I've realized that I'm never going to get married

I'm not sure why any of those things would keep you from finding someone who would marry you, even cumulatively.

Add "no Driver License" to the list, and I'd believe you.

Quit rationalizing. Chicks only fall in love with you/marry you if they genuinely enjoy hanging out with you. "I like who I am" is a very telling quote.

-A lot of women don't drink alcohol, or are tired of that scene.

-Some women can't have kids (history of ovarian cancer/tumor, thyroid disease, etc.).

-A lot of women are non-practicing, if not straight up agnostic or atheist. It's mostly their parents that are concerned about the religion thing.

-In their late 20's and into their 30's most women have figured out how to take care of themselves financially.

If you're a fun guy to be with(or super rich), a girl is going to care less about those "barriers". Marriage is overrated, but having human companionship (or at least an "activity" buddy) isn't .

What women want:

1) Money

2) Money

3) Babies

4) Babies

5) Babies x Eight

The personality traits you listed are somewhat crossed for a lot of people, and I'd say that is where you problem lies. Most atheists I know are liberal, so as a libertarian you run into that issue. Most libertarians I know either drink or smoke weed (which I'm assuming you don't do) so you run into that issue.

Props to you for not compromising just to be in a relationship. Just be patient...you'll meet a woman who is looking for the combination you have. Just don't settle.

Go ahead don't marry.

Snatch one right out of college later when you are 45 without the expense divorcing the old bag fattie wifey.

quit pushing your atheist beliefs on all the woman you meet and everything will be fine.

I haven't read every post on this thread- but in response to the first dude whose 29 and thinks he wont ever get married because of his 4 criteria

"- I do not drink alcohol

- I do not want children

- I'm an atheist

- I'm a libertarian"

your wrong. I'm 22, female, and I don't see what the problem is. I also don't drink (well... seldom drink... it's obviously difficult when you're training), I'm an adamant atheist (and could only ever be with someone who shares my passion for logic and reason), I guess I would say I'm a libertarian... and highly attracted to a socialist government- and as far as the children thing goes... I just don't think it's responsible to bring more people into a world that's in the midst of a population crisis. But there are many ways to have a family... adopting, etc- or is just kids in general you dislike? All I'm saying is- I don't see why you would give up on finding a woman to spend your life with based on 4 traits that are neither extreme or fanatical. In fact, I think you sound really interesting!

I haven't read every post on this thread- but in response to the first dude who is 29 and thinks he wont ever get married because of his 4 criteria

"- I do not drink alcohol

- I do not want children

- I'm an atheist

- I'm a libertarian"

you're wrong.

I'm 22, female, and I don't see what the problem is. I also don't drink (well... seldom drink... it's obviously difficult when you're training), I'm an adamant atheist (and could only ever be with someone who shares my passion for logic and reason), I guess I would say I'm a libertarian... and highly attracted to a socialist government- and as far as the children thing goes... I just don't think it's responsible to bring more people into a world that's in the midst of a population crisis. But there are many ways to have a family... adopting, etc- or is just kids in general you dislike? All I'm saying is- I don't see why you would give up on finding a woman to spend your life with based on 4 traits that are neither extreme or fanatical. In fact, I think you sound really interesting!

Your real problem is probably that you're a runner but I won't go there.

Change your viewpoint on the kids although you could probably hook up with some divorcee who already has kids. (What, you want all the theists to have kids? If you don't have kids, who's going to fight them when they all try to destroy the earth?) Go ahead and join the Unitarian Universalist church. They don't care if you're an atheist. You could probably meet some women there, just be aware that half of them will be gay. As far as the libertarian crap goes, most people are libertarian about at least one issue.

Thanks.

It is not that I've given up, or that I'm going to shut myself off from women. Like I wrote earlier, I go out with a lot women, have a lot of fun. It's just that when things start to get serious, the issues of religion, politics, etc, come up. When a woman says she's Christian, Buddhist, whatever, it's fine by me. Not so much on their side when they find out I'm a non-believer.

The poster who mentioned that some of traits cross each other is very accurate. All of the atheists I meet are very liberal, and all of the non-drinkers I meet are super religious. And again, it's not me having a problem with their choices, it's the other way around.

In full disclosure, I should note that I live in D.C., and a lot of women live, work, and breath these issues.

I'm a female, and all 4 of those qualities apply to me.

And I'm in a very happy long term relationship with an atheist guy who hates kids. (he is a liberal and does like a nice glass of red wine though).

These qualities are not preventing you from having a great relationship.

The biggest obstacle I see to most people finding a great relationship is that they put too much weight into having a relationship.

Get to the point where you can be completely happy as a single person for the rest of your life (it doesn't seem that you're there yet). Then date only people who make you even happier than you are by yourself. (this will be a small pool).

Darkwave wrote:

Get to the point where you can be completely happy as a single person for the rest of your life (it doesn't seem that you're there yet). Then date only people who make you even happier than you are by yourself. (this will be a small pool).

Thanks for more of the very deep psychology analysis, but if you read my first post, I noted I'm very happy as a single person. I didn't say I was looking for a serious relationship, or marriage, I simply said I realized that marriage wasn't going to happen. If I wasn't happy as a single person or happy with myself in general, I would be a needy person who changes who I am in order to be with someone.

Steven R wrote:

Thanks for more of the very deep psychology analysis, but if you read my first post, I noted I'm very happy as a single person. I didn't say I was looking for a serious relationship, or marriage, I simply said I realized that marriage wasn't going to happen. If I wasn't happy as a single person or happy with myself in general, I would be a needy person who changes who I am in order to be with someone.

And if you re-read your first post you'll realize that you are not entirely happy with this state of affairs. If fact, it's obvious you wouldn't have started this thread at all if you were completely happy.

You're obviously unhappy with some aspect of your life, or else there would be no reason to advertise your pains. Now go down to the local singles bar and pick yourself up a baby machine.

Being an atheist and not wanting children are the biggest factors. Obviously, if you don't have kids then deciding whose ideological or religious beliefs to tell them won't be a problem. But if you concede on the children thing then you'll have a dilemma on your hands. And if you tell them both of your differing views as truth, you could really mess with their young brains.

guesswork wrote:

Steven R wrote:

Thanks for more of the very deep psychology analysis, but if you read my first post, I noted I'm very happy as a single person. I didn't say I was looking for a serious relationship, or marriage, I simply said I realized that marriage wasn't going to happen. If I wasn't happy as a single person or happy with myself in general, I would be a needy person who changes who I am in order to be with someone.

And if you re-read your first post you'll realize that you are not entirely happy with this state of affairs. If fact, it's obvious you wouldn't have started this thread at all if you were completely happy.

Making an observation makes me not happy with my state of affairs? I've also realized that I'm not going to get to play professional baseball, but that makes me not entirely happy with my life?

Just because a person doesn't get something they wanted eventually doesn't make them not happy or content with their life. At least not for rational adults.

TrendyRunner wrote:

you're wrong.

I'm 22, female, and I don't see what the problem is. I also don't drink (well... seldom drink... it's obviously difficult when you're training), I'm an adamant atheist (and could only ever be with someone who shares my passion for logic and reason), I guess I would say I'm a libertarian... and highly attracted to a socialist government- and as far as the children thing goes... I just don't think it's responsible to bring more people into a world that's in the midst of a population crisis. But there are many ways to have a family... adopting, etc- or is just kids in general you dislike? All I'm saying is- I don't see why you would give up on finding a woman to spend your life with based on 4 traits that are neither extreme or fanatical. In fact, I think you sound really interesting!

Religion is logical if you operate under certain premises. 2+2=4, this is obvious to you because it's been drilled into you since you were young. Why is 2+2 equal to 4? It's one of those things where the answer seems simple, but it actually circular. I would never compare religion to numbers, I'm just saying that when you accept certain circular arguments as givens, there becomes nothing illogical about religion. I think gnosticism in general, be it theist or atheist is just plain silly.

Also, you DO realize that libertarianism is basically the POLAR F***ING OPPOSITE of socialism, right?

Also, about the global population crisis, there isn't one. Food production grows to meet demand. There's probably some limit, but starvation is a function of moving the food to the hungry, not creating the food.

The scenario you described is very valid. And another reason why I'm not willing to "concede" on the children issue.

what's wrong with being a librarian?