Blog
Great Guy vs Good in Bed – How to Choose the Right PartnerGreat Guy vs Good in Bed – How to Choose the Right Partner">

Great Guy vs Good in Bed – How to Choose the Right Partner

Irina Zhuravleva
par 
Irina Zhuravleva, 
 Soulmatcher
11 minutes de lecture
Blog
novembre 19, 2025

Recommendation: Prefer an emotionally steady companion who demonstrates consent, communicates timing for intimacy, and respects a clear limit; they must be able to pause on request and to adjust pacing while keeping communication concise.

Look for measurable cues: consistent ability to last longer during intercourse, predictable timing of advances, relaxed breathing and relaxing posture, avoidance of sex immediately after heavy meals, and explicit discussion about rectal safety when anal exploration is proposed.

Health factors change performance: nicotine use correlates with higher heart rate and negative erectile responses; persistent nicotine use and poor cardio raise risk while muscle fatigue reduces stamina; if living situations disrupt sleep at night, expect falling asleep delays and higher irritability between companions.

Practical steps: schedule candid STI tests every 3 months, set clear sexual boundaries before intimacy, focus on mutual pleasure instead of performance metrics; intimacy isnt only about duration, but also about timing, chemistry and ability to stay close emotionally.

Balancing long-term partner qualities and sexual performance

Schedule baseline STI screen plus cardiovascular evaluation before regular sexual activity; pair results with candid talk about libido, erectile response, contraception and shared goals.

Combine clinical data, intellectual compatibility and shared daily habits to make a measured decision; something measurable plus honest communication produces sustainable closeness and reliable sexual performance.

List concrete deal-breakers versus negotiable preferences

Decide non-negotiables now: refuse ongoing physical abuse, continuous violent behavior, active nicotine dependence with refusal to seek treatment, documented financial fraud, and refusal to address serious medical concerns such as cancer diagnosis.

Use a numeric checklist to separate deal-breakers from negotiables: rate items 0–5 for safety risk, trust impact, ability to change, and living-impact. Any item scoring 4–5 on safety or showing reduced willingness to change becomes immediate deal-breaker; items scoring 2–3 enter a staged negotiation with deadlines.

Deal-breakers Threshold Action Negotiable preferences Threshold Action
Physical violence or credible threats Any incident Immediate exit; safety plan; trusted contacts informed Different sleep schedule Minor disagreement Compromise: trial period 30 days
Continuous substance use that impairs functioning (nicotine included when tied to refusal to change) Ongoing use + refusal to seek help Set clear boundaries; 30–90 day treatment timeline; end if no movement Food preferences, cooking style Low impact Rotate meals; split grocery budget
Repeated financial deception or fraud Documented losses or secret accounts Remove access; seek legal advice; consider permanent separation Different social activity levels Moderate Plan independent activities; schedule shared events weekly
Non-disclosure of serious sexual health issues or refusal of testing Refusal + risk to health Immediate pause on intimacy; require testing within 7 days Music, hobbies, exercise preferences Personal taste Allocate solo time; negotiate shared sessions
Medical neglect when cancer or other life-threatening condition suspected Refusal of diagnosis or treatment Demand medical consult within set timeframe; exit if stuck in denial Living location choice (city vs suburbs) Compromisable Trial living period 6 months; reassess decision

Concrete scoring helps whether moving through early dating or late cohabitation stage: list ones associated with safety, health, or legal risk first. For each risk, note possible effects on mental health and finances, and record movement toward change at two-week checkpoints.

Examples of negotiable items: differing media habits, varying friend groups, preferred temperature at night, occasional mismatched libido. Examples of deal-breakers: ongoing gaslighting, continuous lying about income, untreated contagious illness with refusal to isolate, physical stalking. Use a 30–90 day window for negotiables that require behavior change; if reduced progress or much silence occurs, upgrade item to deal-breaker.

If feeling a dilemma between strong attraction and safety concerns, prioritize trusted sources and personal ability to maintain boundaries. Dont ignore repeated red flags; worry often signals real risk. Single readers should apply scoring before moving in together or signing joint agreements.

Concrete rule set that helps decision: safety and legal risk = automatic exit; health risks linked to cancer, active infections, or continuous substance refusal = immediate boundary plus rapid timeline; lifestyle preferences = negotiable with measurable milestones and documented agreements for accountability.

Observe everyday behavior that predicts reliability and attraction

Observe everyday behavior that predicts reliability and attraction

Prioritize punctuality: log arrival times across four weeks; if arrival within 10 minutes for ≥80% meetings, classify as reliable.

Do not rely on only one encounter; take notes across 6–12 weeks, compare different domains side-by-side, target areas needing work, and keep in mind that consistent small behaviors matter more than occasional grand gestures.

Ask targeted questions to reveal values, libido and boundaries

Get started with a permission line and then ask five focused questions within first hour; keep total time under 15 minutes and treat answers as data, not judgement.

Suggested direct prompts: “Preferred frequency of sex per week?”; “List three hard limits you wont cross”; “Which values guide choices in close relationships?”; “What current stress reduces desire?”; “What activities recharge your libido?”

If response isnt clear, use one follow-up: “Can you give an example from a past experience that shows this boundary?” Share one personal boundary after they share one; follow a simple rule of reciprocal disclosure only when both feel trusted.

Note research context: anderson supports a modest link between vigorous-intensity exercise and libido; note measurable effects on mood, while poor rest and chronic stress reduce desire, so ask about exercise routines and familys rhythms because those factors shape overall sexual experience and availability.

Questions should touch daily lives and schedule: “Which hour of day feels best for intimacy?” If answers conflict with your availability, label that dilemma and negotiate a realistic plan: one brisk check-in per week plus one longer session per month, reassess after three weeks.

If someone admits they arent comfortable with specific acts, respect that answer and avoid pressure; unfortunately many hide true desire early, so schedule a second conversation after two to four weeks of shared activities to confirm consistency.

Frame every item as practical info: ask about stress management, preferred rest patterns, past experience with consent practices, and whether support from familys or trusted friends is needed; this yields vital signals about compatibility and helps pick a right tempo for intimacy.

Test compatibility through low-pressure shared experiences

Schedule three 45–60 minute low-pressure shared activities per month to test compatibility: two moderate walks and one shared meals session plus a 30–45 minute creative round (cooking, puzzles) to assess energy alignment.

During each session, record simple metrics: sleep timing shift in circadian rhythm (minutes), post-meal bowel comfort rated 0–3, muscle soreness 0–10 after moderate or vigorous-intensity activity, perceived restless level 0–5, tolerance to ambient noise, and how bodys respond (skin flushing, muscle fatigue); log changes across at least three rounds to gather objective insights.

Compare results between sessions to judge chemistry and practical fit; seeing progressive improvements suggests possible alignment, while harder adjustments – increasing muscle soreness, repeated bowel complaints, or circadian shifts over 45 minutes – indicate whether pairing is workable.

Best thresholds: keep vigorous-intensity efforts under 10% of joint sessions during first month; limit shared meals to two per week until appetite patterns stabilize; ensure schedule overlap stays within 45 minutes between sleep windows; avoid anything that triggers severe bowel response or constant noise sensitivity.

If both people strive for gradual adaptation (progressive increases in together time, moderate activity increments, sensitivity adjustments) and small changes move toward alignment, consider increasing commitment; if not, step down to low-commitment contact and split rounds to limit exposure, or share insights with them and decide next steps based on recorded data rather than impressions.

How to identify and measure sexual intensity and chemistry

Recommended: create intensity checklist and log five encounters within two weeks; record arousal latency (seconds), heart rate delta (bpm), skin conductance change (µS), lubrication or erection onset (seconds), orgasm latency (minutes), subjective satisfaction 0–10. Treat score >=7 combined with arousal latency <120s as strong chemistry; heart rate delta>10 bpm or skin conductance rise >1 µS supports physiological arousal. Wearable sampling at 1 Hz suffices for practical tracking.

If person scheduled for colonoscopy or recently diagnosed with colon condition, expect libido to go down during prep and recovery because bowel prep takes energy and focus; recommend avoiding sexual activity for 48–72 hours after procedure and resuming when comfort returns. If companions want intimacy during recovery, offer non-sexual closeness; unfortunately many assume recovery equals permanent disinterest. Pain, antibiotic use, or chronic colon disease can lower desire; they should tell companions about recovery timeline so planning does not waste intimacy opportunities.

Nutrition, sleep, and rhythm matter: heavy food within 90 minutes before intimacy reduces arousal; melatonin intake or late-evening light exposure shifts circadian timing and can lower desire at usual sex hours. For younger people sexual peaks often occur at later circadian phase; match schedule or aim for morning sessions when both report higher baseline desire. Control noise and environment: reduce ambient noise, dim light, low clutter; short cardio exercises or light dancing for 5–10 minutes raises heart rate and increases pheromonal sensitivity. Practical tips: avoid large meals, limit alcohol, prioritize 20–30 minute sessions of focused foreplay.

Use simple protocol: after each encounter log date, start time, duration, subjective intensity 0–10, time-to-come (minutes), onset-of-arousal (seconds), and environment noise level (dB). Calculate 7-session moving average; if average intensity >=7 with consistent physiological markers (HR delta >10 bpm, erection/lubrication onset <120s) label chemistry reliable. If mismatch persists across three different schedule blocks, conclude low compatibility and avoid waste of time with ones who regularly report low scores. Research notes over a million neural events during arousal cycles; self-report plus objective wearable data yields best accuracy. They should share summaries with companion and use data for frank conversations about desire, boundaries, and schedule preferences.

Qu'en pensez-vous ?