I said I am not.

However, if money was no issue and either of us could afford the time and expense of FREQUENT travel, I could see it working for a while. I think eventually, if the relationship were to be headed toward Foreversville, the long distance factor would have to be removed.

My opinion is that the relationship can be strong, however, you need to be able to spend as much time as possible with the partner. The more time spent in their company, the stronger the relationship will be.

The right person is out there somewhere, I love traveling or road trips, if I find my match I'm willing to relocate for happiness

How exactly does that work? Dating suggests doing things together. Difficult to do much of anything long distance except talk on the phone, text, and maybe get weird by video chat.

For me it can be an adventure....i enjoy sexting and voice.... Meeting every once in awhile doable....playtime is even more fun. The shared time is not wasted and I listen better and mire appreciative. Just me

I want physical interaction and affection in my relationship, so it's a no for me.

It would have to be a very special person.

As it happens, I am planning on moving a considerable distance in the near future, as soon as I can sell my house where I'm at right now. I made the decision on a trip there, and then met up with her: she had been a non-romantic friend before this visit, and upon our meeting this time around, the sparks really flew and, well, now I have a lot of extra incentive to finish up the moving project.

So for the time being, it's a long-distance relationship. Which is okay for now, but much less than ideal. It's a challenge to develop the relationship this way. She and I could have made a lot more progress developing our relationship than we have because phone calls, texts, and other remote communications are just not the same as being together in person.

I did this a decade ago in courting my now-wife. We met online (not on a dating site though, on a writer's site). We were 2200 miles apart. After each of us traveled to see the other, with her permission I just removed that obstacle and took up in a nearby Residence Inn to give us a chance to explore the relationship seriously, put her in the driver's seat as to when I would meet her children (then HS age), etc. I was able to do this because I'm a 100% telecommute worker. Job portability goes very well with LDRs.

I am datting Dan who I met here - he lives 3 hours from me. We are making long distance work.

I voted "maybe" but the person would have to prove pretty amazing, and the long distance part would have to result in some relocation. I would have preferred to vote "Unlikely."

I would certainly be willing, it certainly takes extra hardships to do successfully and I would plan towards cohabitating at some point with any long distance partner.

I want too much attention from my fella for us to be long distance. I have tried before. It just doesn't work for me.

I'm a older woman liberal atheist living in the reddest state in America. I am also a realist, therefore I've determined that long-distance is probably my only option.

My other half and I were together for several years before he took a job that required him to move cross country. At the time I was taking care of my disabled father and could not follow. We texted constantly and visited each other frequently, but it was damned hard. I sometimes don't even understand how we ended up making it work.

I was able to move to be with him after two years, and things were good again immediately. I admit I wondered if that would even be the case, if perhaps we'd grown in different directions and that was why those two years had been so difficult. Nope, it was just the distance - we're as close now as we ever were. We will not be attempting long distance ever, ever again. Where he goes, I will follow.

If it were guaranteed to be short term and one or both of us had solid plans to shorten or eliminate the distance.

Maybe but likely not...

My boyfriend lives 3 hours away and we usually see each other e/o weekend. We met via an online dating site, but I honestly wasn't putting that much effort into him initially because I was dating a couple of others who lived close. I wasn't keen on dating someone who lives 3 hours away. But I'm grateful he was persistent because he is amazing and we're super happy! I seriously didn't know what I was missing before meeting him and am thankful for the lessons learned from marriage/divorce that led me to him. I have the luxury of working from home, so we're planning on me starting to stay with him for longer periods of time this month. We both find my telecommuting very convenient if I end up moving there which is what we're working towards. So I say, if someone is looking for the same things in a relationship as you are, give it a chance!

I would, if I were "on the market". And did, when I was.

But I'm in the fortunate position of being a 100% telecommute, who can make the "long" in long distance go away when I want to.

I prefer texting,sexting, phone relationships. I gave up dating sites, work odd hours,had too many bad experiences with men, don't have much of a social life so it's a great alternative. Unfortunately most men who would get involved with a woman only through texting phone calls and sexting are married.

Speaking from experience, long distance relationships can be really tough, but they can also be worth it if the person you're dating is great.

I've never had a long distance relationship but I'm open to the concept, we'd have to meet at some point I hope

I answered maybe, but it would be REALLY difficult for me. I'm a physical, affectionate guy. I enjoy being near the woman I'm dating. But if she truly sparked my interest, I'd want to try.

This would occur after many conversations, my enjoying his voice and good sexting. I found it ti be a new avenue of sensual communication. Since i have no desire to leave Arizona exceot to have fun. It is a good "ice breaker"

I did (DC - San Diego), and we've been together for just short of 30 years, married for going on 27.