Thursday, May 21, 2009

Marriage and cohabitation rates by race for men and women

N/A, who runs the blog Race/History/Evolution Notes, pointed me to a couple of handy tables from the 2000 Census showing cohabitation and marriage statistics by race and gender. To help clear up misconceptions readers might have (as I did), a couple of tables follow. Following the notes at the end of the post are a set of graphs that make the data easier to digest.

The first table is on married men*. The column furthest to the left groups men by race. Subsequent columns show the race of women that men are married to. The values represent the percentage of men of each race (rows) who are married to women of the corresponding race (columns). Thus 96.25% of married white men have a white wife, 0.18% a black wife, 1.79% a Hispanic wife, etc. Among married black men, 5.55% have a white wife, 90.72% a black wife, 1.77% a Hispanic wife, etc.

MENWhiteBlackHispAsianNat AmHI or PIOther/2+
Nat Am46.6%1.3%3.8%0.9%45.1%0.1%2.2%
HI or PI25.4%0.9%5.9%6.7%0.8%54.5%5.8%
Other/2+ 35.5%3.5%6.1%5.4%1.1%0.4%47.9%

The next table details the same thing for women. So among married white women, 96.83% have a white husband, 0.49% a black husband, 1.54% a Hispanic husband, etc.

WOMENWhiteBlackHispAsianNat AmHI or PIOther/2+
Nat Am46.6%2.5%5.0%0.4%43.2%0.1%2.2%
HI or PI26.3%4.3%4.8%4.7%0.5%54.7%4.6%
Other/2+ 37.0%5.9%5.4%3.0%1.0%0.5%47.2%

The following two tables show cohabitation patterns by race and are constructed in the same fashion. The first is for men. Among cohabitating white men, 93.17% live with a white woman, 0.63% a black woman, 3.14% a Hispanic woman, etc.

MENWhiteBlackHispAsianNat AmHI or PIOther/2+
Nat Am42.0%1.7%4.8%0.7%48.2%0.1%2.4%
HI or PI37.9%2.5%9.7%7.1%1.5%33.8%7.5%
Other/2+ 46.7%6.4%10.3%4.2%1.8%0.5%30.1%

The following table shows the same for women. Among cohabitating black women, 3.17% live with a white man, 94.21% a black man, 1.56% a Hispanic man, etc.

WOMENWhiteBlackHispAsianNat AmHI or PIOther/2+
Nat Am38.8%5.1%8.5%0.5%44.6%0.2%2.3%
HI or PI32.2%9.8%10.2%5.1%1.0%36.1%5.5%
Other/2+ 43.0%13.7%10.7%2.6%1.6%0.6%27.8%

What immediately jumps out at me is how the vast majority of whites live with and marry other whites. In addition to being a consequence of a natural preference of people for others similar to themselves, this is also a result of sheer numbers. Most of a white man's potential partners are white.

While a small fraction of whites live with and marry non-whites, significant numbers of non-whites live with and marry whites. If not for immigration and differing fertility rates, non-whites would eventually be swallowed up by the white majority, which would become slightly less white in the process.

The stereotype of the white guy and his Asian wife or girlfriend holds in comparison to the comparatively unusual Asian guy and white girl, but relative to all white men, it constitutes a tiny fraction of the total. Fewer than 1 in 100 white men are married to an Asian woman. Only 1 in 200 white women are married to black men. Although many white nationalists are understandably concerned about white women partnering up with non-white and specifically black men, fewer than 1 in 30 white women who are living in sin are doing so with a black guy.

Parenthetically, I say understandably because cohabitation is disproportionately a living situation of young adults, so the propensity for white women to live with black men is growing—white women are over six times as likely to live with a black man as they are to be married to him--even though it still represents a small fraction of all partnerships. Similarly, the tendency for white men to partner up with Asian women is increasing, though not nearly as rapidly—cohabitating white men are one-third more likely to be living with an Asian woman than married white men are to be married to one. Consequently, while married white men are more likely to have a non-white wife than married white women are to have a non-white husband, cohabitating white women are more likely to be living with a non-white than cohabitating white men are.

These trends have a more ostensible effect on the non-white half of the partnership. That 1 in 110 married white men have an Asian wife while 1 in 83 cohabitating white men living with a woman share a space with an Asian woman, or even that 1 in 200 married white women have a black husband while 1 in 32 cohabitating white women living with a man have a black partner is not easily detectable by the observer on the street. That fewer than 1 in 5 married Asian women have a white husband while 2 in 5 cohabitating Asian women are living with a white man is noticeable, however, as is the disparity between the 1 in 18 married black men who have a white wife compared to the 1 in 7 cohabitating black men who share a space with a white woman.

For relatively small groups like Asians, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders, staying within one's own racial group** requires more conscientious diligence and generally a lowering of one's standards because of the relative paucity of prospective partners. So going outside of one's own race makes more sense the smaller that race is. This is starkly evident among Native Americans--both men and women are more likely to be married to whites than they are to other Native Americans. Consequently, as the percentage of the population that is white continues to shrink, the rate of interracial pairings involving at least one non-white could conceivably decline in the future, especially among fast-growing Asians and Hispanics.

Data are available here.

* Hispanics are of all races. All other groupings are of non-Hispanics only. Non-Hispanics who self-describe as being of "some other race" or "two or more races" are grouped together into a single category for ease of presentation.

The tables only show percentages. It is worth noting that for each cohabitating couple, there are eleven married couples.

** Grouping people from the continent of Asia, which holds more than half of the world's population, together into a single group is obviously not optimal, but it is what's available. In this context, it understates the difficulty people of Asian descent living in the US have in finding an acceptable mate who shares their ancestry. Grouping Hispanics of all races into a single category presents similar problems.

Graphs depicting data from the tables above follow. The race and gender in each graph's title is married to or cohabitating with members of the opposite sex at the rates depicted. Keep in mind that the comparisons are among those of the same sex and gender who are in the same living situation. That is, the first graph shows the percentage of married white women, not of all white women, who are married to men of the various racial groups. The color coding is designed to be intuitive and is as follows: White = whites, Black = blacks, Brown = Hispanics, Yellow = Asians, Red = others (including Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, those who self-identified as belonging to "some other race", and those who are of two or more races).


Stopped Clock said...

I'm surprised at the large proportion of Asian men married to or living with white women. The gender gap isn't nearly as much as I had gathered from reading Steve's essay a few years ago.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

The most important interracial pairing is whites marrying Hispanics, yet this combination does not attract nearly the interest that BM/WF relationships do, or even WM/AF.

It might be of note that Hispanics who are married to whites are more likely to classify themselves as white (65%) than Hispanics in general are:


The Myth of Interracial Marriage.

(There were 1.4 million interethnic married couples consisting of a non-Hispanic white and a Hispanic. But in no less than 0.9 million of those cases, the Hispanic identified himself or herself as "white." The gender gap in marriages between non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics of any race was small: 54 percent consisted of a non-Hispanic white husband and a Hispanic wife. That balance is probably good news for American society since it's less likely to lead to ethnic resentment than the big black and Asian disparities.)


Sailer also has data on interracial offspring that might be of note:


On Interracial Marriage.

In the U.S., according to the Census Bureau, about 97% of married non-Hispanic whites in the U.S. are married to other non-Hispanic whites. That percentage is declining, but it has a long, long way left to fall. In the 2000 Census, 12,859,892 children under 5 years old were identified by their parents as white-only versus a mere 796,360 declared to be white and something else. That's a 16 to 1 ratio. Further, the highest white birth rates are in Republican-voting Red States where interracial marriage is uncommon.


Anonymous said...

I've always noticed that when you see a white female with a black male, it's more likely a young woman (between 15 and 25). As they get older, it's both rarer and more likely that something is different about the woman -- she's a whale, wears pounds of make-up, has the look of a drug abuser, is illiterate sounding, etc.

This data sort of fits with that, imo, since cohabitating is more likely among the young.

My point: "Once you go black, you never go back" seems to be the exact opposite of what you see when you take a look.

Whiskey said...

Increased Asian immigration means less intermarrying. This is particularly true of Chinese in the San Gabriel Valley.

as said...

Indian guys really really want to marry white. See gnxp. (I'm an Indian female). The category "Asian" seems to include both South and East Asian.

South Asian male - white female is much more common that white male - South Asian female.

TGGP said...

Surprised by as' comment, though there would be the same pattern we see with east asians.

Anonymous said...

If not for immigration and differing fertility rates, non-whites would eventually be swallowed up by the white majority, which would become slightly less white in the process.Due to America's use of the one-drop rule, or "hypodescent" as it's sometimes called, there's no such thing as a less-white white person: if you're not 100% white, you're not white at all.


Audacious Epigone said...


It's about 3x in marriage, as Steve reported. However, it's hardly unheard of for an Asian man to be married to a white woman, despite Christian Lander claiming otherwise!


Right, it doesn't attract the same level of interest. It caught me unawares, and I'm supposed to be paying attention to this stuff.


I wonder, though, if that has always been the case. Since black men seem skewed on the alpha/cad side of the spectrum, it's plausible that as women start looking to settle down with someone on the beta/dad side, black men become less attractive (and probably lose their 'exoticism').


Is there a male surplus of Asians in the San Gabriel Valley? I assume so, but am not sure.


How much of that is a result of gender disparity among South Asians in the US? When I looked at the Pew Religious Landscape Survey awhile back, it jumped out at me that Hindus in the US are 61% male, 39% female, and more than two-thirds are married to other Hindus, which means there aren't many Hindu women left for white men to marry, even if they desired to. But there are still Hindu men who have to find someone. I'm not sure how strong a proxy Hindu is for South Asian, but I assume it serves fairly well.


Unless you're 1/16 Native American--that does not free you from being a SWPL, but actually cements your whiter status!

sg said...

Not sure about that one drop rule.

Several of my redheaded, freckle-faced, blue-eyed friends had Native American grandma's.

That one drop can get lost pretty fast.

Also, I am friends with a married couple. One is Hispanic, green eyed. The other is Italian brown-eyed. They have ten kids. Most look mixed white hispanic or Italian, but #9 is a blue-eyed blonde little girl. I guess she got the recessive genes. 100 out of 100 people would guess her race as white.

Anonymous said...

Not sure about that one drop rule.
Several of my redheaded, freckle-faced, blue-eyed friends had Native American grandma's.
The one drop rule has never really applied with respect to Native American ancestry, indeed as AE pointed out claiming a bit of such ancestry actually can reinforce SWPL status. To be sure, I've read elsewhere that it's primarily lower-income whites who actually have NA ancestry.

It'll be interesting to see how the one drop rule plays out with respect to Asian ancestry. Large-scale Asian immigration hasn't been around for long enough in America for there to be significant numbers of people who are (for example) one-eighth or one-sixteenth Asian, so we don't know how they'll self-identify. Perhaps it will come down to individual appearance.

Finally, to follow up on the Undiscovered Jew's comment, it's my reasoned guess that most Hispanic/white (or, especially in the Northeast, Hispanic/black) pairings are "interracial" only in a technical sense.


Anonymous said...

Peter, as has already been noted, the one drop concept has only really applied to Blacks. For every other catagory, the racial lines are much less rigidly drawn.

In terms of Asians, physical morphology seems to be determinative. Indeed, just look at Hollywood, where part-Asian actors like Keanu Reeves, Dean Cain, Rob Schneider, and Meg and Jennifer Tilly, almost invariably play White characters. Indeed, Dean Cain stands out as a particularly salient example, as very little media attention was paid to the fact that a part-Asian actor was portraying Superman. In contrast, you can be quite certain that a part-Black Man of Steel would have received much more media hoopla (assuming, of course, that a part-Black actor would have been cast in the first place).

Anonymous said...

Is their data on interracial marriage/cohabitation that reflects class? Are poor whites less likely than wealthy whites to intermarry? The opposite or not at all?

Anonymous said...

"their" sh'd be there

Audacious Epigone said...


Not that I have access to, unfortunately.

Curator said...

One reason I'd expect the Asian male/white female couple rate to go up relative to the Asian female/white male rate is that Asian males have only been accorded equal status under the law in the past generation or two, and hence haven't had that long to gain high status - but as of the current generation, their status acquisition is, if anything, better than that of white men. There's the IQ thing, of course, but probably also cultural effects of being 2nd gen or 1.5 gen. Women are more interested in status than men re: mating partners, so Asian females wouldn't have suffered from the problems males would have last generation.

(I'm white and my boyfriend is Asian, and it's so uncommon that there's a special little nod of acknowledgment we exchange with other couples of this arrangement.)

Audacious Epigone said...


There could be something to that. Look at Asian male marriage rates to white women (6.6%) compared to cohabitation rates with white women for Asian men (26.5%). That's a sizeable difference, suggesting that the Asian male-white female pairing is on the increase.

Jack said...

yeah, the 26.5% of Asians living with white women is shocking to me. Their "increase" between marriage and cohabitation is bigger than for blacks and Hispanics. Perhaps this is going to be a wake up call for white men at some point to take care of business with their new competitors. It's possible that chinks and macacas will become greater competition for white educated women than black men, because blacks tend to be lower class. Whites will need to find ways to undermine the status of Asian men.

C7 said...

Interesting data. Thanks for posting this. I was wondering whether you have access to actual numbers of people who fall into each demographic. The data presented represent percentages of Asian men who are cohabitating, e.g., but do not reflect actual numbers of people. What I'm wondering is this: Does it make sense to compare the percentage of married Asian women who marry white guys (17.6), for example, with the percentage of married Asian men who are married to white women (6.6)? It seems to me that if the total number of married Asian women is 2 million, but the total number of married Asian men is 1 million, then the figures might mean something a bit different. Am I way off base here?

Audacious Epigone said...


The two tables (cohabitation and marriage) linked to in the beginning of the post show absolute numbers. They are a bit confusing to interpret initially, but the left side of the table shows the total number of men by race/ethnicity, while women are shown along the top. Among Asians, 1.9 million men and 2.2 million women are married, so your point is worth keeping in mind, although gender disparities are not huge.

C7 said...

Thanks for the dada. What does the color red indicate on the pie charts?

Andy said...

Out of curiosity with the U.S census occuring next year how if at all, do those of you living in the U.S think the dynamics have changed in terms of white/asian marriage and cohabitation? I can't say as I don't live in U.S but in my country I'd predict there has been a significant increase in white male asian female couples since early 2000's and unnoticable increase or decrease in the opposite since I don't see it enough to make a comparison. I don't know exactly when the white male asian female coupling started to gain more momentum but i'd predict the term yellow fever came into common use mid 2000's. So what are your predictions for your 2010 census?

Audacious Epigone said...


I'm actually expecting the opposite, as Asian areas of the country (like northern California) become more heavily Asian. It's my sense that Indians and Chinese in-marry more than other Asian groups do. But we'll see.

C7 said...

I very much look to your 2010 census version of this post and analysis of the trends.

Anonymous said...

I'd rather see the raw numbers than percentages.

I think that would give a clearer indication. Using percentages can throw people way off.

Especially taking into account Black women and Asian men are less likely to be married than Black men and Asian women.

Anonymous said...

It would be interesting to see the new information from the 2010 census if it is available and you have the time to do it.

Anonymous said...

I know 3 cases of caucasian girls living w or marrying asian males. In all 3 men were well or very well off in 2 women were suffering finacially

Anonymous said...

To the author of the blog: is the cohabitation data really accurate information since it only includes around 5 million couples? Clearly there are more non-married couples out there than that.

Jay said...

"Jack said...

yeah, the 26.5% of Asians living with white women is shocking to me. Their "increase" between marriage and cohabitation is bigger than for blacks and Hispanics. Perhaps this is going to be a wake up call for white men at some point to take care of business with their new competitors. It's possible that chinks and macacas will become greater competition for white educated women than black men, because blacks tend to be lower class. Whites will need to find ways to undermine the status of Asian men.
6/12/09 1:10 PM "

Racism makes you stupid. And it is not like you racist whites haven't done enough to spread the false small penis rumors. And if by "take care of business" you meant using violence, then by all means, let's go. I would love to see more racist whites getting their asses handed back to them, because other peoples of color will gladly jump in the defense of Asians against racist whites, not that we can't handle your beta asses ourselves.

Stupid racist beta punk-ass internet superman. I and my multi-cultural crew would love to meet your punk ass in the real world. And bring your friends too. I would love to have a little pow-wow with you racist white beta weaklings.

Anonymous said...

I love supporting AM/WF around the world!

For anyone who wants to help spread AM/WF to more people, please check out the first AM/WF Erotica book filled with hot AM/WF romance and sensuality available on Amazon Kindle, titled "RICE ON WHITE: AM/WF EROTIC TALES OF FORBIDDEN ADDICTION"


Long live AM/WF!

Anonymous said...

Jay little micro penis offended because his prized white girls only see him as a novelty and a chequebook with legs. I'm sorry to bust your white girl fantasy bubble, but you only want them because they control the media dollars. They are the ones laughing at your small penis and cartoon addiction, nobody else.

Dex said...

The Asian stats seem off, according to the chart the IR disparity isn't very high between AF and AM.

My question is how many Asian males overall are cohabiting compared to Asian females?

That is if its say 100,000 AM cohabiting compared to 500,000 AF it makes the data look skewed. Look forward to hearing from you

Audacious Epigone said...


I'm trying to locate the direct links n/a gave me. I entered all the data into a spreadsheet and uploaded it to Manyeyes, but that site moved and when it did, the old data were lost. So I don't have an answer at the moment.

Audacious Epigone said...

Here we go. It looks like in 2000, there were 7380 Asian men and 9777 Asian women (non-Hispanic in both cases) cohabitating.

Dex said...

Wow those seems like very low numbers. Is there just a hell of alot more white guys dating Asian chicks that would make empirical observation seem at odds with the data?

"It looks like in 2000, there were 7380 Asian men and 9777 Asian women (non-Hispanic in both cases) cohabitating."

Anonymous said...

AE, I was a big fan of this post. It'd be incredible if you would recreate it with the 2010 data.

ChinkyBoy said...

I've just looked at the latest 2010 data on interracial relationships. It's from Wikipedia, so may not necessarily be accurately, though the data is probably sourced from the US census.

45% of Asian women cohabitate with white men (up 5% from 40%). 37% of Asian men cohabitate with white women (up 10% from 27%).

In other words, the rate of increase for Asian men was twice as fast as that of Asian women.

Numerically, there are probably far more Asian women cohabitating than Asian men. I read a study that claimed that the STD rates for Asian women are 4 times higher than for Asian men.

It is quite refreshing to know that Asian men are now mixing and matching and diluting our overpopulated race.

Anonymous said...

This all interesting, call me old-fashioned if you'd like for the follwing: marriage is hard enough as it is and if you compund it with religious, ethnic and languange barriers it can be a living hell for both. My oppinion is that even second generation born Americans ahould try their best to find someone they have a lot in common with or live to regret it!!!

Joshua deherratt said...

This is a very, very brief summary/generalisation of the evolution of the original races. It is just designed to give a very quick to read idea of how we all came to be today.

The original Scandinavian race was the blonde haired, blue eyed, white skinned race (light featured) that originated from Scandinavia some 45,000 to 50,000 years ago.

The Scandinavian race evolved from the Black African race that migrated out of Africa some 125,000 years ago and settled in Scandinavia. 80,000 years of total isolation in Scandinavia and the original Black Africans evolved to the original Scandinavians.

The Indian race also evolved from the Black African race that migrated out of Africa and then settled in India. Tens of thousands of years of isolation in India and the original Black Africans evolved to the original Indians. (Indian = dark hair, dark eyes, dark skin, dark featured)
The Oriental race also evolved from the Black African race that migrated out of Africa and then settled in Far East Asia. Tens of thousands of years of isolation in Far East Asia and the original Black Africans evolved to the original Orientals.(Oriental = dark hair, dark eyes, dark skin, dark featured) The Australian Aboriginal race also evolved from the Black African race that migrated out of Africa and then settled in Australia. Tens of thousands of years of isolation in Australia and the original Black Africans evolved to the original Australian Aboriginals.(Australian Aboriginal = dark hair, dark eyes, dark skin, dark featured) 45,000 years ago there was a lot of movement as the Ice-Age pushed these Scandinavians out of Scandinavia. These Scandinavian spread out through Europe and into Asia and in Asia they mixed with the Indians, this formed the Arabic peoples (Indo-Scandinavians).

The Scandinavians also migrated into Far East Asia and mixed with the Orientals forming the Korean/Chinese/Japanese types.
Arabic peoples moved back West into North Africa and then up into Spain, Italy and Greece mixing with the Scandinavians that had originally settled there, this formed the original Spanish, Italian and Greek ethnicities. Oriental Scandinavians also moved back West and mixed with the original Scandinavians in Europe forming what we now know as ‘Slavic’ types. What with brown hair and brown eyes being dominant over blonde hair and blue eyes more Scandinavians in Europe became darker. Yes, Europeans are mostly Scandinavian race with varying amounts of Indian race and Oriental race in them which gives many these darker features.

a said...

lol. Asian guys are doing better than I thought.

Inquirer said...

Hi, can you post updated statistics on interracial marriage and cohabitation?