When I meet older or traditional couples, couples whose unions are formed by ritualistic courtship, I always look for signs of seething marital hatred. I’m a cynic. I can’t help it; it’s my nature. It’s not just old-fashioned couples I prod with a stick called skepticism: one of my first thoughts when meeting any couple is, what does she hate about him? (Does he leave skid marks in his underwear?) What does he want to change about her? (Does she leave her paperback romance novels scattered around the house?) If things don’t work out between these two, what’ll be the subject of the deal breaker?

I’m all for romance, but most relationships go the way of the Hindenburg, and to pretend otherwise would be more foolish than any given episode of 7th Heaven. I’m especially dubious of chaste couples. How scary it must be to marry someone before living with them! What a terror it must be to risk committing your body to someone before checking for sexual compatibility!

There was a time in this country when, under the guidelines of restrictive romantic norms, men and women were expected to meet, date briefly, marry, and have morally righteous children. Many a strong marriage was forged by this method … as were many a dud. (And some of those morally righteous children grew up to be drug addicts and televangelists.) Divorce was out of the question for most couples, even if cohabitation proved miserable for everyone involved. People can complain about modern romance all they want, but I’ve seen Fried Green Tomatoes; I know the score.

The proponents of the romantic tradition argue that people have lost respect for marriage. Divorces are commonplace. Most modern couples seem to split as soon as the relationship stops being easy (and it always does). At least under the traditional paradigm, these proponents say, people were willing to work things out. These are valid points, but they fall considerably short of selling their ideology. It’s no lie that divorce and broken hearts are standard fare, but is that necessarily a negative? Should couples remain involved if one member is physically abusive? What of emotional abuse? How about general unhappiness?

Marriage can be a beautiful ritual that symbolizes commitment between two people, but it’s just a ceremony at heart. If your fiancé is an impotent alcoholic before the marriage, he’s still going to be an impotent drunk on your wedding night. Marriage is a big step, but marriage doesn’t change anything but your legal status. For the religious, marriage invites a god (or gods) to accept a union. That’s fine and dandy to believe, but being married doesn’t mean Jesus or Aphrodite is going to use their magical powers to make a relationship stronger. So far as I know, all that can make a relationship stronger is honesty, fidelity, and faith … in each other.

If you’re with the person you want to be with, why be hasty? Spend five or eight years together before you get hitched, or don’t get hitched at all. Why the hell not? If things don’t work out (and statistically, they probably won’t), you won’t have to go through the legal and financial hurdles of divorce—just a messy breakup.

If you’re not unable to do so because of religious dogma, have sex before marriage. Have every kind of sex you can. Make sure you can live with, sleep with, eat with, and put up with someone before you get legally boo-ed up (as the kids say). And please, sew your oats before you decide to commit. Philandering is uncool. Use many condoms, get tested regularly, and live like you mean it, so that you love that way, too.

Charles Smith, a native Southwest Virginian, is quite single. Bet you wouldn’t have guessed that, would you? Look for a whole issue themed with relationship stuff in our Feb. 7 issue of the New River Voice.