Julian wonders:
Is it excessively cynical of me to think that the first casualty of an insistence on love and sex always going together might be your criteria for being "in love?" As in: "Holy hell, I'm 25 and have never had sex... You! SOUL MATE! NOW!"
Heh, indeed. Meanwhile, I've always wondered why folks like Ross don't think sexual compatibility is a useful metric on which to test relationships before cementing them into marriages. There are all sorts of reasons that two people may not work together sexually ("It's...it's so small!")("Why do you always sob and shower after we finish?*), and finding out if any of them are present before the union is permanent is probably a good idea. Maybe there should be a three-month, post-engagement/pre-wedding phase in which the sexual match is explored a bit? And this isn't facetious: I'm generally interested in whether folks who basically oppose sex before marriage envision some sort of other arrangement in which unexpected incompatibilities could be sussed out.
Update: (Because it's just so...so...sad.)