# Arranged marriage



## autisticdragonkin (Mar 23, 2016)

Although quite rare in the west it is quite common in other cultures and with an increasingly globalized world we have tot address arranged marriage. Many westerners will immediately reject it as being patriarchal.
India has a very low rate of divorce especially in arranged marriages and there is nothing to suggest that arranged marriages are less happy than unarranged marriages. Since people can develop feelings for each other over time as opposed to simply having love at first sight I think that arranged marriages could have equal love in them. Additionally with parents having input that means that there will be a lesser chance of marrying a bad partner. (note that arranged marriages are different from forced marriages because there is an ability to say no to them and oftentimes the partners will get to know each other before accepting the marriage)
(This is for discussing arranged marriages of adults not children which is wrong in any marriage system)


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 23, 2016)

You're insane.


----------



## KingGeedorah (Mar 23, 2016)

Does this include mail order brides?


----------



## XYZpdq (Mar 23, 2016)

Meh, it's not like regular marriage has a great batting average.


----------



## Bokrug's Basement (Mar 23, 2016)

How would it even work in the west? Trying to pair arranged marriage with a hook up culture probably wouldn't go over well.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Mar 23, 2016)

Bokrug's Basement said:


> How would it even work in the west? Trying to pair arranged marriage with a hook up culture probably wouldn't go over well.


It would replace hookup culture once we realize how harmful it is
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...3/how-casual-sex-can-affect-our-mental-health


----------



## Coldgrip (Mar 23, 2016)

I'm starting to see why you were banned from this place.


----------



## Sanshain (Mar 23, 2016)

As somebody who has read a considerable amount on how the Indian arranged marriage system works, I feel completely self-assured in calling you a *fucking moron.*


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Mar 23, 2016)

Forever Sunrise said:


> As somebody who has read a considerable amount on how the Indian arranged marriage system works, I feel completely self-assured in calling you a *fucking moron.*


Elaborate


----------



## Kazami Yuuka (Mar 23, 2016)

The huge difference is that arranged marriage really only takes place in third world countries, while in civilized countries, this does not generally take place. Arranged marriage is pretty much a defunct relic of the past.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Mar 23, 2016)

Kazami Yuuka said:


> The huge difference is that arranged marriage really only takes place in third world countries, while in civilized countries, this does not generally take place. Arranged marriage is pretty much a defunct relic of the past.


I know that it is uncommon in the developed world but that doesn't in itself mean that it is bad. The developed world could be wrong and nobody is actually giving an explanation as to why arranged marriage is wrong


----------



## vertexwindi (Mar 23, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> I know that it is uncommon in the developed world but that doesn't in itself mean that it is bad.


Doesn't necessarily mean it's good either.

In Africa you got people raping babies out of the belief that it will cure their AIDS. That's certainly uncommon in the west, and for good reason.


----------



## Vorhtbame (Mar 23, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> nobody is actually giving an explanation as to why arranged marriage is wrong





autisticdragonkin said:


> Many westerners will immediately reject it as being patriarchal.



You act surprised, and I'm not sure why.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Mar 23, 2016)

vertexwindi said:


> Doesn't necessarily mean it's good either.
> 
> In Africa you got people raping babies out of the belief that it will cure their AIDS. That's certainly uncommon in the west, and for good reason.


I never said that it was good. All I said is that we should judge ideas on their own merits rather than on who advocates them.


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 23, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> Elaborate



You should be thrown in prison where you have a series of arranged marriages to negroes with enormous penises exchanging you for packs of cigarettes.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Mar 23, 2016)

AnOminous said:


> You should be thrown in prison where you have a series of arranged marriages to negroes with enormous penises exchanging you for packs of cigarettes.


That isn't arranged marriage. Arranged marriage is not the same thing as forced marriage. Both parties are able to refuse an arranged marriage (they may have cultural pressures against refusing but it is far from unheard of)
http://muslimmatters.org/2011/12/22/arranged-marriage-is-not-forced-marriage/



Vorhtbame said:


> You act surprised, and I'm not sure why.


They give no explanation as to how it is patriarchal and just say it is. I think it is just a neocolonial bias rather than a real argument


----------



## Bogs (Mar 23, 2016)

At least an arranged marriage would get me a waifu...


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 23, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> That isn't arranged marriage. Arranged marriage is not the same thing as forced marriage. Both parties are able to refuse an arranged marriage (they may have cultural pressures against refusing but it is far from unheard of)
> http://muslimmatters.org/2011/12/22/arranged-marriage-is-not-forced-marriage/



You don't just have autism.  You have turbo tism.


----------



## Vorhtbame (Mar 23, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> They give no explanation as to how it is patriarchal and just say it is. I think it is just a neocolonial bias rather than a real argument



They might also be trolling you.  Or some of each, really.  Does it matter?


----------



## LD 3187 (Mar 23, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> They give no explanation as to how it is patriarchal and just say it is. I think it is just a neocolonial bias rather than a real argument


My 2 cents on why this thread is not going in the direction you want. The most interesting stuff you posted was the article about the effects of casual sex and the relation of that and arranged marriage is not direct. Now, why I think arranged marriage is shit? Well, if you think the problem with today's culture is casual sex how making marriage a economic transation will help that? Do you really think that girls that grow up in countries where arranged marriage view refusing marriage as a possibility? What will a young girl, usually underaged, do when her father tell her that either she marries an old fuck or she is shaming her family and dead to him? Not even going to consider the islamic article you posted, i'm extremely biased against the "religion of peace". Anyway i hope you bring a better case of why arranged marriage would be better than say "we should go back to some prudish values" because afaik i don't see how marrying young girls to rich dudes will fix this. Bring me those autistic ratings.


----------



## Sperglord Dante (Mar 23, 2016)

Arranged marriages are inefficient because they allow men who would otherwise be undesirable in the marriage market to marry, taking some of the limited brides away from...how'd you say this kind of stuff with a straight face?


----------



## GS 281 (Mar 23, 2016)

The stats back him up on this and there is some anecdotal rationale for taking this to heart. People allowing their emotions to drive the decision to marry do not consider the business aspect of it. The combining of assets, mutual responsibilities. Having parents facilitate the marriage process does work out surprisingly well and is worthy of discussion.


----------



## Kazami Yuuka (Mar 23, 2016)

Furthermore arranged marriage at large has been abandoned because it is no longer necessary. Since the notion of royalty no longer important to society, there is no longer any need to arrange marriages in such a way that there is an increase or at least an equivalent value of royal class. It's an archaic institution that really has no use or function in Western society. Note that India still desperately clings onto the caste system (even if it is illegal to do so), and it DOES have arranged marriages.


----------



## Tempest (Mar 23, 2016)

Nice thread


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 23, 2016)

CasualSeppuku said:


> What will a young girl, usually underaged, do when her father tell her that either she marries an old fuck or she is shaming her family and dead to him?



And often literally dead because of honor killing when you "shame" your family.

Pretending this isn't a violent, coercive environment of rape and patriarchy is pure idiocy.

You'd have to be autistic as fuck not to realize that.


----------



## Tranhuviya (Mar 23, 2016)

AnOminous said:


> You'd have to be autistic as fuck not to realize that.


Well, it is in his name.


----------



## Marvin (Mar 23, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> It would replace hookup culture once we realize how harmful it is
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...3/how-casual-sex-can-affect-our-mental-health


Conclusion not found in evidence.

In particular, they restricted their definition of casual sex to sex with almost complete strangers. I think that's relatively rare behavior, mostly confined to thrill seekers. Not the much larger collection of normal people who have sex with people they know, but aren't necessarily in committed, monogamous relationships.


yawning sneasel said:


> The stats back him up on this and there is some anecdotal rationale for taking this to heart. People allowing their emotions to drive the decision to marry do not consider the business aspect of it. The combining of assets, mutual responsibilities. Having parents facilitate the marriage process does work out surprisingly well and is worthy of discussion.


The stats say arranged marriages last longer. But that could just be largely a result of social pressure against divorce.

Generally, western society tries to ditch the business aspect of marriage because marriage no longer serves that purpose for us anymore. Ideally, individuals should be able to financially survive on their own. If they can't, they can get roommates. Marriage is now pretty much now for the emotional relationship. Or kids, if you're wanting to go that route.

Having parents facilitate the marriage process is introducing the very biases we've been trying to escape.

Now, on the other hand, having a neutral, outside matchmaker has better support. Still a bit old fashioned, but not as discomforting as having your parents trade you away, as if you were a herd of goats.


----------



## Vitriol (Mar 23, 2016)

I'm sure this was mentioned in a thread of yours about polyamory but this just isn't how people approach social relations. In a liberal society people want to be free to choose their partners reguardless of the implications for efficiency or long term longevity. Arranged marriages are a hallnark of authoritarian cultures and are inevitably accompanied by more general controls and restrictions that make such places unpleasant and oppresive for the individual.


----------



## Sperglord Dante (Mar 23, 2016)

Marvin said:


> The stats say arranged marriages last longer. But that could just be largely a result of social pressure against divorce.


The places where arranged marriage are still common probably all have ass-backwards/no divorce laws. Like, under Sharia Law only the husband can divorce his wife at will, the wife needs the permission from a religious authority to do the same.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Mar 24, 2016)

CasualSeppuku said:


> My 2 cents on why this thread is not going in the direction you want. The most interesting stuff you posted was the article about the effects of casual sex and the relation of that and arranged marriage is not direct. Now, why I think arranged marriage is shit? Well, if you think the problem with today's culture is casual sex how making marriage a economic transation will help that? Do you really think that girls that grow up in countries where arranged marriage view refusing marriage as a possibility? What will a young girl, usually underaged, do when her father tell her that either she marries an old fuck or she is shaming her family and dead to him? Not even going to consider the islamic article you posted, i'm extremely biased against the "religion of peace". Anyway i hope you bring a better case of why arranged marriage would be better than say "we should go back to some prudish values" because afaik i don't see how marrying young girls to rich dudes will fix this. Bring me those autistic ratings.


The way that you are describing is very different from my proposal in which men (and women) would have to undergo psychological screening in order to ensure that they aren't abusive and the marriages will occur in one's mid twenties to early thirties. Also I wouldn't call arranged marriage prudish because there are many ways in which sexual and romantic desire could be artificially induced such as via drugs/pheromones or through setting up first dates in a certain way.


Sperglord Dante said:


> Arranged marriages are inefficient because they allow men who would otherwise be undesirable in the marriage market to marry, taking some of the limited brides away from...how'd you say this kind of stuff with a straight face?


That wouldn't be the case because the parents will be even more picky than their daughters. I am proposing something in which everyone has to agree and proposals can be made by any party.


Kazami Yuuka said:


> Furthermore arranged marriage at large has been abandoned because it is no longer necessary. Since the notion of royalty no longer important to society, there is no longer any need to arrange marriages in such a way that there is an increase or at least an equivalent value of royal class. It's an archaic institution that really has no use or function in Western society. Note that India still desperately clings onto the caste system (even if it is illegal to do so), and it DOES have arranged marriages.


The reason to have arranged marriage are simply to find the best possible partner. By having impartial bureaucracies (and parents) help it will become easier to look at the big picture and realize that the person one wants to be with now is actually a serial killer/abusive/bad with money/an SJW/has a genetic disease/etc.


AnOminous said:


> And often literally dead because of honor killing when you "shame" your family.
> 
> Pretending this isn't a violent, coercive environment of rape and patriarchy is pure idiocy.
> 
> You'd have to be autistic as fuck not to realize that.


The algorithms will select against rapists unlike normal people who are slaves to their emotions and will marry rapists as a result


Marvin said:


> Generally, western society tries to ditch the business aspect of marriage because marriage no longer serves that purpose for us anymore. Ideally, individuals should be able to financially survive on their own. If they can't, they can get roommates. Marriage is now pretty much now for the emotional relationship. Or kids, if you're wanting to go that route.


Kids is the business aspects of marriage. They are really expensive and work intensive so one must very carefully plan out how to raise them properly. I will say though that potentially economic efficiency could be maximized with a better division of domestic labour so gender roles may be worth creating


Marvin said:


> Having parents facilitate the marriage process is introducing the very biases we've been trying to escape.
> 
> Now, on the other hand, having a neutral, outside matchmaker has better support. Still a bit old fashioned, but not as discomforting as having your parents trade you away, as if you were a herd of goats.


I do not think necessarily that parents should be very involved with it. I am supportive more of the third party matchmaker idea but I do think that parents have a duty to teach their children to use the matchmaking services as opposed to entering into romantic relationships emotionally


Vitriol said:


> I'm sure this was mentioned in a thread of yours about polyamory but this just isn't how people approach social relations. In a liberal society people want to be free to choose their partners regardless of the implications for efficiency or long term longevity. Arranged marriages are a hallmark of authoritarian cultures and are inevitably accompanied by more general controls and restrictions that make such places unpleasant and oppressive for the individual.


I doubt that those restrictions would be very significant but correlation does not imply causation. Also I am confused as to what "unpleasant and oppressive for the individual" means and whether there is a distinction between it and just being unpleasant and oppressive.


----------



## Mesh Gear Fox (Mar 24, 2016)

I think you got the above reactions because you didn't lay any of these terms out.  But nobody wants all this third-party involvement (bureaucracies, psych screenings).  It's lunacy.  Romantic relationships have to evolve organically.  There has to be chemistry between both individuals,  not artificially induced via pheromones.  I've had some pretty lousy blind dates, so there's no way I would let my parents choose my future husband.  I know you bring up the point that it would be via mutual consent, but I don't know anyone who would want all this external interference in who they potentially marry.

ETA: You're addressing love and marriage way too scientifically and logically.  Love is anything but.  Yes there are things I look for in a partner, but they can't be found in an algorithm.


----------



## DuskEngine (Mar 24, 2016)

AnOminous said:


> And often literally dead because of honor killing when you "shame" your family.
> 
> Pretending this isn't a violent, coercive environment of rape and patriarchy is pure idiocy.
> 
> You'd have to be autistic as fuck not to realize that.



You and ADK are talking about different things. The situation you're describing is closer to a daughter being bargained away by her parents, often when underage or while very young, whereas the scenario ADK describes (which is reasonably common here) is basically parents acting as a matchmaker for their adult children.

It's not necessarily odious but there is almost always an element of pressure involved (because people don't normally want to marry people they don't know). It does generally lead to respectable marriages because educated, high-earning people get paired up with each other, but there is still undue pressure put on the (adult) child, often disproportionately on the woman, to marry.

Being able to decide you don't want to marry someone your parents found is seen as a temporary setback on the road to you getting married to someone at the behest of your parents, and this is fundamentally illiberal (and, in my experience, contributes to stable but deeply unhappy marriages).

I think the stigma against divorce has more to do with the lower divorce rates than any kind of love that people 'find' later on. Divorce rates are low in lots of Eastern European and South American countries too, where it's harshly judged, but I'm not aware of arranged marriage being as common in those places.

It also promotes endogamous couplings, which in the long run isolates social groups from each other and promotes communalism. Some families also arrange consanguineous marriages if they lack other options.

It's also easy for me to be cavalier about the issues of coercion and violence, but I strongly suspect a great deal of abuse goes unreported in these sorts of setups for the same reason that divorce is stigmatised.

The people in this thread who think that every arranged marriage is done under threat of honour killings or for dowries are off-base, but I don't think the semblance of stability is worth the unhappiness it inflicts on people and the choice it deprives from them.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Mar 24, 2016)

DuskEngine said:


> You and ADK are talking about different things. The situation you're describing is closer to a daughter being bargained away by her parents, often when underage or while very young, whereas the scenario ADK describes (which is reasonably common here) is basically parents acting as a matchmaker for their adult children.
> 
> It's not necessarily odious but there is almost always an element of pressure involved (because people don't normally want to marry people they don't know). It does generally lead to respectable marriages because educated, high-earning people get paired up with each other, but there is still undue pressure put on the (adult) child, often disproportionately on the woman, to marry.
> 
> ...


You gave a very good argument against arranged marriage. The difference between stability and happiness was a thing that I did not think about. Although I was not intending this thread to be a competition if it is one then you just won it


----------



## DirkBloodStormKing (Mar 24, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> Although quite rare in the west it is quite common in other cultures and with an increasingly globalized world we have tot address arranged marriage. Many westerners will immediately reject it as being patriarchal.
> India has a very low rate of divorce especially in arranged marriages and there is nothing to suggest that arranged marriages are less happy than unarranged marriages. Since people can develop feelings for each other over time as opposed to simply having love at first sight I think that arranged marriages could have equal love in them. Additionally with parents having input that means that there will be a lesser chance of marrying a bad partner. (note that arranged marriages are different from forced marriages because there is an ability to say no to them and oftentimes the partners will get to know each other before accepting the marriage)
> (This is for discussing arranged marriages of adults not children which is wrong in any marriage system)


Normally, I don't say this, but what the flying fuck is wrong with you? This is the most autistic OP I have seen. No wonder you got banned from here for a week. Please, stop talking.


----------



## Puppet Pal Clem (Mar 24, 2016)

Reemphasizing that I don't believe anybody should be forced into any sort of union against their will, I agree with the notion that arranged marriages may have certain advantages.

We do live in a society that champions freedom and happiness, but there are invariably aspects of society that we have a duty to uphold.
One of these while ethically difficult to enforce is the necessity of having and rearing children, the primary function of marriage, and mandatory for the survival of the human race.

If two people can get along, and suitably provide for one another, and respectably raise children, and this is something they both want, even in the absence of some romantic unquantifiable maybe even perceivedly spiritual or magical attraction called love, why should this not be encouraged?

I'm not really sure if the concept of marriage for love is a modern convention born of increased individual freedoms, or if it's been around forever, but maybe there is something to be said for a pragmatic perspective on having a family.
People can get caught up in the pursuit of some idea or understanding of passion that may only satisfactorily exist in fiction or in fleeting infatuation.
It's not uncommon for people to fall in love with or admire some idealized characterization of a real person, only to find disappointment or frustration in their real flaws.

Divorce may come easier nowadays in socially liberal societies, because people value their own individual happiness before their responsibilities to their community and family.
It's not entirely fair to characterize this as selfishness, but the general virtues of duty to family and community did not form arbitrarily and exist for the betterment of society as a whole.
Having both a mom and dad is largely necessary to the healthy development of children, as both social and moralistic role models, where many undervalue the importance of this or think the function of family is purely financial or infrastructural support.
Look at how crippled the African American community is by their excess of children born outside of wedlock and financial stability.

Arranged marriages offer the opportunity for structurally stable households to form in the absence of romantic interest.
If the people participating in it are fine with this, what is to object to?


----------



## DuskEngine (Mar 24, 2016)

Puppet Pal Clem said:


> Arranged marriages offer the opportunity for structurally stable households to form in the absence of romantic interest.



Then it should be called something else, or romantic marriage should be made an an entirely separate institution (or deinstitutionalised altogether).



Puppet Pal Clem said:


> If the people participating in it are fine with this, what is to object to?



The kid doesn't get to consent to being raised in a loveless household.


----------



## Puppet Pal Clem (Mar 24, 2016)

DuskEngine said:


> The kid doesn't get to consent to being raised in a loveless household.



Romance isn't the only form of love.
There is no pretense that the people participating in the arranged marriage hate or dislike each other.
They would simply be good friends, or perhaps grow to love each other romantically over time.
And both parents would certainly love their children.


----------



## DuskEngine (Mar 24, 2016)

Puppet Pal Clem said:


> Romance isn't the only form of love.
> There is no pretense that the people participating in the marriage hate or dislike each other.
> They would simply be good friends, or perhaps grow to love each other romantically over time.
> And both parents would certainly love their children.



Fair enough, from your earlier post you made it sound like a business relationship. I do agree that very good friends, or people who feel a strong sense of shared responsibility for other reasons, should be just as qualified to raise children as people who are romantically involved.


----------



## DirkBloodStormKing (Mar 24, 2016)

Puppet Pal Clem said:


> Reemphasizing that I don't believe anybody should be forced into any sort of union against their will, I agree with the notion that arranged marriages may have certain advantages.
> 
> We do live in a society that champions freedom and happiness, but there are invariably aspects of society that we have a duty to uphold.
> One of these while ethically difficult to enforce is the necessity of having and rearing children, the primary function of marriage, and mandatory for the survival of the human race.
> ...


Personally, even though my parents are happily married and are probably going to be that way for a very long time, I have seen some other marriages that were ugly and had a negative impact on their children. It really depends on the couple and how functional said couple is really.


----------



## Vitriol (Mar 24, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> I doubt that those restrictions would be very significant but correlation does not imply causation. Also I am confused as to what "unpleasant and oppressive for the individual" means and whether there is a distinctio


If you are going to give something as fundamental to human happiness as marriage to a third party  it is almost impossible to justify not doing the same for other aspects of life- occupation, location, number of children, diet etc. The more liberties you take from people the less happy they tend to be, people enjoy making their own decisions even if they are poor ones. 

@Puppet Pal Clem makes a good point about there being a theoretical distinction between an arranged and a forced marriage, but the practical reality is social pressures are either so strong in a given culture that the theoretically arranged marriage is effectively a forced one (Ie rural China) or so weak as to be little more than a pseudo dating service (historically the Jewish community).


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Mar 24, 2016)

Vitriol said:


> If you are going to give something as fundamental to human happiness as marriage to a third party it is almost impossible to justify not doing the same for other aspects of life- occupation, location, number of children, diet etc. The more liberties you take from people the less happy they tend to be, people enjoy making their own decisions even if they are poor ones.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice
That actually isn't the case. People are generally more happy when they have less choices. I think that we should engage in division of labour such that the decisions one has to make are always limited to under 5 choices. This would be purely consensual (people would pay to have their choices reduced) and that way people would have less decision anxiety and still be able to make effective decisions.


Vitriol said:


> @Puppet Pal Clem makes a good point about there being a theoretical distinction between an arranged and a forced marriage, but the practical reality is social pressures are either so strong in a given culture that the theoretically arranged marriage is effectively a forced one (Ie rural China) or so weak as to be little more than a pseudo dating service (historically the Jewish community).


In the OP I was trying to talk about services like http://www.shaadi.com/ and jewish pseudo  dating services but that clearly wasn't effectively communicated.


DuskEngine said:


> The kid doesn't get to consent to being raised in a loveless household.


But they likewise don't get to consent to living in a household with love either. The best thing would be to do what is empirically found to be the best environment for the child such that if they were to be able to rationally choose then they would choose that scenario. What that is I don't know because I am not a child psychologist but it is ethnocentric to assume that the 21st century western ideal is the correct one.


Mesh Gear Fox said:


> ETA: You're addressing love and marriage way too scientifically and logically. Love is anything but. Yes there are things I look for in a partner, but they can't be found in an algorithm.


I am rating this optimistic because psychologists already look at love in a scientific manner and you gave no evidence to suggest that it cannot be quantified (although I admit it will be difficult).


----------



## champthom (Mar 24, 2016)

Romantic love is a pretty modern notion - for most of history, marriages were arranged but then again, marriage was mostly a way of well off families to forge alliances with other families. For the rest of the population, it was probably about fulfilling religious duties to procreate. I don't think Orthodox Jews engage in strict arranged marriages but they do have matchmakers who arrange matches for young people and who work with the family to make sure their child finds the right person to marry. 

I'm not sure how it would work too well in the modern setting - I'm guessing in a case like India, you have a society that's extremely religious and that has strict gender roles. There's low rates of divorce probably because they feel they're obliged to love each other. There's certainly a lot of behind the scenes stuff with arranged marriages in India about negotiating dowries and the like.


----------



## Rick Springfield (Mar 24, 2016)

I once had a friend from India explain the "successes" of arranged marriages to me as follows:  Arranged marriages work because the kind of people who will willingly marry off to whoever their family tells them to as opposed to running away are the same kind of people who will stay in an unhappy marriage.

And if refusing arranged marriages weren't a problem, we wouldn't have all these women from places like Pakistan and India being afraid to go visit family back home for fear that they'll be married off to some lout against their will.


----------



## Oglooger (Mar 24, 2016)

Forever Sunrise said:


> As somebody who has read a considerable amount on how the Indian arranged marriage system works, I feel completely self-assured in calling you a *fucking moron.*


You're emotional response shows how you're not fit to be here.


----------



## Marvin (Mar 24, 2016)

Puppet Pal Clem said:


> If two people can get along, and suitably provide for one another, and respectably raise children, and this is something they both want, even in the absence of some romantic unquantifiable maybe even perceivedly spiritual or magical attraction called love, why should this not be encouraged?


Just because it's not tangible, doesn't mean it doesn't matter. You can't just ignore people's feelings. Unquantifiable feelings are people's primary motivations for living. People work all day at shitty jobs just to save up money and time for their indulgences.

Encouraging people to enter loveless marriages is missing the whole point.


Puppet Pal Clem said:


> Having both a mom and dad is largely necessary to the healthy development of children, as both social and moralistic role models, where many undervalue the importance of this or think the function of family is purely financial or infrastructural support.


Very unlikely. Over the span of the US population, you might be able to see differences in welfare between children in nuclear families compared to other family structures, but by and large, the biggest deciding factor is economics. Single parent households don't struggle because little Johnny lacks a father figure. They struggle because they have half the income a nuclear family does.

They're poorer and have to make hard, shitty decisions about what they spend their limited finances on. And those decisions don't always favor health.


Puppet Pal Clem said:


> Look at how crippled the African American community is by their excess of children born outside of wedlock and financial stability.


The African American community is crippled by poverty.


Puppet Pal Clem said:


> Arranged marriages offer the opportunity for structurally stable households to form in the absence of romantic interest.
> *If the people participating in it are fine with this, *what is to object to?


That's a big if.


autisticdragonkin said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice
> That actually isn't the case. People are generally more happy when they have less choices. I think that we should engage in division of labour such that the decisions one has to make are always limited to under 5 choices. This would be purely consensual (people would pay to have their choices reduced) and that way people would have less decision anxiety and still be able to make effective decisions.


I don't know, this article seems to be a lot of philosophizing and theory without much of substance to back it up.

They also define "choice" pretty narrowly. They seem to be discussing like, immediate choices that you could decide with a coin flip or by rolling a die. Like "where are we going to eat tonight?" Life choices are better represented as a tree, with lots of varying branches to take, ones that might lead to other choices down the road.

In my experience, people tend to arrange their life so they are exposed to the choices they want to make. They do this on their own, as mature adults, without some sort of bureaucratic life-planning service.

They do have services for planning life choices though. For autists.

It's not like there's an epidemic of depressed people who cry themselves to sleep, wondering about the road not taken. "What if I had only threw caution to the wind, bought a motorcycle, and went on adventures with my best friend throughout the American southwest... if only..."


----------



## ObeseScreamingBlackMan (Mar 24, 2016)

I'm in favor of arranged marriages.

But only between MRA's and femblrinas.  Everyone else still has to find a spouse on their own.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Mar 24, 2016)

Marvin said:


> Just because it's not tangible, doesn't mean it doesn't matter. You can't just ignore people's feelings. Unquantifiable feelings are people's primary motivations for living. People work all day at shitty jobs just to save up money and time for their indulgences.


Considering that people have revealed preferences their feelings (or at least motivations) are very easily quantifiable. Taking into account bounded rationality makes it a little more difficult but still doable.


Marvin said:


> That's a big if.


As I said in the OP if you don't want to engage in this institution you can just choose not to


Marvin said:


> In my experience, people tend to arrange their life so they are exposed to the choices they want to make. They do this on their own, as mature adults, without some sort of bureaucratic life-planning service.


I don't quite get what you mean by this. Do you mean that they systematically avoid trivial decisions such as what to eat for breakfast in favour of important career decisions and the like. I have some doubts as to that the people you know actually do this or how you would know unless they explained how they do it. If they actually do this then I would like you to introduce me to them because they seem like some of the most competent people in the world. In my experience nobody that I have met engages in a systematic optimization of the choices and the procedures that they use to make them.


Marvin said:


> They do have services for planning life choices though. For autists.


Provide a link


Marvin said:


> It's not like there's an epidemic of depressed people who cry themselves to sleep, wondering about the road not taken. "What if I had only threw caution to the wind, bought a motorcycle, and went on adventures with my best friend throughout the American southwest... if only..."


That is not what I said. I said that there is an epidemic of people who make the wrong decisions because they misallocate their cognitive resources and that @Vitriol was wrong in postulating that making wrong decisions in a non systematic manner provides happiness


----------



## Marvin (Mar 24, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> I don't quite get what you mean by this. Do you mean that they systematically avoid trivial decisions such as what to eat for breakfast in favour of important career decisions and the like. I have some doubts as to that the people you know actually do this or how you would know unless they explained how they do it. If they actually do this then I would like you to introduce me to them because they seem like some of the most competent people in the world. In my experience nobody that I have met engages in a systematic optimization of the choices and the procedures that they use to make them.


I don't think choosing what to eat for breakfast is emotionally taxing for normal people. I think people are aware that big decisions exist, so they give themselves room to ponder the big decisions comfortably over a period of time.

It's not usually a conscious action to act this way. Normal people are gradually exposed to more and more adult life during childhood, so by the time they reach adulthood, they when they have to start planning early for something. They know how to cope with adulthood so that making choices isn't emotionally taxing.


autisticdragonkin said:


> Provide a link


I was making a reference to group homes.


autisticdragonkin said:


> That is not what I said. I said that there is an epidemic of people who make the wrong decisions because they misallocate their cognitive resources and that @Vitriol was wrong in postulating that making wrong decisions in a non systematic manner provides happiness


You seemed to be focusing more on the happiness aspect. You were suggesting that too many choices make people unhappy.


----------



## Derbydollar (Mar 24, 2016)

I'd rather make my own mistakes than have them made for me, thanks.


----------



## Rick Springfield (Mar 24, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> As I said in the OP if you don't want to engage in this institution you can just choose not to



In many cases, those who "don't want to engage in this institution" can only make that choice by running away from their family, not speaking to them again for a long time if ever.  Similarly, I suppose women growing up in places where genital mutilation is a thing can "choose not to engage in it."  Now, maybe *some* families that support arranged marriage are forward-thinking enough to not turn it into arranged shotgun marriage, but I've heard of plenty of cases where this was not the case, including a few I know personally.


----------



## Marvin (Mar 24, 2016)

Rick Springfield said:


> In many cases, those who "don't want to engage in this institution" can only make that choice by running away from their family, not speaking to them again for a long time if ever.  Similarly, I suppose women growing up in places where genital mutilation is a thing can "choose not to engage in it."  Now, maybe *some* families that support arranged marriage are forward-thinking enough to not turn it into arranged shotgun marriage, but I've heard of plenty of cases where this was not the case, including a few I know personally.


I think he's talking about his more general proposal for a life coach service.

Personally, I think if you need a life coach, you're probably a giant loser, or otherwise have pretty specialized circumstances. Life isn't that hard. Just chill the fuck out.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Mar 24, 2016)

Marvin said:


> Life isn't that hard. Just chill the fuck out.


I understand that it could be not hard if one were to make the decision to go into trades and just try to be financially stable but if one has larger goals then it could easily become very hard


----------

