5 ms·

There is no evidence at all that Internet usage, social media, and non-arranged marriages make people statistically happier.

by tomcam 4y ago

mym1990 4y ago
What does this comment have to do with what the parent comment said?
cornel_io 4y ago
Arranged marriages are barbaric and effectively rape in many cases, though, especially when they are forced based on threats of disownment or worse, which is common depending on the culture. In some places it is a lot more explicitly threatening. I don't really care whether people who are abused and brainwashed into signing on to participate in and perpetrate on the next generation horrific practices claim to be fine with the crap themselves, that's basically the story of every abusive religious practice ever, beat kids into thinking God will hate them unless X and they're going to tell you X is amazing as adults.
- klipt 4y ago
  That's not how most arranged marriages work, it just means instead of getting options from Tinder, people get options through their parents' social network. Which usually means they're more selected for things the parents like (well respected in the community) rather than things that look good in pictures (shirtless pics). But they're still options, not compulsions.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    I think any useful definition of arranges marriage involved one or both parties not having a say in it, or maybe where one party has such a better negotiating position (such as immigration rights to the USA), that it precludes any other notions of compatibility.
    - klipt 4y ago
      That's a common (and racist) perception of how arranged marriages work but it's not how the majority of them actually work.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        It is not racist. I have family members who were married without consent of both parties. That is an arranged marriage with a distinct difference than that of a marriage that happens with the consent of both parties. Getting introduced to a potential partner by family or friends and then dating is not any different than flirting with a partner and then dating, for the purposes of describing the circumstances that resulted in marriage.
        ars 4y ago
        You are confusing arranged marriage and forced marriage.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        What is the distinction? Can you define them? Whether or not a couples’ uncles introduce each other, or their friends introduce each other, or couple meets each other at a bar/club/church/temple/volunteer org, the only meaningful difference I see is whether one or both parties consented (or was coerced due to drastic difference in negotiating position, such as my immigration example). Two sets of parents deciding their kids are going to be married as adults and forcing/coercing it is arranged/forced marriage. Two sets of parents introducing their kids to each other and the kids deciding they want to be married to each other is just marriage.
        ars 4y ago
        > Two sets of parents deciding their kids are going to be married as adults and forcing/coercing it is arranged/forced marriage. This is forced marriage. > Two sets of parents introducing their kids to each other and the kids deciding they want to be married to each other is just marriage. This is arranged marriage. In a non-arranged marriage the kids find each other, or they get introduced in a non-formal way. In an arranged one parents or a matchmaker do it for them, but the kids make the final decision. An arranged marriage is simply that there is someone actively looking for a match for the kid. In a forced marriage the kids have no say, or their only say is to try to convince the parents, but if the parents disagree the kids have no choice. That's simply what the words mean. You asked for a definition, this is the definition. Keep the distinction and you'll communicate better on this subject without confusing people. (Notice that the only replies you got were people explaining that you are wrong about the topic - that's because you used the wrong term.)
TheGigaChad 4y ago
implements 4y ago
I think common-sense suggests being involuntarily married and obliged to have regular sex with someone not of your choosing probably leads to an unhappy condition, particularly if your community also punishes or forbids divorce or separation, particularly if you’re female. Who or what do socially conservative practices like arranged marriage, prohibition on fornication, restriction on contraception (etc) serve? - the maximisation of happiness … or … often paternalistic control over a population for the greater benefit of a socially powerful elite?
- Alt-F4 4y ago
  > what do socially conservative practices like [...] prohibition on fornication [...] serve? Women and men who have had only 1 sexual partner are happier in their marriages: https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-sexual-history-affect-marital-happiness https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-sexual-history-affect-marita... There's also the big benefit of essentially eliminating STDs. In my view, a lot of it comes down to what does sex mean? To me, sex says "I love you so much I want our love to overflow into new life. I love you so much I want to raise a child with you." Raising a child within a marriage is generally much better than raising a child outside of a marriage. > restriction on contraception One big problem with contraception is that it's not reliable. The pill has a 7% failure rate on average, and condoms have a 12% failure rate on average. People use contraception thinking it will prevent a pregnancy, but they're wrong. > benefit of a socially powerful elite I don't really understand how a prohibition on fornication benefits a powerful elite. The elites in the media industry seem to be promoting fornication in movies, TV shows, books, videogames, etc. I think elite men often want to use their position to have sex with a lot of women, which would be easier if women are ok with fornication. Also they won't be regarded as hypocrites if they say what they're doing is ok. Take for example Aziz Ansari. A woman accused him of some bad sexual thing. Much of the media defended Aziz saying it was just awkward sex, and that's not unethical. If Aziz had been publicly against fornication though, the media wouldn't have defended him.

There is no evidence at all that Internet usage, social media, and non-arranged marriages make people statistically happier.

by tomcam 4y ago

There is no evidence at all that Internet usage, social media, and non-arranged marriages make people statistically happier.

mym1990 4y ago

What does this comment have to do with what the parent comment said?

cornel_io 4y ago

Arranged marriages are barbaric and effectively rape in many cases, though, especially when they are forced based on threats of disownment or worse, which is common depending on the culture. In some places it is a lot more explicitly threatening. I don't really care whether people who are abused and brainwashed into signing on to participate in and perpetrate on the next generation horrific practices claim to be fine with the crap themselves, that's basically the story of every abusive religious practice ever, beat kids into thinking God will hate them unless X and they're going to tell you X is amazing as adults.

klipt 4y ago
That's not how most arranged marriages work, it just means instead of getting options from Tinder, people get options through their parents' social network. Which usually means they're more selected for things the parents like (well respected in the community) rather than things that look good in pictures (shirtless pics). But they're still options, not compulsions.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I think any useful definition of arranges marriage involved one or both parties not having a say in it, or maybe where one party has such a better negotiating position (such as immigration rights to the USA), that it precludes any other notions of compatibility.
  - klipt 4y ago
    That's a common (and racist) perception of how arranged marriages work but it's not how the majority of them actually work.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      It is not racist. I have family members who were married without consent of both parties. That is an arranged marriage with a distinct difference than that of a marriage that happens with the consent of both parties. Getting introduced to a potential partner by family or friends and then dating is not any different than flirting with a partner and then dating, for the purposes of describing the circumstances that resulted in marriage.
      - ars 4y ago
        You are confusing arranged marriage and forced marriage.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        What is the distinction? Can you define them? Whether or not a couples’ uncles introduce each other, or their friends introduce each other, or couple meets each other at a bar/club/church/temple/volunteer org, the only meaningful difference I see is whether one or both parties consented (or was coerced due to drastic difference in negotiating position, such as my immigration example). Two sets of parents deciding their kids are going to be married as adults and forcing/coercing it is arranged/forced marriage. Two sets of parents introducing their kids to each other and the kids deciding they want to be married to each other is just marriage.
        ars 4y ago
        > Two sets of parents deciding their kids are going to be married as adults and forcing/coercing it is arranged/forced marriage. This is forced marriage. > Two sets of parents introducing their kids to each other and the kids deciding they want to be married to each other is just marriage. This is arranged marriage. In a non-arranged marriage the kids find each other, or they get introduced in a non-formal way. In an arranged one parents or a matchmaker do it for them, but the kids make the final decision. An arranged marriage is simply that there is someone actively looking for a match for the kid. In a forced marriage the kids have no say, or their only say is to try to convince the parents, but if the parents disagree the kids have no choice. That's simply what the words mean. You asked for a definition, this is the definition. Keep the distinction and you'll communicate better on this subject without confusing people. (Notice that the only replies you got were people explaining that you are wrong about the topic - that's because you used the wrong term.)

TheGigaChad 4y ago

implements 4y ago

I think common-sense suggests being involuntarily married and obliged to have regular sex with someone not of your choosing probably leads to an unhappy condition, particularly if your community also punishes or forbids divorce or separation, particularly if you’re female. Who or what do socially conservative practices like arranged marriage, prohibition on fornication, restriction on contraception (etc) serve? - the maximisation of happiness … or … often paternalistic control over a population for the greater benefit of a socially powerful elite?

Alt-F4 4y ago
> what do socially conservative practices like [...] prohibition on fornication [...] serve? Women and men who have had only 1 sexual partner are happier in their marriages: https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-sexual-history-affect-marital-happiness https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-sexual-history-affect-marita... There's also the big benefit of essentially eliminating STDs. In my view, a lot of it comes down to what does sex mean? To me, sex says "I love you so much I want our love to overflow into new life. I love you so much I want to raise a child with you." Raising a child within a marriage is generally much better than raising a child outside of a marriage. > restriction on contraception One big problem with contraception is that it's not reliable. The pill has a 7% failure rate on average, and condoms have a 12% failure rate on average. People use contraception thinking it will prevent a pregnancy, but they're wrong. > benefit of a socially powerful elite I don't really understand how a prohibition on fornication benefits a powerful elite. The elites in the media industry seem to be promoting fornication in movies, TV shows, books, videogames, etc. I think elite men often want to use their position to have sex with a lot of women, which would be easier if women are ok with fornication. Also they won't be regarded as hypocrites if they say what they're doing is ok. Take for example Aziz Ansari. A woman accused him of some bad sexual thing. Much of the media defended Aziz saying it was just awkward sex, and that's not unethical. If Aziz had been publicly against fornication though, the media wouldn't have defended him.