I remember reading some study several years back that said overall arranged marriages were more successful than love marriages based on staying married and happiness levels. I thought that was really surprising. I can't remember anything more specific, but you could Google it. Still I could never let someone else choose my spouse. Maybe a situation where they choose someone, but then you meet that person and have the final say. And I wouldn't think it would be just meeting, but getting to know them as well. Pretty much developing that love bond beforehand.

Prior to about 1800, MOST marriages amongst Europeans, and Americans, were arranged. Parents began looking for potential husbands for their daughters, once the girl had her first period. This meant that most girls were married off by the time they were 13-15. Males, on the other hand, weren't considered to have a 'lick of sense' until they were 21. And so, it was common for 21-25 yr old men to be married to 13-15 yr old girls.For commoners, potential spouses were found locally. But, since Colonial, and Early American frontier folk generally settled down in close proximity to kin folk, it wasn't uncommon for them to marry cousins The wealthy could afford to be more choosy. Average life expectancy was 45. And such marriages generally lasted until 'death did them part'.

The bad thing of course, was that people were married off to mates that they might not have found physically attractive. Wealthy men resolved this by taking 'mistresses' on the side. Poorer men had to settle for tavern maids, and 'harlots'. Did the women keep 'misters' on the side? Many wealthy women did. But rich or poor, they had to be more discreet, as 'what was good for the gander' was not deemed socially appropriate for the 'goose' (i.e. double standard). For those married off to cousins, there was a higher proportion of children born with birth defects. ("Idiot" children, as they were often referred to by census takers of the time).

The idea of laissez faire marriages grew out of the eighteenth-century European Enlightenment. And by the time the nineteenth-century came along, arranged marriages became less common. (Except amongst the Rich, who wanted their daughters married off to the sons of other rich folk until well into the twentieth-century.

Arranged marriages generally lasted longer (resulting in fewer 'broken homes'. While laissez faire marriages meant a financial bonanza for divorce lawyers!

Either way you could end up married to somebody you hate.

Bad decision

From what I hear, couples in an arranged marriage tend to make the best of the situation, adapt and compromise so that there is a mutual respect and a partnership toward making their marriage a success. I've heard of couples learning to love their spouse, and since divorce isn't an option, making the best of it is the only path forward, keeping focused on that path, not what might have been or could be with another.

I perform weddings for a living, and to my knowledge, I've only performed 3 arranged marriages. The young couples just were following along in their cultural tradition of honoring their parent's or family wishes. Only 1 of the 3 arranged weddings kissed to seal the vows, the other two just hugged.

I think if one or both in the arrangement was secretly in love with someone else, or really wanting to hold out for love, that would be very sad. Then again, there are many of us who never really found the kind of love we were seeking anyway and so to settle for a perhaps loveless marriage, but one that was secure and allowed the dream of having a family (if that is the desire) and a house/home, double income, etc., that it could be a compromise which could offer some degree of happiness.

That would be a tough decision for anyone to make, but it's good to have that choice and stick with your decision and work toward making the best of it whatever you decide. On one hand, you might never find the fairy tale true love we all wish for, and it might be a safe secure option.

I would hope that in modern arranged marriages that there is some degree of responsibility for each partner not to consciously create unhappiness in their spouse, and always be learning ways to be the best partner for the marriage as humanly possible.

I sure am no authority, but as an outsider, never going to be in that situation, those are my thoughts.

Personally, I could not contemplate marrying anyone whom I had not chosen myself. To be sexually intimate with someone without the chemistry necessary is unthinkable for me, and the prospect of being trapped in a loveless marriage, especially not one of one’s own choosing. I do realise that in some cultures, especially in the Middle East and Asia it is the norm, and that quite often they can be successful, but great unhappiness occurs too, and mistreatment and exploitation of women is also widespread.

It depends on how you look at marriage. Western and Eastern thoughts on marriage are quite different.

Depends upon who’s doing the arranging!

I live in a 3rd world country in the Caribbean. Men run things and women take care of them. I like that. American women wan to be the boss. They demand and command too much. I hire young girls as housekeepers. If they have a good attitude and take care of me, I MOVE THEM UP TO PERSONAL ASSISTANT. If they still keep me happy after a few months, I make her my common law esposa....Don't just jump in. Kind of wade in and have an escape route in case she gets bitchy....If they try to manage me or my money, I fire them.... have fun

I think you should accept "blind dates" arranged by people who know you well, and then make your own decisions.

Being in love when your hormones are screaming is one of life's great gifts. What will you do when, after this marriage, you fall in love with someone else? When my aunt was dying...it was the end of her life...and she reflected on her life, she said the one regret she had was that she never experienced being in love and having a relationship with that person. She had two husbands.

coming from the US it sounds archaic and fascist. but in SE Asia it works for many and has for a very long time.

Both can be good or bad experiences. Both could involve being stuck with an unattractive partner or a partner that is or becomes lazy and/or selfish. Emotional well being should be established by both partners both apart and together first regardless of the type of marriage.

From my experience I think the concept of owning another person through marriage is kinda gross regardless.

I think there are people who can make a good marriage even of an arranged marriage.

But wouldn't it be better to meet someone and value them before making that decision based on your own standards - rather then someone elses opionions?

I guess not having been raised in a culture that does arranged marriages I find the idea odd - that someone else could match me better with someone - than I could myself.

I think it's entirely up to your own viewpoint if you're game for it being done for you - and how much input you would have into the process.

If it involves multiple participants it's not widely different from dating sites - except that the pool to choose from would be much smaller and not varied. You have to decide if that's okay.

i have no experience of marriage but i do have an opinion. throughout history, arranged marriage has had a longer and stronger run than love marriage, but then so has the patriarchy from which it was born. marriage was generally an economic arrangement, a merging of houses for mutual economic benefit. love had nothing substantial to do with it. the woman's family would pay a dowry and her worth was determined largely by the size of that dowry; she was the crackerjack prize and the money was the crackerjacks. if we consider women to be human beings deserving of (even if not yet quite enjoying) equal rights to those men enjoy, arranged marriage makes no sense at all.

g