Put A Ring On It: Trial separation versus trial marriage
Wise Readers:
Scientifically speaking, here’s what most women think at move-in: “I wonder when we’re getting married.” And many men think: “I wonder what’s on TV.”
It reminds me of a party I attended years ago, where Jack—successful, in love, and usually quite smart—openly denounced matrimony: “They got married?! How dumb. If it’s working, stay, and if not, leave.” The woman on his arm—Wynne, a luscious catch by any standard—seemed neither surprised nor amused. Nor engaged, after years of cohabiting.
Why are men more reluctant to commit—and how does living together make them even less so? It’s not because men are bad or marriage is a raw deal. In fact, after decades of academic wrangling, it’s now abundantly clear from the work of Dr. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead , Dr. David Popenoe, and others that heterosexual men benefit from marriage as much as women do, and they like being wed; almost 95% say they are happier married than they were single . They are also a wealthier and healthier group than the single, divorced or cohabiting, and far less likely to quite literally die of loneliness. And formerly married men usually remarry quickly, rather than electing to cohabit or go it alone.
But most men don’t start out, either in life or in courtship, being nearly as commitment-focused as women; just watch little boys playing guns, not grooms. Or note men’s preference for visually-based hunt-‘em-down sites like Match.com
—whereas women gravitate towards marriage-minded eHarmony. Scientists such as Dr. David M. Buss and Dr. Donald Symons cite biology: With an endless procreative timeline, a drive to entice young, fertile partners and an enviable capacity to make a baby in less time than it took to craft this sentence, commitment needn’t press, and playing the field can have a large procreative pay-off. But Time is not a woman’s friend in any of these cases, so we’d expect women to be much more commitment-focused from childhood on. And we’d be right.
Social factors –what you and I call Sex—also influence commitment. In a recent national Rutgers survey, men’s #1 reason fueling non-commitment was easy sexual access sans Ring. And living together before engagement further erodes male commitment by meeting men’s inherited needs for the Three F’s—Fertility, Fidelity and The Other F.
Yes, cohabiting can feel like the ultimate Fun Zone for men, who gain really frequent sex in an atmosphere of Keeping Their Options Open. But women’s mating psychology evolved in an atmosphere of extremely risky pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, and baby-schlepping. Without a solid commitment backed by family, society and maybe Daddy’s club (wooden, not country), leaving it to the guy’s whim to bring home the wild boar just didn’t cut it. So, women distrusted cohabiting—and scientifically speaking, still should. Even Here And Now, survival and success of women and children is strongly linked to the presence of a Committed Provider And Protector.
The irony is this: Women like Wynne and Tina (recent column) are choosing cohabitation now more than at any point in prior Western history—usually hoping for permanence and security while doing the very thing that undermines the likelihood of getting it.
Women, be warned: Science shows that most men are inherently more reluctant to commit, and moving in before setting the wedding date hurts your chances of ever having him Put A Ring On It. But there’s still something you can do, and our Wise Readers from the Tina/Pete Shack-up scenario knew what. Wrote one man: “Pete has reservations now and will continue having them once he shacks up….She needs to give him space.” Women were more blunt: “She should move away. To another state, if possible.” A bit harsh, perhaps—but accurate.
If Tina wants full commitment, She Should Leave and begin dating others now. Because distance and insecurity are highly clarifying and motivating. As a former column on barriers showed, things that threaten the connection between a dating couple end fence-sitting and produce decisions…especially for men. Barriers can take many forms, from parental disapproval and long-distance dating and life-threatening illness, to a woman’s refusal to move in, to her insistence on a move-out, to her outright break-up, to her new relationship with someone else. Nothing can force one person to love another, but for men, absence *they did not choose* makes it very clear, very fast whether their attachment is for naught, for now or forever. And women are better off having the answer, no matter what that answer is, than reducing their options by wasting time.
Which brings us back to Jack and Wynne. Wynne abetted Jack’s commitment aversion by giving him what he wanted before she got what she needed, and I longed to counsel her: “Get out of his life faster than he can say Commitmentphobe. No explanations. Just. Leave. Oh, and be dating by Tuesday.” Imagine my shock and his when, less than a week later, she did just that. Three weeks following—after wearing out his knees, his tear ducts and his MasterCard—Jack convinced Wynne to accept his proposal. He planned the wedding down to the last detail, and worships the ground she treads to this day—a decade hence.
Single Ladies, take note: You cannot court a man into committing, and you should not force a man into committing; but you can refuse to move in, or leave and let him figure it out for himself. Although I strongly advise against rubbing men’s faces in it ala Beyonce’s vampy “If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it,” Ms. Knowles’ strength, self-respect and distance are a lot closer to What Works than Tina’s plans to sway her honey with daily close-range pampering. The trial on cohabiting is over, and it’s guilty of maiming wholehearted, enthusiastic, full commitment. Try separation instead.
Cheers,
Duana
If this article enlightened, infuriated or otherwise moved you, it might help others. Please click “Share Article” below to link it with your favorite social media website.
Do you have a question for Duana? Contact her at Duana@LoveScienceMedia.com
All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D., 2009
Share Article Print Article Permalink tagged Breakups, Cohabitation, Commitment, Dating, Evolutionary Psychology, Male Female Differences, Marriage
Reader Comments (35)
@Vincent, You've got a good bead on the logic, but...I fear I've taken the concept too far! It would be hard--too hard, I think--for even the most Exploratory personality to withhold exclusive dating until a marriage proposal (unless from a very religious or an arranged-marriage culture).
I think a good rule of thumb is that people continue dating others until the man/pursuer has asked for exclusivity and has offered it in return. Again--this is tied to personality whether people can feel true to themselves and do that.
Unfortunately, sometimes that exclusivity is taken as a pseudo-marriage, and the Jack/Wynne scenario ensues. That's when a level of withdrawal may be required in order to up the ante so a decision one way or the other is clarified.
Here's the thing: Label me a moralist, but it bothers me when people, men *and* women, act for their own advantage at the expense of someone else. For men, that might be easy sex; for married women it might be having affairs with men who are sexier than their hard-working provider-husbands, if I am reading the posts correctly.
Yes, men are programmed for sex and women are programmed for commitment/security. That is neither good nor bad. What angers me is when men or women in today's society act selfishly in relationships (against partners they profess to care about...!) and fail to consider the effects of their actions on others.
Using people is wrong.
We no longer live in the 1500's when an heir was essential to run the farm. We have brains and hearts and the ability to override our primitive urges.
Everyone - men and women - always and only act in their own self-interest. If you claim that you do not act in your own interest, you are either lying, in denial, or insane. To work for someone else's benefit against your own is irrational and not a good survival strategy. In evolutionary terms, it would mean the survival of another genetic line at the expense of your own.
If you follow the rules instead of doing something you'd like that is against the rules, it is because you realize that the perceived price of breaking the rules is greater than the benefit of breaking the rules. Do you get angry at yourself if you break a rule (whether that be a relationship rule, a traffic rule, or any other kind), or do you only get angry when others do? It is probably to your advantage to follow the rules, so you do. Contrary to popular belief, following the rules does not make anyone a better person that someone who doesn't. It's simply that following the rules is to that person's advantage. And if breaking a rule is to someone's advantage - especially if they won't get caught - then why follow the rule? I believe it says much more about a person if they are faithful by choice than if they are faithful out of fear of punishment.
Your mileage may vary.
Dear Daniel: With all due respect (and I really do enjoy your comments), I believe your last post illustrates exactly why females should understand the male mating psychology,which Duana has so diplomatically described. Jack is looking out only for Jack. How his actions affect Wynn never even crossed his mind. (....What's on TV?) So women, beware. I don't think men intend to reduce our marriage chances by moving in with us; it appears from this comment they don't think about how their actions affect us at all. I am saving this article for my own daughter as she grows up.
Joan-
You are absolutely correct, but I think you only see half the story. Women also do as benefits them. Somewhere around 30% of children in this country (Duana, please correct me if I'm wrong) are the result of extramarital affairs by their mothers. Women are no more saints, and no more prone to follow "the rules" than are men. Neither is superior. They are equally inclined to ignore the effects of their actions on others. They are also equally inclined to demonstrate incredible devotion to those they love. You can look at the opposite sex as pigs, as golddiggers, as dogs, as whores, as "playahs," or you can see them as wonderful human beings, capable of the greatest expressions of love.
The two most damaging mistakes we can make (and I have made them both in my time) is to assume that the opposite sex is somehow less enlightened or less pure/more evil than your own; and secondly to expect them to act in your interest when it conflicts with theirs. After all, you do not act in their interest when it conflicts with yours.
Dear Joan and Daniel,
I have to say your dialogs are wonderful. Which brings me to my questions:
1. Are you both married?
2. To each other?
3. If not, why not?
LOL
Daniel, I do agree that it cuts both ways; I focused on Jack's behavior because that's the scenario that was presented. Married women having children from affairs aren't thinking of the effects on their mates, either. I agree that neither gender has a lock on sainthood.
So can't we all be a little gentler with one another. and a little more responsible and moral in our actions? What I'm grappling with is this:
On the one hand, yes, a fish is always a fish, and will act like a fish, i.e., in the fish's best interest. And so is an eagle always a eagle. However, it is just as hurtful for the cheating wife to say, "Well, I am a fish; why are you angry that I cheated? I was only doing what fish do" as it is for Jack to say, "Well, I am an eagle; I am only doing what eagles do."
I am not suggesting that people stop acting their own self-interest. I agree that it would be preposterous. But when people realize they are using each other (women using men and men using women) I think they should re-evaluate and consider the effects of their actions on others.
Even though we are fish and eagles, and will behave like fish and eagles --and none of us is pure or better --can't we simultaneously realize the effects of our actions and be a little more responsible toward one another?
@Joan and Daniel (and Vincent--Hi-larious)-- You guys are impressive. Thank you for adding so much to the discourse.
I'm glad you're saving these columns for your daughter, Joan. Our culture has evolved drastically in a matter of a few years--our biology (and hence our mating psychology), very slowly. Upshot: Eagles are still being eagles, but fish are also being eagles with our new cultural shift.
This is troubling. The signs are that as women give up their own mating strategies and instead adopt male mating strategies, it doesn't just go against female interests--it is actively harming children, men, and society at large. Today, men and women in well-conducted surveys continue to say that a lifelong, happy marriage is their top goal in life--but our new ways of doing things are very unlikely to get them that. And the price we all pay for it--from unhappiness to poverty and untimely death and child abuse--is unacceptably high.
We need eagles and fish to make the world go round. I hope the fish out there will Just Keep Swimming while the eagles continue to take to the air.
I think the best thing we can do is not to rush in, not to make promises we can't keep. If one is not willing to "forsake all others, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer," then one should not make that vow. I was all ready to make that vow to someone at one stage in my life. Since then, I have been unwilling to live under such a vow, and hence unwilling to make it. Someday, with the right person, maybe.
But there is also a societal pressure to marry, and even to marry young. John Lennon said "Love Is All You Need," and generations have believed him. But he was wrong. You need much more than love, and certainly much more than what most people consider love, to make it work. A large number of people equate love with sex, and since "all you need is love," as long as the sex is good, we're ok, right? Just find someone you're compatible with and get married.
There is also familial pressure to get married. Many in my family - especially the older generation - did not consider me to be fully adult because I never married. If you're over 25 and not married, then there must be something wrong with you. 30 year old unmarried women are "old maids." I think we need to ditch these stereotypes and make it ok to be unmarried, whether you are male or female. I would love to find that one lifelong relationship, and when I do, there will be no issues with my committing to it fully. But we will commit to each other on our own terms, and not on family's or society's terms.
And to answer your question about being a little more considerate, Joan - that is a wonderful goal. I'm not sure what we can to to accomplish it. Morality, conscience, wisdom, and good sense cannot be legislated. You just can't *make* somebody think.
Vincent- I think I answered your questions. ;>
@Daniel, although normally I agree with 99.9% of what you write, and it's clear you're unusually well-versed in evolutionary psych in particular, I have to add just one interesting caveat:
Actually, a tremendous amount of morality can be legislated...more in another column (I was truly surprised when I read the articles...). And there is solid evidence that we have actually created American legislation that is weakening marriage, even for those who remain married for a lifetime. [And for anyone else reading this: No, the harmful legislation has nothing to do with making gay marriage legal, which should only bolster the institution and create greater societal acceptance of long-term love for everyone.]
You're absolutely right, though, Love Is Not All You Need. And I wholeheartedly support that if you haven't really found someone with whom you can make a life--or even if you just plain don't want to--that is totally your option. I'm happy to tell your friends and family to Back Off :). And I'll bet you're up-front about your ideas in a relationship, too. Good going.