This idea sounds interesting in theory, but in reality all it would do is create a new set of social conventions designed around the new rules of engagement.
The feminine would...
- crank up the sex, get into shape, and display her long-dormant affectionate side during a 'contract year'.
- develop a new set of shaming mechanisms whereby "real men renew their vows" (...for another term).
- morph the divorce industry into the separation industry. Instead of all the marital assets, children, income liabilities, etc being divided as part of a terminating decree, they instead would be negotiated and assigned based on the decision to not renew the marriage. All of the same perils for both sides which are inherent to the current system would still be present in the new system. Laws would change to address these challenges in the new paradigm.
The masculine would...
- become as proactive about planning the celebration of their 'free agency release' as women do their wedding day.
- ultimately have to continue compensating (legally) for the lost provisioning of their pampered ex-wives who don't have the means or work ethic to support themselves, long after the marriage lapses.
- take solace in the fact that marriage is no longer a permanent institution, yet still continue to be emotionally duped, AFC-style, into romanticized notions of 'happily ever after' by society at large. Picture the whole new subset of comedy films that would develop around the topic of pending marriage renewal. The ending would always be the same, with the guy deciding to renew with his wife through the cougar years.
---------------------
Even if marriage were reduced to an annually renewable certificate, all the inherent challenges involved with dissolving a long-term cohabited arrangement remain the same. One household must become two, and the oft-inequitable nature of who contributes what to the arrangement make dividing the arrangement equitably a challenge. Efficiencies that were created by the cohabitation still have to be accounted for.
This all goes to underscore the point that even if one holds anti-marriage viewpoints, making the decision to cohabit brings with it the same set of liabilities as marriage does. If we could simply eliminate the golden parachutes that come with cohabited couples separating under current laws, the arrangement itself could no longer be used as leverage in a relationship.
In the ideal cohabited arrangement, both sides have what they want and work from the assumption that it will end one day, even if it never does. In that regard, a termed marriage may well be pragmatic, so long as it comes with a mandatory dissolution agreement (known back before the separation industry as a 'pre-nup'). Planning an exit strategy should be the norm, but it never will be so long as most people stick with their idealized notions of love and marriage.
As individuals and as men and women, we are all opportunists, and will all modify our behaviors as our personal conditions dictate. Competing interests between the sexes in the mating game will never go away, and therefore neither will the tug-of-war that takes place between society's laws and its social conventions.
