Playing House
April 29, 2011
Meghan Duke
Thirty years ago, as her wedding day approached, Princess Diana’s uncle tastelessly reassured the curious press that she was in fact a “bona fide” virgin. Today, on her son’s wedding day, almost every press outlet has reassured us that the royal bride’s virginity is no longer an issue. No one would expect the bride and groom to “adhere to an ideal that fell out of fashion several generations ago.”
As one droll headline proclaimed: Breaking news: Woman in an 8-year relationship not a virgin (a generation ago a million mothers might have reversed the quip: Breaking News: Woman who is not a virgin in an 8-year relationship). This is, we are told, a good thing.
“It’s probably best that they live together before making a commitment,” one random fellow interviewed by the AP opined. According to anonymous “Royal commentators,” cohabiting on and off with his girlfriend has put Prince William “in a better position than his father to make his marriage work.”
It’s easy to see the argument: This is a practice run and everyone knows that practice makes perfect. It’s a time to figure out finances and who will do the dishes four days a week, to learn conflict negotiation and perhaps even get a jump start on parenting. According to the National Marriage Project’s 2010 State of Our Unions report, a rapidly increasing number of couples take this approach. Today, more than 60 percent of first marriages are now preceded by a period of cohabitation.
The trouble is, cohabitation isn’t really practice for marriage. As any athlete can tell you: As much as you train, it never completely prepares you for the race. You’ll never perfectly simulate in practice the nerves and adrenaline that kick in at the starting block. The race and practice are simply not the same experience, and neither are settling down and what used to be called shacking up.
As Dietrich von Hildebrand recognized in The Nature of Love, the value of personal love is not simply determined by the objective value of the beloved, but by the contribution of self the lover is willing to make to the beloved, how far he “is willing to go to fulfill the demands of a particular situation. The point at which a person says, ‘it is impossible,’ and at which the obstacles seem insurmountable to him so that he feels excused in his conscience is reached sooner by some and later by others.”
The married couple proposes to one another the most extreme limits: for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness, and in health, ’til death do them part. The cohabiting couple, because they essentially choose not marriage, proposes something less. So in figuring out the finances and doing the dishes, the cohabitating couple is not practicing marital love; they’re just playing house.
One might respond that there are still reasons to cohabit, just as athletes still have reason to train even though the practice is an imperfect imitation of the race. But athletic training has a proven record of improving performance. Cohabitation does not.
At best, the State of Our Unions report suggests, the jury’s still out. A 2009 study published in the Journal of Family Psychology found that cohabitation among engaged couples did not adversely effect marriages, couples who cohabitated before engagement were more likely to report lower marital satisfaction, dedication, and confidence as well as more negative communication and greater potential for divorce than those who lived together only after engagement or marriage. “What can be said for certain,” the report concludes, “is that no research from the United States has yet been found that those who cohabit before marriage have stronger marriages than those who do not.”
Of course, it’s not just the statistics. Sex is not like badminton: a game of human invention that can be played both in backyards with drink in hand or at frighteningly high speeds in the Olympics. Sex is a divine design and its purpose is such that taken out of its appropriate context, it is a lie and one more damaging than children playing house.
As John Paul II—the other cause of celebration this weekend—explained in his Theology of the Body, “the human body, with its sex, and its masculinity and femininity . . . includes right from the beginning the nuptial attribute, that is, the capacity of expressing love, that love in which the person becomes a gift and—by means of this gift—fulfills the meaning of his being and existence.” In their moment of communion, their finite but total self-gift to one another, husband and wife are the image of God as an “inscrutable divine community.”
Meghan Duke is an Assistant Editor at First Things.
RESOURCES
UK royal bride's virginity no longer an issue
When Marriage Disappears: The New Middle America
Journal of Family Psychology, Vol 23(1), Feb 2009
Comments:
4.29.2011 | 11:11am
CKG says:
It has seemed to me that cohabitation fails for the same reason that so many modern ideologies fail - it errs fundamentally with regard to human nature. We are not cars to be 'test driven'; we are persons made in the image and likeness of God. And, as the late pope was wont to say, a person is that being to which the only fitting response is love. . .
And heck, it used to be understood that a conveniently available 'back door' undermines human commitment. Frankly, even the most blissful marriages have their difficult moments (or days, or weeks, or months), and a convenient 'back door' undermines the spouses' incentive to press through those difficult moments to the bliss that (they at least hope) lies on the other side. And cohabitation is all about the 'back door'. . .
And heck, it used to be understood that a conveniently available 'back door' undermines human commitment. Frankly, even the most blissful marriages have their difficult moments (or days, or weeks, or months), and a convenient 'back door' undermines the spouses' incentive to press through those difficult moments to the bliss that (they at least hope) lies on the other side. And cohabitation is all about the 'back door'. . .
4.29.2011 | 11:59am
jason taylor says:
"Call me a prude, but I happen to think that this is one of those topics that - when directed toward the specifics of an individual couple's relationship - is better left out of the public conversation..."
We could use a little more prudishness. The comment does remind me though of the time when monarchial marriages were discussed as coldly as those of racehorses. And for comparable reasons.
We could use a little more prudishness. The comment does remind me though of the time when monarchial marriages were discussed as coldly as those of racehorses. And for comparable reasons.
4.29.2011 | 12:00pm
Gail F says:
There is no agreement yet, but many studies seem to indicate that people who live together after getting engaged -- an arrangement for what they deem to be practical reasons and not a test of their compatibility -- have a far better track record of staying married than people who live together to "try things out." I find it strange that despite this evidence people continue to think that "trying it out" is a good idea. It stands to reason that if you think you need to try something out, you are already admitting that you're not sure it's a good idea. People who are sure their marriage is a good idea don't feel the need to try it out. I hope that William and Kate stay married and have a long and happy life. But contrary to what that unnamed British fellow said, if you want to have a happy marriage then "trying it out" first is not a good idea.
4.29.2011 | 12:49pm
Craig Payne says:
There is another cause today, perhaps not of celebration, but remembrance: Russell Kirk died 17 years ago today. The astonishing outpouring of Anglophilia today on the part of American media is a testimony to "America's British Culture," to use the title of one of Kirk's books.
I remember a study from some time ago that indicated that people who cohabit before marriage are about 80% more likely to divorce than those who do not. Anyone know if that figure still holds up?
I remember a study from some time ago that indicated that people who cohabit before marriage are about 80% more likely to divorce than those who do not. Anyone know if that figure still holds up?
4.29.2011 | 12:54pm
Robert D says:
I was scandalized by your introduction! But felt compelled to read and was delighted by your wit and whimsy.
Bravo.
Bravo.
4.29.2011 | 1:17pm
Dean from Ohio says:
As others have noted here, living together unmarried and living in the covenant of marriage are not the same thing. Not at all. The degree of commitment is very different. To those who say, "Marriage is no big deal; it's just a ceremony and some words and a ring," the appropriate response is, "Well then, why don't you go ahead and get married?" What is unspoken is that the commitment really is a big deal, and our hearts know it even if our mouth denies it.
This "experiment" is essentially an exercise in comparing final results of two trials where the key differences are in initial conditions. Since the level of commitment is quite different in "trying it out" vs jumping right into marriage at the beginning (particularly marriage before intimacy), the initial conditions are wildly different. Such an analysis could be valid if structured properly.
However, there are several ways such an "experiment" can go off the rails: neglecting the large difference in commitment as a relevant initial condition altogether, not controlling for other factors that might lead to divorce or staying together, not observing the best indicators of marriage health, not accounting for the ongoing feedback between moral choices and personal character, not waiting long enough for the effects of different initial conditions to play out, and particularly the suppression of unfavorable data to ease the guilty consciences of the experimenters.
The Bible does exhort us to learn from others' mistakes, as the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes point out in great detail. But the key point is, as Meghan infers at the end of her excellent article, is that learning Biblical wisdom directly from the Designer's excellent handbook is far better than reverse engineering it for ourselves.
This "experiment" is essentially an exercise in comparing final results of two trials where the key differences are in initial conditions. Since the level of commitment is quite different in "trying it out" vs jumping right into marriage at the beginning (particularly marriage before intimacy), the initial conditions are wildly different. Such an analysis could be valid if structured properly.
However, there are several ways such an "experiment" can go off the rails: neglecting the large difference in commitment as a relevant initial condition altogether, not controlling for other factors that might lead to divorce or staying together, not observing the best indicators of marriage health, not accounting for the ongoing feedback between moral choices and personal character, not waiting long enough for the effects of different initial conditions to play out, and particularly the suppression of unfavorable data to ease the guilty consciences of the experimenters.
The Bible does exhort us to learn from others' mistakes, as the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes point out in great detail. But the key point is, as Meghan infers at the end of her excellent article, is that learning Biblical wisdom directly from the Designer's excellent handbook is far better than reverse engineering it for ourselves.
4.29.2011 | 1:37pm
Anonymous says:
Because of understandable passion and genuine desire to express love and commitment to me -- and despite her better judgment -- my fiancee desperately wanted to fornicate during our engagement. In the words of the ancient philosophers, she was "incontinent."
I, in turn, honored her throughout our engagement. Specifically, I remember helping her see that in the depths of her heart, she understood that my refusing her advances was proof of a deeper love than fornicating love.
There are some things we can't not know, even in the heat of passion.
I, in turn, honored her throughout our engagement. Specifically, I remember helping her see that in the depths of her heart, she understood that my refusing her advances was proof of a deeper love than fornicating love.
There are some things we can't not know, even in the heat of passion.
4.29.2011 | 2:04pm
TXW says:
Would the Prince's mother be alive to partake in the wedding if there was a loyalty to the marriage vow his parent's part?
Wedding vows, complementarity, "the meaning of the verb 'to use'", nuptial attributes. . . who cares? That sapphire on her finger is so huge, so dazzling!
Wedding vows, complementarity, "the meaning of the verb 'to use'", nuptial attributes. . . who cares? That sapphire on her finger is so huge, so dazzling!
4.29.2011 | 2:53pm
Richard says:
Acknowledging the subject of Meghan's article being what it is, I think it is important to note that just as cohabiting prior to marriage assures the sustainability and the resilience of the marriage, neither, too does NOT cohabiting. Too often the conversation among well meaning Christians devolves to a discussion of sex before marriage, and not the support, encouragement, reinforcement and inspiration to be offered to people who ARE married. The hard work of discipleship and fellowship can be found here - serving the married couples who come into our communities of faith, whether out of an experience in cohabitation, or from a failed prior marriage, or from a marriage now in confusion and dysfunction - or from a marriage beginning to veer into complacency and inattention. Being an American and a small 'r' republican of proud New England heritage at that, today's marriage between two Britons holds no significance for me, but now that they are married, I wish them well and offer the prayer in the words of the Book of Common Prayer's rite of marriage: "Grant that their wills may be so knit together in your will, and their spirits in your Spirit, that they may grow in love and peace with you and one another all the days of their life".
4.29.2011 | 3:19pm
Rachel says:
That wedding homily was awesome! http://www.london.anglican.org/SermonShow_14544
Pure theology of the Body!
Pure theology of the Body!
4.29.2011 | 6:20pm
Jerry Beckett says:
Back in my single days, I noticed inequality of living together before marriage among my cohabitating friends and acquaintances:
The guy gets: convenient access to sex on a nightly basis, half his rent paid, and his laundry done
The gal gets: to kid herself that they're one step closer to marriage
A bit lopsided, no?
The guy gets: convenient access to sex on a nightly basis, half his rent paid, and his laundry done
The gal gets: to kid herself that they're one step closer to marriage
A bit lopsided, no?
4.29.2011 | 7:06pm
Mariah says:
If sex performed out of its divinely designed context is a lie and worse than playing house, then is a poorly executed act performed in the appropriate context (marriage) a lie and playing at husband and wife?
4.29.2011 | 9:13pm
Mark Scheve says:
Haven't you heard of the vows of cohabitation???? If not, you must check them out: www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVErKZGzNNM
4.30.2011 | 3:23am
Bryan Hann says:
Gail,
That is an interesting distinction. I think much follows from one's views of what, ontologically speaking, a marriage -is-. I am reluctant to identify de jure marriage with de facto marriage, and thing that it is the latter that is important. But I also fear dismissing the proper role of the first. In any case, I'd be interested to know more about the studies you refer to.
That is an interesting distinction. I think much follows from one's views of what, ontologically speaking, a marriage -is-. I am reluctant to identify de jure marriage with de facto marriage, and thing that it is the latter that is important. But I also fear dismissing the proper role of the first. In any case, I'd be interested to know more about the studies you refer to.
4.30.2011 | 4:00am
Jacob R says:
I think a lot of people leaving comments have missed the very important point this article makes!
How come smug leftists are all stats until they bear out undesirable truths?
How come smug leftists are all stats until they bear out undesirable truths?
4.30.2011 | 5:06am
Joe DeVet says:
I assert that there is no substitute for, nor shortcut around, the virtue of chastity.
It's a lifelong virtue, and falls under the classic virtues of temperance and fortitude, informed by charity. It's equally important in marriage as it is outside of marriage, and in fact without chastity, marriage itself falls apart. Which is part of why our poor culture does not know how to resist the impulse to affirm same-sex marriage.
We will be mocked and spat upon for promoting chastity. But "let us brace ourselves to our duty, so bear ourselves" (since Anglophilia is the word of the day, to borrow words of a famous Brit) that we may be worthy disciples of the One whose being mocked and spat upon we lately recalled in our liturgy.
Mariah, you make a good point. The sex act in marriage does indeed lose its authenticity insofar as it is inconsistent with the marriage vows; ie, insofar as it violates the norms or marital love, which must be ever free, total, faithful, fruitful. (In the Catholic ceremony, these norms are emphasized by the 3 questions asked of each fiance prior to the vows.) Violations can take many forms, commonly coercion, manipulation, sex with porn, and contraception to name a few.
We will be mocked and spat upon. But there are no shortcuts to chastity.
It's a lifelong virtue, and falls under the classic virtues of temperance and fortitude, informed by charity. It's equally important in marriage as it is outside of marriage, and in fact without chastity, marriage itself falls apart. Which is part of why our poor culture does not know how to resist the impulse to affirm same-sex marriage.
We will be mocked and spat upon for promoting chastity. But "let us brace ourselves to our duty, so bear ourselves" (since Anglophilia is the word of the day, to borrow words of a famous Brit) that we may be worthy disciples of the One whose being mocked and spat upon we lately recalled in our liturgy.
Mariah, you make a good point. The sex act in marriage does indeed lose its authenticity insofar as it is inconsistent with the marriage vows; ie, insofar as it violates the norms or marital love, which must be ever free, total, faithful, fruitful. (In the Catholic ceremony, these norms are emphasized by the 3 questions asked of each fiance prior to the vows.) Violations can take many forms, commonly coercion, manipulation, sex with porn, and contraception to name a few.
We will be mocked and spat upon. But there are no shortcuts to chastity.
5.1.2011 | 1:17am
jdc says:
I firmly believe that cohabitation is damaging to the potential marital union of a couple. However, as Megan noted, there are no statistical smoking guns that bear this truth out. This is a big problem since so many only recognize empirical evidence as having any validity. And further, even if there were studies that found how damaging cohabitation can be, an easy explanation would be that the only couples not cohabiting (and I believe this is almost universally the case) are those who have certain characteristics (they take marriage as a life long commitment, they're conservative politically and religiously, they harbor traditional family values, etc) that would almost definitly preclude them from seeking a divorce. So, it doesn't look like quantifiable data can really help to advance the truth in this instance since the data can be so easily explained away.
5.1.2011 | 5:58pm
Sergio Méndez says:
I am courious....why the author of this article seems to imply that cohabitation is only about sex? Non married couples that do not cohabit toghether still have sex ( a lot of it). You don´t need to cohabit with your mate to improve your sexual life. Cohabitation is related with how you are going to live with as couple on ALL aspects of the daily life (how to pay the bills, how to keep clean the house, how to tolerate each other manias etc...) and not with sex. I wonder, again, if this is not proof of how obsesed are religious conservatives with sex....
5.1.2011 | 9:12pm
Kamilla says:
" According to anonymous “Royal commentators,” cohabiting on and off with his girlfriend has put Prince William “in a better position than his father to make his marriage work.”
Uhm, no. I think you'll find that the reason William's father was in no position to make his marriage work is that he was unwiling to make his marriage work at the expense of giving up his paramour.
Uhm, no. I think you'll find that the reason William's father was in no position to make his marriage work is that he was unwiling to make his marriage work at the expense of giving up his paramour.
5.2.2011 | 2:38am
Augusta Shutes says:
Spot on. And also...do none in the media find it tasteless to comment on the royal sex life in general? I mean, my goodness, if people at my wedding were publicly speculating about the physical nature of my pre-marriage relationship, I would be appalled, and kick them out of the church and/or the reception. That is an interesting distinction. I think much follows from one's views of what, ontologically speaking, a marriage -is-. I am reluctant to identify de jure marriage with de facto marriage, and thing that it is the latter that is important. But I also fear dismissing the proper role of the first. In any case, I'd be interested to know more about the studies you refer to.
5.2.2011 | 2:55pm
Child of Divorce says:
I have a lot of compassion for Prince William. What a difficult marriage he witnessed, and what sorrow he went through as a young man! I can only imagine that it would be hard for him to feel hopeful and confident of his likelihood of finding a true and happy marriage. Like many of the people of his generation he has been sorely wounded by his parents' shortcomings.
We should consider the special burdens placed on this family. Prince Charles did love a woman, and she was not who he was allowed (by his family) to marry--until much later in life. Does that mean that the marriage of Charles & Diana was in fact invalid from the beginning? I am so grateful that the Queen allowed William to make his own choice of a bride.
Obviously most young people do not have the media attention that William & Katherine have had. One of the benefits of their cohabitation is that it gave them time together away from the public eye. I am hopeful that they are secure and comfortable in their partnership. I wish them every blessing, and I hope they will inspire other young people that true & lasting marriage is possible. Good Luck, kids!
We should consider the special burdens placed on this family. Prince Charles did love a woman, and she was not who he was allowed (by his family) to marry--until much later in life. Does that mean that the marriage of Charles & Diana was in fact invalid from the beginning? I am so grateful that the Queen allowed William to make his own choice of a bride.
Obviously most young people do not have the media attention that William & Katherine have had. One of the benefits of their cohabitation is that it gave them time together away from the public eye. I am hopeful that they are secure and comfortable in their partnership. I wish them every blessing, and I hope they will inspire other young people that true & lasting marriage is possible. Good Luck, kids!
5.3.2011 | 11:40am
Mariah says:
Thank you Joe but that's not what I meant. The act itself should be completed and perfected. It is not merely an allegorical act. I won't go into it but St. Alphonsus Ligouri wrote a good deal about it. None of his work on the sexual life of a married couple has been fully translated and made public. I wonder why?
5.3.2011 | 3:15pm
Maggie says:
Anyone have any advice for what I should say to a very dear (newly) Christian friend of mine who is engaged, but planning on living with her fiance for the next couple years until she graduates from school? I know from talking to her that they would prefer to marry, but her parents (who have a very strong influence on her life and who are not Christians) insist that they not marry until after she has her degree. I think she believes that they can remain chaste even while living together - they are very dear friends of mine and I'm at a loss how I can caution them concerning their choice, since I know they both have the best of intentions and are further hobbled by sets of rather silly parents . . .
5.4.2011 | 10:53am
Mariah says:
Hi, Maggie. If they are adults and they want to marry then they marry. If they are persuaded by their parents and feel obligated or in anyway servile to their parents then I would question their state of mind i.e. their maturity and fitness for marriage.
Marriage must be entered into freely without any coercion by anyone. You cannot let outside forces influence you or your spouse, and people will try. You would think there are bets placed on how fast a community can break up a newly married couple by what I've seen and experienced. They try to move in before the glue is set.
Whether a couple can make it or not depends on that commitment to each other and their own decency. Will the groom do what's necessary to support his bride getting the degree she wants or will he just go with the flow and take what the world offers? Stuff happens and they will be facing situations as adults they never dreamed possible when they were living under their parents' dominion.
My advice to you is ask them both serious questions such as:
Boy, what is the perfect job for you and what would you be willing to do to get it? Would you be willing to move, leave your fiance behind for a year to get settled - what, exactly? Girl, what if you can't finish your degree what jobs would you be able to work in case you'd have to. What if it took you 10 years to get back to school?
Sex is a serious thing. To be chaste in a situation your describing means to shut down sexual responses. This is harmful and unhealthy for them both. Marriage gives the environment needed to become a fully functioning sexual human being in a decent well-rounded manner.
You might not be able to go there with her. It is her business after all. But asking them these questions I've mentioned will cut down to the functional reality they both will be facing. You might be able to get their minds in a better place and never need to mention the word sex. Good Luck
Marriage must be entered into freely without any coercion by anyone. You cannot let outside forces influence you or your spouse, and people will try. You would think there are bets placed on how fast a community can break up a newly married couple by what I've seen and experienced. They try to move in before the glue is set.
Whether a couple can make it or not depends on that commitment to each other and their own decency. Will the groom do what's necessary to support his bride getting the degree she wants or will he just go with the flow and take what the world offers? Stuff happens and they will be facing situations as adults they never dreamed possible when they were living under their parents' dominion.
My advice to you is ask them both serious questions such as:
Boy, what is the perfect job for you and what would you be willing to do to get it? Would you be willing to move, leave your fiance behind for a year to get settled - what, exactly? Girl, what if you can't finish your degree what jobs would you be able to work in case you'd have to. What if it took you 10 years to get back to school?
Sex is a serious thing. To be chaste in a situation your describing means to shut down sexual responses. This is harmful and unhealthy for them both. Marriage gives the environment needed to become a fully functioning sexual human being in a decent well-rounded manner.
You might not be able to go there with her. It is her business after all. But asking them these questions I've mentioned will cut down to the functional reality they both will be facing. You might be able to get their minds in a better place and never need to mention the word sex. Good Luck
5.5.2011 | 1:08am
Roseanne Sullivan says:
Thanks for this article. The failed marriage of virgin Diana to non-virgin, non-faithful Charles is being used as an example of why people should have sex before marriage. Charles' love for Camilla, which led to adultery with her, a married woman, while he was a married man, was the much more likely cause of the failure of his marriage to Diana.
The virginity of both parties would have increased the chances of real love to develop between the two. As Diana said, there were three people in her marriage.
I remember a Playboy survey in the 1970s that surprised the magazine no end. People who had waited until marriage to have intercourse reported a much higher degree of satisfaction than people who didn't wait.
But Charles was the only partner in his marriage to Diana who didn't wait. He had been encouraged by his Uncle Montbatten to play the field before he picked a suitable virgin to marry. Charles' playing around (fornication) led him to a unsuitable bond with Camilla, who was not considered suitable for a king's wife (for good reason, I say).
Because of this kind of powerful bond that often forms whether or not you want it, I say to non-believers in traditional morality, and to scoffers against sexual self-control just for practical reasons, "Do not have intercourse with someone you wouldn't marry. You may become attached in a way you don't want." I have seen many, many people who have spent years attached to partners who they knew from the start they didn't want to marry.
We play with the force of marital love, which is life-giving, and we try to make it work for us while separating it from its real fruition and completion. And we and suffer many ills as a result, just as little children would do if they gorged on sweets for the pleasure of it day after day instead of real food for the nourishment of it, until they got sick.
I am sorry for girls like Kate who give themselves away to a man, like William. They have to use contraception as part of the modern courtship, that's a given. And then they wait for years in hopes the man will make a commitment to them. At least one school friend said that she was a virgin when she met William. She was with him for years until he broke up with her for a couple of months.
As one commenter said, Kate got her Handsome Prince in the end, but many girls like her do not. Then they have to begin the search again, with the odds mounting against them and their biological clocks ticking. I suspect that Kate has some wounds from the long wait, the breakup, and then the added long time that passed before his proposal, wounds which may not be healed by the marriage. And that alone (plus other aspects of a marriage embarked upon in a state of rebellion against God's plan for marriage) may lead to much unhappiness between them at the end.
The virginity of both parties would have increased the chances of real love to develop between the two. As Diana said, there were three people in her marriage.
I remember a Playboy survey in the 1970s that surprised the magazine no end. People who had waited until marriage to have intercourse reported a much higher degree of satisfaction than people who didn't wait.
But Charles was the only partner in his marriage to Diana who didn't wait. He had been encouraged by his Uncle Montbatten to play the field before he picked a suitable virgin to marry. Charles' playing around (fornication) led him to a unsuitable bond with Camilla, who was not considered suitable for a king's wife (for good reason, I say).
Because of this kind of powerful bond that often forms whether or not you want it, I say to non-believers in traditional morality, and to scoffers against sexual self-control just for practical reasons, "Do not have intercourse with someone you wouldn't marry. You may become attached in a way you don't want." I have seen many, many people who have spent years attached to partners who they knew from the start they didn't want to marry.
We play with the force of marital love, which is life-giving, and we try to make it work for us while separating it from its real fruition and completion. And we and suffer many ills as a result, just as little children would do if they gorged on sweets for the pleasure of it day after day instead of real food for the nourishment of it, until they got sick.
I am sorry for girls like Kate who give themselves away to a man, like William. They have to use contraception as part of the modern courtship, that's a given. And then they wait for years in hopes the man will make a commitment to them. At least one school friend said that she was a virgin when she met William. She was with him for years until he broke up with her for a couple of months.
As one commenter said, Kate got her Handsome Prince in the end, but many girls like her do not. Then they have to begin the search again, with the odds mounting against them and their biological clocks ticking. I suspect that Kate has some wounds from the long wait, the breakup, and then the added long time that passed before his proposal, wounds which may not be healed by the marriage. And that alone (plus other aspects of a marriage embarked upon in a state of rebellion against God's plan for marriage) may lead to much unhappiness between them at the end.
5.6.2011 | 5:28am
edmond says:
Cohabitation is really all about being scared but trying to appear brave.
Call me a prude, but I happen to think that this is one of those topics that - when directed toward the specifics of an individual couple's relationship - is better left out of the public conversation...
(And I'm not really meaning your article here, I mean the press over there who felt compelled to ask the questions and discuss it in the first place...)