I've noticed that there are many people who span from different regions of the world. I wondered, how far would you be willing to travel and sustain a relationship?
I'd gladly go anywhere within the US that doesn't include middle America or the Bible Belt. I'm planning relocation by the end of the year anyway, so I am pretty wide open.
I really am not interested in dating anyone off of my continent, unless he can afford to pay for plane tickets all the time, because I am poor due to long-term unemployment and will continue to be poor for quite some time after I get a job because of the things I am qualified for don't pay fantastic. I would much rather date someone that lives within a few hours of me so I could see him frequently and for it to really work, I think he would need to be able and willing to move to my general area because I can't see me living far from here (western MA is too great of a fit for me to want to live elsewhere).
That depends on the nature of the relationship, and on one's personal values. Is one looking for an occasional fling, a friendship with benefits? Then anywhere in the world is OK. Meet a potential partner in Australia, and fly there every other year for a 2-week holiday. If one is looking for an exclusive, monogamous romantic partner who is also a good friend and confidant, then probably 1-2 hours' drive is about the maximum distance. And for anything in between, choose a distance in between.
The real problem comes with relocation. If you meet a wonderful potential partner on a business trip overseas, would it be practical for one or the other person to immigrate? What happens to careers and families? Sometimes this works wonderfully, while other times it is an unmitigated disaster.
Since I am not looking for a traditional relationship, I would be open to almost anywhere. That being said, years ago, I tried a "traditional" thing with a girl who lived 2 hours away, and it turned out that it was a big pain that took two years to play out.
I think it might depend on what you mean by traditional. Once upon a time, I was all gung ho on being married,etc. Then, I did the living in the suburbs thing with a woman, and HATED IT. She loved it. But that was my time to discover that the whole imitation heterosexual:lesbian style thing doesn't work for me. That is when I opened up to the idea of open relationships.
This set up allows you to have your own place(or even share if that is what you want), but you also have your own life, and the freedom to be with other people should one or both of you so choose. One of the downfalls of monogamy is becoming little more than an extension of each other. While I am not totally against it or anything, and certainly would be open to marriage with the right person, it's NOT gonna include me giving up my own life to be with another. In fact, I prefer city living, preferably in a gay neighborhood somewhere. I am not saying I won't make an exception if the right lady comes along, because you really just never know. However, I AM saying that I am gonna have my general existence the way I want it.
I think you understand what I mean by traditional. It is the imitation of religious relationship ideals that I most dislike. I don't think being gay has that much to do with it, but I do think that committed relationships are good if you have children. I am still evolving and trying to understand what works and is healthy as an atheist. I do know that honesty is important. Other than that, the sky is the limit!
LOL yeah, I didn't want to make any assumptions. I hate that shit too, and even if I do find "the one," if you will...I am still gonna be a) very open to something open, and b) very opposed to traditional ideals. Yes, if kids are involved, committment is best.
However, I don't want kids, so the sky is the limit here, too.
The basic question is whether one prefers for one's romantic partner to also be one's best-friend. Personally, that is my preference. I can understand and appreciate alternatives. Not all intimate encounters must necessarily be of life-altering depth. It is a sliding scale. But the ideal, religiously-patterned or otherwise, is a genuine best-friend, a confidant, a comrade - who happens to be (by my preference) of the opposite sex, with mutual physical attraction.
If it was someone I really cared about, and it was mutual on both sides, I'd be willing to go pretty much anywhere. If I had a choice, I'd like to go to Canada, the UK or Australia personally, but that's just me.
Normally, I would not date someone that didn't live in my own city, and preferable on the same side of town...I know I'm lazy. However, I'm testing this now as I started dating someone that lives an hour an a half away. This may not seem far to some of you but I truly loath driving. We only get to see each other once a week for sleepovers and we try to make the most of our time together, but it is frustrating to say the least. Any advice from anyone that has been in similar situation would be welcomed.
I dunno, I sometimes drive 8 or 9 hours a day, for work, if I have a client who is half way across the state. I can't really relate.
I can't imagine restricting myself to someone in the same urban sprawl, never mind the same side of town. Particularly given what a tiny percentage of the population most of us are restricting ourselves to, casting ourselves a bit wider net is sometimes necessary.
Get him (assuming we're talking about a guy, here) to drive more often?