New study: men and women have different goals and expectations when cohabitating

Men who cohabitate are not certain that the relationship is permanent
Cohabitating men don’t see cohabitation as permanent, but married men do see marriage as permanent

Consider this fascinating article from the radically-leftist The Atlantic, authored by marriage researcher W. Bradford Wilcox. The article discusses the different beliefs of cohabitating men and women regarding goals and expectations for relationships.


According to a new paper from RAND by sociologists Michael Pollard and Kathleen Mullan Harris, cohabiting young adults have significantly lower levels of commitment than their married peers. This aversion to commitment is particularly prevalent among young men who live with their partners.

Pollard and Harris found that the majority of cohabiting young men do not endorse the maximum indicator of relationship permanence: 52 percent of cohabiting men between ages 18 and 26 are not “almost certain” that their relationship is permanent. Moreover, a large minority (41 percent) of men report that they are not “completely committed” to their live-in girlfriends. By contrast, only 39 percent of cohabiting women in the same age group are not “almost certain” their relationship will go the distance, and only 26 percent say they are not “completely committed”. Not surprisingly, the figures above and below also indicate that married women and men are much less likely to exhibit the low levels of commitment characteristic of many cohabiting relationships today.

[…]The only thing worse than being in a relationship for years with an uncommitted person, it would seem, is marrying one. Research by psychologists Scott Stanley and Galena Rhoades, spotlighted in a New York Times op-ed last year, suggests that cohabiting couples are in for trouble when they “slide” into cohabitation and then marriage rather than “decide” to take the same steps. Their work indicates that many couples begin living together without clear expectations, common values, or a shared commitment to one another. And after a time, some of these couples get married, in part because friends, family, and they themselves think it’s the logical next step. But without common values and a shared sense of commitment, the couples who slide into cohabitation and marriage, instead of purposely deciding to deepen their commitment to one another, are more likely to divorce.

Stanley and Rhoades illustrate this point by pointing to the research on cohabitation, engagement, and divorce. Women who cohabit prior to engagement are about 40 percent more likely to divorce, compared to those who do not cohabit. By contrast, couples who cohabit after an engagement do not face a higher divorce risk. Those who cohabit only after engagement or marriage also report higher marital quality, not just lower odds of divorce. Stanley and Rhoades think that “sliders” are more likely than “deciders” to cohabit prior to an engagement, and to have trouble in their marriage if they go on to tie the knot. On the other hand, couples who deliberately choose to move in together after a public engagement or wedding are more likely to enjoy the shared commitment that will enable their relationship to last.

So, given the low levels of commitment and the gender mismatch in expectations often found among today’s cohabiting couples, young men and especially women who aspire to a strong and stable marriage should take caution when considering moving in together.

You can click through the article to see the graphs he is talking about in the excerpt. Highly recommended. Just be aware Wilcox that accepts feminism (i.e. – promiscuity, no-fault-divorce, career-focus, day care, etc.) as non-negotiable improvements that should not be rolled back. His view is that men should just man up and continue to marry feminists like they used to marry non-feminists, even though marriage isn’t as good of a deal for men as it used to be before feminism.

It turns out that women cannot just pick a good-looking guy and drift into a commitment by stringing together good days and good experiences. A man who is looking for recreational premarital sex with a woman before marriage is not looking for marriage, but recreation. Marriage is a commitment to work hard, be disciplined, be self-sacrificial and to compromise with another person – all in close quarters. When choosing a mate, you need to look for someone who is good at commitments. Not someone who is good at fun.

The ability to have fun with a man is not a good predictor of marital success because fun is unrelated to the things that a man really does in a marriage: protect, provide, and lead on moral and spiritual issues. Similarly, the ability to impress your friends with a man’s appearance or entertainment value does not make a commitment work. What makes a commitment work… is a man who demonstrates that he is good at making plans and achieving goals through discipline and hard work. Marriage requires making plans and achieving goals more than it requires having fun. Recreational premarital sex is about having fun – not making plans and achieving goals. Instead of talking about the next good time with a man, maybe women need to learn to talk about the mechanics of marriage with a man. And talk about the man’s roles in a marriage with a man. And then they need to learn to avoid men who don’t have plans and who aren’t ready to perform those roles. There are plenty of men who are not “bad boys” who do have plans and who are ready to perform traditional male roles. Young women: don’t waste your youth and beauty on men who are not ready to commit.

A final point. I have noticed today that women tend to avoid men who have strong, exclusive views on moral questions and spiritual questions. The minute a man expresses a moral point of view or a theological argument, women tend to want to avoid him. Sometimes they fear rejection from men with definite convictions. Sometimes they resent male leadership. And there are other reasons to avoid strong men. The problem is that a man who has definite moral views is exactly the kind of man who is likely to be trustworthy and predictable in the marriage. And a man who has definite spiritual views is exactly the kind of man who is going to have some sort of overarching plan for the marriage (AND PARENTING) beyond mere pleasure. You wouldn’t choose someone who was guided by hedonism to be your stock broker or your medical doctor, because doing a hard job requires self-sacrifice and discipline. The same rule applies to choosing husbands. Husbands have duties that are typically best performed by moral, spiritual men.

5 thoughts on “New study: men and women have different goals and expectations when cohabitating”

  1. Proves many things.

    Cohabitation is just a test drive for divorce (not marriage).

    Women chasing only thrills & tingles get the men they deserve until they can’t attract them anymore.

    Where have all the good men gone? You either dumped him when you had the chance or showed by your actions you weren’t looking for good men to begin with. Only the thrills.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes. When I talk to young women who are cohabitating with men, it just seems like the non-commitment factors are seen as non-negotiable, but the commitment factors are things that can be neglected, because they will somehow be freebies later on, after enough hedonistic fun has taken place.

      I.e. – the women shack up with men who are tall, muscly, tattooed, and bearded RIGHT NOW, and they just expect that Christian worldview, Christian morals, fidelity, sobriety, providing, protecting, etc. will magically emerge later – perhaps through the power of recreational premarital sex.

      My best friend Dina, who has to deal with women all day in her job, likes to joke to me that women believe in the magical power of vagina to civilize hot bad boys. “If I give him premarital sex, he’ll still look hot, but he’ll have the morals and goals of Mike Pence”. It’s a delusion, but what else can they do? Hotness is priority one. Women feel that it is literally worse than rape to ask them to control their mate selection with their minds instead of their feelings, so that they choose men for MARRIAGE and not for THRILLS AND TINGLES. They would rather die than control their own desires.

      I was recently in a sports bar talking to a young woman studying for nursing. She had shacked up with an ex-military man who was now running a pizza store, and had a high school degree. So there she was, in her early 20s, studying for nursing, and shacked up with a guy who has questionable spirituality, morals, provider ability, etc. A total mismatch. But he was tall, had tattoos and a beard. So he was sending the right message to her friends: “look at me, I landed a brutish thug who could beat up your boyfriend”. As if getting into fist fights is the normal thing that a man does in a marriage.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Must be that nonsense goddess feminist thinking they get. Her vagina can magically turn a thug into a husband.
        I’ve read Scripture…it’s not her slot that converts a man if that’s what she’s going for.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. That graph has math and feminists have declared math to be sexist. So you can’t prove anything with sexist male math and science.

    Well ok if you want to prove the earth is going to die from limited computer simulations deemed as evidence for global climate doom, that science is accepted by many feminists.

    Just not the science that hurts their reality of existence in any way

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s