When a Long-Distance Relationship Is Worth It, and When It's a Warning Sign
Matthew Hussey
In this podcast episode, Matthew Hussey, Stephen Hussey and Audrey Hussey discuss a question many listeners send them: how do you know whether a long-distance relationship is viable and worth your time? Matthew argues that long distance has enough drawbacks that it needs to be "really great and promising" to justify the investment. Stephen, who is currently about a year into a long-distance relationship, and Audrey, who was long distance with Matthew for nearly two years, add a more hopeful view. They think long distance with the right person can make a relationship more intentional, earlier.
The episode then moves on to viewer criticism of an earlier episode about dating in your 30s and 40s, a listener's question about how to know when you're "ready" for a healthy relationship, and a quick game rating long-distance habits.
Three Signs a Long-Distance Relationship Is Viable
Matthew opens with what he looks for in a long-distance relationship that is worth pursuing.
- A sense of progression. Things feel like they are gathering momentum and going somewhere.
- Mutual intentionality. Both people are being deliberate about wanting a real relationship. This doesn't mean you know the other person is right for you, only that you both seem "genuinely open to something at this point in our lives."
- Light at the end of the tunnel. There is an actual plan for when you will see each other, and some idea of when the distance will end, even if only temporarily before you're apart again.
Matthew says it is "very easy in long distance to just never make a plan," so a plan of some kind has to exist.
He immediately adds a caveat. None of this can be known at the very start. You can't meet someone and launch into deep conversations about the future, because the point of early dates or early conversations is to find out whether there's attraction and chemistry, and whether you enjoy each other's company at all. With someone local, you can go for a low-stakes coffee. Matthew points out there is "no low activation energy date" in person when you live far apart.
That raises a second question: how much should you invest in someone you like but can't yet read? Matthew's answer is that if you can't see progression or intentionality yet, and can't make a plan without forcing it, you have to admit you don't know how worthwhile this is. So you should be careful "how many eggs I put in this basket."
The Trap: Dating From Lack and Getting Hooked on a Stranger
Matthew describes a pattern he sees often. Someone isn't getting much attention where they live and is struggling to meet anyone in their hometown. Then they meet someone far away who seems exciting. The profile is attractive, a FaceTime call goes well, the texts are fun. The person decides they really like this stranger, stops paying attention to options at home, and stops creating new ones.
Very quickly, their happiness depends on someone they barely know. In Matthew's words, the other person is "basically a stranger but for one or two conversations." They have no idea what that person does in their spare time, and they spend their days waiting for the next text or call.
He also argues that long distance is built to feel exciting. It is easier in one sense, because there is no pressure to meet any time soon. The barrier between two people creates a "Romeo and Juliet scenario" that is "already kind of sexy." Your brain starts to tell you this might be someone special, and what a shame they don't live nearby. But Matthew suggests the same person might not have seemed as exciting if you had met them in your own town.
He adds that long distance is "very attractive for avoidance." An avoidant person can happily be the most charming, caring version of themselves from afar, because there is no risk of the other person wanting to see them every day.
Relationship or Situationship?
Audrey pushes back. She asks whether Matthew is really describing a long-distance situationship rather than a long-distance relationship. She notes that Stephen is currently in a long-distance relationship, and that she and Matthew were long distance when they first got together.
Matthew clarifies his position. He isn't telling people to avoid long distance, but he doesn't think it's advisable for everyone. The default, he says, should be that long-distance relationships "suck" in so many ways that they need to be really promising to be worth it.
Audrey agrees, but places the problem in dating from a feeling of lack. When nothing is happening in your love life, any attention feels good, including someone asking about your day and having flirty conversations with you. In her view, that is a situationship where you don't know where you stand, and you can "run out a lot of time on the clock" in that dynamic.
She also argues that long distance with the right people often becomes more intentional earlier. When two people really like each other and know there's an obstacle, they tend to "put their ducks in a row." They carve out time for calls, make sure the other person knows they're wanted, and make it clear they aren't seeing anyone else. She thinks this can fast-track a relationship. Matthew adds a qualifier: only if it's mutual. Very often, he says, that effort comes from only one side.
Stephen's Experience: No Day-to-Day Test, but an Early Plan
Asked how distance shaped his relationship, Stephen says the hardest part of starting long distance is not having time to test what it's like to be together day to day. After a few great dates, he and his girlfriend faced a lot of open questions because they lived far apart. He describes himself as cautious rather than a "headstrong romantic." Still, after their first few dates, when they separated, they kept talking a lot, got to know each other, and felt out each other's communication styles. His thinking was: "I don't want to just fly back and not speak anymore because it seems worth pursuing."
Matthew and Audrey tease Stephen about this. Matthew says Stephen barely calls anyone else, and that Stephen didn't message once during a recent trip to London to see his partner until asking what time filming was. Stephen's reply is that he had the motivation with his girlfriend.
Stephen says they went in "eyes wide open," knowing this wasn't a setup either would have chosen. A couple of weeks after he flew back, they were already talking about a date when one would visit the other. Once they decided they were really doing this, he says, everything had to be on the table. How often do we need to see each other to make this tolerable? Would you move here? Would I move to you? You won't know exactly what the next few years look like, but those things need to be "very heavily communicated." If you feel like you're walking on eggshells about raising these topics months in, he asks, "what are we doing here?"
He describes his girlfriend's approach at the start as watching and waiting. She wasn't sure whether he would keep calling after he flew home, or whether it had just been a couple of dates. When he called as soon as he got back and kept reaching out, she felt safe to invest more. Audrey sums it up as testing the waters and then investing in proportion to what he gave. Stephen says neither of them rushed to ask "are we doing this?" They wanted to see whether the flame would burn out with distance.
The practical conversations about how often they could see each other, how much holiday each had, and where they'd go came after his first visit home, roughly three or four months in. Matthew stresses that this is "not 9 months in," and says it matters for people to hear that.
When Asking About the Future Is a Standard, Not Neediness
Audrey raises a concern she thinks many listeners share, especially women. If you really like someone, you don't want to "come in all hot" asking whether they'd move to your city. You want to stay easygoing, because it's early and you haven't spent much time together.
Matthew separates two situations. There's the casual arrangement where you have fun when one of you is in town and might or might not text in between; that "knows what it is." Then there's talking every day, being in each other's lives, knowing what the other person did yesterday, and effectively having an ongoing emotional relationship. After a couple of months of the second kind, he says, you need to ask what you're doing, "because otherwise you can do that for a long time under false pretenses."
He likes the question "how often is it feasible that we'll see each other?" because its real subtext is "is this going to work?" He argues that once the situation has earned it, meaning you're talking all the time and you're three months in, asking this isn't needy. It shows you value your time and energy. Why would you talk to someone for an hour a day for months with no plan?
Stephen agrees. In his relationship, the idea of visiting came up very early, even though tough schedules made it harder to arrange than it should have been. He says he couldn't have gone another three or four months with neither of them raising it. If the other person isn't proactive about it, he says, the relationship is going to be hard and will require you to plan your whole life around it.
Warning Signs: Fits and Starts, and "An Experience to Be Had"
Audrey asks directly: two or three months in, how do you tell a relationship that will go the distance from one where the other person just enjoys having someone to talk to?
Matthew's first warning sign is fits and starts. The other person gives you intense attention sometimes, say on a lonely Sunday, and then you barely hear from them for a week. Audrey asks whether that could simply be work, tiredness or time zones. Matthew's answer is that someone who can't communicate regularly shouldn't be in a long-distance relationship. Long distance needs more communication, not less. You can get away with disliking your phone if you see each other four times a week, but not if you won't see each other for two months. He says he would never be in a long-distance relationship with a bad communicator.
The biggest warning sign, in his view, is having an amazing week together and then going quiet once you're both home. Audrey says that means you aren't in a long-distance relationship; you just visited someone who wanted a good time. Matthew agrees that the good time was real, but says it's what that person was looking for: "You are an experience to be had, not a person to be with."
He also warns that a great trip together is not a preview of life together. Comparing it to treating a honeymoon week as a glimpse into your marriage, he says what really shows you life together is how you feel about and treat each other "on day 57." Long-distance couples can spend years "only having honeymoons" in "little honeymoon compartments" and wish they could have that every day, when that experience wouldn't exist day to day.
Exclusivity, Anxiety, and Reclaiming Your Power
Audrey raises another common assumption. People often conclude the other person can't be seeing anyone else because they talk all the time and always seem to know where the other person is. She admits she has thought this herself. She asks how you can tell whether your hesitation to bring up the subject is your own anxiety, or whether the other person simply hasn't made you feel safe enough to raise it.
Matthew reframes the question. Hoping something works out isn't limited to anxiously attached people; everyone feels it about jobs, businesses and relationships. The way to take back power, he says, is to recognize that you're investing time and energy you wouldn't invest unless you both were open to trying something. He calls it "a trial," not a promise of forever.
He offers an example of what you might say. Being long distance is tricky and seeing each other is hard. You wouldn't be on the phone with someone this much unless you were both genuinely exploring something. Loving someone from afar isn't your ideal, but you do like this person. It takes a lot of energy, so you probably wouldn't keep going unless you were both open to exploring it in a meaningful way. Matthew says this isn't desperation; it's someone saying their time and energy are valuable.
He compares it to business. A service provider might give you half an hour of free advice, but if you're calling every day, at some point you have to become a client. He admits it's not a perfect analogy. Audrey offers what she calls a better one: at the farmers market, you can try the samples, but once you've tried every flavor and they know you by name, you either buy the cookie or walk away.
Matthew says the thing he most wants to warn against is assuming exclusivity without having the conversation. On the "they wouldn't have time" logic, he notes that some married people with busy lives and several kids still manage to have entire secret relationships. He suggests stating your position openly instead. Something like: you're investing a lot of time and energy, you aren't inclined to see other people while doing so, and you'd be hurt if the other person was, because that would change how much you're willing to give. The hosts say long distance is a big topic, invite more listener questions, and float the idea of a part two.
Viewer Criticism: Are Single People in Their 30s "Leftovers"?
The hosts then read critical comments on a previous episode, "Why Women Are Giving Up on Men in 2025." A commenter, A Turner047, wrote that dating in your 30s means dating "the leftovers" and people coming out of toxic relationships. The commenter said these people are either the problem or scarred by the people who are, that very few are doing the work to better themselves, and that those who are don't want to compromise their peace. The comment said this applied to both men and women.
Matthew notes a lot of "exceptionalism" in the comment: someone in their 30s calling everyone single in their 30s leftovers except themselves. He understands the underlying experience. If you've done a lot of self-work, you notice when others haven't, and you feel like you're speaking different languages. What he struggles with is the implication that nobody else is doing the work or is naturally introspective.
Stephen says he has seen data suggesting that relationships formed later in life last longer, so he isn't sure older people are worse candidates. Matthew says that if he and Audrey had met in their 20s, it would have been a disaster, and Audrey agrees. Matthew says he is "massively grateful" for both of their failed relationships. They teach you how to argue well, what not to say, that some things can't be taken back, and how to be more gracious. He acknowledges that some people repeat the same mistakes all their lives. Still, he believes you have a better shot with someone who has "been through the ringer" than with someone fresh out of college.
Audrey sympathizes with the feeling that everyone around you is paired off while your dates disappoint. But she warns that the "leftovers" framing becomes a lens you look at every potential partner through, and you may end up attracting exactly what you expect. She says she can name three people she's close to who just came out of relationships in their mid-to-late 30s. Some met too young; for others it just didn't work out. They aren't leftovers, "they're just back out there." There may be fewer such people, but she thinks you may have a better chance of making it work with them. She adds, kindly, that labeling people "leftovers" reflects a lack of generosity of spirit.
Stephen jokes that he's happy to be leftovers, like reheated pizza, and says he always knew he didn't want to marry in his 20s. Matthew recommends George Watsky's song "Sloppy Seconds" as "required listening." He calls it a song about accepting what he describes in his book Love Life as "the broken vessels that we all are," and finding people with dents more interesting than a glossy new car.
Living With Friends Instead: Independence Versus Closing the Door
A second commenter, Mel W669, agreed with the first. Mel wrote that the more they did the work, the less appealing a relationship looked, because the dating pool in your 40s isn't appealing. Mel described discussing with female friends the idea of sharing a house as they age: companionship, mutual help and a small community, without pressure to perform romantically. On sex, Mel wrote that they can do without it and have for a while.
Audrey says she relates. She and her friends used to joke that if none of them found love, they'd all live together and have "communal babies." Matthew jokes that men never say this to each other; they just resign themselves to being alone.
Stephen, who describes himself as someone who enjoys his own company and has plenty of interests, sees the commenter's independence as a strength. It lets you choose a relationship from a more conscious place, as something that adds meaning and joy rather than something that drains you. The challenge is making room for it. Saying no one will be as entertaining as your own company is, in his view, a limited perspective. He suggests being "more curious … than judgmental."
Matthew points out that if everyone is leftovers, the friends in the shared house are leftovers too. Audrey notes that we're much more accepting of our friends than of people we date. She also suggests that many women worry a partner will mean more emotional labor and housework.
Matthew says the comment makes sense to him and that a community of close friends is a genuinely attractive ideal. But the plan can't count on none of the friends ever finding love, and a pact to stop looking would mean limiting each other. He draws a distinction. Feeling independent enough that you don't rely on romance to be happy is one thing. Saying that the more you grow, the less appealing a relationship becomes is "much more of a leap." To him, worthwhile growth makes you more present and less controlling of outcomes, and therefore open to whatever life brings, including a romantic partner. He notes that even Eckhart Tolle is in a relationship.
He also reads a comment from a man, Tobias, agreeing with a woman who said she didn't care about the "six foot, six figures" cliché and still found dating a disaster. Tobias wrote that he is 6'2", works out, has a decent tech job, and feels "completely invisible" to women. Matthew says the earlier episode made this point: having these traits doesn't guarantee success in love, and lacking them doesn't guarantee failure. He points to famous people who seem to struggle year after year to find love as evidence that having everything doesn't guarantee an authentic, meaningful connection. Remaining open, he says, is part of the key.
Love Lifeline: How Do You Know You're "Ready"?
A listener named Jess sends in a voice note. Jess has spent years working on childhood issues and attachment patterns and feels ready for a healthy relationship, but isn't sure what "ready" actually feels like. As attraction patterns shift, Jess finds it hard to tell whether someone is genuinely interested and consistent, is love bombing, or is simply not that into them.
Matthew says he doesn't believe in being 100% ready, especially if that means having everything figured out. Everyone has regrettable conversations and reactive moments in relationships, and those moments don't prove we shouldn't have been in one. He calls changing relationship patterns possibly "the most difficult thing in the world": going against what genes, upbringing, conditioning and caregivers have made you, and choosing not to react with jealousy or give in to anxiety. He says it's "miraculous" when people manage it, and most don't.
He encourages Jess to give themselves credit for the awareness itself. Being able to say "this isn't me, it's my pattern" creates space. He gives his own example of watching "Matthew doing something that Matthew does," getting wound up over something he's probably blowing out of proportion. That consciousness, pausing before sending a text or starting a conversation, is what makes relationships better. He defines readiness as being willing to observe your own patterns, think before reacting reflexively, and train new reflexes. Two people doing that will grow and heal together. They'll never score perfectly, and each will need the other's grace.
He also calls recalibration "inherently messy." Someone learning to stand up for themselves will still have moments where they don't, and will kick themselves for it. He says that is actually progress, because before, they wouldn't even have noticed. There will also be moments where they overdo it and make too much of something. Telling a partner "this is something I'm working on" helps them understand the clumsiness. Ultimately, he says, you can't test these new skills alone in a room; that would be "the sound of one hand clapping."
Audrey agrees that "all the work is ahead of you" once you're in a relationship, because that's where your triggers come up. She paraphrases an idea she attributes to someone she calls "Herman": that what was broken in relationships can only be healed in relationships.
Steve Sleeves: Rating Long-Distance Habits
The episode ends with Stephen's recurring segment, "Steve Sleeves." Matthew mentions that at a recent Love Life live event in Miami, several attendees told Stephen how much they love it. Stephen reads out long-distance habits, and the others rate each as essential, nice to have, or unhinged.
A fixed weekly FaceTime slot. Stephen says nice to have. Matthew says essential, but it doesn't need to be the same time every week, which could be too rigid; what matters is scheduling it like a date. Stephen notes that time zones make this tricky, though he and his partner usually do a longer call on weekends.
Doing a shared activity together, such as watching a show, gaming or reading the same book. Both call it essential. Matthew explains that you don't want to give the impression that every moment together has to be conversation, because real life isn't like that: "we're in company, not conversation." If every call has to be a conversation, he says, you'll spend less time together because it will always feel like pressure. Audrey recalls that when she was eight hours ahead, she would fall asleep with Matthew on FaceTime on her pillow while he watched something or read. Stephen says he and his partner play the New York Times games Wordle and Connections together every day.
Falling asleep on FaceTime. Audrey calls it essential, noting she and Matthew were long distance for almost two years. Producer David calls it unhinged. Stephen says he could do it occasionally, especially when it happens by accident, but that it loses something once it feels compulsory, like a mandatory good-night text.
Matthew tells a story from a retreat. Exhausted at the end of a day, he called Audrey, who asked him to text when he went to sleep, and he replied, "I'm not going to do that." He explained he was so sick of his phone he didn't want to look at it again that night, and Audrey understood. Audrey says such texts shouldn't be mandatory. But she thinks "bookends to the day" matter a lot for connection in long distance. When they were apart, she usually woke up first because of the time zone and would leave a message for him, and he would leave one before bed. Matthew suggests picking either morning or night; Audrey suggests alternating.
A participant whose partner, Abigail, is currently filming a horror movie about three hours away describes their approach as fluid: both value check-ins but neither expects them. When Abigail didn't text one night, the participant worried about her safety because she was "out in the wilderness." She later called, completely casual. The participant says what works is that "we both value it, but neither of us expect it." Stephen agrees that too many rules can feel stifling, though if something isn't working, you have to be honest.
Picking a "cheese of the week" and tasting it together, both buying the same cheese. It's first called unhinged, then settles at nice to have. Stephen insists it has to be cheese.
Mailing each other hoodies that smell like you ("smell mail," a name Stephen admits he made up). Matthew calls it a strong nice to have and likes the idea, for example spraying the hoodie with perfume or cologne.
Sharing locations on your phones "for safety." Matthew and Stephen say unhinged. Audrey is more open. She and Matthew don't share locations, but she wouldn't mind if he wanted to for safety, and she thinks it could help if someone hasn't replied for hours and you can see they're just at a friend's house. Matthew says it's not something he has ever felt he needed. His concern comes from working with people whose partners used "I want to make sure you're okay" to track them constantly, when the real motive was control. He worries about green-lighting that behavior. Stephen concludes the habit has "too much potential to be unhinged."
A private YouTube channel for weekly vlogs to each other, meaning a supercut of your week. Matthew asks why you wouldn't just send videos. Once Stephen explains it means filming your life all week, it's judged too much work and rated unhinged.
How do you know when a long-distance relationship is viable and therefore worth your energy and your time?
If there's a sense of progression in the relationship, if you actually feel like things are gathering momentum, if they're going somewhere. If there's mutual intentionality, you actually feel like both of you are being intentional about wanting a real relationship. It doesn't mean you necessarily know that the other person is right for that, but you just have a sense that both of us are actually genuinely open to something at this point in our lives.
If you feel that there's light at the end of the tunnel, that you've actually got something on the horizon that says we are going to see each other. This isn't just an exercise in long-distance communication. We've made a plan. We know when we're going to see each other. We know when there's going to be an end to the long distance, even if it's a temporary end because you're going to be long distance again afterwards. What's our plan here? It is very easy in long distance to just never make a plan. So there has to be some kind of a plan.
And of course, none of these things are things that you can know too early on. You can't meet someone long distance and immediately start having deep and meaningfuls about the future. You can't know initially whether there's progression because that's not the point of a date. The point of a date is to see if there's attraction. The point of speaking initially is to see if there's chemistry, is to see, do we even enjoy each other's long-distance company?
So that means it kind of begs another question, which is, what's a wise amount to invest in somebody that you've met, that you've decided you like, who is long distance? Because if you can't tell just how intentional they're being right now, you can have some questions about what they're looking for in their life, but you don't want to start every conversation with, "What are you looking for?"
So if you can't know all of that up front, if you can't see the progression you need to see to know if they're being serious or if there's momentum straight away without forcing it, and you don't want to force it. If you can't suddenly make a plan with someone that you've just met because that would not be unlike a date where we say, "Well, we just met on an app and we live down the road from each other, so let's go for a coffee." There's no low activation energy date when it comes to long distance, in person at least.
So if you can't get all of those things straight away, you have to say, therefore, I can't know. I can't know right now how worthwhile this is. And if I can't know right now how worthwhile this is, I better be careful how much I invest into this, how many eggs I put in this basket, because I just don't know.
And one of the things that I think is a common trap that people fall into is, I'm not getting enough attention where I live. I'm struggling to meet someone I like in my hometown. Nothing is happening in my dating life right now. And all of a sudden I meet someone who seems exciting, and I have chemistry, and I've seen them on FaceTime or on their profile, and they're good-looking, and I'm attracted to them, and oh my God, we just had a great conversation by text or by phone. I really like this person.
The danger there is that now you've decided you really like this person who lives nowhere near you. You ignore all of your other options back home. You no longer want to create options back home. And so now you're all of a sudden very quickly in an existence with someone you don't know at all. They're basically a stranger but for one or two conversations.
You're now waiting for their next text or their next call. It's like out of nowhere, your love life and your happiness in your love life has become dependent on this person who lives far away from you. You have no idea what they're up to in their spare time, and you're now waiting around for that person to come to you or to text you or to reach back out to you or to respond to your message.
And I think it's worth saying that long-distance relationships are set up to be exciting. There is something about them that is inherently, in a way, easier because I don't have to worry that I'm going to meet you anytime soon. So I can talk to you, you can talk to me. We have this kind of Romeo and Juliet scenario where there's a barrier to us being together. So that's already kind of sexy. It's already a sense of, oh, well, this isn't going to work or this isn't ideal. And so now our brain starts telling us, well, maybe it is. Maybe this is someone I really like, and oh, what a shame, someone I really like. I wish they lived in my town. But that same person might not have been as exciting if you did meet them in your town.
Long-distance relationships are very attractive for avoidants. Because if you're an avoidant, you feel quite happy being the most charming, fun, sensitive, caring version of yourself when you're long distance because there's no threat to this person all of a sudden wanting to see you every day of the week because they can't.
Are you confusing, though, when you're talking about this, a long-distance relationship and a long-distance situationship? Because I think they're two very different things, right? Stephen, you're in a long-distance relationship right now in this very moment.
Correct.
As were you when you first got together.
Yeah.
So, Matthew's caution here.
You did it.
Do as I say, not as I do.
Yeah. Listen, I'm not someone who says don't have a long-distance relationship, but I don't necessarily think that they're advisable for everybody. And I think that the default has to be, if you're going to date someone long distance, you have to know that there's so many ways that long-distance relationships suck that it needs to be really great and promising for you to bother investing your time in it. Otherwise, why do it? There's too many drawbacks.
Well, I agree with that 100%. But the problem is when we're coming to our love lives from a place of lack and feeling like nothing is happening in my love life. Any amount of attention feels good. Any amount of communication with another human being who's asking you how your day was and who's asking you about yourself and having fun, sexy conversations is going to feel really, really attractive. But again, I think that's a situationship, right? So it's a long-distance situationship. You don't know where you stand. And you're right, you can run out a lot of time on the clock just kind of staying in that dynamic with somebody.
But I'm curious, so Stephen, for instance, in your situation now, did you feel like there was a difference in the organic way in which the relationship progressed because it was long distance? Because I actually think long distance with the right people end up being far more intentional far earlier on, if that makes sense. Because I think if two people are actually going, I really like you. I want to see you. I want this to work, and you know that there is this obstacle, I think you're more likely to be putting all your ducks in a row in order to make sure that happens. Putting in more effort, actually dedicating and carving out time to calling them and making sure they know that you really like them and making sure they know that you're not getting with other people because you don't want them to go and get with other people. So I think it can actually almost fast-track it sometimes as well.
If that's mutual.
If that's—very often what you're talking about is only happening on one side of the equation. I'm curious, Stephen, as someone who's currently in it, and you're roughly a year into this relationship, what would you say is the difference between that relationship being long distance? How did that affect the relationship both positively and negatively in terms of its progression and everything?
Yeah. I think the difficulty is if you start long distance, you don't have that time initially to really test how it is being together day to day.
So true.
That's tough at first because there are just a lot of questions like, this was really good to start with. We had some great dates, but we live far away. And so I think you do—I mean, I'm generally cautious. I don't run into things quickly. I'm not a headstrong romantic. I like to see how things are going. But I think knowing at first you really like—in my relationship, we carried on the communication very quickly after we were separated after our first few dates, and we were talking a lot, getting to know each other, feeling out communication styles. I think both knew we wanted to talk a lot, and really it was like, "Oh, this is really, really great. I don't want to just fly back and not speak anymore because it seems worth pursuing."
Which, it should be said, from you is a giant compliment because the rest of us barely get a phone call from you.
Right. Exactly.
In fact, I think there's an unread message I sent you a week ago, and I still haven't got a response from it. You went back a week and a half ago to London to see your partner, and I didn't hear from you one single time until last night when you said, "What time are we filming today?"
Well, I enjoyed a little break, Matthew.
What's your excuse when you're in LA?
I reach out to you sometimes saying—sometimes I reach out to you. I'm like, "All right, boy, you want to do brunch this weekend?" Or just give you a call.
A long-term relationship, a long-distance relationship between you two would just not work out.
It wouldn't. The communication.
You would lack the motivation.
Yeah. But that's the point. I had the motivation.
Unlike with you, I had the motivation.
But there had to be—I think we both went in very eyes wide open, like this isn't anything we would both have chosen. So we're going to have to, I'll come back on X date. Very soon after us talking for a couple of weeks after me flying back here, it was like, let's plan a date when we'll do a trip, either you to me or me to you, and properly spend some time together. And we did.
I think you're right. There needs to be a sense of once you go, okay, we're doing this, which after a certain point we did, it all needs to be on the table. You need to be very open about your plans and the possibilities of how do we close that gap at some point and kind of figure out together. It really has to be, we're both willing to mutually figure this out and compromise and be a team planning this together. It doesn't mean you'll know exactly what the next few years look like, but there needs to be a lot of communication on how often do we need to see each other to make this tolerable? Would you be willing to move here? Would I be willing to move to you? That stuff all needs to be very heavily communicated, I think.
I have a question.
I want to hear your question. I was just going to say, if someone's not having those, if you feel like you're treading on eggshells having any of those conversations months in, it's kind of like, what are we doing here?
Well, that was my question. That's actually my question to you guys. I hear that and I'm like, yeah, but I can imagine a situation where I'm in a long-distance relationship. I really like the person, especially as a woman, I really like the guy, and I don't want to come in all hot and be like, "Would you move to my city?" And when are we next seeing each other? You want to keep it light because you want to be easy breezy, and it's early days, and you also haven't actually established that much time together.
Yeah, and my girlfriend didn't do that at all. In a way, she kind of let herself see, is he going to call me when he goes back? Is he—
So she let you do it?
Well, I think at first she was not sure how I was going to be when I flew home.
Okay.
Here. So I think at first, to her, she was kind of like, I don't know if he's going to keep calling me. I don't know if that was just a couple of dates and that's it. And I think once she knew, oh, you called me as soon as you got back. We talked a lot. You were actually reaching out. She felt safe to then invest more.
So she tested the waters a little bit but then would kind of invest in accordance to how much you were giving.
Well, yeah, and we both weren't throwing out really quickly, are we long distance? Are we doing this? I think we wanted to see, does this flame burn out with distance? Does this flame just burn out or does it keep going?
How many months in was it before you started talking about, okay, how are we going to do this? How are we going to get to see each other more often, and what does this look like in terms of—
Getting with other people?
I think after I did the first visit home, we got more clear on, it was really great, and okay, how often can we manage to see each other? How much holiday do you get? Where will we go?
Right. And how many months in was that?
Like three months, four months.
We're not talking about nine months in.
And I think it's important people hear that because these things take a lot of work. Long distance takes a lot of work when you're speaking, and at a certain point when you're speaking to someone every day and you're constantly texting them. I'm not saying a situation where when someone's in town you have fun with them, or when you're in their town you have fun, and it's never that intentional, and it's just like we might text, we might not, whatever. That's fine. That knows what it is.
But someone who you're talking to every day and you feel like you're basically having an emotional relationship with constantly. You're in each other's lives. You know what each other have been up to. If I asked you what that person did yesterday, you'd know that. At that point, you have to kind of start going, okay, if we've been doing this for the last couple of months and we're in month three now of doing this, what are we doing here? Because otherwise you can do that for a long time under false pretenses, where you're afraid to bring up, when are we going to see each other or how often are we going to get to see each other?
I like that. I like that questioning of, well, how often is it feasible that we'll be able to see each other? Because what that says, what the real subtext of that question is, is this going to work? For us to be investing consistently in this, it needs to work. And for it to work, we need to have an honest chat about how often we'd even get to see each other, and is that enough for us?
And actually, it's interesting. It's actually indicative of a standard. It feels like it's indicative of being like—your question, Audrey, is getting at, but when does that become needy, or when does that become you trying to push too hard in a situation that hasn't earned it yet? But at the point at which it's earned it because you're speaking all the time and you're now three months into this situation, at that point, having those conversations is actually indicative of being someone who values their time and their energy. Because the subtext has to be, why on earth would I speak to someone for an hour every day or text them relentlessly over the course of every day and for weeks and months on end? Why would I do that with someone where there was no plan here?
Yeah. And that's why in our relationship it came up very soon, the idea of, I'll come and see you. And at least that idea came up and we talked about
When that could happen, can it be in the next month or two months? It was actually more difficult than it needed to be just because we both had a very tough schedule at that time. But I couldn't have gone three months, four months longer talking with none of us talking about that.
And I think there are a lot of people who do that. And it's like, well, if the person you're talking to isn't even proactive in doing that, this is going to be hard. It's going to have tough times, and it's going to just require you to be more planning out your life around this.
Guys, too many of you have not yet tried Matthew AI. I even hear from people still who don't realize that Matthew AI exists. This is my digital mind that you can text or call and hear my voice speaking back to you 24 hours a day. So you can literally wake up in the middle of the night feeling confused, anxious, heartbroken, lonely, wanting to work on your confidence, and call me and have a conversation with me as your coach answering your questions.
All you need to do to try it is go to askmh.com. You can try it for free, ask a few questions, and see what you think of its answers. I know you're going to love it. It blows people's minds. That link again is askmh.com.
So I want to know what are the signs if I am in a long-distance relationship right now and I'm three months in, let's say, or less, like two months, three months in, and I want to know what the signs are that my long-distance relationship is actually going to go the distance, that this person is intentional. Maybe I'm not quite in a place where I can outright ask that question comfortably. And maybe you'll say that's a bad sign. Maybe you'll say months in. But I want to know, in your opinion, both of you, what the signs are that a long-distance relationship is going to be one that's viable, like yours, Stephen, and like ours was, or you're actually kind of wasting your time because that person is potentially just enjoying the company, having someone to speak to, feeling like they can come back to you at the end of the day to talk to you about things, but really there's no true intentionality from their end.
I would be paying attention to fits and starts. So if you feel like you get some very intense attention sometimes, maybe it's a Sunday and they're lonely and they're reaching out to you a lot, but then you don't hear from them very much for the next week, that is a danger sign.
But couldn't that be because they're working in the day and they're tired and the time zones and plans?
Then you shouldn't be in a long-distance relationship. If you're someone who can't communicate regularly, you cannot make a long-distance relationship work because you need more communication in a long-distance relationship, not less. You can get away with being like, "I don't really like being on my phone," if you're someone who lives down the street and we see each other four times a week. But if I'm not seeing you for two months, you can't be a bad communicator. I would never be in a long-distance relationship with someone who was a bad communicator long distance, because what is the point?
Speaking of the fits and starts, if you see someone and you have the greatest week of your life with them, and then you both go home and then you don't really hear much from them, huge warning sign, huge.
Then you're not in a long-distance relationship. You went to visit someone who wanted to have a good time, and that's it.
Yes. And by the way, yes, you two have an awesome time when you're together. That's not fake. You two have a great time when you're together, but that's what this person is looking for, a good time. You are an experience to be had, not a person to be with.
And it's a very common thing that happens in long-distance relationships. I'm using the word relationships very broadly here, not just to label two people who are in a monogamous relationship, but just two people who have some kind of ongoing dynamic. But in that situation, it's extremely common for people to be like, "We had the best time. We went away together. The sex was amazing. We had so much fun. We had all these great chats. It was amazing. I got a glimpse into what life would be like together."
Which, by the way, is because that's like saying, "The week of our honeymoon is a glimpse into our life together." No, it's not. No, it's not. How you feel about someone and how you treat each other on day 57 of being together is a glimpse into life together. But it's certainly not a week that you go away together and have an amazing time. That is not a glimpse into life together.
So that's another danger of long-distance relationships, is very often you can go years of only having honeymoons with someone and think, "God, I wish I could have this every day." That wouldn't exist every day because you're always seeing them in these little honeymoon compartments. But you can have an amazing time with someone and then you go home, and this is very common, that person all of a sudden, their communication is incredibly sparse.
Oh, it's the worst feeling.
And if that happens, you asked what are the signs that you don't have something that's real. That's a pretty serious sign that that person's not being intentional. They're not trying to progress this to anything more than what it is today. That all you have is someone you have a great time with, not someone that you have the option of being with. That, I think, is the biggest one.
That's a really, really good one, and it's true. What about you hear from them every day but not consistently, and maybe you somehow don't quite feel like you can ask them? The big thing that people wonder is, "I wonder if they're seeing other people." And a lot of people end up at the conclusion that, "Well, I'm sure they're not because I always know where they are." You always hear that, right? And I've said that before as well, by the way. So no shade on people feeling that, but this idea of, "They couldn't possibly be getting with other people because they wouldn't have time, because they speak to me all the time or see me all the time."
But obviously that's a big thing with long distance, is unless you've clarified that, you really don't know what someone's up to, right? So what are the signs in terms of communication in any given week? You mentioned being really intense on a Sunday and maybe a little bit more sporadic in the week. What are the signs that maybe, again, you are still kind of being used, I suppose, yes, as an experience and a comfort rather than actually with somebody who wants to build something with you?
I think at a certain point it becomes, can we talk about it or do they avoid the subject?
And how do you know that anxiety versus their lack of willingness to talk about it? How do you know that you're not the one going, "Well, I'm just really anxious to have this conversation because I don't want to come across too intense," versus they haven't made you feel comfortable enough to talk about it?
See, I want to reframe this whole thing to, forget your anxiety. We all feel some when we want something to happen. Call it anxiety, call it hope, call it a desire for something to go the way that you want it to go, whether it's a job that you're interviewing for or a business that you're launching or a relationship, dating someone and you hope that it turns out to be something. Who hasn't had that experience of thinking, "I really hope that this turns into something. I really hope this becomes something"? So that hope, that desire, isn't something that's limited to people who are anxiously attached. Everyone can have that feeling.
But the way we take power back is by saying there becomes a point in our lives where I am investing a certain amount of energy and time consistently into something that I wouldn't be doing if it wasn't with the knowledge that we both feel that this is something that we're open to trying, because that's what it is. It's a trial. We're not having these conversations saying we're going to be together forever. We're just having conversations saying, "Hey, look, we're long distance. I know that's tricky. I know it's hard. I know that seeing each other is not easy. I also know that I wouldn't be on the phone to someone as much as I'm on the phone to you if it wasn't something we were both genuinely exploring.
"And I don't want to assume you're in the same place, but I know for me, my time is valuable. If I'm going to put energy into this from afar, which is suboptimal, my ideal scenario isn't meeting someone I really like who lives five hours away by flight or car or whatever, or a continent away in some cases. That's not my ideal, but I do like you. But I also know that it takes a lot of energy to pour into someone who is far away. So I probably wouldn't continue doing this unless we were both open to exploring what that becomes in a meaningful way."
That's very important. Again, that's not someone speaking from desperation. That's someone saying, "My time is valuable. My energy is valuable. I wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't..." The same in business, if you're constantly providing a service, when you speak to many different service providers on the phone, they might sit with you for a half hour on the phone or sometimes even an hour and give you some free advice. But at a certain point, if they're speaking to you every day, they're going to be like, "There's a cost to that. You have to become a client."
It's not exactly analogous to dating, but dating falls somewhere on that spectrum of, at a certain point, my energy is something I have to value and say it's not worth me continuing to give this if we don't have some kind of agreement here.
I have a better analogy.
Go for it.
The farmers market, which shows my age. You know how they give you samples?
Yeah. You wouldn't get to just eat a whole box of cookies' worth of samples. After a while, once you've tried all the flavors...
They say, "Audrey, you've had enough."
You've had enough. You either buy the cookie or you walk away, lady.
So the fact that I know you by name means you've had enough. You need to buy some cookies or get the hell out of here.
It's a good analogy, though, right? The part that I really want to caution people against is assuming that you are in an exclusive relationship with someone who is long distance when you've never had the conversation. That is an incredibly dangerous thing to do. The whole assumption that, "Well, they wouldn't even have time to see someone else." There are people in marriages who live very busy lives, have multiple kids, and somehow find time to have a whole other relationship that their family doesn't know about. That is poor logic to fall back on.
The much stronger position is to state to someone, much like I just said, "Hey, look, I'm having a great time, but I feel like at this point we're investing a lot of time into this. I know myself. If I'm investing this much time and energy in somebody, first, I'm not inclined to see other people while I'm investing this much time and energy into someone. I'm also the kind of person that would get their feelings hurt if the other person was. So I just want to have that conversation openly because I know that if you're still inclined to see other people, it really changes the equation here on me giving as much as I'm giving to this situation."
And actually, everybody listening, if you like this subject, if you feel like there's any other questions that you have around this subject, please email us, podcast@matthewhussey.com. It's a really big subject, long distance. We get a lot of questions about it.
And I have so much more to say. We're going to move on now, but I have so much more to say. If you want a part two of this episode, let us know in your email.
Subject line: farmers market cookies.
That's too long for a subject line.
No more cookies. No more cookies.
No more cookies for you. Subject line: no more cookies.
Thank you, David. No more cookies.
So we did an episode recently called "Why Women Are Giving Up on Men in 2025." Go back and listen to that one if you haven't already. There were a few people who felt we missed some key points in that episode. I'm going to read some comments. Not everyone was happy with this episode. A Turner047 said, "There are so many things I feel like you've ignored in this episode. Dating in your 30s is all the leftovers and people who have come out of toxic relationship."
Leftovers.
In your 30s.
As a man who dated in my 30s, I'm offended.
Put you guys in the microwave.
I'm just... Yeah. Audrey came along and she just reheated me. And some meals, like pizza, which is your favorite food, Audrey, are delicious reheated.
Yeah. In the oven.
Is that what I am to you? Reheated pizza.
There are worse things to be.
She goes on to say, "They're either the problem or scarred from the people who are the problem. There are very few people out here who are actually doing the work to better themselves." I'm reading this very aggressively. I don't know if she meant it this aggressively. Let me try a different tone.
"There are very few people out here who are actually doing the work to better themselves. And those of us who are are actually finding they don't want to compromise their peace anymore for people who are more than likely the problem. This goes for both men and women."
I'm curious as to, there's a lot of exceptionalism in this comment. I always am paying attention to that, is that idea that a comment written by someone in their 30s who says everyone who's single in their 30s is leftovers apart from myself.
Right? And I get the point that's being made here, that if you're doing the work to better yourself, you come across lots of people who aren't, and it becomes very apparent to you, it becomes very obvious to you that you speak different languages. You're someone who's introspective, self-aware, you've done a lot of work, and you're speaking to people who are still very much blind to the ways that they are the problem in their relationships. I just struggle with this idea that the insinuation is that there's just no one else who's either doing the work or who is naturally kind of introspective and is happy to develop and grow.
Yeah. I've seen data on the fact that people who get together later in their life, the relationships last longer. So I'm not even sure they're worse candidates for relationships as you go past your 30s.
I maintain that if you had met me in our 20s or I had met you in your 20s, Audrey...
Wouldn't have worked.
Would have been a disaster.
Disaster. We've said that before.
Yeah.
I was—what?
You want to finish his sentence?
Well, we were both idiots.
Yeah, but especially you. I was only saying it to be polite. Really, I just meant you.
But I really do believe that. I'm grateful. I mean this sincerely. I am massively grateful for all of your failed relationships, and I'm so grateful for my failed relationships because they teach you so much. They teach you how to have an argument in the right way. They teach you what not to say in an argument. They teach you that some things you can't take back once you've said them. They teach you how to be more gracious or
Empathetic. And I get that not everyone takes those lessons on board. Some people repeat the same mistakes over and over again their entire lives. But I actually believe you have more of a shot with someone who's been through the wringer and had their heart broken and had some failed relationships than with someone who's 21 and fresh out of college or straight out of teenagehood, and all of a sudden they're what? That's the perfect person to date. I just don't buy it. I think that's the worst person to date.
I think, A Turner, the sentiment here, which I really sympathize with, is that feeling of the older you get, the more you feel like when you look around, everybody's in relationships, everybody's coupled up. And I then go on dates with people and I'm not necessarily feeling what I want to feel, or there's just a lot of bad candidates to date out there. But I actually think that the dangerous thing about this rhetoric is it kind of becomes the lens through which you look at every potential partner with. And then that's just going to be what you attract more of: people who are damaged, people who don't want to work on themselves, people who are whatever.
And I think there's plenty of people. I can think of off the top of my head right now three different people who I'm incredibly close to who have just come out of relationships, and they're in their mid to late 30s.
Yeah.
And those people are wonderful people. Their relationship didn't work out. In some cases, they met when they were too young. In other cases, it just didn't work out. They're not leftovers, they're just back out there. And I understand there are fewer of those people, but to your point, both of your points, if you actually can find them, you might have a better shot of making it work with that person than the person you meet at 25 years old who hasn't necessarily been through all of those things.
And so you might feel like you have more choice. But in terms of people who are actually looking for the same thing as you and who have got the battle scars and are actually going to be a good partner to you, I would encourage you to look at it a little bit differently because I think it can actually be a positive thing dating in your 30s. And I do think labeling people, and I mean this kindly, labeling people things like leftovers, it engenders a certain lack of generosity of spirit.
Yeah. You offended both Stephen and Matt in that sentence.
I said I was happy to be leftovers because I reheated pizza.
That's true. Stephen got—
I always knew I didn't want—yeah. I just would have been so much worse at a very serious relationship in my 20s. So I knew I do not want to get married in my 20s from a very early age.
There's a great song by George Watsky, a rapper, called "Sloppy Seconds" that I very much recommend as required listening for this segment.
Homework.
Yeah. Go listen to George Watsky's "Sloppy Seconds" because it is a beautiful song about accepting, as I put it in my book Love Life, the broken vessels that we all are, and actually finding those people more interesting than the brand new car, the glossy car that you see that has never had a dent put in it.
He missed an opportunity to call it leftover pizza, reheated pizza. Sorry.
No, I think the lyrics go, "Cold pizza, tie-dye shirts, sloppy seconds, give them here." Cold pizza is literally one of the lyrics in the song.
All right. Mel responded to this comment from A Turner. Mel W669 says this. So she's actually agreeing with A Turner: "This. I've been doing the work. The more I do the work, the less appealing a relationship looks because the dating pool is actually not really appealing in your 40s. As far as companionship, I have talked with a couple of different female friends who would be seriously willing to consider going in on a house or a shared property together as we age to ease the burden of being alone as we grow older.
"That wouldn't be lonely. There would be no pressure to perform for romantic purposes, less conflict, a feeling of a small community, mutual help when it's needed, companionship. The more I talk about it, the more ideal it seems to me. I guess the incentive to be in a romantic partnership is just lessening. What exactly is the point? Sex? Well, frankly, I can do without that and have been for a while now. I can get the other benefits from situations which require no performance and just being allowed to live freely."
I get that. My friends and I always used to say, "Well, if we don't find love, let's just all live together and have communal babies." All right.
This is something men never say to each other.
No, that's true.
They just, men just—
They never say communal babies. And they don't even say, "Let's just all, if none of us find relationships, we'll all just get a nice house together."
Yeah.
Men just go, "I'll just be alone."
Well, that's why camping is such a thing. It's like they're like, "Not by the wall, buy tents and learn how to fish."
Yeah. I actually kind of see what—I think a lot of people who have spent time on their own and enjoy their own company can relate to what this person's saying, but—
Also, it's kind of like what she's got is a strength, and in a way that makes you able to choose a relationship from a way more conscious position. I'm someone who's very self-fulfilled in terms of I do enjoy my own company. I have lots of interests, lots of things that excite and stimulate me outside of, when I've been single, been happy to do that. But it's also like that's a cool position because then choosing a relationship should be, from that place, a very positive thing of, okay, I want to bring this in because it's just going to add and bring meaning and joy, and I'm going to choose the person who's going to do that. And I don't have to bother with the people who drain me and don't do that.
And I think the challenge for some people comes making the room for that. Or maybe you say, "Well, no one's going to be as entertaining as me being on my own." But I think that is also a bit of a limited perspective because I think there will be some people you have a really great connection with. There will be exciting, interesting people. You kind of have to flip your mindset a bit to being more curious, I think, than judgmental. I think it's hard if you come at it very judgmental, like no one's good enough or no one is improving themselves. Yeah, I think that's a mindset thing, don't you?
Stephen Hussey, that's very wise.
Also, what is the part that is being agreed upon in the first? Because if everyone's leftovers, then you've also pegged all of your friends in the commune as leftovers as well.
A bunch of leftovers sharing a house.
I'm having communal—
A mashed potato castle. I think there's kind of lighted on something there because we're very accepting. We're far more accepting of our friends than we are of other people that we date.
But remember, this is from the episode "Why Women Are Giving Up on Men in 2025." Both of these comments are from women, and I believe that that is a sentiment of women saying basically—I know A Turner said it's applicable to both men and women, but I think in Mel's case she's basically saying, "I have awesome female friends and I can't find a decent guy, so we're going to all live in a commune together."
A lot of women also feel, "I'm going to have to do a lot of things for a man." There's the whole concept of emotional labor or whatever. "I'm going to be picking up his clothes. I'm going to be cleaning the house." A lot of women feel that, "I'm going to end up doing things."
Yeah. I mean, I want to be clear on something. This comment makes total sense to me. It's a really natural instinct to be like, "What's being offered isn't interesting to me. And I have women, I have friends that I love to pieces who are awesome, and I'm quite happy just having a wonderful community of friends. And we take care of each other and we're there for each other." There's something extremely attractive about that ideal. It's hard if, in the middle of that ideal, four of those friends end up finding love.
I know, that's—
That's tricky. You can't bank on none of you finding love ever again.
Unless you all make a pact that you stop looking.
Then you're sort of limiting each other, aren't you? That's not friendship if we all limit each other. But there is something highly attractive about that idea.
But I think that we have to make a distinction between, "I'm enjoying single life enough, and I've built enough independence and relationships outside of a romantic context, that I now don't feel I'm relying on romance to be happy." There's a difference between that and saying, "The more I grow, the more I find a relationship less appealing." That to me seems like much more of a leap because I think the more we grow, the more we're sort of just excited about life. We're more present with life.
To me, a version of growth that's worth it is a version of growth that makes us more present, more mindful. And when we're being present and mindful, we're not living in this place of control where we're constantly trying to control all the outcomes in life. We're actually very much open to the present moment and what it could bring. And it could bring anything. It could bring wonderful moments of friendship. It could bring an interesting human being into your life that you develop with romantically. I mean, even Tolle is in a relationship. If anyone should be enlightened enough that he doesn't need a relationship, it's Eckhart. And he's still like, "Yeah, I'll have one."
Yeah, I'll have one.
I think that we should remain open. And I think that's a form of presence. That's a form of growth, is I've become mindful enough that I'm open to what life brings me as opposed to I've decided ahead of time what life isn't going to bring me.
Yes. And the idea that there are zero worthwhile experiences to be had ever again with the gender I'm attracted to is at least a very, very, very big and certain statement.
I also want to say, Audrey, to your comment about it being all women, there was a gentleman here, Tobias, who was actually agreeing with these women. In fact, he agreed with one woman in particular who took issue with us talking about this cliché of women looking for tall, attractive, well-to-do men. And I think we actually pointed out that that cliché was not always true. That was one of the key points we were making. But someone said, "I'm really sick of the superficial kind of clichés. I don't care about a man being six foot and having six figures and all of that crap." She said, "Many of us don't care about that, and dating is still a disaster."
And then Tobias, a gentleman here, agrees and says, "This is true. I am 6'2", work out regularly, and have a decent job in tech, and women do not care. I am completely invisible."
But I think we made that point on the episode. Having these things is no guarantee of success in love. And not having them is no guarantee of failure in love. It's hard out there, and it's hard to find someone great. I mean, talk about it's hard to find someone you have a meaningful, authentic connection with. Tell that to any famous person who's looking for love. Why is it that we constantly see famous people who seem year after year after year to struggle to find love? Because having everything isn't a guarantee of finding what we're all looking for, which is an authentic, meaningful connection, right? It's tricky, but I do think remaining open is part of the key.
We can go into all of that more in another episode, but I thought it was interesting to just touch on some of the feedback and some of the criticism that we received in that episode. It's always nice to be able to give airtime to both sides of these arguments. We love your comments. Even if we play with you in the comments and your ideas, we love getting them because they refine our arguments and they also give us more to talk about. So, thank you.
We have a love lifeline here. David, will you play us our love lifeline? And if you want to be on love lifeline, email podcast@matthewhussey.com with a short 302 voice note of your question.
Hey Matthew, I've been doing a lot of work on myself over the past few years, really digging into my childhood stuff, my attachment patterns, and just learning how to show up in a healthier way. I feel like I'm finally ready for a genuine, healthy relationship. But I'm also questioning what being ready actually feels like and is.
Now that my attraction patterns are shifting, I sometimes find it hard to tell what's what. Is this person genuinely interested and consistent, or are they love bombing? Or maybe they're just a bit disinterested, not that into me, and I'm reading too much into it. So I'd love to know, how do you know when you're truly ready for a healthy relationship? And how can you start trusting yourself to tell the difference between real connection and those old familiar dynamics?
What a wonderful question that was from Jess. And Jess, thank you. It's a beautiful question, and it's something I think we all relate to: how do I know when I'm actually ready? And I don't really believe in the idea of being 100% ready, especially when it is talked about in the context of having figured out all of our stuff. Because when have any of us figured out all of our stuff?
When are you not going to have a conversation in a relationship that you regret, or a conversation you wish you'd had better, or a reactive moment where you wish you'd composed yourself more before reacting to something? All of us have those moments in relationships. What do we do? We then decide we're not ready, like we shouldn't have got into this relationship. Clearly, we weren't ready since we're still having these reactive moments. We're going to have reactive moments. We're going to get it wrong.
And especially when you're changing patterns in your life. You talked about working on your emotions, your attachment style. What you're describing are your relationship patterns, and changing those things is one of the most difficult things in the world. It might be the most difficult thing in the world to take the person that our genes, our past, our conditioning, our society, our caregivers have made us and going, "I'm going to do something different than that. I'm not going to—that thing that my whole life and my makeup has put me on a path to being like, I'm going to do something different."
I'm not going to just react with jealousy, or I'm not going to just give in to my anxiety every time someone's away from me. These are very, very hard things to change. It's miraculous when we change them. Most people don't. So what I want to congratulate you on, and what I think you should give yourself more credit for, is the self-awareness and the consciousness that you're actually bringing to these patterns in the first place.
Because just bringing awareness, even just the point of saying, "This thing I'm doing right now is not me, it's my pattern. This is something that, in my case, Matthew is doing. I can watch Matthew doing something that Matthew does. He's getting very wound up right now about something that he's likely making too much of." Even just that, I'm getting space between me and this thing that I do. And that consciousness is what makes better relationships. We would all have better relationships if we went into them giving it a beat before we reacted to something, before we sent that text. If we do give it a
Thought before we go and have that conversation in a reactive way. And it sounds like that's the kind of consciousness that you're bringing to your life. So celebrate that and say, readiness isn't, "I've figured everything out." Readiness is the state of finally being ready to observe my own patterns, my own behaviors, to give it a thought before I just act reflexively in the way that I always have, and to begin to train new reflexes.
And if I find a partner who's doing the same in their life, then we're going to grow a lot together. We're going to heal a lot together. We're going to change a lot together, and we won't be perfect, and there will be bumps along the way. But we're both going to be two people who make each other better.
I think to that extent you are ready, and you shouldn't be trying to score a perfect score because you just won't, and neither will they. And they'll need your grace when they don't score a perfect score, and you'll need their grace when you don't score a perfect score. And that grace is what will make the relationship work, as long as you're both striving to do better and that you make good on that promise to do better.
So that's how I think about everything you've said. And the last thing I'll say is just understand that when you're trying to change a pattern, you're trying to recalibrate. And recalibrations are inherently messy.
If you are someone, for example, who's trying to stick up for yourself more in life, in the process of trying to stick up for yourself, there will still be moments where you feel you don't do it enough, and you'll kick yourself for having not stuck up for yourself in a certain situation or advocated for your needs, which, by the way, is progress. If now instead of just walking away from a situation going, "That hurt," or, "I didn't get my needs met," now you're actually kicking yourself for not saying something. Well, before you never even kicked yourself for not saying something. You were just like, "This is the way it is." So even the act of being like, "There was a moment where I could have said something and I didn't," that's progress.
But there'll still be moments where you don't say something, and there'll be moments where you say too much, where you were frustrated about something and you said, "This is my moment to stick up for myself." And you did it a little too hard, and you didn't need to make such a big thing out of that. But that's okay because you're calibrating. And if you share with your partner that, "Hey, this is something I'm working on. This is something I'm looking to improve on in my life," they'll understand that there'll be a clumsiness to you getting it right. But it's not going to stop you, the trajectory of your intentions in that area.
But give yourself permission to not get it right, and then go and have relationships. The test of everything really is testing it in action. You can't test all of these new skills you're learning sat at home in a room on your own. That's the sound of one hand clapping.
I love that you said that. I think all the work is ahead of you when you actually get in the relationship because all of your triggers and all of the things that you're working on are actually going to come up in relationship. I think it was Herman who said you can only heal what has been broken in relationships in relationships with other people. So I think that's really, really important. There's only so much you can do with working on yourself in your own time. You actually have to get out there and see what comes up for you when you actually get in relationships with other people.
It's very good. Well, thank you, Jess, for leaving that message and that question. Again, anyone who wants to be on Love Lifeline, you can email us with your voice note. Please keep it to 30 seconds, at podcast@matthewhussey.com.
My friends, it is that time again.
You had a new theme song for this. Do you want to sing it?
I didn't. It wasn't a serious new theme song because I really like the existing theme song.
But you also did pitch it.
It's Steve Sleeves. Steve Sleeves. Whama. Stephen Sleeves.
Earlier when he did it, it was yabba dabba Steve Sleeves. But—
It changes.
All right, roll the real theme song.
Wait, wait. I was doing my thing. Everybody, it's that time again. It's time for Steve Sleeves.
All right, now play the theme song.
Don't be ber. You know that we can't live without another episode of Steve Sleeves.
Welcome to Steve Sleeves, everyone. Today we're going to be playing long-distance love habits. So, we talked about long-distance. I want to give a list of habits that may or may not make long-distance relationships stronger. You have to say if they are essential, nice to have, or unhinged.
Okay.
Can I just say, Stephen, I'm just writing these down so I remember them. Essential, nice to have, and unhinged. We recently, for all of our Love Life members, did a Love Life live event in Miami.
We did.
After the retreat, and you were the speaker at that event. And there was a drinks situation afterwards where everyone got together and hung out, and you said that more than a few people came up to you and said they absolutely adored Steve Sleeves, and it would be heartbreaking to them if anything ever happened to it.
Oh yeah. And the whole retreat we did, people were coming up all the time. And the first thing they would mention about the podcast was Steve Sleeves.
That was the first thing.
It seems like the people are demanding this feature.
When they said Steve Sleeves, did they say sleeves with three E's?
They didn't. No.
It'll catch on.
Okay.
It's hard to know.
All right. So, go on. Essential, nice to have, and unhinged long-distance dating habits.
Okay. Having a shared time every weekend for a FaceTime call, like a specific blocked-off, this-is-our-time, regular as clockwork.
Nice to have.
I think essential, but I don't think it has to be the same every single weekend. But I think you have to set a schedule around when you're going to speak.
Like it's a date.
Exactly.
Yeah, but it's not essential that it's regimented, the same time every week. That could be a bit rigid.
Yeah, that's true.
Also, time zones are tricky, as I have learned in my relationship, but we usually do do a longer call on the weekend. Having an activity you synchronize together, like watching a show, gaming, reading the same book.
Essential.
Essential.
Essential, because you don't want to give someone the impression that anytime you spend time together, it has to be in conversation, because real life isn't like that. In real life, we watch a movie together, we watch a TV show, we sit and read together. We hang out. We're in company, not conversation.
We used to do that, didn't we? We used to have FaceTime on, and Matt would be watching something or reading or chilling. And because of the time zones, eight hours, I was eight hours ahead, I would go to sleep, but I would have you on my pillow, and then you would just keep the FaceTime on, which is so cute when you think about it.
It was adorable. But it felt like hanging out.
Yeah. The rule is, if you want long-distance, show the person you're doing it with that it's okay to be in company together, not simply anytime we're together, we have to talk. Because if you do that, you'll actually spend a lot less time together because it'll always feel like pressure.
Okay, top tip.
If you're in a long-distance, play Wordle and Connections together. That's what I do in my relationship, and it's very fun. It's every day. Very good.
New York Times. Little plug there. Okay. Falling asleep on FaceTime together.
Love it.
Essential.
Essential.
Essential.
Unhinged.
Times though. Unhinged.
David's just called you unhinged. What do you mean?
Unhinged.
It's lovely if you can. It's lovely. Bring—
You said essential.
Yeah. Well, it depends. Okay. Not if you're in a three-month-long long-distance relationship. We were long-distance for almost two years, and I actually think it was kind of essential.
But not every night.
Not every night. Did you say every night?
I didn't say every night.
No, you just said falling asleep on FaceTime.
I think it makes you feel close. Fine.
Is it good sleep hygiene, though?
I think if it's expected that it is. I could do that a couple times maybe, and it was a cute little, we were late and it accidentally happened. But if it at all feels compulsory, that starts to—
No, not compulsory.
It's like the compulsory goodnight text. It kind of takes away from it a bit.
Steve, you'll love this. Audrey, when I was at the retreat, we were talking. I was really tired at the end of, was it day one? I think it was day one. Maybe it was day two. I can't remember. I was very, very tired. And I called Audrey just to say hi and check in. And at the end of the call, she said, "Text me when you go to sleep." And I just went, "I'm not going to do that."
You, Larry David.
I did. I said it just like that. And I don't normally say it like that. I was that tired. I was so beat up and worn out that I just went, "I'm not going to do that." But that's not all I said. I just went, "I'm so sick of my phone that I don't want to look at it one more time tonight. I just need to be able to put my phone away and go. I just don't want to look at it again." And she got it. You were just like, "Oh yeah, of course. No worries."
Yeah, of course. And in my defense as well, I think it doesn't have to be mandatory that somebody texts you goodnight or good morning. But I do think it is nice. Not in my defense, because this wasn't a question in a long-distance relationship. I do think those checkpoints can be important because I think it's sort of like the first person who wakes up, the first chance they get to drop a text and say, "Hey."
We used to do that. I would wake up first, obviously because of the time zone, and I wouldn't text you every morning as soon as I woke up, but you would wake up to a text from me. And I would usually wake up in the morning to a text from you when you'd gone to sleep. And I think those bookends to the day are actually quite important for connection, because a lot of long-distance is really building connection.
I say pick one of them, though. Pick morning or night.
Well, yeah, but you can maybe do it, you can alternate.
Alternate, exactly.
And sending a pic is very efficient. Send a pic.
Abigail is away right now, three hours on set, and our thing is very fluid. It's never been said that it's expected, but I think both of us value it. In fact, one night last week, she didn't text back at all, and I freaked out. In the morning when I saw that she hadn't texted, it was a safety thing. She's out in the wilderness, she's shooting a horror movie. Maybe it actually turned into a horror movie. And then she calls me a little later and is totally casual, and it's like, "Oh, sorry." And I'll do that as well too, but I think both of us still have this reaction of it, which I think that's what we like. That's what kind of works, is we both value it, but neither of us expect it.
Yeah. No, I get that. I get that. I think I have the same reaction of not putting too many rules on things, because it starts to turn things into something that can feel stifling.
Okay.
But if it's not good, you have to start being honest as well.
Okay. Selecting a cheese of the week that you both present to each other.
Unhinged, obviously.
You think that's unhinged?
And you both do a sampling session together.
But they can't try the cheese.
You both have to get it.
Oh, you both have to get the same cheese. It's not like I just present you my cheese and you present your cheese.
Okay. No, nice to have. But maybe we can replace the cheese with just general sharing something in your life, because—
You love cheese.
Doesn't have to be cheese. I know. But some people don't love cheese.
Well, they obviously wouldn't do this one if they didn't love cheese, but—
I'd still do it.
Okay. All right. So, just to be clear, it does have to be cheese.
Cheese.
Okay. I would say nice to have.
Okay.
That's what I agree.
Mailing each other hoodies that smell like you.
Also known as smell mail.
Is that a real thing?
Well, I made it up.
Oh, well then it's not also known as, is it?
Answer the question.
I would say it's a strong nice to have. It's a nice to have, but I really like the idea. I think that's a really good idea. It's like spraying it with your perfume or your cologne and sending it. I think that's a winning idea right there.
Okay.
That's a very good one, and I wish I'd come up with that.
Tracking each other's location on iPhones just for safety.
No.
Unhinged.
Unhinged.
Because someone would say it's for safety, but really it's because they don't trust you.
Yeah, that's the thing. I don't think there's anything wrong with having your locations on iPhone. We don't have ours. But I don't think there's anything, if you wanted it. There's been moments definitely where you've been like, "Are you okay?" or I've been like, "Are you okay?" And if you can kind of check in on someone and see that they're okay, then I think that's—
But you could be in your home and not okay, and they go, "Oh, she's in her home."
I guess it's like if the wrong—
I just see her hurtling in a strange direction, then it would be like, "Where's she? Why is she on her way?"
But you might be like, "Oh, they haven't responded to me in three hours and it's late." But then you look and you're like, "Oh, they're still at their friend's house. That's fine. They just are at their friend's house. It's all good."
This is so tricky.
But I think it's tricky because of the kind of person that could use that as a way of controlling and monitoring someone.
I'm very protective over you, and I do worry about you. It hasn't occurred to me to say I must be able to track your location, and I really—
But if you said to me, "I would like to for safety," I would let you. That wouldn't bother me if it was important to you. But I don't think that's a long-distance—
And you wouldn't feel slightly invaded by that?
No, because I trust—
If you're at the shop, if you're getting me a surprise doughnut at the doughnut shop, and you're like, "He knows."
I just don't think you'd check it. I think you'd only check it when you're worried, and then if it makes you feel more comfortable, then that's fine. I just—
I really worry. Well, I not only worry about this, I've worked with people who are with someone who has used the exact justification of, "I want to make sure you're okay," as a way to be able to track someone's location all the time, and where it really came from is control.
And I really worry about giving someone that, kind of green-lighting that behavior in somebody where it's coming from a controlling place. It's not coming from a genuine place of just, "It's nice to have it on our phones in case I ever can't reach you for hours and hours on end, and that's really weird and atypical and it makes me worry. Or you just got in a car and said you'd text me when you got there an hour from now, and it's six—"
Hours later and I still haven't heard from you. I worry about control with that one.
Yeah. Too much potential to be unhinged. Starting a private YouTube channel to give each other weekly vlogs.
Can't you just send each other weekly?
It's not the same. It's not the same.
You have to do all the branding, the marketing, but it's all private.
Yeah. But you have to do a proper introduction at the beginning of the video. In today's video, we're going to talk about—
No, it's just the tuna.
It's just a come-with-me-on-my-week vlog. Like, oh, I filmed stuff throughout the week.
Well, it's a vlog vlog. You're vlogging. You're vlogging. Sorry.
Oh, that's so much work. That's unhinged.
If you're sitting down just to make some content, like, I'm just going to tell you—there's something I want to say about my week or about—
It's like a little supercut of things you did in the week.
So, you're just filming your life all the time.
That's right.
Unhinged.
We would love some reviews on this podcast, wouldn't we, guys?
Yes, sir.
We love when we get good reviews, and it hurts our feelings when we get bad ones. That's the truth. We can't tell you to go and leave a good one. Just leave us a review, and we will hope that it would be a review that we would like. Where can they leave reviews, Stephen?
On Spotify or iTunes on Apple. You can give it a little star rating, and that's all you need to do. How many stars?
You can write a review on Apple.
How many stars would you imagine we'd be hoping for?
I'd love to see five there. Yeah, that would really make my day. Well, I don't want to start negotiating down, but—
No, no, don't negotiate. No, don't negotiate with ourselves. Let's just say five would be awesome. But you let us know. iTunes or Spotify, leave us a review on the podcast to help spread the word about this thing that we all do.
Thank you so much for listening. Don't forget to go and ask Matthew AI a question if you haven't already. AskMH.com. Whatever's come up for you in this episode, whatever you wish we had discussed but we didn't, go and ask Matthew AI.
Like tips on how to keep your long-distance relationship alive and thriving.
That could be a good one.
Or anything really that you want to know. AskMH.com is that link. We will see you next time.
Article published · Updated