Why is arranged marriage so stigmatized in the West? I'm

>>2833612
Marriage is an optional lifestyle choice and outside of the southern states of the USA it's not something "young" people do.

>>2833619
In the West, I mean. You won't find very many people getting married in Europe before their late 20s who don't belong to conservative religious groups. Plenty simply won't ever get married.

>>2833619
>Marriage is an optional lifestyle
Not relevant to the discussion.
>outside of the southern states of the USA it's not something "young" people do.
As of 2013 the average age of marriage in the USA is 28. That's pretty young imo but ultimately young is subjective. At any rate someone in their 50s naturally has more wisdom than someone in their late 20s.

Because the west has a highly individualist trend where many people idealize independence from your immediate family as young as 18 years old. The family unit doesn't have the same prominence here as many places with arranged marriages, where often generations of a family will live together and support one another and family ties are more important.

I think some of this is just because there's not really any major political / social incentive anymore in the west. Once upon a time, your family was your primary social safety net. If you were alienated from your family and shit went tits up, you were completely on your own. Now the state generally fills many of the responsibilities family historically did. Today you can strike out on your own with a lot less risk, and generally your parents in their old age aren't dependent on you. Nobody's parents in the west really use marriages to cement business or political arrangements, either.

>>2833633
>Marriage is an optional lifestyle
>Not relevant to the discussion.
But that's one of the key reasons why arranged marriage is looked down on. Marriage isn't seen as necessary for a relationship, so an arrangement that puts marriage before love, romance and sex doesn't make any sense to most people.

>>2833664
It's relevant in that respect, but it's not relevant in the sense that if 50% of people choose to get married than that 50% could easily be arranged. The optional nature of marriage doesn't preclude arranged marriages. But your point stands and I get it.

>>2833676

Parents simply don't have the authority that they do in societies where arranged marriage is common.

To most people of marriagable age, unless they're a NEET, the threat of being kicked out of your family is not a particularly grave concern in the west, and in fact living with your parents at a marriagable age can be ridiculed. So at best parents can informally arrange relationships, which they often do - parents regularly try to match-make their child with single children of their friends. I'm sure everyone at least knows somebody whose parents are constantly trying to hitch them up with someone. "Have you met X's daughter? She's your age and very nice!"

>>2833612
Obviously it's because we have a glorified notion of rights.

Women have a right to choose their own partner, just like they have a right to choose when to have children.

It's literally just a consequence of Enlightenment metaphysics.

>>2833612
Everything about it is autistic as hell.

Blame the late Victorians

File: 1481403774335.jpg (133KB, 600x813px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 600x813px

>>2833612
Why do bourgeois in bourgeois society who have faith in auto-determination of the individual will claiming servitude is ebil despise being told what to do ?

>>2833723
Men often didn't get to chose their partners either.

>>2833612
India does arranged marriage wrong. The payment of a dowry can be very burdensome on family finances. It is an investment in advancing their social and economic aims. Women must therefore be protected from corruption and defilement to protect this investment, and an autistic level of segregation of the sexes occurs. Arranged marriages and formalized sexual control are the reason why you get so many autistic Indians with no suave who send very inappropriate PMs on Facebook.

>>2833612
LIKE OMG IF I CANT GET CHAD THEN LIKE LIFE IS NOT WORTH LIVING OMG ITS TORTURE FOR A WOMAN TO NOT HAVE CHAD.

Westerners are moving three into an studio apartment to be able save money on rent, I think very soon people will just start looking for opposite sex roommates and marrying them, think about it a roommate that you can fuck while saving money on rent and taxes. Believe me it is coming.

>>2833869
I think the extended family will soon return personally.

E.g a family that has several generations living in the same large house and everyone shares labor.

>>2833880
I believe so too. The economics of living with your family makes a lot of sense given the cost of living. In Korea and China, families traditionally lived in their own compound with an enclosed courtyard, and rooms that all face inwards towards the courtyard. It was pretty cozy in my time there except the lack of centralized A/C.
The only problem with this is that oftentimes, corporate workplaces require you to be able to move. Multigenerational households often mean that the young folk are now bound to a single location. I'd argue that the result would be a decline in the efficient allocation of labor, falling wages as competition for jobs in geographic markets falls, and rising costs of real estate, as people are less likely to move out of their homes.

>>2833869
>I think very soon people will just start looking for opposite sex roommates and marrying them, think about it a roommate that you can fuck while saving money on rent and taxes.
This literally sounds like a first or second year married couple. This is for the most part what people already do. Meet someone nice, move in to a cheap city apartment together, and get married (last two steps interchangeable desu).

What's the point of arranging marriages if you just rape your cousin anyway