Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: April 2014

what is marriage anymore?

A simpler understanding is that two people are committed to each other
for sex, having kids, raising a family and companionship. What is prohibited now is spending time energy n emotional and material resources elsewhere that reduces what your spouse alone is entitled to. In many cases, the spouse does not even want actual stuff(energy,time n resources) from their partners, they just want to know – whatever their partner has, they prove it 100 % to them. In some cases, the people are happy with what their  spouses r offering them that they come to accept a lil action of their partner in the side if they find out to it.

But forget about extra-marital affairs for now, in a faithful marriage – what if there is no compatibility?
When people take marriage vows, is it a commitment that they will fulfill each other’s needs in the above aspects?
what if initially they thought they could fulfill it but after living together for a bit more time – they find out there is no proper compatibility – personality based and thence sexual
what if there is difficulty in kids arriving? at this point what is the foundation of this marriage? – no kids, no sex, no compatibility and no companionship.
Maybe one person may still find the other to be enjoyable to be with but what if this is not mutual?
So initally the understanding was to make a commitment in the above aspects, later on one realises that the commitment cannot be made because of what they realise about the other.

Who is at fault? and what can be done?

Well no one can 100% judge someone from the start – to add to it is the difficulty in finding potential mates these days esp with the arranged marriage thing in India.
The person who realises he/she cant fulfil the commitment anymore – they dont mean any harm at the beginning, its just that they come to the realisation that
its gonna be hard.
If they are running away coz they are impressed by others – thats something bad coz thats breaking the inital commitment and should gladly accept any penalties for breaking the relationship. But, if they think they’d prefer to be single rather than live with the other person?
Are they at fault entirely? and should they be punished if they wanna divorce?
Although the problem is with both parties – because no one means harm initially, but if one person has a shitty personality, the other cant keep on giving in,
and will not be able to find true companionship and sexual compatibility. So this person can either become more aggressive to try and change the one
with a shitty personality/or give them a taste of their own medicine. Or go for a divorce –
But has to pay the penalty either way for a misjudgement earlier on while making a commitment.
But, they cannot be blamed for not fulfilling their commitment, if their partner has a shitty personality.

Men have it really, really hard these days and our society needs to change in a lot of aspects for things to get better. First thing is Dads – please dont let your daughters become the entitled cunts that most women are today. Maybe if the dads dont keep em pampering too much, most girls wont be so dumb after all. Teach them to think about what is it that they bring to a marriage rather than just keep expecting things from the guys and in the name of norms and privileges in today’s society.

In those days there were no courts with a constitution that would divide the wealth equally between sons and daughters. The way the wealth was divided was to give it in the form of gold and women oriented things to the daughter when she got married and to give the land to the sons who can manage it…guess what this was called?.  The bargaining/expectation bit was to ensure that the sharing was appropriate so that the parents wudnt keep most of their wealth for their sons and that they wud give sufficient amount to the daughters atleast for fear of shame. It is also superficial to prentend that life is easy for everyone and it is not manly for the guy do expect a little head start from the girls’s side.

For over thousands of years the men have looked to prevent this from happening to women

If you hadnt wached the above video fully it and get some perspective on things.Competition,Conflict and struggle for gathering resources was the responsibility of men. In return for protecting from hardships, the fathers prevented their daughters from going out and face the wrath of greedy aggressive people outside. It is simply unrealistic even today and even more so back in the days to ask a number men stand guard for the protection of a females that feel the need to to go out in the night.

Females who go out in unsafe places  in untime are bound to be attacked the same way a weak male is bound to be attacked/ robbed.

( I bet no white worshipping coconuts saw the above as an issue)

India being a not so rich country has limited resources for law enforcement. But the UN statistics in which India was ranked 131 in HDI revealed the number of rapes per 100000 in India as 1.9 while it was 90 in US and around 75 to 80 in countries like Australia, UK even wil an 85% of the cases unreported in these countries. If you were a women and were born in ancient greece/rome(the most civilised part of ancient west)there was a good chance you became a prostitute or a maid. Not a lot of emphasis on marriage or family there compared to the east.

Only in certain parts in India we have Matriarchy and the smritis begin with the premise that Women are to be protected and treated with respect and hence having to follow a number of norms.Those werent perfect, sometimes went over board in bein restrictive and they certainly donk make sense these days, but originally it was intended for the good and not a patriarchal plot to dominate women. Also, polyandry(women having many husbands ) was prevalent only in india whereas polygamy in middle east and in europe meant only males can have multiple wives.

Yet today we all know how bad and immoral Indian men are and how mightly and righteous the westerners are.

Women drool over guys like brad pitt and ryan gosling…the aggressive natured european type who had been war-mongerers and who raped and pillaged a lot of native population of the  world at a cancerous rate.

Generally speaking males can procreate more times than females (because unfortunately only the female has to bear the child), and the instituion of marriage is slightly not so favourable for the male nature. yet indian men have respected the institution of marriage more and longer than western civilisations. Indian culture is inherently feminine and it can be observed from the non-aggressive nature  of indian men. But in the name of feminism, free-thinking etc a lot amongst indians like to bash indians ness and indian culture. There are two kinds of people in these groups…one white worshipping coconuts who look upto all things white, evaluate India through the western lens, and try to gain popularity, and feel important by putting down everything indian/native and trying to imitate the west. And then theres the other kind who despite not having any bad intentions, are drawn towards these politically correct righteous concepts since they are not really that intelligent and lack critical thinking. Dowry, slavery, feudalism existed throughout the world and atleast in india literal slavery didnt exist for a long time and caste system was just a way of avoiding the concentration of power,wealth within one group. However these so called thinkers always attribute the evils to indian culture/way of thinking. Either way these people are short-sighted and are a huge burden to India as a whole.