Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw had some strong misgivings about love and marriage. “When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most elusive, and most transient of passions,” he said, “they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part.” Shaw might have been more open to marriage if there were some flexibility in that famous vow: maybe “until next Tuesday” instead of “until death”? 

In Iran today, marriages with specific expiration dates have been begrudgingly accepted as a part of everyday life. The contradictions inherent to this practice are striking: the Iranian government sanctions the stoning of adulterers and the flogging of women who are not properly veiled, but legitimizes anything from a one-night-stand to a three-week “fling” by allowing partners a temporary marriage license. What are the implications of this arrangement for an otherwise conservative and religious society?

Like permanent marriage, temporary marriage involves paying for a bride—which, in this case, translates to paying for sexual exclusivity that lasts a pre-ordained amount of time. Iranian couples don’t even have to seek legal or religious counsel for their temporary marriages. As long as a vow is made and a bride price is agreed upon, the couple’s marriage is considered legitimate.

It is important to note that temporary marriage is a custom accepted only in the Shi’a sect of Islam, and that it is not practiced or even acknowledged by all Shi’a. Also, contrary to common Western conceptions of Islamic sexuality, Muslims view celibacy as a negative and actually celebrate marriage and sexuality as natural and self-affirming. “Your body is something to be developed and enjoyed within legal restraints,” Dartmouth history professor Gene Garthwaite explained. “To deny that is to deny one of God’s gifts.”

Ostensibly vouching for this belief, the Iranian government has greatly increased its support for temporary marriage over the last 20 years, campaigning extensively to revive and legitimize the pre-revolutionary practice that was once fading into obscurity. During a sermon in 1990, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani told thousands of Tehran University students:

We imagine it’s good if we suppress ourselves, endure frustrations and be patient in our sexual desires. But this is incorrect. It’s wrong…God has created certain needs in human beings, and He does not want them unanswered…Short-term marriage has been sanctioned to guarantee the health of the family and permanent marriage. It’s there to satisfy temporary needs that exist in all societies.

Rafsanjani may have had a point, but it’s hard to be fooled by temporary marriage’s air of religious legitimacy. There is a strong social stigma that accompanies the arrangement, and many Shi’a do not acknowledge it as a viable part of their personal religious practices because it advertises the non-virginity of the temporary wife. This stigma varies based on social status: the more educated upper and middle classes dismiss temporary marriage as morally unacceptable, while the more religious Iranians (especially clerics) see it as a divinely sanctioned right. Unsurprisingly, these clerics (along with other religious groups in society) prefer their institution of temporary marriage to the American legacy of promiscuity and decadence.

So why has Iran’s government attempted to revive this controversial practice? It’s difficult to pinpoint a precise reason, but it is probable that the nation’s demographics played a large role. Nearly 70 percent of Iran’s population is younger than 30, which means that over half the nation’s population is at its sexual peak. But because men and women are segregated in many Muslim societies, being caught alone with a member of the opposite sex can have devastating consequences if the union is not legal.

Iranian youth are encouraged to marry permanently. But a high unemployment rate coupled with astronomical wedding costs means that most people can’t afford to, leaving certain biological needs unfulfilled. On a very basic level, then, Iran’s religious leaders might just be looking for a way to provide an outlet for some serious sexual frustration. After all, lacking permanent employment and oppressed by stringent religious laws that dictate the ways in which they can and can’t spend their free time, the Iranian youth could eventually channel their sexual frustration into political discontent.

Ayatollah Khamenei and the other clerics may not even personally condone temporary marriage—they may just be searching for a way to bring millions of sex-starved Iranian teens under the ever-changing banner of political Islam.