"THEN WHAT WOULD LW BE SACRIFICING BY WAITING? Sex? Companionship? Many people are single and celibate for two years at a time."

OMG. There is no way I would go without sex and companionship for 2 years unless my husband was in a coma (and even then after a year or so...). I'm 32 and giving up sex for 2 years seems completely unreasonable and doomed to failure. Asking a 20-something man (your own husband no less) to go without sex for 2 years is a passive way of ending the marriage. You get married for sex and companionship as much as you do for love. Sex is a huge part of romantic love. Frankly, I'd turn into a raving lunatic without sex.

It's just too big a sacrifice. Some things are deal breakers and this is one of them.

I think that anyone who truly sat down and thought about the implications of getting married would agree that it's freaky. It's wonderful and amazing--but also quite freaky--that you will be with one person for the rest of your life, through all the changes you both go through and all the stuff that life dishes at you.

Huh?!? I mean Real Love, Anne. Capital "R", capital "L". You're saying that you would give that up for 2 years of nookie plus the likelihood that you'll never find Real Love again? It doesn't happen very often, you know. But those who see marriage as a matter of convenience or libido HAVE NOT FOUND REAL LOVE. I don't mean to sound hokey and idealistic, but it's true.

So let's at least call a spade a spade, shall we? LW, you married because you loved your wife on some level but it's not that soul-to-soul connection worth holding out for, eh? Cary, you were getting older, and were happy to find someone to care about you whom you cared about, so you got married, right? Anne, you probably found a guy who was great in the sack and were sick of being alone. People get tired of waiting for that connection so they find people thay love in one form or another or whose company they enjoy and they get married. Not terribly romantic but it's a fact. And it's perfectly reasonable. But at least admit it! Let's not dress it up as something it's not. Your loves are not absolute, nor unconditional, you're not exactly compelled to write sonnets about your partner. And if someone better came along, with whom you had a stronger connection, you'd leave and so would your partner - because life's too short to settle, right? Yet your marriages will do... for now.

Love is not a one-size fits all emotion. For some people it's transformative, for others it's merely comforting. And you know what? That's all right...so long as two people with vastly different schema for love don't get together.

Here's the bottom line: if someone is your soulmate, your Real Love, your other half, there is a limit to what they will ask of you. That limit is the point at which you stop being you and start being something else...because at that point, who exactly are they a soulmate to?

Sure, and I married because once I had only birds and gnomes for friends, and then I fell into a coma only to be awakened by a kiss from my one and only Real Love... Wait, that wasn't me!

People marry for all kinds of reasons. Maybe it's because my parents have always pointed out to me that those couples who married for Real Love always end up divorced and disillusioned, as though Real Love could solve problems on its own. The desire to be a team, to have companionship and sex, to make and raise children together, to be best friends who live and make decisions together always--these should not be discounted as reasons to be married. They are far more credible than some alternatives.

I'm concerned about the letters here saying that LW couldn't get into the Peace Corps if he wanted to. There are ways to increase your chances of getting accepted, like agreeing to go to any country that will take you or applying for a program, such as teaching English, that isn't as competitive. There were two married couples in my Peace Corps group, and they were placed at site together. Finally, the application process takes a very long time. 12 months is not unusual, and McConaughey may be right around the corner from getting accepted.

That said, when I was in the Peace Corps, they told us that 1 out of every 2 married couples that joins gets divorced. That was true of my group --- of our 2 married couples one got divorced. It's not a good idea to take this on unless both parties are really committed to the process.

At the same time, I think the LW's wife is getting a bit of a raw deal from him and the readers. I would point out that the LW said that if the wife had asked earlier, when he had a crappy job, he would have gone with her. I don't get the sense she's been "hiding" this. It's clear he originally wasn't all that directed while she's been on the path to doing international development work all along. Maybe they both just kind of misread each other through the lenses of their own experience. I could totally hear her saying: "I've always talked about living abroad long term --- why didn't you ever tell me that you wouldn't be willing to participate in it, and in fact, would demand that I give it up?"

Axordil - I hear you and I agree. But where is the line between comforting love and comforting really-like-a-lot? AT WHAT POINT ARE YOU FLAT OUT SETTLING? - which is absolutely fine if people choose to settle. But again, let's at least call a spade a spade here, rather than "comforting love."

RLIAM - I definitely hear you and all of those are valuable aims for marriage. But don't you think you can have Real Love AND the best-friendship and stability and longevity? People who say you can't clearly just settled for not ever finding it. And marrying without love - I'm sticking to my guns on this - is settling, because no matter how pragmatic you are or sceptical of Real Love, you've undoubtedly seen it or felt it and you know deep down that it's the best thing ever. People have died for the stuff for centuries and for good reason. I'm afraid your mother and you have missed out.