"Tired of the unsatisfying singles scene, Glenn (Matthew Montgomery) answers a personal ad and meets Adam (Windham Beacham), a handsome Southern man seeking a long-term relationship. The two hit it off immediately, but their initial attraction is soon put to the test. Glenn's gay friends say he'd be happier playing the field again, but his straight pals encourage him to work at the budding relationship in director Rob Williams's romantic comedy."

We liked it. Its not simply one of those "boy meets boy and falls in love" stories. As Glenn and Adam get to know each other better they discover they do not share some of the same values. For instance, Glenn is a self-identified liberal Democrat while Adam describes himself as a fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republican. You know that can't be good.
But another thing that's not good is their sex life. Despite their growing love and attraction to each other, their attempts at hot, steamy sex end up more like limp, steamed broccoli. Obviously this is a concern for the pair. I won't tell you how or if this is resolved, in case you decide to watch the film, which I recommend.
But the film got me to thinking.
What if all the 'important things' in a relationship are good (or great), but the sex isn't so great. Should mediocre sex be a deal-breaker?
Glenn's single gay pals try to convince him that if the sex isn't rockin', he should abandon the ship. Glenn's response is that after 5 or so years they'll rarely have sex anyway, so why make it such a big deal now. Glenn's married straight friends tell him not to be naive; that there is no such thing as a perfect relationship. Hot sex with someone you can't really talk to outside of the bed isn't worth it.
I presented the theme of the movie to my friends Rick & Nick and waited for their responses. Rick immediately said he definitely would not pursue the relationship if the sex wasn't good. Nick said he would pursue the relationship if the sex wasn't good as long as the 2 were compatible in all other areas. I found this quite interesting, considering Rick & Nick are in a relationship with each other.
A talented blogger posted on a similar subject here. He believes that any serious contender for a relationship with him absolutely must meet his 5 requirements. And yes, great sex is 1 of them. He feels that he would be compromising if a man only met 4 out of 5.
But this lead me to wonder if there are lots of guys out there who are turning down '4 out of 5's in order not to feel as though they've settled, yet they are rapidly approaching 40 and are still single? Not that there's anything wrong with being single, unless you are single and don't want to be.
Is there a point or an age at which you will think that '4 out of 5' is acceptable?
And this is not limited to just gay men. My aunt is 64 years old and has never been married. She's not a lesbian (I know that's what you're thinking) and she has had several relationships with men that lasted 6-12 months. But none of them ever resulted in marriage or even living together.
Is it wise to 'hold out' for someone who meets all 5 or your 5 requirements?
She says she's always had high standards, and that none of the men she dated were quite right. This sounds to me like 'they were all 4 out of 5s'. But while I certainly acknowledge her prerogative not to settle, now she's 64 years old, retired, and doesn't date at all. I wonder if she wishes now that she'd been willing to compromise a little back then? If so, maybe she wouldn't be alone.
Alone. That brings up another dangerous question.
Should fear of being alone cause someone to relax their standards? Initially I think we would all answer 'no' to that question. But think about it for a minute. If you get to a point or an age where '4 out of 5' seems better than '0 out of 5', is that fear of being alone? Or is that making a decision to be happy with someone most of the time rather than happy with no one all the time?
I do not believe there are universal answers to these questions. Each person must examine their own needs and situation and decide what they believe is best for them.
But hopefully these questions will prompt us all to think below the surface of this topic. Whether one is in a relationship or single, they should be there because they want to be - not because they never thought deeply about it.
Crush du Jour: Ricky Paull Goldin













































