[mrtron]

Try to stop drawing an imaginary line between women and women you could marry. Your concept of a woman needing to be 'pure' and fitting some set of standards you impose on them is a recipe for disaster.

People make some bad choices, everyone has their flaws. If you are looking for a relationship that really makes you happy, find someone you love and deal with things you don't agree with.

What caused you to have this reverse "Prince charming" desire? No offense, but you seem to have an incredibly high exclusion rate for women. A lot of it seems to come from sexual oppression.

Lastly, what do you possibly mean by "The main victims of consensual casual sex are future romantic partners of the participants". You claim to not think it is immoral, but lay that judgement down like it is factual?

[sofal]

"Your concept of a woman needing to be 'pure' and fitting some set of standards you impose on them is a recipe for disaster."

You have got to be kidding me. He's imposing standards on women? Since when did being selective about people who you start relationships with become an act of imposing standards on other people?

When you selectively choose your co-founders, are you imposing your set of standards on them? Is it a recipe for disaster? When an interviewer for a popular company is more concerned about false positives than false negatives, is that a recipe for disaster?

[mrtron]

There is a huge difference between saying someone isn't a good cofounder for yourself, and saying they aren't a suitable founder in general. Same goes for the original argument.

(it was also primarily in response to other comments like 'The saying comes to mind about how, in the US, it's very easy to find a great job and very hard to find a decent woman, as opposed to the other way around in most of the world.')