>>10
Good question, aspirational, yet perhaps too aspirational, not because of the nature of men and women, but because of the nature of intimate human relationships.
There are many bases for heterosexual intimate relationships, but most of the dominant ones stem from each partner fulfilling the securities of the other. More often than not, these securities are defined very early on in our lives, in childhood.
There are also very powerful biological factors at play behind the scenes that change the nature of a relationship.
And, of course, initmate realtionships run in stages, each very different from each other (attraction, co-operation, consumation, co-support and so on) the emphasis of each stage not necessarily being equally placed by both partners, and certainly requiring something different to sustain the relationship at each stage.
Essentially, a relationship between two people, neither of whom actually rely on the other for anything much, nor seek anything from the other is closer to platonic friendship than anything that is going to sustain a long-term love affair of the sort that gets your fingers caressing her vagina in an intimate and meaningful manner.
TL;DR? if you don't need her for anything, and she doesn't need you for anything, where, exactly, is the intimate relationship?
OR... if someone comes along who either of you do feel that you need, someone who supplies a desired security, what is going to deter that partner from entering into a new, more rewarding relationship with this new person?