Marriage vs Love - Page 2

Originally posted by: Sab07

Love is important in marriage only difference in married couple and non married couple (social stigma aside) is they are agreeing to be committed to eo for life.

What is expected of married people is that commitment. I totally understand people fall out of love or forced into marriages However- as soon as you realize your feeling are changing you OWE and explanation to your spouse.

They need to know First- tell them your feelings are, FREE them from commitment and then seek the love. whether married people are in loving or loveless relationship is secondary- they both are committed to certain arrangements- if that changes for either one- other partner must be told. 

Idea of EMA to show love is above marriage- sorry but thts wrong- A married person drags a third person indirectly into the relationship as soon as they seek another one outside of marriage - who should not be treated like backup or disposed  becoz feelings now changed.

In show’s context- this is where Virat was wrong when he proposed Sai. He should have told PL first. No matter what, he married her gave her hope and that changed so he must have told her before wanting to move on and acting on it. She deserved to know- accepting it was secondary.
This is why it is wrong to start another relationship before breaking one - its clearly shows one is using married partner as back up if things don’t work out. Implies they are loyal to neither party.

Same with Sai- If she hurts for Virat and cant deal with Satya and his family’s expectations- she must tell him. She is not wrong here as it is a deal marriage- so she can communicate that, dont keep expectations from me as wife (Satya is wrong if he expects as its deal marriage)/ bahu- this is an arrangement. 



In short- A mature sensible and HONEST person who falls out of love with married partner would inform them first. EMA is wrong.

Missed your sensible posts so much Sab ❤️

This is a really interesting topic you've brought up. I think I'm a bit all over the place in my thoughts but I hope it makes sense: 

I agree that if you (speaking generally) love someone, you shouldn't deprive yourself of that love if its a feasible relationship for you (i.e. you both are single and free to mingle). So in that sense, sure, love trumps marriage. 

However I only think that when marriage is not actually on the table - i.e. they're both free of other attachments. 

Also, I don't think love = happy marriage. Or that love is the best foundation for marriage either. Because love ebbs and flows, and it's quite fickle. 

What makes a relationship stand the test of time is mutual respect and friendship - does the person you're with respect you, and vice versa, and do you actually like the person you're with. Is he/she actually good to you. These are the factors that make relationships stand the test of time. 

IMO I don't think you can be actually in love with your partner the entire duration of your relationship, and in those situations, if you are married, often there are ties with each other that hold you together. That's often what deters people from getting married - its a recognizably larger commitment because it's not just a piece of paper.  A marriage has legal and/or religious ties that you can't just break without going through a lot of other battles (legal court battles, division of property, income, alimony, custody if you have children, marriage and/or religious-based counseling etc).  

In one of Michelle Obama's interviews, she said there was about a 10 year period of her marriage where she couldn't stand her husband. But she stuck it out because there are other factors for seeing a marriage through. She said she'd take 10 bad years in the 30 year marriage over just giving up what they had. Often times people stick it out because they're a family unit, they have kids, they have a life they built and maybe they're just in a rut vs. actual irreconcilable differences. 

Now I don't think that means people should be miserable and stuck in a marriage. But I think it depends on how that marriage started and what the relationship was like before vs. what it is now.   And is that person still a good life partner or not.

For example, in HDCCS,  IMO, it seemed like Aish's character accepted that her life was better suited to be with Ajay than with someone like Salman. Could she have been happy with Salman, probably, she did love him, but that probably would've meant her giving up on her own family too and for a lot of people, that's just not worth it. Some people can live without their family when it comes to love vs. family, others cannot. It's all about who you are as an individual person.  I don't think it meant she chose marriage over love, but she chose the person she saw the better future with. Just because she loved Salman doesn't mean he was actually suited to be a good life partner for her, and maybe she realized that in the end. Maybe she didn't want to be selfish and break someone's heart. It doesn't mean she's going to be miserable her whole life. You can learn to love people for different reasons. Not every love is a great love, and its actually rare that people marry their greatest loves. 

In the case of Sai and Virat, its a similar situation. She may love Virat, but it's clear they are not good life partners for each other (based on what the show has given us so far). That could be one reason why Sai would choose marriage over love. 

Sai also had exterior reasons for marrying Satya (her son). So for her it's not really love vs. marriage, rather her son vs. her love. She chose this path to keep her son's happiness as in tact as she could from her end. What others did in retaliation is not on Sai. She can't predict or account for their actions. And still she as well as her son has a hope for P to return, so if that hope is there, she won't change her path just to fulfill her love. Sai doesn't think Vinu would be happy if she married Virat. That would effectively be taking P's place and she knows that's going to set her son off. Here I guess you could say love does trump all - her love for her son trumps all, including her love for Virat. Sai the mother won't get in the way of her son's potential happiness - and that lies in the hope that one day P will come back. I'm not a mother myself but from all the moms I do know, including my own, they'd sacrifice anything to make their children happy. Including their own desires.  

While for Virat it was always marriage vs. love = farz vs. desire. For Sai, the farz / marriage is because of her love for her son. And that's why its hard to imagine Sai would put her own needs above her son's.  She's been away from him too long for her to do that. Virat was able to take the steps he did because he didn't have that guilt of abandonment towards Vinu as Sai did. He raised Vinu so the power of Vinu's wishes didn't have a strong hold on him. In that respect, I can't blame Virat for deciding to leave Pakhi. His desire to leave his marriage with Pakhi was never wrong because if he was that miserable, he shouldn't have stayed in that marriage. It's how he went about it, the lying, the need to get Sai's approval before even telling Pakhi, how he held onto P in case Sai didn't say yes, all that was wrong. 

I think it's important that parents put their own mental health above the whims and desires of their children, but often parents just won't do that. Especially in desi culture. 

I also think that Sai is not necessarily suffering in her marriage with Satya as Virat did in the end with Pakhi. Sai can love Virat in her heart but still decide not to be with him  she did that the entire time she raised Savi alone. She can compartmentalize her emotions like that. I think if she were suffering or felt as suffocated as Virat did, then she'd leave Satya too. 

There's a reason why Sai stayed as hidden as she could for those years, and I think a big part of it is that she knows deep down her and Virat are not compatible in marriage based on their previous track record. 

Edited by fria319 - 1 years ago

Marriage or love, any relationship that talks about companionship is build upon respect and equality..

Sai's relationship of marriage or Love with Virat has none of these 

Originally posted by: Sab07

Love is important in marriage only difference in married couple and non married couple (social stigma aside) is they are agreeing to be committed to eo for life.

What is expected of married people is that commitment. I totally understand people fall out of love or forced into marriages However- as soon as you realize your feeling are changing you OWE and explanation to your spouse.

They need to know First- tell them your feelings are, FREE them from commitment and then seek the love. whether married people are in loving or loveless relationship is secondary- they both are committed to certain arrangements- if that changes for either one- other partner must be told. 

Idea of EMA to show love is above marriage- sorry but thts wrong- A married person drags a third person indirectly into the relationship as soon as they seek another one outside of marriage - who should not be treated like backup or disposed  becoz feelings now changed.

In show’s context- this is where Virat was wrong when he proposed Sai. He should have told PL first. No matter what, he married her gave her hope and that changed so he must have told her before wanting to move on and acting on it. She deserved to know- accepting it was secondary.
This is why it is wrong to start another relationship before breaking one - its clearly shows one is using married partner as back up if things don’t work out. Implies they are loyal to neither party.

Same with Sai- If she hurts for Virat and cant deal with Satya and his family’s expectations- she must tell him. She is not wrong here as it is a deal marriage- so she can communicate that, dont keep expectations from me as wife (Satya is wrong if he expects as its deal marriage)/ bahu- this is an arrangement. 



In short- A mature sensible and HONEST person who falls out of love with married partner would inform them first. EMA is wrong.

I agree. If a person falls out of love, then it is cheating if one gets to be someone else without letting the other person in partnership or marriage know. Since they did commit to one another whether through boyfriend-girlfriend/love or through marriage/love. I despise EMA. 

The kind of marriages I was talking about which are not valid marriages are the ones like forced marriages, blackmail marriages or deal marriages which doesn’t have a commitment of being loyal to one another or love. I don’t consider consider those to be valid marriages so for me it doesn’t make a difference if any person in such namesake marriages gets to be someone else. I don’t consider that to be EMA. I found Virat wrong too when he did that. Not as much of the first marriage he did with Pakhi for Vinu adoption but more because he then actually made promises to be with her for lifetime and he meant in those Phere he did. That time it wasn’t for sake of Vinu or anything else. So he made actual commitment to her as a husband in that episode and meant it too. So he did cheat and betray Pakhi when he should’ve been honest and broke things with her first. As for Sai-Satya, I have seen their episodes where they decided to marry. They haven’t made any promises of love or loyalty and anything. So even though as a character Sai is wrong as she consider these kind of partnership to be more like actual marriages. But if I put that aside with how the character is written, I don’t find it wrong for her to meet Virat as she and Satya don’t have any commitment of love or loyalty. They only are in this partnership as one needed to stop Virat from coming after her and other was tired of his family asking for marriage. They even told one another that they want to be with someone who don’t expect love and husband/wife kind of relationship and that’s why they chose one another as they were perfect for what they needed. So their marriage is formality and not an actual marriage. 

If tomorrow Sai gives promises to Satya about being an actual wife and being loyal and all like Virat did to Pakhi, that’s when I will find it wrong if she cheats Satya or do anything which she shouldn’t do. Of course, the best thing would be if she just breaks off with Satya and then can do whatever she wants. But even without that based on how I view marriages I don’t find her wrong to meet Virat especially loving him as that’s not something she can control. She never made promises to Satya about love or loyalty to him. I haven’t watched recent episodes so don’t know what has happened in those episodes yet. 

Edited by The_Best - 1 years ago

Originally posted by: janecastle

Sai promised loyalty and respect to Satya if not love. And making puppy eyes at her ex in the presence of her husband is not just morally wrong but also makes her a hypocrite of highest order. If she couldn't resist herself from running to Virat, then she should have taken up his offer no matter how morally wrong it was. It is not like she's being very morally upright now. If people can't be loyal in a marriage, then just stay single and explore all the options. Why get married and ruin another person's life.

She respected Satya before the formality marriage too. But she never made a promise of loyalty to him neither he did to her. Both were clear what they meant with the marriage. When did she make wife loyalty promise to him? 

Originally posted by: pratyay

Love is important in every relationship but marriage as an institution holds great regard as well. In India, still a lot of arranged marriages happen where both partners don't even know each other. All rituals also hold a lot of meaning. You are giving your commitment and loyalty to a person in front of the God, your parents, your friends, the sacred fire and more than anything your own conscience. You promise to do your best towards the relationship. Love can give you happiness but marriage gives you sense of responsibility and groundedness.¹

What love is to heart are what morals are to soul. Love may be greater than marriage but morals are greater than love. Heart wants what it wants can't be used to justify behavior that is ethically wrong. 

We have both rama and krishna...why do we considered rama as maryada purushottama and ideal husband. In his thoughts, emotions and actions, he was solely loyal to his wife Sita whether they were together or separated. Respect and loyalty are important and your partner deserves that from you especially he is honoring his side of commitment 

Just because Sai said this is a deal marriage, expecting Satya to be fine with Sai going after her ex husband is wrong. Sai said there will be no love between us she didn't say I might keep pining after Virat. He asked her whether she thinks of going back. She told him she wants to move on.

Either don't give a commitment without thinking through or honor the commitment.

Those rituals in marriages don’t mean anything if there’s no an actual love or at the very least a commitment to one another in real marriage way. Satya and Sai never made such commitments for their marriages to mean much. They only did marriage for others. They haven’t made any marriage kind of promises to one another yet. Satya knew Sai loved Virat so it’s not like he didn’t know what he was getting into. He’s not stupid to think Sai will love Virat but will not pine for him. Like how is that even possible to love someone but at the same time not pinning for that same person? That’s not possible

Originally posted by: Deltablues

So, keeping my spiritual or philosophical takes on marriage aside, marriage is not essential or even the best mode of survival.

But it does play an important role in the socioeconomic security of a person.

 Let alone the fact that most people cheat to get a sense of power over their partners which is why most EMAs don't actually lead to further legal commitments like marriage. Because marriage doesn't mean just pretty pictures and the social sanction to perform the most basic biological function of any vertebrate; it means inheritence settlements, power of attorney, maintainence obligations, and most importantly social security of a person.

By going behind someone's back like Virat did with Patralekha or Sai does with Satya (apart from playing with their mental health), you harm their social security. Virat made a mockery out of Pakhi, and Sai doing PDA with Virat at Satya's workplace without a single concern for their reputations is not far behind him. Does she owe him love or sex? NO. Does she owe him the basic decency to not make a joke out of him in public? Yes.

Falling in or out of love DOES NOT justify making other people socioeconomically vulnerable. 

I haven't even started discussing the financial and legal obligations Virat has towards Pakhi where she has a stake in Virat's property and has  a legal claim over Vinu. Let alone the fact that Virat was talking with so much disdain about Pakhi actually leaving CN as if she should have waited around for him to play gharwali-baharwali with her.

No lawyer would want to deal with the legal status of both the women as per Pawmo's whims and turu lobh.

Also companionship and commitment are not always romantic and/or sexual.

P.S. Love is not abusive and it most certainly is not entitled to ownership of the loved one — like locking them up in a room if they wish to not come back to you.

I agree with the legal aspects and other things. I feel the same. Regarding the Satya-Sai part: haven’t made husband-wife kind of commitment to one another yet. Their reason to be together is shut the family and for other to stop Virat to get hopes. They both wanted a person who don’t expect husband or wife king of commitment from them and any love and they found each other to be perfect for that. 

Originally posted by: Transference

Interesting topic of interest, and here are my two cents. While marriage is a legal and social construct designed to formalize relationships, it is love that breathes life into these unions and takes them to greater heights. Love provides the foundation for emotional fulfillment, acceptance, flexibility, and a profound emotional connection that surpasses the confines of marriage. By recognizing love as the driving force behind successful relationships, we can cultivate and nurture partnerships that thrive on compassion, understanding, and unwavering support, ultimately enriching our lives.

Who would give a law to lovers? Love is unto itself a higher law.

Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy 

Marriages are complex relationships that evolve, and it is not uncommon for individuals to experience a diminishing sense of love or emotional connection with their spouse. 

While falling out of love or still being in love outside marriage is possible, and I am all for following the heart but there's something called basic respect. 

 It is crucial to approach the situation with respect and responsibility towards one's spouse. Whether it's a lavender marriage or a marriage of convenience, basic honesty and respect are deserved by every individual. 

Marriage is a sacrosanct vow. The couple vows in front of the Agni to be faithful to each other. It is akin to prayers. It may be a legal contract but it's a pious institution too. Marriage without love is like an empty house, but even if love isn't there, there's basic respect. That's what makes infidelity a tricky area because emotional or physical cheating strips the partner of the basic respect he or she deserves! Patralekha didn't respect Samrat, and Virat didn't respect Patralekha, and now Sai too is buried in the quagmire. There's no stopping her. She is FREE to choose! The CHOICE is still hers! No one has trapped her anymore. 

Agree. The way you write is beautiful 😍 I am not Hindu so I don’t believe in the ritual unless they are made with the intention to commit like a husband and wife kind of relationship and/or love. There are many couples who got married in arrange marriages and though they aren’t in love but still did commit to one another and meant it. So I would consider those as marriages. While there are others getting into arrange marriages with no love but also not wanting to commit and one just had to say yes due to family or other reasons. In those cases, I don’t consider those to be actual marriages regardless of ritual or anything else unless later on they decide to commit. Marriage is partnership. Just like with any partnership, it depends on what terms both people agreed on and based on that it determines if one is disrespectful, breaking the partnership or cheating. 

Edited by The_Best - 1 years ago

Originally posted by: The_Best

I agree with the legal aspects and other things. I feel the same. Regarding the Satya-Sai part: haven’t made husband-wife kind of commitment to one another yet. Their reason to be together is shut the family and for other to stop Virat to get hopes. They both wanted a person who don’t expect husband or wife king of commitment from them and any love and they found each other to be perfect for that. 

The commitment was a social one AND a legal one. Sai would be entitled to an alimony and stake in Satya's property so this line of denfence is moot. What does "act like a DIL for my mom" imply? Don't make a laughing stock out of her by praying for your ex out loud in public. Defending EMA is a bs take tbh. 

Edited by Deltablues - 1 years ago

Originally posted by: The_Best

Agree. The way you write is beautiful 😍 I am not Hindu so I don’t believe in the ritual unless they are made with the intention to commit like a husband and wife kind of relationship and/or love. There are many couples who got married in arrange marriages and though they aren’t in love but still did commit to one another and meant it. So I would consider those as marriages. While there are others getting into arrange marriages with no love but also not wanting to commit and one just had to say yes due to family or other reasons. In those cases, I don’t consider those to be actual marriages regardless of ritual or anything else unless later on they decide to commit. Marriage is partnership. Just like with any partnership, it depends on what terms both people agreed on and based on that it determines if one is disrespectful, breaking the partnership or cheating. 

 

Thank you for your kind words of appreciation. I deeply resonate with your chosen subject matter. I wholeheartedly support the notion that prioritizing love and happiness over superficial marriages and abusive relationships is crucial. While I prefer not to delve into religious matters, it is important to acknowledge that every ritual carries symbolic significance. In the context of marriage, it is often regarded as a sacred union, akin to a prayer, symbolizing our connection to various deities or forces of nature.

I understand and accept Sai's longing for freedom since that was the agreement between her and Satya. I also acknowledge that she may not have feelings of love for Satya. However, in our society, these marital vows hold significant meaning, and the disregard of such commitments can subject Satya's family to mockery and disrespect. It was crucial to uphold Satya's respect, as it was part of the agreement, right? Presently, nothing is impeding Sai from ending this marriage, as Satya provided her an opportunity to do so. If there is an agreement in place, it is essential to honor it. I urge you to watch today's episode, as Satya eloquently expressed these sentiments. Respect for one's spouse and honoring vows are fundamental human expectations, wouldn't you agree?