She would deaf, dumb, and own a liquor store.

Seriously, having been married for over three decades
and observing innumerable other marriages, I've not
personally met any couple in what I would consider an
"ideal" relationship. Invariably, there's something
missing, or some sense of dissatisfaction develops.

Variety is good.

That's from a male perspective--I don't think we're
truly wired for a life-long monogamous relationship.

Good looking website, btw.
I hadn't realized that background place existed...neat
concept.

I sometimes wonder if the ideal relationship is a possibility, or at the very least a rare commodity, but one can dream and so....here is mine;

I would want someone equal to me.  I hear to often among girls and even had guys comment about hooking the wealthy man.  I have been there and that doesn't make one happy either.  That fact is held over your head and used as a control factor, the ending result is a great loss of self worth and even a sense of yourself.  We are not puppets.  Nor does it work the other way around either.  Been there also and end up feeling the weight of the world on my shoulders and frankly, feel quite used and end up seeing the SO as more of a leech than a lover and friend.  It comes down to equality.

To often independence and ones individuality is lost when getting together and becoming the proverbial couple.  It is very important that those aspects aren't severed.  One of my friends has that aspect of her marriage down packed.  They both have their own careers and interests and continue to follow them.  He wants to go hunting with the guys for the weekend...off he goes.  She wants to go to the Bahamas with the girls...off she goes.  They have separate bank accounts and a house account and converse equally into what goes where each week on the bills and equally contribute to the wants of the household (renovations, pool, ect.).  They work on it together as a team and the burdens aren't shouldered by one.  They do what they want with their own money after those needs are met.

The only time dependence became an issue is when she had a child. It was equally important to both of them that she stay home with the child for three years and then go back to work part time and then full time by the time it was five years old.  They planned, she saved and they garnered a deal that would make them both happy for that duration of time.  He took the brunt of the financial responsibilities for that time, but at no time was that factor ever thrown in her face when an arguement ensued over something trivial.  That I think is important.  

They also still date.  Every Friday evening the kids are bought to Grandma's and they are off on a date, making sure they have their time together.  They are very open sexually too.  They are in the mindset that variety is the spice of life and so it isn't uncommon for them to be with someone else.  The only golden rule on that is that they ask before hand.  No Secrets and even end up having some wonderful evenings with other couples.  It must be working, for they have been together for about 14 years now and happy.  Yes, they still argue, yes one of them is a son of a you know what at times, but overall the marriage works.  

I think it is because they both have kept their individuality.  They still do the things and see the people they did before getting together.  It is a perfect dance of having the time together as a family unit with the children, that personal time set aside for them as a couple, yet still having a sense of independence.  But most importantly, they are equal.  No one has more say than the other, contribute equally and work on the household family together.  

Their marriage has become the guideline of what an ideal relationship is for me. Equal in every aspect of their lives together.  Alas, something rare and unique to be found in this world.

Lauren

Having been married & already raised a family..then having a 10yr+ relationship, I certainly wouldn't look for the same things I once would have.  

What actually caused me to become a hobbyist is that when I last began dating again was my discovery that almost all the women in my general age range were looking to 'nest' again.  Definitely not for me..I live alone & now prefer it that way.  I've never been one to put up with jealousy or feeling I have to give an account of my whereabouts or activities.  That doesn't mean I was an inconsiderate ass-hole in the past, for I always treated my partner with respect & treated them in the same manner that I wanted to be treated.  I am not willing to tolerate anything less than that.  While it's likely true that may not be what the average woman wants in a relationship, it's the only way it would work for me.  And I've learned no relationship has a chance unless it provides both people with what they need.    

I suppose what I would want, if I were wanting, & forgetting any definition of 'ideal', is something akin to a 'fuck-buddy' relationship that goes perhaps a bit deeper & involve spending quite a bit of time together, but not every minute or every day.  Would I be monogamous & expect the same?  Probably..that's the way it was in the past, but I'm not entirely positive.  I suppose it would depend on the 'depth' of the relationship.  Likey the deeper it was, the more monogamy would enter into the question.  Hell, I'm not sure I could be 100% monogamous any more--but if only I could somehow combine just a few of the ladies I know now into just one woman....ahhh, not possible but what's wrong with a little fantasy?    

Having also been married over 3 decades, unlike Mephistopholis I think variety is not necessary and that a relationship can be for life if both parties remember just one thing -- sex without love can be a ball but love without sex becomes a prison.  I know there are those who would disagree, who are so taken up with the intellectual metasphere that the physical becomes irrelavent, but for the great majority of us, both men and women, the physical is very relavent and repressed sexuality is a near certain death knoll.  And who is at fault if sexuality does not stay alive and exciting in a relationship?  Obviously both parties are responsible, but given the reality of man/woman, hunter/gatherer, pursuer/pursued, ying/yang, etc., men are just more practically equipped and more likely to do the wandering and foaming, and woman to do the teasing and beckoning.  Unfair, yes, but everything else being equal (i.e.,  both parties staying smart and interesting and sweet and whatever else attracted them together in the first place) men will stay remarkably neat and clean and polite and panting if women will but keep their bods in shape and the sex hot, but unfortunately women often become sexually complaicent for any number of reasons (kids, boredom, intelectual stagnancy, whatever) no matter how neat and polite and panting their men remain.  This is a generality, of course, and a chick or egg type of question, but I truly believe that more often than not men get their sloppy, inattentive and wandering ways because their women bank the sexual home fires.  And assuming both parties are loving and caring and respectful and hot for each other at the beginning, it is just far easier and more doable for the woman to see that the sexual component stays alive and exciting.  And lest a reader concludes I'm just another chauvinist pig and this is all bS, just look at the successful marriages around you, not the ones where the man is broken and spiritless and has left himself physically deteriorate, but the ones where both parties seem alive and proud to be together and excited by life, and draw yopur own conclusion.