The woman agrees to:
1) recognize the man as the leader of the family unit (not tyrant, but leader...a distinction that escapes the feminists).
2) remain faithful to him (so that he knows that the kids are his)
3) Work to take care of his kids and the household
The man, in return, agrees to:
1) Work to earn a living for his wife and kids (the average married guy probably spends 80% of his income on his wife and kids...not a ratio which can appeal to self-interest alone).
2) Remain faithful to his wife so that she knows that his work will not be divided with other women and children.
3) Protect the family from physical danger.
The feminists came along and unilaterally threw the deal out because it was unacceptable to them. They changed the terms and radically altered the contract in a negative fashion for men.
Furthermore, they created two things which allowed women to toss men out completely: child support/alimony and welfare. In traditional societies, if something happens to the man, the woman and children are facing starvation. Its the worst thing that could happen to them. But today, the courts will wring the guy dry...and if he is a bum without assets, the other guys in our society will support her and the kids via taxes (which brings up another interesting issue: namely, as more and more men turn away from society in general and become perpetual adolescents....just who are the feminists expecting is going to be around to pay the taxes to support all of these liberated moms? Clearly, feminist culture is parasitizing the remnants of traditional society by forcing the married men in traditional families to cough up money to support the "alternative arrangements" that are becoming so popular today. Clearly, matriarchy carries with it the seeds of its own destruction)
Men generally have three options in dealing with this:
1) Get married, buy into the system, and hope for the best. Pray that she doesn't decide to toss you out and strip your bank account.
2) Perpetual adolescence. Turn away from the system altogether and live like a teenager.
3) Marry a foreign woman and hope that she doesn't catch on too quickly how things operate here.
One of the problems that men have in our society is that we haven't created alternative, supportive living arrangements for ourselves outside of the traditional family. We tend to either end up in the marriage thing, or living miserably in a small apartment by ourselves.
I predict that, in the not too distant future, men will begin to come together to form alternative living arrangements for themselves which do not included women and children. I envision some sort of adult version of fraternity houses where straight guys can live their lives with other guys rather than the pathetic loner in the apartment. These sorts of things have existed in the past (the Japanese have traditional sumo clubs, for instance, that offer young men a place to live with older guys...complete with a gym, maid service, etc. They tend to function like fraternities...the youngest guys do a lot of scut work and gradually move up the heirarchy).
Once men find some sort of arrangement that offers a nice life outside of the traditional woman/kids deal....you will see a massive movement of middle class, educated men away from the lousy "new deal" that is offered to them by the feminists. The cries that we are hearing from young gals now about there being no good young single guys will turn into a rage. But, they've made this bed for themselves.
Living in a fraternal relationship with 10 or 15 other guys sounds mighty tempting as opposed to being kicked out at 40 with no money, no house, and only rarely getting to see your kids.
I prefered living alone to living with roommates. At least alone, I had a better chance of creating an atmosphere most peaceful and agreeable to my own needs.
Call me old fashioned, but a woman's company is not the same as a man's and there are times I desire a woman's company and not just for anything sexual - but to have their point-of-view and their beauty and tenderness.
Unless a man finds some woman he wants to spend *all* his time with (and she agrees), the real dilemma for most men is that the woman demands more from the man than the man needs from the woman. So either the man goes along as the cost of having the woman around when he wants one or he returns to his solitude.
Plus, a bunch of men living together brings back the whole "gayness" concept to anyone outside the arrangement who doesn't understand it or wants to discredit it.
I find your suggestion unpalatable - though that's only my opinion.
I recall seeing the concept of a state-sponsored half-way home for men owing child support payments - sort of like a debtor's prison for men whom would be sent to prison for not making full payments. The state would allow them to exist in these homes if they worked to pay child support. Being that child support awards have become unreasonable, especially to men who lost high paying jobs, the idea sounded like something out of science fiction where women take over and enslave men saying it's "for the children". The idea sent chills down my spine.
But heck, it's happened twice now that law enforcement wants to take DNA samples from whole groups of men to find a rapist. Why should I be shocked at anything anymore.
We already have those things:
So when the guy is dating a woman and it get's serious he has to always take her to a hotel/motel? Or her place I suppose. And he always always always wears a condom to make sure no child support is hung around his neck.