Subject: Fatasm in attitudes towards Marriage,....

From: [email-masked]
Date: 17 Aug 90 23:27:00 GMT

In an excellent and well-articulated article
[email-masked] (Subbarao Kambhampati) writes:

 ..... " 'at least in arranged marriages the "phyamilies" look into the
   compatibility issue rather thoroughly, and what is left for us is to
   jhust fall into love ("In India we fall in love AFTER marriage" aka
   raavirala et al), make a few compromises and everything will be 
   fine and dandy.'......

"What this type of attitude essentially amounts to is the following:
....But this is ridiculous--in life--be it academic, professional or
personal--we are always faced with situations where we cannot tell the
outcome with certainity. And we are called upon to make educated
decisions with incomplete information.  We don't always resort to such
cynically indiscriminate choices (if you do GOD help you!)--so why
suddenly now???? .......

..."Some of the compromises--like the first--are trivial and they do not
take off anything from your essential persona; some compromises like
the second might be "compromising your values" and as such affect your
essential persona; and finally there are compromises like the third
one above, which are none less than sacrificing your persona entirely.....

....."Yes, any darned union can be made to work if one or both of the
		^^^^^^^^^^^^

****	Brilliant ! Ah, the subtleties this writer-par-excellence
****	employs ! (According to Websters, to darn is to mend, to patch)

parties are willing to compromise indiscriminately; there is no
question of prejudging compatibility.....

..."And if we judge the "Success" of a marriage SOLELY BASED ON ITS
LONGEVITY, we will say that all such marriages are higly successful!!...."

-Rao

	Well put! Let us not lose sight of the fact that it was
	not only "convenient" but also important that the parents
	and aunt, uncle and other assorted ilk needed to check
	out the bride/groom for compatibility (from their point
	of view, that is. They only know you (my good reader) as 
	son or daughter and cannot know how good a husband or wife 
	you would be). After all, they all had to live together 
	and the woman (in rare cases the man too) married into 
	the family. When extended families have become as rare as
	good humor on SCI, your parents 'checking out' the prospec-
	tive spouse on your behalf is ludicrous.

	A practical alternative to meet your prospective spouse is
	through 'match-making' (no, not the Sivakasi type). It is 
	fairly common among the jews of New York, for example. The 
	couple get to know each other and if they feel ready they 
	can get married. The difference between just dating and 
	match-making (here I am just guessing) is that in the latter 
	the two are actively looking to get married but that in itself 
	does not imply a commitment to each other. There is a high 
	likelihood that they'd marry if they liked/loved each other 
	enough.

In another (thoughtful) article
[email-masked] (Vikram Duvvoori) says:

...." One frustrated husband in a slightly
troubled marriage once said in exasperation, "Why does she keep
complaining, it is for her own good that I take these decisions
	     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
on matters of the REAL WORLD". (Both are doctors, currently in
North America - he really loves her). "
		^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^
Vikram Duvvoori  ([email-masked])

	Sounds unmistakably like ownership.

						- Nagarajan

*******************************************************************
	.... that false secondary power by which
	In weakness we multiply distinctions, then
	Deem our puny boundaries are things
	That we perceive and not that we have made.
					- Wordsworth
*******************************************************************