Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What Do Think About Arranged Marriages?

id like to hear your views on this topic, do you think that it is ok or do you think it is cruel

Where can I get one?

Originally posted by colonelf40
What Do Think About Arranged Marriages?

id like to hear your views on this topic, do you think that it is ok or do you think it is cruel


I think it depends on the person. It's only cruel if a person believes in "love" and finds that the arrangement is impeding their life from seeking it (love isn't important to everyone and not everyone feels it with the same intensity). It's only cruel if the parents (or the other potential suitor) suspects there could be an outside love or crush and decides to expedite the arrangement to cut anything off (Romeo & Juliet = wrong family), other then that, it really depends on the couple being arranged, if they aren't in love with anyone else, and they don't mind the idea of it, then who cares.

I know this is going to sound nasty, but I watched the Bollywood (East Indian) movie "Kama Sutra", but not for the sex, but for the morality of it, and the way my mind works, I felt sorry for the man, as he was in an arranged marriage and was forced to perform with a woman he liked but wasn't really attracted to, but was still punished for seeking his heart, in the end, he rebelled so much that he amplified pleasure to create some sort of balance in the rigidness of the culture that denied him of that passion that he felt with this woman who was not his wife and who the "people" would not accept as his wife, he simply wasn't sexually attracted to his wife, even though, his wife was pretty and from an acceptable family.

I think the African American culture had this same problem. Some who identified strongly with the cultural history use to tell me that during slavery and even afterward, black men had to perform sex with women they weren't attracted to, (and so did the females),it was mate strong with strong. Can you image that? And they would have to keep secret the true loves they had in their life and pretend as if the child they were bringing in the world was one of love, when the child was being born out of a seriously controlled environment in which he/she too would not have a choice or option in their life, no such thing as love for them, or if it was, they usually ran away together or worked something out in secret, so I have been told, and yes, this happened within the same race and in "opposite" races, people do fall in love with each other, no matter if it's socially "right" for them to be awarded as a "couple". It sucks to be in that position of not being good enough for whatever the public thinks of you, but in 2007, it still happens, no doubt about that.

Apart from South Asians what other ethnicities practice arranged marriages?

i feal that women especialy desi women should always stay loyal to their parents and always do what their tell tham and give them as many choices as possible buT to force them like what happend to Yasmin then that is wrong

Originally posted by colonelf40
Apart from South Asians what other ethnicities practice arranged marriages?

i feal that women especialy desi women should always stay loyal to their parents and always do what their tell tham and give them as many choices as possible bu to force them like what happend to Yasmin then that is wrong

Middle class and upper middle class Americans, but it's swept under the rug, shhhhhhhhhh.

The history of AA culture, it was not marriage, but their sex life was arranged, can you image someone telling you to have sex with another woman like an animal? And you know darn well who you are sexually attracted to and it may not be that lady, (could be his wife, careful careful), or it could be the one that he found pretty blocks away, that gave him a pretty wide smile, either way, the history of slavery was based on controlling their sexual functions. Women can pull this off better then men, imo. Arranged marriages don't hurt women as much as it hurts the man b/c a man's taste may not be according to popular opinion, and he may have to stay put with a woman that is agreeable in public but he may have zero sexual attraction for her, but can never express it b/c she probably comes from an equally powerful family, so it's not just AA that got stuck in this type of lifestyle, but white Americans as well, as they too had arrangements based on astrological signs and stuff like that. All this stuff was taught to the Europeans by East Indians, during the East Indian trade era, and it's still practiced in middle America to this very day, don't let people fool you, ok?

My father was in an arranged marriage with my mom (she's part Asian), and he loved her looks but didn't like her personality, she was in an arrangement b/c he wanted into politics. To this day, I never EVER think harshly or badly of a politician who "cheats" on his wife, b/c I doubt they got together out of love, I suspect their marriage was "arranged", he would have never gotten so high if he married the women that he wanted, and everything looks good on paper. That's why when those politicians get caught, I am the last lady on earth heckling them, save my dad's issue as he was swept into a marriage out of the lure and promise of a successful career in politics. Again, he loved the command she brought him, the social life, seeing some/certain doors opening, but he didn't love "her" and she didn't love "him". They had three kids together, you can bring children in this world without love, you know that. Some of these same folks can't even stand children and would rather a stranger raise them for them. Trust me, arranged marriages is not for the man, it's for the rich or upper class females or some sort of protection for her to secure her a life in which that man is in fear for treating her otherwise, so again, I never toot my nose at politicians for their personal life, not if I suspect "arrangement" or he married into the "right" family for his political career or to gain network access into the right firm. I just understand the same way I understood when my dad explained his issues to me. At first, we all hated him, but after I understood the issue (10 years ago) in it's entirety, I completely let go of judging him.

Here's the movie:


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116743/

Originally posted by colonelf40
What Do Think About Arranged Marriages?

id like to hear your views on this topic, do you think that it is ok or do you think it is cruel It is cruel, but in those societies, this is what they do. I am thinking its a custom for them.

Well, in the West they are not popular or often practiced.

I don't really trust my mother to pick out clothes for me, let alone someone Im gonna spend the rest of my life with.

Due to the environment that I am in, I wouldn't like arranged marriage. However, if I was at the different place, perhaps I wouldn't mind.

you put the title wrong...and did it again?

am i seeing this wrong?

Why do all you North Americans keep on saying East Indian to refer people from India?

Is it because you get confused with Native Americans(Red Indians)?

On the topic, Im not against or for arranged marriages but i feel that in my culture the typical south asian woman should always respect her parents and do the right thing.

Some parents will kill their daughters if they dont what they are told and i know this one girl named that i went to highschool with that was murderd by her front of all of her family just last year and her name was Yasmin.
Thats what you get for crossing your parents which is such a tradegy

Originally posted by colonelf40
Why do all you North Americans keep on saying East Indian to refer people from India?

Is it because you get confused with Native Americans(Red Indians)?



That is exactly why, bro. The politically correct name for American Indians is actually Native Americans. Calling Native Americans "Indians" came from the days of Christopher Columbus trying to find a "spice route" to the "east Indies". Native Americans were called West Indians because of that...or simply Indians.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That is exactly why, bro. The politically correct name for American Indians is actually Native Americans. Calling Native Americans "Indians" came from the days of Christopher Columbus trying to find a "spice route" to the "east Indies". Native Americans were called West Indians because of that...or simply Indians.

Well, CC had a Moorish-navigator, the Moors, before "kicked" out of Europe/Spain (of course, they didn't kick out the professional working class Moors with skills in science/math/astronomy), Moors had trade with East Indians and Moors were advanced in astronomy, the navigator sent CC the wrong path (perhaps on purpose, ops on his part), making him believe he was in India (maybe he did this to exact his revenge for his cousin who was exhiled to another country, who knows), he gave CC the opposite route and there goes history. (disclaimer: I have nothing against Moors, it's all part of history).

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
Well, CC had a Moorish-navigator, the Moors, before "kicked" out of Europe (of course, they didn't kick out the professional working class Moors with skills in science/math/astronomy), Moors had trade with East Indians, the navigator sent CC the wrong path, making him believe he was in India (maybe he did this to exact his revenge for his cousin who was exhiled to another country, who knows), he gave CC the opposite route and there goes history. (disclaimer: I have nothing against Moors,it's all part of history).

I have no idea what you are talking about there. Here, read up on why he made the voyage in the "Background to voyages" section. It was to establish a "West Indian" "spice route" as it was called.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have no idea what you are talking about there. Here, read up on why he made the voyage in the "Background to voyages" section. It was to establish a "West Indian" "spice route" as it was called.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus


He was on the impression that he landed in East India, from what I recall, and yes, he did have a Moorish navigator or ship-captain to guide the path, and yes, he was going to East India for similar reasons as Marco Polo's travel for black tea from China, for trade,it was b/c of trade, but from what I can recall, this "America" was an accidental, he was suppose to find East India for the queen of Spain, I think it was Isabella or something like that, it's been awhile. If I'm wrong, it's no big deal, as it's been a long while since I read world/American History.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
He was on the impression that he landed in East India, from what I recall, and yes, he did have a Moorish navigator or ship-captain to guide the path, and yes, he was going to East India for similar reasons as Marco Polo's travel for black tea from China, for trade,it was b/c of trade, but from what I can recall, this "America" was an accidental, he was suppose to find East India for the queen of Spain, I think it was Isabella or something like that, it's been awhile. If I'm wrong, it's no big deal, as it's been a long while since I read world/American History.

This is off topic now but what I meant by "I have no idea what you are talking about there" is that you were attributing CC's voyage to the America's to a devious navigator, which is wrong. He planned the voyage for years and lobbied to get funding to find a western route...it was no navigational error by even the faintest stretch of the imagination.

Originally posted by colonelf40
What Do Think About Arranged Marriages?

id like to hear your views on this topic, do you think that it is ok or do you think it is cruel

well i don't know anything about the culture but i just saw an ep. of Law and Order about a family like that and the bro kills the sis because she likes a person outside of her culture and the mom testifies that it was the brother who did it but the dad started it and she ends up dead and the dad out of the country...

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have no idea what you are talking about there. Here, read up on why he made the voyage in the "Background to voyages" section. It was to establish a "West Indian" "spice route" as it was called.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus


Please tell me you can infer from what you read in history. First, the Spanish kicked out the Moors and Jews, (not the professional/skilled workers though) where do you think these folks left off to? Middle East and North Africa, how do you think CC and his crew were going to get to China or E. India knowing they have pirates/celestrial navigators on their tail? Well, he wasn't taking the long route b/c he wanted a bed side view of the ocean front. He was figuring a different route with his "navigator" to avoid the old routes that would cause "trouble" along the way. So, if you read that CC was just going on an adventure to America, then I got land on the moon for $200k I can sell you tonight. He was misdirection, from what I was taught, and was never told the reason why, but, I can guess that part of the OTHER reason for going a non-traditional route is b/c he/they couldn't take the old routes b/c the old routes would have gotten them pirated/ship wrecked/etc. And I can't believe they don't talk about the Moor-navigator anymore, maybe it's not politically correct right now.

plus they were looking for the plant derived medicine, not just high-tea leaves.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is off topic now but what I meant by "I have no idea what you are talking about there" is that you were attributing CC's voyage to the America's to a devious navigator, which is wrong. He planned the voyage for years and lobbied to get funding to find a western route...it was no navigational error by even the faintest stretch of the imagination.


If you read only this part

"In the 15th and 16th centuries, the Europeans wanted to find sea routes to the East. Columbus wanted to find a new route to the Far East, to India, China, Japan and the Spice Islands."

It never explains why he would want to find a NEW route, to waste the queen's dollars, uhm, I doubt they would go for that, uhm, why would he take a NEW route? To get lost and waste food and lives? A NEW route, why does anyone seek a new route in the friendly seas, esp. after kicking out Jews and Moors that are now running around upset in the high seas, uhm?? I wanta know what happen to the old route, seems like they would be able to calculate the time and lives and spoils/food for a safe vougage on a familar path, what changed? It took him a year to plan a route that he never went to, uhm, something went wrong. Was it the navigator? The pirates? Fatigue? It's a case of who done it. I suspect somewhere b/t his Moorish navigator and the pirates in North Africa, he had to skip the old plans and found himself in a new place that his navigator lied and said was East India, but, hey, we really don't know what happened, I'm really inferring alot here, but you can't neglect that effects of the Jews/Moors being kicked out,and these were merchant-tradesman and maritime folks, so you gotta factor all sorts into this equation, not just assume he was on some sort of sea adventure with the queen's dollars, you know that doesn't make sense.

I' d rather base the choice of a marriage partner on romantic notions than on a careful, objective evaluation of the compatibility of the couple.

It would be strange not knowing your husband or wife till you are married to that person.But it is proven that people who were arranged to get married don't get divorse.
I had a friend who is muslim and did not met her husband till the day of the wedding and she is happily married.So there are good points(not leading to a divorse)and bad points to it.JM

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It would be strange not knowing your husband or wife till you are married to that person.But it is proven that people who were arranged to get married don't get divorse.
I had a friend who is muslim and did not met her husband till the day of the wedding and she is happily married.So there are good points(not leading to a divorse)and bad points to it.JM

If "not divorcing" is a sign of a great/valid marriage, then there hasn't been a single gay-divorce in Massachusetts since it became legal there, I hear. Swirl that around your mind for a bit, Malfoy.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It would be strange not knowing your husband or wife till you are married to that person.But it is proven that people who were arranged to get married don't get divorse.
I had a friend who is muslim and did not met her husband till the day of the wedding and she is happily married.So there are good points(not leading to a divorse)and bad points to it.JM

If her husband is allowed to beat her like a stubborn mule, what could she possibly say? If she's all covered up, how do you see the bruises? Do you really think folks like that have freedom of speech, and what I mean by freedom, I mean freedom from the consequences of her life being in danger, esp. a female, esp. after reading how one poster admitted that some families would rather kill their daughters for disobedience rather then for them to marry whomever they wanted or fell in love with, OF COURSE she's happy, what I imagine she meant to say is she's happy to be without a black eye. She's happy not to be stoned to death, who wouldn't be happy under that kind of threat?


If someone has the right to beat you until they are satisfied, what are you going to do if the entire community wouldn't care if you left earth b/c you are not under full control, are you going to wave to the world and smile and grin and bare it? Or, are you going to talk knowing that your life will be in danger? That's like a hostage smiling in the camera telling the world that they are happy, OF COURSE they are happy, happy to be without a black eye.

Originally posted by Storm
I' d rather base the choice of a marriage partner on romantic notions than on a careful, objective evaluation of the compatibility of the couple.


Yeah, nothing like having the crap beaten out of you based on ompatibility,or having your life threatened just in case you step out of line, yeah, thats objective evaluation,the ability to beat the crap out of the person or threaten their life, as the other poster stated, some cultures would kill the female if she stepped out of line, so I guess having someone murdered is a careful, objective evaluation, it's not easy holding people hostage, who wouldn't report that their life is wonderful under those conditition if they are in fear of a blow to the face?

Btw, my dad was in an arranged marriage with my mother, and he was also allowed to beat her if he wished. Usually arranged marriage cultures allow for the female to be beaten if the husband wants to beat her. Every culture that I know of, from Asia to Europe to Africa to the Middle East to E. India, every culture that practices arranged marriages also accept the wife being beaten. And that includes, of course, the wealthy and the powerful, the female that is in that arrangement has no voice or choice, and she's allowed to be beaten by her husband.

Arranged marriage=wife being beaten if he wants to

Sorry for triple posting.

More then 7 years ago, I saw a documentary on cable (not sure which channel), about a potential tribal conflict b/t two families. The female was a virgin and was "gifted" to her husband, it was all arranged. He offered so many cows to purchase his new bride. Not sure the financial equivalent of purchase power in the states (not sure if owning 2 cows in their culture is the financial equiv of $10k or luxury), but it was several cows given to her family in exchange for her, and again, this was just 7 years ago. He had sex with his new bride, but, there was a problem.

He claimed she was not a virgin, and wanted his cows back. Her family claimed that he defamed their daughter's honor and the family name, and that she was truly a virgin and he was simply being cruel after taking their daughter's virginity. Tribal leaders came together to decide if the families were going to go to war. I can't recall which tribe in Africa had this dispute, but it only happened about 7 years ago or so.

She had no choice in who she married. She was a virgin (by all accounts), and now, no man in her village or in neighboring villages will touch her with a 10 foot pole, as she is no longer a virgin, even if the husband's claim was false, she's still no longer a future option for any of those men. From what I can recall, she was asked to leave that area. Maybe she became a slave or servant in a far away village, who knows what happened to her.

I've read that AA history was such that the people taken as slaves were already slaves in AFrica, not sure why they were already as slaves there. But I also know that ironically, the AA slaves were fored to have sex with people they weren't in love with and produce children at will, women had to lay with men who they didn't love just b/c they would end up producing "strong" children who would end up being slaves or servants. It's ironic that the famale who was banished from her villiage in Africa may have ended up a servant or slave, and AA history was one that came from people who were brought here in America b/c they were already servants/slaves in Africa. I wonder if it was b/c they wanted free will and options and were banished to villiages as slaves, just to be brought here and forced to have sex with people that they had zero love for, people who they may have zero interest in, people who may not have spoken the same language, but forced to produce children whenever their master said to sleep with him or her. What were the original servants/slaves in Africa, what was their original crime? Wanting freedom to love? Well, they didn't get it when they were brought here.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
Please tell me you can infer from what you read in history. First, the Spanish kicked out the Moors and Jews, (not the professional/skilled workers though) where do you think these folks left off to? Middle East and North Africa, how do you think CC and his crew were going to get to China or E. India knowing they have pirates/celestrial navigators on their tail? Well, he wasn't taking the long route b/c he wanted a bed side view of the ocean front. He was figuring a different route with his "navigator" to avoid the old routes that would cause "trouble" along the way. So, if you read that CC was just going on an adventure to America, then I got land on the moon for $200k I can sell you tonight. He was misdirection, from what I was taught, and was never told the reason why, but, I can guess that part of the OTHER reason for going a non-traditional route is b/c he/they couldn't take the old routes b/c the old routes would have gotten them pirated/ship wrecked/etc. And I can't believe they don't talk about the Moor-navigator anymore, maybe it's not politically correct right now.

plus they were looking for the plant derived medicine, not just high-tea leaves.

And...

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
If you read only this part

"In the 15th and 16th centuries, the Europeans wanted to find sea routes to the East. Columbus wanted to find a new route to the Far East, to India, China, Japan and the Spice Islands."

It never explains why he would want to find a NEW route, to waste the queen's dollars, uhm, I doubt they would go for that, uhm, why would he take a NEW route? To get lost and waste food and lives? A NEW route, why does anyone seek a new route in the friendly seas, esp. after kicking out Jews and Moors that are now running around upset in the high seas, uhm?? I wanta know what happen to the old route, seems like they would be able to calculate the time and lives and spoils/food for a safe vougage on a familar path, what changed? It took him a year to plan a route that he never went to, uhm, something went wrong. Was it the navigator? The pirates? Fatigue? It's a case of who done it. I suspect somewhere b/t his Moorish navigator and the pirates in North Africa, he had to skip the old plans and found himself in a new place that his navigator lied and said was East India, but, hey, we really don't know what happened, I'm really inferring alot here, but you can't neglect that effects of the Jews/Moors being kicked out,and these were merchant-tradesman and maritime folks, so you gotta factor all sorts into this equation, not just assume he was on some sort of sea adventure with the queen's dollars, you know that doesn't make sense.

Your posts are too long. Work on saying things in less words.

We all know WHY he went west...you are trying to dance around the fact that you made something up by talking in circles about other things. Case in point: You said Columbus went West because he was "tricked" to go West, I nicely corrected you, you then didn't say, "Oops my bad." but instead danced around the subject by talking about other things so that you could be right. You can talk about things that you are right about all day long...but get straight to the point and just say, "Oops, my bad." and be done with it.

my friend went through an arranged marriage... he's only 20 i think but he was maybe 18/19 when he was married.

at first you could tell it was a bit awkward but now they seem so happy together!

Originally posted by dadudemon
And...



Your posts are too long. Work on saying things in less words.

We all know WHY he went west...you are trying to dance around the fact that you made something up by talking in circles about other things. Case in point: You said Columbus went West because he was "tricked" to go West, I nicely corrected you, you then didn't say, "Oops my bad." but instead danced around the subject by talking about other things so that you could be right. You can talk about things that you are right about all day long...but get straight to the point and just say, "Oops, my bad." and be done with it.


I am not dancing around that issue, I was taught he was tricked and that's what I said. He was tricked to go a different route. WE really don't know a lot about history b/c things change under interpretation, you'll be surprised what changes in our understanding of history b/c something is or isn't politically correct at that time.

Originally posted by colonelf40
What Do Think About Arranged Marriages?

id like to hear your views on this topic, do you think that it is ok or do you think it is cruel

Though I disagree personally about them, I understand why they're done.

Originally posted by biggeek
my friend went through an arranged marriage... he's only 20 i think but he was maybe 18/19 when he was married.

at first you could tell it was a bit awkward but now they seem so happy together!

I won't trust anybody's testimony under that kind of control, esp. if the wife can be beaten, he may have had a choice in who he wanted, she may not have, and may not have the voice to tell the world either or, when people don't have the freedom to talk or in fear of being hurt for expressing themselves, I tend to wonder if I am getting all the facts. On the surface, arranged marriages are simply wonderful, so is the ability to beat a woman for stepping out of line.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
I am not dancing around that issue, I was taught he was tricked and that's what I said. He was tricked to go a different route. WE really don't know a lot about history b/c things change under interpretation, you'll be surprised what changes in our understanding of history b/c something is or isn't politically correct at that time.

I like the length of this post a lot better.

And no, you were taught wrong. Did you know he kept records and journals? We even have copies of letters he wrote to people...

Originally posted by dadudemon
I like the length of this post a lot better.

And no, you were taught wrong. Did you know he kept records and journals? We even have copies of letters he wrote to people...

of course i know he kept record and journals, people in his profession or lateral profession almost always kept detail records/journals, that was the expected thing to do.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It would be strange not knowing your husband or wife till you are married to that person.But it is proven that people who were arranged to get married don't get divorse.
I had a friend who is muslim and did not met her husband till the day of the wedding and she is happily married.So there are good points(not leading to a divorse)and bad points to it.JM

They usually don't get divorced because they aren't allowed to. If they aren't allowed to pick who to marry because that is their parents rights then they hardly get to say a little while later "I would like to divorce him/her" - which is a big difference.

And besides why do people bring up divorce anyway - what is wrong with it? If you aren't happy and want to move on then do so. Hanging around in a relationship you don't want to be in because divorce has negative connotations is madness in my books.

Okay..let me show you what you just did...

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
I am not dancing around that issue, I was taught he was tricked and that's what I said. He was tricked to go a different route. WE really don't know a lot about history b/c things change under interpretation, you'll be surprised what changes in our understanding of history b/c something is or isn't politically correct at that time.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
of course i know he kept record and journals, people in his profession or lateral profession almost always kept detail records/journals, that was the expected thing to do.

Do you see anything wrong with what you did there?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay..let me show you what you just did...





Do you see anything wrong with what you did there?


Yup, I think he took a different route for various reasons, you don't have to agree with it, and it may be FAR fetched, who cares?

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
Yup, I think he took a different route for various reasons, you don't have to agree with it, and it may be FAR fetched, who cares?

I think the point he was getting at is the "reason for his course" as presented by you, clashes with the fact you admit he "almost always kept detail records/journals" which doesn't support you stance.

Though I am be wrong - it might be that you said "WE really don't know a lot about history b/c things change under interpretation" and then admitted he "always kept detail records/journals" which limits the degree of interpretation possible.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I think the point he was getting at is the "reason for his course" as presented by you, clashes with the fact you admit he "almost always kept detail records/journals" which doesn't support you stance.

Though I am be wrong - it might be that you said "WE really don't know a lot about history b/c things change under interpretation" and then admitted he "always kept detail records/journals" which limits the degree of interpretation possible.




Ummm...

Hell yes!....you hit it right on the head there...I thought it was obvious what she did there.

Like I said, she argues in circles by making different points every time she replies instead of actually defending a position she took in her previous post or just plain old admitting she was wrong and made a simple mistake...

Ego is the problem and I did not know a woman could posses such a big ego. Hell, I even admit when I am wrong when it is undeniable...I have had to do it like 3 times since I have been here at KMC.

arranged marriages are an EVIL institution. sexist, negetive. etc etc. i live in a region/country where they are prevelant and love marriages are frowned upon/honour killings are preverlant. the institution whould be legally BANNED.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
arranged marriages are an EVIL institution. sexist, negetive. etc etc. i live in a region/country where they are prevelant and love marriages are frowned upon/honour killings are preverlant. the institution whould be legally BANNED.

What country/city are you in?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
arranged marriages are an EVIL institution. sexist, negetive. etc etc. i live in a region/country where they are prevelant and love marriages are frowned upon/honour killings are preverlant. the institution whould be legally BANNED.

i wonder if they frown upon a wife who talks about her husband beating the $#@@@@@@$$%^&* out of her. i am sure he has every right to slap her at will, as she's about close to property rights, he just doesn't have to pay their gov taxes on her (maybe he does in certain tribes or countries). like here in the USA, we pay taxes on our land and car and stuff, so, they probably have to pay some sort of annual or semi for her too. either way, i am sure if they allow for only arranged marriages and frown on love, they also probably don't frown on the husband pouncing on his wife every now and again, she'll be covered up anyway, but even if she wasn't, who would care?

I have a friend who is gay and in that situation. He is just miserable knowing that he has to marry a girl when he is obviously gay. I'm actually doing a documentary on arranged marriages because I'm so curious to understand more about it. And I feel this is something that a lot of people are aware about, but don't understand the full meaning (in both a negative and positive way). And I want to just listen and explore the world of that situation. I am hoping that someone will speak about it openly to me so that maybe this film can be the start of a new outlook on arranged marriages. Would anyone be interested in sitting down and just expressing your position? I protect everyone I interact with, whether that being making the person anonymous, not shown and letting the person have a say on what they don't want in the final project (I pull it out immediately in editing). If you are interested, respond back on here. Maybe the light of the situation can make a step toward change.

I think my opinion is relevant on this topic, because I am Indian and my entire family (or at least all of the members I know of) has had "arranged" marriages.

First of all, I'm going to burst the notion that you don't meet your spouse until the wedding day. This might have happened thousands of years ago (see swayamvara), but nowadays, you definitely have time to get to know a potential spouse with an accepted right of refusal. Secondly, I'm also going to burst the notion that families force men/women to marry or control everything- that's garbage...arranged marriages occur between individuals who are well past sexual maturity, are usually settled in their careers, and are ready for the next stage of their lives; these individuals also have more decision-making power than the rest of the family.

Today, arranged marriages are much more modernized. It's basically a major search undertaken by the man/woman and his/her family, with the assistance of a matchmaker (usually a relative), in search of a spouse who has the suitable values, expectations, looks, religion, caste, astrological signs, profession, etc. Along with word of mouth, there are extremely popular (not to mention, effective) matrimonial sites that allow matches to be established.

The entire process, whether it is a refusal or an agreement, is done with dignity and cordiality.


Arranged marriages 'work', because even though you may not 'know' whomever you are marrying to the degree as you might have in a "love marriage" (where you may have spent months, or years dating/being in a romantic relationship), you are in a way compelled to discover the beauty of your partner and love him/her for what he/she is. Divorce just doesn't happen in Indian arranged marriages. That is undeniable. This is why arranged marriages are much more successful.

However, today, it's possible for two people who know each other and who meet the 'criteria' to 'arrange' a marriage between them by uniting the families in a similar fashion to normal arranged weddings.


This above option is the one I will have to take, however. As a person of two cultures, I just cannot accept marrying a new individual, even if she might be perfect for me, without at least knowing her and having a romantic connection with her prior.

Korto Vos
Secondly, I'm also going to burst the notion that families force men/women to marry or control everything- that's garbage...arranged marriages occur between individuals who are well past sexual maturity, are usually settled in their careers, and are ready for the next stage of their lives; these individuals also have more decision-making power than the rest of the family.

Today, arranged marriages are much more modernized. It's basically a major search undertaken by the man/woman and his/her family, with the assistance of a matchmaker (usually a relative), in search of a spouse who has the suitable values, expectations, looks, religion, caste, astrological signs, profession, etc. Along with word of mouth, there are extremely popular (not to mention, effective) matrimonial sites that allow matches to be established.

The entire process, whether it is a refusal or an agreement, is done with dignity and cordiality.
This is frequently the case as urbanization and foreign exposure grow, but you'd have to limit your sample group to the upper-middle class to get even that. It is sadly characteristic of Indian young adults in this demographic, particularly women, that they never take from their families - and not always parents, mind you: brothers, uncles, and cousins of prominence often exert powerful influence in this regard - the responsibility for their marital future. This tendency is heavily correlated with the manner in which educational and social decisions were made. As a consequence, while an increasing number of independent men and women do more or less what they like, you'll find that these people tend a] to live or work almost exclusively from developed or rapidly developing areas b] to be from socially and financially advantaged families or have acquired such merit themselves c] to not have been raised like most of their peers. Education is a given at this class level; if it isn't pursued, it's because the individual in question is so secure that it doesn't need to be.

Even here, dowries are extremely common. If an attractive twenty five year old woman from a prominent, respected family graduates top of her class in software engineering from the best school in the south and still has to pay a million and a half rupees for a husband, something is wrong.

It doesn't help that this same highly educated, financially secure woman wants to nitpick caste, but I digress: the idiosyncratic absurdity that arises when old cultural expectations conflict with burgeoning modern sensibilities is complicated, and not in a fruitfully dissectible way.

Marital politics among the disadvantaged and impoverished is largely beyond the scope of this discussion, I think.


If you define success by longevity, sure; I'll stretch that to include financial and social stability (again, among the advantaged). If that's what marriage means to you then indeed, arranged marriages statistically blow the others the hell out of the water. And if that's what these kids are looking for, and they don't even want to bother giving the other route a shot - or they already have, and found it lacking - it may just be the way to go.

But that is not the measure of matrimony that I seek, nor is it yours by the looks of it.

Certain areas of India have in some regards come a very long way, and my stance on arranged marriages conducted in a desirable manner has changed to accommodate that. But don't exaggerate the extent of the change or ignore where most of it has taken place.

Arranged marriages are a great way for racist cultures to keep the bloodline pure.

Plus the men in these cultures tend to be pretty gross so this way they keep their birthrates up.

I had talked to some people who were arranged to be married and they seem happy and it is also not a big divorse rate either so I guess it works for some.

Originally posted by colonelf40
What Do Think About Arranged Marriages?

id like to hear your views on this topic, do you think that it is ok or do you think it is cruel [/QUOTE

stupid

Any Marriage has a 50/50 chance. IMO Marriages out of Respect seems to last longer than Marriages out of love.

i think arranged marriage is most successful than love marriage...

Even in North America after being exposed to western culture/values arranged marriage is common amongst 2nd-gen East-Indian Canadians.

I have known several who have gone through/will go through an arranged marriage. Despite realizing this is a very alien concept here they still seemed quite satisfied with the situation.

Originally posted by alltoomany
Any Marriage has a 50/50 chance.

This isn't exactly true.

Any randomly selected marriage has a 50/50 chance but that's largely because of serial monogamy. A person who marries and divorces six times gets counted six times, a person who stays married for a lifetime only gets counted once.

Arranged marriage is a very successful type of marriage.
where one has no many expectations about his partner he/she just live with each other with love and care.
while in case of love marriages there are lot of expectations which severally causes its distortion.
_________
Computer Science Programs

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This isn't exactly true.

Any randomly selected marriage has a 50/50 chance but that's largely because of serial monogamy. A person who marries and divorces six times gets counted six times, a person who stays married for a lifetime only gets counted once.

Yeah but those poor guys that will end up being one of six... May end up never remarrying after the sheer agony of what they went through...

Or remarry only once again for the most part... Keeping the residual numbers low.

i am not against it..but i will not have one...

according to me arranged marriages are quite successful then love marriages. because in arrange marriage you work to build a good relationship with you wife and work hard to do for you family and slowly but steady love develop in your life and you enjoy the life.
______________

I have nothing against arranged marriages and nothing against love marriages so just as long as you are happy with your husband/wife then i will be happy for you.

Originally posted by majid86
I have nothing against arranged marriages and nothing against love marriages so just as long as you are happy with your husband/wife then i will be happy for you. Unless you're white... or black... or any race but mine?

This type of marriage is very common here in the Middle East.

Some of my Arabian friends are 'pre-destined' to marry women and men before they were even conceived. LOL. It's a strange concept, but they say (at least most of them) that they do this so there would be no indifference between the families of both parties. I mean, the parents know each other long before they raised families.

But with regards to my personal view, I think it is backward and too traditional, especially in this day and age.
I believe everyone has the right to choose his or her own partner, may he/she be bisexual, homosexual or straight.
That's my opinion. If some of you prefer fixed marriages, I respect that. I have my own set of customs and beliefs.

Originally posted by majid86
No unless you are a RACIST white person not meaning an innocent harmless white person.

And believe me, i can spot the difference between the 2.
Racism is such a boring subject. Racist black/Asian/Native/Indian person isn't as bad, huh?

They all are but racist white people are the biggest threat by far.

Cuz they're inherently superior and thus possess a greater capacity to f*ck everyone else's shit up? Dude, that's kinda a reverse-racist way of thinking you got there.

I think the arranged marriage is the most successful marriage...


_________________
technology review
technology news
technology

Arranged marriages have the inherent advantage of being used in societies where marriage matters. As an economical choice it tends to be quite succesful compared with individual economies.

Originally posted by Joejonas
I think the arranged marriage is the most successful marriage...


_________________
technology review
technology news
technology You are prob right.

I have a fairly ambivalent position on marriage in general. Which is weird considering how wonderful and stable my parent's marriage is.

I guess its how shitty the marriages of all my friend's parents have been that's tainted my perception of the institution.

The freedom to choose your life-long partner is highly overrated. Better to obey.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Cuz they're inherently superior and thus possess a greater capacity to f*ck everyone else's shit up? Dude, that's kinda a reverse-racist way of thinking you got there. They have the Devil's backing, so it's an unfair advantage.

Once Black Jesus comes back things will change.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The freedom to choose your life-long partner is highly overrated.

I like King Kandy's idea of complex relationships. Ones where there may be 4 or 5 people involved in a semi-cooperative. Humans have never been monogamous. In his idea, the unit could last forever as long as those that fade out of the relationship are replaced. Kind of like a voluntary family except everyone is a partner. You don't have to be bi in that relationship, either.

(deleted)

According to my point of view Arranged marriages are more reliable and durable than the love marriages.
___________
How to Become Foster Parents Milwaukee WI

Ok so I don't post very often because my mind thinks in very general ways, but here it goes.

I think that people who practice arranged marriages see it being more systematic and that it can be managed. Its planned not only because it fulfills tradition, but it removes the possibility of erratic human emotion. It is obvious that marriages can be easily terminated and started on a whim. In a sense they remove the importance of emotion as the deciding factor in order to strengthen the structure of marriage itself. There is less importance on the choice so there is less argument from family members. It is less likely for a divorce because they have already accepted the choice being made for them in the first place, why would they go against their own beliefs.

As opposed to western tradition, where the individual is stressed more than the collective. A person chooses his or her mate based on anything they think is worthy of the institution and they won't be questioned. The bond that pulls that marriage together is equally volatile.

I personally am not one to tell people what is right or wrong with their customs.