Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Arranged Marrige Forum > Feedback, Announcements & FAQ > Feedback & Suggestions
Does anyone else feel that arranged marrige is a complete and utter mockery of what a marrige should really be? I mean it's as if the people who arrange it do it only for their benifit, even today.
Arranged marriages could save a lot of time and trouble for the youngsters. Most people waste a lot of time in futile courtship and then blow their choice anyway. Some wisdom from elders in choice of marriage partners could be doing the kids a great favor.

Don't you think parents want what's best for their children?
I think that is ridiculous. How would you like for someone to decide who you should love Rick?

I sure as hell would not, its absurd to let someone else determine your life for you. Its your life, you are going to be the one to reap the benefits or suffer the consequences based on your actions - would you really want to put your fate in the hands of someone else?

I wouldn't, they are not going to be the ones to suffer for a poor choice, you are. Arranged marriages are barbaric.
Hmm, arranged marriages, an interesting topic.

Personally, it is not my intention to ever marry at all.

However, I have to admit that I am tempted at times to consider the possibility of an arranged marriage.

I've done my best to break contact with my family long ago, however if I decided to take this route it would effectively make me the heir of both families. A very amusing possibility.

So I am still considering it.
If one considers why marriage came into existence.... Its my impression that marriage is meant to provide a support structure that guarantees the welfare of children.

Don't get me wrong, part of that welfare included the constituents i.e. mother and father. The driving force of evolution (or one driving force) is a new characteristic that enables the children to grow to an age of reproduction and then reproduce. For early man, a society with marriages is far more likely to have a greater number of reproducing offspring. Marriages structure continued to change as social structures changed, so they became patriarchal. Now, marriage does'nt really serve a purpose in our society. It's a vestigial ritual. I'll probably get married some day so I'm not against it.

If you consider the actual purpose, it really has nothing to do with love. That is a modern American perspective as to it's intention. If you think mechanistically, as in, what benefits will this person provide me, and what can I provide this person, who we would choose would probably be very different. If your child is going to marry ( assuming a mechanistic view), then wouldn't it be best to provide your objective viewpoint?

I am great friends with a girl from pakistan who actually refused an arranged marriage. Shes told me some of the pros and cons as she sees it. She feels that in Pakistan, it's neccesary for social progress, but not here.
QUOTE(maximus242 @ Jan 18, 2008, 06:41 PM) *

I think that is ridiculous. How would you like for someone to decide who you should love Rick? ...

If it were a mutual agreement among all concerned (both families and bride and groom), it might lead to optimality. If one party were unwilling, then it wouldn't work well.

The existing romantic random system has a fairly spotty record, with about half of marriages ending in divorce. Sometimes we throw out the old ways without really thinking them through.
"To increase efficiency and productivity of the works the Company will choose for you the best life partner, that 'might lead to optimality © Rick'."
US Robotics /USSR/

One can select the following names for the books on this topic:

'Idiots guide of how to tend a herd'
'How to grow healthy and productive cattle'
'Vampires guidebook for healthy and tasty human species growth'

"The Freedom of Will is God granted opportunity to Human beings, those who attempt to confine it shall burn in the Hell." Michel'angello

A good example of how the rebellion against the ‘Supreme Gods’ could begun in true.
I know what Ricks saying, its very easy to let your little sergeant and hormones take over and not make any solid choices when it comes to sex and love. Who we love and who we want to have sex with are often not the same, or at least a little out of sync.

An example of this is online dating. Ten years ago it was seen as the ultimate 'geeky' thing to do, with lots of comments like 'why dont you go get a real girlfriend' and jokes about cyber sex. But look at a common alternative: getting hammered in a pub/club and using this inebriated mind to make a decision whilst looking through your beer goggles... So I'd say its better to wake up with someone you have selected on some kind of merit, rather than wake up next to something that was willing to go home with you at 3am lol. Online dating is an evolution of partner selection, and its becoming common practice.

I guess arranged marriage came from a similar background, parents trying to give you a good start by selecting a good partner for you and saving you the trouble of your own mistakes. A nice person isn't necessarily the best match. I think we need to make the distinction between arranged marriages and forced marriages. The system is extremely prone to abuse, because a poor family with a beautiful daughter will be more willing to marry off their daughter to a ugly or idiotic rich man. The human capacity for greed and cruelty is unlimited as I'm sure everyones aware.
QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Jan 22, 2008, 01:30 AM) *
... parents trying to give you a good start by selecting a good partner for you and saving you the trouble of your own mistakes. ...

Well said.

When all is said and done, while dating and courship can be a hell of a lot of fun, human purposes may best be served by something easier and simpler.
I believe that it makes everybody feel closed in or (for the kids) in less control of their destiny. It makes a mockery of what marriages are supposed to be about.
Why do you assume your version of "what marriage is about" is the valid one.
Sounds mighty Christian of ya.

Saying this is what "X" is about is as ethno+ego-centric as one can get.
Let me guess....
Anyone who's muslim is violent and hateful right?
Abortion is bad because it's killing right?
Drugs are all bad, just like communism.
Children are innocent and need to be protected until they reach that magical age of adulthood at 18. Laws are the same thing are morality.

C'mon, doesn't the social mission statement monologue ever get old?

A mockery of what? A mockery of a legal tool? What if a man marries 10 women? Is that a Mockery? Biblically it was nearly expected for a man to have more than one wife, and it was considered to be a compassionate act. If a brother dies, they'd marry his wife. It wasn't about eros but rather filial. Would marrying your brothers wife and impregnating her fit into your scheme of "what marriage is about?" Of course not.

That because your obeying your social programming. One day you'll become metacognitive and escape this. This sounds like I'm being insulting? I'm not. I'm being supportingly intolerant of mediocrity. You can do better than this.
That because your obeying your social programming
So many people are unaware of how social programming controls a lot of their thought processes and behaviours. Its not the Truth, only this current incarnation of cultures Truth.

The extreme end of what we're discussing with arranged marriages is having someone else decide whats best for you, and the extreme end of that is a Totalitarian government. Would you be content for them to come and take your 'strong' family members to work on labouring, and your 'clever' familly members to work in research and development? I wouldn't, but if the world was a machine, or if I was God in charge of a 'world simulation', then I would sort people by positive and negative traits. I suppose that would ultimately mean destroying the runts of humanities litter, which sounds more like a horror story or the Third Reich than the natural progression of arranged marriage.

I think it boils down to abuse of power and the feeling of being controlled by parents. I guess some kids have excellent relationships with their parents and such an enlightened understanding of the idea behind arranged marriage that they are willing to accept it. I would think that can only be true for 5-10% or so of all arranged marriages.
QUOTE(Rick @ Jan 23, 2008, 12:46 AM) *

QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Jan 22, 2008, 01:30 AM) *
... parents trying to give you a good start by selecting a good partner for you and saving you the trouble of your own mistakes. ...

Well said.

When all is said and done, while dating and courship can be a hell of a lot of fun, human purposes may best be served by something easier and simpler.

Discovering human purpose is either helped along with guidance from someone who knows or by making assumptions, taking risks and projecting random ideas into the fabric of illusions and truth.
The ego knows no rules other than ones own and they are conceived of the relationship of other deluded individuals such as parents, peers and social systems of standards and measures such as the government run school systems. The blind leading the blind is not always concomitant to something different than darkness and illusion.
If the parents were enlightened enough to lead their children to the discovery of their own enlightenment then they (the children) might be less inclined to follow the crowd like so many lemmings into the struggle to maintain individuality from a platform of low self esteem, self worth and fear of losing identity and purpose.
Relationships would and could then lead to a support system in each others growth and understanding of each other and life rather than a feed bag for personal needs and sexual stimulation only.
The "I need you, can't live without you" type of relationship is more accepted as real than a non codependent relationship.
Divorce is the standard now for most relationships because there is little intellect involved in the relationship process.

In once sense the discovery of ones self through the process of ignorance is an evolutionary one. For people to continue as they are is not necessarily a bad thing even if it continues to perpetuate the ignorance of lasting truths for the need to protect personal truths fabricated from weak psychological foundations of need and belief in lack. It doesn't have to happen that way but try and convince a person who has no greater experience that theirs is not real, and see what happens.
Overall I agree with both trojan and joesus. I actually don't feel arranged marriages are "best," but not seeing that "should bes" are only cultural icons is worse. By raising someone to question and consider "truths" to be relative, I feel that the child would choose the "best" partner themselves. It's just that this entire arguement seems to be ringing with hippocrisy. My parents were married and never got a divorce, but they are an exception. I am under no false beleifs as to how difficult a marriage can be. Criticizing a different system while ones own system is so apparently flawed is weak thinking. Its like the "patriot" who swears his country is the best without actually thinking.
So I ask the question, what "should" a marriage really be about?
So I ask the question, what "should" a marriage really be about?
That would be relative to the layered opinions of the meaning of life.
QUOTE(Cowboy @ Jan 23, 2008, 04:41 AM) *

I believe that it makes everybody feel closed in or (for the kids) in less control of their destiny. ...

Sure, if you assume the kids will be in opposition to what the parents want. In a stronger family, the children and parents are a partnership working toward the same end. Older people of good will should be seen as mentors who can guide our youth. Guidance doesn't mean control.
Guidance doesn't mean control.

People I am sorry for offtopic but I cannot find quite many posts of Dianah in the Acronym game topic.
Does anybody knows what really happened?


The topic related: truly speaking I reacted in such a sarcastic mode to the robotic ideas because the frames all is put in in this topic diminishes a human being to a device rather than something special.
She pulled out and deleted all reference to her being here.
Marriage changes a lot of people, many relationships breakdown because one partner will assert more authority over the other thinking that the bond is permanent. The divorce statistics say otherwise. What marriage should be about is deep rooted love, with no desire to search for a better partner because everything you need is in that person. It should be a joining of body and mind, a complimentary partnership, and a fruitful one.

Trophy wives might impress your mates superficially, but after a while the persons appearance merges with their personality and no amount of makeup and glamour can hide that.
Gold-digging women are also a part of life, but this is ultimately empty for the people involved.

The best balance, and the longest partnerships, are when both parties compliment each other and are attractive in equal measures. If one partner is more attractive than another, unless low self esteem and body image are a problem, the strain is often too much. Similarly with finances, (almost) gone are the days when men bring home the money and women rear the children.

There is one other type of marriage, a marriage of convenience. This can be used to move to get a green card for another country, or to solidify some deal or other. Maybe to have a companion whilst you both go through a similar path in life (amputees, cancer victims, pensioners).

But to answer the question, marriage is whatever you want to make it. Only you can give it the concept a value. I hope when you do assign a value to it, your partner assigns the same one! smile.gif
The best balance, and the longest partnerships, are when both parties compliment each other and are attractive in equal measures.

Love based on complimentary accoutrement's.... dry.gif
I dont think that is what I said at all. Complimenting each other does not mean one person has a car and the other the petrol...

Love can be based on many things, as can lust. Do you not think one way love, or unbalanced love, is detrimental to a partnership?
Love with any condition is relative to a need that someone is trying to fill.
If that need is directed to someone or something, and that someone or something fails to deliver then usually the needy abandon the object of interest to seek to fill the need someplace else.
Balanced attractiveness is a surface issue, and has nothing to do with love but the need to fill a condition.
The idea that someone meet another in such a condition is based on self worth, creating a condition where the outside meet the inside often unconsciously to fill a psychological deficiency.

Ever read "Stranger in a strange land?" (Robert A. Heinlein)

There is a description of a man raised as a child on Mars by Martians, and returned to Earth in early adulthood and his relationship with women (as well as other human psychological interactions) and the womens description of his intimate nature.
Being raised on Mars, (the Martians being enlightened) and not familiar with the ego as it is on Earth, when he is with a woman even many at the same time, each woman feels like he is giving all his attention to them rather than having his mind split into different parts. They describe it in a way where they say when they are with a normal Earth man they feel as if the mans mind is thinking thoughts that include how they think about what they are getting, where it will end, what they will do afterwards and possibly what they did before during the day. Also they pick up on a mans thoughts of comparison measuring the performance of their sexual act and comparing it to another moment or another woman.
They also describe the difference between the first time and the 50th time. Passion, lust and sometimes love is included in a first encounter and in the 50th encounter the feelings are different. They describe the inconsistency of love and intimacy.
Then the women describe the Martian raised man and his interaction, saying each time they feel like he thinks of nothing other than being with them, each time like the first time. The immersion into the moment makes him without any conditions in mood changes of thoughts of anything other than the present moment.
Their description depicts the idea that no Earth man is psychologically mature enough to meet a woman at her level of intimacy and love.

Generally speaking women aren't as materialistic about the outer conditions. I'm not saying that they aren't at all, I'm just saying that most of the ones I have met are liking the way men look but it comes second to the deeper nature of the ability to be intimate.

Conditional love is based on holes in the psyche of one or the other or often both people in the relationship.
The, "I'll give or I can give, if you give back" type of love.
Condition-less love does not require or contain the need for something in return.

Like Christmas when some of us are inspired by the spiritual nature of the joy we feel about our connection to each other we can give something without expecting something in return. When we have no expectations we can feel good about giving. Similarly when we are without the insecurities of self worth and self measure we love without the need to get something from another in return.
Usually, giving from such a stable psychological platform results in the expansion of love by simply giving without expectations.

The idea of ideal love being based on any condition, even the idea of a balance is relative to maintaining a system of measure in equality or inequality, (duality).
People change as do conditions naturally, and if someones balance is disturbed or taken away then one is left without.
Rather than rejoicing in what they have experienced a person usually dives into the idea of what they have lost as a result of having loved rather than any thought of what was gained.
Then the habit is to mourn what was lost and to idolize what was lost in favor of what could be and what will be.
Rather than being in the present moment the person then will take the past and compare it to the present and future moments never really being in the moment or whole within themselves and their world.

On a subtle level this is how most people act in any relationship, whether it be a relationship of love, friendship or even work or play.

The longest partnerships are those where we recognize the Union of God when we are whole within ourselves and find someone with the same wholeness that continue to reflect that reality of that Union. Such a relationship is eternal rather than for a handful of years.
Often we recognize partners from other lifetimes who are there to assist us in the return to that wholeness when we have created separation in our lives. Often such a relationship is ignored for the lesser ideals created from low self esteem and other psychological inconsistencies.
No condition is ever permanent, and the way we often measure our relationship to people is in what we can keep the longest in a relative changing world that is bound to dissolve into something other than what we experienced in the past.
children may not want to marry just because their parents want stronger bonds with the wife-to-bes parents marrige is for two people who've been together an have aknowledged the fact that they've fallen in love
Of course, but we're discussing arranged marriage in all circumstances, not just complete love or complete repulsion.
Yes, but you also have to consider people don't want to marry someone whom they feel nothing but canpanionship or lust for, they want to marry someone they can see themselves with long term making a family with.
Yes, well if they "don't want to marry" then they shouldn't. Simple as that.
WTF is this doing in FAQ, Feedback and suggestions
waiting for your WTF...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.

Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  

Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am