Oh dear

In conversation today I was told something like 'You haven't taken every opportunity to hook up with every sleazy girl you could have, and that's why I like you'.
It scares me for a number of reasons.
Firstly, I already knew that this girl is too enamoured of me. This takes it a step further, interpreting my life and actions as supportive of her own personal biases, despite my avowed opinions.
Secondly, it suggests that there have been opportunities that I have missed.

I'm not the sort of person who is looking to settle down with one partner. I'm not 'into' lovey nesting, nor do I understand the attitude that makes faithfulness a virtue and lifelong commitment desirable.
It's not that I recognise these as ideals and give into temptation, but that I really don't see why these are ideals, or the alternative is pejoratively labelled temptation. I have for some time now thought of myself as 'miswired'; I have a screw loose or am missing a marble. I like to think that I can understand things easily, but when it comes to this particular desire that is manifest in the vast majority of the human population (that I have met or heard about) I can only understand that it exists, not why.
It would be nice to tell myself that it's a basic emotional response that has no rational explanation, but that's not certain to me. Is it culturally ingrained in people, rather than being natural?
Our whole culture is arranged around the concept of the two-parent family, marriage and one-on-one relationships. Most women I meet who have considered the issue tell me that this is because of patriarchal oppression, a line thought up, I guess, by radical 'counter-culture' feminists. But I can't understand why this would be true. Men fight: they're born competitive (yes, I'm talking about statistical tendencies, not individuals) and aggressive. They don't share naturally.
If society were organised a man's way there would be one man who ruled, and he'd have as many women as he could. Others with power would also have women, and a great many men would have nothing. Men, as I understand their biological desires, would never arrange only to have one women, so that (roughly) every man could have one. That's a sharing system, and it appears very feminine to me.
Of course, some people will be angry at the use of the word feminine, or about the acknowledgement of intrinsic biological sex differences in character and attitude. These people can take their attempts to deny the truth, or to rewrite the dictionaries, elsewhere.
The explanation is that marriage makes women property, and ties a woman to a man so that she can't escape: it relies on the assumption of man's insecurity. But a chieftan can own many women just as easily as he can own one. If he were insecure and wanted to bind a woman to himself, if he were designing our cultural institutions from scratch (or many chieftans all contributed a little over the generations) he could easily make marriage something that one could have with many women, but retain the features of ownership and male domination that feminists rightly dislike.

In my experience of the human population it is the women who, like my interlocutor earlier today, seem particularly keen to devote themselves to one person. In fact, we have a stereotype of the man fooling around and the woman becoming over-committed. I have phrased this carefully, because it is not men who fool around: again, in my experience, most men agree with women on this: that settling down with one fine women would be a wonderful thing. It is the man with whom women become overcommitted who fools around.
There are some women who, like me, and like this mythical man (who is fortunate enough to have this stream of relationships: he and I only share an attitude, not a life history) are not hunting for marriage, but I would contend that the vast majority of women are, whereas a significant number of men are not. I have met women who say that they are not looking for long-term relationships, but when I get to know them better negate such assertions by their actions and even in direct speech.

There's a myth that I hear all the time of people getting jilted: of callous lovers who show no respect of decency. It's a jungle out there. I agree that the world of relationships is a dangerous one in which one is likely to be distressed, but from my point of view it's even worse.
I'm not looking for the perfect relationship, and mostly having to dump uninspiring boys because I don't love them enough. I'm looking for lots of wonderful relationships (and I have been fortunate enough to know inspiring girls in those relationships that I have had) of a different sort. But people assume that I want to be faithful, and want them to be faithful; they assume that a relationship is a precursor to marriage, even if they have the wisdom to recognise that it might well not go that far because of unforseen problems. This is the best that I have coaxed out of a girl apon explaining my desires and hopes: a recognition that things might not go as far. Another girl, I am told, secretly thinks that one day I will 'see the light' and realise that my attitude is just young and foolish. I will be converted by the 'right woman'.

This is scary too. It's one thing to have personal talks with women explaining that commitment is not an option, and sharing the disappointment when our desires do not mesh, but it's another to have someone decide to act as though she likes my way of life, but actually be infiltrating it in the hopes of changing it. That's as dishonest and deceptive as a man declaring love that he does not feel, although in my case much less painful. It's the poor girl who will suffer if in such a situation she eventually realises that I like my life, that my attitude is what makes me me, and that it cannot be changed by her work.
I am not a lost soul to be saved in the name of marriage and devotion, just as atheists do not regard themselves as lost souls to be saved in the name of God. Most atheists, I think, do not mind others having religion as long as it does not interfere with important decisions or with the atheists themselves. They do object to constant intrusion in their lives, as anyone does, and as part of this they also detest the idea of a theocracy. Many God(s)-fearing people agree that a theocracy is undesirable: they agree that professing a religion when not given the choice is meaningless, and that therefore openness is desirable.

Yet when it comes to relationships our society and culture, and those of most places in the world, operate on the unquestioned assumption of faithfulness: of searching for one partner and marrying that partner.