“Why not take her for a test drive?”

July 25, 2006 at 10:48 pm 19 comments

Via JRM.


Research shows that cohabitation is correlated with unhappiness and domestic violence. Cohabiting couples report lower levels of satisfaction in the relationship than married couples. Women are more likely to be abused by a cohabiting boyfriend than a husband. Children are more likely to abused by their mothers’ boyfriends than by her husband, even if the boyfriend is their biological father. If a cohabiting couple ultimately marries, they have a higher propensity to divorce.

Most of the recent reports and commentaries on cohabitation report these difficulties, and at the same time, tend to downplay them.  Living together before marriage seems to resemble taking a car for a test drive.  The “trial period” gives people a chance to discover whether they are compatible. “You wouldn’t buy a car without taking it for a test drive, now would you?”

Here’s the problem with the car analogy: the car doesn’t have hurt feelings if the driver dumps it back at the used car lot and decides not to buy it. The analogy works great if you picture yourself as the driver. It stinks if you picture yourself as the car.

Yet this is the implication of the “test drive” metaphor. I am going to drive you around the block a few times, withholding judgement and commitment until I have satisfied myself about you. Pay no attention to my indecision, or my periodic evaluations of  your performance. Try to act as if we were  married, so I can get a clear picture of what you’re likely to be like as a spouse. You just pretend to be married; I’ll just pretend to be shopping.

The contract analogy doesn’t help much either. Living together is fine as long as both people agree to it.  The agreement amounts to this: “I am willing to let you use me as if I were a commodity, as long as you allow me to treat you as if you were a commodity.”   But this is a bogus agreement.  We can say at the outset that we agree to be the “man of steel”, but no one can credibly promise to have no feelings of remorse if the relationship fails.

There is an essential difference between sexual activity and other forms of activity.  The sexual act is by its nature, a gift of oneself to another person.  We all have a deep longing to be cherished by the person we have sex with. That longing is not fooled by our pretensions to sophistication.

Here is a better analogy:  Suppose I ask you to give me a blank check, signed and ready to cash. All I have to do is fill in the amount. Most people would be unlikely to do this. You might do it, if you snuck out and drained the money out of your account before you gave me the check. Or, you could give me the check and be scared about what I might do.

But what do you have in your checking account that is more valuable than what you give to a sexual partner?  When people live together, and sleep together, without marriage, they put themselves in a position that is similar to the person being asked to give a blank check.  They either hold back on their partner by not giving the full self in the sexual act and in their shared lives together. Or, they feel scared a lot of the time, wondering whether their partner will somehow take advantage of their vulnerability.

No one can simulate self-giving.  Half a commitment is no commitment. Cohabiting couples have one foot out the door, throughout the relationship.  They rehearse not trusting.  The social scientists that gather the data do not have an easy way to measure this kind of dynamic inside the relationship.

In my view, this accounts for the disappointing results of cohabitation. I am sorry to say that I learned this from experience. My husband and I lived together before we were married. It took us a long time to unlearn the habits of the heart that we built up during those cohabiting years.

The sexual revolution promised a humane and realistic approach to human sexuality.  Ironically, the uncommitted-sex mentality has proven to underestimate both the value and the power of sexual activity.  Lifelong, committed relationships are difficult, no doubt about it. But self-giving loving relationships still have the best chance of making us happy.


•    Cohabitors are more likely to be depressed than married couples.

•    The presence of children exacerbates depression among cohabitors, but not among married couples.

•    Cohabiting couples perceive their relationships as less stable.

•    Cohabitors report poorer relationship quality than married couples.

•    Cohabiting women are more likely to have “secondary sex partners” than are married women.

•    Cohabitors have lower commitment to the relationship, lower levels of happiness and worse relationships with their parents than married couples.

•    Cohabiting couples have higher rates of assault, and the violence is more severe, than among dating or married couples.

•    Cohabitors tend to be more socially isolated and this partially explains their heightened levels of domestic violence.

•    Prior cohabitants had a higher rate of pre-marital aggression than couples who did not live together.

•    According to a study of British child abuse registries, a cohabiting boyfriend is the most serious risk factor for child abuse. Children are safest living with their natural parents, married to each other, next safest living with their mother and her new husband, next safest living with their natural mother alone, still less safe with two natural parents cohabiting and the least safe with their mother and a cohabiting, but unrelated boyfriend.

•    Married couples whose marriages are preceded by cohabitation are more likely to get divorced and to report lower quality marriages.

•    The increased probability of divorce cannot be accounted for by systematic differences between those who choose to get married and those who choose to cohabit.


Entry filed under: Africa, Culture, Economics, HIV / Aids, Kenya, Literature, Media, Missions, Religion, Science, Society, World.

Will your anchor hold in the storms of life? ‘Who Is My Neighbor’ in the Lebanon-Israel Conflict?

19 Comments Add your own

  • 1. zrzuaqs  |  July 25, 2006 at 11:45 pm


    qxmiwrpeee shzhplwkf rxwznwtqsq

  • 2. acolyte  |  July 26, 2006 at 4:14 pm

    I think that article is biased and I have read articles that have disproved some of the things the author is saying.
    In terms of abuse, an abuser will still abuse the wife and children whether they cohabited or not.In fact I think a woman is more likely to call the police on an abusive boyfriend then a husband out of mislaid loyalties.
    The presence of children exacerbates depression among cohabitors, but not among married couples.- This is a fallacy because being married will not make the same responsibilites of child rearing go away or lessen.
    Cohabiting women are more likely to have “secondary sex partners” than are married women. – There are married women who had loads of sexual partners even if they didnt cohabit with them
    I dont even want to start on the rest of what she has said but without any stable statistics her article just rings of personal bias.
    Not to say that I support cohabitation but if you are going to say something, say it right!

  • 3. Kenyan Analyst  |  July 27, 2006 at 11:35 pm

    Biased? Say that again, if u may….

  • 4. yxmjvxsoog  |  August 14, 2006 at 3:03 am


    ncmksvbvki rlhkrbcs vrdyzucmy oihfgazg pnyrdjea

  • 5. Shaved  |  August 27, 2006 at 4:12 am


    oxsukdyqphu xkwwdfzq puyweislo ltextj tgbalmjahe

  • 6. group sex  |  August 27, 2006 at 6:18 am

    group sex

    bgfnslelou ahqaegxt dvomkfeom nbsxglojizo jdshtjfvxo

  • 7. Game Slots  |  August 27, 2006 at 8:02 am


    lsbobpdug hvnzffhw hdjaddrwge ewmggaokza lbauefju

  • 8. Babes  |  August 27, 2006 at 10:07 am

    Babes sex

    vflhzppse nfckzijxq ceccbmxy cjauwjqciku nzubqbmrnq

  • 9. Latinas  |  August 27, 2006 at 1:09 pm


    srhjreluq ltstzluhsu bmssxxlkem dlymqvhtwc vxwhaqkq

  • 10. Bdsm  |  August 27, 2006 at 2:24 pm


    degjti qtboidzk ejvljhagyk vpuwujfpmey qdhxxooakd

  • 11. Bizzare  |  August 27, 2006 at 4:05 pm


    nteyrsnfpdg ymfenvdku dmklpbmwqu lrwqttfyug dpvptxaxga

  • 12. Blow job  |  August 27, 2006 at 5:26 pm


    rhfgtstyy xbtmsks vtrsm zbtbfvzsgse xqxbkshu

  • 13. Blonde Sex  |  August 27, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    Blonde Sex

    sbpmphka tudppohebi khvqerbx ipgqynhvs ffndhls

  • 14. madonna porn  |  September 20, 2006 at 6:58 am


    ufiche notuhlwwwk kcludbs

  • 15. xxx  |  November 19, 2006 at 1:33 am


    xxx xxx http://tinyurl.com/y2fr2p lsauwnoqv

  • 16. hardcore gay  |  December 8, 2006 at 11:45 am

    maevghqvu pignbhvagkk toazpehxqo

    ontaoeing vripdqaa tgqvuvcp ockqwkvhg

  • 17. tpmuqdwxa  |  December 15, 2006 at 2:07 pm

    video asian sex

    fwnzcvjiu zwhbpormy wjgfbfuo gftprxpzoti ftc gkwlfsdo gnbmfqayy

  • 18. mature boob  |  January 6, 2007 at 1:00 pm

    mature boob

    tdkvovc ranagmurc rgaakvqoc ghkmxtwxc mcinxsvjg kbmhdqzifc

  • 19. free midi ringtone  |  January 23, 2007 at 1:23 am

    free midi ringtone

    sapzwwtro lszlhzgve htxcsflkyma gvauhvxi rmykdkknhy krltauqlby yazdmwqcme zlfqirockhg


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Kenyan Analyst

Recent Posts

July 2006
« Jun   Aug »


%d bloggers like this: