Take it from one who's been there; unless one of you is willing, at least in principle, to relocate, intercontinental dating SUCKS. On the plus side, communications are much easier (not to mention cheaper) than they were when I was in that situation.

However, I have been known to be surprised by other people's willingness to relocate. :-)

Eh, in the age of skype, blackberries and digital video/photo, staying in touch isn't too hard. I've also never been against the idea of moving to another city. However, the idea of moving to another city for a man has always been anathema to me.

Well, I was never against the idea in principle, but it didn't work out that way anyway (and you could certainly do worse than Italy - in my case, it was the USSR). But the other way around is an option, at least in theory, no?

Actually, he lives and works elsewhere in Europe (I'd rather not give specifics). It wouldn't be a horrible place to live, were I to move. But hardly at the point where such a decision is even worth contemplating.

I expected him to be stupid and boring like most gorgeous men

I'll have you know, my dear, that I for one have been quite capable of being stupid and boring without sharing a hemisphere with being even marginally handsome.

Of course the fact that you actually did not exclude non-gorgeous men from the possibility of being stupid or boring only proves me the former, while going on about this only proves me the latter.

Since I was on a backpacker's tour ... My last day in Rome was spent on a colonnaded terrace overlooking the city, eating apricot cookies served by a butler, and chatting casually with a senior diplomat about foreign policy.

Hm. My backpacking trips always end up with me on some filthy, pigeon-shat hotel roof eating crumbled salty crackers served from the bottom of said backpack, and yelling frantically about airline tickets on my cell phone whilst trying block out the shaggy German hippies violating Leonard Cohen on an acoustic guitar nearby. And not in Rome either.

Well, making a decision of that magnitude based solely on hanging out on a single vacation would be precipitous indeed. I only meant to say that if both of you were both 100% set on staying put, there wouldn't be much further to discuss. But hey, you've talked previously of relocating anyway, at least temporarily, so to rule it out because it might be even partially because of a man seems unnecessary as well.

Hm. My backpacking trips always end up with me on some filthy, pigeon-shat hotel roof...

Hah, well I wasn't really expecting such a grand finish either, but there you go.

And I agree with you, Eva. Moving wouldn't be so bad provided I could land on my feet and not be dependent on someone else for room and board.

Moving wouldn't be so bad provided I could land on my feet and not be dependent on someone else for room and board.

What, do they lack for pre-nups in the target country? (I'm sorry, "matrimonial regimes"...) Worst case, you end up with the cutesy Swiss Chalet in the Alps that you can either sell off or open up as a ski lodge.

Look at "the banker's divorce" in the How to Spend It mag that comes with this weekend's FT for what to do and not to do so's you end up with that chalet. Hilarious as well as educational.
Alternatively, you could actually just stay in whatever paradise you might wind up in if you hitch up with this guy. But as James Baldwin sadly noted in Giovanni's Room, no one ever stays in their personal Garden of Eden. Oh well.

Oh stop talking like I'm going to marry him. Bah.