Should You Marry Someone You Are Not Attracted To? A Practical Guide

Concrete threshold: if, after 6–12 months of intentional effort (weekly conversations, two months of focused intimacy exercises, one assessment with a certified sex therapist), attraction metrics remain near zero – physical desire fewer than once per week and affectionate gestures under three per week – decline the proposal or legal step. Give a clear timeline, set measurable goals, and record a daily log of feelings and sexual interest; make decisions only after that record shows no meaningful change. In the moment of decision, prioritize the whole emotional picture rather than a single event.

Action plan: arrange three structured conversations spaced across 30 days, book a 90-minute evaluation with a sex therapist and a couples counselor, and try two specific ways to rekindle desire (sensate focus exercises and timed nonsexual touch) for 12 weeks. If attraction wasnt rekindled after that period, treat the absence as stable rather than temporary. An editor acquaintance named elyse tracked days and reported that small, repeated efforts produced change in some cases but left the majority unchanged; use that empirical stance when weighing risk.

Practical safeguards: base any decision on documented outcomes, not hope or pressure. Keep clear boundaries at the door of commitment: a signed contract or ceremony should follow evidence of affection and erotic responsiveness, not precede it. If partners are saying theyre willing to “work on it,” require a written plan with milestones and external support; if milestones are gone or progress is horrible, exit. In the rare case where logistical or financial reasons push toward the union, make contingency measures (separate accounts, short legal review, staged moves) to give an exit route. A wise mind balances compassion with realism; lord over neither guilt nor obligation – choose the path that preserves long-term well-being.

Practical Criteria for Marrying When Attraction Is Lacking

Commit only after five measurable criteria meet threshold:

1) Emotional safety metric – track apology frequency, escalation incidents per month, and depth of sharing. Target: apology rate ≥70% within 72 hours of conflict, escalation incidents ≤3/month, at least one conversation weekly with vulnerability score ≥6/10; log topics that led them to withhold truth or went silent. If immaturity patterns persist past month six, flag for intervention.

2) Values and life-plan alignment – list top six non-negotiables on paper, assign binary match for each, compute match percentage; target ≥75%. Create a written statement of household rules, financial plan, and child stance; include debt-to-income split, housing preference, and work styles. Link agreements to concrete timelines (housing decision within 12 months, kids plan by year two).

3) Physical and romantic trajectory – measure comfort with touch and flirting with a weekly scale (1–10) over six months. If spark absent early, track change rate: a rise of ≥1 point/month or reaching ≥6 by month six signals potential growth; if levels sink or plateau, note that chemistry could remain low despite other strengths. Maybe sexual therapy or coaching improves slope; set a 3–6 month trial and record objective changes.

4) Social proof and stress testing – viewing partner in at least three different social contexts (friend gathering, family dinner, crisis) provides predictive data. Assess standing with closest friend and oldest relative, note instances where partner told a hard truth or lied; count honest admissions versus defensive withdrawals. Anyone who consistently blames others under pressure shows immature coping; require documented improvement in conflict responses before proceeding.

5) Growth capability and learning behaviors – require attendance at minimum eight joint sessions (therapy, teaching workshop, or couples seminar) within nine months and completion of one evidence-based paper or workbook together. Track learning styles and whether both practice newly taught skills; if only one engages, probability of long-term adaptation drops significantly.

Decision rule: if four of five criteria meet thresholds within 12 months, proceed toward engagement planning; if three or fewer, delay and continue structured evaluation. Create monthly logs, share them with a neutral friend or coach for accountability, and set a hard review at month twelve where youll decide next steps based on documented progress rather than wonder or hope.

Define Long-Term Attractiveness Beyond Sparks

Prioritize measurable signals: target ≥3 respectful gestures per week, positive-to-negative interaction ratio ≥3:1, resolution of disagreements within 72 hours, and ≥70% alignment on major life goals (children, finances, location); if romantic fireworks are absent but these thresholds are met, that pattern indicates sustainable long-term appeal rather than mere stomach butterflies.

Use a simple checklist and scoring form: assign 0–2 points for weekly affection frequency, 0–2 for shared goals overlap, 0–2 for conflict resolution speed, 0–2 for household-task balance, 0–2 for emotional safety; 7+ points after 8 weeks signals a stable base. Note practical examples: whoever folds laundry without complaint scores a point, held apologies within 48 hours score a point, consistent listening that makes the other feel comfortable scores a point. Keep entries in a calendar to avoid guesswork.

Measure sexual and romantic chemistry separately: log desire frequency and quality for 30 days, then compare against baseline life-stress markers (sleep <6 hours, heavy workload). If desire dips while the checklist stays high, treat that as solvable mismatch rather than terminal failure – attraction can recover when fatigue and resentment are addressed. Not every encounter must be superrr intense; steadiness often outperforms episodic highs.

Check value alignment concretely: tally rituals and language that matter (prayer, holidays, who makes decisions at the door, religious observance). If gods, lord, or christians identity plays a role, record whether rituals are praised or ignored and whether whoever holds those beliefs feels respected. A sign of durable fit is when core practices are held with mutual respect rather than imposed.

Run a 30-day experiment: hers and their perspectives logged daily, three conflict attempts and three reconciliations logged, one household task exchange per day, one explicit compliment given every other day. After 30 days, evaluate: if them and herself report comfort and the score rose, that makes a clear case to keep investing; if metrics stagnate or feeling of dissonance is inherent and hard to shift, reassess options.

Concrete red flags (stop criteria): repeated contempt, unresolved financial mismatch >30% divergence, emotional withdrawal held more than 2 weeks, or physical safety concerns. If any red flag appears, choose a pause and external input rather than guessing. Heres a final note: practical data beats nostalgia – actually tracking things removes bias and clarifies whether long-term appeal will eventually hold or fade.

Assess Shared Values, Faith, and Life Goals

Conduct a 90-day values audit now: list six domains (faithfulness, finances, children, career, hygiene, friends), score each 0–10, and set a remediation plan with checkpoints at 30, 60, 90 days; if any core domain ≤5 and partner doesnt improve by ≥3 points by day 180, treat as persistent mismatch.

Concrete script to speak with a partner: “Define faithfulness in one sentence. State the child goal as a number and timeline. Specify hygiene routines (showers/wk, dental/floss habits). Describe acceptable gifts and shared goods policies. Name three friends who will remain active in both lives.” Record exact answers; repeat the same questions after 30 and 90 days to detect drift.

Metrics to track weekly/monthly: hygiene (showers per week), physcial affection (contacts per month), joint savings rate (%) and emergency fund balance, gift frequency and cost, friends time (hours/week). Assign weights (example: faithfulness 30%, finances 20%, children 20%, hygiene 10%, friends 10%, physcial 10%). Compute a composite alignment score; goal: ≥80 for long-term viability.

Behavior checks and flags: document promises made vs kept; if partner says “youd” or “youve” in blaming context repeatedly, log communication pattern. If exes like Kaits remain in daily contact, flag boundaries. If answers are evasive, become defensive, or use gross dismissals, treat as high-risk. In case of explosive reactions (fire-like anger) or chronic stonewalling, escalate concerns and consult a neutral mediator.

Emotional alignment exercise: both rate feelings on same 0–10 scale for commitment, trust, excitement, and future vision; compute delta. If delta >3 on any metric across three checks, plan targeted conversations with specific tasks (trade-offs, counseling, timeline). Track language: does partner truly mean what is said, or is phrasing passive–”there’s a problem” versus explicit “I will change X”?

Practical rules of thumb: assign looks a maximum weight of 15% in total scoring to avoid overvaluing appearance; reserve at least 25% weight for faithfulness and long-term goal alignment. If yall disagree on children or relocation by more than two scale points, probability of full alignment falls below 35%–treat as actionable divergence. For my part, keep a private baseline of non-negotiables to compare against partner answers; if things shift like sand underfoot, document so patterns are known and not anecdotal.

Final triage: compile answers, scores, and behavioral logs into a single shared document; review with trusted friends or a counselor. If core essence of partnership will not align after the agreed remediation period, convert the plan into exit thresholds rather than open-ended hopes. Record gifts, goods transfers, and legal steps in the same file to avoid surprises in any case.

Discuss Commitment, Roles, and Conflict Resolution

Create a signed compact that specifies commitment length, role allocations, financial splits, and a three-step conflict protocol (pause 10 minutes, fact statement 5 minutes each, mediator within 7 days); this document keeps the partnership focused on the shared goal, keeps actions doing what was agreed, always returns disputes to ground rules, and prevents vagueness.

Define bare bones responsibilities (laundry, dishes, childcare, bills) and one single bone of duty per task to avoid duplication; assign by task list or time-share (example: 60/40 chores, 50/50 savings) and name whom handles which accounts. If Kait wants a coming wedding while the other partner prefers no ceremony, record decision thresholds: if both rate ≥7 proceed, if one rates ≤3 postpone, if unresolved escalate on budget lines only. Replace dated expectations with measurable tasks, note most triggers stem from vague assumptions, and avoid labeling behavior as horrible or hopeless – require evidence and specific repair actions instead. If compliments appear as platitudes (for example a partner saying “youre perfect”), require concrete examples before closing the topic.

Specify transgression penalties with concrete metrics: minor (missed chore twice in 30 days) → written apology + two corrective tasks; moderate (unauthorized purchase >$500) → temporary account separation + 30-day financial counseling; major (deception about children, assets) → legal separation review within 14 days. Require partners to speak using “I” statements, never guess intentions, and document what common phrases mean to avoid semantic drift. Set timelines to find repair (7 days to propose fixes, 30 days to complete), assign an impartial mediator for repeats, and include a clause that closes incidents once agreed corrective steps are saved in the compact. Encourage kind, measurable rituals that are inspiring and rebuild trust (weekly check-ins, one intentional beautiful gesture per month) because consistent micro-actions change ground-level dynamics and keep the relationship from slipping into hopeless cycles.

Understand God’s Purpose for Marriage: Covenant, Companionship, and Calling

Prioritize covenantal commitment: make a written compact during wedding preparation that records likes, non-negotiables, a shared view of vocation, and a clause assigning two accountability partners; include language that protects yours and partner’s callings, measure trust quarterly with a checklist, and require missed commitments to be logged and reconciled within 30 days.

Operationalize companionship with routines that reveal personality under pressure: start a 60-minute weekly conversation, commit to monthly shared projects, and run a 12-week experiment documenting how interacting during chores affects emotional close and subsequent relationships; these data points indicate whether spark shifts toward steady intimacy or flatlines, then inform next steps.

Distinguish erotic impulse from sustainable physicality: track frequency of erotic desire versus comfort with everyday touch, note stomach-level reactions when imagining daily routines, and set a six-month timeline for measurable change; avoid saying attraction will appear without documented shifts, because anything assumed without data can mislead–if trust and complementary personality strengths are high, treat marriage as a godly vocational commitment rather than solely aesthetic fulfilment thats based on momentary desire.

Anchor decisions in scripture and example: genesis 2:24 frames covenantal leaving and cleaving, and jesus went into the wilderness for forty days as a model of testing; historical couples who worked through low spark report that consistent service, honest communication, and sacrificial love made marriage beautiful and durable, offering a reproducible example for broken or dormant relationships.

Use a short, verifiable checklist before a legal commitment: list what to expect in year one–shared finances, weekly spiritual practice, conflict protocol, negotiated physicality boundaries–and agree on review points; if youve already live together, compare actual interaction logs against expectations above to determine readiness for being married and whether recorded change is sufficient.

Test Compatibility Through Time, Counseling, and Boundaries

Begin a 12–18 month evaluation: monthly checkpoints, couples counseling every 6–8 weeks for a block of six sessions, and a written boundary agreement reviewed quarterly.

• Baseline metrics (quantify): track emotional buckets (affection, conflict, support) on a 1–10 scale; count meaningful conversations per week; log time spent on shared tasks; record financial transparency events (shared bills, unexpected expenses).
• Counseling cadence: choose a licensed couple therapist using Gottman- or CBT-informed methods; plan six sessions, reassess progress, then continue every 8 weeks if scores improve by at least 20% in two of three buckets.
• Boundary contracts: list hard limits (privacy, phones at dinner, financial thresholds), acceptable flexes, and a clear repair protocol for broken rules (apology + one concrete action within 72 hours; third breach triggers escalated counseling).

1. Monthly checkpoint template: date, mood averages, conflict incidents (type), resolution time, who initiated repair, notes on physical attraction or lost spark.
2. Quarterly deep review: therapist-led session, review of checklist, explicit decision point about whether intent to marry exists; if intention to marry is present, set a six-month plan with target metrics for partnership stability.
3. Decision thresholds: if kindness drops below 5/10, immaturity patterns repeat twice in three months, or trust incidents exceed agreed price (financial breach beyond agreed limit), pause progression to the next commitment level.

Concrete exercises to implement

• Timed talking: two 10-minute slots weekly where each person speaks uninterrupted; use a soft ding or timer rather than interruptions; end with one negotiated action item.
• Boundary rehearsal: role-play the door-closing moment–how each will react when angry, practice phrases to speak instead of shutting out or storming off.
• Friend test: spend a weekend as if with a trusted friend–observe whether partner treats that person with the style of interaction expected in a loving, kind partnership.

Sample therapist questions to use in sessions

• “What do each of us actually mean when we say ‘commitment’?”
• “In case of serious disagreement, what repairs will be acceptable?”
• “Which behaviors make trust smell wrong–small signs like a lied-about text or a changed introduction to friends?”

Red flags and micro-signals

• Repeated immature responses under stress (name-calling, refusal to speak) despite coaching.
• Constant minimization of partner’s concerns–phrases that make the other feel dismissed or that their place in the partnership is negotiable.
• Pattern of late apologies with no behavior change; a single heartfelt apology followed by concrete steps is acceptable, a ding of convenience is not.

Practical tolerances and trade-offs

• Decide how much compromise on style and fashion matters; rankable list from 1 (non-negotiable) to 5 (minor preference).
• Set a price for tolerance: how many mismatched values can be accepted before the challenge outweighs benefit–document three dealbreakers and three acceptable differences.
• If attraction is low but partnership functions well, treat this as a type of relationship: assess whether loving behavior, kindness, and mutual goals truly substitute for initial spark.

Final operational steps

• Create a shared folder labeled “introduction & benchmarks” with meeting notes, therapist summaries, and the boundary contract in a visible place.
• Choose a neutral third-party friend or mentor to read progress reports every six months and to act as a sounding board.
• If metrics stagnate after 18 months despite diligent talking and therapy, accept the data: either escalate treatment or change the plan of commitment rather than hope for sand-to-glass transformations.