DEAR SUSAN: I've been married for 20 years, but whenever the issue of monogamy appears in your column, I'm especially interested in reading the letter and your response. Honestly, I've been known to wrestle with monogamy forever, as I've always believed it isn't something that comes naturally. Not that I haven't valued fidelity and what it means within a committed relationship, but quite honestly, as much as I love my wife, I can't help but be occasionally tempted to have sex with other women. You mentioned men's caveman instinct to keep a woman for themselves. I don't consider myself among those men who have that instinct. If it were permissible for me, my woman would have the same right; what's fair is fair. But of course, my wife would never be of that mindset — regardless of how I feel or whatever my thinking. Nonetheless, as life spans continue to increase, it seems to me more individuals will not remain monogamous. — From the "Single File" blog

DEAR BLOGGER: You've sensed an important sociological trend. Longer life spans will undoubtedly lead to more than one mate per person. (Even now, second marriages are more common than they were a decade ago, bringing with them a chance to put into practice the wisdom learned the hard way.) And if my sense is on target, the male will become endangered, so even when married, men will be affectionate (ahem) with more than one woman. Marriage itself, an increasingly endangered rite, will probably consider plural mates or some arrangement that suits the needs of everyone involved. But your words, dear reader, bring to mind those uttered by Jimmy Carter, who admitted "lusting" in his heart. At the time, it was shocking for a sitting president to be open about his erotic urges. But he did nothing about them. And that's the point here. Lusting mentally is no sin, no black mark against your wife or marriage — because you don't act on it. Agreed, marriage can have moments of boredom, sameness taking its toll. And for sure, there is plenty of temptation out there, beckoning. The only question that matters in the final analysis is whether or not you act on your impulses.

DEAR SUSAN: I completely validate women's wish to meet men in their own income brackets. I believe that their message is that one cannot respect someone with no ambition or accomplishment. I think too many women settle for losers because they think they should feel guilty for expecting more — as if having standards makes them gold diggers. Wanting a smart, successful husband is not shameful. — From the "Single File" blog

From another blogger: Making women feel guilty for expecting a work ethic is how lazy no-goodniks wind up bumming off hardworking women. Is the woman really a gold digger because she expects a mate to have a similar accomplishment level? Why enable the couch-surfing, chronically unemployed types? An intelligent, successful woman may have trouble respecting and having things in common with a goalless mate.

From another blogger: I wonder whether "income level" is more about value systems than it is about actual dollars; there are differences in attitudes toward finances that can make or break a relationship. For example, how does a couple deal with financial crises? How do they draw the line between financial benefit and ethics? How important is money versus family time? What are their spending priorities? I've seen couples with similar incomes drive each other nuts because one is stingy and the other is a spender. "Income level" may also be a code for tastes — beer versus Champagne, thrift shop versus latest styles, classical music versus garage bands, urban versus rural. Lots of things to consider.

DEAR BLOGGERS: Whew! Lots of people weighing in on this issue, and the reason is clear. Income, lifestyle and values are all connected, all vitally important to the health of a relationship. Which is one strong vote for common interests as meeting place. There are so many elements wrapped in a person's interests — values, tastes and priorities, for openers. Not that all of them need to be shared to find compatibility, not at all. But having the main ones as commonality is a huge step toward lasting harmony; the small things can then be ironed out in an atmosphere of good will and (that old thing) mutual respect.

Have a question for Susan? Send it to her in care of this newspaper or online at www.creators.com.