Can I Have a Lustful Relationship with a Long-Term Partner?

Can I Have a Lustful Relationship with a Long-Term Partner

In your email, Why hot guys are like red meat — they’ll kill you in the long run, you’ve concluded that the problem is that we women have “been chasing “lust”, not life partners.”

Though I agree and understand with the logic you’re presenting in this article, I do have a serious objection and a question.

Why does it have to be a lustful relationship versus a long-term relationship?

Why one needs to negate another?

I do understand the principles you present and how it works, but my question is why I cannot have it all?

I want a lustful relationship with a long-term partner!

I don’t want to compromise with just lustful flings, nor do I want to settle down in a stable relationship to an unattractive man.

If there is no sexual passion and lust in the relationship, it negates the point of the two people being in a romantic relationship, then they are more like platonic life partners than lovers.

I believe that the universe has infinite possibilities, so why would you take the passion out of the equation of the relationship?

I would love to hear your opinion on this.

Greetings from Greece!


Thanks, Zetta. I’m glad you wrote this because it gives me an opportunity to respond to one of the most common criticisms I see of my work — the creation of a false dichotomy.

The definition of false dichotomy is: “a situation in which two alternative points of views are presented as the only options, whereas others are available.”

I have seen this presented to me every day, multiple times a day, for nearly 15 years.

I’ll say things like: “A man doesn’t have to make more money than you for you to be happy.”

The response: “Oh, so I’m just supposed to go out with some poor guy who is perpetually unemployed, smokes pot, plays video games and has no ambition whatsoever?”

Or: “Common interests aren’t as important as you think when choosing a spouse.”

I know it’s the internet, but holy shit, people.

The response: “Oh, so I’m just supposed to go out with some couch potato who doesn’t read newspapers, doesn’t like to go outside, and we should lead entirely separate lives?

I think it’s pretty obvious that my short, obvious, declarative statements are only stating what’s in the ten or so words in each sentence, and yet somehow, magically, my words get twisted right in front of me to become something nefarious. I am then forced to defend something I haven’t said.

Perfect example: “Sleeping with a stranger on a first date without commitment is a pretty good way to get your heart broken. It may be wiser to wait until he’s proven himself as boyfriend material to have sex.”

The response: “Oh, so you’re trying to slut-shame women and deny them the same pleasures that men have? What is this, the 1950’s?”

I know it’s the internet, but holy shit, people. Why do we have to engage in extreme thinking when all the words I actually type are quite moderate. What do I mean by moderate? Well…

  • There are millionaires. There are slackers. If you’re a woman with money, you can marry a man who makes between 50K-150K and you’ll be just fine, just like men are.
  • There are couples who are joined at the hip. There are couples who lead separate lives. You can train for your marathon while he plays golf. Your relationship will survive.
  • There are people who have sex on Date 1. There are people who hold out for marriage. You can enjoy foreplay for a month before having intercourse with a man who calls you his girlfriend.

And so, Zetta, when you write this sentence: “If there is no sexual passion and lust in the relationship, it negates the point of the two people being in a romantic relationship, then they are more like platonic life partners than lovers,” you are asking me to defend something I have never, ever, ever, ever said, in 1200 blog posts over 10 years.

Many people mistake chemistry for a good relationship.

My opinion: you are engaging in a false dichotomy and misrepresenting my actual point of view.

My actual point of view is simple: Chemistry is necessary for a relationship. Many people mistake chemistry for a good relationship. In fact, chemistry often masks bad relationships and allows people to stay in them for too long. When you dial down the chemistry slightly, you can often see your partner clearer and discover an incredible life partner. That includes great sex, even if you weren’t blessed with the most intense chemistry of all time.

I’m in a happy marriage and have great sex with my wife. Why you’d think I’d recommend anything to anyone else is beyond me.

Have you mistaken chemistry for compatibility? Have you struggled with the same question Zetta has? Click here to check out my free webinar on why chemistry (while necessary) is not the best predictor of your long-term future with a man.

Join our conversation (30 Comments).
Click Here To Leave Your Comment Below.


  1. 1

    Depends on the definition of ‘slightly’.   I think Zetta is talking about the passion of the first few months, which you say always fades over time.   And you say LTRs, or marriage at least, is mostly about the day-to-day stuff.

    So it depends on slightly. If Zetta wants to have sex with her long-term partner five days a week with the same passion they had in months 1-3 or with intense level 10 chemistry daily, I think you’d say that’s unrealistic.   Some people want that, though.   So they feel they have to choose.

    If I’ve misinterpreted your opinion, let me know.   I’m open to learning more.   And Zetta, if you’re out there, please chime in as well.

  2. 2

    Lustful relationship with a long term partner? I think it’s as rare as being struck by lightning (especially after college).

    It is rare to that a man is hot without him having major issues (yes, I think it’s a true generalization).   As Chris Rock said, ‘A man is only as faithful as his options’. And while I don’t believe that in its entirety, I do believe it is almost inhumanly difficult for a man who is very good looking (the ones we tend to have scorching chemistry for) to also be gainfully employed, not be a cheater, not have a bunch of kids running around somewhere, and/or not be married – oh and who is also geographically desirable.   So many times (especially from mid thirties and up), it is best to at least compromise on hotness or the very sexually appealing ones.

    That is why women, imo, have to learn to appreciate the men who are a little more umm…facially challenged. But the trick is, he has to be attractive enough where you want to sleep with him…so, while you dont get thet hot rip your clothes off chemistry, you trade for a more calmer and logical sex life  based mostly on personality. I also think that women tend to do better when the man feels higher chemistry for her than the other way around.


    1. 2.1

      This honestly makes no sense to me because the men I have known who were the biggest players and got the most action were all of them, without exception, very very average looking. I’m talking moles on the face, chubby, balding, not that tall etc etc and so forth. All the markers that so many men here claim make it impossible for a man to find a woman. So saying hot men will cheat because they have more options  therefore women should  find an average guy instead I think is leading women down a worrisome path where they ignore behaviour and actions and instead focus on the superficial. Each man (and woman) is unique, an individual. Instead of assuming all hot men are going to cheat and all average men are going to be faithful, assess each as you get to know them. Watch for red flags, and don’t be blinded either by outwards beauty, or believing you are safe because the person you are with isn’t super hot.

      1. 2.1.1


        I now feel Evan’s frustration when people twist his words. I never said ALL hot men are going to cheat and that ALL average men will be faithful. In fact, I would venture to say that this would be a ludicrous assessment. What I am saying is that many HOT men, or the ones that MOST women generally feel very high chemistry for (chemistry is usually related to physical attraction and sexual allure) are MORE OFTEN (not always but a much higher probability) not a good bet long term.   The George Clooneys of the world who have 20 times the dating success of the average man and who can damn near get any woman he wants tend to either NOT settle down until much later on or they are often players.   Callie, stop acting like you don’t know that men who attract a LOT of women tend to have higher instances of sleeping with a LOT of women. And most men who are really good looking tend to not be as easily available for a relationship as opposed to a man who has to earn it. When things come too easy, it’s taken for granted.

        And of course no one is saying that looks are the ONLY factor. However, Evan’s article called, ‘ Why hot guys are like red meat — they’ll kill you in the long run,’ is relevant to this forum so I focused on the looks factor. I did not think I had to spell out that I think each man is unique and you have to look at character. However, it is naïve to think that a man who has loads of options is ON AVERAGE a better bet than a man who has much less options.

        As a woman, and even at 39, I have a lot of options because of how I look. And as faithful minded as I am (I will never cheat on my boyfriend), I must admit that I have to sometimes purposely remind myself of the values of my boyfriend to turn down some men that approach.   And, I am not even motivated by sex. Men (more often than not because I don’t want you coming back telling me that not all men think this way – of course not, but most do) tend to be way more motivated by sex than women. So temptation to remain faithful is naturally harder for men.

        1. Callie

          Okay . . . I’m really sorry, I didn’t mean to make you angry, I was disagreeing with your premise and even after your clarification still do. That being said, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with two people disagreeing and I’m sorry if you thought my post came with judgement. It didn’t. Truly.

          To clarify my point in case it helps at all: I actually do agree that men with more opportunities to attract women do often take advantage of those opportunities (not all the time, but some do, absolutely). Where you and I part ways on this theory is that it’s hot men who have all these opportunities over the average looking guy, hence your suggestion that women should seek out the latter. My point was simply that it seems to me average looking guys especially ones with great gregarious personalities manage to cheat on their partners all the time as well. And that the biggest players in my social circle always tended towards the more average looking. I have some theories about that, I think some average looking guys take advantage of their averageness, in that they play on the idea that average is safer and so women tend to choose them for just that reason and they end up playing fast and loose with such women.

          So yeah. While I agree a man with many options is a risk in a relationship, I don’t necessarily agree with what gives a man many options. And I don’t agree that going for a plain man makes a woman any safer. I think going for a man who exhibits traits of decency, fidelity, loyalty etc, is the best course of action. Telling women that they should learn to appreciate men more facially challenged as a means of avoiding being hurt in that way, to me, is not the best piece of advice. But maybe I’m also just a little personally invested, I have not been cheated on (yet, fingers crossed it never happens), but my friends who’s male partners have cheated on them were almost universally more  attractive than these  partners, and these men were not what anyone would consider hot or George Clooney like in the least. So I do have some resentment towards those “average” guys. So yeah. I can admit a slight bias against the notion that the average man is more prone to fidelity based on personal experience. I have no doubt about the existence of the hot player, I mean that’s a stereotype for a reason. I just don’t think the average dude is any less prone really.

        2. Yet Another Guy


          Callie is correct in her assertion that guys who are 5s, 6s, and 7s tend to get around more than guys who are 8s, 9s, and 10s.   That reality is especially true as men age.   The problem with being a really good looking man is that it stunts the development of game.   A guy who is very attractive when he is younger never really learns how to approach and game women.   He can rely on his looks alone to drawn women to him.

          People who are really good looking when they are younger tend to pay a heavy toll when they get older.   Looks fade over time for 90% of highly attractive people.   Let’s use Mickey Rorke as an example.   Rorke was a sex symbol after 9 1/2 weeks was released.   Have you seen him lately?   He has not aged well.

          George Clooney has nothing to fear from me when it comes to attractiveness.   However, I got around enough when I was younger that I almost missed my window of opportunity to be a father without being an extreme outlier (I did not marry until age 37).   I still do not have a problem obtaining dates at age 56.   I never had the luxury of relying on my looks alone. I had no choice, but to develop game.     I was probably an 8 at my peak, and it took a lot of work and attention to detail to reach that level.   I had to reach near perfection in the areas over which I had control in order to make up for the areas in which I was not genetically gifted (my strength has always been that I have a masculine appearance that appeals to a woman’s need to feel safe when I work at it).

          I know that you are one of the genetically gifted people, but do you know what the number one attribute a man can possess when he is attempting to pick up women is?   It is not looks.   It is a sense of humor.   A man who can keep a woman laughing never has a problem scoring.   Humor is one of the most powerful psychological tools that a player as at his disposal because it causes a woman to let down her guard.

  3. 3

    There needs to be some level of attraction from the get-go, not attraction that is forced. A good many of us women cannot respond sexually to men whom we do feel are, as Stacy says, facially or otherwise challenged. Can’t fake something that’s not there and it’s not fair to either party. Imagine being the person on the receiving end of this.   Lust will diminish somewhat over time which, hopefully gives one the ability to see the person in a more realistic light.

    1. 3.1
      Emily, the original


      Can’t fake something that’s not there and it’s not fair to either party.

      I have a friend who recently went with a guy on their third date. She said he’d be fine if she could teach him how to kiss. She intends to go out with him again. I’d have a hard time dating someone I didn’t like to kiss, but I wondering how other people feel about it? Is she implying there isn’t enough attraction?


      1. 3.1.1



        Some people are bad kissers. My last boyfriend was. Some men can be taught – he could not. Some men also do not take care of their bodies. They allow themselves to get a tummy, stop working out etc. Obviously this applies to both sexes, but I’m talking about men here because, well, I date men not women.


        The sad thing is that these two things – being a good kisser and taking care of one’s physique – are for the most part very much under a man’s control and impact hugely on a woman’s desire for him. I have witnessed my own lust for my partner dwindle dramatically over time because of only these two things, and despite my support and gentle conversations about it, they did not change. The result for a man, when his woman stops desiring him, is huge hurt and a massive blow to his sense of masculinity, but in some ways they are their own worst enemy.


        I agree that it is probably unrealistic to expect your level of sexual chemistry to remain at the same level throughout your relationship as it was in the beginning. However, if you continue to try to be as attractive to your partner as you were in the beginning and try to please them, this will certainly go a long way towards keeping the spark alive. It’s no good getting complacent once you’re in a relationship, letting friendships, hobbies and physical activity lapse, sitting on the couch ordering take out every night and looking to your partner for all your validation, and then moaning that they’re not sexually attracted to you any more.


        Yes I’m having a rant, but my point is this – I’ve been in long term relationships (years) where the sexual chemistry has not dwindled. And that was because my partner didn’t change from when we first started dating – he ate the same, worked out the same and still had his masculine independence. You also have to put in a certain effort to keep the spark alive – spend time apart sometimes. Even go away for a weekend without each other once in a while. Flirt with each other. Have friends (even ones of the opposite sex) and other interests, dress properly and look after your appearance, and chances are your partner will continue to desire you.

        1. Emily, the original


          Some people are bad kissers. My last boyfriend was. Some men can be taught — he could not.

          Everything is personal preference, of course, but if I don’t like the kissing I have trouble getting in to the rest of it.

        2. Noquay

          Clare and Emily

          If she’s going out with him again, it can’t be a total turnoff. I’ve done without kissing because the man didn’t know how yet he had enough else going for him that he was well worth being in a rship with. Usually if I’m turned off there’s multiple things that don’t work such as his build, diet, lifestyle, mannerisms, habits, goals or lack thereof. It really is about being the best YOU that you can be and yep, that includes good grooming, social skills, hygiene, and   keeping oneself as healthy as possible. My ex husband had surgery that killed his ability to “perform”; yet the chemistry never died, we still loved one another, and he still stayed in shape, ate healthy, and was the best HIM he could be.

        3. sandra

          I think being a bad kisser is a worse fate than a few extra pounds.

        4. Emily, the original


          If she’s going out with him again, it can’t be a total turnoff.

          Well, actually, if you heard the rest of the conversation … it was like she was trying to talk herself into it. He’s very into her and keeps showing up, but I’m not sure how strong her feelings are. And on top of that, she didn’t like the way he kissed.

  4. 4

    @Claire, I agree with your comment.   But I wanted to offer a bit of insight into male psychology to help the women here understand why many men find your advice hard to follow.


    Women are raised to believe that their pathway to love, sex, and relationships is largely through their physical body.   So they know that the primary way they will attract a man is to make their body as attractive as possible.   But men are raised to believe that their pathway to love, sex and relationships is largely through their status.   “You want a wife?   Get a job.   The better the job, the better your options.”


    And the experience of many men, myself included, is that while women definitely do prioritize male appearance for short-term relationships, their primary criteria for selecting long-term husbands is heavily based on husband- and dad- potential…status, income, and other comfort traits.   And so while women hit the gym to maximize their sexual options, many men climb the corporate ladder to do so.


    There are 2 problems, though, with this male strategy.   The first is hedonic adaptation – a woman might be attracted to a man for his status, income, power, etc, but once they are married these things become a given and lose their attractive power.   The second is women’s dual pathway to attraction – through respect and through physical attraction.   Both must be present, because if a woman loses physical attraction to a man, she will subconsciously find ways to lose respect for him as well, to give herself a socially acceptable excuse to leave him.


    Men forget about this.   They (we) focus too much on income (what we believe will lead to respect, and hence attraction).   And by the time we perceive the need to focus on other things, it might be too late to regain attraction, or we may be bound by golden hand-cuffs and unable to find the time.

    1. 4.1


      *standing ovation*

    2. 4.2
      Yet Another Guy


      However, if a man maintains his physique while gaining status through advancement, there is a high probability that he will leave the woman with whom he shares his life for a younger hotter model.   I have seen it happen many times.

      1. 4.2.1

        Perhaps, YAG.   Though I’ve equally seen women leaving men who have gained status through advancement, as the women begin to prioritize other things (such as more romance, quality time, help around the house, etc).   It’s not about hypergamy, it’s about priorities dictating attraction, and priorities changing predictably.

        The challenge for women is to maintain connection to their husbands as the  qualities to which they are attracted change.   The challenge fore men is to maintain connection to their wives as their wives change while the  qualities men are attracted to don’t change.   Many people of both genders fail this challenge, largely because they place the onus on their partner rather than themselves.

    3. 4.3

      I find that when a man has a job and he feels good about who he is in the world and his purpose in it, that happiness and that contentment, that’s what’s attractive.   For me, that’s what shines through, that and how he treats me.

      I’ve worked on the latter, though.   I used to be attracted to men who never noticed me or invested in me at all (not with money but time or energy).   But no more.

      I also used to be attracted to men who didn’t have that stuff in place yet because hey, we were all younger then.   I actually could see the man past that.   But he couldn’t see the man past that.   So I’ve stopped trying to date those men.   It’s difficult because for some reason I have such empathy to them.   But I learned if he’s not right with himself, he’ll never be right with me.

      So for me, it’s not the money.   I’ve been single most of my life.   I can pay my own bills.   I don’t give a crap about status. Just, is he happy with who he is? And does he treat me well?   Those are what matter to me now.




    4. 4.4



      You’re right of course. How often do most of us get to witness the maxim that a man is what he does? And many seem to feel that the better they are at what they do, the better it makes them as men, and hence, the better it makes them to women.


      I agree with you about the hedonic adaptation bit – certainly a woman does value husband and dad type qualities very highly once in a relationship. A man who supports her and helps lighten her load becomes very desirable. There’s another aspect to it though that I was getting at in my post. A good part of someone being attractive is about them being balanced. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that most people find it attractive when a person leads a balanced life – they devote enough attention to all aspects of their life: job, family and relationships, friends, health, hobbies, physical activity – and don’t focus overly much on one at the expense of the others. A person who manages his life well is incredibly hot, because I think at the back of our minds, we realize that that person is going to be in the best position and the most self-sufficient in the long run.

      1. 4.4.1

        Hmmm.   You raise an interesting point, Clare, regarding the role of balance.   I’m going to throw out a statement here, based on my observations:   Balance is only important to people who already have what they want, more or less.


        An example from my own life, at the risk of TMI.   As I mentioned elsewhere, my wife recently suggested that I take more vacation time and exercise more.   She told me that I’d look hot with abs.   I have no doubt that she had the best of intentions with her statement – wishing the best for my well-being, telling me that she already found me attractive but that I could be even more so with some more exercise – balance, right?   The problem with this is the same problem with any logical model – it may not remain logical once factors outside the model are considered.   Is there time in the day to follow these suggestions – and if not, what must be sacrificed in order to fulfill them?


        As I mentioned on another thread, the irony was that after making these suggestions, she then reminded me that the bill for the kids’ camp was due.   When I saw that she did not see the irony, I commented that if I spent less time working and more time vacationing and exercising, that bill would remain unpaid.   I told her that I appreciated her suggestions and have thought them through, but that I could not follow them without a significant change in our lifestyle – so which would she prefer, a smaller house or taking the kids out of private school?   I would love to follow her suggestions – they would make me healthier and more attractive – but I am bound by the golden handcuffs of the life we have chosen…


        Years ago, when we were a family of 6 living in a small house, there was no talk of balance.   There was talk of moving to a larger house, and how we could get that to happen.   At that time, had I refused to consider the expense of a larger house because of prioritizing balance, rest assured I would not have appeared more attractive.


        This is the notion of hedonic adaptation that I mentioned above.   Desiring a man because of his comfort qualities, then losing perspective once those comfort qualities have been appropriated, and seeking new qualities to find attractive.   Balance is only attractive once one has what one wants.   Were this not true, women would not seek out men based on income, education and height, but rather on well-roundedness – and all corporate lawyers and accountants and most doctors would be single 🙂

        1. Clare



          I take your point completely. And it’s a very well-considered one. I think many of the most balanced people I know are either single or extremely selective about a partner. Relationships, especially serious, committed ones, do tend to require a lot, which makes it difficult to maintain a balance in other parts of one’s life. It’s absolutely an important and easily validated point.


          I stand by what I said elsewhere though, and that is that one should still strive for greater balance within a relationship if one wishes to remain attractive to one’s partner. You shared the story of your well-meaning wife commenting that you’d look great with a nice set of abs. Your point about working less was absolutely fair enough, and I’m sure you’re not massively overweight and for all I know, maybe you do exercise regularly. Perhaps in your life the balance is good enough.


          But I’m talking about the person who has let certain aspects of their life slide completely without a valid excuse. Like the guy who  never  works out and hence gains a huge amount of weight. Or the woman who lets all of her friendships lapse and then relies on her partner for all her emotional support. There’s no good reason I can think of for letting these things lapse completely (work included) and becoming totally unbalanced. Especially when making  some kind of an effort to become more balanced will make you more attractive to your partner.


          We’ve all got good excuses why we don’t do more of this or that, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make more of an effort to improve. Like I said, I’m not talking about people who already have a good enough balance in their lives – I’m talking about people who have let certain things lapse completely and then wonder why they are no longer sexually desirable to their partners.

        2. Jeremy

          Clare, you wrote, one should still strive for greater balance within a relationship if one wishes to remain attractive to one’s partner.”   I agree.   And your point about extremes is well-taken.


          Still, though, it is interesting to consider who is the judge of whether any of us has “enough good balance in our lives.”   Obviously, when it comes to attraction, the judge is our partner rather than ourselves.   My point is for all the partners out there to consider, prior to making judgments about balance, whether they are perhaps too hedonically adapted, and are failing to consider the costs of their suggestions and how happy they would be if their suggestions were actually taken.   And to consider whether their desires today are actually different from their desires yesterday, or whether they have simply stopped considering yesterday’s desires because they already got them.   Sounds obvious, but it is not.

  5. 5

    Hmmmmm. I know many guys who get more booty than a toilet seat. Some are “cute” and some are decidedly average in looks. Some make well over 6 figures and some make $10 bucks an hour. All are over 35-mostly 40s.

    If a guy has a moderate amount of game, he won’t lack for female attention. I’m not saying all of these women are his dream woman, but it’s fair to say more women are seeking relationships versus casual than men.

    As for this talk of this scorching chemistry, I’ve never experienced it. But it does sound fun:-)

    1. 5.1
      Emily, the original


      If a guy has a moderate amount of game, he won’t lack for female attention.


    2. 5.2



      “If a guy has a moderate amount of game, he won’t lack for female attention. I’m not saying all of these women are his dream woman, but it’s fair to say more women are seeking relationships versus casual than men.”


      The first sentence may be true, but I very much dispute the second. At least, it may be true in  your  experience and in the US, but I certainly haven’t found it be true here, where I live. Again, this could just be different people’s experience. But I have made this point before – where I live, none of my female friends, even the ones who are not very physically attractive, have trouble finding a steady, commitment-oriented boyfriend. As for myself, I’ve been on Tinder since my last relationship broke up (just recently off it because I’m going overseas soon). I’ve had several guys complain to me about having naked pictures sent to them by girls, or girls who just wanted to hook up; a number of them specifically say they don’t want to just hook up in their profile. This is to say nothing of the guys I’ve dated (more than a few) – wonderful, sweet, genuinely relationship and marriage oriented guys who just want to find a nice girl whom they can treat like a queen and whom I’ve had to gently break things off with because I’m not looking to settle down at quite this point.


      My experiences have really challenged my previous prejudice and this commonly held notion that guys just want to sleep around and don’t want to commit. I’ve met many who would probably propose within a year if I stuck around. I now think that there are just as many men who want to get married as there are women who do. In fact, one such man whom I recently went on a few dates with made the surprising comment that men get many more advantages out of being married than women do, so it’s up to men to try and lighten the load for women and make their lives easier. This was a guy who, after we slept together, became even more adoring afterwards. T, you might find this hard to believe, but every word is the God’s honest truth. Of course, it might just be the calibre of guys we have here and the way they are raised.

  6. 6


    Thabks your thoughts. I always forget on the site that you need to be very very specific with what you say because it is frequently misinterpreted.   This is why I usually just read and don’t post 🙂

    I’m still going to stand by the fact that just because a male gets attention from women, then he   she’s his dream woman. Men, just like women, have things that they are looking for in a partner.   That would be a ridiculous notion to believe that just because a man gets attention from a woman that he wants to settle down with her and vice versa.   I’m not sure how old you are   and most of my friends are male. They are extremely successful, very gregarious, funny, and do not lack for attention from the females. I suppose some would say they are a desirable lot.   However, they frequently turn women down and many women believe   (wrongly I might add),   that men will have sex at any opportunity. Nope. I know lots of men who turn down wonen and do so frequently.    I believe most guys out there are good guys. However, they may not all make good partners. And all women may not be a good partner for all available men in her pool. It’s all about fit, right?

    I’ve never online dated so I cannot speak knowledgeably about that topic.   My guy friends do not utilize online dating but my female friends usually do.   So I can only go by what they tell me. However, I do believe that most men and women want a relationship.    Absolutely! And I don’t disagree that most men would like to get married or have a partner.   Perhaps it’s time of life but *most*    of the divorced men I know would settle for a committed relationship or companionship   versus marriage.      The vast   majority of the women I know still want to be married.    This is only from my experience and I am just sharing because I feel kind of chatty today 🙂


    1. 6.1



      I agree with you 100%!


      Especially about this bit: “I believe most guys out there are good guys. However, they may not all make good partners. And all women may not be a good partner for all available men in her pool. It’s all about fit, right?”


      I would say all but one or two guys that I’ve dated have been * good * guys, but I’d not go back to a single one of them because of “fit.” I would venture to say that 90% of the reasons why relationships, of any kind, don’t work out comes down to fit – people who want different things.


      And I SO agree with you about not all men wanting sex whenever and with whomever it is offered to them – I’ve had so many conversations with guys who are repulsed by that notion and who have turned sex down on more than one occasion. It really made me think that relationship-oriented guys and relationship-oriented girls have more in common than we realize.

  7. 7


    Gosh, I did not realize I came off angry to you. My apologies…I was not angry in my post and certainly did not mean to come off that way. I read your response and appreciate your commentary to me.

  8. 8



    100% agreement. I mean fit in terms of wanting the same things (marriage, no marriage, kids, no kids, etc), not liking sangria, playing the ukulele, etc.   I think it’s all pretty simple. You have to date people with same life goals as you and of course mutual feelings.

    I did have relationships end because of “fit.”   I dated someone for 6 years during college and post because we   both wanted marriage but he did not want that with me.   That was a fit issue for him   and all is well as we are still good friends. He has a lovely family:-)

    May be simple   but I see lots of people try to skip part 1 (mutual goals) and hope that falls into place or that someone “comes around.”   Nope.

    And I think a long term lustful relationship would continually evolve and not lustful all of the time. The writer might be looking for something that is fluid.

    Evan has a tough job here and I love reading this blog. 🙂

  9. 9
    Sum Guy

    In my view as long as you have connection the chemistry doesn’t fade it just gets better.

    When all you really have is chemistry and low connection, then the chemistry fades…

    that being said, yes you can connect to a hot guy….also being hot is often just being in shape and people in connected relationships can help motivate each other to get in better shape = steamier sex.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *