Arranged marriages do suck, I do know, well I'm in one. I was forced into one at the age of 20 when I was on vacation with my parents in India.

she realized that really, it’s more about the “assist” than the “arrange” and she didn’t get all westernized-aggro on our kundis about oppressive traditions

From the post above (where it was in bold, no less):

"Confused": I know my parents will never force me to marry someone I don’t like

Prudence: but as long as everyone understands you will not be pressured to wed the guy, why not

No one sane would advocate the use of "force". Let's lay that out right now at the beginning of the thread. I am very sorry for what you must have gone through, but it seems like the advice seeker featured in this post is in a different situation, no?

Arranged marriages do suck

Prudie was very refereshing. I wonder what hero my mom would have picked out for me. But mamma & pappa bear know me and my quirks. Looking back at my dating life, they were right on when they didn't like a b/f or dude I was dating... I had too much of the romance dust in my eyes blinding me.

Karmabytes, that's the exact same reason my parents never set me up. The wanted zero blame.

I was forced into one at the age of 20 when I was on vacation with my parents in India.

LOL..I am sorry for your ordeal but that is hilarious! marriage while on vacation..I mean DAMN homie

Arranged marriages do suck.

For some. Just as much as a marriage entered into by free will that turns sour. Arranged marriages don't have a monopoly on potential heartache. I'm sorry you are in one.

KB:

Marriages suck if the partners can't get along regardless of how the 2 got together. It's just that arranged marriages give you the chance to blame someone else for your misery :)

Classic!

i thought they sucked, too. untill i met this gorgeous nice-as-hell banarsi doctor one of my friends was setup with this past weekend. i'm totally stealing that girl.

but seriously though, i was really under the impression that most folks had a choice to accept or reject. clueless @ 1... i am so sorry.

A mainstream columnist grokked the concept better than a brownie did; she realized that really, it’s no different from a blind date and she didn’t get all westernized-aggro on our kundis about oppressive traditions.

That's because a mainstream columnist actually had, in my view, an entirely different concept of what arranged marriages are geared to do, and here's the key: "Certainly their knowledge of you, the young man, and the qualities two people need to get along has to be as good as the algorithms of Match.com" So their actually using domain specific knowledge to prefilter people out based on individual characteristics, rather than "Here, meet this person because her parents speak the same language we do"

I'm sorry, but what I read above is a far cry from, "Some so-and-so aunty has a daughter, she lives 2000 miles away from you, works in so-and-so company, and has existed on earth for 25 years, here's her email" and "Why don't you get married? Everyone is asking? What will people think? bla bla bla"

But a couple points I agree with:

1. Romance isn't worth a dogs nutsack in the long run. In fact, the etymology of the word is
"of Rome", pertaining to the fantasy stories coming out of the old capital during the Roman empire.

2. It is nice she made an attempt to understand the tradition, rather than a complete "it's backwards" lash out. but in my view, she
didn't go deeper in her analysis

Seeing as how when my grandparents were trying their darnedest to hook me mum up with a nice boy she ran away from home and moved to Dehli, I don't think I'm getting an arranged marriage, even if I wanted one. My parents would probably ask me if I was feeling all right.

"So their actually using domain specific knowledge "

So they're actually using..

BTW, what does grok mean?

i think it is important to destroy the dichotomy between arranged & non-arranged marriages. there's a spectrum. e.g., "set ups" have a bit of the arranged aspect, while many "arranged" marriages involve a lot of choice within the sample of possible potential mates selected by parents/relatives. the "western" and "indian" norms lean toward one end of the spectrum, but there is a lot of within group variation and both tendencies are average exhibit admixture.

Grok.

1. Romance isn't worth a dogs nutsack in the long run

Huh? Of course romance alone cannot sustain a marriage, obviously. But come now... romance tied together with good bedroom loving do tons for a marriage. A little romance through the days can make ya hot to trot. Romance and good sex = less fighting (generally) and more connection.

Actually, Prudie generally gives pretty good advice; she's no-nonsense. Check out her reponse to the letter below this one. Not that I regularly read her or send in letters or anything like that.

*Actually, I Prudie and Kaus are my two regular Slate reads.

My mother thinks that as long as two people have a certain compatibility and mutual respect, love can happen later.

I don't know this woman or her mother particularly, but in a general Indian society sense:

certain compatibility = from the same community

mutual respect = respect for the tradition of marriage, and to never end it, come hell or
high water.

I think my mom was filling in for Prudie.

New headline -- Slate Says 'Yes' to Arranged Marriage

it’s more about the “assist” than the “arrange” and she didn’t get all westernized-aggro on our kundis about oppressive traditions

Heh. Nice.

Romance isn't worth a dogs nutsack in the long run

Probably depends on how you define romance. It doesn't have to be about the flowers and the champagne all the time. In fact, that sort of thing probably does wear thin after a while. But there are other kinds of romance too, IMO.

aahh... 'kiss them for me'

miss anna.. music lover extraordinaire..

prudie makes sense.
some marriages work, arranged or misarranged.
some marriages don't.

refreshing read, thanks anna and tipster.

I don't know this woman or her mother particularly, but in a general Indian society sense:

certain compatibility = from the same community
mutual respect = respect for the tradition of marriage, and to never end it, come hell or
high water.

I'm not sure it's that cut and dry. I wouldn't have believed this concept of "mutal compatibilty" business unless I'd experienced it for myself. There is a lot more to it than meets the eye. After seeing quite a few cousins getting set up in perfectly happy marriages, and having see so many marriages entered in non traditionally fall apart and having found the right man for me thru an 'introduction' I no longer can knock any methods of meeting the right person. There is no magic method nor is one way more right than the other but I do understand now.

Probably depends on how you define romance. It doesn't have to be about the flowers and the champagne all the time. In fact, that sort of thing probably does wear thin after a while

Well, just look at the synonyms from dictionary.com:

"1. story, fiction. 4. falsehood, fable. 6. allure, fascination, exoticism."

I think it's pretty clear what romance is referring to. In addition, there is a clear implication that the female will be the primary, if not sole recipient of said "romantic" acts. The implication could explain why most people defending it's place within long term relationships.. are indeed women.

TBM - yeah dude. Your mom and my mom.

I'm sorry, but what I read above is a far cry from, "Some so-and-so aunty has a daughter, she lives 2000 miles away from you, works in so-and-so company, and has existed on earth for 25 years, here's her email" and "Why don't you get married? Everyone is asking? What will people think? bla bla bla"

Really? As someone whose parents routinely attempt to pimp her out, I think it's just that their priorities for a good relationship are different from ours -- they look at financial stability, reputation of the family, level of education, BLAH BLAH. Whereas our criteria are more about what we have in common with people and if there's any chemistry, and I guess some of that other stuff is kind of important too.

We should adopt an effort to switch the term here in America from "arranged marriage" to "assisted marriage." Arranged marriage does sound a little scary if you don't know what it's about. I'm sure extreme and very sad cases like #1 do happen but the non-forceful assist is more common, no? (Lest we go off on this topic, emotional manipulation is one thing; FORCE is another.)

Rupa: We should start calling them the 'non-forceful assist'. That would be pretty awesome.

Prudie is my guilty pleasure!

Well I'm sort of like that woman, I'm in my 30's, got a well paid job in the US. My parents live in India, they have never suggested that they would arrange/assist or whatever, but my relatives have every time I'm visiting.

If you ask me, arranged marriages suck at least if you are a woman (I'm a man), it's the woman that gives up everything and follows her man, and I know it happends in love marriages too, but not to that extent. The idea of me going back to India and asking a well educated woman to drop her career and follow me to the US to be my housewife sounds revolting to me.

I think it's just that their priorities for a good relationship are different from ours -- they look at financial stability, reputation of the family, level of education, BLAH BLAH.

Exactly my point. They look at it from more of a group dynamic, "please the folks around you" perspective. People always say to me, "oh but they have your best interests at heart!" No one contests this assertion, only someone morbid would assert they are trying to hurt you by arranging or assisting or whatever word you'd like to use. They don't see it as a question of "finding a good relationship", it's of no concern. Its a question of "find a relationship to be presentable in society, to not be a misfit, and ultimately, to procreate" Good or Bad doesn't even enter the equation.

Romance and good sex = less fighting (generally)

hmm... not so sure.... its more like...
Romance + less fighting = more sex.

Romance + less fighting = more sex.

Romance + MORE fighting = MORE MAKE-UP SEX! Prioritize, people. ;)

"1. story, fiction. 4. falsehood, fable. 6. allure, fascination, exoticism."

Well, I'm going to fixate on words like allure and fascination. Men can find things alluring and fascinating too. For example, my idea of a nice, romantic evening is going to a baseball game, followed by ice-cream. My spouse likes baseball and ice-cream too, so we get to spend time together doing something we both enjoy. Can't see anything wrong with that sort of romance, really. Can't even see where the woman does all the receiving and the man is being gypped.

Right on hema. Romance can be as simple as holding hands or a sweet text message or cuddlig together under a warm blanket to watch a good movie.

I love Prudie. But I'm also not that surprised by her response, as you are. This view is pretty common in the West now, I think. I'm so over the arranged marriage hype, and I think a lot of people--desi and non--are, too.

For example, my idea of a nice, romantic evening is going to a baseball game, followed by ice-cream.

All I can say is, as an example of romance, this is clearly an outlier. It's obvious that romance used in present day context refers to male actions towards the female, of the roses, poetry, etc.. variety. All the stuff you see in Disney.

Do you know what the infield fly rule is?

Can't even see where the woman does all the receiving and the man is being gypped.

As a gypsy, I don't like the racist pejorative employed in this comment. When you say "gypped" you don't just discriminate against my people, you maintain institutionalized hierarchies and further the oppression of a group which is possibly the last "safe" target for mockery. We can't say "faggot" or "re+arded" but "gypped" is allowed? In the immortal and eloquent words of Stephanie Tanner: "How rude!"

>>>Romance + MORE fighting = MORE MAKE-UP SEX! Prioritize, people. ;)

Romance + More Fighting = breakup + re-unifying romance = one wild night ;)

Romance + MORE fighting = MORE MAKE-UP SEX! Prioritize, people. ;)

tried that, never worked for me.

More to the point...
I think what's mildly dangerous is for parents (esp if they live 5000miles away) to use priorities that work there in india but are not relevant here in the US. For example, when my parents were pimping me around (didn't work out for them), they narrowed the search down to one caste of gultis. Perhaps a valid criteria if I were living in India circa 1965. As a result, I got emails from them about girls who mostly grew up in rural India (I grew up in Bangalore). When you plan to live in the US, language, caste and esp "fair-and-loveliness" play a very minor role compared to financial background growing up, urban/rural, etc.

Wow. I have to admit to having no sense of the etymology of the word, so my apologies for any offense caused. I've never heard the term used as a racist pejorative before. Again, sorry.

Do you know what the infield fly rule is?

Yes. But tell me first how you feel about the DH. And Dice K...because you know, because that's all anyone talks about anymore.

They look at it from more of a group dynamic, "please the folks around you" perspective. People always say to me, "oh but they have your best interests at heart!"

I gotcha, HMF. I can only speak for my family, but I know that to them, one's group identity IS their personal identity. Having grown up in America I personally don't identify with whateverreligioussect whatevercaste from wherever, but obviously my experience is vastly different from my parents'. In American independence and self-identity are way more valued than where my parents are from in India. As far as pleasing the crowd with the "right" match, don't you think they're more interested in you being pleased by the folks around you?

Exactly my point. They look at it from more of a group dynamic, "please the folks around you" perspective. People always say to me, "oh but they have your best interests at heart!" No one contests this assertion, only someone morbid would assert they are trying to hurt you by arranging or assisting or whatever word you'd like to use. They don't see it as a question of "finding a good relationship", it's of no concern. Its a question of "find a relationship to be presentable in society, to not be a misfit, and ultimately, to procreate" Good or Bad doesn't even enter the equation.

You don't mean all parents/relations who encourage arranged marriages, right? Sorry, I'm not sure...and my parents don't care what I do as long as I'm happy...but I know based off the many years of not giving a rat's ass about what the Indian community expects, my parents would look for someone who makes me happy.

Not that they're getting that opportunity in the near future, but if I was hitting a dry spell, I would trust their judgment. Augh god, I weirded myself out.

Wow. I have to admit to having no sense of the etymology of the word, so my apologies for any offense caused. I've never heard the term used as a racist pejorative before. Again, sorry.

No problem. It was my gentle riff on this. ;-)

Maybe match.com and speed dating and people waiting until they are older to marry, so have more fix-ups has changed notions about, er, fix-ups? In the West, I mean? Besides, I live in a traditionally Jewish neighborhood and fix-ups seem pretty common here, too.

As far as pleasing the crowd with the "right" match, don't you think they're more interested in you being pleased by the folks around you?

When it comes to marriage? truly, I don't. Individualistic concerns are just secondary.

I can only speak for my family, but I know that to them, one's group identity IS their personal identity

i.e. Personal Identity doesn't exist, or at the very least, is secondary.

As for all the people getting defensive, with the "Well MY family has MY interests at heart first, so THERE. Nanny Nanny Poo poo." responses. I can't challenge your personal experience, but based on the research I've done on the marriage institution and its development through the subcontinent - individual concerns just fall by the wayside. Why do you think "matrimonial" sites exist in the first place?

As for all the people getting defensive, with the "Well MY family has MY interests at heart first, so THERE. Nanny Nanny Poo poo." responses. I can't challenge your personal experience, but based on the research I've done on the marriage institution and its development through the subcontinent - individual concerns just fall by the wayside. Why do you think "matrimonial" sites exist in the first place?

LOL, now change my diaper. Because not all parents are like the ones who care about our interests. I *get* that. I was just doing one of those "I'm in the minority!" fanfare bits and now it's done.

I think (note: not the be-all end-all truth of the world) matrimonial sites also exist because some (note: also read as "not everyone") people are convinced they aren't capable of looking out for their own interests.

Traditional Hindu arranged marriages involve marrying someone chosen by your parents from your subcaste, after consulting the stars. According to Razib, 30-40% of South Asians marry non-South Asians. Among those marrying South Asians, I am willing to bet the clear majority are inter-caste or inter-region. Even those within acceptable traditional parameters are often based on meetups or "dates." Perhaps as few as twenty percent of marriages are traditional arranged here.

But we're not talking about the subcontinent. Aren't we talking about the institute of marriage in our culture here? I agree that individual concerns are far less of a priority in the desh. I understand why, too -- in my family the girl still goes to live with her husband and his whole family, the whole kit-and-caboodle of tradition. It's more important that you find a social group that offers a stable environment where you will be loved and treated well rather than someone who has interests that match yours -- you're marrying the family, not just your husband. (Duh.)

THUS the entire gist of this post -- relationships and dating are way different here, hence the problems in priority when the p-units start the fix-ups.

MD, I like "fix-ups!" Let's use that :)

Aren't we talking about the institute of marriage in our culture here

I'm talking about people who grew up here, but have parents the grew up there. They bring with them their traditions and perceptions and that's perfectly fine I'd do the same thing if I were in their position. As intelligent beings who can carefully analyze both processes, it's up to them to have the courage to discard a system if it's inherently flawed, (based on the above mentioned motivations).

Eiugh. I didn't finish my thought --

HMF, I'm not trying to just prolong an argument here; in fact I think we may agree on some basic principles. What I wanted to say was -- if you feel like your family is more concerned with YOU pleasing those around you rather than your own personal happiness, that really sucks and I'm sorry. I just question that this is how it is "mostly" done.

Actually, maybe this is a male/female thing. Maybe my whole "your parents want you to be happy with those around you" is ingrained in me because I'm a woman. My mom once told me that it was common in our society for people to marry their 2nd/3rd cousins. They were much more comfortable with it than we are, and she said they actually preferred to marry girls off within the family because then they knew the family, and they knew their girl would be treated right. (I still think it's kind of ick.)

if you feel like your family is more concerned with YOU pleasing those around you rather than your own personal happiness

Here's the subtlety I'm trying to make. They are interested in my personal happiness, but subconsciously, they feel I will be happy when I'm serving "large order societal" goals - ie making others happy.

I just question that this is how it is "mostly" done

According to this book:

Ramu, G.N. Family and Caste in Urban India : A case study. (c. 1977)

Studies showed primary rationale for marriage was continuation of the kula (lineage), not personal happiness or "love"

HMF, that study is so old, it's almost ineligible for an arranged marriage. ;)

No one knows that better than me, but somehow I don't think McDonalds and cellphones will really change the attitude.

The "archaic" notion probably comes from child brides being married off to 70 yr old men a la "Water."

But along the lines of what Rupa said, in some of these cases, the bride doesn't just have to marry the husband but the whole damn family!

you're marrying the family, not just your husband.

You're doing that anyway, arranged marriage or not. On the flip side, he's marrying your family too.

Pondatti #49 -- Ha!

Certainly their knowledge of you, the young man, and the qualities two people need to get along has to be as good as the algorithms of Match.com.

The above statement ties into whats below.

Wait- wot’s this? Someone who isn’t second gen can be “confused”? Shocking. Utterly astonishing, I tell you. ;) I thought we American Born-types had a monopoloy on bewilderment.

Anna might understand that a lot of the First genners are confused, but my parents (dare I say a lot of our parents) cannot fathom the idea (they try, but it's beyond their reach). I experienced a lot of what my parents saw and a little bit more.

New people, culture and a very different society creates a hybrid (like it did in my case). Things that were preached as "wrong" are not anymore.

Ultimately it depends on which side you give into, if you and your folks have had the same experience and how much you trust your own judgment.

Rupa asks: >>Aren't we talking about the institute of marriage in our culture here?

What institution of marriage here? One doesn't exist.

M. Nam

its a tough call either way. How long does one need to live with the person before he/she decides to live forever with that person? Its always taking a chance -whether its the first "date" ( pretty much the only date you may ever get in an arranged situation ) Or a 100 dates. So for all those who do not believe in an arranged marriage, I ask you this - How many people do you have to sleep with before you can decide - yes I like this fuck better than all the previous ones and so let me go with this one. In an "arranged" situation, the expectation from one another is REALLY NOT TO EXPECT MUCH, so there is less likely to have any disappointments and more likely to be "oh well, its arranged" kind of an adjustmental/sacrificial attitude with each other. Moreover, there are plenty of people to lean-on for support during any marital issues, as it isn't your responsibility alone and to an extent some problems may be resolved by intereference from interested parties. Whereas in a "self-hooked-up" situation, egos take precedence over anything else, so its less likely that the issues at hand will be addressed amicably. NO ?

What institution of marriage here? One doesn't exist.

Oh yeah? So what does IIM stand for? There's one in Ahmedabad, another in Kolkata, another in Lucknow...

What institution of marriage here? One doesn't exist.

The one that gay people really want to get into, and the one that people don't want them to get into. ;)

Here's the subtlety I'm trying to make. They are interested in my personal happiness, but subconsciously, they feel I will be happy when I'm serving "large order societal" goals - ie making others happy.

So tell them to chill with the Iyengars. Bring home your own honey and them to take that. The pain over dishonoring kula and jati will last a couple of weeks.

arranged marriage is good. i am afraid to talk to girls. without arranged marriage i don't think i would be able to get a wife. plus my mom and dad taught me that i should treat girls with respect, and that loose talk with them may put me at risk of being labeled as having a questionable character within the community.

So tell them to chill with the Iyengars. Bring home your own honey and them to take that. The pain over dishonoring kula and jati will last a couple of weeks.

But I ain't Rick James Bitch.

Iyengars?

hema:>>The one that gay people really want to get into, and the one that people don't want them to get into. ;)

And this is exactly what I tell them as well: You're barking up the wrong tree. Beating around the wrong bush. Buying the wrong stock. There's no such institution remaining in the West.

M. Nam

that loose talk with them may put me at risk

Ha! Is that what we're calling it these days? ;-)

We must allow the gays to marry, that way they can be as miserable as we breeders are. I refuse to hoard all of this resentment and bitterness, not when I could share it with my more fabulous brethren. Pity parties would be way better planned, it’s a total win-win. Why should straight people have all the pain? The gays! I welcome you to the divorce! And the pre-nup! And the boredom!

This topic again!!! Just kidding- not freaking out! ;-)

I think it depends upon how one was raised and what was going on in that area/community/family. It doesn't have to be related to country even, b/c I recently met a gorgeous/successful FOB couple from Bangladesh (my parents' old country) who live together after getting enegaged. I was shocked b/c I had not come across this before, BUT that's my experience.

Yes, you are marrying their family, b/c they will be in your face (or adoring you, depending on how it goes) at typical holidays/vactions/etc. My little sis is now dealing w/ her future mother-in-law (who sounds like a control freak, not unlike my sis- LOL). Seriously, most people have relatives you have to deal with.

Arranged marriage, or even arranged dating, SCARES the hell out of me still. BUT, who knows, one day I may change my mind! (I think it's coming soon, b/c I'm 28!!!)

arranged marriage is good. i am afraid to talk to girls. without arranged marriage i don't think i would be able to get a wife. plus my mom and dad taught me that i should treat girls with respect

Its women son. Well Vimen works too, but if they are looking for a girl, you might want to chill out for a couple of more years. ;-)

Iyengars?

[Insert jati here]. Seriously, the pain will last a couple of weeks. And then they will get back into the business of interfering in your life all over again. :-)

oh my god!!!

i read "dear prudie" religiously!!!!* and when i read today's column, i couldn't help but wonder if it would end up on SM ...

anna, i really you sometimes

*and Margo on Yahoo! who was the prior Prudie, has mini columns on thurs & friday!!!, and is the daugher of ann landers --- not that i'm obsessive about this stuff or anything

And then they will get back into the business of interfering in your life all over again. :-)

Yes and it normally goes something like this..

Mini-Me Boy's parents: [writes] Are you sure you she don't have a little clone in you her?

Foxxy Cleopatra Boy: Yes I'm sure.

Mini-Me Boy's parents: [writes] Would you like to? Well, we would like to.

Well Vimen works too, but if they are looking for a girl, you might want to chill out for a couple of more years.

Amen to that, bro! Amen!

I think the "suckiness" quotient of a relationship is all dependent on the attitudes of the people involved. It has nothing to do with arranged (assisted) or not.

Obviously there are different types of arranged marraiges. What is percieved to be more "traditional" is the type where there's no say in whom you marry, ie. our sad abductee from post 1. That is quite rare indeed. And sure there's the inbreeding/satisfy the community type as well, but from what I've seen that's increasingly rare too. My concept of arranged marriage (as a 1.5 gen) is more akin to a blind date. Those happen in the West all the time. "Hey, I think you'd really get along with my brother/best friend/cousin" is not unlike parents saying, "hey, I know you well and I know a guy whose company I think you'd really enjoy." My father is a therapist, and you'd be alarmed at the number of white folks (to be politically incorrect) who ask him to set them up with the intent of marriage. They feel comfortable talking to him, he knows them well, and it works just like it would back home. Honestly, if I had hit 35 and were single I'd certainly ask him to set me up with someone, and I've been out of the motherland since age 4. Who better than my parents who love me, know me, and want someone who'll take care of me & cherish me?

and 35 yr olds, please don't take offense. That's me saying that I personally would feel lonely, not that that's some cut off age for desperation.

Here's the subtlety I'm trying to make. They are interested in my personal happiness, but subconsciously, they feel I will be happy when I'm serving "large order societal" goals - ie making others happy.

I completely agree with this and I would add that this is not necessarily intentional. Parents believe they really are going to pick the best person for thier child. But the notion that "parents will pick whats best" assumes the parents have a good understanding of who their child's identity. Even as an Indian growing up in the US I know that is very often not true. So, how do the parent's pick their child's mate? They project their notions of identity and necessary qualities on to their child and assume what makes them happy (and what made their own parents happy) will also make their child happy. And, so children are "assisted" into marrying exactly those suiters who fit the mold their parents were raised with themselves and those who maintain the larger social goals.

i think it is important to destroy the dichotomy between arranged & non-arranged marriages. there's a spectrum. e.g., "set ups" have a bit of the arranged aspect, while many "arranged" marriages involve a lot of choice within the sample of possible potential mates selected by parents/relatives. the "western" and "indian" norms lean toward one end of the spectrum, but there is a lot of within group variation and both tendencies are average exhibit admixture.

This is a landmark moment: the first time I've completely agreed with everything razib said. I definitely think the dichotomy is a problem and needs to be broken, while still maintaining some critique of the institutions of marriage and patriarchy overall...

There's no such institution remaining in the West.

Oh but there is if it applies to legality. The piece of paper doesn't bring more love or a guarantee or fidelity or anything for that matter but it certainly guarantees certain benefits that require one to be legally married so I'm not sure I'm ready to throw that institution out yet.

Do you know what the infield fly rule is?

Yes. But tell me first how you feel about the DH. And Dice K...because you know, because that's all anyone talks about anymore.

Nicely done, Hema. As soon as I read HMF's question, the lawyer in me thought: "NEVER ask a question for which you don't know the answer!" Of course, not that your original answer would be any less valid if you had no clue about the infield fly rule or when one might call for a hit-and-run.

My 2 paise....

My in-laws had the classic arranged marriage - Did not see each other till Wedding day etc .50+ years later they are remarkably happy and complement each other so well. My parents had a - gasp! - "love" marriage .40+ years later they are remarkably happy and complement each other so well.

My parents thankfully never believed in arranging/assisting things along. I hope my marriage will be as strong and happy as the examples the in-laws and parents set me.

I have friends (in the US and India) who were madly in love, dated for 7+ years, married and ended up going through ugly divorces.
I have friends ( in the US and India) whose families assisted /arranged their marriages and they are very happy together.

So - though personally I could not fathom going through an "arranged marriage", I am with Prudie here.
Agree totally with # 71

Clueless # 1 : I am sorry things did not work out for you .Whatever you are going through I hope you will find the courage to make a better life for yourself whether within or outside of the marriage.

I think the "suckiness" quotient of a relationship is all dependent on the attitudes of the people involved. It has nothing to do with arranged (assisted) or not.

You're first statement is true, the second statement is partly true. In an assisted/arranged case where pressure was placed externally to make the decision, this can often make the person resentful, and shade the attitude of the person before the relationship ever gets going.

JOAT #76:

My point exactly!

Marriage was a social institution throughout the history of man. Only in the last fifty years or so, it has been converted to a legal institution. And promptly, like everything the Government gets its hands into, the institution has withered drastically.

If you don't want Social Security/Medicare and other related Government handouts from a spousal angle, there's no point in getting married (whether you are straight or gay). Unless, of course, you believe in the Social institution of marriage. In that case, people need to rethink how much of that has survived in the West, and if it's worth the trouble.

M. Nam

Maybe I am a lil bored or have recently watched Chris Rock's HBO special so...

Arranged marriages don't suck.

In that case, people need to rethink how much of that has survived in the West, and if it's worth the trouble.

Personally, I think enough of it has survived that many people still aspire to marriage as a goal for their life, and not just for the benefits that accrue from marriage either. Yes, people get divorced, but the divorce rate in some parts of the US suggests that a lot more people stay married too.

And extrapolating to the West in general, the divorce rate in the UK is considerably lower than in the US. Does that mean then that marriage is more viable as an institution there than it is here?

HMF - I see what you're saying and agree. I think my 2nd statement relied too much on the assumption that everyone can make this decision without external influence. I forgot, prematurely, of the emotional situation some experience when they're confronted with the "did you want to meet so-and-so?". Much like the person who went on vacation and ended up married, I don't know exactly what transpired there, but I'm sure, there was enough influence to help this person make the "right" decision.

Nicely done, Hema. As soon as I read HMF's question, the lawyer in me thought: "NEVER ask a question for which you don't know the answer!" Of course, not that your original answer would be any less valid if you had no clue about the infield fly rule or when one might call for a hit-and-run.

Relax buddy, it was a joke. And anyone can reply "Yes" without a follow up description. But, as I don't really care, I didn't push for a follow up description. But the kind of activities she described, as far as I'm concerned, fall well outside the range of what's classified as "romance"

Intimacy, and having common interests (baseball and ice cream) are indeed things that probably do contribute to lasting long term relationships. One party jumping through hoops (buying chocolate, opening doors, buying roses, etc...) for the other, does not.

Jeez. Yes, anyone can say "yes" without a follow-up, but here's my understanding of your precious infield fly rule.

The infield fly rule is when the bases are loaded, there's two outs (or less). If you have a fair fly ball, the batter is out, as long as the ball was catchable by an infielder, even if it doesn't actually get caught. Or something like that.

So there! ;)

Close, the bases don't have to be loaded, just as long as a runner is on second or third (if there's only a runner on 1st it doesnt matter), and there has to be less than 2 outs, not less than or equal to 2 outs. The rule is meant to take away the easy double play

Allright folks...time for Marriage 101.

Marriage started out as an institution where a boy and a girl requested/were granted permission to fuck. This permission has historically been granted by parents/society in the Indian setup and parents/Church in the western setup. This permission was granted with strings attached: That they would be together for life, and that if they deviated there would be severe physical, economic and social consequences. There was also the stipulation that they would have to largely surrender their individuality for the sake of those who gave them permission and for their children. Those who did not produce children(within a stipulated time) were deemed deviant and had to experience significant amount of pain.

This is how it's been for millennia.

Now tell me, how much of that is relevant today in the West? If you answered "none", then tell me why you want to get married in the first place.

M. Nam

But Hema.. not bad, for a girl..

Marriage started out as an institution where a boy and a girl requested/were granted permission to fuck

Thanks, HMF. I'll take that as the compliment it was so obviously meant to be! ;)

Purush:

love - Alllrighty then...

old-age companionship - there are many old-age homes...paid for by the state

long-term planning: Why bother? The State takes care of you

stable environment for kids: Why have kids? The State takes care of you

propogation of the species: You owe nothing to anyone, least of all to the species.

>>Hope UPenn invites you to teach Evolutionary Psychology next year

I'll reject the invite. Academia is probably the most guilty in destroying the institution of marriage.

M. Nam

Marriage started out as an institution where a boy and a girl requested/were granted permission to fuck.

I'm going to be even more cynical and say that marriage started out as an institution to make paternity (and consequent property inheritance) more certain. Marriage, and the concomitant requirement that a woman be chaste in the marriage essentially ensured that the father of any children was also the husband, and he could then devolve his property on those children without concern.

But over the centuries, marriage has become less about property rights and more about social liaisons. Therefore, it has value in different ways than it once did.

how would you measure "success" in love-matches vs. any variety of arranged marriage?

if it's by longevity, my family's record on both is identical.

any other ideas?

The State...

When I was forced to get married at the age of 20 on my 1st and only ever trip to India, it was my grandparents on both sides and some older aunt and uncles plus relatives I never met before in Punjab who put the pressure on my parents for me to get married. At the time I was as whitewashed or a coconut as one could be, I had little to no understanding of my punjabi culture. Alot of them want off on my parent about forgetting there roots.

As soon I get off the plane for 3 month trip to India, people asked me when I was going to get married. I thought they were joking, but it was the same thing every day. At 1st my parents were against the idea, but after all the criticsm they get as parents for having me as a son, plus my stupid now dead grandmother threatned to disown my dad if I didn't get married my parents caved in.

I saw over a dozen different girls there. One time I met 2 sisters at the same time and asked to pick the one I like. It was weird to see all these people who wanted to me to marry there daughter only cause I had a canadian passport. I kept saying no over and over again. One of the last girls I saw my family chose her to be my wife no matter what I had to say.

If one good thing came out of this other then my beautiful daughter, is that my siblings, younger cousins and the children of my older cousins will not have be put in the same situation that I was put into. They all saw the disaster that was my marriage as example.

This whole "assisted marriage" (across the oceans) thing is only going to work in a situation where the woman is in America and the man in India. For women in India the norm is either an arranged marriage or a love marriage.

Most people scorn at women seen in public with a man they haven't married or are not going to marry. Their reputations are "tarnished" and this is a big reason why girls there wouldn't care for "assisted marriage". She would probably talk to you on the phone for hours but refuse to be seen in public with you unless she's made up her mind and knows you have too.

For men in India the case is a little different. They aren't labeled anything for being seen with a woman.

My point being - The way things are this whole "assisted marriage" thing wouldn't work in India or across the oceans unless its a scenario I mentioned in the first sentence.

If one good thing came out of this other then my beautiful daughter, is that my siblings, younger cousins and the children of my older cousins will not have be put in the same situation that I was put into. They all saw the disaster that was my marriage as example.

I am so sorry.

Muralimannered...I believe there is something referred to as the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, a test for assessing the quality of marriage and other similar two-individual relationships. It's a 32 item scale still under some scrutiny, but has by far the highest validity and reliability factors while relationship research continues. As I'm sure many people here have already seen, there have also been many studies comparing the relative physical and emotional health of married, single, and divorced individuals with varying results (depending on what health hype magazine you find it in....).

Clueless, I am so sorry you had that experience and am glad that you were at least able to prevent it from happening to those you love, while gaining another to be part of your life.

Clueless...
Very sorry for you. Peace.

I think the hardest arrangements are the one's we make with ourselves.

I'm so sorry, Clueless.

Clueless, I am sorry and dejected over your experience. I understand the situation that led up to your marriage completely. 20 is a young age to get married - mature understanding of the world and adult relationships is only beginning to be formed - and to be pressured into a supposedly permanent one is harsher.

There are a number of complexities in this discussion. In India, there are numerous example of each part of the spectrum that Razib mentioned (#13), so it would be incorrect to assert that any one part has now disappeared. People are forced into marriages, given choices from a limited set, offered more freedom to locate from 'outside', simply allowed to choose what they will etc. The added complexity on top of all this is NRD (non-resident desi) aspect of things. Expectations/needs of nubile NRDs are decidedly different from family back home, and often from immediate older family in the west.

I have seen many FOB friends go to India, get married to strangers, bring them over, and as far as I know, live happily ever after. However, in almost all cases, they were provided with a short-list of potential mates within a certain set of their specifications (age range, education level, ambition, goal, physical traits etc.). These candidates were already acceptable to the parents (based on their own criteria - caste, standing, financial state etc.). In addition at least a couple of my friends were able to initiate e-mail only, no-commitment conversations with some of them. Both parties were able to assert some freedom in the whole process, and all this really helped them to shorten the list down to one or two people. From here on, it was mostly a trip home, confirm, and seal the deal :)

I can't claim to have friends from a hugely diverse educational background - most of them had gone to masters degree programs, followed by jobs in the US. So perhaps that accounts for the similarity of experience.

I saw over a dozen different girls there

If anybody cares I have forgiven my parents somewhat. It is other people in my family who used there influence on my parents that I do not care. These are relative despite living in the Canada/USA still think they are living in 1950's Punjab.

When I was shown all these girls, I was left in room by my self with them. I was a 20 year old that could barely speak punjabi and they were young girls who leanred and spoke English in school, but were very shy about speaking it to someone else. There was a lot of akward silence, and some of these girls would keep there head down.

What in the world did I have in common with them to speak about.

One thing - I've noticed this before but Clueless's comments involving Punjabi culture/language reminded me - Punjabi (mostly Sikh) ABDs with older immediate family that's lived in the west for a long time seem to be under extra pressure to get married younger, and specifically to people from desh. I just had an acquaintance get married at 24, to an 18 yr old girl in India. I mean 18 yr old girl !!!! I shudder the thought - I consider myself a kid at that age, and had I gotten married then, I would have surely missed out on some awesome student years, not to mention I probably would have been very ill-equipped to handle a married-person 'role'.

I can't place it as to that is so with this specific desi subgroup. Maybe the older immediate family never *really* assimilated? limited education? what? Any ideas? Is my impression even accurate?

Clueless,
I feel sorry for you and your wife. Must have been very difficult for both of you.

Maybe the older immediate family never *really* assimilated?

I can't speak specifically to the Punjabi subgroup issue, but I've certainly observed similar trends in my own extended family. There are a number of individuals who are stuck in a time/culture warp, where India and Indian society remain exactly as in the 1960s, when they first moved to the West. In contrast, my relatives who have remained in India actually seem more "progressive" in some ways, because they have observed/experienced the changes in Indian cultural mores over the last 40 years pretty much firsthand.

Clueless you were very brave to share your experience with us

HMF, Moornam You've both written some powerful words regarding our beloved (not so beloved) institution.

I think that marriage in relation to the westernized middle-classes serves as a badge, like a college or graduate degree; I am finally 'grown up'. Even the uberhip Carrie Bradshaw dreams about marriage with palpable doubts that only 4" Jimmy Choos can bury (for a few days anyways). When you see all your friends getting married you don't want to be alone. This social pressure may apply more to women but even guys...by the time you hit 29 or so..good luck hanging out with your married pals on a regular basis if you're single. It's not a pretty thought..the idea that social pressures have such an effect on independent ole us.....but the subconscious can be a biatch!

Clueless, powerful and poignant story. 20 is young for a woman to get married, but for a man it's VERY young, given our delayed maturity. I certainly understand a lot more now about some of your earlier comments on SM, and their context.

To add to what Seeker said in #106, caste is a very major issue with these tradition-minded families as well. People MUST get married within their specific caste, period.

Punjabi Sikhs as a specific desi subgroup do have a lot of rural or village origin people in the diaspora...which explains some of the conservatism...but Gujaratis in America who hail from a rural origin in Gujurat also have a lot of very traditional notions, and also favor early marriages, within strict caste requirements (think motel owners in the southern USA). I think it's not a regional thing but a rural thing, which desis from urban, middle-class, English-medium backgrounds won't necessarily understand. I'd be interested in knowing if Sri Lankan Tamils in Canada, who also often have a rural origin in Sri Lanka, are as strict when it comes to their 2nd gen kids' marriages.

Clueless, I feel sorry for you and your wife. Must have been very difficult for both of you.

Absolutely, let's not forget his wife...she was probably under her own intense pressures.

Clueless, one more thing if it's any consolation...at least you have your daughter, and had her at a nice young age...while the rest of us (myself included) delay marriage and kids further and further, because we're all so complicated and so hard to please, until by the time we ever have a kid (which I would say is IF rather than WHEN for many of us) we'll be pushing 40.

quite fitting that clueless scored the first response in this thread.

Given the dual lives that a lot of 1.5 and 2nd gen desi kids live, how accurately can parents pinpoint what is best for their child? Their input data is all wrong because they're missing half of the picture. Arranged marriage is a most fearsome proposition to sons and daughters that have allowed their parents to develop an auntie friendly perception of themselves.

Generally speaking, the better your relationship with your parents, the more likely it is that an arranged marriage could work. Ironically, the better your relationship with your parents is, the less likely they are to try and strip you of choice.

And that's what it all boils down to - choice: whether you would rather choose your own disaster or sink into the comfortable blame-free role of blaming your parents for your misery.

ps. Is it wrong that I obtained my mother's email address password for the purpose of inspecting (and filtering) the biodata she receives?

arranged marriages are typically portrayed as arrangements made with business and social status as the primary considerations. This is really not too far off the mark. What is different about living in the states is that the environment here offers so many competing standards of courtship that, pragmatically, any prospective matchmaker (outside of highly illegal abductions)must understand that we cannot be thrown together like mismatched puzzle pieces as some of our parents were.

It doesn't seem to take terribly long for a recently arrived immigrant to become at least curious about many of the individual rights that Americans now seem to take for granted.

I recently met a very sweet Muslim girl who came (illegally) from India w/ her parents to NYC 4 yrs ago. She is getting married, at the behest of her mom at (age 19) to an older, settled (I assume citizen) guy who owns his own house and takes care of his parents as well. She met him once or twice and thought he was "cute" and "nice to this mother." Her former teacher and counselors told her what to watch out for (to determine his character). They were a little bit apprehensive, but that is in her culture, so didn't say anything against it. I wonder if her illegal status can be changed b/c of marriage!

Generally speaking, the better your relationship with your parents, the more likely it is that an arranged marriage could work. Ironically, the better your relationship with your parents is, the less likely they are to try and strip you of choice.

Excellently put. I'd add, the less likely they are to adopt a "we know whats best for you" attittude, refusing to acknowledge that this decision is not one to take it as lightly as their parents, and their parents parents and their parents parents parents, have.

Clueless I gotta give you your props on sharing this story with up man. I have to ask are you still married to her?

Clueless,

Your story seems made up. Your wording suggests someone who has little comprehension of the English language (and I'm overlooking the tons of spelling mistakes). The sentence formation is similiar to that I've seen by conmen on loan applications. A 20+ year old Canadian will not write like this, despite having an arranged marriage!

You've read a lot about various things happening to people in Punjab. You've added all of them up to create this scenario on a public forum for fun. I'm not even sure you're a man. Your choice of words and adjectives are similiar to those normally used by fob women and teenage girls.

I normally don't get into personal lives and attacks, but had to respond to this since there was an outpouring of sympathy for you on this board. If there's anything I cannot stand, it's undeserved praise, criticsm or sympathy.

In the 1% chance that I'm wrong, I have a question. Having shared all this with us, how come you did not share exactly what went wrong after marriage? What is it about her that put(s) you off?

M. Nam