Hacker News Reader

Comment by shubhamjain | Hacker News Reader

This is very enlightening. I am not sure if people are aware but arranged marriages are still prevalent in India (which these days means being asked to meet someone and decide in few months if you would want to get married). Although, it seems a bit awkward and more of being forced into it but there is statistical evidence that it can work out really well.

If people enjoy being together, love develops eventually.

View on HN

> there is statistical evidence that it can work out really well

May be true, but it really depends on the definition of "works out well". In particular, there's still a very strong taboo against divorce in most of India, so "remains married" isn't a good proxy for "high-quality relationship".

I've met some people from India who spent a grand total of 2-3 hours doing what people in the U.S. would call dating (spending time together; talking to each other) before deciding to marry them.

I think that is really messed up. Marrying someone is one of the most important decisions you can make in your life, especially if you're planning to stick with them until you die.

I think you need to spend at least a hundred hours (preferably, even more) together with a potential mate, before deciding whether you want to spend the rest of your life with them. A hundred hours together could be a 60 or 70 dinner dates, and weekends spent together, which you could do in less than 6 months.

Everyone puts on a show in the first couple of dates, and it takes a little while to get to know who a person better / for who they really are.

Arranged marriages are probably a vestige of ancient society were alliances were designed to solidify clan associations.

If more women enter the workforce hopefully a Women's Rights Movement will take off. Maybe it will induce a sexual revolution and do away with arranged marriages in Indian society.

I was about to link to the recent NYTimes article [1] posted to HN which said Indian women were leaving the workforce ( workforce participation slid from 37% to 27% ), but looking at the linked data now it looks it stayed at 27 % [2]

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/world/asia/indian-women-la...

[2] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS

I think most people commenting here on India and arranged marriages have no clue what they are talking about. While some of it is generally true, but not any more truer than if I make a statement like "Cops in the US are wife beaters" (Translation: Long stressful job with association with violence seems to increase the likely hood of domestic violence compared to general population.) Arranged marriages may have started off as ways to solidify clan associations.. may be.. in the long lost past and more recently for a very select few. By and large arranged marriages in India now a days is just a matter of convenience. Mostly parents, bride, groom all reaching some sort of a consensus as to whether the marriage is likely to succeed. Why does this matter? Generally because unlike (again generalization) in the western society, this is truly two families coming together. It is easier for every one if there is a bit of compatibility between families too in addition to the bride and groom. As to the "messed up" factor in this, usually these marriages do not happen overnight. Engagement is followed by many months (to many years) of time "together" (not necessarily in a live in sort of way) after which the wedding happens. In many many cases the engagement gets broken off for one reason or another. There is a certain amount of taboo associated with this, so it is not easily said and done. On the other hand, this is good practice ground for resolving conflict among each other. Contrast this to ( what appears to me, an Indian) the usual dating ritual in the US.. Mostly starts of with both parties in various degrees of inebriation, followed by some awkward dates where one pretends to be smarter, funnier and what not, followed by a few sexual encounters, after which reality may dawn and the relationship is broken off. Fast forward many years and relationships and at some point the people involved realize that well, no body is perfect, lets make this work, we have some similar interests and lets face it, we are getting old. They decide to make it work and get married. I do not generally see how this has any chance of working any better. If one could see the magic list of all the people (past present future) one could potentially get married to, with all the qualities listed, sure, one can pick the perfect partner. But till then, it is like predicting the best time to buy a stock. Who knows if something better is in the horizon. But more importantly should one care?

Pretty cynical. It all depends on your cultural framework I guess. I'm sure there are places in India (not upper-class technology workers for instance) where the rules are different. And there are sure different ways in America for dating to work. How about: meet in college, have a few study dates, go out for dinner or a movie, meet her parents on Parents' Day, graduate and continue common interests like folk dance club or book club. Propose among the amazing plants of the Cactus Garden on campus. No inebriation, settling or age-related angst involved.

A bunch of my friends have actually gotten married that way. They met and dated their future spouse in college, and got engaged in their senior year, and married the summer after graduation.

They were all serious Christians though. They also went to lengths to ensure there was absolutely no sexual contact whatsoever before marriage -- e.g. by avoiding being alone in a room with their fianceé; always meeting/dating in public places, etc.

I will admit, American Christians do fall outside the majority cultural norm in this country, and I was writing from that perspective.

Sure. That works too. Like many things in life. Generalizations don't work. The happy scenario you describe above, also happens a lot in India.. With a billion people a lot of things happen. Some good. Some bad.

Maybe a variation of arranged marriages would be the way to go - a prospective partner must be approved by both the person being married and their parents - and there must a minimum amount of time spent together so they know each other.

a sexual revolution and do away with arranged marriages would probably destroy culture and replace with consumerism - everyone focusing on being attractive, rather than being virtuous.

Or, as my dad always advised, "Son---if you decide to get married. Made sure to have separate residences to retreat to."

As a kid, I knew what he was getting at, but even then, I knew I would never have those funds.

(My parents fights were legendary. My mom was at fault early on. later it was my father's fault? It was a verbal battle, the minute he walked into the door.)

> I've met some people from India who spent a grand total of 2-3 hours doing what people in the West would call "dating" (spending time together; talking to each other) before deciding to marry them.

I am sure this happens widely and in many cases, the woman's consent isn't even taken, post-wedding is when the first conversation takes place. I agree this is unacceptable but in most metros, with less-conservative households, expectation is that they take their time before having a final say.

How can they have a wedding before a woman gives her consent?

Well there is "consent" in that they choose between getting married and getting disowned by their family, often ending up homeless.

They put her in a dress and tell her she's getting married, and she puts on a brave face and hopes her new husband isn't too violent.

I find the idea of a marriage without consent disgusting and reprehensible beyond words.

Cute.

One of my Indian friends now living in North America recently got married to a girl via an arranged marriage. He claimed that sex wasn't important to him, yet he's a self-proclaimed porn addict. To each his own, but I wonder about how his wife will feel if his addiction continues and he grows cold and distant. Before getting married he had only met her briefly face-to-face on a visit back home.

Edit: sexual compatibility is very important.

If you find someone fairly attractive, then the sex is not important so long as both parties are somewhat functional. "Good sex" is learnt, nobody was born with this ability. If both parties are patient and willing to go through it together, they will succeed.

This isn't true.

I've dated/slept with someone I just wasn't compatible with sexually and it wasn't for lack of trying or lack of patience, there was years of that.

L'exception confirme la règle.

Point taken, you learn together overtime and discover things. I was more referring to this specific case, where porn and its potential to affect desire/frequency may be an issue. Again, to each his own, they can do what works for them.

Judging by the divorce rate in the US where we date for a long time before marrying, it does not appear the length of time you spend with someone before deciding to exchange vows them is not a good predictor of success in marriage.

Actually I would say arrange marriages have a higher chance of success simply because people who know you well decide to give you in marriage to someone else whom they know kind of well.

I'll quote user jey here: "remains married" isn't a good proxy for "high-quality relationship".

You don't know if these people in arranged marriages have high-quality close relationships, and whether their hearts are really knitted together.

What does hearts are "really knitted together" even mean ? I agree about the proxy part, but for rational discourse we need to start somewhere. Personally, I don't know what that is because I don't think I've had a high quality relationship or maybe I'm not even sure what that means.

it does not appear the length of time you spend with someone before deciding to exchange vows them is a good predictor of success in marriage.

Well how is 2-3 hours any different from 100 hours? I find that even 100 hours is really messed up to borrow your line of thought.

I was saying that a 100 hours should be a minimum. Various friends have said they need to date for "at least 'x' number of years", before getting married. To each his own.

The goal is to try to get to know the person to such a degree that you can decide intelligently whether you truly want to spend the rest of your life with them.

I personally think dating for 3 years or more is excessive, and prefer something shorter. But I would, at the very least have an intense dating period of 6 months or more, before deciding on something as important as marriage.

There is just no telling. Keep in mind that your mate will only show you part of their self and hide many other parts. So do you. Many people find out well into their relationships that their partners is XYZ and XYW.

3 months and 3 years and 3 hours are not so different, although they provide some false comfort.

If you really are serious and want to build a long term relationship, the safest step to take is bring a list of questions and a polygraph.

They are very different. There are things you can hide for 3 hours that will easily leak in 3 months, let alone 3 years. It's easy to get through 3 hours on basically bullshit small talk.

I think part of the thing is recognizing patterns of behavior. For example, now that I am 31, I am really getting to know my parents. Things they said when I was 17 all make sense now, because I've seen the patterns again and again in recent years.

Part of is growing up and part of it is more awareness of human nature, and part of it is a lot of reflection. So in a dating relationship, the more time spent with the person, the better. Its also important to learn something about their past relationships. With my ex I wasn't really listening when she said that she was the problem in all her past relationships.

I figured that was all in the past. But in my experience, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. IMO, people only change under extreme circumstances.

So something like this?

"Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy, but take this polygraph maybe?"

I think I'll pass on that approach...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com