Hi all. I'm posting this out here just to get some different perspectives and sort out my thoughts on the matter. Initially, I'm just going to give the bare-bones facts to avoid coloring anyone's response.

Two people - both very close friends of my fiance, and the female a good friend of mine - got married less than a month ago. They are now on separate continents and have had a huge fight. Divorce is being mentioned.

Husband:

Age - About 26/27.
Education - Recently graduated with his MBA from Oxford University in England. He did his undergraduate degree in Pune, India (classmate of my fiance).
Location - Is living and working in England.
Nationality - Indian. Specifically, upper-caste/privileged Indian.
Further background - His dad is a big-shot in the Indian military. Pretty orthodox Hindu family living in New Delhi. Not necessarily religiously devout, but devout to tradition.

Wife:

Age - 26/27
Education - Undergraduate degree from Pune, India
Location - Until last month living and working in Pune, India
Nationality - Indian.
Futher background - Parents live in Pune, India. Parents pretty modern, not opposed to love marriage. Hindu religion, not particularly devout.

Relationship history:

Formal relationship length - 8 years
Length of aquaintance - Since they were children, went to same grade school.
Engagement date - Approx. August, 2008. These things have distinctions there that I'm not sure I can quickly translate to a Western paradigm. They set the wedding date in August of 2008.
Type of marriage - Love marriage (as opposed to arranged marriage)
Wedding date - March 28, 2009. Note that this is the date of the religious marriage - the Sanscrit ceremony wherein they walk around the fire. Indian marriage ceremonies (all of the rituals and events) last several days (minimum) to two weeks (maximum). The public portion of their marriage ceremonies lasted 2-3 days. (I was invited, but couldn't attend, as we went to India for another friend's marriage at the end of Feb.)
Method of "proposal" - This also differs in Indian culture. However, they have a love marriage and love relationship and in Feb I talked to the W at length. According to her, "[the husband] told me, 'We're getting married.'" He didn't ask. This appalled me, of course, but she was lightheartedly joking about it and smiling - almost bragging. I said nothing of my own reaction.

History - Rocky relationship, at best. At one point he cheated on her with some other female that everyone knows. I don't recall the name, which is irrelevant. Most of the friends say, "Oh, but OW was a whore." W does not say this. Her perspective is, "It doesn't matter what she was, it was H's decision..."

I have some serious (documented) reasons for believing he has not been faithful while living in England, but cannot share that with her. At any rate, the references are not conclusive.

For the last several years, the H has been living in England. He went to Oxford University to get his MBA, as mentioned. W was living and working in India during this time. W is quite modern and independent in most regards. You wouldn't notice much difference in her and her attitudes than you would with a typical Western woman.

Main issue of contention:

His family found out that she visited him in December, and were very upset about it. His family is highly critical of W to H. He then tells her about their comments as if they are his own, and as if they are shortcomings with her. After the marriage, he displayed a significant change towards an "ownership" mentality towards her. For instance, they fought because she didn't get up early one morning and ask everyone if they wanted chai (tea).

He is now in London and she is staying with a friend in Mumbai (her English visa is not yet processed). They've had a huge falling out, and he's saying that they should just get a divorce. He suggests that he talk to his family and she talk to hers and get a divorce.

These are the bare-bones that I can give to get some useful commentary, and I don't want to give too many of my impressions, because I'm seeking some fresh perspectives?

So, what are your thoughts?

What would be different, in terms of attitude, if it was an arranged marriage?

P

One word - control.

In an arranged marriage, the parents have control (or the illusion of it, which is the same thing), and it was their choice. Orthodox Indian parents believe it is their right to choose a spouse for their children, and it is the children's duty to accept that choice. Traditionally, such choices are made on the basis of: religion, caste, sub-caste, skin color (it is true, they all want "fair" skin), education level, profession, and (most notably for a female's family seeking a husband for her) income.

Oh, I forgot the most important. For someone who knows the culture - as I do - it is self-evident. The #1 criteria is relationship/sexual history. A divorcee is a no-no. Many find those who have ever had a boyfriend/girlfriend unacceptable. Female sexual chastity (or the perception thereof) is important. Any broken engagement/cancelled wedding is considered extremely negative, especially for females.

On the arranged marriage front, it is to be said that a man with his education and income level, with an English work visa, is worth quite a lot on the marriage market (there is no other way to say it). Such a man in the traditional sense could be expected to bring in as much as $50,000.00 from his W in dowry. Although dowry is illegal, it is very much in evidence. Although I do not think his family would expect payment in that amount, it is possible. More likely is that they would expect her to bring a new car, TV, appliances, etc to the marriage.

To get an idea of what the Indian marriage market looks like, one only has to browse www.shaadi.com

This message has been edited. Last edited by: *Antigone Rising*,

The case of Nisha Sharma is also worth reading up on. It gives an idea of the social norms and expectations in play, but does have the warm-fuzzy in the end that she didn't go through with it and is now married to someone else.

http://www.notablebiographies....-Z/Sharma-Nisha.html

https://www.courses.psu.edu/hd...s315_rxj9/dowery.htm

The W in the situation I've posted isn't dealing with anything quite this extreme, but the background reading will give a hint at the attitudes with which she has to contend.

Ok. So since it's a marriage for love does that mean the taboo against divorce changes?

What is the cultural expectation in regard to outside sexual activities? Different for men than women?

Are their expectations as a couple, about what their marriage will be like, different because they are a love marriage rather than arranged?

Is the support system or peer pressure different?

P

Very interesting questions.

quote:

Ok. So since it's a marriage for love does that mean the taboo against divorce changes?

Absolutely not. Divorce is considered the ultimate evil - literally. Bride burnings and suicides are far more common, except among Bollywood celebrities. The W - let's call her N - is in danger of neither of these, I give the example only to underscore the taboo against divorce.

I might also add that, love marriage or not, both families consented to and participated in the very elaborate marriage.

I truly believe that the divorce talk is being used as a weapon...it's a bluff. That raises a lot more issues than it answers, though, as you are no doubt aware.

As a Brahmin I work with, and greatly respect, told me about the issues in my own relationship with my fiance, "Once you are married, it is a done deal with his family." Note that this only implies that they will - and must - accept that the relationship exists and always will. (And also note that I have as much approval and acceptance of his family than I can ever expect, and no less than would be normal in the US.)

I need to underscore something else here, though, and that is the significance of the approval of the matriarch in these situations. My fiance's mother, before she passed, accepted me as her future daughter-in-law and gave me the VERY symbollic sari. After that, even my fiance's male friends say about his sisters' disapproval of me, "It doesn't matter. His mom accepted you, and they should keep quiet. His mom gave you a sari, and that's what matters."

Now, the H in the situation I'm posting about...his mother has accepted N as his wife. However, that does not imply that the issue has ended. The mother has the social authority to criticize and "fix" N, etc - pretty much with impunity. The only person who has any means of stopping this is the H.

quote:

What is the cultural expectation in regard to outside sexual activities? Different for men than women?

Frankly, Victorian, at least on the surface. That is, sexual activity is to be constrained only to marriage, and the marriage is to be permanent for the current life time. In reality, there are double standards for it. It might be best to tell this by giving information as to my female friends in India.

All of my female friends in India have at least a bachelor's degree, and a corresponding career. In India, women who go to work in another city do NOT set up in their own apartment. They live in a females-only paid guest (PG) facility, which is family-like. Their rooms are cleaned for them, they live with "uncle" and "auntie", have meals with them, and abide by their house rules such as curfew. A PG is a family-unit substitute. Companies hire drivers/cabs/buses to drive females to and from work - especially if they do shift-work. My fiance's sister lived with 3 other females in Mumbai after getting her master's degree, and prior to marrying.

I have only one female friend in India with her own apartment. She is, coincidentally, the N's best friend. She lives in Mumbai, and her apartment is where N is right now. Indeed, many "cosmopolitan" Indian cities have ordinances against females renting and living on their own. Even if the city itself does not have such restrictions, most landlords will not rent to single females.

Males who leave the family unit to work, on the other hand, frequently set up their own apartments or live in a large apartment with other single males - but not with the PG restrictions.

This fact underlies the societal control over sexual relations, and the priority given to curtailing female sexual relations as opposed to male sexual relations. On the surface, the society has equal taboos on it, but the blind eye is turned most often for males. It must be said that part of these differences is in regard to the safety of females. You'll hear Indians claim that this is the ONLY reason, but it isn't quite true.

Hindu mythology isn't irrelevant to understanding the attitudes. Krishna's birth mother was the beloved daughter of the Maharastra (king) and the "beloved" sister of her brother who usurped power. She was given in marriage as a second wife to Krishna's biological father. Krishna himself had many wives. The myth of Rama and Sita is also not irrelevant. Sita was kidnapped by Ravana. Rama saved her. His subjects screamed out that Sita might have had sex (been raped) by her captor. Note that Rama did not seem to stop these accusations, or challenge the basis on which they were made. She went through many tests, including the Agni-Pariksha to prove her chastity. Nothing worked. She finally said that if she were innocent (of what??? but I digress), may the Earth swallow her. It did; thus, Rama lost Sita forever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sita

Hindu history and mythology is steeped in pologyny. Indeed, as you are aware, my fiance's grandfather had two wives (simultaneous).

quote:

Are their expectations as a couple, about what their marriage will be like, different because they are a love marriage rather than arranged?

Not for that reason, no, but I think you've hit at the major issue. However, it is rather more a difference in expectations of traditional Indian marriage (very patriarchical) vs a more modern Western-style marriage. I think the H has expectations that are more traditional, as evidenced by his change in attitude when she was "his" wife. I don't think they ever talked about expectations or anything else. Their culture is even worse than our own about it. The idea is that you are married and you need to make it work.

The other, less palatable, expectation is also self-evident to me, but needs to be said. The W becomes part of the H's extended family. In this sense - I cannot say it without adding some of my own analysis here - the umbilical cord that attaches the H to his family in extended adolesence is not detached. Rather, it splits and attaches to the W, as well. The level of control a W's family has over her diminishes greatly, but is SUPPLANTED by the same level of control by her H's family. The level of control the H's family has does not end, it extends to her. It is not a case of family/parental control ending and the married couple becoming an autonomous unit. This is underscored no better than in the case of Nisha Sharma, who still says that whether or not she ever uses her degree for a career is up to her new in-laws.

quote:

Is the support system or peer pressure different?

Peer pressure is different than you might expect, it is more along the lines of what you would see in America - at least in this group. I darn near gagged at the wedding I went to in Feb with all the guys telling the groom his life was over, etc.

For the culture, the idea (and these are the words of the bride who's wedding I attended in Feb, not N) is, "It's chauvanistic. There is always this feeling that you are the female. You are lucky to have found a man willing to marry you. My family has been giving me lessons on how to talk, sit, stand, etc with his family. It is MY (emphasis hers, I'm getting this from my chat logs) job to do whatever it takes to make his family accept me..."

The pressure and support system really boils down to the family (which is greatly extended), with large portions of authority and respect (quite a lot of it undue, IMHO) to the elders. It isn't unlike Middle Eastern culture in that the matriarch really has little TRUE control, but the one thing she IS in control of - or expects to be - is her daughter in laws.

At this point, I know that the H (let's call him T) is going to get a major smack-down from not only my fiance, but several other male friends in the group - but the underlying issues are still there, and those are the problem. Trust me, all of T's best male friends - that he calls brothers - are also very good, long-term friends with N, and they are all going to have something (probably profane) to say to him.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: *Antigone Rising*,

quote:

I truly believe that the divorce talk is being used as a weapon...it's a bluff.

The weapon being the threat of being ostracized?

quote:

You'll hear Indians claim that this is the ONLY reason, but it isn't quite true.

Mmmhmmm. Cuz we always know who the mother is but unless we watch the females carefully paternity is up for grabs.

quote:

Not for that reason, no, but I think you've hit at the major issue. However, it is rather more a difference in expectations of traditional Indian marriage (very patriarchical) vs a more modern Western-style marriage.

Sooooo ..... if they were a more traditional couple they would have arranged marriages and the issues of ownership, control, sexual double standard, etc would not have the same inpact they do on a couple who married for love and have already shifted, even if subconsciously only, from the traditional paradigm.

Close?

P

quote:

The weapon being the threat of being ostracized?

ABSOLUTELY! To a level that we in the West can scarcely comprehend. It is not just a threat of losing him and her marriage, but the societal backlash that accompanies it. The threat of being perceived as a cast-off who now cannot be married to anyone (the truth of this is somewhat less, but that will be the perception of her entire extended family and surrounding society). The problems with her own family. I doubt her family will be anywhere near as bad, but in many cases a bride's own family will ostracize her after such an event. It doesn't reach that proportion with her, but it will be a complicated maze of this perception and various levels of blame and stimigitization for her. It is a pungent threat... Even if she finds someone else, the chances of his family accepting her even to the level her current husband's does is remote, at best.

quote:

Mmmhmmm. Cuz we always know who the mother is but unless we watch the females carefully paternity is up for grabs.

That is the excuse given. I don't buy it, at least as a complete explanation, and certainly not for its continuance. We do have paternity tests. There is something else that underlies it, no matter the culture. More of the I-Must-Have-A-New-Car type mentality. My property for exclusive use, never having been used by another. It isn't unique to Indian culture by a long shot. If one reads the Old Testament Mosaic Law (which is the same in any way that matters with the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, particularly on this issue), it is clear that rape is not seen as a violent crime against a female. Rather, it is a property crime against a man - either her father or her husband - to whom recompense is owed. Most societies, and certainly the significant ones that survive now and in our history books, have had an obsession with controlling female sexuality, and not for entirely structural-functional reasons.

quote:

Sooooo ..... if they were a more traditional couple they would have arranged marriages and the issues of ownership, control, sexual double standard, etc would not have the same inpact they do on a couple who married for love and have already shifted, even if subconsciously only, from the traditional paradigm.

Yes. This is so common there, where the traditional and the modern are clashing in a way that hasn't been seen in our culture for at least a century... T wants to modernize to the point that he had a girlfriend, selects his own wife for love, etc...but expects male privilege in the traditional way from an educated, largely emancipated woman.

quote:

Close?

Astutely close. N is still upset right now, but she is with her sister right now and is holding up as best you can expect.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: *Antigone Rising*,

The reason I came out here to discuss it is not only that her social situation is so completely different (I understand her social situation probably far better than anyone out here might), but to think it entirely through with the help of some devils-advocates. I recognize that the immediate problem leading to discussion of divorce so soon after marriage is reminiscent of my marriage. Indeed, with all of these problems one can conclude from a Western paradigm that perhaps divorce or annulment would be best; however, N may not want one (she says right now she doesn't know) and the implications of it for her are so extensive as to warrant way over-caution on the side of a fix.

I just don't know what kind of fix is realistic with such strong factors in play. If such expectations, threats, etc have survived an Oxford education, I'm not sure what the heck can be done about it.

My instincts are to talk to her, listen to her, and try to steer her in the direction of reconciliation. However, my more pragmatic half warns that it may just put her in a situation of cyclical episodes with little hope of any meaningful change.

quote:

ABSOLUTELY! To a level that we in the West can scarcely comprehend.

And this is why you have good friends who see beyond the box

quote:

That is the excuse given. I don't buy it, at least as a complete explanation, and certainly not for its continuance. We do have paternity tests. There is something else that underlies it, no matter the culture. More of the I-Must-Have-A-New-Car type mentality. My property for exclusive use, never having been used by another. It isn't unique to Indian culture by a long shot. If one reads the Old Testament Mosaic Law (which is the same in any way that matters with the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, particularly on this issue), it is clear that rape is not seen as a violent crime against a female. Rather, it is a property crime against a man - either her father or her husband - to whom recompense is owed. Most societies, and certainly the significant ones that survive now and in our history books, have had an obsession with controlling female sexuality, and not for entirely structural-functional reasons.

Mmm hmmm. Some day, not in a public venue, you and can have a lovely brainiac chat about my, unique to me, theory regarding that and the subsequent, global, ramifications dating back to the dawn of human history.

quote:

Yes. This is so common there, where the traditional and the modern are clashing in a way that hasn't been seen in our culture for at least a century...

Ok, so what we have, then, is a lovely synergistic combo of cultural clash growing pains, human nature, normal marital issues, with a twist of long distance dynamics just to make it spicy.

P

quote:

Ok, so what we have, then, is a lovely synergistic combo of cultural clash growing pains, human nature, normal marital issues, with a twist of long distance dynamics just to make it spicy.

Pretty much.

I think that couples expectations changing upon marriage is also something that's common to many cultures. Possibly less extremely, but there's a lot of anecdotal accounts of this used to explain those studies on higher rates of divorce in couples that cohabit before marriage - especially cases where couples cohabit for ages and then break up shortly after marrying. I imagine the change is much greater in couples where the background they come from has more traditional marriage roles.
Of course, sometimes this can be ironed out, so this early on it would be hard to tell whether things would become "a situation of cyclical episodes with little hope of any meaningful change". I think at the beginning of a marriage there will very often be some ironing out to do. In my case I remember being surprised when it emerged that my (I thought) very openminded H was feeling upset because I didn't really see cooking and keeping house as my domain. I think it surprised him almost as much, it took us a long time to figure out that this was the underlying issue, despite the fact we'd been going out for 7 years before we married. Many males in his family are helpful around the house... BUT... it is still considered the woman's domain - the males help but don't own. It seems to be worked out now - getting it out in the open that way made a huge difference - but it took a couple of years to sort.
But of course, sometimes it can't be sorted. Not sure how one can tell when it's one of those. Both parties certainly need to be willing to listen - if her H isn't... well...

quote:

my, unique to me, theory regarding that and the subsequent, global, ramifications dating back to the dawn of human history

Aw Penny - I wanna hear the theory!!!

quote:

I think that couples expectations changing upon marriage is also something that's common to many cultures. Possibly less extremely,

It is much more extreme there than here. We are a self-help book and pop psychology nation. Not every nation is. In some nations, it is still taboo to admit that you need therapy, and a family shame to have someone actually see a mental health professional. There are places where the idea of any type of relationship counseling or coaching is unthinkable. India is one such place. The stigma even exists among the educated. I remember my off-shore development team was literally SHOCKED when I told them I'd gone to a counselor. People don't do a whole lot of soul-searching and emotional/mental introspection, if any at all.

I also think it isn't so much that expectations change upon marriage, as the expectations for how things will be in marriage remain the same, and are in many ways kept separate and distinct in our minds when we are dating. Let's be honest, we are all a bit dishonest in the courting/dating stages, whether it is answering questions for an arranged marriage, going to the movies and dinner, or cohabitating. We put our best foot forward, but we never quite relinquish our worst foot.

Years ago (almost 7, in fact), I had a thread on MarriageBuilders about Radical Honesty, called "The Radically Honest Marriage Proposal" that hit on this same topic. "Sweetie, I'm going to expect you to wash my dirty clothes, do all the dishes, cook all of my meals, wait on me hand and foot, do all the yard work, etc. Meanwhile I'm going to be perpetually unemployed, unfaithful, and verbally and physically abusive. Will you marry me?" and the reply, "Yes, honey. I will marry you and run up debt in your name while denying you sex and flirting with all your friends. Eventually, I want three kids, but none of them have to be yours."

If we weren't all at least a little dishonest about it up front - who the heck would get married? Even Gandhi was reportedly a very HORRIBLE husband.

quote:

I imagine the change is much greater in couples where the background they come from has more traditional marriage roles.

Possibly. Couples in India do not cohabitate, though. It is more that the roles are set forth, and no one talks about expectations in marriage to any meaningful extent. Marriage there is NOT viewed - even now - as primarily about love or emotional fulfillment. Love comes after marriage. It is a social institution from which love (theoretically) should come, but it is primarily for entering another stage of life required in Hinduism known in English as the "householder" http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/Reli.../hinduism/HSLIFE.HTM and for producing children. The closest you can compare it to is a REQUIRED Catholic sacrament.

The modern world has intruded and changed things. Yet, the advent of love marriage and personal choice and freedom did not bring with it the advent of talking about marital expectations and boundaries...not even to the small extent common here.

It is odd, but in the land that gave us the Kama Sutra, romantic love is a taboo. Even Bollywood movies often show it as a result of arranged marriage (Namaste London, Just Married, Chup Chup Ke) and often show love marriage as leading to unimaginable pain (Faana). We were discussing this cultural difference at work one day (in Bangalore, India). Not one of my co-workers could EVER recall seeing their mother and father embrace or hold hands...not even a hug.

Hindu weddings (nor, indeed, any wedding I've seen in India, which would include a Parsi - Zoroastrian - one) does not include any affection at all. No kissing the bride. In fact, couples who try it (kiss the bride) are arrested and fined. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7871304.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4268058.stm Richard Gere and Shilpa Shetty were fined because Gere kissed her on the cheek at an awareness rally http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6560371.stm At one point (I was in the country at the time), Shilpa was barred from leaving India because of a warrant for her arrest stemming from the incident. I wish I were kidding. It is very, very different.

quote:

Of course, sometimes this can be ironed out, so this early on it would be hard to tell whether things would become "a situation of cyclical episodes with little hope of any meaningful change".

It is already a situation of cyclical episodes, this one just happens to involve their new marriage. They've been together 8 years. I didn't think marriage would fix the problems, but I think N did. At any rate, it is now clear that it has exacerbated rather than abated the problems.

quote:

I think at the beginning of a marriage there will very often be some ironing out to do.

Absolutely. Bringing up divorce as an ultimatum before her mendhi has even faded goes quite a way past "some ironing out to do".

I should also be clear about this. As I told Penny earlier, T's behavior is out of line even by his own cultural standards. By Hindu tradition, a bride does nothing for the first 40 days (or until her mendhi - the bridal henna - is completely gone). Expecting her to get up early and take chai (tea) around for everyone - or even himself - less than a week after the marriage is way outside of anything she should be expected to do by his very own traditions. There are traditions in which her bare feet shouldn't touch the floor, etc. But she does no chores, housework, etc for a minimum of 40 days. (This is, reportedly, to allow her to get used to her new home - her H's family's home - and also to discourage taking a bride purely as a source of domestic servitude.)

quote:

In my case I remember being surprised when it emerged that my (I thought) very openminded H was feeling upset because I didn't really see cooking and keeping house as my domain. I think it surprised him almost as much, it took us a long time to figure out that this was the underlying issue, despite the fact we'd been going out for 7 years before we married. Many males in his family are helpful around the house... BUT... it is still considered the woman's domain - the males help but don't own. It seems to be worked out now - getting it out in the open that way made a huge difference - but it took a couple of years to sort.
But of course, sometimes it can't be sorted. Not sure how one can tell when it's one of those. Both parties certainly need to be willing to listen - if her H isn't... well...

Very good point, and you are correct in saying that ironing out issues takes two willing parties. At this point, he seems confined to temper tantrums and ultimatums to get what he wants regardless of how she feels about it - or how badly his tactics hurt her. That's not negotiation, that's domination.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: *Antigone Rising*,

quote:

Mmm hmmm. Some day, not in a public venue, you and can have a lovely brainiac chat about my, unique to me, theory regarding that and the subsequent, global, ramifications dating back to the dawn of human history.

Now that does sound like fun. I can fill you in on my own theories.

I also have some interesting stories about how some of the ethical and moral stances I consider absolute in the US have fallen in the face of more serious issues in the world abroad. Can you believe that I recommended hymen restitching to a prospective bride? She was from a fundamentalist Islamic family, and her father was searching for a husband for her. She was literally panicking that she didn't have a hymen. I never asked her why, it isn't my business. Where in the US I'd say that if the man cares, he isn't worthy of her (and I told her the same thing), I also recommended hymen restitching to her because of the very real threat to not only her safety, but her very life (honor killing) should she fail to have one and it went really badly.

Trust me, I darn near choked on the words, but sometimes what you believe to be ethical folds in the stark face of reality.

quote:

I also think it isn't so much that expectations change upon marriage, as the expectations for how things will be in marriage remain the same

Yes, that's what I mean, but in that expectations of the person you are with change. One can be quite happy with them acting a certain way while you are dating, cohabiting, etc... and then suddenly once married they are expected to act differently.

Have the content of bollywood movies changed much over the last decade or so? The few I remember the plot of (Kuch Kuch, Devdas) didn't portray arranged marriages as desirable, but they are quite old now. I wonder if it was a fashion that is now changing. Not that it ever reflected reality that much.

I feel for your friend, what an awful situation.

It seems to me that the new wife's best recourse is to her mother-in-law. Now, I don't know how a conversation like that should go. No idea. But the dynamics seem to suggest that if she can get her mother-in-law on her side, she's in a muuuuuch better position than otherwise.

The other thing I would say is that she's been presented with a -fierce- two-choice dilemma. To have that happen so early in her marriage is, as you've pointed out, worrisome. The thing is, she can not currently get what she wants. She has only two "bad" choices -- stay in a painful and possibly destructive marriage, or leave it and accept a very difficult societal situation. Nothing "good" there. And yet these are the choices she has, as an adult.

First step? Accept that these are the only choices she actually controls.

J,

I agree that her best tactical strategy if she should want to save her marriage (from this fight, anyway) is to enlist the help of her MIL.

I think N is aware of her dichotomy of choices, and right now she's still not sure what she wants to do. I'm not sure I would know so soon if I were in her place. I'm pretty sure I'd still be drunk.

quote:

One can be quite happy with them acting a certain way while you are dating, cohabiting, etc... and then suddenly once married they are expected to act differently.

Hmm...I know that many - if not most - people are that way. I'm not. I'm really not. I don't know why. Perhaps I like a necessary gene. Perhaps I somehow learned not to be. I mean, when I dated in high school and college, I did all sorts of stupid things I wouldn't do now, and put up with a lot of things that I'd laugh my buns off at the suggestion I put up with them today. (Acting like someone's maid was never one of them, and I'm not talking about courtesy or reasonable requests...I'm talking about acting like a maid.)

quote:

Have the content of bollywood movies changed much over the last decade or so?

I don't know. I've only watched them in the last decade or so.

Namastey London, for instance, is Katrina Kaif (can't act, but the movie is still watchable) and Akshay Kumar. She's a NRI brat living in London, partying way too hard, and dating a guy named (chuckle) Charlie Brown. Anyway, her dad spirits her off to India, and marries her to his friend's son, a Punjabi guy (Kumar). She walks around the fire, but when they get back to London, she springs it on them that the marriage was never registered and not legal in the UK. She is not married, and she goes back to dating Charlie Brown (no Snoopy, unfortunately). Eventually, she falls in love with her husband and realizes her father was right and all that nonsense just in time to run BACK down the aisle, not marry Charlie Brown, and live happily ever after in Punjab with her husband.

quote:

Aw Penny - I wanna hear the theory!!!

I occasionally offer the class at Pagan Pride

quote:

If we weren't all at least a little dishonest about it up front - who the heck would get married?

And the corollary to that: if there was not the overwhelming biological drive to pair and mate (which informs the dishonesty in courtship) which of us would ever get married? Or have children, for that matter?

quote:

It is odd, but in the land that gave us the Kama Sutra, romantic love is a taboo.

Two questions - isn't the Kama Sutra part of a larger spiritual practice? And - historically, how long has their been a taboo on romantic love?

quote:

Trust me, I darn near choked on the words, but sometimes what you believe to be ethical folds in the stark face of reality.

Mmmm hmmmm. I guess I see that as the primal force of ethical behavior. It must be flexible and open to exploration of each situation. Ethical or compassionate behavior cannot be legislated -- it must come from the heart and from a pure desire to balance our human need to seek happiness and avoid suffering with the same need in the people and the world around us. By necessity it must be adjusted to the cultural conditions.

quote:

I agree that her best tactical strategy if she should want to save her marriage (from this fight, anyway) is to enlist the help of her MIL.

Me too. (Or, in a grammatically correct but obnoxiously stiff way: I too.)

quote:

The other thing I would say is that she's been presented with a -fierce- two-choice dilemma. To have that happen so early in her marriage is, as you've pointed out, worrisome. The thing is, she can not currently get what she wants. She has only two "bad" choices -- stay in a painful and possibly destructive marriage, or leave it and accept a very difficult societal situation. Nothing "good" there. And yet these are the choices she has, as an adult.

Hmmmm ... To me that feels a little rigid. She can't get what she wants in the moment or in her state of distress. But we have to go deeper in exploring what we mean by the word "want". On the surface what she wants is for her husband to be a certain way (that he is not). Her map of reality (what he "should be like") does not match reality itself (what he like). If we look only at that and not move deeper we deny some level of her Self. In truth what she really "wants" is inner peace, safety, connection, integrity, and so on. Each of those - all of those - must begin at the level of connection to Self. At the most primal level this is what she seeks.

She has two difficult options, yes. And within those options are an infinite number of flavors and colors that lie along the spectrum between the choices. As she finds herSelf those flavors and colors will become more alive for her and what she really wants - inner peace - will be within her reach.

I believe she must be an extraordinary woman to have co-created this situation with these very challenging opportunities for her own growth and learning. Dim comfort, I suspect, but I believe it to be true nonetheless.

P