Is it possible to get married to someone you have no feelings for but fall in love later?

[Anonymous]

Most people living in western counties would say hell no to this (for the most part me included).

But in other parts of the world there are arranged marriages where love is supposed to come later. Even back in 1800s and earlier people would often get married through community arrangements. One family knew another and the parents thought that their sons and daughters would make a good match. Even the ancient Spartans had this weird marriage ritual where they put young men and women together in a dark cave. Whoever opposite gender you grabbed first and walked out with into the light would become your spouse.

I have to wonder how often people ended up with someone they weren’t attracted to. However divorces were way less common many years ago. If so many people were really that miserable with their arranged marriage you would have to think there would be some serious mental health issues and more violence back then. But at least historically this wasn’t the case.

Yes

No

Updates

1 y

I think the plethora of options nowadays has made people ultimately miserable.

Updates

1 y

I've been listening to Jordan Peterson talking about how marriage makes people grow up. To certain extent that can be very true from my observations.

Truth is I am 41 and have never been married. There is only woman I met years ago who could be wife material. But even she later evolved (far left) to something that could of been huge trouble if we tied the knot.

[Bellona]

I would say that because parents arranged marriages with acquainted parents, it put pressure on the newlyweds to make their families proud and prove to them that their marriage arrangement was good. The pressure was especially high when people married into families with which their families had private and business relations and when communities were smaller and more important to do the marriage work to prevent embarrassment to the family and themselves. I think for these reasons, when people marry when arranged, and they try their best to learn to love. In today's society, there are many options with larger societies and finding someone online far away. This means people likely find it hard to settle and love someone because they know there is always someone better they could find. I think it would be possible to marry someone you have no feelings for and fall in love later when there are no better options and/or you live in a society that judges you for divorce. Generally, people give up on relationships; there are so many divorces due to the lack of communication.

[Asker]

More options is not always a good thing. Many people keep running off thinking the “pasture is greener on the other side”.

I am guilty of doing this once. And I only did it once in my entire life (still regret it). But I know it’s been done to me at least 2-3 times.

[Bellona]

agree.

[suzzieQ]

I mean historically it was the case, men owned their wives like they own livestock. She count leave if she wanted to, and what man would throw away a commodity? Things were way more violent historically...

[Asker]

“ I mean historically it was the case, men owned their wives like they own livestock.”

Is that what they are teaching you in HS right now?

[suzzieQ]

I’m surprised you didn’t know that? For the majority of history, women were considered the legal property of their fathers, husbands, sons or brothers. Women did we’re not allowed to own property, and everything they had was the legal protection for their closest male relative

[SiberFox]

And why do you think it was that way?

[suzzieQ]

@SiberFox because it was a patriarchy at that time, women were seen and used as commodities, for political advancement and to produce heirs.

[SiberFox]

So you legitimately think men in the past cared little if at all for the women in their lives?

[suzzieQ]

@SiberFox no I didn’t say that at all

[SiberFox]

"Seen and used as commodities" implies that you think they were worth very little to these men.

[suzzieQ]

@SiberFox if I were to use the definition of commodity, useful and valuable, does that make it sound better?

[SiberFox]

No, it still implies that you think men of the past saw their women as being disposable, you even compared them to cattle before.
I'm pointing out that you are painting an impossibly large swathe of men as uncaring and manipulative towards their wives and women. This alone shows that you have little to no idea how men view women.
The safety and comfort you have was built in large part by men so women like you could be safe and comfortable. To deny this is to think men are selfish and uncaring, which is quite jaring.
Legally yes, women were seen as the property of their men, but realistically this is far from true.

[suzzieQ]

@SiberFox commodities aren’t seen as disposable, if they were then it wouldn’t be a commodity. These woman had no legal autonomy. Legally women were the property of their fathers or husbands. Realistically that how it was period. Property that is treated well is still property, just like property that is abused is still property.

[SiberFox]

Commodities are 100% seen as disposable.
Legally they had rights, but were bound to the man in their life as he was seen responsible for them and their well-being. The forgoing of that could result in legal consequense from the state or her family.

[suzzieQ]

@SiberFox that contradicts the definition of what a commodity is…. Spousal rape was not illegal, nor was spousal abuse. Legally they were property.

[Asker]

@suzzieQ I am going to cut you some slack given you are young. However what’s more concerning to me is how you were “educated” to come to that conclusion about how men have historically viewed their wives. Someone taught you to view men like that (most likely your HS teachers).

The vast majority of men now and even throughout history do not and did not view women as “property”. Elitist rich and powerful men could get away with that behavior. But you are talking about the 1 percent of 1 percent here that could do that. Even if the marriage was arranged, even if the man could legally beat/rape his wife and even if he could treat her like “property” that doesn’t mean he WOULD automatically do that crap.

Most men did NOT beat, rape and abuse their wives in history because they had morals to love and respect their partners.

This feminist “assumption” that all men naturally look to treat women like objects is disgusting.

The great irony of all of this is men now have taken a much more passive approach to “respecting” women out of paranoia and it’s actually driving women nuts. Many of them WANT a man to lead and take care of them. But that’s another rabbit hole discussion.

Anyway I am again very concerned about how you have been educated to think that way about men above. The education you are receiving in school is NOT impartial.

[suzzieQ]

I'm not talking about how they were viewed I am talking about how the legal system was. Most people don't view their dog as property, but legally it is. I'm not making assumptions I am just talking fact.
Why are you assuming that feminist think that all men treat women like objects? They don't, but they recognize that a lot do.

I am not talking about men, I am talking about an oppressive legal system that at the time was classified women as second class citizens with little to no legal rights or autonomy.

[Asker]

That viewpoint above has been used by feminists to justify all sorts of insane misandrist conspiracy theories and attitudes towards men. For example I was reliably informed my first year in college by feminists that “all men are rapists but most morally choose not to be”.

There are consequences and negative impacts on men (which in turn ultimately hurt women) with those attitudes. Again the “education” you are receiving is NOT objective. There is an agenda to drive men and women further apart and destroy families.

[suzzieQ]

I'm just talking about historical law.

[suzzieQ]

Apparently that makes you feel uncomfortable and like it's some kind of personal attack, which it's not. It's just the way things were, and thankfully they aren't like that anymore in most places, but most countries and cultures are are still affected by their history and it is important to recognize how history of a culture impacts currant society.

[Asker]

I never took it as a personal attack. But I am questioning the way you have been educated. That’s not to say that historical wrongs should be overlooked. But the context has been used as an excuse to indict all men and it’s very prevalent in our culture. Again the education you are receiving is not written in stone. There is an agenda behind it and most public educators are very liberal.

[suzzieQ]

I wasn't taught about any of this in school, this is information that I have personally researched...

[SiberFox]

Then you're incredibly biased against men.

[suzzieQ]

@SiberFox For talking about historical laws? That not bias that is history... You might not like it but that how it was.

[Asker]

@SiberFox she is being brainwashed. I do not blame her rather the indoctrination system. It’s seductive because women and other people a cop out excuse that they are “oppressed” and their life problems aren’t their responsibility/fault. It’s a poisonous kool-aide.

But again she is only 15 so I am a bit more forgiving. However if a woman 30+ said this crap that would be a different story.

[suzzieQ]

I can't believe how many people are offended by historical facts these days... its like denying the holocaust all over again...

[Asker]

You take pieces of history and omit others to spin a narrative. Also comparing woman’s rights to the “Holocaust” is an incredible stretch. Feminists get quiet when it comes to issues that vast majority of military combat deaths (over 99% are men). Work related deaths are well over 90%. Also speaking of ww2 and the Holocaust were women being drafted and put on the front lines to fight military battles?

Anyway I got to remember you are 15. Got a lot of life in front of you. But I encourage you to be wiser than your educators and maybe watch the red pill documentary by Cassie Jay. It’s free on Amazon and Netflix.

I also know phrase “red pill” has a lot of negative connotations nowadays. However in this documentary Cassie interviews both sides of the gender war debate.

[Asker]

www.amazon.com/Red-Pill-Cassie-Jaye/dp/B06XGW2F9M/

[suzzieQ]

Slow down there buddy, I’m not comparing womens rights to the holocaust, I’m comparing denying that something historical happened like people have done before with the holocaust. I’m just talking about historical law, it’s not my fault that history makes you uncomfortable. This isn’t a gender war, it’s historical law. Stop trying to twist this into something it’s not.

[Luopio27]

If society chooses your partner, most likely it will end up in dissapointment. Fuck those countries and cultures where men and woman do not have 100% say so who they get in relationships.


Its sickening that even today, children are forced into marriages.

[Asker]

For the most part I agree (agree 100% about child marriages. That’s heinous).

[Guy13]

Yes as you grow old well together. It was told to me as a sexless love grounded in emotion and there is no guessing and not Lust dependent

[coachTanthony]

LOL the marriage might even last if this were the case

[AmeerX]

My parents and their parents were all arranged marriages. They loved each other when I was born. They had fights but no divorces in most cases 90%. Wives were not commodities or anything like that. But wives were loyal to their men and the men provided for the homes by working very hard as well.

Romance was practically absent. Yet the marriage was successful.

Now, many people elope together and the marriage failed for one reason mostly, economics. Lack of money for the wife. Lover wife expects the man to make her life like a queen and would certainly not tolerate a downward trend in standard of living. Overall today, I would say both marriages are failing at more or less equal rate. Discontent from the changing tastes. Years ago people would wear 10 years old clothes or even clothes from the grandparents passed down to them from generations. Nowadays, families want Apple IPads, Mercedes or BMW. New Air conditioner. We don't need these things. We need intelligence and character in others

[allgoodmyfoot]

Though I'm far younger and have no experience with marriage, I can say that love back in the days you mentioned worked on the principle of communication and compromise. Divorce wasn't mainstream back then and the couple had to at first be really patient with each other and understand each other, as nobody is perfect, and there was always something they disliked about each other. Even if the dislike was really strong they adjusted to it, yk the way you're patient with a child? Just like that. Eventually, as they're living together, they developed affection for each other, because we are all humans afterall, and just as both the people started showing through their gestures that they care, love blossomed. Back in those days, unmarried men and women weren't in communication much, and having a partner of opposite sex as their life partner added an extra thrill and excitement that triggered their passion for each other.

Coming back to modern times, we already have a list in our head about what we want in a partner, the looks, job, behaviour, etc. We may even be not willing to get married as we are scared of fulfilling the obligations. Because times have changed, we don't have a lot of time in our hands to understand our partners, we rather look for one who's already our type, flirty and fun. The patience factor in a relationship has reduced to a great extent. But arranged marriages are still happening, the parents are now wanting the couple to spend some time together before marriage to understand if they're compatible with each other. If you talk with a person and like their nature, you might be able to love them later. Love isn't a very hard thing to do, it comes more naturally than hate, just both the people need to put in equal efforts after each other.

[BlueScorpio]

I wanna It's 50/50. I actually watched an Idian bride cry as soon as she saw her husband cause she did not want to be with that man. There was also an Indian man who was balling his eyes out cause he didn't want to marry the girl his parents got for him. I believe he was in love with someone else. I think most people these days want a say in who they decide to partner with. If you take a look through history, a lot those arrange marriages where done for royalty and statuses purposes. A lot of them where not happy, incompatible, and had secret affairs on the side.

[Drumlin2001]

There's a TV show, married at first sight, strangers getarried and try to make it work. Very few actually make it out together, a few have.
It's possible, just takes the right people with realistic expectations and the will to put the work in

[Anonymous]

I've been listening to Jordan Peterson talking about how marriage makes people grow up."

Well newsflash, it doesn't. Marriage doesn't make you do anything. You can still be a prick and maybe get divorced.

[nolabels]

I've been married for 28 years.

It hasn't happened yet.

I'm thinking that the answer is probably a big no.

[bolverk]

Is it possible to get married to someone you have no feelings for but fall in love later?

That is what used to happen in societies where arranged marriages were the norm if not love at least respect.

[sheikalana]

A lot of arranged marriages start like this and some of them eventually turn in to beautiful love stories.

[Berethor]

It perfectly arranged marriage trope, I don't think that it common but it can happen.

[AviatorTom]

I'm guessing Yes... isn't that what happens in arranged marriages?

[Darine123]

Happens often and I would love that to happen to me

[Asker]

Well our parents should get to know each other! Jk jk :)

[Asker]

@Aphrodite801 oh chill out. I was never serious. I get plenty of barbs on here already so need to pile it on.

[Aphrodite801]

And FYI, you would never “joke” like this in person. Cause 9.9/10 someone’s gonna step in and call your ass out for being such a gross creep. Yikes.

[Asker]

@Aphrodite801 oh for fucks sake. Assuming quite a bit here aren’t we? Do you know what drove me to ask this question to begin with? I am actually in the midst of turning down a marriage proposal.

[Asker]

@aphrodite801 just realized you weren’t even the original OP owner.

I hope someone bashes your head in this week you little piece clod shit cunt. You have it coming.

[888theGreat]

Yep , my Grandfather married a woman because he had 6 kids and my grandmother died in her 30's. They fell in love after marriage and stayed married until he died.

[Moose304]

It might be possible, but I highly recommend against doing it.

[Charlesbrandonf]

Yes 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 % you should visit india.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure it happened all the time with our grandparents who had to get married to be able to have sex.

[goebenbreslau]

my mom and dad got an arranged marriage. they love each other very much now, but i still don't think that that kind of marriage will go well.

[annabananna]

I think it’s very possible and happens all the time in arranged marriages.

[TroyDT2]

If a relationship is based on "feelings" it has a very good chance of failing.

[Aphrodite801]

Someone is clearly the type who’s cringe enough to support forced marriages lmao screw that