As a woman in her thrities who has enjoyed an extended childhood, I believe that avoiding the nags of an egalitarian relationship will keep ladies young and desirable.  

Working shoulder to shoulder with Dutch-treat Charlies can only make a gal haggard and forlorn.  When I finally decided to settle down with a sharp, funny, handsome man, there was one little catch:  I wanted to be kept as a housewife and allowed the afternoons to work on creative projects or just wile away the day.  I think a man begins to resent his "equal" but cherishes a sweet lil' lady under his wing.  Luckily, my home ventures are quietly lucrative and I'm padding a neat little retirement account.  Should things go wrong, I can survive.  Should things go right, we will travel lushly in our Golden Years.  

Women should date spoiled temperamental men in their twenties, then move on to charming fellows who baby them and know how to fix the sump pump.  

In my experience guys that preach for all things equal between the sexes are cheap and annoyingly idealistic.  

What you miss in a long term relationship:  intense frantic conversations that last until 4am, the shiny new YOU that emerges in the attempt to win over a stranger, the power to entrance someone with a lethal combination of sparkling wit, archival obscurum, and the mystery of your unseen flesh.

What you gain in a long term relationship:  security, the knowledge that you can be imperfect and still loveable, time to pursue other intellectual/creative ventures because you're not wrapped up in procuring sex, and the freedom from morning-after anxiety attacks borne of disease paranoia.  

How you know when to settle down:  When you tire of telling your best stories to yet another soul-mate candidate and just wish you could catalogue your past with one person and be done with it.    

Not to get all up on my polyamory soapbox (a very shiny soapbox indeed, with glitter and ribbons and everything), but . . . part of the problem as I see it is that our society puts so much weight on the idea that one person will provide everything you want and need romantically. I mean, I have more than one friend. I have more than one workplace mentor. I have more than one coffee place. I have (a lot) more than one pair of shoes. So why on earth should I have to settle for one soulmate? Right now I have two, one I've been with for 20 years (yes, I am in the awesome no-man's-land 40s), the other a wonderful 22-year-old whom I've been seeing a little over a year. Other options are out there on the margins, but right now two boys plus occasional other boys or girls on the side seems like a good balance. I know poly people who have been in long-term relationships with two or three people for years, and it seems like a good option if you happen to be wired that way. Which I think more people would be if it seemed okay with friends, family, whatever. </soapbox>

My experience is exactly the opposite... or the hearsay evidence I encounter anyway.  Even polls show that there are an increasing number of women, particularly women over 35, who are single by choice, and choose to remain so.  This is true of many of my female friends and I've read a load of stories and polls over the last few years.  Quite the opposite, I know a lot of single guys who are working overtime to nail down something long-term or permanent.  

Zeitgeisty--my suspicion is that you and I hang out in very different circles.  That's not a qualitative judgment though.

And consider that there are a lot of options between a committed relationship and "just sex."  I'm just saying that all evidence shows that there are a growing number of women who are single by choice.  They date.  They may even be involved with someone they care about... but not enough to blend lives.  Things get a lot more complicated when you get over a certain age and have children, and moreso the longer one is single.  That goes for both men and women.  And it's a fact that more women than ever have moved up the corporate ladder and don't require a second income to live the lifestyle they want to lead.  

I don't know if I believe in soulmates and furthermore, if it really does exist, it might not always be a good thing.  It would probably depend on what sort of baggage you're carrying around.

I'm just saying that there seem to be a lot of women with a growing awareness that they have more options.  

I'm amused by the comments that although rightly pointing out that the world has changed, and that women have so many more options, are still heavily based in an archaic view of the committed relationship (that it is only there to provide the woman support, leisure, the 'lifestyle' of their deserving, all based on the mans earning potential).

Isn't a modern committed relationship about two mature, self aware people, bringing the best of themselves together to create something greater than what either of them could individually.  A true partnership in whatever form they choose.  

Oh wait, I guess that really isn't compatible with the cynical, self-centred world... things don't get more complicated - people complicate things for themselves.

dvaleriey:

My parents although highly-educated people have more of a traditional relationship where my dad is the breadwinner and my mom is the housewife.

They have both been /miserable/ for years and I'll spare you the details but I'm convinced their "arrangement" is a large part of the problem.

So I side with recycled, and also, just believe strongly that different things work for different people.

Also, have some of my comments been purposely moderated?  I saw some other posters said some way ruder things to the other bloggers and they allowed the comments to be public...

I only had one post about you reposting entries.  I thought the others that disappeared were relevant to a discussion going on in the comments section -or to clarifying my prior comments.  But, whatever, not that big of a deal, just wanted to know...

Z, I dispute the premise of your post.  I used to think in terms of wants and needs, but finally came to see that "need" is unhealthy and needs (no pun intended) to be eliminated if possible.  Think of it this way:  If you "need" another person for a specific thing, you'll compromise on everything else that is "merely" a "want."  There's a reason "needy" is a pejorative term.

In my own life, it wasn't until I finally shed myself of needing certain things in a relationship -- indeed, in needing a relationship at all -- that I was able to be in a relationship I wanted and to work with my now wife to make a life together that we both want (not need).

I think I may have posted something a bit messy a few days ago when I was drunk out of my mind and I don't see it up. was that left out on purpose? if it was, im not offended because it really was shit. i think it was about porn sucking... or not sucking... or something.

:)

Is it ok to say that I miss the Blog-a-log? Not that I don't like this, it's just that I liked the comments you got there and I don't seem to see the same people on date machine.