Very wise and astute, erudite and informed article. It's very easy for young immature infatuated couples to fall in lust. Then one or two babies later, wake up beside a perfect stranger they don't even like; or, may even hate or detest.
In some Scandinavian countries, they have a traditional trial marriage, where they share everything except conjugal rights or the "BED".
It is reasoned that you never actually get to know someone until you have lived with them long enough, for the mask to slip and the true character is exposed.
Everyone extant on the planet creates facades that they hide behind, and only let that true personality mask slip, when familiarity breeds contempt; or, they become quite inebriated.
Marriage ought to be a whole of life commitment, particularly when the babies come along, and it really is just as easy to engage in small but endlessly appreciated acts of kindness, which builds a growing bond and compatibility; as it is, to endlessly critique the partner in the fundamentally flawed belief; that true love is lots of adrenalin generated tummy butterflies, chemistry and excitement.
BS and boring!
True love is something which grows and blossoms between truly compatible couples, who have spent enough time together, to actually KNOW the other and the other's real likes and dislikes!
That is why honesty is so very important when starting out.
Don't accept what you don't like; and, if the potential partner can't compromise; then walk away before you get in over your head, or start a family.
The most successful relationships are those who have mastered the art of enduring respect, anger management, compromise and communication, which never ever lets the sun set on an argument or disagreement. Rhrosty.

The article makes a false dichotomy. It inplies lust is bad, and love is good.

The red rose breathes of passion,
And the white rose breathes of love.
For the red rose is a falcon,
And the white rose is a dove.
So let me send you a cream, white rose
With a flush at its petaled tips
Because even the purest and sweetest of loves
Has the blush of desire on its lips.

Lust and love are not mutually exclusive. I have been married over 30 years, and I lust for and deeply love my wife.

Lust is a sin to those of Puritanical bent. I revel in it. I get shivers when I hug my wife. There is lust in every hug.

This sounds like it was written for under 20 year olds. For those of a more mature bent, it sounds like a rationalisation of why he hasn't closed the deal with his girlfriend of 3 months.

Keep looking for 'true love' mate, most people learn to live a grow with their partners of choice. Communication and value compatability is the key to good relationships, cohabitation is an independent variable.

David f,

Beautiful verse.

You're a lucky guy.

'Among couples who begin cohabiting, 50% will have married and 50% will have broken up in within five years. '

That is so obviously false. I'm sure I know at least 1 cohabiting couple that is still together after 10 years and isn't married. With 2 children too!

As to the rest, what a narrow world view and how extremely judgemental. How you can think you're in any position to pass such judgements on the romantic relationships of other people I'll never know.

"The vow a cohabiting couple make is this, "I promise to have sex with you until such a time that I meet someone else who I would rather have sex with"

I'm wondering if the author really thought about that or is he just reciting something heard in church. There are those who treat partners that way but I suspect that it's grossly unfair to the majority of people moving in with a partner. I suspect that the author lacks the understanding of the variety of people outside the church and genuinely believes that we operate with a lack of moral/values because of the absence of some concept of god to give an anchor point. A seemingly common failing amongst the over churched.

It would be easy to write a right back at you version about themanipulation of unfulfilled sexual desire to create pressure to marry, something equally unfair to many of those who choose not to have sex outside of marriage but I'm hoping the point is made already.

Discussions about the permancy of different arrangements ignore the part about how well those arrangement work and external pressures which might hold the form of the relationship together while leave the substance as a farce. It's likely that many of those who choose not to cohabit before marriage also face stronger pressure than others not to leave a destructive marriage.

That in no way guarantees that the remaining mariage is in any way a healthy marriage (just as cohabiting does not appear to imply a better chance of long term success).

I think its well past the time for some serious thinking about what is implied by marriage (and other forms of committed sexual relationships), about better ways to meet the needs both of those in the relationship and those impacted by the relationship (primarily children). Time for society to find less destructive ways for relationships to end when they need to end and to deal with the bumps when they continue.

I don't believe that this article and the values its based upon add anything useful to that.

R0bert