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.
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 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 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.