My only non-negotiable criterion would be the property of being child-free, because the child-free stance bespeaks so much about a person’s world view. While I am not particularly keen on marriage given my personal experience, I am not opposed to it on principle; I’d be OK with the whole spectrum of relations, from casual (assuming that it was honest) to steady boyfriend/girlfriend to cohabitation to marriage. I have no moral objection to “non traditional” lifestyles, and in the opposite extreme, I am willing within reason to accede to the conservative dictates of a woman so inclined. While I would prefer an atheist or at least an agnostic, a non-doctrinaire adherent of organized religion would be fine, provided that she actively sought justification for her views from first-principles rather than appeal to authority, or that religion for her were a matter of cultural rituals rather than personal belief.
TNT666 mentioned the importance of sexual satisfaction. True enough. But I would opine that short of genuine physiological defects, sexual compatibility is not a separate area. It stems directly from partners’ mutual affection. If your partner genuinely likes you and takes the trouble to please you, would this not translate over to sex as well? If your partner is a gifted sexual athlete, but really only cares about his own pleasure, then what good is that? And there is one more consideration here. Presumably sex doesn’t happen immediately. There is a courtship process involved. Presumably the potential mates would dismiss one another on grounds of poor “chemistry” long before the relationship leads to sex. If things are otherwise good, but the sex is lousy, would that be adequate grounds for ending the relationship? Would women say: “You are a roguish fellow and rather obtuse, but let’s go ahead and have sex – perhaps you shall evince redeeming qualities in the bedroom?”
The sexual revolution has by and large been a positive development, and certainly I won’t gainsay progress in women’s rights, in no longer judging people by the confines of their genitals. But from the male perspective, all of this has one crucial negative consequence: men are now much more responsible for the parenthood role. In decades past, the man’s responsibility was to provide materially for his family, to remain faithful his wife, to pursue his career and to maintain the family honor. Raising the kids was his wife’s responsibility, or the servants’ responsibility, if the family was sufficiently wealthy. The implication was that children really didn’t define the man. He hardly saw his son until the son was old enough to go hunting; and he almost never saw his daughter. I reiterate that I don’t condone the sloughing off of childrearing responsibility from men onto women or surrogates. But look at the result for me, the child-free man. 50 years ago, I could have been out on evenings and weekends with my buddies at work, playing bridge, discussing investments, just “hanging out”. Their wives would be shepherding their kids, while they had “man-time” to themselves. That no longer happens. Now the weekends and evenings are spent driving the kids to soccer practice. Men used to own sports cars; now they are proud of their Plymouth Grand Voyagers. They used to count horsepower; now they count cupholders. My male coworkers have become corporate drones: drones in the familial corporation, Mommy and Daddy, Inc. They define themselves as parents first, and as self-contained individuals only second. Their creativity, their passion, their human energy, have been projected onto the role of reproducer. In Christian terms (let’s relish the irony!), they have built a false idol of the idea of their progeny, and worship it more than they worship their god.
At work, we are fortunate to have at least a superficially friendly atmosphere. We have no proselytizers or crusaders, perhaps because the culture wars have already been settled here. My views are known for their eccentricity, and are regarded with the shoulder-shrugging bemusement that one accords to the village idiot, who is inviolable from censure, but who will never have intimate relations with any females in the village.
Harridan20 - I'll be happy to discuss personal information such as age and so forth, but not in a completely open forum. This site has a "personal message" capability, does it not? Then let's pursue that.
Unfortunately, sexual satisfaction is indeed its own sector, there are tons of couples caught in unsatisfying relationships, who are in love and have the greatest affection for their partner, yet the sexual satisfaction is just not present. This leads to cheating and breakups eventually, even though people were ok on other counts. The diversity of sexual preferences is so vast, and the degrees of satisfaction so personalised, that I think it's likely that a majority of people are simply 'sexually incompatible'. In addition, females will often remain silent about expressing their dissatisfaction, whereas most males are more comfortable telling others what they want (same problem happens in the workforce).
Marriages that last are usually based on "not knowing what you're missing". Marriages later in life, marriages after common-law cohabitation, as well as 2nd and 3rd marriages, all have statistically less longevity than blind marriages done young, such as arranged marriages or family-coercion-religious marriages. When one doesn't know better, it is harder to be unsatisfied.
Just to clarify, sexual satisfaction is not limited to 'genital configuration', it also includes lip-fingers-butt-breast-toes-skin-smell-breath etc etc etc. To imagine we're all built the same, or have the same sensitivities doesn't quite work. We are no longer a "natural" species. In nature, 99% of individuals of any species are practically identical. But with Homo sapiens, we've had medicine and religious morals which have permitted non-typical individuals to gain somewhat equal access to breeding, over the years, such out-breeding has greatly increased the morphological diversity of Homo sapiens.
Also, biologically, there is no evidence that male Homo sapiens are genetically adapted to stay at home and raise the kids. From a genetics perspective, we are the same as what we were 100,000 years ago... where males were not staying at "home" (didn't exist) raising kids (done by female groups, not individual females). Of course there are plenty of biology naysayers that think genetics can be overcome by sheer willpower, IMO that's an illusion. Where I live, there are first nations groups who are campaigning to have their dad's be more home-bound... like their religious caucasian conquistadors do, but in first nation culture, the males usually set out hunting Caribou and trapping several months a year, and the females run the home-front. From the perspective of the person spending most of the year running the home-front, having the part-timer returning home and trying to run things makes no sense at all...
This is a big topic in the MRM, but I really don't think it's going to bring long term happiness and satisfaction to those males doing it... unless they get their female peers and family to help with a lot of the responsibilities.
I do agree entirely with the rest of your mummy-daddy-drone rant :)
The primary market for Hollywood flicks is not females... but all teenaged kids... they spread out pretty evenly over the entire entertainment spectrum... but I think yes... films used to be a big night out, a special event... but in the past three decades, films have switched from "7th Art form" to mere entertainment.
And sadly I think it goes way beyond the "knight in shining armour" syndrome... it skews our appreciation of what a normal person looks like. Sure we SAY we know what a normal person looks like, but our subconscious still holds out for that incredible hunk or gorgeous babe we saw in whatever film. It also skews us against common body defects, it skews us against age.
I am pretty certain that films have played a role in my 'lust' factor in sussing out partners... I've always been a huge film buff. The one body trait that I seem to gravitate most towards is (no not that one!) is a large nose. My 'thing' for larger noses places my tastes a little off most. Which is good cuz I almost never dig the same people as my BGFs.
In a pre-mediatised world visual standards, within certain norms, were sufficient for everybody and anybody.
I am single because I stopped settling. I can't date theists. I just can't. No matter how rational or smart someone is in every other area of her thinking, if she believes the god bothering crap, it's a huge turn off. There is always this disconnect that we cannot solve. Unfortunately, there seems to be a weirdly high number of lesbians who are also theists. Not sure why, but there are. I also don't want kids, don't wanna dated someone who is closeted, and don't want to date a Republican.
I am guessing I am single because I am the only lesbian on the face of the planet with those standards LOL.
I hear ya on the not dating theists. The last guy I dated (who totally crushed me, a crushing from which I don't think I'll ever fully recover) made no place in his life for belief in god, but I swear, I think my statement that I wouldn't participate in a catholic baptism for any kid we might have in the future is why he dumped me out of the blue. So I need to make sure I don't get stuck with a closeted theist posing as an irreligious person again. Seeing as how I can't buy a date right now, shouldn't be a problem. ;)
Wow, that one's ... bizarre. You think he was more of a lapsed Catholic, rather than a true atheist?
This makes me think of the "ex-atheists" I've heard from sometimes, who say that even when they were depressed and were atheistic, they still knew that God really exists. We have some who have a horrible misunderstanding of very basic terms.
It's not that he ever claimed to be an atheist, but that in reality he was such a catholic in name only type. In 4+ years, he never once mentioned god. It just wasn't a factor in his life and never posed a problem for us in any way. About 2 days before he broke up with me was the first time he ever told me he actually did believe in god and told me the story of why. I was so stunned because it just didn't fit the way we had lived for so many years.
Yeah, sounds like most American Catholics. Then, they go ape-shit about the rituals, once they have children.
So frustrating. It's not like he didn't know exactly what I believed all along. So if it was going to be a problem, perhaps he could have said something before I'd wasted 4 years? What kills me is that if I would have just agreed to stand up the altar and say all the right words at the right time, even if everyone involved knew I didn't mean one word of it, that would have been ok and we'd probably still be together. But because I took his silly religious ritual seriously and therefore wouldn't participate at all, I had to go.
You know what I do? If it is someone I meet on the net, I ask, explicitly, if she believes in god(s). And if I don't get a straight answer, strike one. I persist. If there is a yes in there, I will find it.
If it's an in person meeting? First date is for kicks, drinks,etc. Second date, the serious shit is brought up. Religion is at the top of the list. Any god bothering, and there is no third date.
It has something to do with the inappropriate deference that is given to religion, particularly Christianity in this country. How could anyone object to the imposition of my bronze age mythology?
Most religious people really aren't capable of understanding things from a viewpoint outside of their mythology. Yet, if someone proposed doing a Hindu or Muslim ritual over their child, they would go ape-shit.
Pretty much. Its the closed minded viewpoint that got me with the last one. It was like talking to a brick wall. Like, she could not, for any reason, fathom her god not being there. Eventually, I started feeling like I was talking to a mentally slow 3 year old. That was when I realized they'd all be like that. I've dated 7 lesbians who were Christians. No more.