Arranged Marriage

[peterfaParticipant 833]

I read a book on family and it goes on about finding a mate. According to this book, our current model of romance is a recent phenomenon. Romance started with these apparently really bored knights pandering to these aristocratic women. I think they basically made up all these stories about how wonderful they were and swore these things to protect them. I can’t remember the details. It involved lots of pandering and lots of attention. The woman would bask in it. There would be poetry and music. No sex was involved. None was ever expected. It was apparently just to entertain the both of them. She enjoyed it because her statesman husband was consume with his duty.

Later, they did start to become sexual. This paved the way for basically all of our Hollywood romances, and probably all fairy tales and such.

Before that whole paradigm of romance, people had a system of marriage based on equity. In some societies women had a bride price, and in others, a dowry. In some places something like this is still practiced. It wasn’t that women are seen as commodities like cattle (there’s only one reason why you’d believe this crap, and that’s to feel superior to others, otherwise, you’ll see how stupid that is). They were measured for who they were and what they could do. Being hot wasn’t what it was all about either.

What was important was the soil. If you had hard soil, it was hard to till. Women would be a burden being unable to till. If the soil was soft, then women represented a blessing, since it was easy and they could work it. Obviously, with soft soil, you paid a bride price to get your wife. That family lost her labor so you should make up for it. In a hard soil society, she represented a burden so she had to come with money to make up for her loss. This was fair and equitable.

Women weren’t always valued purely for their hoohaw. Think about how humble and wonderful that would probably made them?

Marriages were also arranged. We find this seriously threatening in our freedom loving culture, and I used to believe this, but don’t find it so threatening anymore. The real threat is that you had no say in who you’d marry.

The problem with romance is that it’s feelings based and unrealistic. In fact, I could write a whole long post about what the hell is so wrong with this. I was heartbroken, actually yes, heartbroken, when I learned what lust was and that it only last for two years. Romance plays off of the ignorant delusion that lust is love and last forever. Instead, in two years, that dies, and now you have a person. What will you do with this person? The wise solution is to commit to this person, and if that person commits too, true love happens. Lust isn’t true love, but it’s pretty close. It’s really cathecting. Cathecting is a psychological concept.

What scared me when I was younger was the idea that my family would be involved in my life. I hated my family other than my mother, and the idea of knowing anything about me seriously threatened me. Oh, the nightmare if they had control of who I married.

Still, parents, assuming they’re not poor parents, would chose wisely since they’re older, having gone through the childish things and understanding them, to protect their child of the great many mistakes people make. The child might not be too happy, but would still be protected from entering into a relationship with a total psycho. The parents would say, “That child is a brat. No way I’m letting my son near her.” However, boys might be lured into her controlling nature for whatever reason.

It would also change the parenting incentive. Now you’re bratty daughter isn’t going to get married because these men who are 35 and no longer thinking with their dicks, decide that, that girl is worthless and would be a terrible mate for his son. She can’t get married because she’s a little bitch. What a concept? Instead the impetus is to raise her with morals, self worth, wisdom, intelligence, and all sorts of good things that please other parents, and make their sons happy. The same, of course, the other way around.

Another drawback is that this can be abused. Your parents could marry you for political reasons. That still might turn out well though.

I see the arranged marriage system as protecting both boys and girls. With the impetus to do a good parenting job, all children are protected. Then girls won’t whore them selves for their hypergamy delusions, and boys wouldn’t think with their dicks and date stupid chicks, or even pander and fail.

That may be how the human race lasted so long before getting to this point. I take a look at this world and great pains fill me inside. It’s all terrible. The human race is just too stupid to live.

Arranged marriages also ensure that most men would have mates.

[J.D SilvernailParticipant 383]

You have a good but also bad idea. If you really think that arranged marriages work for everyone then think again. Marriage doesn’t work out for guys like me cause I have mama issues which is why I don’t like bible thumping prudes. I’ve also learned not to get into relationships with sluts the hard way. My parents make me to marry some bible thumping bitch and I’m an atheist. How do you think that would work out? The only thing I want from a woman is casual sex and for them to give birth to my kids in the future. I don’t want to become anyone’s husband.

I'm married to the game,but she broke her vows.

[J.D SilvernailParticipant 383]

Also what was the book you read called?

I'm married to the game,but she broke her vows.

[Mango IngawayParticipant 2264]

Well, arranged marriage does seem to have its advantages, but I think that one of the biggest problems is that people are never really satisfied with what they have.
I’d also say that women and girls nowadays have ridiculously warped views of love, a lot of them expect some kind of prince charming to come and worship them for the rest of their life. And the thing is, as someone once eloquently put “If prince charming existed, you’re not the one he’d want to f~~~, anyway.”

W.H. Auden described love and how it evolves through time the best in “As I walked out one evening”, imho

As I walked out one evening,
Walking down Bristol Street,
The crowds upon the pavement
Were fields of harvest wheat.

And down by the brimming river
I heard a lover sing
Under an arch of the railway:
‘Love has no ending.

‘I’ll love you, dear, I’ll love you
Till China and Africa meet,
And the river jumps over the mountain
And the salmon sing in the street,

‘I’ll love you till the ocean
Is folded and hung up to dry
And the seven stars go squawking
Like geese about the sky.

‘The years shall run like rabbits,
For in my arms I hold
The Flower of the Ages,
And the first love of the world.’

But all the clocks in the city
Began to whirr and chime:
‘O let not Time deceive you,
You cannot conquer Time.

‘In the burrows of the Nightmare
Where Justice naked is,
Time watches from the shadow
And coughs when you would kiss.

‘In headaches and in worry
Vaguely life leaks away,
And Time will have his fancy
To-morrow or to-day.

‘Into many a green valley
Drifts the appalling snow;
Time breaks the threaded dances
And the diver’s brilliant bow.

‘O plunge your hands in water,
Plunge them in up to the wrist;
Stare, stare in the basin
And wonder what you’ve missed.

‘The glacier knocks in the cupboard,
The desert sighs in the bed,
And the crack in the tea-cup opens
A lane to the land of the dead.

‘Where the beggars raffle the banknotes
And the Giant is enchanting to Jack,
And the Lily-white Boy is a Roarer,
And Jill goes down on her back.

‘O look, look in the mirror,
O look in your distress:
Life remains a blessing
Although you cannot bless.

‘O stand, stand at the window
As the tears scald and start;
You shall love your crooked neighbour
With your crooked heart.’

It was late, late in the evening,
The lovers they were gone;
The clocks had ceased their chiming,
And the deep river ran on.

It is a common failing of childhood to think that if one makes a hero out of a demon the demon will be satisfied.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

I read some similar stories.  I remember the monks/priests criticized the knights for adultery and placing women on a pedestal.

[peterfaParticipant 833]

I’ve never heard of that, the priests/monks critisizing them. I with I had heard this, @john Doe. Do you have a source?

@j.D Silvernail, this book is a Christian book on family. It’s actually gynocentric, but I’ll give you the title: The Family: A Christian Perspective on the Contemporary Home. I read it mainly out of sorrow for the losses I’ve suffered, which are of my own family growing up in a dysfunctional family, the family of my ex, which was also dysfunctional, and of all the crap I suffered trying to figure out why I’m so messed up and that I always lose out, picked on, bullied. I see myself differently, that it’s not all my fault, but that I was trying, and it’s the others who resigned to a life of mythology and lies. They had it easy, but I was targeted for scapegoating.

Also, I do sympathize with you. That’s one horrible threat to arranged marriage, but think about it: so much of our life’s atrocity is based on this crap. Had we had a better system, we might not have been so easily seduced into the system we have now. Rather, women would balk at how silly and pathetic women are in the movies. They would think, “Why does this stupid brat get up and do something? What is wrong with this man that he risks his life for her since she’s too stupid to live? Is there something sick going on?”

[Author]

Posts