Is marriage without romance a good thing?

Time.com has an interesting article based on a book by author Pamela Haag entitled Marriage Confidential: The Post-Romantic Age of Workhorse Wives, Royal Children, Undersexed Spouses, and Rebel Couples Who Are Rewriting the Rules (via Hot Air). The author argues that "the 21st century is all about the postromantic marriage — one based on obligation, partnership and, yes, convenience." The article asks the question "How Married are You?" and goes on to describe five different types of marriages, none of which sound all that great.

One is a kind of business partnership, the next is for purposes of parenting, another is a "workhorse wife" who does pays the bills and does all the chores (where can we all find one of those?), another just agrees with anything the spouse says to get along, and the final couple is "semi-married" and simply functions separately.

Does this ring true for any of you? Rather than "Rebels rewriting the rules" as the book title suggests, it sounds to me more like people who have given up on romance. Is that really a better option?

Ned Holstein and Glenn Sacks: Bill would give 'duped dads' some fairness under the law.

NPR had an interesting discussion recently with journalist Jon Ronson, the author of a new book The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry.

The book uses the work of Dr. Robert Hare who developed the PCL-R to determine if people are psychopaths. I attended training with Dr. Hare some years ago and one of the things the professionals there taught us in terms of using the PCL-R was to be very well trained and to avoid using it frivolously. It is also important to use more than one test and other methods (such as third party interviews) when determining if one is a psychopath. But that aside, the book looks interesting.