Another possible way to consider it, is more "organically," if you will.

That is, the point of having a mate and living together, is just exactly that. Not to do more, or to think badly of oneself for not doing "couples activities."

Just to be a companion to each other through very normal existence, can be a "thing to do," in and of itself.

Are you talking about what you are OFFERING, or what you are willing to pay, or what you want to see on TV, or what?

What to base a relationship on? Neither.

No sex? Sounds a bit weird. Maybe you meant sex wasn't the primary emphasis you wanted to talk about.

As for what I would want in a mate, it's for them to be a basic mate. Think old fashioned cave man level stuff. Not hunter-gatherer exactly, just that we do stuff together that needs doing, and when we have time that nothing needs doing, we do stuff for fun.

Some of what I enjoy is one-person stuff, so that wouldn't be what you want.

One thing I think I might understand that you found boring, is that "off time" isn't any fun, if there are pressures to perform somehow. I know lots of people who choose not to have a mate at all, because they don't want the non-stop sense of obligation to entertain that goes along with it for some mates.

There are plenty of entertainments that look to be fun, but so much of that kind of thing requires that a person have a lot of money as well as a lot of "spare time."

After all, I like skiing, I'd love to go scuba diving, but it takes hundreds of dollars to do the former very often around here, and thousands to do the latter. PLUS a ton of spare time, AND high quality expensive transportation.

I love to go to live performances of various kinds, but in my area that again means at least a hundred bucks per opportunity. And going dancing just flat out isn't possible any more, because all the real estate opportunists drove the cost of dance space up to the point where there literally aren't any venues that allow it.

Since most of my personal entertainments are intellectually related, I'm not very good at coming up with more interactive stuff. One of the reasons more than one person left me behind because of.

I'm not rich enough to own shoes to match different suits or whatever. So I just have the basic "work shoes type a, and work boots type a," and then a pair of sneakers for non work days. Each pair is as old as whatever, and gets replaced when worn. Nothing's brand new at the moment, but new work shoes will probably become necessary this spring.

My one splurge, is a pair of VERY fancy nineteenth century-style rich guy slippers. Black velvet tops with silver thread. Cost me more than my work shoes.

I never missed either the morning prayer or the morning pledge, after they were discontinued.

Frankly, I was a kid. They didn't mean anything to me, other than one more thing that adults expected me to memorize by rote, and chatter mindlessly back again.

No one ever followed up during the school day, and told any of us what those things were about.

I would oppose bringing them back, for some fairly obvious reasons. The prayers, because it's against the First Amendment to require ANY religious behaviors of students in public schools. It's not a matter of upsetting people, it's a matter of not requiring the schools to train American children to ignore the Constitution, for me.

I'm opposed to bringing back the Pledge, because I now think it's basically anti-American to require pledges and pins and flags and so on. It would be far more meaningful ,if as a part of transitioning from childhood to adult, people said the Pledge as a sort of official recognition that they personally were now in charge of being a citizen.

But since my experience overall, has been very consistent, that when you require something of everyone all the time, they come to resent it, and not to celebrate it. I don't support encouraging American children to come to resent patriotism, by forcing it on them to please adults somewhere.

My policy is to listen to any and all advice, but weigh it and test it myself, so that whatever I do, will be because I myself think it's the best way to go.

Oh, and one sort of side issue that often seems to come up in such situations: if anyone involved declares that what I decide will be a test of my loyalty to them, I will shut them down immediately. Perhaps not shut them out of my life, but make it clear to them that I don't tolerate making love dependent on manipulative obedience like that.

Ironically, that's also what causes the problems in all of us, too.

Tricky planet.

I'd love to find a glasses lens grinding company who realized that people who wear bifocals, also need to move their eyes from side to side.

Back in the now ancient days, I worked for IBM, fixing greasy machines, and was required to wear a clean white shirt every day.

I was in the process of trying to find a company to make paper white shirts on a roll, like paper towels, when they changed the policy.

Not wearing a tie.

One general suggestion.

I've observed over the years, that the number one BEST way to insure that you will utterly fail to gain support for any cause, no matter how good, from the people who you most want to convince...

....is by wildly exaggerating it, or lying about it.

I've seen that strategy fail with everything from trying to discourage use of "entertainment" drugs, to communism, to you-name-it.

It applies to defending Constitutional rights too.

Colossal?

Doesn't seem that big to me.

One general observation: you can't waste more time than you spend.

Well, that's what happens when your rear end catches fire.

Your best chance, is to find someone who DOES think and believe in the fantasies you did before your "heartbreak," while you still believe in them yourself.

If your recovery or your "heartbreak" includes that you no longer believe in "true love," then no.

Good luck getting the current Republican Party to initiate anything other than your idea about rigging local elections.

Above all else, the current party believes in doing nothing, as a governing policy.

You haven't said what you want to tell them. Can't advise you HOW to say something if I don't know the WHAT.

Do you want to say you DO love them, but fell that just saying it back makes you sound lame?

Or do you want to tell them to back off, but only a little?

Or do you want to find out what they mean by that?

What?

I suggest a little different thinking about this.

I of course have no interest in men, but the exact same thing would apply to women for me, I think.

First, I'd point out that you know you want RESPECT, but you are still learning how to translate that one word, into the subtleties of how a person behaves.

As you learned the hard way, "respect" and "worship" are extremely different things.

So are "respect" and "slavish devotion and obedience."

Some other things that are not "respect," but which some people seem to think are, includes "callous disregard." I know lots of people who think they are showing "respect" by letting another person do as they wish, go where they will, and so on. Without reacting positively or negatively. I disagree.

Bottom line for me, in looking for a mate is that the woman has to want to be WITH ME, as I am; not be with me while secretly or overtly trying to turn me into her ideal person. And that's not as simple a thing to do as the words seem to say.

Because wanting me as I am does NOT mean adoring everything about me. It's closer to the way some people feel about their favorite antique, or some other item they want despite its flaws. I don't want someone who averts their eyes when my many flaws are showing, I want someone who sees them, thinks they are flaws, and yet loves me AS they see the flaws.

The basic reason for dating, to my thinking, is to allow people to test each other in a variety of venues and situations, to learn how they THINK. And how they REACT. Things go best in dating, when things go wrong, because that is what real life is about.

As I said, I want a mate who wants to be with me. And not just because she likes me, but because being with a mate, is what she wants to do as her life.

It's that last part that seems to make the difference between someone who goes with a person for a while, as a sort of personal entertainment, and someone who will ADJUST to their mate, as time and adventure takes its toll.

Completely disagree with you.

You are trying to make grammar obey political rules.(Not even correct ones).

It has nothing to do with placing one thing above another.

I don't think that flying flags means what you seem to think it means either. If anything, flying your "favorite" flag above another to show you LIKE that place better, is a sign of DISRESPECT to the other country.

The reason to fly the American flag above the others, while we're on American soil, is because we're on American soil. If you do that overseas, just because you are American, you will be disrespecting that other nation.

The hyphenated-American positioning has been as it is since well before modern Americans looked for reasons to be upset with other Americans.

Besides, the fact that "Americans" comes second, means that it is the PRIMARY label for the person. That's how the grammar works. Not the way you seem to imagine. The first word is the MODIFIER. The second is the IDENTITY.

Think of other things you say. Such as "I drive a white car." If we followed your thinking, we would all say "I drive a car white." Which makes no sense.

I appreciate this, I do.

Just wanted to mention a thought I often had with suggestions like this, when I was younger.

My first thought was

"so you're saying, that if I expect to cook something floury, and I'm not sure if I have enough flour, that I need to go to the store and buy oatmeal and a blender?"

This one is extra clever. I'm going to try it even though I HAVE flour, just to see how it works.

I believe you misunderstood him.

What he was saying is that in most polygamy families, the person with more than one spouse is required to be faithful to them, and not become involved with someone outside the family.

In other words, a person with two spouses, can spend time with either or both, but may not chase a third.

It's got nothing to do with "middle ground."