jradetzky:
"As for British women, I consider them among the most beautiful I've ever seen. I wouldn't, however, consider any of them as a potential virtuous wife."

Christ on a bike Jradetzky, you sound like something out of the 19th century! You seem to approach falling in love like a scientific experiment.
1. find a lady with an Oxbridge PhD but who ALSO wants to settle down, have your kids and cook your dinner for you.
2. court the lady for 2 years
3. proceed to marriage

Why not try lowering your expectations a little bit?

To laura:

>Why not try lowering your expectations a little bit?

No way! Since I met that Oxbridge girl who's willing to do all these things for someone else in the US, I have even less reasons to lower my expectations. "Don't give up" she told me, so I'm confident it's just a matter of faith and patience. And, as she also told me, emotions -such as falling in and out of love- are not as important as commitment -which is completely rational- when it comes to a long-term marriage. Makes a lot of sense to me, no matter how old fashioned it might be. Just read Joshua Harris.

I see your point. I guess I'm just a romantic at heart :)

One of the things that two married PhDs could do is start their own specialised consulting firm, providing their research topics are not that far apart. That would add an even stronger bond to the underlying friendship and commitment. Just have a look at this couple of consultants who met at Oxon and have been married for 35 years now http://www.netage.com/company/aboutus/chronology.htm. That would rule! I would love to do that and be able to raise my own children -one of my dreams- without having to work 9 to 9 for another company.

Jradetzky,

I think you are right not to lower your expectations, but I think if you focus too closely on one type of person you might miss the perfect one for you. We all think we know what is best for us but sometimes we can be wrong. Don't lower your expectations, but maybe keep an open mind.

As a girl, jradetzky's views scare me a lot! They are a bit rigid, but maybe that's what is expected of Christian's. Just doesn't seem the way for a happy relationship to me!

Katq - As a girl, jradetzky's views scare me a lot! They are a bit rigid, but maybe that's what is expected of Christian's. Just doesn't seem the way for a happy relationship to me!

Snap - I think the whole way of picking the one person you want to spend the rest of your life with by having such narrow criteria is just asking for trouble

When I 'found' my OH, we met on an online dating site, I had had enough of finding gibbering idiots in bars and irl and decided that to narrow my search I go online, he luckily had decided the same thing.

We had both specified 'intelligent' as one of our criteria and he was actually out of my age range (but only just by 1 year) I was within his however...

I did end up chatting to a load of idiots - no idea whether they were gibbering - they were online!! And had justa bout given up hope and was about to cancel my membership when a message from my now OH popped up - we got talking and that week spent about 30 hours chatting to each other online and on the phone.

Yes there was sex before marriage as we dont get married till next year - but hey thats part of the fun!

Im technically a christian (christened and all that malarky) but very non practising to the extent that I dont believe in it all anymore. And the NSBM thing - I dont get it, surely as its a major part of a relationship (and child producing technique) its better to practice to make sure your OH isnt useless!

To clairet707:

>I had enough of finding gibbering idiots in bars...

I would say a bar is the worst ever place for finding a spouse. Just think about it for a moment. Good girls/boys don't go to bars alone at night, do they? I mean, I know "that's what most people do", but it doesn't mean it is the right way. That's why I never go to bars.

I still don't get it why such insistence on pre-marital s*x, or "trying before buying" as you call it. I mean, I would guess s*x is just a minimal part of married life (less than 10%), and as long as they're both healthy, children will be born. And then, after a certain age, s*x is non-existent in the couple and all what remains is the friendship and the commitment.

Ok Jradetzky,

Imagine you're a female who's kept herself "pure2 until after marriage, despite being tempted. Then, on the wedding night, you discover your husband has a chronic problem with his "machinery" and can't perform. I think it would be a major problem , and I can't imagine that a marriage where the sex side of things are poor would be that likely to survive for long without one or both partners looking elsewhere. Sad, but this is a basic human instinct. Therefore, it makes sense to practice beforehand That's completely different to sleeping around and having ONS, of course, although I don't particularly disagree with that either.

Clairet707- What does OH stand for?

OH = other half, I presume, although whether mormons use this term or "one of my other fractions" is debateable...

I guess it also depends what is your understanding of what constitutes a relationship-if the only model you take into account is the heterosexual marriage,that could be pretty limiting.As a lesbian(and a Christian,incidentally,but that's another story),I see sexuality as an integral part of a relationship,and one of its major building blocks.Yes, after a couple of years the desire definitely diminishes,no doubt,but cutting out such an important sphere and expecting it will magically click on during wedding night?