Mate Selection And Cohabitation: Chapter Analysis

Mate Selection and Cohabitation

The authors begin this chapter by defining mate selection as process by which unmarried couples get to choose who they will marry. They proceed to distinguishing mate selection in traditional cultures versus modern cultures. In traditional cultures, families have the power to select their children’s spouses. In this kind of selection, the spouse comes mostly from their extended families depending on who they see as the fittest partner for their child. On the other hand, in the modern era, the two young people get involved in the process of selecting who they will marry. Additionally, in this era people believe that finding a mate is mainly about personal attraction and romantic love. The authors also go on to
warn young people that they should be cautious with romantic love “for real love is about faithful behavior than mushy feelings”.
In the 1950’s the mate-selection process in the west shifted to a new stage known as rational-romantic love. This involves considering compatibility with one’s true love. The authors view love as mostly common among people with a college education whereas marriage is simply more of a decision. According to Roger Stenberg love includes three dimensions: commitment, intimacy and passion. As it turns out, the later are similar to C.S Lewis’ which are agape which is similar to commitment, philia which is similar to intimacy and desire which is similar to passion. These dimensions tend to dominate in different stages of courtship: passion in the beginning, followed by intimacy, and lastly, commitment. The authors argue that although the three dimensions of love are significant to a successful Christian marriage, commitment is the most vital one.
Next, the authors present various mate-selection theories. First is the “Like marries lie” which implies that individuals tend to seek a mate who is more similar to them in terms of religion, race, ethnicity, education, occupation, and geographical proximity. The second theory is “opposites attract”. In this one, people tend to marry a person of different character traits. For example, a dominant person tends to marry a submissive person. The filter theory suggests that endogamy, homogamy, and complementary needs are the three filters that a potential future mate has to pass. The stimulus-value-role theory views mate selection as an open market where one finds the best mate suited for them compared to what they bring to the table. The dyadic-formation theory views a dating relationship as developing through six steps of gradual seriousness: first, perception of similarities in one another’s background, interests and personalities, followed by establishment of rapport, then, openness through self-disclosure, which is followed by anticipation of the roles each would play as a marriage partner, then adjustment of these roles to fit each other’s needs, and finally the dyadic crystallization. There are a number of other theories on mate-selection but the above are the most popular. I personally believe that mate-selection is a much more complex process than something that can merely be incorporated into one theory yet the combination of a number of these proves to be more realistic to me as to how one selects a future mate. Also, these theories taken together fit well with the theological model of the family. Obviously, some of these taken alone such as “Opposites attract” may result into extreme codependency if there is not enough differentiation ahead of time which would weaken the marriage when one person is not able to stand on their own.
This chapter tackles cohabitation next.
In sum cultures such as certain countries in Europe view cohabitation as an alternative to marriage while other cultures may view it as a step toward marriage. However, other cultures such the western culture have an in-between view of cohabitation. The book states that the more cases of cohabitation, the more cases of divorce are observed. This was proven through various experiments on different couples. From a personal observation, sexual intimacy, the need to split expenses, and companionship are the main drivers of cohabitation. In my opinion, one needs some time to connect with their partner on a spiritual and emotional level before engaging in sexual intimacy. When sexual intimacy is the dominant driver of the cohabitation which in most cases it is, it stands in the way of getting a deeper understanding of who the other person is. Also, I think that individuals who cohabit have a harder time committing to each other for life as they are able to see the other person’s flaws before they enter a binding marriage. Most of the time, those flaws appear as a deal breaker. The situation becomes more complicated when children are involved. As a young Christian, I believe that one should avoid cohabiting since it brings premarital sex into the equation which is a sin in front of God. However, I think that the church should not abandon those who have fallen into the trap of cohabiting and possibly had children out of marriage. Our purpose is to glorify God and love our fellow humans as Christ loved
us.