Wise Readers, if a man invites a woman to move in—or asks her to move in with hopes of an engagement a year off—, is that itself a sign he *isn’t* The One?
Read on!
From Mocha’s Mom: —Run screaming. Run. Now.—
Loved this column. I did cohabit before marriage but we were engaged and too much stuff was going on to get married right then. It worked. [For those wishing to read the column she’s referring to, “Freedom Vs. Forever: Why marriage isn’t just a piece of paper, and cohabitation isn’t marriage-lite,” please click here: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/freedom-vs-forever-why-marriage-isnt-just-a-piece-of-paper-a.html]
And while Duana has given a wonderful, logical, and informed response, I have a little rant to get out of my system:
This question isn’t actually very much about cohabitation. The OP certainly thinks it is, but the actual question is WHY on earth would a guy tell you he will propose a YEAR from now? From any partner of any gender, that statement screams BS. Either you want to marry me or you don’t, and if you actually will propose in a year, why not now? The only reason to ever say, “I’ll propose in a year,” is if it is ye olden days and she is an heiress whose guardian disapproves and the young man hopes that in that year he will be able to prove himself a worthy suitor and an honorable one.
The only reasons for a guy to say “I’ll propose a year from now” are (1) because he has no idea of what commitment is and is fooling himself into thinking that cohabiting will magically make him capable of commitment and (b) he’s stringing you along, probably knowingly. Doesn’t matter if it’s fully intentional or not. Run screaming. Run. Now.
Duana’s response: —There could be many reasons, but one solution—
Dear Mocha’s Mom,
I love your enthusiasm, although I can’t agree in this case that the guy is necessarily Wrong for Anna. I think it’s too soon to know. Plus, I don’t know his side of things—just hers. But I’m willing to guess along with you.
It’s possible he’s drunk the Kool-Aid and believes cohabiting will tell him what he needs to know to make a full commitment; that is, that he —like so many, including a certain Love Scientist, pre-science— believes living together really is marriage lite.
Despite the many studies that all —all!— concur that living together is associated with an erosion of happiness, commitment, and duration of marriage (except for the Engaged When Moving In), that memo seems slow to make its way into general understanding. I can’t blame him for not knowing what so many don’t know.
I could also readily see him taking the Try It Before You Buy It mentality, inasmuch as he’s planning to plan, and proposing to propose. Again, this is a common cultural metaphor. I’ve heard more about test-driving *people* than you’d probably want to know.
And it’s possible he’s just young and without much guidance. Or that his own folks did things in a way that provided guidance that wasn’t much help. Or that he’s not terribly insightful.
Or that you’re right, and he’s a colossal cad, commitmentphobe, and/or Leader Of Virgins Down Ye Olde Primrose Path. !!
In any and all of these scenarios, though, Anna can protect herself and her daughter simply by refusing to move in until and unless Aaron proposes and then sets a wedding date. She doesn’t need to give him that ultimatum; better if she doesn’t, actually. But her behavior needs to toe this line.
If he’s a cad, incapable of committing, or worse—he’ll move on.
If he’s Mr. Right, he’ll figure out he cannot live without her, and he’ll commit—truly.
Thank you for being a great contributor at LoveScience for over four years now and making us all think!
Cheers,
Duana
From Vincent: —It’s all about Provide & Protect—
I agree that if he is serious about their relationship and loves her, he must remove her risk for moving her, her job, and her daughter. It is all about provide and protect as I have learned to appreciate more each time I read Dr. D’s posts. Anna needs to wait for the full commitment!
Duana’s response:
Thank you, Vincent, well-said. This man wants to commit in increments—which is opposite the meaning of true commitment. Anna needs a provider and protector, not a boyfriend with sex on-tap.
Let him make his decision and get incrementally closer at a distance. When he is ready for the full commitment, he’ll know…and then so shall Anna. Anything less is antithetical to her needs and her child’s!
Cheers,
Duana
Related LoveScience articles:
The article today’s Q&A is based on: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/freedom-vs-forever-why-marriage-isnt-just-a-piece-of-paper-a.html
Articles about commitment—or lack thereof—as it’s related to cohabiting:
Articles about cohabitation and its association with rising divorce-and-unhappiness rates:
http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/tag/cohabitation
Articles about how often the married, cohabiting, and single are having sex (and what the quality of that sex is):
The author wishes to thank the following scientists and sources:
Linda J. Waite, leading scientist and expert on marriage and cohabitation, for her extensive overview of sociological and psychological research across cultures and countries regarding the distinctions between marriage and cohabitation. They aren’t the same thing, and marriage changes people.
You can read more about Waite’s work and ideas in her book The Case For Marriage and in an interview with her in Marriage: Just a piece of paper? (pp. 163-166) Edited by Katherine Anderson, Don Browning, Brian Boyer and companion book to the national PBS documentary narrated by Cokie Roberts (2002, University of Chicago Press).
Do you have a question for Duana? Email her at Duana@LoveScienceMedia.com. You will receive a personal, confidential response. If your letter is chosen for publication, your name and identifying information will be changed beforehand.
All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D., and LoveScience Media, 2013.