of the community, for example, or, of course, with ourselves. In the belief that they do not have sufficient value, all those relationships that would also need in the center of our affective life are undervalued, so we usually only offer them the fragility of our time, attention and care.

The hope of all our well-being is established in the couple, and it is understandable, in this sense, that they reach that paradise of romantic love is the main utopia of many people, that it is none other than the objective of every aspiration and expectation, that we leave in the hands of those romantic relationships and represent all the responsibilities of our well-being: that they feel special, that problems are solved and that they get bored, that they are safe, that they are not safe!

Despite the fact that we have been sworn in by happiness, and because we have all too often been given frustration, disappointment and a sense of fraud, it is what those lucky enough to have come to paradise will find, because no one can successfully perform a size function.

To see the trap of the myth of romantic love, before we try to change our ways of relating to our affective partners, we should see and denounce the centrality of the couple in our affective lives. By breaking down the hierarchy of affection, we can weave horizontal affective networks with the death of our great love. If we want to be sentimental dissidents, let's start loving and caring well for all of our people. That's where the affection revolution begins.