Will you answer questions about love and philosophy?

The mere fact that you are with him makes you the first choice. Men aren’t that complex, really.

A committed relationship tends to foster love. Not always, but usually. I know people who entered into an arranged marriage where they didn’t even know each other before. It worked well, but that’s barring any mental illness, abuse, etc.

I did not marry out of love, but to escape my parents (yeah, I know). That is a stupid reason to marry anyone, and there were some horrible days for me, but I grew up, he grew up, and we love each other now.

I have been married 36 years, and neither one of us looked to have an additional relationship.

Anything less than choice is a cop out. Settling is a cop out.
Going with whoever will have you in the moment is a cop out.
Most of what people call “love” is anything but.
It is desperation, fear, ( of not doing, finding better )neediness, opportunity, anything but real “love’, which is based on conscious choice and continued evaluation of self and other.

What @Coloma said ^^^

There may be occasions when one wants a casual relationship for whatever reason, in which case their companion needn’t be the love of their life. However, it is rare for ‘friends with benefits’ to have a mutual objectivity about each other and for neither to develop an emotional attachment.

On advice of my counsel, I respectfully refuse to answer this question on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.

I would never be willing to enter knowingly onto a relationship where I or the other party is not the first and only choice. If I am not Mr. Right, being Mr. right noe will not do. I would not enter into a relationship with someone who was not my first and onlt choice at that time. As appealing as it sounds to have a casual sexual relationship for the sake of mutual sexual satisfaction, I see the risks inherent in such a relationship to just be too high. One or both are at great risk of being hurt.

Speaking only to committed relationships:

As to your first set of questions, no. Second choice for either party would be a deal-breaker for me. Settling for less leads to resentment in the long run. Resentment is a relationship killer.

As to your second set of questions, it depends. If you’ve been happy together for a long time and are happy to remain so, love without “in love” might be enough. If things are bad or rocky, it might not be enough to keep you together.

I tend to avoid women who have a long history of dating riff raff, bad boys, players, and guys who clearly are aholes, and then go on to say that “they’re willing to settle for a decent guy at that stage in their life” jib jab. It would be disrespectful to myself to do such a thing since I don’t believe that anybody is better than me.

Ironically I’ve had quite a few people give me a difficult time about my attitude on this topic. Fact for me here is that I want to be with a woman who wished that other guys were like me, and that I have qualities that beat out the choices of guys I’d mentioned above. I have no interest in being a second choice or a convenience. It’s not a matter of pride for me but self-respect.