One of my most significant relationships involved a proposal on the first date.

I was in a writing group with a woman who married her husband after 24 hours of knowing him. They've been married for (IIRC) 20+ years now. Maybe 25.

I've been giving this a lot of thought lately. The previously mentioned rel, which did not end in marriage (and rightfully so, despite the rightness of the feeling at the time) ended nearly 8 years ago.

Since then, I've had 3 relationships of lesser significance, each of which taught me a lot.

I honestly believe that I am now the perfect candidate for a relationship. Here is a handy pdf checklist of criteria.

Incidentally, I would love feedback on the list. I use it frequently and am always open to refinement.

But now that I've achieved all but one half of one criteria, I don't have a relationship and don't anticipate (nor feel a need for) one any time soon.

It feels like the notion of mindfulness that says that once you give up an attachment to something, your energy wanders off to work on other stuff.

At one point I was annoyed by this. Oh great. I do all the work and my prize is...NOTHING! Until I realized that my prize is the absence of drama. I think I'd enjoy being enriched by a man in my life but I think I'm okay with not.

Does that sound like tragic rationalization?

I come from a long line of speed-partnerers. My grandparents' engagement was 5 days long. My parents met when my mom rented a room in my dad's apartment (and they've never lived apart since). DH and I are the relative slowpokes because we'd been dating for a whole FIVE MONTHS before we got engaged. (And then were engaged for 5 years because neither of us wanted to get married while we were still in college.)

(Also, hi Bitches! It's been a while since I've poked my head in here.)

and they've never lived apart since

This made me go 'awww.'

I am a rapid coupler. It was either 1 or 2 dates and forget it, or moved in and married. Worked or didn't.

Great list bonny. You would have better wording, but I would add the ability to strongly disagree with civility and respect.

Shir, is your sister at home now?

She is!

(I call home both to my place in Jerusalem and to my parents' place. I know it's confusing, but they both homes to me, though in different ways. My sister, of course, is in my parents' home - which is why I don't get to see her now. Are we on the same page now, or did I explain something you didn't get confused about?)

That's an excellent list, bonny. I've saved it and will print it out for Emmett in five years.

Interesting that you think "embracing their dark side" is a prerequisite for a relationship. How did you come to that conclusion?

(Not that I disagree, I'm just curious.)

I also think that Laura's point would be a useful addition. It's a key component of what a marriage researcher pointed out on TAL - that the main measurable factor in whether a relationship will survive or not is simply the level of contempt present in discussions. You'd think it would be the obverse - respect. But people don't need signs of respect as much as they need no signs of contempt. At least according to the studies that were cited in the piece.

I realized that my prize is the absence of drama

Which is very precious. Of course, there are teh kind of people who believe their lives should be non-stop drama from birth to grave, but they're the ones who have an address book on their iPhone labeled Exes I Still Talk To.

"embracing their dark side"

I see that as admitting that they could do bad things and not be insisting that they're always happy-perky people.