A column (thanks, Fuerza Dulce) from the women’s magazine Marie-Claire on Anjali Mansukhani’s enthusiasm for arranged marriages (including her own), didn’t really start in what seemed like the best possible way:
By age 26, after attending more than 150 weddings, I was fast approaching my “expiration date.” (link)
“Expiration date” at age 26? That’s pretty young; personally, I think women get “expired” these days at around 27 or 28…
But it gets so much better. Anjali, a Bombayite, meets a guy who seems like Mr. Right — a New York based banker — and moves to his 40th story Manhattan apartment after three dates (and a marriage). Life there is blissfully happy:
While I craved privacy in India, the lack of neighbors and family dropping in left a shocking void every day as I ate breakfast and lunch alone. My husband worked late most evenings, and I sat in front of the TV, unable to call home because it would be 2 a.m. there.
After a few weeks, I learned that I’d married a “jetrosexual.” He had an exhausting travel schedule (four cities in four days). I joined the ranks of corporate wives who saw every show, opera, and ballet in town, just to fill the hours.
To make friends, I joined a gym, went to the library, and took Italian classes. I discovered that having an arranged marriage was a great icebreaker, and my social circle mushroomed each time I retold my story.
Marriage, I soon learned, wasn’t easy — especially to a modern man. My husband had acquired a mistress, and her name was BlackBerry. She had the power to stop discussions midsentence, her red signal lighting up his face in the way I only dreamed of doing. (link)
Such happiness. It really brightens your day.
Off to a great start, no doubt. But Anjali’s new life really takes off when she learns to name-drop consumer goods and lifestyle choices like a professional New Yorker:
As peers in India opted for motherhood and worked on post-baby waistlines, I took Spinning and pole dancing at the gym to work off exotic dinners of sweetbreads, foie gras, chocolate mousse. After reading about America’s obsession with Venti decaf skim mochas, I went to try one — but came back instead with a spiced chai latte. Amazingly, Starbucks was providing my childhood drink on every corner.
I found a job as a financial consultant. The New York Times in one hand, coffee in the other, I realized that my saris of bright pink, violet, and salmon were not exactly subway wear. Quickly, I succumbed to Levi’s and Ralph Lauren.
I started to realize that I just might have the best of both worlds. I marinated my Indian marriage in the flavors of Manhattan. I kept the sari and bought the Jimmy Choos. I made fabulous curries, seasoned with spices from Dean & Deluca. And after months of enjoying decidedly non-Indian experiences of seders, Saks, and sake, I felt confident enough to direct Indian guests to a hotel, occasionally throwing in a MetroCard.
I’m not hating, really I’m not. In fact, I’m thrilled she’s so happy — with those Jimmy Choos that she got from Bloomie’s, drinking Chai Tea Latte at Starbucks (which is just like the Chai in India, isn’t it?), before her pole-dancing class, where she’ll burn off the foie gras from the night before. Arranged marriage can be great that way.




And an untypical, snarky attack on the typical women's mag style writing!
No attacks here. I found it to be a very inspiring story!
Didn't she learn that saris are out of place in New York at her pole dancing classes? ;)
Also, Levi's at a job as financial consultant? Jeans??
What does she mean by this? While sometimes I wish that my parents' friends wouldn't basically use our house as a hotel when they visit New York, I think the hospitality is also nice. It's a statement on 'becoming American,' going from craving company to craving privacy.
Also my parents have a lot of friends who have kids younger than me, who are in upper elementary & middle school now. A couple of weeks ago when I was home, one of the boys, who is in fifth grade, asked me if I was thinking about marriage. (I'm a sophomore in college). I responded along the lines of, 'Uhh, no, I probably won't get married until I'm at least 28...' And he was in shock. I cringe at the shock he's gonna feel when he goes through puberty and realizes that he won't be getting married to anyone since he'll like boys (I can tell with this little one, I just can).
You are hating bro. :)
hah, i'm so glad you posted on this! when i read this article a month ago i both cringed and laughed. while she wrote about her arranged marriage experience in a somewhat funny, fashionable way (i'm sure to appease to the marie claire readers), it annoyed me that she used that as a story to increase her social circle. it's like she tried to make her experience all exotic. And yeah...that name dropping was just the icing on the cake! speaking of arranged marriages, did anyone see that show "the big bang theory" on cbs tonight? the show was all about the indian character on the show hooking up with someone arranged by his parents.
"Had I found my own mate, I'm sure my parents would have come around, but I'd have to live knowing that they wouldn't be truly emotionally invested in the success of the marriage."
wtf?
Well written piece but liberally sprinkled with porkies.
porkies - australian for tall tales.
Just a reminder folks. Not everyone aspires to be a genome splicing ironman double PhD on a book tour juggling between her own show on "O" and a syndicated column in WSJ.
I read it. She was sweet and earnest and human and sans bitterosity. We should all be so fortunate.
Most Americans have sex on the third date. I married my husband after meeting him for the third time. I'm Indian, and having an arranged marriage is something that my ancient culture still thinks is a great idea.
most americans have sex on the third date? i guess stereotyping and exoticizing another culture is OK if that culture is american. and if she married him on the third meeting, well, she too had sex on the third date it seems.
Oh, the unbearable lightness of the desi bourgeoisie: enjoy the pleasures of Saks and Ralph Lauren, but also feel relentlessly oppressed by the janitor with white privilege. The upper-class Indian sense of entitlement, and the joyous excesses of American consumerism. The best of both worlds, indeed.
I think its part of the alien experience, I moved to the US by myself when i was 17 (no distant relative for me here) and i used the exotic angle to as a great conversation point to socialize, 6 years later in retrospect it might have not been the smartest move, but it did help me as as a starting point to make friends and socialize with people here (no tall tales btw, just the amusingly different viewpoints and practices. I used to live in a small hick town in florida.
You should have hated, cause I did. She is saying that "I married a stranger" ... as if she has a choice to marry on her own. I grew up in India and I know more than 85% of marraiges are arranged in India. She married a stranger because most every girl in India does. She is just bragging about how she married (or "bagged") an American born banker.
I'm honestly lost as to how you got this at all from her article. She didn't mention a single thing about 'white privilege.'
And razib - this is marie claire, not exactly scientific writing. she makes broad (& embarrassing to me) generalizations about Indian culture too, IMO.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but my mother married the man she fell in love with (love at first sight as they fought for the perfect bajji at the bajji stand) over twenty-five years ago. And my mother isn't even particularly forward-thinking among her generation.
Well, thank you, Amardeep, for giving me the opportunity to tell SM how much I loved this article.
Who is happier, this girl or my old college roommate, who slept with nine men in a single year? The one who wanted someone who knew how to cook..she had a proper sense western sense of detachment, and wouldn't dream of letting the old get in the way of the new. (Because she knew well the real message each western magazine bludgeons into every female head: that to not be cool about letting go is to be certifiably psychotic, clingy, and you know, a wacked out craaazy chick) So by the time my old roommate found someone she wanted to marry, she was so inured and emotionally damaged that she couldn't get attached to anyone at all, and was divorced within the year? Such a beautiful, charismatic, gorgeous girl but she was troubled like sin. And don't tell me she's an isolated example- I've had over twenty close friends over the course of my university career, and the only ones who weren't in and out of people's beds were the two Indian girls. I've had a chance to hear my friend's most intimate thoughts on the subject, from attempting to be "f-buddies" and hating themselves for getting attached to the trauma of having to live the lie: "the best cure for someone is some other one".
This is a society that assumes that a woman who is a virgin until marriage needs help because she is frigid. A place where being chaste is one of the darkest secrets a person can have- that they somehow don't fit in, or that they're not attractive enough, rather than honouring some sacred part of themselves. It is a place where women constantly have to put themselves on the line physically and emotionally to prove their worth on college campuses, in their social circle, in modern society. If you're not doing it, you have psychological problems or you just ain't hot.
Men and women are different. And the security of an arranged marriage honours that, as well as pays homage to a woman's innocence and vulnerabillity. Both of which are characteristics that I value about myself.
Something about this woman's story makes some people deeply uncomfortable. I can understand it coming from mainstream media, but from you guys? The western myth of "free" love has deeply betrayed women, and it has done it over and over. I'm not the only one who thinks so.
jackie's courtship and marriage to jfk progressed along similar lines
Wow, Jasmine, you just opened up the gates to cultural relativism pissing match.
Isn't Wendy Shalit also the woman who proposes that we should go back to the 1950's, when women wore circle skirts and orgasmed while baking cookies?
This trashy piece of writing by the lady is getting a lot more attention than it deserves. Vapid exoticization mixed with an adventure in self aggrandization is what this piece is.
hey kesh...sorry didn't mean to hate! i guess we all relate differently when come into a new setting. i guess since i couldn't relate, i just felt that it was an easy fall back...like "hey look what i just did!". but i can certainly see how sharing her experience would have helped her open up and make new friends and settle in.
i guess she could've went with naiomi wolf but its a shame to mix a great whisky with coke.
What part of India - urban/rural/north/south, what socio-economic demography, what period as in these days or 5 years back or something?
#13 nala: No, I don't think this particular person will use the phrase "white privilege". It was more about a double standard I have noticed among a certain class of Indians I've had the misfortune of encountering here. In any case, isn't a fashionable diversity meme lurking not too deep beneath the self-exoticization? She is just celebrating the best of both worlds, even though she is a poor lass from a postcolonial land! She is the disempowered, the traditional other, celebrating her culture, loving America AND her native customs! Now only if the Jade Goodys of the world would relent...
jasmine,
this is amerika. people can get arranged marriages if they want. this is also the land of 'true love waits.' we have all sorts. and there aren't two options here, getting nailed by 9 dudes in one year vs. arranged marriage.
And the security of an arranged marriage honours that, as well as pays homage to a woman's innocence and vulnerabillity. Both of which are characteristics that I value about myself.
innocence? look, that crap pisses me off. you know why? i'm tired of listening to relatives talking about what sluts western women are and how honorable arranged marriage with someone you barely know is. think on this: in many arranged marriages a woman who has met a man perhaps two or three times then proceeds to allow him to place his penis inside her vagina. that is, his penis inside her body. i'm being graphic here because let's compare the reality side-by-side here. my mother is religious so she believes that the hocus-pocus of nikah or whatever makes it all OK, but since i don't believe in that stuff i really don't see why this isn't more abhorrent then having sex with someone you've only known a few weeks or months but aren't sure you are going to marry.
that being said, let's remember thta the debate isn't divided into black & white. there are many arranged marriages which integrate elements of choice and many marriages of choice with exhibit elements of arrangement.
Snark, snark. This is actually a rather amusing piece. And she's not alone. Even clueless little non-brown girls like me can dine out on tales of exotic marriage(mine) and quaint this and that and expand one's social circle oh so rapidly with breathlessly amazed "friends." There's nothing like being a walking version of National Geographic to entertain those to the right and left of you (geographically and politically) at dinner. And one doesn't have to be married to a multi-city banker to get to know the mistress - there's the gym, the overtime, the cigarettes, the, the,the... She actually sounds a little lonely. On the other hand, it's a great way to be married and not have to deal with most of the details 24/7.
Should give Marie-Claire readers some fodder to discuss in spinning class- might increase Starbuck's Chai latte sales, too. Wonder if there is any product placement involved here...
“Expiration date” at age 26? That’s pretty young; personally, I think women get “expired” these days at around 27 or 28… "
The new "expiry date" for well educated and career oriented desi women is 31...
er, Manju, which one is the whiskey and which one is the coke?
Also, I know you love to point out the inconsistencies among feminists, but I actually see points in what both Shalit and Wolf say (and other feminists would disagree vehemently with both). A little mystery goes a long way, IMO. I just cringed at Jasmine's insinuation that girls who have premarital sex must be fucked in the head.
oh, i'm saying wolf is a whisky and coke. shalit's straight up...and thus more or less persona non grata in the feminist circles i frequent.
well, if she insinuated that i agree. oral sex is an individual choice and must not be forced on anyone.
Many "liberal" expiration dates are at 27 alright. (many conservative expiration dates are at 24-25. Maaaaybe 26.) Even then, that means, at 27, she's expired, so things to happen *before* it. And, frankly, for these processes, there's not that much time between 26 (or 26.5, 26.75) and 27 -- she mentions a 16-month engagement herself (a year not unusual). At 26, one's definitely approaching the expiration date. IMHO.
Yes, I'm aware I'm just picking a bone.
and which feminist circles, pray tell, are these? (my feminism is my own; very few of my friends take on the moniker)
also,
this was kind of hilarious. damn you manju.
Also I'd wager it's not so much that Wolf is 'diluted' that she is still respected among feminists, but because she doesn't blame feminists for everything.
But getting back to the marie claire article. It seems to me like she wants to convince us of how happy she is with her life while simultaneously playing on the superficiality and could-be-emptiness of her life. I'm sure it'll all be changed by having kids, though.
Anjali's article has "paruppu/peter" (meaning brag/blow one's own horn in Tamil slang) written all over it.
It's good to see women exercise and experience their newly found ...mhhh...freedom, relief and independence (her own words). But Anjali's tone, choice of words show her "peter"ness than anything else. "Look I have a rich husband..I live in Manhattan on 40th floor...look..look". And what's up with the stabs she takes at American culture? probably, she thinks she has figured out what being American is all about.
well nala, try this thread on feministing. i haven't read it but i bet shalit gets wacked harder than camille paglia at a s&m club.
Most people have some form of sex on the second date, if you're >26.
Manju, I think the reason that many feminists are upset with Shalit is because her message really is that girls who wear short skirts and *gasp* have premarital sex are sluts. Note that she focuses solely on the responsibility of the female to keep her legs closed. Wolf expresses a paternalistic concern for young women's sex lives that feministing also ripped into. Possibly not as hard, but that's because Wolf is coming at it from a feminist perspective, not a decidedly 'feminists ruined society!' one. Frankly I get tired of the debates about this crap, because I feel like the media reports of 'today's young women are emotionless sluts!' are overstated, though I can also see what they're getting at just based on what I've seen in my own life.
Also I kind of consider feministing to be the 'pop feminism' version of what you can read at feministe or pandagon.
Really funny post, Amardeep.
:D. Thanks a lot for putting it in perspective, dude. I've had exactly the same thought many times.Anjali's article has "paruppu/peter" (meaning brag/blow one's own horn in Tamil slang) written all over it.
she can snag herself an Ibanker, but she won't be able to buy grace or class ;-)
no, you need american express for that.
innocence? look, that crap pisses me off. you know why? i'm tired of listening to relatives talking about what sluts western women are and how honorable arranged marriage with someone you barely know is.
I have lost count how many times in the last 5 years some swarthy punjabi guy has asked me how many white women I slept with when I was young and before I get married.[ I was born and raised lived in an area that was 99% white before I moved to Vancouver 5 years ago]. I think I'm a OK looking guy, but do these guys think I'm that much of a stud or do they think that all western women are sluts. Since 49% of my friends are what you would call western women I think there is a stupid stereotype.
But I guess it ok for us to stereotype them, but it wrong when they stereotype us.
And one more thing, arranged marriage sucks!
well, if she insinuated that i agree. oral sex is an individual choice and must not be forced on anyone.
Manju @ 27 - ROFL
8 · khoofia said:
We can't all be so fortunate. There aren't enough resources in the world for everybody to "rise" to that level (as if that vapid existence is something to be desired). Yeah, I'm hating.
Manju @ 27, Nala @ 39--y'all keep the laughs rolling and I'll keep up the sanctimony.
What bothered me the most about this article (other than the slut-bashing) was that WTF, this marriage hasn't been tested yet...He goes off to earn money in his jetrosexual way, she plays with his money all day, they come home, eat dinner, have sex, watch TV, then start all over again. What's not to like (other than the incredible emptiness)? No kids, no job stresses, no real mistresses (that we know of), no tamasha from parents...this is about as white-bread of a life as you can get. Makes me wanna puke that this even made it to the press...goddamn exoticism. Damn straight, I'm hating.
15 • Jasmine said:
Thank you, Jasmine, for making a wanker like me look (relatively) less self-righteous! And your theory is that she would not be "troubled" if she'd kept her legs closed. Interesting, but sorry, correlation does not imply causation. Of course she needs help, she's not going to lose her virginity on her own! That's deep. Would you say they come from different planets? You're half-right. It's not her arranged marriage that makes me uncomfortable, it's her shallowness--her attempts to assuage her loneliness with things. She could teach English to grannies in Jackson Heights and be a lot less homesick. She could wear her sari (or jeans) to volunteer at a battered women's shelter and I'd call her a heroine. She could use her Dean & Deluca spices to cook meals for the homeless and I'd nominate her for president.
Sweetbreads? Foie gras? Gross.
That was my favorite part of the article - reverse exotization of the AB(C)D, love it.
Also, I'm surprised no one commented on this yet or maybe they did and the SM intern got to them but she's not exactly a looker in those photos (unless they're just really ridiculously unflattering which would be odd for a woman's magazine). One would think someone of his station in life would acquire more of a stunner. My male cousins are rather average looking (and not even particularly well off) and brought back beautiful wives from India who would have never looked twice at them here.
I also am not fond of this insinuation that Western = sex-freaks = sluts. The only two girls who kept their legs closed were Indian? What does that say about what we consider to be "acceptable" sexual behavior among desi women? Right, I'm sure no desi woman, ABD or DBD, anywhere, has premarital sex. And all those who do become depressed, destroy their marriages, recover with a stint of sex-crazed bedswapping and have their tubes dry up because they just couldn't settle down. This sets up such a false dichotomy where arranged = virginial = virtuous vs. non-arranged = slutty = cracked in the head. It also totally ignores that not all women WANT to get married. I don't understand why all this judgment has to enter the picture (in either direction).
As for the article, what is there to say? It's just a bit vapid, and she sounds lonely in her marriage. It sounds like she's made her own fun.
As for the expiration date, I think it depends on your circle. I've definitely heard the "expiration date" of 26, but I hear it much more among friends who are actively pursuing the arranged marriage option or who feel very strongly about being married to a specific kind of person (be it by ethnicity, religion, etc.). I think the "top end" is moving towards 30 (similar to how it is for women in the U.S. more broadly). Not that I think women have an expiration date or that this argument makes any sense -- it is entirely stupid and makes us sound like all our eggs are waiting to go off (and that our only purpose is to get married and procreate).
I guess I am going to expose my utter lack of hipness (and the extent to which my mind dwells in the gutter) when I ask this, but in this quote:
is "pole dancing" the "dance" that strippers dance ? If so, how come I haven't seen this at a gym in my neighbourhood ? Anyone care to enlighten ?
Somewhat more seriously: I think I recognise what Anjali Tansukhani was up to when she wrote that ". . .having an arranged marriage was a great icebreaker." I still recall the number of rapt listeners I would get when recounting the various Benadryl-scented, babyshit-stained, trans-Atlantic journeys I had experienced in close proximity to desh-bound desi babies who were being taken, at age 2-3 months, to be shown to their grandparents. While a part of me liked to believe that my audience was drawn to the raconteur in me, I knew that many people must've just been thinking, "Damn, these Indians are weird."
That says something about him - either a true emotional connection between them (which would be aw shucks lovely), or he's got a girl (or guy) on the side... ;)
It's about time!
I've been the victim of all these conversations with non desi yogi women over the past 5 years where clearly after 5 minutes of their sleep inducing diatribes on the positive health benefits of 'clean' living from their 2 week trips around India in air-conditioned buses wearing indigenous brightly colored clothing, the lights go out in their eyes with the realization, he's just a regular Indian guy, not my guru does take a toll of a brown man's ego.
“Expiration date” at age 26? That’s pretty young; personally, I think women get “expired” these days at around 27 or 28… "
The new "expiry date" for well educated and career oriented desi women is 31...
Folks, just to be clear -- that part of my post was meant to be a joke. I found the idea of an "expiration date" at age 26 so laughable that I didn't think anyone would start to seriously debate it.
I guess, specially when no one is stuffing money down wherever for doing that..
I hate this phrase: "I marinated my Indian marriage in the flavors of Manhattan."
I admire a woman who is proud of her arranged marriage, but I can't stand her writing style. Its like she's taken something and watered it down and chick-litted it up. Yesterday, my parents celebrated their 30th wedding anniversary; which means 30 years ago my mother walked around a fire 7 times with a man she'd met only 12 days earlier. To be honest, I still don't get it. I admire my mother's commitment to her marriage. Do I think I could do the same thing? Honestly, no.
But there in lies the question... don't you feel that the concept of "arranged marriage" has changed pretty dramatically over the past 100 years? My Nani didn't even know who she was marrying until they took the cloth down during her marriage ceremony. My mother had the "privilege" of turning down a suitor before settling on my father. She met him 4 times over 12 days and they got married. My cousin married a wonderful guy that she had been introduced to and dated for a couple months before deciding that he was "the one."
So what truly qualifies as an arranged marriage these days? Obviously Anjali's marriage is one, but what else?
Read the article, sounds silly, contrived and vapid, not unlike the blog posts of the eM on the Compulsive Confessor,who was covered here a few weeks ago, but even more dull and boring.
What is so path breaking or interesting about buying into consumer culture, marrying some random guy, and living in NYC?
Agree with Nala about not all marriages in India being arranged, my parents met in college, fell in love and got married and this was more than
30 years ago and a good number of their friends had so called "love marriages" as well. So while not the norm, marrying someone you liked and had met on your own, was not all that uncommon even 30 years ago..
innocence? look, that crap pisses me off. you know why? i'm tired of listening to relatives talking about what sluts western women are and how honorable arranged marriage with someone you barely know is.
Besides, haven't any of you seen Monsoon wedding? I mean Jeez.
brought back beautiful wives from India who would have never looked twice at them here.
I thought looks weren't supposed to matter.
I admire a woman who is proud of her arranged marriage,
I don't. I see someone who's trying to rationalize it by all the money she can wipe her ass with.
HMF, let me clarify...
I admire a woman who is proud of her marriage. If it was arranged and it works for her... then I don't have a problem with it. Would I get an arranged marriage... nope. but it works for some people and I'm not going to knock them for it.
That's fine, but I don't see it as genuine pride.
I skimmed the article, but I didn't get a sense of what part of India she says she is from.
What I don't get:
1.) How could she have a PDA and still claim her only knowledge of sex was that it was a sin?
2.) Even the lady that used to come to wash my grandparents dishes had a washing machine at home. That was in the pind. This chick is totally acting like a wannabe Pindu.
Women in India are way more modern and competent than this woman gives them credit for. She has tried to expound the values of arranged marriage and tradition, but it says marginalized the woman who are independent(financially and otherwise) and living their lives happily in India. Not to mention how much pre-martial sex everyone is having up in that piece!
Meenaskhi,
I think she's from Bombay, or at least the meeting occurred in Bombay. From the article:
"Sporting funky eyeglasses and a sharp blazer in Mumbai's 100-degree heat, he spoke with an American accent that I found knee-knockingly sexy."
If she is from Bombay, she is straight up lying. Those things PERHAPS could have been believable if she had lived on the outskirts of Moga, Punjab or something. But Bombay? There is a reason this article is on msn.com.
I'd love to hear her husband's perspective "How I Married a Dominatrix from Mumbai-and she can't even cook pav bhaji!" In the next issue of Maxim magazine!
Women in India are way more modern and competent than this woman gives them credit for.
I sense this too. Most of the women I speak to living in India (in age range of 20-23) want absolutely nothing to do with arranged marriages, but know they have no chioce but to succumb. Attending 150 marriages by age 26!?!? If all goes as planned I won't have to attend that many weddings as long as I live.
Not to mention how much pre-martial sex everyone is having up in that piece!
Just play it safe, and assume every woman you meet (DBD or ABD or IBD or CBD or whatever) has been ridden more than the Saddle Ranch Bull.
Does anyone else think this guy is getting it on with some American lady and married the average looking DBD so that he can have a stable marriage for his corporate image? The way she describes his lifestyle, he seems like a guy who is a go getter and it is just not in the corporate world.
I don't care for arranged marriages, but the Namesake did a better job showing us the good side of arranged marriges with the older couple than I read in this account. All we see is some lady who feels lucky to have married some good looking rich guy where she can live a nice comfortable life in the US.
I disagree with the lady that arranged marriages somehow have better in-law harmony. I doubt it. I have seen no correlation in real life.
All I know is that Indian girls are *VERY* materialistic/classConscious. Moreso, in a way, than other ethnic-groups! What's the first question that Indian girls ask? "What do you do?" and not "What do you think about...?". White girls, OTOH, don't start with the $$$ questions.
What could explain Madhuri Dixit, who was literally worshipped in India (there were Madhuri Dixit temples in India), to marrying a cardiologist in LA? She was a Goddess in India to a nobody in USA?
If you get on these social networking sites, I see some *HOT* Indian girls, and they're going to marry some not-so-attractive Indian guys without much of a personality (i.e. no hobbies, no views, spoiled).
All I know is that Indian girls are *VERY* materialistic/classConscious.
While I don't dispute this in the least, many of them are just trained to think and act this way, by their own mothers and fathers none-the-less.
doesnt everyone have hobbies and views?
thats depressing. that assumption would fit well with my assumption that im completely alone in the world.
svr said:
Sadly I fear many Indian men feel the way you do..which is an incredible shame. Many respectable, intelligent, virtuous women in their early thirties have tried hard to find someone to settle down with in the U.S. but to now avail. It's sad to think that despite our best efforts (going online, meeting people through friends, going to Indian conventions), many of us come up empty, and the world judges us for it.How about this story for the next issue of Marie Claire? Young woman from India marries an American-based Indian who owns a donut shop. The work side by side, hours are long, and the work is less than ideal. No time for shopping at Barney's or heading to the gym, but they somehow manage to run a business and raise a family, go to temple occasionally, and live an American dream that is no less real than the crass one described in the article.
Nah - it won't sell.
why spill bile yaar. make love not hate.
The work side by side, hours are long, and the work is less than ideal.
Nah - it won't sell.
Of course it would sell! In the fantasy novel section. "Lords of the (donut) Ring."
Just wanted to add that her marriage doesn't sound very happy to me. She seems to find solace in the material things around her, but the real thing that makes marriages click--quality time with her new husband--seem to be lacking. How long can that go on?
I do think Anjali both perpetuates a stereotype about Indian women (sheltered, recluse, bound to tradition), particularly when she uses phrases like "proud of my ancient culture" or whatever nonsense it is. I have cousins from much less metropolitan places than Mumbai who are more cosmopolitan in their views than how she presents herself.
I feel like many arranged marriages are moving towards the "yenta model." It's matchmaking but with longer "tester" periods of time, but the community/family pressure is still there (although you can turn someone down).It's matchmaking but with longer "tester" periods of time, but the community/family pressure is still there (although you can turn someone down).
But Camille, don't you think the "tester" periods of time are just for show and severly limited (to maybe a single conversation), and the "turning someone down" is usually met with a caustic attitude of "you can't be so picky" especially for the womenfolk, I'm guessing, correct?
The perpetrators of this system need to have the truth told directly to their face, on this systems inherent flaw. A first step is for the actual victims of it, to stop defending it! As the author here already has.
i wouldnt mind an arranged marriage....i dont know why people have such a negative attitude towards it...people seem to be assuming a lot.
I should qualify my observations are limited to urban middle class Indians (in India and the DBDs here). I have seen a lot of my friends have what would be purely love marriages - with and without parents initial consents, across castes religion etc. Of those who are going what can be called the arranged marriage route, most have known their spouses for at least 6 months if not a year before tying the knot. Which means a lot of dates and countless hours on the phone but with the knowledge of the parents and probably no pre marital sex. I also know of plenty of people who have called the marriage off before the date despite being engaged. Getting out of it after 3 dates is no biggie at all. Does this apply to everyone, not really but as women are getting educated and self sufficient, this trend is increasing. Thus arranged marriages among such people just means that they were introduced with the intent of marriage on their minds.
A non-desi friend of mine sent me this article, and said that, after reading it, it helped him better understand what arranged marriages were like. I thought, "Oh *man* - now I have to read this." I share the sentiment with a commenter from above: if it worked for this girl, and she's happy with it, then that's fine, but I don't think it's for me. Even if I weren't pucca in love before I got married, there needs to be something to build the relationship off of - not just me getting wet hearing his accent like the author of the article. I see my own parents as a great example of an arranged marriage that worked out well. They met a few times, barely knew each other, got married and tried building a life together in a new country. Now they have this (sometimes super icky) adorable relationship - they're each other's best friends and are totally in love. My father in his early 50's talks to his wife on the phone as if he's talking to his girlfriend. It doesn't seem like the article's author has much to offer in terms of experiences she's sharing with her husband. She married a baller and now can buy Jimmy Choos to keep her company while he's off doing his own thing (which he's been doing for a while before he married her). She's acclimated to life in the US and to being in an arranged marriage, but hasn't shared how her Amreekan-Desi husband has "marinated" his arranged marriage into his own Amreekee life. It seems like it's business as usual for him (except now he's married and has someone at home to regularly have sex with) and she's just kind of there, but trying to make herself feel better about it.
I also agree that if she was living in Mumbai there is no way she couldn't have known *anything* about sexual relations. It is possible that she could have thought it was sinful having grown up going to Catholic schools, and very possible that she was a virgin when she got married, but they get HBO everywhere now, dangit. Come on.
I can never understand females and this article proves it so - you want to have sex before marriage then go for it, you don't want arranged marriage then go find love, you don't want to get on the wrong side of you family coz of love marriage then don't fall in love, you want to do what you want to do then do it why bother about family and great traditions. Its all so simple and these females always complicate such simple issues as sex and marriage. Maybe if you bring in family and career then things can become complicated ?
i wouldnt mind an arranged marriage....
I'd rather have an arrainged one night stands. why can't the aunties and uncles swing that.
Which means a lot of dates and countless hours on the phone but with the knowledge of the parents and probably no pre marital sex.
Wait a minute, if there's dating and possibility of premarital sex, then it's about as unarranged as it could possibly be. Arrainged just doesn't mean the parents "set you up and let you go."
Does she actually say this? I guess I missed that part, when I skimmed through the article. I grew up in Bombay in the late 80's, early nineties, we were not as innocent and simple as she proclaims to be regarding matters sexual, and no we didn't need HBO to enlighten us either.
some of my friends did that. meet a bunch of grls throught he aunti ji network. talk to them. they ask the aunti i's if they can talk alone for a bit. go off, and sh@g in a car. come back, and say "they dont think it will work out". shy repressed indian boys suddenly oversexed through the auntie ji network.
Parents are still quite a bit more involved than if you were purely dating and getting out of it still means dealing with families. Also, you don't get involved unless you are in the marriage mindset. Thus practicalities are dealt with early on. Shortlisting based on criteria that the parents care about is also done early on and usually by parents. It's not the traditional arranged marriage the wy you think of it but it's also not exactly dating as in the US.
I find the ultimate irony in her (new?) last name: Mansukhani -- peace of mind.
Peace of mind, indeed!
It might just be my immediate circle that exists in India, but if there's any instance of the male & female actually leaving the house and going out without parental supervision, then it's definitely outside the realm of "arranged."
Sure, it might not be dating in a traditional western sense, but it's usually not what the parents had in mind.
No worries Payal.... i know you didn't mean to hate, everyone has a right to their opinion ;-)
I am sure arranged marriages have been evolving in India, especially in urban settings. Some ten years ago, three young people (two women and one man) I know, then in their twenties, made their own choices, all of which involved some sort of departure from the orthodox norm, and then voluntarily sought the approval of their parents, which was given freely in two instances and with some reluctance in the third. All three marriages have lasted, and are happy marriages.
KXB, thanks for highlighting the class aspect of the story. But then there will also be the second generation, won't there. He will go to Penn Wharton and Yale Law, get himself both an MBA and a JD, make partner at 30, then get himself a wife who will have plenty of time for Barney's, pole dancing and the gym. There's a bit of the "ABD marries DBD" in the story too. (BTW, is your America-based donut-shop owner ABD or DBD? :))
No, but maybe someone like Robbie Clipper Sethi could turn it into a short story, for, oh, say, the Atlantic Monthly? :)
Whenever topics of arranged marriage come up, people always comment on what they must be like for the bride. What about the groom? I know of a few men who have suffered greatly in arranged marriages with women they never grew to love but stayed with because of a sense of duty and pressure from family, society, etc.
I liked the article for what it was; a light-hearted, comic view of her personal experience. And I get the feeling from the article that her and her husband do share "chemistry", a bond and a great fondness for one another. I didn't get the "lonely" vibe from it at all.
I found myself even feeling a tad jealous.
Being that most people in India are not living modern cosmopolitan lives, most marriages are arranged there, even in Mumbai. Love marriages are still a minority.
thats cause dudes arent supposed to complain. they are supposed to work in high paying soul less jobs. pretend to like these jobs so they are interesting for the grl, and basicaly be an atm.
and basicaly be an atm.
at least atms let you keep $20 in the bank.
How can modern woman or man is unable to find suitable spouse? They must lack something to judge people around them. Thanks to relatives - they able to get a spouse. BTW how does it work for other things, such as friends, dress choice, food, and cleaners etc. I guess their parents play a great role to choose their friends for them too ;).
I married for love after long courtship. My other cousins and siblings have arranged marriages. Some are happy and some are miserable. For me I can't let anybody to make the most important decision of my life, IF it had to be a mistake at least it is mine. But I’m deliriously happy and last I check my hubby too have no qualms about it.
I hated this article and loved Amardeep's take on it. NB: I only read through the first dozen comments because I'm being destroyed by work, but after skimming what I could during my seven-minute lunch break, I had to comment. Is it hating? I don't think so, but whatever. She sounded like a pneumatic fool-- and her approval of Starsucks Chai Tea Crappe proves it.
I cant stand "Pole Dancing" as a work out!! It is a typical "time to celebrate women hood" activity.
"HE HE HE, see how sexy and cute I am by dancing on this pole? HE HE HE HE, look at my hello kitty gym bag, HE HE HE"
Yea this article is bull shi#! Jeans to work as a financial consultant, Chia at Starbucks tasting like normal Indian Chia, this women on a stripper pole, it seems like a episode of "Sex and the City".
"Mr. Big had become the most feared type of sexual, a jetrosexual"
Yes, I did once rent a season of "Sex and the City" on DVD.
She sounded like a pneumatic fool--
A pneumatic fool whose path many other women will no doubt foolishly follow, unfortunately.
hey....at least shes honest as to what she wants in life. "I want a tall rich guy to buy me things". a lot of grls will want this, but will loudly talk about other things...i admire honesty about vapidity (as opposed to being vapid and talking deep to feel better about oneself)
I see some here are offended at the thought of an Indian woman pole dancing.
What exactly is wrong with celebrating womanhood or female sexuality and toning up at the same time?
Maybe y'all are just jealous that your wives/gfs don't have a new dance to show you come evening? (or you don't have a new dance to show your man?)
Sour grapes.
I think a few of you are just jealous that this woman seems HAPPY and content with her life and her mate.
With all the complaints that she shallow or whatever, what are any of US doing that is so damn deep and meaningful???
my english is not very happy with me nowadays so I thought I will look up the dictionary
according to dictionary pneumatic means
inflated air ( i.e. Ms Mansukhani has a lot of ego ),
of or relating to the spritual ( i.e. Ms Mansukhani is religious )
having a well-proportioned feminine figure ( i.e. Ms is in good shape )
hey....at least shes honest as to what she wants in life. "I want a tall rich guy to buy me things".
I dunno, part of me thinks it was more of a self-resolution. "I'm gonna have to be with a guy, he might as well be tall and rich and buy me things."
But yes, I do appreciate honesty. As long as she's got no problem if the husband wants her on call 24/7 for p&ssy payments, she can be as empty and honest about it as she wants.
what are any of US doing that is so damn deep and meaningful???
I just bought an iPhone.
She's a working woman, people, she's paying for her own stuff.
Wow. A woman can't express likeing her life and the things in it without being criticised for being a materialistic gold-digger. And she's digging her own gold at that!
Oh right, I forgot, bit*hez don't want boys, they just want their cars and money! Except for the white ones, they'll give it up to anyone.
(Note: I'm being sarcastic here)
So I read this article a few weeks and ago and was thoroughly annoyed by it. My few major bones of contention:
1) She is from Bombay but new nothing at all about sex. I find this very hard to believe considering the number of young people engaging in pre-marital sex in large cities in India. Also, even people in smaller cities have an idea of sex and what it entails. I mean it's constantly simulated in Bollywood films.
2) She is from Bombay but first wore only saris in America and then switched to Levis. Again, WTF? In India, only women of my mom's generation wear only saris. Unless you are in a small village, pretty much teenagers and young women all over India are wearing western clothes.
3) She likes the chai tea latte at Starbucks. That thing is so nasty and overly spiced with cinnamon, I don't even know how she can drink them, let alone compare them to real chai. Blech!
Jasmine: People like you are the reason for my handle. The idea that Indian women must always be chaste and good. The idea that Indian women who engage in premarital sex are "troubled as sin."
I'm not a "Bad" Indian woman by any means. I just hate the double standard and moral code constantly applied to Indian women.
The only moral code I need to follow is my own.
However, taken out of context of the extended family, arranged marriages become ridiculous. To build the only significant relationship of your life with someone you barely know is the emotional equivalent of Russian roulette. I personally think it is cruel to unplug someone from their life back home and plonk them in the middle of Manhattan, but I won't judge it too harshly as it is a decision between two consenting adults. Its as they say about May and December marriages: December gets the summer and May gets Father Christmas ;).
Really, when it comes down to it, this article is to Indian social commentary what Deepak Chopra is to Indian philosophy/spirituality: Nicely packaged and panderable to western audiences.
BadIndianGirl,
To extend on your analysis, she is from Bombay and home deliveries in blizzards are a revelation from her, if you know Bombay you know that anything from Booze, McDonalds, groceries from our neighborhood store, to a plate of rice are all home delivered in India, you can even make withdrawals from your bank account and if the money is more than a certain sum, the bank will send a person home.
On the topic of arranged marriages, I guess to each its own, there are people of my generation who are in very successful arranged marriages and people of my parents’ generation who have miserable marriages, I don’t think I am anyone to judge.
For me personally this article like any other articles about India could have done with some fact checking, a lot of what the person is saying is pulled out of air and is not necessarily the truth.
P.S. Her husband per the article is not ABD but born in India and working in New York.
hmmm, what to think of that article? well, im glad her arranged marriage worked out--i mean she got the rich, american desi that she always wanted. now she can buy jimmy choos and show him what she learned at pole dancing class. i cant help but be a bit sarcastic and bitter. so many indians find mates by looking at what they're job is. i personally think thats horrible--what happened to personality and common beliefs? but then again, i guess all the shallow people find each other...
Arranged marriages work quite well in the traditional extended (or joint) family setup in India.
Sakshi, I despise AM's more than I do UT's, but I actually do agree with your post. I've always felt the purpose of marriage in Indian contexts was never to benefit the individual, or even the couple. My issue isn't so much with arranged marriage, rather the society & attitudes prevalent make these arranged marriages viable. If the issue is to keep the extended family structure "going" essentially, then it make sense for the individual parties getting married to have little contribution to that decision. The problem is when you get someone who's raised in this BS system who actually keeps it real, it makes for much difficulty. The matrix needs to be undone.
i feel SO uncool. i dont even know what a "Jimmy Choo" is. im going to get eaten alive when i marry some abd greenwich princess....
Oh I know, it's so great. The best is when you get up in the morning and there is fresh coconut water ready for you that was from extracted from a cocount on your flat doorstep earlier that morning!
The article is terribly written and there is a fair bit of exaggeration, but it is what you expect from this sort of magazine.
I sense a certain degree of jealousy and / or resentment because she is living the stereotypically yuppy Manhattan life. Good for her, I say.
it isnt coconut water dear, it is a drive-by blessing from the go-mataji. i hope you didnt find it too acrid.
Actually, I expect a hell of a bit more and if I didn't, I wouldn't subscribe to MC.
I have no problems with stripper poles, $500 shoes or anything else-- the whole, "Omg you guise are like soooo jealous of her!11one!" retort is tired. We can call bullshit on someone (because as rightly pointed out above, my cousins in India are far more likely to wear jeans than I am and gasp! They are having the sex!) when they spout nonsense like this. More power to you beauties in your Jimmy Choos, just don't put forth palaver which then clutters one of my fave magazines. The reason why people are irritated isn't because they are bitter, it's because she doesn't make sense.
81 · HMF said:
I'd rather have an arrainged one night stands. why can't the aunties and uncles swing that.
What you're looking for is an arranged shag.
111 · Hari said:
That stereotypical yuppie Manhattan lifestyle is destroying the planet and is built on oppression. How much of the $5 she spends on her chai latte is going to the person who picked the tea leaves that went in there? (Do they even put tea in "chai?") How much is going to some jackass iBanker who does the accounting that allows Starbucks to weasel out of just compensation?
yikes...why all the hate towards bankers...
Harbeer,
Why hate on the Ibankers, I am sure a lot of them are making an honest living like anyone else.
Agreed. Usually, they have much more thought provoking and well written articles.
Really? So I was imagining the guy coming to the door and the coconuts and everything? Wow - those anti-malarials really do screw with your brain.Sorry, no hate on individual bankers, it's the system I have a problem with. And I would have much less of a problem with the system if it didn't front all egalitarian-like.
I got nothin' but looove for ya, baby. ;)
BadIndiangirl, I'm going to respond gently because I don't think you really understand me at all. I'm not pushing the good girl, as she is also a narrow, limited facismile of nuanced self. But the Bad Girl archetype is a myth. Have you ever read the Bad Girl guides? In one of them, girls are given directions to travel across America, having free sex with anyone who catches their fancy. The Bad Girl is free, and she uses sex as liberation- its a source of validation, and choosing who to have it with indicates her power. The only catch is that a girl can't decide not to play and be a self respecting, enfranchised bad girl. She can't NOT have sex and still be the idealized portrait that is depicted in western media- free, making all her own choices, rebellious. If a casual hookup in the smorgasbord doesn't work out, the Bad Girl guides emphasize moving on, finding someone else, someone better. The bad girl is just as limited as the good girl: she can't ultimately say no. If she doesn't want to be sexual, or "bad", she has no power in our modern symbolic freight; she is depicted as immature, unformed, and voiceless.
The virgin in the west is stigmatised, marginalised, and even pathologized. In virtually every popular culture representation, to be a virgin is to be uncool, unwanted, and a bit of a freak. In one woman's health class that I took at school, all of the women reminesced about the first time they went to get their birth control prescriptions and described it as a "rite of passage". The implication was that if you didn't have this experience at college, you didn't grow up.
The pressure to be sexual on campus is intense- I remember pretending to be more experienced than I was to be accepted. It was no surprise to me when I watched the All-American rejects video and saw people holding up post-its of their deepest, darkest secrets. One of them was, you guessed it: I am a virgin. Even parents play a role, bragging about their daughter's boyfriends or wondering if they are maladjusted because they don't yet have one.
And the reason I've come to this position is that sex is a bonding mechanism for women, and less so than for men. All kinds of hormones are generated during the sex act that attach you to your partner, and it takes a powerful toll on women to have sex and find that they have to ignore all of their instincts and act cool, savvy and careful. If they become hysterical over a single romance, and can't successfully move on, they are villified as crazy. And those woman that ultimately master themselves and learn to become detached have lost something precious about themselves- when they finally do settle, they have become jaded and less able to give all of themselves meaningfully. One of my friends once said to me- its true, you know, that with every guy you're with you have a little less to give the next one. At least four of five of my friends went the f-buddy or friends withe benefits route in college, and I recall many tearful late night conversations when they showed up at my door and agonized over why they suddenly cared so much for this guy who clearly had no real investment in their lives, and who they would never have picked out for such a role. All of them concluded in the end that they just couldn't do it the right way; they didn't know why; they had tried and tried, but something must be wrong with them. On the whole, women are built for longterm relationships; men are wired to be able spread their seed as successfully as possible. This is not to say that women should be chastised for leaving relationships that are harmful or dangerous or vastly unsupportive. But they owe it to themselves to think more carefully about the choices that they make. And men need to respect women's independence instead of slandering them with epithets like "cocktease" or as having a "golden vagina".
If a woman genuinely wants to get married in western society- which a number of my friends did- they often find themselves trapped in relationships where they are auditioning for the part- playing the role with all of the emotional liability but none of the commitment. I felt for them- after a few years of sex and cohabitation, they were often on their own again, looking for love but even more rudderless and let down than before.
In no way do I want to disparage western women as sluts. I have had very few Indian friends in my life, and they have been limited relationships. My give-the-shirt-off-their-back, down to the ground favourite girlfriends have always been white. They simply do what their society has mandated for them, and sometimes it works; often it doesn't. Now that we are out of our early twenties and they've lived the lie, many of them are among the first to tell me that they envy the choice that Indian culture affords me.
Puli, Jimmy Choo is a shoe designer. So owning "Jimmy Choos" is like owning a pair of Manolos (Blahnik) -- it's just a high end, $$$ designer shoe.
That's life. Someday, the revolution may come, and there may be rivers of banker's blood
flowing down Park Avenue. Until then, may the bottles of Lafite Rothschild flow in the wine cellars of Tribeca and Mayfair.
Jasmine ... I think the technical term for what you are arguing is "false dichotomy."
I heard a great quote yesterday. Well, a couple of great quotes, but they're both quotes within a quote. Utah Phillips tells a story about Studs Terkel interviewing Kid Pharaoh--a safecracker from Chicago. Studs is surprised to find that Kid Pharaoh has a political philosophy. Kid Pharoah says:
and then Utah Phillips goes on to quote his mother who said:
Sorry for going off-topic, but there was that recent post about philanthropy. And this conspicuous consumption--completely blind to the oppression which makes it possible and to its effects on the physical, mental, and emotional environment--is destroying the planet. The yuppies in Manhattan might have the capital to deal with the fallout of their solipsistic disregard, but the average poor person in Bangladesh will not. Furthermore, according to a recent NYT article, you can't buy happiness.
Which "India" are you guys talking about where most females even in small towns and villages wear western clothes?
In Mumbai I saw most young women wearing Western clothes. In all other major cities the majority wore Indian clothes, and in the small towns and villages it is rare to see a woman wearing western clothes. As far as most young people having pre-marital sex, in Mumbai and parts of New Delhi I can picture that. Everywhere else there is no real dating culture, even in Kolkata, which is a city of paradox - extreme conservatism alongside a sort of bohemian artistic living sense.
Even if alot of small town and village belles are getting their sexual groove on before marriage, the general ethos of the culture does not allow them to openly have boyfriends. Everything is done in secret with great intrigue and quite a bit of shame. Been there, done that. And it does add a heightened sense of excitement and adventure to the whole thing in comparison to the open and accepted relationships I've had sense.
JAsmine - I have a lot to say to reply to your post, but not much time to say it in. I'll put together a real response when things slow down a bit..
uae intern are you a reincarnation of pardesi gori? Has someone already established that?
It's possible to grow up in Mumbai and still not know very much at all about sex, depending on what type of family and environment you grow up in.
Perhaps her family was ultra conservative or religious and such topics were hush hush? Perhaps she did not watch HBO? It is believable because I know people like that in Mumbai.
Jasmine, my question for you is if women should be accomodated for their evolutionary disposition (wiring) towards long term relationships, then do you also feel men should be accomodated for their disposition toward spreading their seed? How would that play out in a culture that seems to be accomodating women via marriage to one man her whole life? What then becomes of the man who is married to just one woman his whole life? Does he undergo some sort of physical or mental trauma due to this unfair set-up? Or would you suggest polygyny or having affairs?
don't bother answering, I am almost certian uae intern in PG.
I know pole dancing requires strong core muscles, but the whole idea that there is a workout based on something guys wack off too is too funky for me.
I dont know of a single workout for men based on having fun, yet women need the workout to be the time of their lives. There is no "Yoga booty ballet" for men and that makes me mad damn it!!
All I can say is, it must have been a slow news day, Amardeep. We're back to arranged marriage threads again? Yuck.
Everyone, together now. Please chant the following:
"Arranged marriages suck! No, they rock. Wait, they suck and rock. They work really well! Or not. But not like America, where they love sex too much. Or not enough. Wait, they fetishize virgins in India. No, they're neurotic about sex in America. Women are hated. Men are oppressors. Western women are not sluts, unless I feel like it. Indian women are frequently sluts, especially when they choose to sleep with people other than me."
While arguing, please take this Hefty bag, fill it with lawn clippings, draw a face on it, and go out back and beat the bejeezus out of it.
Shallowthinker,
There is actually a right hand or left depending on the individual for men :)
Salil M: LMAO!
Sometimes, it's less about "a slow news day" and more to do with a lack of time to devote to more "serious" news. The opportunity to write about something light-hearted is also appealing; the fact that many here, even if some don't, appreciate or enjoy such threads isn't trivial, either. To each, their own bloggy diversion. Anyway, being able to choose topics is one of the few perks of the bunker. Or so I hear.
Salil,
Bravo. you were surprisingly even-handed in your caricature. Not one-sided at all.
Belly dance or middle eastern dance classes have been offered in gyms for a long time now. They are also something that men whack off on while watching, I guess. However, these days some men are joining those classes too, so there's nothing to prevent men from having fun while working out anymore. Belly dancing is a hard work out.
Marriages are arranged the world over, and the closer you are to nature and to a "tribe" or "clan" or "community", the better they seem to work (for the community at least, than compared to a choose your own mate and live seperately scenario).
The fact that people mature sexually faster than they graduate and get a job means that there will be more premarital sex everywhere in modern societies compared to societies where youths marry very young because they are not required to go for extended education and struggle to find a high paying job.
However, I don't think it's a bad idea for a society to encourage the early marriage of college students to each other, you can share an apartment or dorm room with your spouse just as you would a roommate, go through college with them, look for jobs together, etc, and have your sexual needs met in a "moral" (or at least less complicated) way that would ideally spare you the heartbreak and drama that gets old really fast in the dating and sleeping around cycle.
Some people actually do this even in America, some Christian Universities encourage that and I think it's an idea that makes sense emotionally and physically.
It's possible to grow up in Mumbai and still not know very much at all about sex, depending on what type of family and environment you grow up in.
Perhaps her family was ultra conservative or religious and such topics were hush hush? Perhaps she did not watch HBO? It is believable because I know people like that in Mumbai.
You dont learn about sex by talking about it or watching HBO. The only way to learn about sex is to actually engage in it.
Jasmine @ 120
I will ruminate over your piece for about 6 hrs and then get back to you on your analysis of the issue. Right now I am not ding a good job of multi-tasking.
HMF:
Thanks! You were surprisingly evenhanded in your praise for my comments! Not condescending at all!
Not sure what condescending praise would sound like, but I guess if anyone's capable of producing it, it'd be me, right?
The reason this was probably brought up was because she mentions receiving a crash course about sex. Stuff that she would have learnt in a crash course should have been known to her anyways.
I am a jumbojetrosexual in the husband department, if you know what I mean.
Is that Sindhi for sex?
It must feel so fulfilling for Anjali to work her way up from a wealthy family in Bombay to a wealthy I-banker in New York, purely by virtue of the location and sex she chose for herself at birth.
Oral and anal sex is something that alot of people still can't comprehend, so maybe she was talking about things like that, more than just the basic "Bibi idar aou, ek do teen, bas, sojaou".
And you can learn and know alot about sex without having it, the author of Kama Sutra was supposedly a brahmachari.
If their are guys in your belly dancing class then it is your duty as a human being to video tape it and put it on the internet. This deed of men in a belly dance class should be punished to the fullest extent of social law.
Hi....are you the one and only "wingman" rahul? long time buddy...
Puli,
I certainly hope so. There's plenty of Rahulworthy material here.
Early marriages don't necessarily make sense. Nothing wrong with pre marital sex. I actually think being a little "loose" is preferable to getting tied down to marriage or even old fashioned dating where your world is restricted to this one partner way too early for too long. I am a little conservative when it comes to school kids doing it. But once you are in college, you are on your own. If you want to have sex, I see that as healthier than other forms of relief like drinking or drugs.
Yes, I have seen Christian kids here sometimes marry when they are sophomores just so that they can have sex. It is not that common, but hey, whatever.
I had music...
And definitely I hope one doesn't learn about sex from HBO judging by their godawful Real Sex series which is anything but realisitc. Looking at that show one would think that real sex is pretty much old people going to a scam hippie retreat where some ugly old couple recite some nonsense about chakras and mispronounce a million other Hindu words, and then the ugly old couples lie down on the floor and go through some self-discovery exercise, and then they get discovered by their peers in the next session. And the only way to enjoy sex is to splatter a lot of sticky food on your body and have a bunch of toys lying around waiting to be played with.
Considering the prevalance of prostitiution in India, someone needs to do an Indian version of HBO's Pimps Up Hos Down series.
All I could think of, after reading the article, was how pathetically narrow-minded mass media still is. This is another one of those "look-at-me, how i've managed to keep the best of both worlds and succeeded in the land of opportunity, if i can have an arranged marriage and live this live, it is probably not that bad" article that my mom used to drag out to convince me to marry some schmuck who wanted his lovely wife to get home from her 15 hour day on Wall Street and make his lunch for him for the next day. Argh! i see desi women all the time who want me to introduce them to my desi guy friends in the hedge fund world, just BEGGING to have this life mentioned in the article. when i tell them that the best way to nab an ibanker is to be one yourself, they stare blankly and zone out. lovely. AND WTF with these stupid Jimmy Choos and Chanel/Hermes bags they keep yammering about? Show me one guy (desi or non) who cares about those things, and i'll show you a man who is gay and out!!!
And for those of you that think she's shallow for desiring a handsome, career-oriented, financially well-off man (though she does say their NY apartment was smaller than her bedroom back home), may I ask what noble traits your mothers looked for in their (arranged for) grooms? Did they demand
the aunties to find them Peace Corps volunteers? Starving artists who refused to sell out to the system in order to stay "true to their art"?
Political revolutionaries? Men who vowed to only marry widows in order to alleviate their stigma and change the standing social order of the day???
There seems to be alot of criticism of a woman who represents, well, a not un-common outlook found in many women and men, some of whom may exist right under our own roofs!
She talks openly and freely, unabashed and unashamed of her reality.
Perhaps what irks us most about this article is that we see the same attitudes within our families and indeed, perhaps within our very own selves!
Hey, Puli, how've you been? Sorry this wingman left you in the lurch, work has been consuming me.
How can I parody a piece as pitch-perfect as this one? But I see Pardesi Gori's been keeping y'all entertained.
"Argh! i see desi women all the time who want me to introduce them to my desi guy friends in the hedge fund world, just BEGGING to have this life mentioned in the article. when i tell them that the best way to nab an ibanker is to be one yourself, they stare blankly and zone out. lovely."
I give similar answer except hedge fund world and Ibanker is replaced with medicine and doctor. oh! yes I always add this- After you finish medical school, you will never ever want to nab a doctor.
may I ask what noble traits your mothers looked for in their (arranged for) grooms?
That's the whole point. The BS is cyclical. She too will impart on her female children to dig the gold.
5 - payal said:
"speaking of arranged marriages, did anyone see that show "the big bang theory" on cbs tonight? the show was all about the indian character on the show hooking up with someone arranged by his parents."
I did catch it.. and not by choice. Rather, I happened upon my mom and dad watching it.. I've never seen them laugh so hard. I'm not sure why they were laughing, though, because it was pretty unfunny (sigh..who else longs for a well-written sitcom?) ...the premise of the show was a nerdy India-born student living in the States with his equally dorky friends. The Indian guy's parents set him up on a date with a rather attractive and independent Indian-born (judging from the accent) woman who agrees to go out with him just to get her parents off her back. The problem is that he is painfully shy and can't talk to women - any women - unless he's drunk. He ends up drunkenly offending the woman who then leaves the restaurant with someone else.
The combination of the guy's heavy accent, exaggerated dork-ness (why does intelligence equate social ineptitude?), and overbearing parents (who delivered their lectures via webcam) left a sour taste... is this the best we can do as far as Indian people making it on to television? That said, the show's portrayal of traditional Indian parents foisting prospective mates on their unwilling children was sort of accurate, if unfunnily scripted. Like Mansukhani's article, or a Starbucks chai latte, it was a bland, diluted, Americanized slice of Indian culture.
Pravin, in cultures where alot of mixing between genders is normal, multiple partners easily had (relatively), and break-ups can shortly be followed by hooking up with some else, well, of course one would feel tied down and bored with one partner early in life. However, in cultures where hooking up is not anywhere close to that easy, well, you feel lucky and honored just to get one. It all depends on how the wider culture is conditioning you.
Puliogre in da USA: ditto on the music part!
Damn uae intern!! You sound like you are in heat for some Donald Trump type lovin.
You are living in some sort of nightmare, if you think every person on earth, who ever got married did so for the dream of being able to go to the opera on a tuesday night.
And you can learn and know alot about sex without having it, the author of Kama Sutra was supposedly a brahmachari.
You cant learn how to ride a bike by observing bikers.
Ditto.
If anything, anyone from the subcontinent knows Starbucks Chai Tea does not have the same 'authentic' flavor. It's tea, but it ain't the same stuff for sure.
The writer took a heavy dosage of BS in the 'story'. Women in India do wear business casual and western attire - it's not like everyone wears a Sari to work and they don't know any better (especially someone from Bombay).
The point is not only sex, ShallowThinker, it's being grateful for having a loving partner in your life. Pravin makes marriage and monogamy sound like a burden. It does not have to be. It can be even more exciting and fun than serial dating and multiple sex partners is made out to be in today's modern media world. It depends on one's perspective and probably to a large extent, their culture.
If I'm conditioned to think that marriage is a chain binding me to a life of drudgery after having had multiple partners, that is one thing.
But there are some people who, having not gone through a series of partners, are conditioned to think that their one life partner will be a great source of love, happiness, joy and excitement for them. If you get two people conditioned like this, marry them off, and they do happen to click and fall in love with each other, well, what is that if not a blessing?
152 · uae said:
My mom married whom she was told to marry. In the long run, I think it helped that both my parents have a coincidental interest in social justice and thinking beyond their own material comfort. Their commitment to social justice is one of the few things they have in common! No, she talks about part of her reality. She has replaced her bindi with blinders. She doesn't talk about the consequences of her lifestyle, the ramifications on those less "fortunate" than her. That's reality, too.157 · khoofia said:
I find it fascinating that you choose commercial products--"toothbrush, toothpaste, soap, brand of tea"--as signifiers of homesickness. I'm not judging, but what are the implications? Fascinating.
Does this post have a place in sepia?..silly people write silly things all the time, not all of them make it here....why this?
I did not say it was a burden for all. But I got the impression from a couple of comments that early marriage was obviously preferable to premarital sex. Why? To each his own, i say. If you find somoene you can be comfortable with the rest of your life, more power to you. But I do not see the superiority of such a concept. Not everyone is cut out for early marriage. It's not a sexual freedom thing for me. I would say this for even people who do "chaste dating". I personally find it limiting as far as my own development. I personally find it exciting to meet different kinds of people, and not just on a sexual basis.
depends if you're looking to drive or be a rear-end passenger
teacup, yeah totally agree with you on the show and the article. aside from the absurd plot line and bad accents, what was up with the portrayal of the guy's parents--the mom seemed like she was 30 while the dad was like 60 and their whole "lecture" was just stupid. but i guess i didn't really have any high expectations coming from this show(it was the 1st time i saw it).
anyway...as mentioned by many previously, the article also left a bad taste in my mouth. Other quotes from her article that annoyed me:
"My husband's American friends called, asking about the wedding and curious to see if I had a nose ring. I was just as eager to meet them." WTF??
"India may have found me a husband, but America showed me how much fun it is to be his wife." Wow, I'm so glad America and all of our brand names have contributed to the success of her arranged marriage.
I love how this gets mentioned on threads which are in triple-digits. When there's demand...I'm just saying!
166 · khoofia said:
I'm don't mean to comment on you, specifically, I'm commenting on the culture we live in. That said, I don't see how I can misrepresent you when I am presenting a direct quote from you. There are any number of objects you could have chosen to list there--religious objects, objects with some sentimental value related to family or friends, whatever. They didn't even have to be objects, they could be the neem trees or waking up to the loudspeaker from the mandir next door back home, pets, etc. But you didn't, you listed "toothbrush, toothpaste, soap, brand of tea."
Objects have no intrinsic value beyond the utilitarian. They have whatever value we assign them. You've assigned some sort of value to these things, that's all I'm saying. If it makes you feel any better, I'll admit that when I'm in India, I really miss eating "real" cheese, and when I was five, I didn't want to go on the family road trip to visit relatives because I was going to miss Speed Racer.
Really, I'm not judging you, I'm just making an observation. I think it's noteworthy and tells us something about ourselves.
Payal, this is a fantastic segue into what I've been meaning to say. The whole article is less an autobiographical account than a marketing storyline. It is even possible that a real person's real name and real life story were taken by professional copywriters hacks and turned into this fluff piece which doubles as the base for product mentions and verbal, if not also visual, placements for so many brand names.
I really want to hear though, why Anna subscribes to MC, and what Floridian, the marketer par excellence, has to say. :)
Some girls get all the luck!
;-)
its amazing how commenters on this site love to run down johnny-come-lately Indians who lay claim to the American experience. Its always like we're whiter than you are. All this brand bashing here - hey, thats the simplest way I would describe my American experience and one that translates very easily in terms of image. I guess what's provoking people is its not the 'right' image.
Its not literature, but then neither is any of the other stuff up on Sepia Mutiny, so why so much finger pointing?
deb, don't know if you were responding to my comment specifically - but this is a good point in general. Yes, it happens, but that doesn't mean we can't call something a product placement if that is what it in fact is. That's why I wanted Floridian and Anna both to add to this angle or subtract from it.
deb - it's not so much finger poking as pointing out contradictions. For example, I have a very hard time believing that someone who came from such a modest, conservative background, so much so that her cousins had to explain the 'birds and the bees' just before her wedding, would move to New York and have no qualms about enrolling in a pole dancing class. It just seems highly unlikely. Similarly, no one who as ever tasted chai in India would even dare to compare it to a Starbucks chai latte. The article just seems a bit delusional.
The piece was Kaavya-esque, what with the reckless product plugs (could those exquisitely delicate Laliques withstand all this name dropping?), and the meticulous recycling of stereotypes. Maybe we need the perspective of the not-so-iyengar banker - "How Gopal Mehta got rich, got arranged, and got a wife".
Jasmine #120:
Your post rocks!
M. Nam
Wow - I never thought of it that way, but it is so true.
I remember watching my cousin's wedding video and watching her cry like crazy when it was time for her to leave. And I started crying too as I was watching it because I could just imagine what was going through her mind. She was going to have sex for the first time with a man that she barely knew that night, the next day she was going to move to America, away from her family and the only home she has ever known. Upon arrival in the US, she wasn't going to have any family or friends or mode of transportation or job or anything, she was going to be alone in that house all day while her husband was at work.
Regardless of your thoughts on arranged marriage, it really is a jarring change for women, esepcially for women who move from their hometown, and women are just expected to accept the change and the new life with no problems.
yeah, but i think we would all feel a bit better if she 'fessed up. At least that way other commentators can do the necessary research and avoid the incredibly unproductive back-and-forths. After all PG was the ultimate authority on anything Indian and it's disappointing that she can't stop pulling the fingers-in-the-ear, nyah-nyah-I-cant-hear-you act.
alack-a-day.
118 · Harbeer on November 13, 2007 02:40 PM · Direct link
Sorry, no hate on individual bankers, it's the system I have a problem with. And I would have much less of a problem with the system if it didn't front all egalitarian-like.
However, the hate that I have reserved towards the investment banking sector are the following:
1. Not egalitarian in the least bit. You won't see too many men of colors in the top echelons of I-banking. Just WASPs and Jews. I worked at Smith-Barney as a financial advisor (not the same as I-banking) and the whole corporate culture was purely racist. No prospects would want to do business with a man-of-color. They would have rather have done business with those sleazy white guys (with gel in their hair and good looks). I'm sorry, but that's the way it was. Also, I'm convinced that Indians are more ethical, hard-working, and better in math than the Michael Milliken, Ivan Boesky types.
2. During the corporate scandals, it was the I-bankers who were doing the most sleazy type things (i.e. telling investors to buy, while the I-bankers sold). They faciliated insider trading also.
3. Their outrageous pay package is not so ethical, simply because this opportunity isn't available for you and me, no matter how smart/driven we are.
Maybe one day, when there is an Investment Bank/Banking Institution called "Indus Banking, Finance, and Underwriters", the hate that I-bankers get would be reduced.
Teacup - Its exaggerated, stereotypical and simplified as all magazine writing of that order gets to be. So Starbucks chai latte is the closest I can get to home chai or that sextalk before her wedding is actually what educated her.
But its sincere and makes a contradictory point that not many people are willing to uphold. And thats worth something.
There is also a male 'hormone' which, after a period of time spent drying, can prove to be a powerful adhesive.
Women, do have some choice, especially the educated ones, they can stand up for themselves say no to the arranged marriage,
make their own life decisions and accept the responsibility for those decisions, not easy in a traditional society like India but not impossible either.
175 · deb said:
For the record, I would critique anybody laying claim to this particular lifestyle, and I wouldn't call it "the American experience." I don't know anybody who buys their haldi at Dean & Deluca. Being white has nothing to do with it. She is defining herself with "maya," to borrow a term from her own heritage.
And if brand names are how you describe your American experience, what are the implications of that? Finally, you say you're willing to discuss image--why not substance?
welcome to the new world order, boston m
I think we would've been even harsher to a 2nd gen, actually. Interesting definition of "the American experience", btw. Apparently this involves losing one's tastebuds, or maybe mine are just fucked up, since I can't taste cardamom at Starsucks. Maybe it's in their green tea contraptions?
Who is?
I appreciate simple and easy, two words which have been applied to various parts of me far too many times, but seriously, you would describe your experience like she did? I don't know about brand-bashing-- it's the bizarre "story", if we can call it that. As Chachaji perceptively points out, it reads like one of those quasi-covert ads which masquerade as magazine features...until you realize, "Wait...this seems a bit off..." and then you look up at the top corner and lo, you see "Advertisement".
What's there that's "wrong"? She has it all. I-banker, 40th floor, Jimmy Choos, stripper pole...I know people with just that life, which is very right for the enchanted isle of Manhattan...it's just that they would NEVER talk about it, like this (and I mean that in several ways).
Come on baby, make it hurt so good. What an inexpensive shot!
::
Chachaji,
Why MC? Because it's one of the few mags which doesn't suck like a Dyson. :( It sucks more like...a low-end Dirt Devil.
I'm part of the "Sassy" generation and while I do love my Bust and we all know I'm a total Bitch, sometimes a girl just wants to get, well, girly...and you'll never see me pick up a Cosmopolitan, so I mutter and complain through this motley crue of glossies.
MC is one of the few magazines which left an imprint on me; a few years ago, they did (and this is the sort of thing I think they excel at) an article about marrying the taboo (interracial, older woman, way taller woman etc). I still remember it. I can't say that for most Women's magazines. It was sensitive and thought-provoking...unlike this.
Sex is not neccessarily always had on the first night with the arranged partner. Some wait to get to know each other better.
Going from not knowing anything about sex in India to pole dancing in USA probably didn't happen but maybe something similar enough was her experience so she made something up that would illustrate to her readers the contrast between her previous lifestyle and new one. Literary device.
welcome back, rahul.
if you've given up your russian habit, maybe we could talk. like benazir, i put the sin in sindhi. lower scythia is where it's at.
the question is, can you give me mansukhani? apparently, that's what the sindhi kids are calling it these days.
more serious commenting, when i get off work.
Oh, I completely forgot THAT gem. I don't know anyone unbrown who buys their effing haldi at D+D. Anyone I know who is trying to make or experiment with desi food finds a brown store, goes online to purchase spices or smiles sweetly at my Mother, who then sighs and starts advising while doling out appropriate amounts of "real" chili powder.
There may be grains of a true story in there, but there's so much brand-name dropping going on that it's hard to know what to believe.
I do know a few women who moved to the US when they got married to Indian-born men working here. I went to middle/high school with most of these women and have kept in touch with them over the years. I feel that most of them had a difficult time the first two years of their stay here. They missed their families very much. After a year or two, most of them went to graduate school or found work depending on their visa status. Some of these women have completed ten years in this country, and I really think of them as people who have found a way to make their marriages and lives work here. I can't connect their experiences to the things that Anjali talks about in this article. The article was a revelation in some ways; I didn't know that you could even take pole-dancing classes.
I, in the oh-so-fashionable western way, much prefer the tansukhani route.
Her gym is all the way in Brooklyn?
Anna in #189
You don't need to respond to that crap. There are plenty of 1st gens here who don't relate to his/her 'whiter than thou' BS against the 2nd gens and this dude/dudette is just flaming.
Her gym is all the way in Brooklyn?
Youtube back up in this piece.
BadIndianGirl, I was very moved by your comment (#181). I dated my husband for 3 years before we decided to get married, and we left India together, so it was not like I had to fly off to another country to start a life with someone I did not know well. But the first year was still pretty tough for me, because I missed my hometown and my family/friends in India so much. I had a medical condition which required me to follow a severely restricted diet for a couple of months. I remember feeling so weak and exhausted and lonely some days, and all I wanted to do was take the first flight back to my mum! Your post kind of brought it all back.
Yo people! Whatever you may feel about arranged marriage, you don't have it as bad as this guy, who was made to marry a complete bitch. The bitch's thoughts were not recorded.
Ping Pong, I don't buy that story for a second. ;-)
What?! Casting aspersions on Ananova? The finest source of news quirkies?
Well, at least they got the names to be somewhat poetic - Selva Kumar marries Selvi, who was in a pink saree and bit the groom's buns after the reception.
You know, I feel the same way about pole-dancing as I do about bellydancing- a good work out but there is no way in hell I would do it in front of anyone not a s.o..
Jasmine, if I may, a quick comment. I feel for your American friends, I really do. I didn't marry "American" in part, thanks to my up-bringing (thanks Dad...) which was more European- but that's just me. I have plenty of American friends (and a few girl cousins) who "behaved like Americans"- had a good time in college and sometimes after, and are happily married, some with kids. I would be very hesitant to jump to conclusions based on your friends. My condoleances to them, but I would suggest you get to know some others before you draw too many more conclusions.
rahul, the reason i suggested the mansukhani route was because i was being an inconoclastic "self respecting, enfranchised bad girl.".apparently, according to some here, "bad girls" only come in one flavor: oppressed. (i hold that bad girls only come, but, whatever).
what this binary model that makes men recipients and women givers? don't you at least grant that consenting adults can both derive satisfaction and emotional fulfillment out of relationships? people learn a lot about new stuff (including insights about themselves) from relationships, even those that fail. it's true that you're not going to be secure and happy if your sole aim is to align your lifestyle with societal expectations. however, that applies not only to matters of romance, it applies to everything else. if your idea of a great job is to be a teacher, but you become a doctor to feel validated according to some broad societal conception of successful, you're going to be unhappy. the problem we're talking about is insecurity and inadequate self-reflection, not some inherent gendered preferences. some women might like to be serial monogamists, others don't. some want to be married, other don't. some like iyer bankers, others don't. some buy haldi from dean and deluca, others don't. some girls flirt with rahul on sepia, other's don't. hell, some guys flirt with rahul on sepia.
i think it's depressing that women become so disillusioned with the process of finding a mate that they wished their marriage was outsourced to shaadi.com. i wouldn't take a wistfulness brought on by depression to be an endorsement of arranged marriage. don't get me wrong, arranged marriages have their virtues. but to want to go the arranged married route because out of a profound sense of disenchantment sucks for anyone, desi or not. all this only signals a sore need for better ways to meet people and more mature paradigms of adult romantic relationships. sepiadestiny, tum kahaan? oh ranjha, where are art thou?
*more reflections on the inanity of Carrie's pronouncements on SATC, if raised on the thread.
Anna, thanks for explaining. BTW, "imprint" has a technical meaning in the publishing/advertising world which signifies precisely what it is that they wish to leave on you: :)
Oops. Meant to include this link in comment #203.
So the lady's smitten with brand names. That is not atypical. Her waxing lyrical is no different from Ang Generic going to india and speaking in the manner of ,"Parvathi, who is my maid - bless her soul - comes in every day carrying her adorable 6 month old on her hip to clean the place armed with a stick broom and a red plastic bucket. Leaving the place to her I walk out past the slum and the cow with the gangrenous leg to where Joseph is waiting for me in my chariot - a white Ambassador car, a relic from the British era. I kid you not... etc", where the lavish brandname-dropping of Anjali is replaced with the squalor surfing by Angela.
And... I know at least one toasty brown person who prefer shopping for desi stuff at non-desi stores (sometimes even big-box stores) for reasons such as
Anyway - I guess there are different perspectives and there is no meeting ground. What I consider harmless you and others consider painful.
sk says
And also following from an earlier comment, just had this thought to offer those considering the arranged marriage route (in desh or bilayat). I think it would be a wonderful idea if you could take the time to transplant your partner's home environment to some extent. Then again, people get set in certain patterns after a while - and if your newly beloved is coming over on a jet plane, why force that person to adapt to your personal tics and scratches. I am thinking it may even make sense to move into a new place together and build it up from scratch as a joint endeavor. Just a thought. This may even be applicable to non-arranged marriages (sic).
Are you sure she wasn't talking about eggs?
Down with all this liberal relativism! I judge every girl and guy who doesn't flirt with me!
Amardeep & SM commenters,
Thanks for a laugh at the end of a long , tiring day at work.
Anjali must be over the moon that the piece of fluff that she scribbled for Marie Claire caused such a long discussion here. I am soooo happy for Anjali that she was able to find nirvana in pole dancing classes, Italian lessons and Jimmy Choos.
What I would love to see in MC is a long article on how spouses of H1 B holders with arranged marriages cope with moving to a strange country with a stranger.Visa rules being what they are they would essentially have known their spouses for a short time before a separation and eventual reunification in the USA .Now that would be interesting!
205 · khoofia said:
Unfortunately, you are right. But just because it's common doesn't mean we can't critique it--all the more reason to.
In a pinch, I've bought desi groceries at non-desi stores, too, for some of the reasons you've listed. But if you think she's dropping the D&D name for the sake of convenience, think again. D&D is like Niemann-Marcus does food product.
I don't think you'd say this if you lived next to the strip mine, the oil refinery, the factory, or the landfill that are also part of the equation. Out of sight, out of mind.Anyway, tata folks. This misanthrope is headed off to class now.
You meant, "Anjali is over a moon made of Normandy Camembert cheese that her 320 thread count fluff which she scrawled on her monogrammed paper with her Montblanc pen, before frenetically typing it into her 17+" Macbook and mailing it off using her Verizon FiOS service was accepted by Marie Claire."
do writers get paid by hyperlink nowadays?
only thing i can say for all the different kinds of parties out there whether you are a dixie,liberated, feminist chick or some combination of all the above - you owe yourself happiness in whatever way way best suits you and you are comfortable with. If you are still having problems with your marriage please read the magazine psychology today
Brands are a significant part of the American experience. Quite like free libraries - still cant get over the shock.
Vikram Pandit, Anshul Jain....just cause you had a bad experience working as a broker dont mean that desis cant make it in I banking...
I remember once one small town Indian friend asked me how foriegners go about marriage and I explained dating, choosing one's own spouse, etc. She looked very sad and said, "why would anyone have to do that?" I answered, their parents are not arranging for them, and she looked even sadder and said, "oh, I'm sorry, those poor people".
It gave me a completely different perspective. Just like there are people who are shocked, saddened, maybe even "disgusted" at the idea of an arranged marriage and take pity on those who have gone through it, similarly, this young woman really pitied people who had to look for spouses on their own. I had never thought of it like that before, and ever since, have only thought of it like that.
Although westerners would not be beat for all the family drama and "control" that goes into alot of desi weddings/marriages/family life, still, the idea of being set up with someone who has been checked out by reliable sources beforehand and passed an acid test with an expressed desire for a longterm monogamous relationship is something that is starting to sound attractive to alot of people I meet.
The virgin in the west is stigmatised, marginalised, and even pathologized. In virtually every popular culture representation, to be a virgin is to be uncool, unwanted, and a bit of a freak. In one woman's health class that I took at school, all of the women reminesced about the first time they went to get their birth control prescriptions and described it as a "rite of passage". The implication was that if you didn't have this experience at college, you didn't grow up
Clearly the "west" is in need of serious social reform. It can't go on forever like this. It's not good for women OR men.
If it looks like PG, and types like PG, and goes on and on like PG...
I agree. British Columbia is full of nutjobs.
Arranged marriages and extended families definitely have downsides but there are also a few upsides. One of the upsides is people don't get lost in life or end up alone. Indians may lack privacy but there are so many Americans out there living lonely solitary lives, going home and cooking dinner for only themselves and then watching TV and going to bed.
In the West its common for women to be courted by guys left and right and then they suddenly turn 28-30 and the number of interested guys out there plummets. I'm always hearing about some Desi girl ir our "nyat" whose in her early 30s, often a doctor or scientist and she can't find anyone because she waited too long for the perfect guy who has the same credentials she has. At all the Desi weddings she'll get looks of pity by all the aunties.
On the other hand...
We know a know a girl w/ Down Syndrome in India and her family arranged her to have an arranged marriage w/ a guy with Down Syndrome. She went to live with him and his two brothers and their families. She's pretty happy and is always surrounded by family. He's also happy and he's been given jobs he is capable of doing in the family dandha. In America both of them would have more than likely ended up living alone with their parents or in a halfway house.
JGandhi, those are excellent points which I've often thoguht of. I know so many attractive, intelligent, personable, and financially stable Desi-Americans in their 30s who are not married and want to be. They keep meeting and dating different people with the hopes that one of them will be "it" and none of them are. What I don't get is why these Desi Americans do not opt for an arranged marriage. Well, a few would like to, come to think of it, but in those particular cases their families are not able to do that for various reasons. Even here on SM I often wondered why these eligible 30 somethings have not managed to find life partners yet, being as dynamic and creative as they are. In India they would be "first choice".
I think there is a tendency to get "too picky" when you are living in a society which gives you alot of choices in life. In India people tend to be more simply satisfied when it comes to things like "compatibility", chemistry, attraction, romance, etc. Over here we seem to want it all and end up with nothing.
JGandhi and uae_intern @222 and @223 - you make good points.
By the way, the golddigging angle goes both ways. I know of quite a few Indian guys who choose female doctors as their mates specifically for the money aspect. Let's not forget dowry is still common in India. And even the guys who don't care for dowry are reluctant to dress down his parents for their crap.
And there are golddiggers even among Americans. Let's not forget the nurses who seek out doctors and don't mind even seeing them divorced.
Thankyou for bringing up the gold digging ritual of dowry. HMF needs to address that.
Gold digging definitely happens among the ABCDs too - you can search for your true love by occupation at shaadi.com!
But I'm also seeing something like dowries happen among ABCD marriages. I'm hearing about in-laws giving the new couple money to buy a new house, or at least enough for a downpayment and sending expensive gifts to the groom. I'm wondering are these dowries or just gifts - since non-Desis often do things like this also.
Lots of Desi parents have been hoarding their wealth and living cheaply all their lives and they don't seem to mind lavishing most of it on the new couple come wedding time.
Err. This is a much-too-broad generalization. My female cousins in Hyderabad, Guntur, Vizag, and Vijayawada typically wear salwars. (Also I'm pretty sure that neither my male nor female unmarried cousins living there are having the sex, with one handsome, sociable, living-the-Delhi-life exception.) By the way, I've found that it's usually too hot and humid in India to wear jeans comfortably.
Err. No. Sure, you don't know what sex with another person feels like until you actually have sex with another person, but you do learn the basics of genitalia from looking at diagrams or helpful pictures.
Nala,
Did you learn driving by looking at pictures and helpful diagrams?
Sex is the same.
*groan* Your argument (I just picked this quote because I thought it best exemplified it) is insulting to both men and women. I have male friends, teenage boys, who actually want a relationship. And I have female friends who just want to f*ck. We're not freaks on nature. Also, among my peers in college, the people who have sex are split into two groups: the people in long-term relationships, and people who have uncommitted sex. Both groups seem happy enough to me.
Why the analogies to things like riding a bike and driving? I don't think sex is the same. But either way, I didn't learn how to actually drive a car until I started driving a car, but I did learn things like road safety, which direction to turn the steering wheel in when backing up, and so on, by watching people drive. I'm not arguing that you actually know what sex *feels* like just from looking at a picture - I'm just saying, a picture can illuminate. This is why schools have sex ed- with the hope that people will have some vague idea of what to do when it comes to things like putting on a condom.
Of. We're not freaks of nature.
They are absolutely not the same. The goal of one is to avoid pile-ups. The goal of the other is to revel in them.
Also, once when my cousin and I were walking around downtown Manhattan, we saw a 'Dean & Deluca' store and were about to go in under the misguided impression that it was a clothing store. I guess this just shows the diversity of the South Asian-American experience, right?
The article read like one big newbie consumer-o-gasm, written to show off to peers/friends and exoticized for the editor who wanted an Indian-perspective piece "for flavor."
Rahul, I missed you terribly.
::
I don't have anything new to add re: the article. I actually think we have beat it to death. A lot of the critiques seem to be on the implausibility of her story, but also the immaturity behind it.
Nala
I got a haunting suspicion that you're a NYU student from NJ/LI/Queens
I just wanted to add that I can actually relate to some of this. But whenever anyone brings up the 'women are wired for relationships, men are wired for sex' point, I cringe, because it makes all heterosexual relationships seem like the woman is trapping some poor (or rich), unsuspecting male for the rest of life with the lure of sex. But also because it ignores the point that many women genuinely enjoy sex. And I really don't buy that the pressure to be sexual even if you don't want to is significantly worse than the pressure from the Indian community to keep your legs closed dammit! In more traditional communities, the only pleasure that women are allowed to have is the pleasure they can give others (their parents, their extended family, their husbands, their children). That's gotta get annoying and overwhelming too.
How many times has that line worked for you?
rahul, glad you said "pile-up" as oppossed to "rear-eneded"
I am from Queens... but what does that have to do with anything?
don't the pictures and diaphragms add variety?
While on the subject of arranged marriages... Selva's bride doth look comely in the red sari.
So far all I've seen is quibbles against my argument or disavowals around biological determinism. As the latter has a healthy scientific following vis-a-vis the sexes, I'm really not going to offer up a online seminar. Sorry if I've indavertently insulted someone who offered up a plaint of more substance- still trawling the thread, looking for it, if so :)
But a minor point of my own:
DUDE! Where did you get the idea that wearing the west is knowing better? More than a little startled that no one sharked gujudude on this one ;)
I have more to say and pr'haps I'll a-say it, in a lil' bit.
Nothing really. I'm from Jackson Heights. You definitely sound like someone coming from NYC/tristate Desi subculture.
I'm pretty sure that with you this isn't a freudian slip...
Sometimes you can combine car pile-ups and sex. Whatever shifts your stick.
This comment both confuddles and amuses me. :D How could you tell?
(& I've lived in super-brown neighborhoods all over Queens, the Jackson Heights/Elmhurst area being one).
whoops link didn't work
Crash
well nala, freudian slips can be helpful too, not to mention half slips, silk slips...
That's very nice of you, Camille.
Sometimes, what starts as a rear-ending might end in a pile-up.
Done.
I went through this experience in high school, not as a 'rite of passage,' but because my uterus and my ovaries hate me.
Honestly, Jasmine, I'm not disputing biology, and I actually agree with your sentiments. They just seem like a poor reason to assert that yenta-style arranged marriage is the solution to all our problems.
Confuddles?
I guess thats a perfectly cromulent word.
I know Desis all over Jackson Heights, Elmhurst, Queens Village, Richmond Hill, etc. You sound like the NYC Confused Desi (no offense, I'm also ABCD) - divided between liberal NYC and traditional Indian household.
and for the i-bankers, pink slips?
clearly the author is full of shit, the article is clearly contrived and i'm sure she's not buying or doing half of what was declared. you see this writing style in the lifestyle supplements of the times of india and other papers. this woman has watched too much entertainment and lifestyle television. even a hardcore wannabe who's living her supposed lifestyle would write about it more authentically. to anyone from the city, her take on the manhattan life is so hackneyed it could have been written from nagpur.
Heh...never saw that coming
JGandhi, no offense taken. My parents are kind of weird (then again, whose aren't?), but yeah, you would be right, for the most part. At least there are other desis around who can relate.
Isn't that always the story on Wall Street?
the thing that bugs me the most about this article ,is that it establishes a dichotomy between the "ancient motherland" and the "modernity of the US." Implicit in her narrative is the oppression of 'poor third world indian women' - who have an expiration date and are riddled with kids before the age of 30 - while she enjoyes her freedom through consumerism and pole dancing. i can't wait to be asked questions re: arranged marriages prompted by this is oh so informed and informative article.
serenityha - totally. It's that dichotomy that I try to work my way out of. :(
touche!
I was just wondering if I'm the alone one who after reading the article thought: What! He cheated with Blackberry? The Bastard!
I ummm... feel so stupid
Pardesi Gori #217, I actually had the converse experience. I met an alabaster skinned, blue eyed blond off the casual encounters section on Craigslist and traipsed off to a park for some daring semi-public sex in the afternoon. We spied a lissome dark-haired, doe-eyed Indian girl with a full bindi and a glowing brown complexion through the bushes when Claire (that was her name, the blond's) asked me if she would join us for a threesome. When I replied that it was unlikely, she turned to me (well, it was reverse cowgirl, if you must ask) with a single tear running down her cheek (I still remember how it glistened in the afternoon sun) and asked why. "Well, her husband will check her virginity on her wedding night", I replied, "and, her parents cannot afford hymen reconstruction surgery as they will have to pay off their life savings for the man who will support their daughter." Her voice cracked as she told me, "Alas, these primitives and their customs that hold them back!"
It was then that I realized the oppressiveness of Indian culture. Just before I... well, I wouldn't want Claire to blush.
I met an alabaster skinned, blue eyed blond off the casual encounters section on Craigslist and traipsed off to a park for some daring semi-public sex in the afternoon.
I know the above was posted in jest but Craiglist is in fact unbelievable.
You call her, the vaguely orientalist farishta, but she does not answer. So sad.
So a tear was running down Claire's cheek because the Indian girl's hymen could not afford a tear?
will your male children blame their lack of game to the gold-digging propensities of the spence-school-going-i-banker-loving little miss mansukhanis?
No, hopefully by then such nonsensical propensities would've been eradicated. More and more women are keeping it real as we speak, you should try it sometime.
remember, it was an arranged marriage. her parents were desperate. and don't forget the in-laws chose her. there just seem to be too many variables for this to be a sinister plan
Actually it wasn't clear as I said it. I didn't mean she's a golddigger in the anna nicole sense, (may she breast in peace), rather her parents were pushing her to get married, and using the money as rationalization. The terms of the arrangement wouldn't be accepted if the guy wasn't rolling in it. Where does it say the "in laws chose" her? I missed that.
She would most likely impart that value system of "doesn't matter how wellyou know your spouse, as long as he's got money" to her children. That's what I meant by cyclical.
Thanks to all this innuendo, I now have a mental image of a person with piles being vigorously rear-ended.
This will affect whether the i-banker now needs dough. All Padma Lakshmi's bad influence, I tell you.
Anjali writes: 'After our 10-day honeymoon, we were ceremoniously dispatched to Manhattan'.
Er, She got her US visa pretty fast!
in response to this question:
i found this in the article:
really HMF, i was only teasing. i'm really good at it, too.
But whenever anyone brings up the 'women are wired for relationships, men are wired for sex' point, I cringe, because it makes all heterosexual relationships seem like the woman is trapping some poor (or rich), unsuspecting male for the rest of life with the lure of sex
Wouldn't you at least concede that's the majority case? In any event, I think the 'wired' descriptor is key here. As you say, there are men that want relationships and women that wanna just f(ck but, but couldn't that go against our natural wiring?
Hmmm...re: the author's experience (or not)at age 27...don't you think that it is possible that she thought that her husband, parents, in-laws, aunties, etc. might read this article? It is possible that that she might have experienced the not-uncommon wedding night "amnesia"...
Rahul:
Was this you? ;)
not as long as i have my looks.
"In ten years you better have a personality..."
-Vince Vaughn, from 'Be Cool'
: socially well-adjusted, intelligent, driven, hardworking, smooth-talking etc do well financially. that is, financial success may just be a proxy for these desirable traits.
I've heard this BS argument before. Now, you did qualify your statement with "some", which I acknowledge. I find the "money is a proxy for other good stuff" the quintessential female rationalization, and inability to separate & compartmentalize human characteristics.
You are right, such a connection is indeed possible, but i dont believe it's a true "implication" relationship, that is, it's not the case that:
if { smooth && intelligent && driven } then { rich as hell }, rather, I'd say those are orthogonal. (unless that "driven-ness" is the drive to just earn money no matter what)
because :
if { lucky || robber || criminal || dumb fuck who has rich parents } then { rich as hell } is equally possible.
Look at history, Look at all these drug dealer & murderers that were rolling in money, did their wives leave them the moment they found how that money was obtained? No. because the "desirable traits" meant squat compared to the other perks.
i found this in the article
seems like more of an aggregate decision, and completely verifies my claim that the individual personality and compatibility meant nothing, rather that he was rich, and she was.... well, I'm still trying to figure out what she brought to the table.
You pegged that right!
Good points. Pressure is pressure, whether it's being made to feel dorky because you are not having uncommitted sex, OR being made to feel like a whore because you are. Who's to say one is better than the other really? However, in today's world of globalization and mass media, it can get annoying when even signing in to your email account you are bombarded with images of scantily clad women (rarely men, damnit) advertising "relationship" (sex?) sites. There is such a thing as balance and I don't think today's modern (western?) world has it. Nor do I think that cultures wherein women are expected to derive pleasure only and exclusively from serving others (as mentioned by Nala above) is balanced either. (And I know exactly how deep such traditions run in some areas of the globe because I have lived amongst them, and wouldn't expect anyone who hasn't experienced that first hand to even have an inkling of how deep the rabbit hole goes).
I don't neccessarily think men are hardwired for sleeping around and women are not. It is not really an established scientific "fact" at this point, it remains a theory. It may be that both sexes are hardwired for sleeping around (enjoying variety) but one more than the other needs a permanant relationship and space in addition to their "fun" to accomodate pregnancy and child-rearing. There are many women who have extra-marital affairs, but we hear more often than not about men doing it. There are two sides to every story and women have kept theirs more on the downlow. Even some ultra-conservative looking and acting "aunties" have a little pau bhaji snack on the side before their main course evening meal of dal bhaat, even in some of those more traditional regions/communities (it's hard to maneuvor such things in an environment where everyone knows everybody and tabs are kept on all, but somehow they've managed).
Really I think we are too easily swayed by literature expounded gender differences. Real life and practical experience often tells us otherwise. Humans are products of their living environment and if you are conditioned (brain-washed) since practically before exiting your mother's womb that "this is how girls are and this is how boys are", well, more than likely you will grow into that mold.
Being that humans develop sexually in their teens, I am not against teen marriages in environments that provide enough support for them to succeed. Modern day, technological societies generally do not have that support system in tact, but it could be done if it was made a priority, like selling useless items have been made priority. But let's face it, the reason why staying single for a long time supports the system is because more single people than married people consume items for "image". How many married women are going in for breast augmentation surgery? The demographic for that is young, single women, for the most part. Sure, you get a granny or two who goes for boob-lift, but once you have fallen in love and captivated your partner to agree to a long term relationship and you are confident that he or she loves you the way you are, you are less likely to obsess over your looks and buy expensive products or go for surgeries that will "improve" them. So to stay single for a very long time feeds this artificial, materialistic economy. The longer you stay single, the longer it remains neccessary to acquire the looks or the goods (specific types of cars or whatever) that will impress other single people, things that alot of married and "settled" people just don't spend alot of money on when they have their kids educations and family bills to worry about.
again, my "some" qualification pre-empted this. let me rephrase. if a man is rich, i did not imply that he must be in possession of desirable traits. if a man possesses alpha traits, then there is an increased probability of doing better financially. hope that helps. i know you're intelligent. why get so defensive as to make a strawman out of a reasonable observation?
now i feel badly that i've had to use a maureen dowd column in my defense. some days are just that bad.
again, my "some" qualification pre-empted this. let me rephrase
And again, I acknowledged the CYA "some" qualification. But I even dispute your intended statement:
if a man possesses alpha traits, then there is an increased probability of doing better financially. hope that helps.
because those alpha traits must be pointed in the direction of earning money, so
not driven, but driven to earn money
not smooth, but smooth in interactions that yield money *besides, "smooth" is such a vague descriptor, it really doesn't make sense anyway.
not intelligent, but having intelligence that yields money (here's a counterpoint, the man with the highest IQ is a bouncer, certainly not making large heaps of money)
Unless you're saying of course, that by definition "alpha" means higher probability of making money, then indeed you prove my point that women have as one of their primary "desirable" traits as large amounts of money, which is fine, just be upfront and admit the sh*t.
Damn. screwed that up, lets try again: (feel free to delete the previous)
again, my "some" qualification pre-empted this. let me rephrase
And again, I acknowledged the CYA "some" qualification. But I even dispute your intended statement:
if a man possesses alpha traits, then there is an increased probability of doing better financially. hope that helps.
because those alpha traits must be pointed in the direction of earning money, so
not driven, but driven to earn money
not smooth, but smooth in interactions that yield money *besides, "smooth" is such a vague descriptor, it really doesn't make sense anyway.
not intelligent, but having intelligence that yields money (here's a counterpoint, the man with the highest IQ is a bouncer, certainly not making large heaps of money)
Unless you're saying of course, that by definition "alpha" implies traits geared towards making money, then indeed you prove my point that women have as one of their primary "desirable" traits as large amounts of money, which is fine, just be upfront and admit the sh*t.
let's cut out the BS and coolly discuss some data. from the study i quoted in my previous comment:
care to expound on these findings? who comes off as more shallow?
also, HMF:
and the strategy of using outliers to prove your point is just so specious. when talking of average tendencies (ie the huge generalizations you're so fond of making), don't give one example and think that your point is proven. if the person with the highest IQ on the planet is a bouncer, it says nothing about the average financial condition of a general range of men with smart IQs. second, IQs might be a factor in explaining wealth, other traits like motivation, perseverance, social skills, and a host of others might be predictors of financial success as well. your super-smart bouncer may have lacked these, or discount labor steeply, and value leisure a lot more than the average joe. more power to him.
exactly. that is why i used the phrase "increased probability."
So then theoretically, one could possess the "alpha traits" you mentioned, but not be financially strong. Those that fall into this category usually do not fare with women (because lack of financial strength) Yet according to you, they're still "alpha"? - which by definition assumes they attract women disproportionately.
Even if the vague "alpha" traits shows an increased probability for wealth (and the traits are indeed the attractors, and not the wealth itself), using wealth as an indicator of having those traits is completely illogical, as the counter examples I mentioned above.
What's the conclusion? Financial strength is itself an alpha trait that women seek (in addition to the stuff you mentioned)
care to expound on these findings? who comes off as more shallow?
The argument here isn't who is or isn't shallow. It's about being upfront about what men and women seek. I readily admit that men are more looks oriented in their choosing, as our brains are hardwired to respond to fertility indicators. I'm waiting for that admission from your types, rather all I hear is "It's not the money we admire, it's the drive and intelligence and all that other BS you claim to want to cut"
other traits like motivation, perseverance, social skills, and a host of others might be predictors of financial success as well.
We're going in circles here, those "host of others" could include luck, born into wealth, motivation to earn money, perseverance to earn money....
What I take issue with is your generalization that even "some" men have these "general" alpha qualities of motivation and perseverence and somehow that "sometimes" translates to money. Whether you admit it or not, statements like these have a strong undertone of, "if you don't have money, chances are you don't have alpha qualities", yes I know you made qualifications, but thats the basic implication.
What I'm saying is, qualities like motivation, perseverance, strength, translate to money when those qualities are geared towards making lots of money! And if women find those specific traits, when aimed at money to be alpha, then just admit the sh*t.
What's so difficult about this?
Nothing to feel bad about. Here's a better source.
HMF, if women are constantly trading up and preventing those with a marginal tax rate of less than 35% from breeding, surely the benefits of inheritance will ensure that we are all super wealthy, no? Unfortunately, the ranks of scruffy hipsters playing knock-off British garage rock who infest the sidewalks while necking with their girlfriends seems to put paid to that idea.
Naah, I'm more a UWS type, and wouldn't restrict my "Indian casual" scene by requiring "interesting" women
ok, HMF, just so we clear, about what "my types" want. I don't care about the money. I care about the smarts, drive, ambition, pluck, humor, sincerity, maturity, and emotional security (this list of traits might explain why my types steer clear of your types). and, to answer your question: someone could be alpha, even if he was poor. i don't think anyone cared about the fonz's tax return :)
nice work there, btw: "we men choose looks because we're hardwired." i assume you'd give credit to a woman who said that she's look for a guy who was wealthy because the advantages he could give her children. after all, women are hardwired to look for a chap who'll be the best provider to their progeny. but both those assertions have limited, albeit some, explanatory power in the modern context. because both good looks and ability to provide are socially mediated and do not necessarily coincide with what would be best in terms of evolutionary success. just because a man has lots of money doesn't necessarily mean he'll father the healthiest and most long-lived kids (evolutionary def. of success), and just because a women is pretty according to modern norms of beauty (very skinny, narrow hips), she'll have kids with the best genetic advantages.
American men tend to be more conservative, I find. I can't imagine most of the guys I know thinking that way.
ok, HMF, just so we clear, about what "my types" want. I don't care about the money. I care about the smarts, drive, ambition, pluck, humor, sincerity, maturity, and emotional security
Alright then, why act as an apologist for those women who do "care about the money" Indeed, they are a well represented group and can do their own bullshitting themselves. Why aid and abet?
i assume you'd give credit to a woman who said that she's look for a guy who was wealthy because the advantages he could give her children. after all, women are hardwired to look for a chap who'll be the best provider to their progeny.
I absolutely would. that is, if she admitted that fact plainly, and didn't try to disguise it by saying "oh no, I'm into his
drive and ambition, and oh golly gee he just happened to be a millionaire too!" In fact, this point was agreed right here Remember, books will be written about how real I keep it.
because both good looks and ability to provide are socially mediated and do not necessarily coincide with what would be best in terms of evolutionary success.
True, they don't, however in our reptilian brains (amygdala - control of the limbic system), logic rarely comes into play and we respond to hereditary evolutionary signals, even if those have been somewhat tempered by whatever social constraints exist in the modern era.
For example, a lot of guys don't find paris hilton attractive (as she doesn't fit "evolutionary" standards, as say, Salma Hayek or Halle Berry does) , but how many would turn down a night with her , just based on her popularity and "alpha female"ness.
Sure. As long as you promise not to get tired of your high class toys, and all the presents from the uptown boy.
I care about the smarts, drive, ambition, pluck, humor, sincerity, maturity, and emotional security
I notice honesty didn't make the cut.
which might explain this:
this list of traits might explain why my types steer clear of your types
then indeed you prove my point that women have as one of their primary "desirable" traits as large amounts of money, which is fine, just be upfront and admit the sh*t.
I think, from an evol. psych. perspective, a man's ability to earn money is nearly universally attractive.
Also, human societies aren't geared towards alpha males, as in some primate societies, where the big motherfuckers among the chimps (along with a couple of lesser allies) get all the sex, while the rest of the macacas watch from the adjacent trees, knocking themselves off and wishing. (Chimp males are much bigger than females, which shows they've evolved through fisfights for sex; human males, like bonobos, are not substantially larger than females.) Humans, like bonobos, are structured so that all males can get something; we've evolved some tendency for trust. In our ape society, you may not get the prize reproductive catch, but hey, better than nothing.
Also, re: fidelity. Upwards of 10% of children in western societies are the product of someone other than the thought-to-be father. 1/400 cases of twins involve cases where the sperm came from two different men.
I think, from an evol. psych. perspective, a man's ability to earn money is nearly universally attractive.
The guy who did work on this is David Buss - he surveyed women in like forty cultures.
I think, from an evol. psych. perspective, a man's ability to earn money is nearly universally attractive.
Which is why Im always a bit baffled when women trip over themselves to deny, minimize or downplay this fact.
I agree with HMF's points that the alpha traits would have to be applied to areas of making money in order to succeed financially. Otherwise all of the extremely intelligent, analytical and deep men I know (ambitious in their creative or spritual spheres) would be wealthy, but they are not. However they are excelling in the fields that they give attention to, but they are not at all money focused. Some of them could be classified as clergy, monks, etc. And come to think of it, a few of the ones who are not reclusive are quite popular with both men and women, by virtue of their perceived "spiritual qualities", even though it is not acceptable for them to enter into intimate relationships with women, some women do tend to be drawn to them in a "platonic" way, and again, they do not have any money to speak of.
Jasmine's dichotomy of lots of pre-marital sex = bitterness and marriage for a woman = bliss, as well as her men have a need to have sex with more than one while women have a need to have only one stable relationship seems to take into account only persons who are seeking relationships with the opposite gender as a main goal in life, whether committed or casual. She leaves out the literally millions of people who, due to religious or other affiliations, do not put emphasis on that but prefer to remain single for the most part, dedicated the larger part of their time and energy to other (higher?) pursuits. These people ALSO HAVE SEXUAL NEEDS that need to be fulfilled, but they do not want to involve themselves in the bindings of family, society and all that jazz. Rather they are simply satisfied by, every once in a while, having some intimate involvement with members of the opposite sex who are similarly inclined towards a "monastic" lifestyle and do not want to bind anyone or be bound themselves to a lifetime of family entanglement. Unfortunately oftentimes these types of people have to keep their liasons secret because it is not acceptable behaviour in their religious communities, hence a great sense of guilt and shame accompanies such behaviour, and I don't see why it should. Let people be monastics dedicating themselves to God, Spirituality and the service of humanity and at the same time let their sexual needs be met once in a while, what is the harm?
I saw first hand what kind of damage "celibacy" or brahmacharya can do to people practicing sincerly a spritual or yogic lifestyle when they have to pretend for the sake of acceptance that they have no sexual needs. They have sexual needs, but they have grown beyond the need for samsar or family entanglement. Why get married and get into a totally distracted lifestyle just because once in a while you have a need for intimate female or male companionship? This is the hypocrisy of religions and cultures that value celibacy. The point of celibacy is to not get engtangled in samsar so that you can serve God and humanity with all your energy. But you can still do that while satisfying your sexual needs as they come up, in a regulated manner, with another monastic person who feels the same way as you do and who has the same dedication. There is no need to marry and have kids. Religions need to accomodate these types of people instead of just encouraging complete abstinence or family entanglement. There is a middle path.
How can two twins be the product of two different fathers? How would that happen? What is the scientific mechanisms of such a possibility?
>How can two twins be the product of two different fathers?
It's called heteropaternity.
>What is the scientific mechanisms of such a possibility?
Let your imagination be your guide.
This is the second hit piece by Amardeep after the one ridiculing that girl blogger from Bombay. This time Amardeep was quite prompt in disclaiming that he isn't hating on her unlike the last time when he belatedly left a seemingly friendly comment on that blogger's post. What else was the purpose other than to kindle the fire and then let the mostly foolish commenters here do the dirty work of faulting a private person for everything including her own looks and her wide-eyed fascination with brands? Interestingly the snide comment about her looks comes from a female commenter who has a stupid avatar or something next to her profile on her blog rather than a clear picture of herself.
Both the posts have taken aim at women who have either been published or are soon going to be published in marquee media. The suggestion is clear - they don't deserve it. And the reason cited most likely ( in this case )? That she drops names of brands. That she is faking it. Take another look at the piece. Yes it's not great writing but it is her voice and it is an honest one. Ask those who grew up in an India of no reputable brands, no choices. You have heard stories about middle class people in India throwing parties at Mc Donalds. Haven't you? It's her reality. And so is her conservative upbringing. Why is she lying if her life in Bombay differed from that of your cousin? There's enough great writing out there. Sometime good publications are just looking for a unique, honest perspective. Hers is that of a middle class girl from India all of a sudden finding herself amidst a highflying NYC lifestyle. Some here are just jealous of her riches, some are jealous because they think they can write better than her but have had their submissions only rejected by Marie Claire. Maybe if you were intelligent enough to see life by stepping into another person's shoes you'll have the smarts to come up with original material yourself and then get it published.
It's called heteropaternity.
It's also called this (this is a joke by the way)
Maybe because it wouldnt be too flattering for the man? :-)
That's a pretty cynical view of marriage, isn't it? :P I would like to think my marriage would truly be a partnership. Maybe it's because I'm young and not looking to 'settle down' yet, and/or because my parents have always encouraged me to be economically successful and independent, but I fully admit to being a superficial young woman who cares mostly about appearance and sexiness (and a smattering of personality/the 'click' factor) when it comes to guys.
As for the 'wired' thing... "Evolutionary psychology (abbreviated EP) is a theoretical approach to psychology that attempts to explain mental and psychological traits—such as memory, perception, or language—as adaptations, i.e., as the functional products of natural selection." I don't doubt that the reasonings can be used to explain human societies and human behavior throughout history, but many societies have changed recently with the help of things like widely-available birth control, women having the same political and economic rights as men, etc. So I hesitate to say that it's completely 'wired' into our brains. (I'm sure razib or someone will be all over this, but whatever.) And frankly, I always felt like a freak because I went through puberty early and had sexual fantasies from a young age, and my female friends would say things like, 'I don't understand how anyone would want to have sex!' or 'Guys are hot, but only from the waist up.' But I gave it a few years (and tried to get them to stop calling other girls 'sluts'), and now they don't say that shit anymore; quite the opposite, in fact. :) Honestly, the idea that women don't like sex was always bizarre to me. Also, why the hell do women have shorter refractory periods and easier multiple orgasms then?? (and yeah, I've read about that book that posits that the clitoris is a holdover from embryonic development. But doesn't that confuse the hell out of this narrative then?) I'm not doubting that men are more likely to want to jump into bed with a hot stranger, whereas women are more likely to need more 'context.' I'm just disputing the extent to which this really dichotomous claim applies, and how much of it is 'wired' into us vs. how much of it is cultural.
Watch what you say.
you forgot, portmanteau - when men admit to wanting an attractive mate, it's because their brains are 'wired' to do so. (that's why the 45-year-old man just can't help himself when it comes to leering at the 15-year-old girl on the subway!) when women admit to wanting a financially successful mate, they're gold-digging hos. that's the general perception, which is why women aren't as upfront about it as HMF would like them to be.
when women admit to wanting a financially successful mate, they're gold-digging hos.
Now hold on wait a minute, I could easily offer the opposite, that is, the general perception of "gold digging hos" exists because those who do admit it, are usually not shy about having themselves called gold digging hos. (In the sense, they say they don't care about the man, etc..) If more "normal", intelligent women admitted it, rather than use their intelligence to explain it away, the perception might change.
how come all the most appealing alphas i know are living hand to mouth? hmm.
HMF, sincerity, an item you would find on my list, if you read things without hateration, is defined as:
meanwhile, i'm glad that our types stay away from each other :) it's called assortative mating. i'm happy with my alpha uptown boy.
Interestingly enough, Salma Hayek (I don't know if she popped her baby out yet) has gestational diabetes, which is an indicator that her baby might not be perfectly healthy.
jk :) i'm just trying to say that they might be smart enough to march to the beat of their own drummer. at least that's what i hope. but i'm a romantic fool.
i'm happy with my alpha uptown boy.
well, thats good, at least you're going with the real deal. Last time you were all over Rahul-lite.
Salma Hayek (I don't know if she popped her baby out yet) has gestational diabetes
but how many guys wouldn't f**k her brains out given the chance? this is my point, from an appearance perspective, she transmits fertility.
*shrug* I don't know many women of the age who are looking to settle down. They say that they want someone who will provide stability, and yes, that does translate into money. This is probably because, despite the fact that they have stable jobs, they will probably leave the workforce for some time to raise future babies.
Some women have trouble with their femininity if they date someone who makes less money than them; some don't. Some men have trouble with their masculinity if their mate makes more than them; some don't. My mother made more money than my father in a more professional occupation for a long time, despite being less educated (and frankly, less 'intellectual' not to mention less fluent in English). My father felt his masculinity to be threatened by this (though my mother didn't feel her femininity to be threatened by this, but then again, she's from a time and place where it would be ridiculous for someone to complain that they were uncomfortable by making too much money, and she also took on nearly all of the typically feminine household duties), and would get mad at her whenever she joked about it (and I don't blame him for that, because she did it repeatedly in front of their friends despite him asking not to... but that's my mother). On the other hand, he has a friend whose job consists of putting in time at his wife's practice and raising the kids (he teaches both his son *and* his daughter to do housework, which I just can't get over the amazingness of, in this place and time), and neither the husband nor the wife feel their gender identities threatened by this. There are a few other examples in my parents' social circles where the husband makes less than the wife, takes on more household duties, participates more in raising the kids and in cultural activities, and doesn't feel that his masculinity threatened. It's kind of amazing to me that this exists to even this small extent in my parents' generation, and we're still quibbling about this in liberated, modern America.
HMF, sincerity, an item you would find on my list,
Sincerity, eh?
maybe you should qualify that to be "sincerity, unless it challenges borderline hypocritical positions"
how come all the most appealing alphas i know are living hand to mouth? hmm.
I think this is just another misuse of the term 'alpha' someone isn't alpha if you just find him appealing. The majority of women alive must also find him appealing. I'm sure a crack head is appealing to his crack ho girlfriend, you know, by impressing her with how many vials he can hold at once, but that doesn't make him alpha.
I'd go gay for her any day. Even today.
She doesn't fit the current narrow-hipped media ideal though. Like you said, Paris Hilton. And many guys prefer more narrow-hipped beauties that are part of the itty-bitty titty committee. :) Which shows that there is much variance in the dichotomous evolutionary theory, both among males and females.
And yeah, she's 41... and freaking h0t.
1. even rahul-lite is more appealing than you, what can i say?
If my goal was to be appealing, it could easily be accomplished, but I choose to be sincere a hard choice no doubt, which is why so few make it.
RE: Salma Hayek
As a similarly well-endowed possessor of two X chromosomes, though, I'm perplexed as to how she made it to 41 without, um, gravity working on her. I guess some girls really do get all the luck.
i do give you props for being self-reliant; and for acknowledging your limited charms.
I think you're missing the point (yet again). I'm fully aware of how to "charm", I just choose not to do it.
nala-
Similarly well-endowed? Well I'm a liberated, modern american desi. What's your #?
Finally *something* supporting me and my curvy badonkee.
Nala, gravity has worked on Salma, she just wears extreme push up bras which create the illusion that it hasn't. Even someone as young as Serena Williams has low hanging breasts, which you can see clearly coz she often wears braless outfits, and that's natural for heavy breasts. There is no woman with heavy breasts that are not pendulous, unless they are fake. Facts of life. Let's celebrate our womanhood in all it's aspects, and greet aging as what it is; normal and natural. If we don't age, we won't be normal and natural. As far as those vaginal reconstruction surgeries (links), well, I would just suggest my husband undergo genital "rejuvenation" if it was so important to me (or him) , rather than put myself under the knife. And the article said no improvement in sex life was reported after surgery anyway. If a woman wants to improve her sex life she just needs a partner who is skilled in the oral arts, simple as that. And it doesn't cost thousands of $$$$$$$$ either!
Ladies, buy your husbands some books or instructional DVDs!
Seriously, PM, who I am, and however limited my charms are, aren't very relevant at all. However, from the tail end of this discussion, I have a hard time believing you actually do indeed appreciate sincerity and honesty. As a simple disagreement (and a clearly logical one, I might add) with your hackneyed attempt to apologize for "gold-digging" (of the non ANS variety) spins you into lazy and repetitous insinuations about "horn blowing" (which I dont' mind you making at all, but it's a clear indication you have nowhere else to go)
Fuerza Dulce, from that article:
This is interesting. Why won't the flippin' BBC tell me more about this?? Though I wouldn't have a problem with letting people believe the results of this study either.
(and, um, i'm happily taken)
but portmanteau and HMF - the tension between you two reminds me of numerous boy-meets-girl, girl-hates-boy, boy-annoys-girl, boy-and-girl-fall-madly-in-love battle-of-the-sexes type flicks.
Women, a word of warning! Gold digging might seem great at first, but it is bound to lead to grief.
[sigh]
I've been a long-time subscriber to Marie Claire and this article was the first one that annoyed me enough to write a letter to the editor.
What really bothered me about this article was the way Anjali implied that if you don't have an arranged marriage, you are doomed to a life of familial discord. There was just something about her tone that made it seem as if she looks down on non-arranged marriages. Maybe I just took it too personally. My parents had a non-arranged marriage (at the past-expiration ages of 30!) in Inida in the mid-60s. No in-law drama ensued. My brother asked for a semi-arranged marriage to and again, no drama. I got married earlier this year in a non-arranged "match" to a non-desi and things are still peaceful.
The other thing that annoyed me was that we all know someone or know of someone who didn't have quite the rosy arranged marriage experience Anjali had. I have a family member and a close friend of the family who ended up being victims of domestic violence while they were in their arranged marriages. I felt that Marie Claire really need to provide a counterpoint to Anjali's viewpoint.
I also didn't buy for a second that she could really believe Starbucks chai tea latte is equivalent to proper chai -- wtf?! That comment made me believe that she was just generally snowed by anything that she equated with "quintessential American coolness". Starbucks chai is vile.
If I could arrange that, would you really?
In a never ending role of freeing those from the matrix, I guess this would be my role.
i thought you kept it real? wouldn't that mean releasing people from the matrix? but i guess the rage marinaded imperative to call women bitches and equate yourself to the iq level of keanu reeves (whoa!) prevails.
i thought you kept it real? wouldn't that mean releasing people from the matrix?
I was likening myself to morpheus, which I thought was obvious. Of course the imperative to call one's self a god and label someone else a demon seems to blithely slip by your unilateral morality filters. Of course, I had no issue with such a jab, because those of us non-hypocrites usually take them as we levy them.
I'll top that. I will undergo a gender change and then go gay for her anyday.
i'm cracking up here... even more so because it reminds me of this. certainly makes you wonder about arranged marriage, doesn't it?
i'm just surprised you didn't point us to this masterpiece.
you are right - calling a man a demon is exactly equivalent to calling a woman a bitch. thanks for releasing me from the matrix and exposing me to this reality, oh self-important-laurence-fishburne.
anyways, it is understandable that i react the way i do. my seed spreading genes induce me to sweet talk women. it is just my variant of those nlp techniques you swear by to induce the pavlovian slobber in these female canines. well, off i go now.
I'll top that. I will undergo a gender change and then go straight for her anyday.
Wow, this really belongs up up up thread, as I typed it last night and forgot to hit 'post'..but why waste a nice slice of cake? and all that
Word UAE chica, go! :)
Yeah, really. And when it comes to your own sister's marriage, I highly doubt that you'd be so censorious of her marrying well. Women have a lot of societal pressures placed on them anyway, to be slender, to be upbeat, to spend time agonizing over their personal beauty. They're constantly judged far more on looks and social graces than men and statistically will never make as much, but are they whining and complaining all over this thread? I agree the western system may initially seem like a better deal- “i” get a woman who spends time to look good, will have free sex with me, is never, never clingy, and will, of course, always pick up the tab. In other words, its all on her. When I finally do concede to attempt to attach myself one of these lovely houris and she suddenly turns into a "maneater" , is a complete b***, or is otherwise emotionally unavailable, I'll tell myself that its her who is evil, rather than examine the retinue of experiences and social signals that have made her what she is- and how very little I expected to have to give her in the first place.Hey, you give, you get. A few of you poor put-upon guys on this thread shouldn't worry- this expectation is fading fast, at least among western desis. Some desi khuri hunters have definitely raised a figurative eyebrow because I'm not a doctor, a pharmacist or a well paid lawyer on top of being perfect ;P As the mother of one of the guys I was encouraged to meet in the Bay Area interrupted my description of my chosen career: "Yes.. but how do you make a lot of money?"
But seriously, even at this stage of our cultural evolution, your average hedge fund boys are a dime a dozen. Let's face it- there's a mass girl shortage out there, everywhere thanks to our Indian mores, even in the upper classes.. what's a simple punjaben to do?
ps.- you can take pole dancing here (its called strippercise) and i live on an island in the north pacific. where have you guys been? I’ve always known what Dean and Deluca is, too- open any New York magazine! But that brings up an important point, this is exactly how you HAVE to write if you want to be published in something like Marie-Claire..why not just start a thread slanging Vogue, in general? Your audience not only goes to these types of places; this is their rarefied consumer world. Its not Newsweek.
pps.- moornam, thanks for the vote of confidence. great good luck to you and yours..
calling a man a demon is exactly equivalent to calling a woman a bitch.
ok, purveyor of blog justice, 'hate-filled spitball when they come from anyone but you' policeman, what would be the equivalent of insinuating a man is evil incarnate, driving all the devas from heaven requiring a special entity needed to deal with the evil and havoc you've created? *which once again, PM, I do not care about*
it is understandable that i react the way i do. my seed spreading genes induce me to sweet talk women.
this doesnt even make comedic sense, if once again you are lampooning my supposed adherence to pickup methodology, your seed spreading genes would induce you to not sweet talk them. In the realm of sarcasm, I suggest the padawan spend more time with the jedi.
Perhaps in India (leading to middle class women having more choice in whom they marry and partly decreasing the dowry burden), but definitely not in New York. Girls/women still compete a hell of a lot to win a man's attention. Just in a different way than in the old country.
But if, according to the 'women are wired for relationships, men are wired for sex' theory that you posited, why *should* men give a shit? It's just them being men, right?
The writing style smacks of Mills and Boone/Barbara Cartland romances. In fact, wasnt there one titled I Married a Total Stranger?
Let me rephrase that. Most girls past middle school know how to get male attention. I should rephrase it as, 'Girls/women still compete a hell of a lot to keep a man's attention.' See, that's where I agree with you, but I don't think it's because 'boys will be boys' so much as because we keep telling men that 'boys will be boys.'
hmf, i will start taking you seriously when you are equally anguished about the genetic imperative that makes all, ok, most (see, i am unbiased) men rapists and unashamedly call yourself that. it's called keeping it real.
anyways, enough derailment of this thread from me.
This reminds me... I don't know how common this is across India, but in Telugu movies (I confess I don't know how true this actually is to Telugu custom), the night of the wedding scene involves the woman giving a glass of milk to the man before they get it on. Is this supposed to be some sort of fertility belief?
I think that men certainly have the capacity to be otherwise, or there would be no point to my rant. Its just that they are more choosy around who they permanently bond with, and less so about who they mac. Its the opposite with women. Men definitely do form longterm, committed relationships, but they're less likely than women to develop affection through sex if all their parameters aren't there. If there wasn't some area of overlap between guys and girls, there would be no such thing as marriage.
since hmf is practicing sexual realism, i'd like to agree with him, if for no other reason than these argument-from-nature realpolicks (or "keeping it real" as hmf would say) annoy the pc social constructionists more than anything else. but something has been keeping me at bay.
1. really wealthy men don't have really hot wives. certainly not on wall st. don't believe me? go down the forbes list starting with buffet, gates, etc and see what you get. but i know lots of cops and firefighters with some smoking wives. good-looking, athletic retail brokers are often doing a lot better than their nerdier (and wealthier) ibanking or trading colleagues too.
2. my musician buddy who has slept with over 150 women. he's currently the lead guitarist for a famous cultural imperialist singer but had no problem even when he was struggling. i'm sure all of you are aware that the musicians always do the best.
then of course there's that humor thing that always appears on top of any cosmo list for what women look for in a man. just look at how many mutinettes drop their panties for rahul.
They do! They really do, Manju ;) One of my most gorgeous girlfriends would be in a room mingling with say, a good looking NY doctor, and a scummy guy in a band, and she'd go for the bankrupt roadie every time. I've never understood that fascination that some girls have for musicians, but its undeniably there.
Ok. But how exactly does the Indian community's approach to sex/romance/marriage (keep your legs closed! and after marriage you better have babies!) solve this problem?
Polygyny's been posited as the 'natural state' of human society since marriage was mostly an economic arrangement in which the man got to spread his seed and the woman got taken care of. But I think most women nowadays would be averse to sharing a husband like that, because they believe in having a life partner. Doesn't that change things somewhat?
Inspired by Jasmine I have to say that although I appreciate HMF's endeavors to highlight the plight of men in this world, as a woman and also knowing the HIStory of womankind throughout the centuries, being that we have been our own minority (not in the statistical sense) and underclass in practically every culture known on this planet, we need to cut this lady (the author of the piece) and women in general some slack. Alot of pressures have been put upon women throughout the years to conform to the strict and oftentimes harsh expectations of them - looks, behaviour, sexuality, chastity, house-keeping, child-rearing, upholders of virtues and morals and religious codes, cultural ambasadors, traditional clothing and rituals, etc. These societal burdens are more often put on women than men. Yes, many men are expected to be the bread winners, but then, with more mobility they are also given more freedom in deciding how to spend the money they earn.
Women in return got what? A roof over their heads and some small monetary "allowance" while at the same time working hard to maintain an appearance that they are upholding the values of their particular culture and suffering through sexual sessions that are more often than not less than satisfying and we were supposed to be "thankful" just for that?
The fact that someone mentioned the looks of Anjali as being below standard for a rich man's wife - what exactly is that supposed to mean? Rich men are somehow entitled to beauty queens? There is nothing beyond beauty that qualifies a woman for a man? How about asking what he looks like? How about considering that in his opinion his wife is beautiful and that she has other outstanding qualities as well that made him love her? How about considering that she is a professional, working woman as well, as stated in her article, just like her husband, and hence, is not using him as a personal bank account but has money of her own?
For all the bullshit that we women have had to endure through the ages, I personally cheer any woman who managed to get a lifestlye that makes her even slightly happy. Hope the same for your mothers, sisters and daughters, because more often than not, they have had to endure several kilos of poison just to get a single drop of nectar from this male dominated world!!!
?
Yeah. There's some research that shows drinking milk just before hump-fest actually increases the sperm count and their motility, thus increasing the chances of fertilization. Some people even reported rupturing of condom after they drank milk and had sex - those sperms were unstoppable!
*sigh* can't state my thoughts without being accused of being politically correct. no one's denying biology, just questioning the extent of it.
I better get cracking on my banjo practice lessons then.
Pardesi Gori, please let me know how I can help with your gender change.
OK, and why, pray tell, would any young woman want to get pregnant on their wedding night???
I dunno. Pussy-whipped guys?
Because women (except these ones) are programmed to nurture, and their entire life from puberty onwards is directed towards the sole goal of finding the sperm carrier who will make it possible.
Don't you know that the power of pussy is the ultimate power women have?? I mean, if you don't have sex with a guy, then can get blue balls and die!!
Sorry Amit, men have not been sufficiently pus*y whipped, except for maybe by their mothers. But in most traditional joint family households, desi and non, the "woman of the house" is usually the mother of the husband, not his wife. Generally it's the wife who got pus*y whipped by her mother in law, as well as c*ck whipped by her husband. You know this is true.
then again there's donald trump trading in his wife every couple of years for a younger model. and there's hugh hefner who's essentially living a more sexualized version of polygyny.
I doubt many men really want their wives to get pregnant so soon either.
Manju #348 - the traits you bring up (humor, talent, good looks tied into manly man or charismatic professions) actually don't invalidate evolutionary psychology. it still goes with the theory that men place a greater importance on looks (& i'm not so stupid as to think anything will ever change that), whereas women place a greater emphasis on what the guy will do for her/her progeny or how he 'makes her feel.'
Personally, I'd keep the day job.
To transition from a young virgin to an expectan mother over night is not the dream of even the most nurturing of women. We want a chance to grow into the marriage and do some sexual experimentation before being weighed down by an extra 30 pounds and a protruding belly, which does make some positions impossible, even if pregnancy hormones are making us the horniest we've ever been. And, would you believe some women cannot even indulge in sex during pregnancy because it's a taboo in some cultures? Another reason why Anjali and the rest of us should be given some slack. Of all the things to endure, having to be abstinate when you are at the peak of horniness is one of the worst, and it's another expectation of women.
Are they not expected to play with the rabbit? That's tough.
Jasmine, I agree if you are lucky enough to marry into a nice family that understands you and does not at all obstruct any of your movements to control you, and you manage by the grace of providence to get arranged to a man who you fall in love with, that the Indian arranged marriage and joint family system can be a great and fulfilling experience. But it does not often play out that way. There is alot of drama often. And the majority of middle class Indian families living in small towns and villages are very very conservative compared to the west. We would see the young wives lives therein and say that they are being controlled and obstructed more often than not. Permission is sought to leave the home. Drama ensues if some family member does not want you to go for a weekend to your own mother's house, etc. I've seen non desi friends try to conform to that, as well as the desi families trying to understand and accomodate them, and it was such a mess that some families broke up and some airplane tickets were bought. Yeah, in the cities women are much more mobile, but in the heartland of the Nagpurs and Ghaziabads, what I say largely holds true. Some are happy, some are not. But all will say they are happy.
But UAE.. India is now more urban than rural. And my experience is out of Delhi and Chandigrath and Jaipur and Goa, etc. I met so many secure women in these places, who would never be able to comprehend the transient, polymorphic instrument that sexuality is in the west. It is based on living in these areas that I actually came to the realization there is a lot to be said for arranged marriage..
And another point Jasmine is that the arranged marriage system as you know it is couched in a particular cultural context, that, although alot of American girls may be miserable and lonely, still they may opt for that over the particular cultural context (joint family system and all that entails - the good, the bad, the ugly, the beautiful, and the dramatic) of the arranged marriage system as you and I know it. Sure, the American girls may desire a strong, stable, longterm committment. But few would trade their "freedom" of thought and movement as they know it in their cultural context for the "security" of an arranged marriage in the Indian joint family cultural context. For such a thing to be made truly attractive for such women, you would have to divorce much of what makes the Indian arranged marriage system actually work, that is the network of large families living very closely, both physically and emotionally, together. The westerners love for privacy and personal autonomy is enough to make such a system unattractive, despite all of it's other benefits. If however, autonomy and an arranged marriage could be "married", perhaps then you would have a market for such. I know I'd be game!
And even among certain families in India, if they can afford it, some couples live on their own- due to western influence.
anguished about the genetic imperative that makes all, ok, most (see, i am unbiased) men rapists and unashamedly call yourself that. it's called keeping it real.
Am I supposed to take this seriously?
really wealthy men don't have really hot wives. certainly not on wall st. don't believe me? go down the forbes list starting with buffet, gates, etc and see what you get. but i know lots of cops and firefighters with some smoking wives. good-looking, athletic retail brokers are often doing a lot better than their nerdier (and wealthier) ibanking or trading colleagues too.
You've done exactly what PM called me out for doing, that is, using outlier cases to prove the rule. Musicians are most definitely an outlying case. You think this some how proves women aren't attracted to, or have money as criteria for mate selection?
As for the really wealthy men dont have hot wives, again, choosing outliers. have a look at Bill Gate's girlfriend, for ex, stefanie rachel, who was very pretty. Check out the women with hollywood producers.
Jasmine, India is NOT more urban than rural. Far from it. And I'm not saying it should be. Jaipur, while a fantastic and cultural city, is still considered one of the most conservative ones, by Indians themselves. Goonghat is a common site there, at least it was when I went there a few years ago, and the rest of Rajasthan is even more conservative when it comes to the position of women. I also cannot relate totally to the transient, polymorphic instrument (or entity?) that sexuality has become for many in the west, but I also know that behind the vaneer or "morality" in India, is alot of seediness such as widespread sexual harrassment of women in public places by men who have chaste wives at home preparing the evening roti with Ma. I guess in one sense I respect the openness and frankness that accompanies the sexual mores of the west, just for it's honesty really, although I'm not about to enter the roller coaster of casual sex partners any time soon.
Jasmine, while economics may play a small part in the joint family system of India, a bigger part is played by a culture that has built alot of folklore around the saas-bahu relationship. A dharm-patni is one who serves selflessly with a smiling face the family of her husband. She is the griha lakshmi who is supposed to care reverentially for her elders (in laws) and bring happiness to all. That is part of grihasta dharma. Even the richest families in India are living like this, despite having more than enough money to live separately. And nothing is wrong with this way of life if it benefits all involved. But understanding the folklore and larger cultural ethos of India even a little bit will reveal to anyone that the family set up there is based on things way beyond finances.
A man's duty is to stay with and care for his parents in old age. His wife is to assist that. Elders who do not have their son and bahu living with them are pitied.
I've actually heard people, including a professor, argue that this is the logical follow-through to the 'women are wired for relationships, men are wired for sex' deal. Like I've said before, I don't doubt that this is true on a very basic level (and let me amend what I said before to add that what many women enjoy about sex is the emotional closeness is brings... but then again there are some who don't quite care). What I find problematic about this is that when people believe that we can thank evolution for our modern-day behavior, they basically reduce men to walking penises, purge them of responsibility for their actions, and lay the blame on women. 'She showed her ankle! She must be raped!' or 'She was wearing a short skirt, so she must have been asking for it!' And more recently, shit like this. And in lesser instances, things like 'Ooh look at that teenage girl who's just trying to study for her test. I am entitled to leer at her and grope her because that's just natural for men!'
*partly
I tried googling her, but she doesn't seem to exist.
why artists and musician types get a lot of action.
UAE, the reason that the culture and the folklore has evolved this way is because it is the only way that families could be successful, due to the scarcity of land. Culture is always the way it is for a reason; it is always a dependent variable. Family relationships coaelesce around basic variables like the urban/rural divide, whether a society is agrarian or hunter/gatherer, what the climate is like, what the yield potential of the land is, what type of food is readily available, and so on. The culture doesn't dictate these mores, rather it is shaped by them. If a particular way of living is successful on a reproductive fitness level, it is perpetuated, if it is not then it the group of people who don't abide by it outcompete those who do, all else being equal. But even the most benign cultural practice is contextual- that is, it makes sense for the particular environment you find it in.
For the first time ever, this year the world overall is more urban than rural. The Middle East, which is my research speciality, has 80 percent of the people living in cities. On closer examination, India is not this urban but it is following the trend and the ultimate projection, given the number of people migrating and the current rate of development is that it, too will end up as heavily urbanized.
i want to believe you're right hmf. your theory fits well with my right-wing ideology of lifes intrinsic unfairness. but anecdotally it doesn't add up. the entire forbes list is not an outliner case. trump and silvio berlusconi seem ot be excetptions. just look at the men in the white house too, or ceos of the the fortune 500. i think hollywood, which you mention, is more of an outliner case because of the role of beauty in the industry.
that should be outliers, not outliners
purge them of responsibility for their actions, and lay the blame on women.
Wait a minute, to say men are genetically predisposed to process females "visually" in the sense of assessing fertility, is not the same as granting them carte blanche to rape and explain it away with hardwiring. Doing so is an exercise in DL-style exaggeration, rape is a crime.
No one claims that human beings also have physiological & hardwired sensors for "food" but that isn't used as rationale to explain and exonerate every robbery where the robber claims he was hungry, and only wanted to buy food.
I tried googling her, but she doesn't seem to exist.
spelled the name wrong, it's stefanie reichel. no picture exists, but one brief identifies her as "pretty"
oh yeah, right. i forgot. men have the superior ability to modulate their behavior according to social and ethical norms, something the easily distracted women who hanker after shiny objects are not gifted with. my mistake.
but anecdotally it doesn't add up. the entire forbes list is not an outliner case.
how is bill gates and warren buffet the entire forbes 500. Also, you're going by their wives alone, whose to say they don't have extramarital affairs with younger, better looking women? Also, I never claimed money alone was an alpha trait, only that it indeed was an alpha trait, and in the cases where it did yield a hot fem partner, it wasn't some kind of proxy for other qualities.
just look at the men in the white house too,
You have to look at the women when they were married, not when their husbands took office. It's a different story then.
your theory fits well with my right-wing ideology of lifes intrinsic unfairness.
I dont give a f*ck about your right wing ideology.
Rahul, no worries -- you were missed.
port and dravidian lurker, thanks for making me smile :)
nala, I think part of this is that you and I are in a completely different generation of women. We have different expectations of our partners, and we also have a different outlook on money and success -- largely because most of us are already as "high powered" (or whatever) as we want to be.Nearly every convo around this topic, esp. with HMF, seems to come around this stupid fertility/attractiveness vs. money/shallowness argument with the punch line being, "Why aren't women honest about being gold diggers?" You have plenty of women on this blog who are consistently honest -- they just don't fit into the prescriptive box you've drawn. This back and forth happens every time and GOES NOWHERE. Are we really still discussing this?
Also, if you take the Starbucks Tazo Chai tea bag and have them steep it in milk it tastes more like real chai. Just to throw that out there :) Still don't know anyone who buys haldi or zeera at D&D though.
they're not. i said look at the forbes lists, starting with bil and warren. by picking gates alledgedly pretty ex, you are using an oulier.
not really.
men have the superior ability to modulate their behavior according to social and ethical norms
lets not forget they also have the superior ability to engage in sarcastic exaggerations of people's statements and not cry waah when it's done to them.
by picking gates alledgedly pretty ex, you are using an oulier.
uhh no Im not, Im saying if gates was able to land a hot fem, it probably had a lot to do with his being the CEO of a large company and the money/power that came with it.
not really.
yeah, JFK didn't have any extramarital affairs either right ?
Puli: If you arrange it, absolutely.
I still don't understand why you would when you can get that stuff at the Indian market for madd cheap.
yeah, JFK didn't have any extramarital affairs either right ?
well, there's nothing really spectacular about most president's wives, even when young. hillary? barbara? laura? probably nancy was the best, but ronnie was hollywood. jackie was overrated, but marilyn made up for it. monica cancels out marylyn.
i know firefighters who do better.
Has anyone checked if they actually carry Indian spices? I mean, if they did, maybe her reference, along with references to Burberry's, Barney's, etc etc, even the MetroCard (by my reckoning) - just might be totally innocent. On the other hand, if nobody (either brown or unbrown) would buy them at D&D, why would D&D even carry them?
But you have to grant she photographed well!
y'know, joe kennedy paid her to stay with jfk. i think this is relevant to the discussion.
Everywhere I've been the joint family system was in place, north and south. Never saw a region where it was completely dead, but I've not been to all states in India so you may be right. Which states would those be? Mizoram? Nagaland?
And the Onnassis thing? Not that HMF needs ammunition.
BTW, portmanteau, I really liked your rejoinder here
HMF, I've watched that video, and somehow I don't think that cashing on an IQ test makes you all that smart, because the guy is a bit of a wackjob.. He advocates sterilizing the populace at the age of twelve and then making them apply to the government to have children. Did you happen to look at that thing before you posted it? ;o
now the intereesting thing is that onansis was interested in social climbing when marrying jackie, not her looks. ditto for joe kennedy, who pushed his son to marry her. in that sense, they behaved like women are suppossed to behave according to evo psy.
i've also seen data that indicated that lesser attractive women are more interested in a mans social status than more attractive women.
Quoting Snoop are we? Can't imagine him getting all the game he raps about. He's got to be one of the ugliest, most ignorant sounding, um, people, I've ever seen. How he got to be alph I'll never know.
actually, joe and rose behaved like indian parents
OK, but why did Jackie marry Onassis (or JFK for that matter). For reasons that, at least on surface, make sense within the Evo Psy paradigm, right?
I agree with you. There's a difference between appreciating beauty and making someone uncomfortable. But the 'boys will be boys' mentality is still prevalent, in so many ways. If you want to proclaim your realness, you should know the extent to which others are real as well.
I think this is more dependent on economic opportunity. On my father's side, many people still stay in the village and partake of 'vivasayam' (farming). On my mother's side, many more pursue higher education, get jobs in the big city, and live away from their parents.
I don't quite understand what you mean... I thought you were only a few years older than me? & it's not like I don't want a guy who is personable and with a steady job (I guess I ain't nothin' but a gold-digger after all) ultimately... I just don't think I'd be able to marry a guy if there weren't any sparks flying or if I weren't able to talk to him, solely for his money (as HMF posits that women are wont to do). This isn't to say that I haven't seen 'alpha male'/'queen bee' divisions among my peers- usually this means that the prettiest girl dates the 'coolest' guy, but I think it has more to do with 'bad boy' behavior than anything else.
oh yeah. jackie was notoriously big on money. but that could be attributed to her social anxiety , due to the fact that her family was prominent but poor, b/c her father's ("black jack bouvier") gambling. she adored her father and genuinely adored jfk, b/c she reminded her of him: both were extremely reckliess, charming, spoilt, risktakers. i believe reminding a woman of her father is also a big factor according to the science of attraction.
as far as onasis goes, he actually had an affair with maria callas while married to jackie. maria was no looker but had a beautiful voice obviously. aristotle treated her so well that she quit singing, and then ari lost sexual interesting. so he was kinda like a groupie chick. of course, the poor guy was held as a sexual slave to a german officer during world war II so that may have messed him up.
i'm huge on kennedy trivia. don't know why.
well according to evo psych this might be b/c they are less certain of the fates of their more-likely-to-be-unattractive progeny, and need to make up for it by providing them more opportunities by marrying a richer guy.
see, i can be a [armchair] scientist too!
(and i'm an applied math major, so i'm totally allowed to make fun of scientists)
*oops, i should replace 'scientists' with 'psychologists'
it works in different ways. if a woman has a positive relationship with her father, she will seek out those who remind her of him. if a woman has a negative relationship with her father, she will seek out men who are polar opposites of her father (but, according to many, still end up in a dysfunctional relationship with someone just like her father).
also, i think the gist of evo psych is that men are wired toward cues to fertility (large eyes, hip to waist, etc) while women are wired to a mans ability to provide, which has come to mean $$, but could mean a woman is hard-wired to be attracted to tall men with muscles, even though these are no longer indicators of an ability to provide.
basically. anyone using this theory to justify anything else is an a$$.
also, men aren't from mars and women aren't from venus. we're all from earth, and we're more alike than we are different.
Really, by whom? I knew of many nuclear families in India including my own, when I was growing up and I was not aware that we were pitied.
I agree with you. There's a difference between appreciating beauty and making someone uncomfortable. But the 'boys will be boys' mentality is still prevalent, in so many ways
I'm not sure what you're saying here? 'boys will be boys' has nothing to do with rape.
It's not a question of appreciating beauty as some kind of "conscious choice". If a woman wears provocative clothing whose purpose is to target the inherent male visual processing algorithims geared towards "attraction" that is where "boys will be boys" is applicable. In fact, "boys will be boys" doesn't make sense, it should just be "boys are boys"
But this has nothing to do with legitamite cases of rape! Those are crimes, acts of violence.
while women are wired to a mans ability to provide, which has come to mean $$, but could mean a woman is hard-wired to be attracted to tall men with muscles, even though these are no longer indicators of an ability to provide.
Manju, I actually think you're right here. Physical strength, fitness, and symmetery aren't necessarily applicable indicators of survivability as they would be, say 3000 years ago, yet they're still existant within our "reptilian-brain"
At least I'm not a flip-flopper.
Seriously though, I agree, that way back here, I used the wrong words "dig the gold" as it has other connotations that I didn't intend.
But the real issue I had with was the contention that qualities such as "drive, ambition, and perseverence will result in increased wealth, when those qualities were expressed in a general sense, with the obvious implication that lack of money means lack of these
qualities (without the qualification that these must be applied in the direction of making money)
Furthermore, I dispute the claim that when this financial success is appreciated & sought after, that it's not the actually money, rather the drive, ambition, bla bla (again, this wasn't qualified)
Camille, as you're normally one of the more sensible of the bunch, I hope you were being sarcastic with your "women won't admit they're golddiggers" exclamation.
As for the "women here are honest" bit, women here are no more honest or dishonest than in real life. But truthfully I dont think it's a question of honesty, rather, its a question of not wanting to look "superficial" and have what their desires are in a mate appear to be more sophisticated, mature or "well thought out" than they truly are.
also, i think the gist of evo psych is that men are wired toward cues to fertility (large eyes, hip to waist, etc) while women are wired to a mans ability to provide, which has come to mean $$, but could mean a woman is hard-wired to be attracted to tall men with muscles, even though these are no longer indicators of an ability to provide.
Fitness indicators in general are attractive for BOTH sexes. As Darwin famously said, the peacock's variegated tail came about through the desires of the peahen. In the broadest sense, we are sexually selected by the opposite sex. Evol psych. has yielded some insights. So long as it doesn't assume totalizing proportions, like Freud did for a while, I think it's a welcome contribution to knowledge.
Btw, Dean & Deluca does carry a whole selection of spices including garam masala & tandoori. A better selection, at least in my opinion, than any Indian store in Manhattan. Who wants to trek all the way to Jackson Heights to save a couple of bucks when you can get better quality here?
Here is a link -> http://www.deandeluca.com/herbs-and-spices/herbs-spices.aspx?PageIndex=0&PageSize=-1
LOL @ the use of the world 'target.' I spent most of adolescence covering myself up, but I still had creepy (yes, creepy) older men using their 'inherent male visual processing algorithms' on me. But what I'm saying is that though obviously your eyes may be drawn to a pretty face or a bangin' booty or whatever, it is entirely within your control whether you want to keep looking or not. That's what I mean by 'boys will be boys,' when people use the 'hardwired' excuse to excuse their inappropriate behavior. (e.g. a teacher may have an extremely attractive teenage girl in one of his classes that his eyes are drawn to, but it's ultimately within his control (& it is his responsibility) to try to treat all of his students in an unbiased manner.) When this attitude is taken to extremes, that's when it is used to excuse sexual assault and rape, along the lines of 'he just couldn't help himself, b*tch was drivin' him crazy!'
Personally, I've seen and heard 'boys will be boys' to excuse all kinds of behavior that ultimately holds boys less responsible for their actions, for various things, compared to the standards that girls are held to. I can't tell you how many times I've heard an auntie say something along the lines of, 'Oh, Vivek/Neil/Ramachandra is so rowdy, he makes his sister cry all the time! But I suppose that is just how boys are, no?' or 'Oh, Vivek/Neil/Ramachandra doesn't like washing the dishes, but I suppose boys will be boys!' followed by laughter. HMF, I'm curious, do you have any sisters / are you an only child?
Ha, yeah. Because it's overpriced it must be better quality!
HMF, I wasn't being sarcastic, but I was being facetious. If we map out what you just wrote, then drive, ambition, and perseverance are necessary conditions to achieve financial success, but they're not sufficient. That's all I'm seeing in this back and forth -- one side says that they can appreciate guys with qualities X,Y,Z who are not rich, and you're saying you cannot have X,Y,Z unless you are ALSO rich. I don't think saying something to that effect makes women, or their preferences, superficial.
also, HMF, violence is linked to testosterone biologically. and obviously men have more testosterone than women. what do you make of that?
but I still had creepy (yes, creepy) older men using their 'inherent male visual processing algorithms' on me. But what I'm saying is that though obviously your eyes may be drawn to a pretty face or a bangin' booty or whatever, it is entirely within your control whether you want to keep looking or not.
And how pray-tell do you define creepy? by being old? Anyway, we won't get into the correlation of creepy/not-good-looking. Likewise, I can say it's entirely within the female's control in choosing provocative dress. (again for the misrepresenters out there, I'm not saying a woman's style of dress grants men carte blanche to grope, rape, assault, etc.. just trying to pre-empt the almost guaranteed fem-aggeration) Because whether you admit it or not, that style of dress (tight clothing, exposed cleavage, short skirts, etc..) is indeed a "sexual message", transmitting "I am sexy" or "it is beneficial to have sex with me" That's the underlying message. One cannot selectively choose to send that message to "just the cute guys" and have it not received by the 'creepy' one's as well.
You're sending a multicast broadcast message rather than a single point-to-point.
That's what I mean by 'boys will be boys,' when people use the 'hardwired' excuse to excuse their inappropriate behavior. (e.g. a teacher may have an extremely attractive teenage girl in one of his classes that his eyes are drawn to, but it's ultimately within his control (& it is his responsibility)
Define inappropriate behavior? if you mean sexually charged comments, whistles, gropes, excessive leering then yes it's incorrect, but its again not intrinsic male behavior, and incorrect to sweep it away with boys will be boys. But an extended look, more so than "average looking time" - that's the hardwired algorithms kicking in.
Besides, a teacher is a special case, it's his job to teach and there's a power relationship. Given those preset conditions, yes it's his responsibility to treat them in an unbiased manner, but that has nothing to do with the choice of dressing provocatively.
I've seen and heard 'boys will be boys' to excuse all kinds of behavior that ultimately holds boys less responsible for their actions, for various things
Well, yes I agree, this is a problem. But its also a double edged sword, guys at a young age are taught not to show emotion, not to show weakness, never to cry, never to 'complain' about things, etc...
The flipside of it, of course, is teaches women that they are more "mature" and "dainty" or whatever, which I'm sure contributes to the before mentioned point I made about women wanting to have their mate selection criteria appear "more sophisticated" or "more mature" If they're taught they are relatively more mature from age 5, they'll twist and wriggle words to fit that model, by any means necessary.
This is true, but on the other hand there are still more traditionally feminine/masculine relationship dynamics, with things like the woman wanting to be seen as attractive, the man wanting to be told how strong he is, etc. (I don't think humans will ever change in that regard; we all need our egos assuaged).
women, it's not your fault. you are naturally wired to be superficial and nurturally (let's call that a word) taught to be twisty and wriggly liars. but why can't you just be more like men, who have managed to overcome their genetic compulsions to become moral leaders who are able to bravely denounce rape, why, even sexually charged comments, as inappropriate?
If we map out what you just wrote, then drive, ambition, and perseverance are necessary conditions to achieve financial success, but they're not sufficient
Wow Camille, I thought you read a bit more closely.
if we map out what I wrote, I clearly state drive, ambition and perseverence are necessary conditions for making money when they are geared towards making money, but this doesn't cover the gamut of drive, ambition and perseverence.
If we map out what you just wrote, then drive, ambition, and perseverance are necessary conditions to achieve financial success, but they're not sufficient
by the way I think you meant the opposite. That my position is: drive, ambition, and perseverence is sufficient, but not necessary (as much earlier upthread, I gave counterexamples of being, a lucky dumb f*ck who happens to inherit lots of money).
Sorry about that. I guess my brain just isn't wired for logical, detailed debate like yours is.
Look, I'm not talking about clubs/bars/what have you. I'm talking about a girl just trying to get through her day. For a 15-year-old girl who's thinking about her bio quiz or the cute boy of her own age she would like to pay attention to her, a middle-aged man leering at her on the subway is creepy. As for my argument being a 'fem-aggeration,' I think we're just arguing over semantics here now. Obviously we agree that men are to be held responsible for their actions. But what I'm saying is that many, many people use the 'men are wired for sex' argument to try to absolve themselves of any responsibility.
Again, we're arguing over semantics. It's not intrinsic male behavior, but I have met guys who claim they 'just can't help themselves' but stare (even past the point where they know they're making a girl uncomfortable) and even grope, and use the 'it's our biology!' excuse.
Hey, I agree with you.
DL,
you forgot that most scholarly of terms, "cock-blocking," as an integral component of the female propensity for constantly lording the advantages of having two X chromosomes over the dateless and righteous XYers (let's call that a word as well).
Ok, this is how men may interpret it. But when a girl dresses this way, she is not always (or even a lot of the time) consciously 'targeting' men. Dressing a certain way has more to do with fitting in than anything else. And sometimes the weather is really hot too.
Also, 'provocative' is relative. In Saudi Arabia, it might mean showing your ankle. In rural Kerala a couple of years ago, it meant wearing baggy shorts. Consider that a woman showing her abdomen while wearing a sari in India isn't seen as deliberately trying to be provocative, whereas a girl wearing a cropped top showing her abdomen and belly button ring in New York is.
wait, wait, can't believe I missed this before. How exactly do you discern 'an extended look' from the 'leering' that you condemn?
For a 15-year-old girl who's thinking about her bio quiz or the cute boy of her own age she would like to pay attention to her, a middle-aged man leering at her on the subway is creepy.
I agree, as the man can (and should) make a choice not to look (beyond the acceptable visual processing time), the girl (or her parents in this case) can (and should) make a choice to not dress in a way to minimize the potential for these leers. (especially in a day to day situation)
As for my argument being a 'fem-aggeration,
I didnt say yours was fem-agg, rather trying to pre-empt other contributions
but I have met guys who claim they 'just can't help themselves' but stare (even past the point where they know they're making a girl uncomfortable)
On groping, I'm with you, but stare I'm not, especially in a bar/club environment (when that's obviously the purpose, to garner stares) If a girl is made to feel uncomfortable, she also has a choice to minimize what causes it (even if she believes it's morally correct that she has no responsibility)
It's morally incorrect for people to not come and rob my house, but I lock the door anyway.
This is a hilarious analogy. Where's my chastity belt when I need it?
In the future, HMF, we women can take responsibility for men's leering by wearing full length robes and habits and refraining from wearing makeup.
RE: staring in club/bar environments, I can't comment.
This may be difficult for you to understand if you've never been a teenage girl or even a woman of any age (I guess I'm pulling the biological sex card here), but no matter what you wear, there's always some a$$hole who will make you feel violated. Like I said, I spent most of my adolescence covering myself up in baggy clothes (I was ashamed of my body partly because of the 'power' it had), but there were still a$$holes who leered, made 'sexually charged' comments, and groped.
I am usually a lurker here:)
But on this one, I had to comment on the views posted. To some of you, she's lonely [well, she already admits that] and to some of you, she is materialistic. Again, a third segment wonders how such an arranged marriage can work out.
Let me tell you that couple of my female friends who have completed their post-graduation in the US, do indeed think on the lines of 'sex...err..pre-marital sex is a sin'. They are from Mumbai. I am sure, they do not belong to the majority, but let's just say they do exist!
She herself seems to be hailing from well-off background in Mumbai. In NYC, she found a job as a financial consultant. The complaints on her being materialistic gold-digger doesn't quite fly, does it? I am sure her husband's parents didn't find a submissive girl off the Mumbai slums. Enjoying the finer things in life is only human if you can afford.
Now, on arranged marriage-- I have heard tons of people planning to marry for love only and the same ones went the arranged way. The reason varries from failed relationships to a changed mindset on what they believe to be the best fit within a changed context. My own parents had a love marriage, although they are no longer a happy couple - living with each other for the sake of family, society and children. Are there unhappy arranged marriages? Sure, there are lots of them too. My own long-term relationship broke down and the more I see it, I feel he was no longer the man I loved at the beginning and he might be feeling the same way about me. People change, so do their needs.
What I didn't like about this article is that she pulled a lot of statements off the air - attending 150 weddings by age 26, leaving sari only after her arrival, loving the Starbuck's chai as a nice replacement for desi chai...the list goes on.
Apart from that, I liked the honesty reflected in this article from her point of view regarding her own arranged marriage. Vapid or not, if she likes it, let it be:)
i agree with nala. it is the responsibility of men to avoid being creepy. do not blame women. just follow these simple rules:
1. be handsome
2. be successful
3. be tall
4. be muscular
5. do not be unattractive
but no matter what you wear, there's always some a$$hole who will make you feel violated. Like I said, I spent most of my adolescence covering myself up in baggy clothes (I was ashamed of my body partly because of the 'power' it had), but there were still a$$holes who leered, made 'sexually charged' comments, and groped
Comments and Gropes I'm with you, they are incorrect, and shouldn't be explained away with wiring. I had a friend, where one of her dates asked "to touch her breasts, because they were so nice" I was floored. (DL, have at it with this one, I tailor packaged it for you, I'll take care not to offend your sensibilities however, blogspace is no place for spitballs laced with hate venom)
However, looks or 'leers' if you call them that, I don't agree with. Unfortunately, "I felt uncomfortable" is not sufficient criteria to exonerate the female dress code. You're speaking anecdotally now, so I can't challenge your particular case.
I've known women that complain that 'so and so' was staring at them, then when I tell them to take a look in the mirror and see what they have on, then they wonder why they get looks? And that "so-and-so" that stared, usually isn't very good looking either.
This may be difficult for you to understand if you've never been a teenage girl or even a woman of any age
Im sure it is, likewise my points, I'm sure are equally incomprehensible as you've never been a teenage boy or man of any age.
We are all little dictators arent we?
I demand women who like money not be labeled "gold diggers" by all humanity
I demand women judge a man by the merits of his actions and not his wallet size
I demand men to never make fun of my body and lack of boobies
I demand hot women to give my poor ass a chance.
I demand huamns to envy my husband's use of cell phone technology.
and on and on and on.
ShallowThinker, for some reason I always thought you were a dude.
But when a girl dresses this way, she is not always (or even a lot of the time) consciously 'targeting' men. Dressing a certain way has more to do with fitting in than anything else. And sometimes the weather is really hot too.
Fitting in? can you be more vague? It's again an exercise in female wordshifting. Fitting in to what? Let me give you an anecdote, I asked my six year old cousin jokingly, "why do girls wear fashion?" (Fashion was her word for "nice clothes", like salwarz, etc...)
Her answer: so handsome boys will marry them. Six years old.
If my six year old cousin can admit it, I'm sure you have the guts to come out and admit the true intent of dressing in such ways. From my experience, you do it (at a gross level) to please us, and at a subtle level (like a blue bracelet vs a red one or whatever, or tying a ribbon vs a scarf) to make other girls jealous.
Also, 'provocative' is relative. In Saudi Arabia, it might mean showing your ankle. In rural Kerala a couple of years ago, it meant wearing baggy shorts. Consider that a woman showing her abdomen while wearing a sari in India isn't seen as deliberately trying to be provocative, whereas a girl wearing a cropped top showing her abdomen and belly button ring in New York is.
Ok? so I never said provocative is some kind of absolute standard, only that when it's practiced (relative to whatever that society deems provocative), it yields the intended results to "provoke"
hmf, i appreciate the thought, but all you need to do to help me out is just keep talking. for example, when you say:
i have to ask: do you still believe in santa claus and the tooth fairy. (shh... i will let you in on a secret: they don't exist.)
and since you are being extra nice to me, i won't even elaborate on the inherent contradictions on your "theory" of the exquisite interplay between hardwired leering and socialized provocation. with your wonderful constructions, you really should get yourself a daytime talk show on the spike channel to spread the wisdom.
i won't even elaborate on the inherent contradictions on your "theory" of the exquisite interplay between hardwired leering and socialized provocation
perhaps because you can't?
i have to ask: do you still believe in santa claus and the tooth fairy
I don't know what this is supposed to elucidate or even comedically point out? That a child is incapable of intuiting social realities? If you're not going to make sense thats fine, at least make comedic sense.
Are you saying lesbians have no fashion sense?
No Jasmine, lesbians dress attractively to show men what they can't have (and garner attention) and to make other (straight) women jealous.
Nala,
You had actually asked about "looking time" there is actually a psychological concept known as "dishabituation" and it works somewhat like this:
If there is a response to a stimulus (let's say your co worker has just changed his hair color to purple ), you will respond by looking (or commenting or whatever), now, after repeated instances of this stimulus, the response will be "habituated", in the sense, it illicit the same level of response. Now, lets say he goes from purple hair to pink, the stimulus has returned the response back to the original level. The "looking time" has increased as a result of dishabituation.
When women wear certain style of dress, 'increased looking time' will only result out of a dishabituation (with respect to whatever's habitual in that society)... That's why you have women trying to outdo each other over and over again, and Bill Maher's joke,
"If you're a hooker these days, what do you wear to identify yourself to potential customers?"
is funny.
but all you need to do to help me out is just keep talking
I thought I was just re-proving your hypocrisy by drawing out sarcastic remarks, then watching you coolly slip into "mr serious man on a mission to save all woman hood from the spitball shooter of death" who thoughtfully analyzes how I resort to snarkyness and while not debating the topic on hand.
Jasmine,
I don't think the evolution of the joint-family system has anything to do with the scarcity of land. The joint family system is more an effective way of ensuring that property stayed in the family; in fact tax and inheritance law in India is based on the concept of the Hindu Undivided Family(HUF), in other words, the joint-family. Yes, land was a major deteminer, but not because it was scarce. The idea was to consolidate a family's landholdings and ensure that all male heirs could claim a share of the family property. Like UAE intern explained a few posts ago, I too, wouldn't overly glorify the traditional arranged marriage that keeps joint families together. Beleive me, arranged marriages actually work against women. Uxoriphobia, or a fear of the wife, is a widespread and well-known feature of Indian family life and is centered around a fear of the new bride's potential for disrupting existing family relationships by strenthening her sexual bond with the husband. In fact, the friction witnessed in 'saas-bahu' relationship is an offshoot of the joint-family's attempt to weaknen the sexual/erotic bond between a newly married couple in order to preserve the stability of the larger family unit.
I'm assuming that you have never experienced life as a woman in a joint family, which is why you have such a nostalgic fondness for it. I am not denying the fact that life in a joint family can be frequently secure, emotionally rich and fulfilling for most of its members, but only if they individual are willing to subsume their identity and assume the collective identity of the family. Needless to say, autonomy and self-determination are pretty impossible for women to achieve in such a milieu.
If you are genuinlely interested in understanding the psycho-sexual underpinnings of the Indian family, try reading Sudhir Kakar's Intimate Relations, or any of his other books, for that matter. According to him, sexual relations in India are often based on hostility and ambivalence, arising from the anti-sexual nature of most Hindu traditions (Example: the Smritis, Upanishads and the Puranas). According to the more orthodox Hindu scriptures, married sex is only acceptable if procreation is a goal, and then too only on certain days of the month -- little wonder then, that the sexual bond between husbands and wives has been so fragile and frowned upon. All this means that Hinduism's official view of women celebrates their maternal aspect and denigrates and vilifies their identities as sexual beings -- hardly very empowering as far as women as concerned.
HMF, please stop ranting and raving about all women being gold-diggers. If this is so, and knowing how pervasive and destructive the dowry system has proved to be in India, what conclusions should one draw about men in the old country? Sexism masquerading as evolutionary biology/psychology is old hat. Most researchers in the field would not support the sort of sweeping generalizations that you have been making here, and I'm sure you know that.
it illicit the same level of response.
should read "it doesn't illicit the same level of response"
Oh, BTW, Dean & DeLuca does carry lots of spices. I've seen them in the store. She may buy them there for reasons of convenience, even if cheaper elsewhere.
I have developed a bad case of "40th floor envy," though, while reading through these comments!
HMF - its elicit, not "illicit"... different word, different meaning...
it happens to the best of us!
HMF - its elicit, not "illicit"... different word, different meaning...
damn homonyms. I screw up iminent and eminent also
But if you read back- a strenous task, and one that I would not impose upon you- you can see that my argument is merely in favour of arranged and introduced marriages, based on the fact that the contemporary western system is a betrayal of women's instinctual and hormonal realities.
Preeti, you have expressed very eloquently what I've been trying to get at for a long time but lacked the literary finesse to communicate it as efficiently and understandable as you have. It is really hard for anyone to pick up on the subtleties of the relationships and sexual dynamics of a typical Indian joint family household, which is running on ancient concepts that are imbedded in the subconcious of the people who grew up hearing qoutes from scriptures as well as folkloric tales that reaffirm again and again certian ideologies regarding the nature of love and relationships in this temporal world, unless of course one lives it. And then if you are born into it you may not be able to step back and analyse it such as you have, because it has become second nature to you.
Such a sexual dynamic between couples, as described above, leads to feelings of lack and frustration in many individuals. It doesn't have to, but it often does, humans being what we are and always being in a state of wanting to give vent to our feelings and express ourselves freely.
Excellent analysis and it is something that becomes so obvious to one once one has been exposed to the above theory and thus when once sees it, can recognize it.
What I would like to add is that many people are playing out the roles Preeti describes in her post, whether or not they are consciously aware that they are doing it, and whether or not they are exposed to the scriptural injunctions, folklores or other forms of culture like poetry, song, drama, etc, that extol this way of life. It is runnning on a very subtle level, almost akin to breathing, passed down through the behaviours and lifestlyes of generations, so that such behaviour and concepts go on unquestioned as just "the way things are".
I could give so many examples from my personal experience but I think Preeti sums it all up in an intellectual way very well.
Ardy said:
ShallowThinker, for some reason I always thought you were a dude.
I am a dude!! This means that I am starting to sound gay. Let's see how do I correct this, ummmmmmmmmmmmmm.... I got it!!
So who here like's hot chicks? Chicks are awesome and so are sports.
HMF, whether or not a woman is wearing a low cut shirt and short skirt or a full body covering salwar kameez, there are some men who will leer lustily either way. What to do then?
And no, in my opinion and the opinion of many other women who frequently get leered at regardless of attire, whether a man is handsome or not makes no difference to the fact that he is being rude and disrespectful - creepy.
illicit leers, even from eminent peers, will elicit imminet jeers
HMF, whether or not a woman is wearing a low cut shirt and short skirt or a full body covering salwar kameez, there are some men who will leer lustily either way. What to do then?
Not sure what you mean by leer lustily. if you mean anything more than just staring for a 'dishabituated' amount of time then it's in the realm of controlled behavior.
I'm talking about staring at my breasts or butt or genital region. Staring, not just a split second look because I happened to sit down on the train seat across from him and naturally one quickly checks out who is sitting across from them unless they happen to be buried in literature, but staring.
how dare anyone look at anyone else. we should all stare at the floor.
Looking is fine, but it is rude to stare, at least this is what I've been taught since childhood. It won't get you any plus points with the ladies. And oddly enough those lecherous men who stare alot tend also to be socially inept at making actual useful contact with women. No points for conversation either.
And just want to add that such unsolicited behaviour is often linked to Preeti's analysis in # 446.
how dare they not be smooth...damn them to hell...
But is the average man on the street really privy to this (esoteric) knowledge of anti-sexual nature contained in orthodox Hindu scriptures and lives his life accordingly, or is he more knowledgeable about Kunti invoking the mantra to have one-nite stands with sundry gods and devas? I never read any of the Smritis etc. but most of the mythological stories I read (source is probably Puranas/Upanishads) had plenty of sexual liaisons that wouldn't give an impression of anti-sexual nature or chastity. Gandharva vivah, apsaras tempting rishis and succeeding, multiple wives, and multiple husbands in one case.
While what you (or Sudhir Kakar) say may be partly true, AFAIK it's not a sufficient explanation.
Puli, what I'm trying to get at is the irony that someone who is so bold as to be rude and unconscious of how uncomfortable they are making another human being feel who is sharing space with them is often the same person who will shake in nervousness when that human being actually starts talking to them in a normal and natural way.
Given all the factors of #446 that are running in the backgroud of their lives by default, I have often rationalized and cut them some slack, but, if you are a minority, how do you feel being gawked at all the time?
That was a personal question, if you have ever been gawked at, that is.
Amit, please consider that,
I'm not questioning the conservative nature of Indian society when it comes to sexual issues, only the tenuous link between cause-and-effect.
women arent a minority. there are a lot of them around last i checked. I dont notice other people gawking at me or not. strangers dont matter to me enough for me to notice them.
This tread has reached KILL status. I might be hallucinating, but I think someone mentioned something about men staring at her vagina.
Someone please push the "comments closed" button NOW!!
Fair enough Puli, I see that you have not had the kinds of experiences I and many other women have had on public transporting systems. Let's leave it at that.
Puli, don't be dense. There is a difference between being numerically larger while being (politically) a minority. Women certainly fall into that category, even in India (and please do not cite Indira and Sonia Gandhi or the reservation system in panchayats as an example of "equalized" political relationships). Similarly, there is a difference between leering at someone and looking. Staring in a way that makes a woman uncomfortable is not always as benign as being "unsmooth," to use your phrase.
I feel like this is like the last conversation we had about what constitutes a creepy guy. Again, these conversations [on SM] go in circles -- have we ever really moved forward in this at all? There are always 3-4 guys saying "women are shallow! if the man were rich/attractive/[add adjective here] they wouldn't complain! after all, women dress like sluts!" and then the women say, "No! My daily choices should not have to be determined by whether or not someone is going to behave inappropriately towards me!" and then the men rejoinder with, "if the man were attractive/rich/[etc.]" and so on.
Ugh, I'll bow out now because this is tiring and pointless, but it's a shame we can't have a progressive (as in forward-moving, not as in political stance) conversation on gender dynamics at all.
If I could indulge in a little PG'sh type commentary:
There's a girl at work who likes to wear tight shirts and blouses and such, not to mention, she looks like she's hiding two of these under her shirt, when I speak with her, the eyes slide down once in a while. If I were to quantify it, I'd say the length of each stare doesnt exceed 1.5 seconds.
This I do not consider leering.
ST, the comment was that men were staring at her bust, ass, or crotch area. Not the actual body parts, just the areas -- fully-clothed (in anything from "western" or form-fitting dress to a salwar kameez).
I agree with the general sentiment though, this thread is being beaten to death. Please let's just kill it.
Also, Kunti's aim was not to have one night stands. She found herself in a dilemna feeling a great sense of shame regarding what had happened, and even hid the birth of one of her sons. Also there is an explanation that no sexual contact was made between Suryadeva and Kunti but she was impregnated by his glance. Still, being that she was a young unmarried woman who did become pregnant, shame overwhelmed her. Log kya kahenge? How would she explain her predicament to the people?
Staring in a way that makes a woman uncomfortable
but see Camille, its this definition that I find unsettling. "makes a woman uncomfortable" shouldn't be the only criteria for classifying a stare vs a leer. Secondly, the woman's attire and locale have to be taken into account, people here have used "day to day" type situations, and to use the psychological term "habituated" style of dress. And in those cases, "leers" certainly don't fall into what I call "boys are boys" behavior, however, leering as I understand it includes gestures, noises, whistles, and extended amounts of time.
Secondly, wouldn't you say that the "uncomfortability" has a some correlation with the physical attractiveness of the "leerer" see Manju's def'n re: creepiness.
Anecdotally, I've never had a female friend identify a handsome "creepy" guy.
A common experience for many conservatively dressed women is that we do get unsolicitated sleazy attention from both good looking and bad looking men. We women consider the attention to be equally sleazy from both types of men. Your assumption that we like it when it comes from good looking men is wrong, just plain wrong.
I guess somewhere in their childhood they did not have an authority figure teaching them good manners from bad.
Thanks for the details and splitting hairs regarding the definition of "one nite stand," and going off on a tangent.
Yeah right Puli, thats you what you Investment Banker types tell us to do and then you would do exactly the opposite and make money of it.
ShallowThinker - my bad, sorry.
Definitely not going to say that attention in all situations is good- like when your married boss or your prof wants to make it with you, or say, your sports coach.. incredibly embarassing and soul destroying. It bites when you can't get away from them and you wonder if your entire future is going to be compromised because of it, and people act like its something you're doing, and you start wearing old baggy clothes, sitting in the back of the room, and dragging guy friends with you if you're going to be in certain environments. And the worse it gets the more of a drama queen you supposedly are, and other girls hate you for the attention that you would have done anything to circumvent.
But when guys on the street flirt with me, I'm often charmed. I would HATE it if they stopped macking. One of the most fun things about going to Latin America or the Southwest is having the guys hang out of their souped up, eloborately detailed cars and wolf whistle at you, calling you names like chica or hollering "s'up mami?" Its an art form; in Spain they recite elaborate verses and sing-song chants that are flattering and cleverly constructed. In Paris they'll buy a small, cheap bunch of flowers and present them to you on the steps of Notre Dame. In the climbing community guys will share their resources or lend you their favourite rope, when all another guy would get is a view of their back. Its such a boost and it makes your day. The world would suck if the boys lived in fear of being real.
And of course its even more exciting if the guy is hot!
Didn't Seinfeld already break this down for us?
Women want those who can work on the body (doctors)
Men just want the body...
perfect
:):)
Your assumption that we like it when it comes from good looking men is wrong, just plain wrong.
And of course its even more exciting if the guy is hot!
In the climbing community guys will share their resources or lend you their favourite rope, when all another guy would get is a view of their back. Its such a boost and it makes your day. The world would suck if the boys lived in fear of being real.
How exactly is that being real?
"When a guy is doing something nice, all he's doing is offering dick"
-Chris Rock
HMF, you are an ungrateful flea! Here I enter the thread to defend your exceedingly imperiled point of view and you use it as an opportunity to demonstrate that you have yet to learn how to fashion appropriate speech around women. Although I am really beginning to suspect that you see us all with paper bags over our heads, the two quotes that you have so ingeniously placed side by side come from disparate commentors and in point of fact I am NOT UAE.
Your choice of educational speech aside, I seriously doubt that some haawt Latino cruising through midtown Phoenix at three o clock in the afternoon expects me to sack it with him, or is even going to stop to get my number. Its a free spirited commentary on my slammin' bod and possibly my walk, nothing more, nothing less. But even if a guy does want to bag it, telling me that I am bella figura or lending me gear and then walking is a brilliant move. I'm giving you free game, Jack. Y'all stop being so surly..
disparate commentors and in point of fact I am NOT UAE.
I understand this, I used your quote to disprove her contention.
Here I enter the thread to defend your exceedingly imperiled point of view
As Copernicus' heliocentric view was also imperiled, his views required no one to defend them.
Its a free spirited commentary on my slammin' bod and possibly my walk, nothing more, nothing less.
exactly. and your qualification of his "hawwwtness" automatically pulls him out of the running for creep of the year award.
But even if a guy does want to bag it, telling me that I am bella figura or lending me gear and then walking is a brilliant move.
No it's not, unless you've already (independent of his actions) considered the possibility of bagging it with him, then lending you the gear only ratifies the foregone conclusion already in your head. You act as if "doing nice things to appease women" is some kind of breakthrough technique, males (especially desi ones) have been force-fed that nonsense through 80s and 90s tv sitcoms for decades.
to demonstrate that you have yet to learn how to fashion appropriate speech around women.
You're under the impression I'm here to gain approval by worrying about what's "appropriate"
Alright, HMF and others of his ilk, I assume you have love and respect for your mothers, sisters, daughters and wives (if you have any). Question, if you and say, your mother, are sitting on a New York subway or Delhi to Chennai train, and you happen to be seated right across from n another man and that man stares directly at your mother's breasts for more than a minute, what would you do, say or think?
I'd say stop hangin out with uae intern.
No seriously, how would you react? Or is this a taboo topic?
Ok, folks -- I've long since lost track of what exactly is at issue in this thread; it's time to move on.