In recent decades, the institution of marriage has undergone profound transformations worldwide, with varying cultural, economic, and social factors reshaping how individuals perceive and approach this traditional bond. In the Philippines, a nation deeply rooted in Catholic values and familial traditions, these shifts present a fascinating case study for understanding the evolving dynamics between marriage and cohabitation. A groundbreaking study led by B. Kuang, published in the journal Genus (2025), delves into the motivations behind why many Filipino men and women increasingly favor cohabitation over formal marriage. This research harnesses qualitative insights derived from focus group discussions, unraveling complex narratives that challenge long-standing social norms.
The title of Kuang’s work — “Is marriage ‘just a paper’? Why men and women choose cohabitation over marriage in the Philippines” — hints at a critical inquiry: does the traditional concept of marriage still hold the same symbolic and practical weight as it once did? This question is particularly poignant in the Philippine context, where marriage has historically been seen not only as a personal commitment but also as a vital socio-religious milestone. Kuang’s study endeavors to dissect the multilayered perceptions that influence contemporary Filipino couples’ relationship structures, highlighting how personal agency, economic realities, and shifting cultural narratives interact.
One core finding emerging from the focus groups is the redefinition of marriage as more of a bureaucratic or symbolic act — a “paper” — rather than an inherently transformative social contract. Participants often articulated marriage as a legal formality that no longer inevitably guarantees the emotional or practical benefits traditionally associated with it. Many expressed skepticism over marriage’s ability to secure relationship stability or fulfillment, pointing instead to the substance of the relationship itself, irrespective of formal recognition. This phenomenon underscores a broader global trend toward decoupling relational legitimacy from legal status, albeit manifesting uniquely within the Philippine milieu.
Economic considerations heavily influence decisions around cohabitation versus marriage. The Philippines’ socioeconomic landscape, marked by challenges such as fluctuating incomes, high costs of weddings, and housing insecurity, makes formal marriage a financially daunting prospect for many young adults. Participants revealed that cohabiting couples prioritize intimacy and mutual support without incurring the expenses and social obligations attached to a traditional wedding. This pragmatic approach suggests that financial constraints intricately mold how intimacy and commitment are expressed and institutionalized, further eroding the perceived indispensability of marriage as a formal institution.
Parallel to economic motivations, evolving gender roles play a crucial role in shaping relationship choices. Kuang’s study highlights that Filipino women increasingly assert autonomy over their personal and sexual lives, challenging patriarchal expectations embedded in the cultural conception of marriage. The focus group data reveal that cohabitation allows couples to navigate relationships with more egalitarian dynamics, unburdened by the gendered roles often reinforced through marriage ceremonies and legal norms. This gender-sensitive perspective sheds light on the intersection of feminism and relational structures in a society where traditional roles have historically constrained women’s agency.
The study also explores the influence of religion on these choices. The Philippines, predominantly Catholic, traditionally promotes marriage as a sacred sacrament, reinforcing its normative status. However, the data suggest a nuanced relationship between religious belief and personal practice. Many participants identified as religious but expressed a pragmatic separation between faith and formal marital status, especially when faced with economic or social barriers. This indicates a gradual, albeit subtle, shift toward individualized religiosity, where personal beliefs coexist with alternative relationship arrangements without necessarily negating spiritual commitment.
Cultural attitudes toward family and procreation further complicate the discourse. Despite choosing cohabitation, many participants still value childbearing and family formation. The evidence suggests that cohabitation is often viewed as a flexible pathway to family life, challenging the dichotomy between legally sanctioned marriage and parental responsibility. This shift points to an increasing recognition that responsible parenting and family cohesion need not be confined within the institution of marriage, reflecting evolving social norms around family configuration.
Kuang’s in-depth analysis reveals the role of peer and community influences in shaping these decisions. Filipino youth reported that their social circles openly discuss and increasingly normalize cohabitation, reducing stigma and fostering acceptance. Social media platforms and urban-centered lifestyles facilitate exposure to alternative models of relationships, enabling individuals to envision paths that diverge from tradition. This social diffusion process emphasizes the importance of societal context in influencing intimate behavior and adds a dynamic layer to understanding relational choices.
Psychological dimensions also emerge in the dataset. Many participants associated marriage with heightened pressures for conformity and public scrutiny, which they found emotionally taxing. Cohabitation, by contrast, was perceived as offering a private, less pressured environment conducive to emotional authenticity and personal growth. This insight draws attention to the affective landscape underpinning relationship formats, highlighting how emotional well-being factors into decisions around institutional commitments.
Another technical aspect Kuang addresses is the legal ramifications of cohabitation versus marriage in the Philippines. The research outlines the current legislative gaps and protections for cohabiting couples, pointing out potential vulnerabilities related to property rights, inheritance, and status recognition. This legal vacuum presents challenges but also sparks activism and policy debates aiming to extend protections beyond the marital framework. The study thus situates individual choices within structural and institutional contexts, revealing how law shapes personal relationships.
Furthermore, the research methodology itself merits attention. Utilizing focus group data allowed Kuang to capture nuanced, collective narratives that might be obscured in quantitative surveys. This qualitative approach yielded rich, contextualized insights into participants’ lived experiences, perceptions, and contradictions. The choice of focus groups fostered dialogue and self-reflection among participants, revealing the fluidity and complexity inherent in their views about marriage and cohabitation.
The implications of Kuang’s findings resonate far beyond the Philippines. As numerous societies grapple with declining marriage rates and rising cohabitation worldwide, understanding country-specific drivers and meanings illuminates global patterns within unique cultural frames. The study underscores the importance of moving beyond monolithic interpretations of marriage’s decline, advocating for nuanced perspectives that consider economic, gendered, cultural, and legal dimensions in tandem.
From a sociological perspective, the research challenges entrenched normative frameworks that privilege marriage as the ultimate relational goal. By foregrounding the lived realities and preferences of Filipino men and women, Kuang’s work validates diverse forms of intimacy and commitment. This validation can empower marginalized voices and foster inclusive conversations about relationship equality and recognition, resonating with contemporary movements toward pluralistic family forms.
In conclusion, Kuang’s investigation into why Filipino men and women increasingly choose cohabitation over formal marriage offers critical insights into the evolving landscape of intimate relationships. The study reveals that marriage, once viewed as an indispensable social institution, is increasingly perceived as optional or even superfluous paperwork, especially when weighed against economic pressures, gender dynamics, religious interpretations, and personal aspirations. This transformation reflects broader global trends while maintaining distinct cultural particularities, marking an essential contribution to demographic and sociocultural scholarship.
As societies continue to navigate these changes, Kuang’s work serves as a call to rethink how institutions, policies, and social attitudes accommodate and support diverse relational pathways. Whether marriage will retain its symbolic and practical relevance in the Philippines remains to be seen, but this study unequivocally affirms that intimate relationships are undergoing profound shifts. By illuminating the voices behind these shifts, Kuang’s research not only enriches academic discourse but also informs public dialogue, fostering a more inclusive understanding of love, commitment, and family in the 21st century.
Subject of Research: Motivations behind the preference for cohabitation over marriage among Filipino men and women, analyzed through qualitative focus group data.
Article Title: Is marriage ‘just a paper’? Why men and women choose cohabitation over marriage in the Philippines: insights from focus group data.
Article References:
Kuang, B. Is marriage ‘just a paper’? Why men and women choose cohabitation over marriage in the Philippines: insights from focus group data. Genus 81, 23 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41118-025-00263-2
Image Credits: AI Generated
