They say you really mean it
This guy’s the one that makes you feel
So safe, so sane and so secure

And baby if he loves you more than me
And baby if he loves you more than me
Maybe it’s the best thing

Maybe it’s the best thing for you
But it’s the worst that could happen to me.

I’m never gettin’ married, never gettin’ married
You know that’s not my scene

But a girl like you needs to be married
I’ve known all along you couldn’t live forever
in between.

And baby if he loves you more than me
And baby if he loves you more than me
Maybe it’s the best thing
Maybe it’s the best thing for you
But it’s the worst that could happen to me.

And girl I don’t really blame you
For having a dream of your own
Hey, girl, I don’t really blame you
A woman like you needs a house and a home.

Baby if he really loves you more than me
Maybe it’s the best thing
Maybe it’s the best thing for you
But it’s the worst that could happen to me.

Oh girl don’t wanna get married
Girl I’m never, never gonna marry
Oh it’s the worst thing that could happen
Oh, girl…..

Lack of Commitment is Only a Part of The Story

Well, according to research, we probably know a lot more about this guy that the song isn’t telling us.

Most likely, he was a mediocre student in high school and had a tendency to get into trouble on a regular basis.

He’s probably had a few DUI’s and has been less than faithful to his girl. In fact, “the worst that could happen” would be if the girl in question coerced our hero into marriage. He’s gotta be in it to win it.

Social scientists were shocked to find that there are real and profound differences between long-term married couples and those who are merely cohabitating long-term.

A recent study by Pepper Schwartz and Philip Blumstein studied over 12,000 straight and gay cohabitating couples and compared them to married couples. They reasonably figured that long-term cohabitators would be pretty similar to long-term married couples.

They Don’t Look Married at All!

Even US law cuts cohabitators’ social slack. If you can hang in there for seven years, you are more or less married in the eyes of the law. This research proved the exact opposite.

Safe Sane and Secure? Not!

Cohabitating couples are less likely to have each other’s back in times of financial stress, and less likely to be faithful during the relationship.

They were also more likely to “better deal” their partner and leave for a more attractive relationship.

What is especially sad was the finding that cohabitating men were less liable to stick around during any sort of tough times.

He Doesn’t Have Your Back…Is That the Worst That Could Happen?

As a whole, these men tended not to have their partner’s back. The research is not an indictment of all cohabitating couples. Just the long-term ones. Couples who are long-term cohabitators are not similar to couples who have been married for the same length of time.

Now I realize it’s not considered polite to emphasize the word “marriage.” The word “relationship” offends fewer people these days.

But please don’t understand me too quickly. I’m not saying that married couples are morally superior to cohabitators. However, this is a massive study that was very well designed. It produced a startling and sobering set of facts that may be hard to accept.

Class Differences

Even as cohabitation has become normalized, researchers have bestowed little curiosity about the consequences for its subsequent impact on the union. Cohabitation has become widespread across all social classes (). Yet its increase has been greatest among those with a high school degree or some college.

Between 1987 and 2002, the percentage of women with a high school degree who had ever cohabited increased 115%; among women with some college schooling (but no degree) the proportion grew by 93%. Growth in cohabitation among college-educated women was considerably less, only 45% ().

Class differences in transitions from cohabitation to marriage also appear to be widening, with living together more likely to serve as a springboard to marriage for non-poor women than for those who are disadvantaged ().

What Does This Research Mean?

The findings from this study have implications for practitioners and researchers.

Even though “common sense” suggests that those who live together are at least considering marriage, research demonstrates that many partners had not discussed future plans at the time they started living together.

The Worst That Could Happen is Chronic Insecurity

Many study subjects report the importance of financial necessity or convenience.

Economic drivers may make strange bedfellows. Relational security may be tenuous, and the future is uncertain.

Researchers went as far as saying that couples therapists should be aware of these findings and use caution in encouraging greater formalization of such unions, given research suggesting that such relationships are more volatile, with one partner often expressing low levels of commitment (; Stanley, Rhoades, et al., 2006; Surra & Hughes, 1997).

Moreover, ongoing premarital counseling regarding fiscal management, family planning, and relationship skills courses may be necessary to provide such couples with the skills necessary to maintain healthy relationships ().

Essentially Long-Term Cohabitators Lack 2 Fundamental Traits that Married Couples Demonstrably Possess: Commitment and Long Term Thinking...

It might be the worst that can happen for you.. but trust me, chances are you’ll probably get over it soon enough.

Living “in between” is bad for our hero’s health too. Committed men like the guy she will marry live an average of eight years longer than uncommitted men.

Gottman cites this compelling research, and advises men that a strong, committed relationship with an intimate partner is, as he puts it “the best form of self-interest.” So if getting married “is not your scene” give it another look. If you’re too legit to quit… why not commit?

Don’t Let the Worst Thing Happen to You

References:

Altheide DL, Johnson JM. Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998. pp. 283–312. [Google Scholar]
Brown S. Union transitions among cohab-itors: The significance of relationship assessments and expectations. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2000;62:833–846. [Google Scholar]
Carlson MJ. Family structure, father involvement, and adolescent behavioral outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2006;68:137–154. [Google Scholar]
Chandra A, Martinez GM, Mosher WD, Abma JC, Jones J. Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of U.S. women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics. 2005;23(25):1–160. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Cummings EM, Goeke-Morey MC, Papp LM. Children’s responses to everyday marital conflict tactics in the home. Child Development. 2003;74:1918–1929. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Dew J. Debt change and marital satisfaction in recently married couples. Family Relations. 2008;57:60–71. [Google Scholar]
Fu H, Darroch JE, Haas T, Ranjit N. Contraceptive failure rates: New estimates from the 1995 NSFG. Family Planning Perspectives. 1999;31:56–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Goldrick-Rab S. Following their every move: An investigation of social-class differences in college pathways. Sociology of Education. 2006;79:61–79. [Google Scholar]
Graefe DR, Lichter DT. Marriage among unwed mothers: Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics compared. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2002;34:286–293. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Guzzo KB. Marital intentions and the stability of first cohabitations. Journal of Family Issues. 2009;30:179–205. [Google Scholar]
Hickey JV, Thompson WE. Society in focus: An introduction to sociology. 3. San Francisco: Benjamin-Cummings; 1999. [Google Scholar]
Kennedy S, Bumpass L. Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research. 2008;47:1663–1692. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Levy F. The new dollars and dreams. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1998. [Google Scholar]
Lichter DT, Qian Z. Serial cohabitation and the marital life course. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2008;70:861–878. [Google Scholar]
Lichter DT, Qian Z, Mellott LM. Union transitions among poor cohabiting women. Demography. 2006;43:223–240. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Manning WD, Smock PJ. Why marry? Race and the transition to marriage among cohabitors. Demography. 1995;32:509–520. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Manning WD, Smock PJ. First comes cohabitation and then comes marriage? A research note. Family Planning Perspectives. 2002;33:1065–1087. [Google Scholar]
Manning WD, Smock PJ. Measuring and modeling cohabitation: New perspectives from qualitative data. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2005;67:989–1002. [Google Scholar]
Martin S. Trends in marital dissolution by women’s education in the United States. Demographic Research. 2006;15:537–560. [Google Scholar]
McLanahan S. Diverging destinies: How children are faring under the second demographic transition. Demography. 2004;41:607–627. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Musick K. Cohabitation, nonmarital child-bearing, and the marriage process. Demographic Research. 2007;16:249–286. [Google Scholar]
National Center for Education Statistics. Table 8. Percentage of persons age 25 and over and 25 to 29, by race/ethnicity, years of school completed and sex. Digest of Education Statistics. 2009Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/09/d09/tables/dt09_008.asp.
Reed J. Not crossing the ‘extra line’: How cohabitors with children view their unions. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2006;68:1117–1131. [Google Scholar]
Rhoades G, Stanley S, Markman H. Couples’ reasons for cohabitation: Associations with individual well-being and relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues. 2009;30:233–258. [PMC free article][PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Rindfuss RR, VandenHeuvel A. Cohabitation: A precursor to marriage or an alternative to being single? Population and Development Review. 1990;16:703–726. [Google Scholar]
Sassler S. The process of entering into cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004;66:491–506. [Google Scholar]
Sassler S, McNally J. Cohabiting couple’s economic circumstances and union transitions: A re-examination using multiple imputation techniques. Social Science Research. 2003;32:553–578.[Google Scholar]
Sassler S, Miller A, Favinger S. Planned parenthood? Fertility intentions and experiences among cohabiting couples. Journal of Family Issues. 2009;30:206–232. [Google Scholar]
Sassler S, Miller AJ. Waiting to be asked: Gender, power, and relationship progression. Journal of Family Issues. 2010 doi: 10.1177/0192513X10391045. Advance online publication. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholarhttps://doi.org/10.1086/22812
Schoen R, Landale NS, Daniels K. Family transitions in young adulthood. Demography. 2007;44:807–820. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Smock PJ. Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology. 2000;26:1–20. [Google Scholar]
Stanley SM, Amato PR, Johnson CA, Markman HJ. Premarital education, marital quality, and marital stability: Findings from a large, random household survey. Journal of Family Psychology. 2006;20:117–126. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Stanley SM, Rhoades G, Markman HJ. Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations. 2006;55:499–509. [Google Scholar]
Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998. [Google Scholar]
Surra CA, Hughes DK. Commitment processes: Accounts of the development of premarital relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1997;59:5–21. [Google Scholar]

The Worst That Could Happen… to Who Exactly?