The Marriage-Go-Round

If you have nothing better to do with your mind, you might try torturing it with the question of why so many of today’s American marriages end up in divorce. And that does not include those marriages that never take place.

Brad Wilcox and Lyman Stone address the question in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. To cut to the chase, they discover, surprisingly,  that couples that marry young without cohabiting are the least likely to get divorce.

Naturally, this flies straight into the face of conventional feminist wisdom. Feminism taught women that they should wait to get married, that they should establish their careers before settling down and starting a family. This puts them in their mid-thirties when they start out on their husband hunt.

This assumes that an autonomous, independent woman will be less needy and less dependent. Presumably, this will make her more lovable, for who she really is. And this also assumes that most men are looking to marry women who can function as equal partners.

If you believe that, you will believe anything. And, you have no real understanding of the male mind. Most men want to marry women who can function as wives. As we all know, feminists abhor the role of wife. They especially abhor the role of housewife. 

Worse yet, for those who have a modicum of knowledge of sociology, Emile Durkheim explained over a century ago that two self-sufficient, independent, autonomous beings were less likely to form a durable marriage. The reason was simple: if your relationship does not involve a defined division of labor, if neither partner needs the other for much of anything, they have few real reasons for staying together.

If you think, as many young people do, that true love will bail you out, you are not living in the real world.

And then there is the virginity factor. According to feminism women who marry later will naturally be more sexually experienced. There is no such thing as a 35 year old virgin.

Consider a woman who is the least likely to divorce. A woman who marries young and who has not cohabited is more likely to be less experienced sexually. Is it really that much of a shock to learn that such a woman, being a paragon of trustworthiness, should have a more durable marriage?

After all, a man who discovers that his paramour is sexually very experienced will be thinking: Where did she learn that? There is no answer to that question that will make her more marriageable.

So, a woman who is in her mid-thirties, who has just been promoted to executive vice-president and who has mastered the art of the blow job, will discover that she has largely written herself out of the marriage market. After she finishes blaming it on the patriarchy, she will understand that she has fewer options and that she has to settle. No one makes good decisions when they are desperate.

And then there is this minor problem. By the time she arrives at her mid-thirties a woman will be unlikely to care much about what her parents or friends think about her choices. 

 

While she is settling, she will also pretend that she is following the call of her heart, or that she is following her feelings. She might even think that she is going to find true love.

The problems here are twofold. First, her situation influences her judgment. Second, believing that marriage is really an expression of love will cause her to overlook character flaws in her intended.

In truth, durable marriages are not based on true love. They are based on character-- on trustworthiness, reliability and responsibility. To that we will add that a couple whose marriage is going to last will have more, not less in common. 

When couples have less in common they will often compensate by covering it up with passionate intensity. Marriage is not merely a relationship between two people. It is an alliance between families. And it involves a series of complex social interactions, friendships and even casual relationships. If you choose a spouse who does not fit with your friend group and who is largely rejected by your family, your marriage is running on borrowed time.

Consider the case of India. Yes, that India. The nation no longer has arranged marriages-- thankfully-- but it practices something called semi-arranged marriages. To be more specific, and according to my understanding, this means that the parents of marriageable young people choose a half dozen or so acceptable prospective matches. Then the young people get together, in strictly controlled situations, in order to see whether they want to move the relationship forward. 

This means, they get to select or to deselect prospective matches, and so on. One understands that the parents who choose said matches are not influenced by who is or is not hot. One suspects that the criteria involve family reputation, future prospects and, in regard to the male, general solvency.

One suspects that the young women did not participate in the hookup culture. One suspects that they were more, not less virginal. If they had sexual experience, they certainly did not flaunt it. And one suspects that they wanted to be wives.

The results have been a stable marital institution. Married couples in India report high levels of marital satisfaction. Divorce is extremely rare.

Go figure.