|
Love and marriage," Sinatra sang in 1965. "You can't have one without the other."
But marriage without love is exactly what many people think arranged marriages are — so they reject it.
A strategic but emotionally barren courtship is hardly the stuff of a chick flick.
But it's not that simple. Less well-advertised than the system's drawbacks (see last week's Vexed) are the potential benefits.
Though born in India, I've been raised for most of my 20 years on American notions of freedom and choice. The idea of my parents meddling in my personal life still viscerally horrifies me.
But after a series of bad dates and doomed relationships, I've often wished I could methodically screen losers out of the dating pool. And as my mother swiftly notes, arranged marriage can do just that.
"Oh, you'd still choose," she says. "But before you get emotionally involved, I'd just make sure he's stable, educated and comes from a good family."
Hmm. So no shady creeps. No aimless dropouts. No secretly married sleazeballs. By definition, no bad boys you couldn't bring home to Mother.
So when my ramblin' days are over and I start thinking about marriage, I could delegate the annoying sorting part to someone else and essentially post a "serious inquiries only" filter on my relationships.
OK, so it's still a leap, and it's not for everyone. But there are at least three ways to make the concept more palatable.
First, and most obvious, it can't be forced.
Parents often offer a range of options, and the more educated and financially independent the children — especially girls — the stronger their veto.
Similarly, if Mom and Dad are unjustly prejudiced against someone the child is already dating, the child must have the last word.
Second, it can't be unromantic — at least no less so than a dating service or a blind date your friends set up.
A fellow may check out on paper, but if there's no chemistry, forget it. And finally, the relationship must grow or fail on its own.
Dating gets chaotic all by itself, so I acknowledge that throwing parents into the mix so early is risky, especially if there's no room for error.
In some Indian families, for example, a failed courtship can brand the woman a reject or a whore.
In others, "courtship" consists of one afternoon chat, after which both son and daughter are expected to make up their minds.
But if parents can keep out of a relationship after the initial introduction (optimistic, I know), both parties stand the best chance of finding a successful match.
As Carrie Bradshaw can tell you, Indian girls aren't the only ones who face pressure to couple up. But in today's world, people often don't have time for more than a weekend fling to fulfill, ahem, only short-term needs.
People who go through parents, however, are signaling to each other that they're ready to settle down to something — a healthy common ground for any relationship to start.
Of course, I'm only debating this topic, because I do have a choice in the matter — a luxury not afforded to all — and the above conditions are hardly guarantees.
My point isn't to defend an oppressive practice but to explain the other side of the issue — to argue that there is one.
A glance at American divorce rates will tell you that most people don't know what they're doing anyway.
Contact Sanhita Sen at 373-7070
| 
