DEAR SUSAN: I had to laugh at the letter from a man describing himself as a "Richard Gere" looking for a woman who is a professional, intelligent and a perfect 10. The problem might just be in his math! I've noticed that men rate themselves about 3 points higher than a woman would, especially when it comes to looks. This means that "Mr. Gere" is potentially only a 6 or 7 himself. Plus, he'd better keep in mind that even 10s will in time slide down that scale. He would do better to focus on a woman's interior beauty rather than the exterior; chemistry and attraction build on deepening emotional intimacy. After all, regardless of his own real number, even if he finds a 6 or 7, together they will add up to way more than a 10! — From the "Single File" blog

DEAR BLOGGER: Playing the numbers game is a recipe for failure in love. Far better to let your instincts lead you to a good partner. And be careful not to override that gut feeling with intellect and reasoning; head stuff isn't always a good guide in matters of love. Yet the basics work well; the viscera, tried and true, are still the gold standard of lovers' attraction. As for men magnifying their numbers a bit, the odd thing is that once you meet face to face, all that numerical hogwash goes out the window. There are three possible results: You like that face enough to want more time looking at it; there's enough friendliness to warrant more of a chance; or pfft — the case is hopeless, totally dead, no chance, even for a cup of Java (which reminds me of that infamous blind date I've written about, the one lasting 15 minutes, from home to car, which was brought to a close when I realized this would be a disaster, one that would cost this man money and me much wasted time). Enough said.

DEAR READERS: There's a way to get to me more quickly on the Creators website: http://www.creators.com/advice/susan-deitz-single-file.html.

DEAR SUSAN: You wrote recently, "The average American spends the majority of his or her life unmarried." I am in my early 50s and have been married for 48 percent of my life — even though it took me three marriages to rack up that total! Presuming that I'll keep up this pattern of much preferring marriage to singlehood and given that 20 years of my singlehood was from birth to age 20 — and also given that I've never spent even one day unpartnered when I didn't want to be — I just may beat your numbers someday. Hey, single can be great. Married is great, too. It's a matter of personal preference, no? — From the "Single File" blog

DEAR BLOGGER: The numbers aren't mine, friend; they reflect the spread of singleness around the globe. Its appeal is unstoppable, growing with each new generation and melting borders. In your early 50s, your preference is to be in a coupled relationship. But your generation may be the last one to avidly seek out marriage and persistently raise your hopes for its success. I, for one, wish you only the best, hoping you find in your life peace and contentment. Not everyone is suited for marriage, in the same way not everyone is equipped to be a parent. That's the fresh air brought in by these new generations, with their expanded choices and fewer "shoulds." And society is bending with them, finding fewer reasons to raise a disapproving eyebrow and going along with the loosened dress codes. The rules are changing; they're more relaxed, well on their way to being eliminated. "To each his own" seems to be the lyric of the new music. And if you want to be married to your last day, so be it. You have my blessing, for sure. When I surveyed the single world about its ideal — one love for a lifetime or one at each stage of emotional development — most chose the former. Still, others said they prefer a love at each stage of their emotional development. For me, it's the blessed person who fills my soul. There aren't many who fit that mold.

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