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

Posted by Evan, 16 Aug 17

I recently received an email from a reader named Zetta:

Evan, 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.

Your perfect partner could be online right now...

What are you looking for?

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.”

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.

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.

Evan Marc Katz is a dating coach who specializes in helping smart, strong, successful women understand and connect with men since 2003. Thousands of his clients have fallen in love, gotten married, started families, and found happiness – after only a few months of coaching. His latest dating book, “Why You’re Still Single – Things Your Friends Would Tell You If You Promised Not to Get Mad”, was a critical success. He also operates a popular blog,, which serves as a one-stop shop for anyone trying to understand relationship dynamics. Combining the insight of Dr. Drew and the wit of Adam Carolla, Katz has answered hundreds of challenging and controversial questions with a unique combination of logic, experience, and empathy. Take Evan's dating quiz.

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

Be the first to leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.