The battle of the sexes is over; they are clearly smarter than men.

A quick, if loaded, topic as we approach the election: FiveThirtyEight posted data (above) showing that if only women vote, Clinton wins in a landslide. If only men vote, Trump becomes president. And this Atlantic piece shares data that the old truth that households, particularly married couples, tend to vote together is becoming less and less true.

How important is it for you to agree politically with your significant other?

What degree of difference is acceptable, or even beneficial? Where do you draw the line?

Is the trend of politically diverse households good or bad for society?

Charts: the most time-honored way for nerds to make major life decisions.

The chart above, and the accompanying post on Wait But Why, is one of the most level-headed and human examinations of how we make “The Marriage Decision” I’ve seen in a long time. In particular, it emphasizes that perfection is nonexistent, and that long-term happiness is a matter of plotting the right elements of a relationship in the right places on that chart up there. And also acknowledging:

The key with [deal-breakers] is that there are very few. These aren’t wants—these are needs. Your wants are important, but remember, the only people even eligible for the deal-breaker test are those who have already passed the gut test—plenty of your wants have already been taken care of in step 1 of our system.

Knowing your deal-breakers can help you know the right relationship when you see it, but it can also go a long way for anyone already in a relationship, because it lends insight into one of the trickiest aspects of a relationship: compromise. A great way to be unhappy is to refuse to compromise on things you wish were true about your relationship that aren’t. But another great way to be unhappy is to be too willing to compromise on your deal-breakers. That’s why this is so important—deal-breakers not only help Deciders and single people figure out what should be unacceptable in a relationship, they also remind already-Decided people that most of the problems in their relationship are probably non-deal-breakers that it’s okay to chill out about. Because so many relationship problems boil down to one or both members treating non-deal-breakers like deal-breakers—or vice versa.

Though some might see this sort of examination as cold (the piece addresses that too), I find it to be something much more positive and constructive. Not so much cold as… calm. Accepting. Honest. So whether you’re in a relationship, already married, or looking for someone, it’s probably valuable to take honest stock of what goes where.

What are your real, honest, totally inflexible deal-breakers?

Which aspects are actually just nice to have (or not have to deal with) that you are more able to compromise on?

What else would go in this chart with your current (or ideal) relationship?

**note: this may not be a good one to do off-the-cuff over beers with your current significant other without at least some prior consideration. It’s your funeral.**

Also dinners. If you can’t agree on where to go to dinner, just quit now.

Whenever there is another news story (like this one) about how we’re inching ever closer to discovering the secret of “defeating death” or “reversing aging”, the easy immediate reaction is “whoa, cool, I can be immortal!”.

Leaving aside the fact that I personally think that sounds terrible (discuss!), the follow-up thoughts are a lot more interesting. Even if people don’t stop dying completely, and just lived much, much longer than they already do, there would be tons of repercussions for society. Economic, environmental, social.

For now let’s focus on one: relationships.

Conventional wisdom says that as life has extended, marriage in particular has been forced to change; that when life expectancy was shorter, it was more attainable to have a healthy relationship for twenty to forty years, but as people live much longer, can any one partnership possibly be expected to sustain itself for sixty, or a hundred?

And if we shift expectations that life will almost certainly extend a hundred years (or two hundred, or more!), it seems likely that our expectations on how any one relationship could last that long will have to shift too.

In a world where people live twice as long, how do the parameters of long-term relationships have to change to accommodate?

Would people still try to partner up and stay together “til death do us part”?

Shift into more open ongoing relationships with multiple partners?

Accept that a series of long-term but non-permanent relationships can be satisfying for all involved?

Or do we just give up marriage all together?