In the past, we parted with old friendsupon graduation, which meant joining anew community and a new set of relationships.Today, however, there is no need tobe separated from anyone just because ofgeographical distance. This is true evenfor broken up couples — the social mediaalgorithm does not let us alone.

Some friends tell me that they haveseen their exes on the list of friends onFacebook or KakaoTalk. One friend toldme how she felt bad for days after findingthat her ex-boyfriend's girlfriend was recommendedas a possible friend on Facebook.Feeling like a stalker (unintentional,of course), she looked into the woman’saccount and found out that they were soonto be married (news that she really didn'twant to hear).

An increase in long-distance relationshipsis another new trend. Stories of couplesliving far apart — in Tokyo and Seoul,for instance — are often delivered to myradio booth. There are also many couples inlove with one of them going abroad to study or spend a working holiday. Living apart in Tokyo andSeoul is better than most cases, since there is no time difference. But what about couples livingin London and Seoul? In Seoul and São Paolo? These days, long-distance relationships are notlimited to unmarried couples. I know a married couple with the husband living in Seoul and thewife in Pohang, and another with the wife in California and the husband in New York.

One of my friends in Seoul had a boyfriend living in Amsterdam. One day, she went to meethim there and stayed for three months. As her visa expiration date neared, she had to returnto Seoul. At the airport, her boyfriend thought of a way to be with her longer and suggested the“fiancé visa,” a legal device preventing the deportation of partners with different nationalities.Today, almost 50 percent of couples are said to decide against marriage in Europe, where thedistinction between marriage and cohabitation has become blurred.

What about Koreans? The prolonged economic recession in this country has led many youngerpeople to give up three major things in life: employment, dating, and marriage — hence theterm sampo sedae, meaning “triple resignation generation.” Presuming no change in the current institution of marriage, more couples will give it up because itwill do almost nothing to make their lives better, at least in economicterms. Who would be willing to marry if marriage means livingunder the burden of bank loans? Love is not the sole issue in a marriagesince it is affected by an array of social policies including realestate and finances.

The friend who stayed in Amsterdam longer than she plannedeventually broke up with her boyfriend. Another friend who traveledbetween Seoul and Busan also ended her relationship. A friendwho was in a relationship with a man in New York and coping witha 14-hour time difference told me: “Keeping up this long-distancerelationship for two years, I’ve realized one thing. The only way tomake such a relationship work is to cheat!”

This friend, a psychiatrist, was firm in her opinion. She said havingan affair was the only solution to get over the sexless bouts thatsuch a situation imposes on a couple. She added that the greatestvirtue required of today’s long-distance couples was a properamount of indifference — not trying to know too much about theirpartners.

The German novelist Erich Kastner said, “Geography spells theruination of love.” Almost every country in the world has sayings tothe effect of “out of sight, out of mind.” Then, you might want to askthis question: “How much distance can love tolerate?”

In the first week of the New Year, the topic for my radio show wasagain long-distance relationships. The two lovers, who were noteven separated yet, were terrified by the temporal and geographicaldistance that would lie between them. They wished to marry, butwondered if that would be possible, predicting failure in advance.I want to ask them, “Does the completion of love have to be marriage?Does marriage mean being together all the time?” Marriagein our time should be different from the past as the conditions oflife have changed. In an interview with U.S.-based Korean journalistAnn Hee-kyung, Zygmunt Bauman made an interesting statement:

“Have I mentioned the French novelist Michel Houellebecq? Heis a very wise man who wrote about dystopia. His book ‘The Possibilityof an Island’ depicts a sinister picture of what awaits us, asopposed to utopia. It tells us what we will end up with if we go onwith the current tendencies. As far as love is concerned, many coupleswill be half committed to their relationships, not due to geographicaldistance but because we all want to share intimacy whileremaining autonomous. What you hear a lot in American films is, 'Ineed a space of my own.' This is a plea for others to stay away, to letus alone. This is an ideology of our time.”

According to Bauman, “dependence” is considered a shamefulcondition today. It means, in extension, that the marriage vowspledging to depend on each other in good times and in bad, whetherrich or poor, are becoming an anachronism. In our time, we lay suchemphasis on autonomy.

Now, love responds from places different from before. We wantto stay connected for 24 hours a day, but one's physical presence isin a kind of fortress of one's own. Connected only online, we maintaina solitary existence. We want to stay connected because we feellonely, but we also want to be free to go anywhere. The problem isthat stability is incompatible with freedom. Stable freedom is anoxymoron. No freedom is without risks, and stability needs a community.

For these reasons, a new type of union called “semi-cohabitation”is spreading. Many of my internet friends keep up their relationshipsby having their separate places and living either apartor together whenever the need arises. A couple in Jeju Island liveapart, the husband in Hyeopje and the wife in Pyoseon, workingseparately on weekdays and meeting on the weekend. Of course,they call or see each other when it’s necessary.

They say that this isthe golden mean, achieved in their 12th year of marriage. A properamount of freedom and a proper degree of stability serve as a stimulantfor their relationship. The couple has figured out the optimaldistance that keeps the fire of their love burning.

“Graduation from marriage” is a recent coinage that originated in Japan. A concept different from divorce, it involves couples remaining married but living independentlywithout interfering with each other in how they live their lives. Graduation from marriagestresses a life much more independent than semi-cohabitation.

Most of us get married knowing hardly anything about the institution. It’s like falling in lovewithout ever being taught about love. In fact, what we know about love are mostly myths borderingon superstition. Love at first sight. Love that comes effortlessly. Love in a magical momentwhen everything is so natural that you know with your whole being that this person is the one.These are illusions d by movies, novels, and television dramas.

If we explore what constitutes “lasting love” with half the interest that we celebrate “buddinglove,” we will experience love in quite a different way. The same is true for marriage. Perhaps,this issue has been most profoundly addressed by the writer Alain de Botton. In his essay “OnMarrying the Wrong Person” posted on the website entitled the “Book of Life,” he describes indetail how a normal man or woman turns into an impatient and inconsiderate ignoramus:
“On our own, when we’re furious, we don’t shout, as there’s no one there to listen— and therefore we overlook the true, worrying strength of our capacity forfury. Or we work all the time without grasping, because there’s no one callingus to come for dinner, how we manically use work to gain a sense of control overlife — and how we might cause hell if anyone tried to stop us. At night, all we’reaware of is how sweet it would be to cuddle with someone, but we have no opportunityto face up to the intimacy-avoiding side of us that would start to make uscold and strange if ever it felt we were too deeply committed to someone. One ofthe greatest privileges of being on one’s own is the flattering illusion that oneis, in truth, really quite an easy person to live with. With such a poor level ofunderstanding of our characters, no wonder we aren’t in any position toknow who we should be looking out for.”

De Botton makes a bold claim that a standard question on any earlydate should be “And how are you mad?” I couldn't agree more! Asked todefine marriage, I could think of more than 30 definitions, but the onethat immediately comes to mind is this: Marriage means failing everymoment, knowing all too well in advance that you will do so. This maysound like an overstatement, but it’s not. That said, the most realisticadvice that I can give is this: Marriage is actually a choice of whether ornot to endure pain. In marriage, your partner will probably inflict on youa kind of pain that you never imagined. Therefore, the decision to get marriedis tantamount to determining if the person you’re marrying is worth theeffort of enduring the pain. Nobody can avoid getting hurt in life. Even so, weshould at least have the power to choose the person who will be inflicting thepain. That way, you will feel less unhappy. After all, the most honest statementthat I can make about marriage is that tolerating one another will sometimesbe much more difficult if you are not truly in love.

To marry, or not to marry? This may be one of the most hackneyed relationshipquestions, along with “To have children, or not to have children?” and “Canmen and women be just friends?” However, what I have learned from my 15plus years of marriage is that life is not about straddling two choices while makingnone. Any choice is inherently exclusive and cruel since it means bearing theconsequences of picking one thing over another. Additionally, it’s clear that anyonewho’s good at living alone will be good at living with someone else. Surely,it's not only writers who need a room of their own.