What's new

Radical difference between East and West regarding relationships and marriage : OFFTOPIC about India

Rayc

Rayc
16 Feb 2005
57
3
18
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.
 
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.
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:
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.

How can you possibly justify writing such rubbish? Sometimes I have a hard time comprehending how it is possible that people can expouse such ill informed and generalised comments.

I guess then it is true though that here in the WEST we eat potatoes, but in the EAST people eat rice, so that is the real difference between east and west marriage :eek:

This reminds me of the saying: there are two kinds of people in the world; those who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who know better.
 
The problem is that many people in Asia, whatever the country's wealth, have very prejudiced views of the West and in general a very poor knowledge of it. I have travelled around India, SE Asia, and now live in Japan, but I realise that in any of these countries, people tend to believe that Westerners behave like in Californian TV series. There are few places like California in any Western country. Even Italians are not remotely as promiscuous as Californian in average.

There is a famous stereotypical phrase of British people that completely contradicts the views helf by RayC : "No sex please, we are British !". 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 ? No. In fact, Indian people tend to refrain to even kiss in public, like the Japanese. Funny that Indians should be so little aware of a country like Britain, while many British people know quite a lot about India (due to the close historical relations between these two countries).
 
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.

Married ... for sex?

...

If you want a lot of sex, getting married is the last thing you should do.
 
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 ?

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?

'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?

Index,

You may have a hard time understaning this, but having been married for sometimes, I don't.

But then each to his ways.

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.

As I said, each to his own.

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.
 
Last edited:
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?

Interesting it may seem but our aged parents stay with us till they die and are not sent to Old Age Homes. Maybe the Family Bonds are greater, but then who knows?

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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

.

I think you have a tendency to make very broad generalisations. In my culture looking at the background and situation of the potential partner's family has always been stressed as important.

According to your statement, it seems like you believe that being married for some time has given you insight into western marriage. Does that mean that if I am married to a western woman in a typically western way I will come to understand Indian marriage customs?
 
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.

It was just an example. I probably visited more places in India than most Indian people though (I stayed there for 5 months and moved to another city almost every day, except for big cities). I have also read a lot about the history, religion and culture, which was my main purpose for travelling there.


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.

One proof of your ignorance of the West is that you are referring to a 'holy union' and Christianity, while only about 10-20% of Europeans are really Christians nowadays (and maybe 70% in name only).

What is marraige? It is a union of two souls to procreate and have companionship.

For you maybe. For me it is completely unrelated to having children, as many Europeans now have children without being married (because they are not religious, and marriage is seen as a religious thing, as you mentioned), and some people who get married decide not to have children (or can't for some reason).

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?

Do you mean that you never have arguments with your friends, even best friends ? Even family members tend to argue together. It's inevitable. Some people may have very good relations as friends or lovers, but may not be able to live together because of an incompatible lifestyle. This is especially true in very individualistic culture like in English-speaking countries (i.e. about 40% of the Western world).

Look at the divorce rates and you'll see huge difference between the USA (at the top, with 4.95 per 1000 people) and at the other end Italy (only 0.27 per 1000 people). I was looking for the stats for India and found this :

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?

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. If they were forced by their family, it's very difficult to get divorced. If they got married to have children, then why divorce ? 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.


In the West, one looks at the woman only.

Or the man. There is more equality between men and women in Western countries that can be imagined by most Indians.

In India we look at the family too - to see if the families have the same background

Same in Japan. In Europe, I'd say it's more a matter of affinity between the couple and their families, but the socio-economic background can be very important for some people too (especially the upper-classes). This is particularily true in the UK, where classes still have a very important role.

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.

I suppose that every European knows that. I was told these things since I was a child.

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.

No, it is partly because more Britons have travelled to India than the opposite, and especially because about 5% of the British population is of Indian origin. Even Indian curry has become a national dish in the UK. The only Jainist temple outside India is in England (in Leicester), and there are also many Hindu, Sikh temples and (Indian/Pakisani) Mosques in Britain. Then, the education system is more developed (at least all people go to school) and the history of India is taught in every school (at least since the British arrived). That is why I thought the average Briton knows more about India than the opposite.
 
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?

I am a bit embarassed that you have to display your ignorance of the West like you are doing. Family bonds may be low in a country like Britain, but they are very strong in Southern Europe (Italy, Spain, Greece...).

In India, till the child is big enough, they stay in the same room as their parents.

Which means ? (how old ?)

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.

Maybe you should read this article about Italian men that can't leave their parents' house until their 30's (or over). Even when they get married, many Italians tend to choose a house close (eg. same street) as their parents, so that they can still meet everyday. I even know people like that in Northern Europe (well, maybe not so extreme, but close), so it's not something exclusively Italian or Southern European. French people are also quite close to the Italians in culture and mentality.
 
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.

😌 consider that india is 2.9 million sq km in land area and the united states is 9 million sq km. travel might be a little more expensive and difficult. also, i could not find information on india, but in the u.s. we receive little paid vacation in comparison to many european countries (see here). thus families tend to come together at thanksgiving and christmas, which are generally associated with 'family time', and which most workers receive paid vacation for.

suffice to say that we value our families, but certainly in different ways.

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.

perhaps a person chooses arranged marriage because that's the thing to do. perhaps because that is how they were raised and that is how they expect to carry out that step in their lives. and in that sense, perhaps divorce is unthinkable- you just wouldn't do it.

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.

so cynical...! :unsure: i believe what many people *think* is love is what you are talking about. real love is a simple but difficult thing beyond 'biochemical reactions'. but i think divorce rates have much to do with how socially acceptable it is. i mean, in the u.s. we have such things as divorce lawyers... :eek:
 
Well, you are entitled to your views.

A 5 months trip is no education and even if one reads books.

My cousin has married a Japanese and he lives in Japan and has imbed their ways. He has been there from 70s. I am sure while he will know more about Japan than the average Indian, surely he would not know as much as his wife!

I am not here to write about my family history, but suffice it to say that I am from a cosmopolitan family and I have also travelled around. Should I say there are genuine Englishmen and English women who are a part of my immediate family and therefore England is not so remote to me as you are making it out to be.

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 don't know if you are a Japanese, but if you were, then harakiri could be attributed to a perverted animal mind by the western authors, who having no idea of the importance of the psyche behind Oriental Honour would deem it so. 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?

BTW, India does not have one religion. It has many.

India has the third largest Moslems population in the world. They can divorce by merely stating 'talaq, talaq, talaq' by word or even on email. Therefore, inpsite of that if the divorce rate is what is written, I think it is pretty good.

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.
 
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.

Again I think you are generalizing and moreover, applying your own values on others. I have never heard it said that "I love you" is an Americanism either.

In my opinion it is not a waste of time stating the "obvious". Maybe you don't appreciate being told that you are loved, but others do.

I think it is obvious to say "thank you" to a person after they do something for you, because it is obvious that one should show appreciation for others-this is called respect for other people's feelings. Maybe we should abandon this idea because it is obvious?

One of the functions of language is to convey emotions, and show appreciation for others. This verbal behaviour has it's place as a way of expressing love just as physical behaviour does.
 
Rayc said:
The high divorces indicate that there is no bond in the companionships.
Does it? It can also indicate that people are reasonable enough not to continue a failed relationship. Which is quite positive in my eyes.

'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?
The most powerful factor is probably social pressure.
Mind you, in most Western countries we had similar social arrangements & pressure regarding marriage not too long ago (in rural areas we sometimes still have). Only modernisation brought about the current situation. Similar developments are going on in Asian nations nowadays.

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!
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.

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?
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).

India has the third largest Moslems population in the world.
That should be fourth, if my information isn't outdated: Indonesia, Pakistan & Bangladesh have bigger Muslim populations.
 
Interesting, I looked at my source a bit closer again & yes, the numbers are outdated, from 1997. It seems India's Muslim population grew quicker than Bangladesh's.
Sorry for that.
 
India was the second largest Moslem population in the world.

Fortunately, they are realising that unless they get educated, they will remain at the lower strata of society. With education, comes the awareness that a small family is the only way to ensure that the meagre income goes a long way for social and economic upliftment. Maybe that could be a reason why they have reduced their ranks.

There is also a huge controversy amongst their ranks if triple talaq can be given by a man so perfunctorily as is current. Hopefully, that will bring some cheer amongst their womenfolk.

Das ist richtig.
 
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.

That is why the article said "once". In fact it is the British government of India that prohibited the custom of sati in 1829. But it continued to be practiced against the prohibition until very recently, unlike slavery in the US or harakiri in Japan. With just a quick search on Google I found 3 such cases in 2002 (in Panna and in Jaipur) and another one in 1999. Of course, not all cases are reported. The important is that some people still think like that, even if very few.

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.

But there are big religious parties in India even if they officially aren't (like the Republican party in the US). Btw, American people are usually very religious (all the opposite of Europeans) but have one of the highest divorce rate in the world.

Please have a look at this survey of the BBC regarding religiousness around the world. It is clear that the UK is less religious than India (do I even have to mention it ?). What is interesting is that the USA is very close to India.
 
Maciamo,

With due regards to you and others, I have jsut lost faith in the western media.

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).

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Four babies and a criminal trial

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.

Do tell me can anyone or any country be so stupid that four infants can be charged with these crimes!

I have sent a feedback to the BBC but they haven't replied.

Twisting facts to suit their convenience.
 
Rayc said:
Do tell me can anyone or any country be so stupid that four infants can be charged with these crimes!
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.
 
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.

The laws of Bangladesh and India are practically the same as it is but British Laws with some changes.

This is a clear case of 'selective reporting'. Heard of 'disinformation'?

The infants are charged with looting and causing criminal damage but what about the adults?.. They are not? There is no mention of that!

Next, can infants speak? If they can't, then how is the law being applied? Therefore, where is the justice? Are you suggesting that Bangaldeshi are that foolish?

Could it be that the parents were charged and the infants were only in the arms and it is but a convenient twist of facts in the reporting?

It is like

"Leave him, Not beat"

which can be changed with the comma merely being moved:

"Leave him not, beat".

The BBC has conveniently left out that while the cases were registered by others and the police station accepted it, since this was utterly stupid and bogus, the policemen have been suspended! i.e. while a case was made out and there is a lacuna in the law. However, those who did not investigatge and interpret the law have been punished. Law has thus taken a logical step and that it is not that sensational as being made out by half truths.
 
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!

What you seem to have omitted is the most important :

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.

Isn't that fair of the BBC to mention that such stupid legal cases can be filed in Bangladesh, as they are all the time in the USA (and many also appear on the BBC's website, don't worry).
 
I don't think in the US, such a stupid case could be filed.

I am only saying that the BBC could have stated that the foolish policemen have been suspended. This means not to report for duty till investigations on them are over and only susbsistence pay.

In short, yes, the provision of the law was stupid, but the authorities took immediate action for the stupidity.
 
Rayc said:
I don't think in the US, such a stupid case could be filed.
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?


I really can't see your problem with the BBC report. It's not as if they made that up very sensational, & surely not degrading Bangladesh as a country. Maybe you are slightly oversensitive?


Rayc said:
Next, can infants speak? If they can't, then how is the law being applied?
You mean -like- mutes cannot be charged in Bangladesh? Hardly believable.
 
Last edited:
another "stupid" case in the US

Dog's false lead in murder case
"US prosecutors trying to crack a murder case realised they were barking up the wrong tree when one of their witnesses turned out to be a small dog."



& a silly idea from Britain (though not a court case):
Primary school bans pencil cases
"A school has banned children from taking pencil cases into class in case they are used to hide sharp weapons."

Maybe it would be a good idea to ban all pupils from attending school, since they might have malicious intentions.
 
Back
Top Bottom