I certainly hear that. This was certainly a time when fathers approved of the potential husband and the potential husband was expected to have proof of a path for success. Father's paid a dowry. Also, in theory, providing limited protection against the abuses you specifically warned me against discussion. Historically these marriages were stronger and more successful. Also because the girl passed from her father's house to her husband's house; during formative years of brain development. As women have obtained more power to determine their own marriage, statistically they have been less happy and far less successful. Women remain the number one driver of divorce.
These stats are still reflected in most of the world where arranged marriages remain common. Couples who learn to deal with each other as partners for success, rather than sexualized children (as is the norm today), IMOHO, are far more likely to enjoy long term success. Of course, that requires a social fabric which supports marriage and their family's success.
Children are often told what to do for their own happiness in the long run. Why is one of their biggest decisions of their life exempt? Even women from periods of time where arranged marriages were semi-normal, women still opposed women's suffrage.
Then: blood lines, wealth, success, all intended to create happiness. Sex was part of the blood line deal.
Today: "She's so hot." "He's so hot." "Let's get married." Then everyone is shocked and surprised they divorced.
This is one of the problems with young marriage today as the societal norms do not in any way support marriage of young girls to young men. Accordingly, it's now far more likely to bring about abuse (divorce is far too easy, leaving the girl destroyed). That's extremely bad and one of the huge problems with the Mormons. Thus the importance to note I was speaking of history and not advocating the position given the realities to today's world. Society is not in a position to support this and such advocacy (under 18) can only leave girls destroyed, with children, on the wayside.
To come full circle, I'm not ideologically opposed to arranged marriages so long as they are specifically for the well being of those involved and not sorted trades of young girls.
To come full circle, I'm not ideologically opposed to arranged marriages so long as they are specifically for the well being of those involved and not sorted trades of young girls.
So you don’t have a problem if the adult husband has sex with his new 16 year old bride? That’s what you mean?
Bizarrely dishonest rephrasing of what I just explained in detail. Especially given I literally explained the exact opposite. I had hoped to have an interesting big picture discussion but apparently that's a bridge too far for even you. Doubly so given the topic was arranged marriages.
Which is interesting given I recently commented that is impossible to have any discussion of depth or nuance here of any big topic. You just confirmed that's true all the way to the top here. As I said then, this place is good for information exchange and useless for anything else. Information exchange has its purpose. As limited as that is.
I take it you prefer women destroying society in service to themselves and Jews? We are dishonestly rephrasing the other's position, per your example, right?
Especially given I literally explained the exact opposite.
You did not.
You said "I'm not ideologically opposed to arranged marriages so long as they are specifically for the well being of those involved".
Explain me how an adult man marrying a 16 yo girl against her will and have sex with her is well being.
I take it you prefer women destroying society in service to themselves and Jews?
lol Nice mental gymnastic you've got here.
Information exchange has its purpose. As limited as that is.
As trying to rationally justify pedophilia with blanket statements, which will get you permanently banned.
(post is archived)