Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who told you this crap? It's true, that sex plays an important role in a relationship, but marrying for sex? Oh, man...Rayc said:The difference in viewing marriage between the East and the West is that in the East we look for COMPANIONSHIP (and this turns to Dependability) while in the West it is SEX.
Rayc said:I have come in late on this thread.
The difference in viewing marriage between the East and the West is that in the East we look for COMPANIONSHIP (and this turns to Dependability) while in the West it is SEX.
Rayc said:I have come in late on this thread.
The difference in viewing marriage between the East and the West is that in the East we look for COMPANIONSHIP (and this turns to Dependability) while in the West it is SEX.
Sex wanes with time.
Companionship grows with time.
Isn't India famous for the Kamasutra ? Does that mean that Indian people all have sex like the statues of temples of love in Khajuraho ?
Rayc said:In the West, one looks at the woman only. In India we look at the family too - to see if the families have the same background (and it is not caste, lest you shoot that off having travelled in India as a tourist (and BTW I have married intercaste as also my parents ). Having a same background matters since there is usually a similarity of thought and the way of life. Marraige is all about compatibility, everything else is skin deep. Beauty withers, but not the inner beauty. Every marriage will have problems. But the understanding between each other irons it out.
.
Rayc said:Why only talk about Khajuraho. There is Konarak etc.
You claim you have travelled around India, but did you ask why sexual scenes are there on the temple walls?
Tourists tend to be Superficial.
The divorce rates and this 'living in' concept if the West is an interesting commentary on how perfuntorily a 'holy union' (Christian way of explaining welock) is apparently viewed in the West.
What is marraige? It is a union of two souls to procreate and have companionship.
However, living in is not so. The high divorces indicate that there is no bond in the companionships. If that be the case, then why have they married?
Time said:In Singapore, the number of divorces is up a third since 1990, while it has nearly doubled in Thailand. In Japan, a couple gets married every 42 seconds, but another couple will divorce before 2 minutes are up. In the past 20 years, the divorce rate has doubled in mainland China and tripled in Taiwan. And the divorce rate in South Korea now exceeds that of many European countries, including the U.K., Denmark and Hungary. Even in India—where a wife was once considered so immutably tied to her husband that she was thrown on his funeral pyre if he died before she did—sociologists estimate that the divorce rate is 11 per 1,000, up from 7.41 per 1,000 in 1991.
'Arranged marriage' may not be appealing to the western concpet of life. Yet the statistics does indicate a lower divorce rate. Why is this so, if a 'loveless' marraige is what 'arranged marriages' are all about? Could it be that companionship was the more powerful factor?
In the West, one looks at the woman only.
In India we look at the family too - to see if the families have the same background
Marraige is all about compatibility, everything else is skin deep. Beauty withers, but not the inner beauty. Every marriage will have problems. But the understanding between each other irons it out.
As far as the British knowing India, it is just that they think they know India. India is such a vast country that even Indians may not know all of India or the various customs and tradition in every nook and cranny.
Rayc said:Another issue I found interesting is that children after three years have to live in a different room.
Could that be the reason why the family bonding is so low in the West?
In India, till the child is big enough, they stay in the same room as their parents.
I know of an American friend who told me that he loved his Mother a lot. He made it a point to telephone his mother long distance on her birthday every year.
Rayc said:I know of an American friend who told me that he loved his Mother a lot. He made it a point to telephone his mother long distance on her birthday every year.
There were quite a few Indians there when he said this. We found it odd. We would have surely made the trip to wish her in person and spend a few days with her in case we were living elsewhere because of our job or schooling.
Maciamo said:No. If people get an arranged marriage, there could be 2 reasons. Either they are forced by their family (like in the movie Devdas), or because they renounce to finding their true love and want to get married to found a family (=have children, a house, etc.). The latter case is the most common in Japan. The first is probably more usual in India. But in either case, I don't see how they could divorce.
Maciamo said:Love marriage often fail because love is not eternal in most cases. Love is mostly due to biochemical reactions in our body. This wears off with time.
Rayc said:I also find it odd that children and parents on finishing their telephonic conversation end it with teh Americanism 'I love you, dad' or words to that efffect. It goes without saying that the child loves the father.
One doesn't have to say the obvious. It is the not so obvious that requires reminding.
I find "I love you, dad" as inane as saying "I hope you are still alive the next time I telephone you".
However, when the relationship between a parent and the child is only the annual telephone call, then I reckon "I love you, Mom" has deep significance.
Does it? It can also indicate that people are reasonable enough not to continue a failed relationship. Which is quite positive in my eyes.Rayc said:The high divorces indicate that there is no bond in the companionships.
The most powerful factor is probably social pressure.'Arranged marriage' may not be appealing to the western concpet of life. Yet the statistics does indicate a lower divorce rate. Why is this so, if a 'loveless' marraige is what 'arranged marriages' are all about? Could it be that companionship was the more powerful factor?
Maybe he could know more? Many natives don't know too much about their own countries. An interested foreigner is absolutely able to know more about a country than a native.Rayc said:I am sure while he will know more about Japan than the average Indian, surely he would not know as much as his wife!
Absurd? You really don't know much about Western culture, do you? Maybe face is not as overestimated as in many Asian countries, but it does exist (& often to a ridiculous degree as well, IMO).The idea of 'face' is also absurd to the Occidentals, but it is not so for Orientals. How can one explain the same to the Occidentals?
That should be fourth, if my information isn't outdated: Indonesia, Pakistan & Bangladesh have bigger Muslim populations.India has the third largest Moslems population in the world.
Rayc said:In so far as your quote on Indian divorces, I have strong reservation about the motives of the article which states where a wife was once considered so immutably tied to her husband that she was thrown on his funeral pyre if he died before she did. First of all, this is before the time of Ram Mohan Roy and what is more they were not thrown. It was a custom centuries ago and its social context at the time requires to be understood. To juge contemporary issues with ancient beliefs is most ridiculous. It is like stating that US psyche dictates that they enslave mankind. Why? Because they had slaves. Juvenile.
I haven't understood the comment on 'holy union' or that Europeans (majority) are Christians by name alone. In India religion (except maybe the Moslems) is in name alone. Some go to temples, churches etc, but that is about all, The majority just don't. If religion was such a huge issue in India then the religious parties would have won hands down. They don't.
Four babies and a criminal trial Bangladeshi babies accused of looting
Four Bangladeshi infants have appeared in court in their parents' arms accused of looting and causing criminal damage.
The four - whose ages range from three months to two years - were released on bail after a brief hearing.
The magistrate in the southern city of Chittagong said the case did not appear to be genuine - but the truth would emerge in a police report.
Anyone can file criminal cases in Bangladesh, and the procedure is frequently used to harass people.
The magistrate, Ali Noor, told reporters that he had been "a bit surprised" to see such young children in his court.
"Everything will come out during the police investigation and the report that will be submitted to the court later," he added.
Bail has been granted at $50 per child.
The children are all members of an extended family.
Relatives said the allegations stemmed from a land dispute with a neighbour.
Depends on the laws, doesn't it (eg. I remember several ridiculous cases in the US)? What's your problem with the BBC then? They didn't make the laws in Bangladesh.Rayc said:Do tell me can anyone or any country be so stupid that four infants can be charged with these crimes!
bossel said:Depends on the laws, doesn't it (eg. I remember several ridiculous cases in the US)? What's your problem with the BBC then? They didn't make the laws in Bangladesh.
Rayc said:This is what BBC stated about Bangaladesh (it is no favourite of mine, but the 'selective reporting' does give a very poor impression of Bangladesh).
Do tell me can anyone or any country be so stupid that four infants can be charged with these crimes!
BBC News said:The magistrate in the southern city of Chittagong said the case did not appear to be genuine - but the truth would emerge in a police report.
Anyone can file criminal cases in Bangladesh, and the procedure is frequently used to harass people.
Oh man, you're so misinformed. What about those 2 kids (9- & 10-yo) who got arrested by police for drawing matchstick men on a paper? Just as stupid, I'd say. Or what about other kids of that age being arrested for sexual harassment, because they were playing naked in their garden & the neighbour saw them?Rayc said:I don't think in the US, such a stupid case could be filed.
You mean -like- mutes cannot be charged in Bangladesh? Hardly believable.Rayc said:Next, can infants speak? If they can't, then how is the law being applied?