Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Arranged Marriages - Workable today?

Culture Arranged Marriages

  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

Poll: In the modern world, can arranged marriages work? (36 member(s) have cast votes)

In the modern world, can arranged marriages work?

  1. No - people need to choose their mates and spend time with them before marriage. (9 votes [25.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

  2. No - modern expectations are too complex for that to work. (7 votes [19.44%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.44%

  3. Maybe - under certain conditions they could work... (8 votes [22.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

  4. Yes - with education, and input from the participants, marriages can be arranged. (9 votes [25.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

  5. Yes - given our scientific/psychological understandings we can arrange marriages. (3 votes [8.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.33%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 Appreciate

Appreciate
  • Islander
  • 4,651 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 11:08 AM

Not to worry, and thank you for editing so promptly. :)

Kathy
"Any dolt with half a brain/Can see that humankind has gone insane
To the point where I don't know if I'll upset the status quo
If I throw poison in the water main..."
- Billy (aka Dr. Horrible) in My Eyes from the AWESOME Dr. Horrible's SingAlong Blog

#62 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 11:13 AM

Well, it's just a good thing I'm procrastinating instead of heading off to school, otherwise the situation may have been more tense. ;)

#63 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 11:15 AM

MuseZack, on Jun 23 2004, 11:52 AM, said:

If arranged marriages are so great and romantic love is a social construct, then....


....why is Titanic the most popular movie of all time?



I'm serious.  Despite the fact that arranged marriages have been widely practiced throughout many cultures and time periods, one need only look at the love stories told by popular culture, from Romeo and Juliet through Titanic and Bollywood musicals, to see that the dream of picking one's own mate based on romantic affinity rather than one's parents economic preferences seems to be a universal human constant.
I don't think romantic love is a social construct. :)

I also don't think that the only way to get it is the way we do it now.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#64 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 11:24 AM

gaius claudius, on Jun 23 2004, 12:04 PM, said:

I'd still like some type of clarification on who these "participants" would be..for the reasons stated in previous post...


gc   :devil:
I thought I clarified in some of my posts - the participants are the people getting married themselves. :)

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#65 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 11:26 AM

I'd be all for arranged marriages, provided I'd be the one doing the arranging, and even then, only for myself. ;)  Seriously, I have to agree with what Zack says.  I think I can even recall a Norse saga or two that addresses this sort of conflict, but I'd have to go back and check.  I don't believe that romantic love is a social construct.

#66 Lina

Lina

    This too shall pass

  • Islander
  • 2,603 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 11:40 AM

Little off-topic fun: I once read a sci-fi story, where there was an ongoing research in making a perfect match. Men and women were measured, tested and questioned in any possible way, until the match was determined. The two met and soon they began to drift to each other, even though they did not quiet like each other at first. They became closer and closer (in many possible ways), right until they ceased to be separate, and fused into one androgynous being (literally). :eek:

Now, back on topic.

Interesting question, HM. Unfortunately, I voted just after I read options, without reading your post in its entirety. My 'gut reaction' after just reading options was "Yes - with education, and input from the participants, marriages can be arranged", but after I read your post when it said:

Quote

Skip the dating part - find the perfect counterpart, and begin the process of building a relationship INSIDE of the marriage, not out of it.

I realized that you and I aren't probably on the same page on what the option I voted for is supposed to be about.

Before reading your post, I figured that a person who wants to marry would be offered a pool of 'matches' based on various criterions (supplied by a person themselves, or obtained using a questionnaire, some psychological tests, etc.). Then, a person would meet these potential spouses and get to know them, and vice a versa. Then, after a period of time, the decision can be made (by those who are being 'matched') whether they wish to proceed or not. Whether they's decide to marry right away, or maybe co-habit, or share gf/bf relationship, or remain friends, or go their separate ways would be up to them. Having them begin the process of building a relationship INSIDE of the marriage did not cross my mind at all. Sorry for being misleading in my vote. :( Hopefully, my opinion as presented below would help you to identify where I really stand on your poll.

I do not believe in a magical, only one match for any person. IMO, there are people with whom we can be able to make a relationship, and those with whom it is impossible. If these criterion can be codified and used for 'pre-screening' of potential mates, it can be nice. However, among those with whom we can build a relationship, there are those who we do not want to have this relationship with in the first place. And this has, IMO, to be determined by a person themselves. For example, if I am a easy-going, easy forgiving person who does not dwell on mistakes of others, I can probably build a credible relationship with someone who stumbles quiet often and is just as often not ready to admit having problems, but would I really want to?

Another problem to consider is that often people perceive themselves... how do I put it mildly... in a way that is quiet far from reality. My mom would often say that she is a very calm, collected person. She used to throw her temper around about twice a week, too, and for a little reason.

Also, there are plenty of problems for the future couple to work out BEFORE they marry - do they want children? If they have children, who (if any) gets to be a stay at home parent? If they have children, will they homeshcool? If so, who will be doing so (mostly), and thus probably stay at home? Unplanned pregnancy - what is their possible reaction? One of them is definitely a workaholic - is it okay? The list goes on, and on, and on. Of course, one can say that it all can be codified and used at the 'matching process', but really... the question like "Will you consider terminating healthy but unplanned pregnancy if you are in stable, loving marriage, and your husband encourages you to have a child" sounds different when you have to choose a, b or c in questionaire, and when it is asked by a man you feel strong attraction to, when he looks into your eyes.

In addition to the above paragraph, I feel that it is often important that two people would personally 'declare' their 'choosing criteria', or, to put it the other way, voice their concerns and hopes, instead of relying of someone other them to do it all in the process of arranging. In a way, such arranging may remove responsibility from the future couple to make their relationship ever work. They can always say "We were arranged to be together, so it is not out mistake. Let's consider that matchmakers were wrong and go our separate ways." I don't think it is a good attitude in the marriage.

Lina

#67 gaius claudius

gaius claudius

    I'm bringing the sexy back!!

  • Islander
  • 1,895 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 11:48 AM

Handmaiden07, on Jun 23 2004, 12:22 PM, said:

gaius claudius, on Jun 23 2004, 12:04 PM, said:

I'd still like some type of clarification on who these "participants" would be..for the reasons stated in previous post...


gc   :devil:
I thought I clarified in some of my posts - the participants are the people getting married themselves. :)
Then I think I meant to ask...Who would be doing the actual "arranging"..ie..picking out the girl (or boy)...etc




gc     :devil:
“I seek the truth...it is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance that does harm.”
- Marcus Aurelius

King Mob 42

#68 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 11:56 AM

^ Me, of course.  Now taking bribes.

#69 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 03:52 PM

I picked the first option, for me personally. But arranged marriages still exist all over the world, so I think they're still workable. But personally, I think a person should be given the choice, even if it's a choice I might not want or like. ;)
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#70 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 04:03 PM

!!! What's weird is the number of people saying that the person should have a choice, when I've explained a few times now that the people themselves do the "arranging!"  What am I saying incorrectly?

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#71 TravelerOfTheWays

TravelerOfTheWays

    Botherbotherbother

  • Islander
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 04:35 PM

I'd have to think about this a little more before voting, but Lina brought up a point that I had been thinking about as I read various people's responses.  It does seem logically sound to have people describe themselves and then fit people according to their responses to questionnaires, but I know many people who either couldn't or wouldn't accurately describe themselves, even for something like marriage.  It could be as major as a person in denial about an addiction or like what Lina said, a person believes him or herself to be a cool and collected person, when this someone works into a rage every other week.

I know there are certain words I would use to describe myself, but I also know that those words reflect who I would like to be just as much as (or more) they reflect who I really am.  It's hard to come out and face one's flaws--even if it is for a life-long committment.  I'm not sure I could even distinguish between those words to do apply to me and those I would like to apply to me.  Just sayin'...
"The corollary, of course, is that a Western man who treats women like they're, you know, people has an absurdly easy time of things. It's like a sexy lady liquidation event. NO REASONABLE OFFER WILL BE REFUSED."

~Rov

#72 gaius claudius

gaius claudius

    I'm bringing the sexy back!!

  • Islander
  • 1,895 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 06:05 PM

Handmaiden07, on Jun 23 2004, 05:01 PM, said:

!!! What's weird is the number of people saying that the person should have a choice, when I've explained a few times now that the people themselves do the "arranging!"  What am I saying incorrectly?

HM07
When you say "arranged marriage", the connotation is that either parental figures or relatives come together, and pick out someone for you that you've probably never met... :unsure:

Whereas when you talk about arranged marriage, you seem to be discussing options like computer dating.....



gc     :devil:  :devil:
“I seek the truth...it is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance that does harm.”
- Marcus Aurelius

King Mob 42

#73 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 06:51 PM

gaius claudius, on Jun 23 2004, 07:03 PM, said:

When you say "arranged marriage", the connotation is that either parental figures or relatives come together, and pick out someone for you that you've probably never met... :unsure:

Whereas when you talk about arranged marriage, you seem to be discussing options like computer dating.....



gc     :devil:  :devil:
Yep. More like computer dating.  Like I said - the catch is, there's no "dating."  Just stringent selections, and then perhaps a personal screening to be sure, and then marriage.  I consider this "arranged" because the romance pre-marriage is left out... the couple gets to build romance post-marriage.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#74 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,634 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 08:56 PM

Because you've used a word long associated with a very different sort of marriage without dating, you're getting skewed responses.  I'm not sure what adjective you should use, but "arranged" is going to give people a very wrong idea of what you are talking about.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#75 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 10:37 PM

Skyler, on Jun 23 2004, 11:41 AM, said:

I voted "maybe" on the main question of the thread... I figure it might help my odds of getting some woman to actually marry me someday... ;)
Hey, if it works for John Burke, maybe it works for me, too!

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#76 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 10:39 PM

As to the topic at hand--- now that I know what it is.....

Isn't an online relationship therefore really nothing more than a sort of arranged marriage? You find out about and "pick" the person, without having met them, and then bam! you're off to the races---- and then maybe you meet them in person.

Or maybe a set-up.

I mean, if it's not an arranged marriage in an arranged marriage sense of the word (that is to say, someone else does the arranging for family purposes), it's *not* an arranged marriage. It's just a more carefully chosen pairing. If there's an element of choice involved by the person who will be doing the walking down the aisle (or standing at the head of it waiting for the veil to be lifted), then it's a lot of things possibly, but NOT an arranged marriage.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#77 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 10:55 PM

the'Hawk, on Jun 23 2004, 09:37 PM, said:

Isn't an online relationship therefore really nothing more than a sort of arranged marriage? You find out about and "pick" the person, without having met them, and then bam! you're off to the races---- and then maybe you meet them in person.
I'm not sure how meeting them in person could be the last step in whatever you're talking about, but plain old ordinary internet matching doesn't have to be like an arranged marriage or have to be unlike it. It would depend on whether they marry soon afterward or draw it out with a long dating process first. The issue is speed. The less time there is together before the marriage, the more like an arranged marriage it is in that element.

#78 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 11:07 PM

OK... I understand the problem with the wording now.

But - here's where I called it "arranged."  It kinda goes back to a question that came up on page 1.  

As I'm seeing it - the participants don't have unlimited choice.  Their choices are limited by a number of factors, some of which are of their own choosing, but some of which may be based on a bit of profiling that is done for them ABOUT them.  SO, back to Lina's question about can people skew the results... yes, perhaps.  But, like with a Myers-Briggs Type indicator - your answers about yourself are not the only ones taken into consideration.  Also are people you choose to answer questions about you- friends, coworkers, parents, siblings... the idea is to get a picture of "the real you" both as you see yourself and as you are seen.  That kind of profiling is what I would imagine would take FIRST precedence over any choices you will have.  So a first pass at the pool of available mates is done on the basis of a psychological profile.  The NEXT pass is based on your personal choices, and the last pass is a picture review in which you rank images of those who are in your pool.  

Another aspect of "arrangement" is the educational portion.  It serves the function of that extended family, that prepares a young person for their responsibilities as they enter marriage and adulthood.  The training portion in this idea is not optional.  Its mandatory.

Yet another aspect of "arrangement" is the background checks - participants all have to consent to background checks - which serves the function of parents looking for "good families" or checking the reputation of the person and their family, or any other safety features that are inherent in arranged marriages.

Finally - the last aspect of "arrangement" is the control of access to one another prior to marriage.  The "personal interview" is planned and to some degree chaperoned - if by no other means that by having the interview at an established location set up by whatever institution is doing these arrangements.  Of course, people are ingenious, and if they really really want to meet - they'll work it out! But - the process discourages it.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#79 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 11:09 PM

yeah, and... what Delvo said. :lol:

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#80 Psyche

Psyche
  • Islander
  • 13,556 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 11:10 PM

My opinion here is that arranged marriages can work. What I mean would be marriages arranged by the parents or other relatives, where the two spouses-to-be know each other prior to the marriage, but met knowing that they would get married sometime in the future.

I don't think love is the most important thing in this kind of marriage, I think it's respect. If you have respect for the person you've married, love will come later. It's a completely different kind of marriage, but a workable one.

I don't really think the "computer dating without the dating" thing would work though, I think an arranged marriage is more of a family thing, the marriage arranged by the parents who obviously know each other and like/respect each other.

So I'm all for arranged marriage if the marriage is not a random selection.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Culture, Arranged Marriages

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users