Observation only, but I'm far from the only guy who has this perception.
I could be doing something utterly wrong, and if I am, I'd love to know what. I get by, right now, by being extremely selective in terms of whom I'm willing to date, which means that I spend a lot of time single.
I think what bothers me about your comments in this thread is that you expect a large stock of "decent" women to exist. As if there were some universally acceptable type of women.
It's far more complex than that. A better way to simplify it might be to say that for any given person there is probably 1% of the population (in the right age and gender group) that is suitable for a long term commitment. And it is not the same 1% for everyone.
I don't want to put words into your mouth, but the perception I (and others in this thread) are getting from you is you don't want to find a soul mate, you want to find a wife to 'manage your household' or do fulfill a similar role that has little to do with being your counterpart.
I don't want to put words into your mouth, but the perception I (and others in this thread) are getting from you is you don't want to find a soul mate, you want to find a wife to 'manage your household' or do fulfill a similar role that has little to do with being your counterpart.
Where do you get that idea? Maybe I'm miscommunicating drastically, but I see a world of difference between being against casual sex and wanting women to be subservient household slaves.
I'm not advocating a slide back into the '50s. I'd much rather go into the future-- a future where people respect themselves and each other, and in which the sexes related as equals. However, casual sex is inherently anti-feminist.
Okay, I must be being unfair. But at least look at my post again to understand why you're catching some flack in this thread... I believe that is one of the common lines of thought.
