Parson Jim - Domestic violence laws aren't anti-male, they target both males and females. They're 'anti-beating-the-crap-out-of-purported-loved-ones'.

LilyRose - Isn't that a recipe for racial balkanisation? Keeping it all within the community? What ever happened with engaging with the wider community, even for marriages? (I find mixed-race people to be absolutely beautiful, so perhaps I'm a tad biased here.) I'm not comfortable with this notion that one should resist entire sections of humanity to preserve a, frankly, silly conception of marriage and community. Why is it silly, you ask? Because it places one's value on that relationship, and anything short of marriage is a failure. What nonsense!

student_on_the_rebound - 'ever begged your friends...?' Yes and no, and what's the point either way? We want our friends to go with you because (a) we like our friends and their companionship, but (b) we don't necessarily need another individual to 'complete' us, nor even to do most everything else. Perhaps, for good measure, one can include that (c) some things ARE best done alone. I'm a highly social lad, but I'm not going to lie and say I don't sometimes WANT to enjoy a dinner on my own, yes, even at restaurants. The same goes to a lot of activities, and even lifestyle issues: I love being in bed with someone...but not every bloody night! My point is this: that conception of marriage you peddle offers you a union in which one is never alone. Fair enough. But that's not good enough to those of us who value being alone to do our stuff and think our thoughts for a good period of time without offending others. We can do that with our friends, but we probably can't get away with it much with our spouses.

h0tr0d - The idea that we must return to 'our roots' to find ourselves is bollocks. I find that stereotype in films and books grating: yes, as an American child of immigrants, who is coincidentally an immigrant himself (now living in Europe). No, I've no desire to drop everything and marry someone from 'my' culture in 'my' homeland. I'm a westerner through and through, and a highly cosmopolitan one at that. Finding myself means can only ever mean me coming to grips with having two distinct cultures at my door. I wouldn't have it any other way.

AlecsMom - An insightful, honest comment. Perhaps the author is too jaded with her real life version of 'Sex and the City' to recognise the subtle realities of inter-cultural relationship?

harlemita - Your situation reminds me a lot of what I think is a trend here in Europe, this notion of 'partners' instead of 'spouses'. (Many American friends assume one's 'partner' is code for same-sex partner; here in Europe, however, it more often than not refers to long-term relationships between heterosexuals.) What I like about the concept is its move away from this idea of possession of another, to this idea of cohabitation and respect. Even living together isn't a precondition any more, and there's a weirdly comforting element to that...to the notion that we can have our space, time and thoughts, whilst still sharing all that is good about another person.

Anita has been so candid about herself that it would be hard even for a well educated and much traveled Indian gentleman,now available-statistically-aplenty,to rise up to her expectations,particularly if she wants the vanilla route of arranged marriage.It is not that India lacks well groomed,sincere and intelligent men,the sort that Anita imagines would best suit her concept of relationship through a marriage.India also has glib and charming charlatans with flash and color that might wear thin and show the gory side in weeks and it would be such a pain to rid them. I am surprised and sorry that Anita could not meet someone nice and nourish a relationship that would blossom to wedded bliss.Campus is an obvious place,place of work has its plus and minus,but connections and network of friends always does the trick as I understand.I am a South Indian from a family of liberal views but married by arrangement from a more traditional family 37 yrs ago and we still feel fresh with each other,my wife and I.My first son married the girl he met on campus after 2 yrs of declaring intention.My second son met while working in DC a Canadian girl,introduced by his old high school pals and he was so committed that he gave up Yale MBA admission and joined Rotman School in Toronto and married upon graduation.The narrative about my experience is just reassure Anita that she will meet the right man and he could be anywhere and perhaps India too. One final word Anita,you can take the Indian out of India,but you cannot take the Indian idea of what would be lasting out of the Indian.Go for it you want lasting value and sincerely long for it and God bless you will get it.

I have some Indian friends and colleagues, so I would sometime ask them how this "arranged marriage thing" works. Of course it depends on the region, the economic circumstances, social background and family. However it seems the more modern variation works like this: your parents suggest some possible mates, you go and meet them - spend a lot of time talking trying to get to know each other. After that you indicate your preference, and if the other person agrees, too - then you get married. The conversations during these meetings are (of course) very intense.

I guess it's similar to speed-dating, in a way... However I think part of this system is that the people involved have the intention and expectation to get married. If you feel you have the option to back out, or would rather look around a bit more it probably won't do much for you. So I'm curious how it worked out for Anita.

The author asks:

Moreover, why do we have to be "perfectly sound" before we can meet someone? Why can't we be desperately alone and unhappy and become much more balanced or healthy after getting involved with someone?

I would think that the negative answer to this would be obvious: if you are "desperately alone and unhappy" then you WILL latch onto the first possible mate, regardless of his/her flaws, and potentially make a truly disastrous mistake. "Desperately alone and unhappy" will choose a mate who will abuse them in some way simply because that person is willing to make you no longer desperately alone and unhappy. You will throw out most/all judgement and desperately cling onto the very first opportunity to come along.

It doesn't matter what culture you are from, this is what happens because desperation is NOT a state of being that leads to clear judgement or discrimination. Desperation means you grab whatever floats by.

While I am sympathetic to the critique of Western-style dating, the objective fact is that marriage is NOT necessary, in and of itself: not necessary to have a baby, not necessary to even live together in a happy, comitted fashion. It merely offers some legal benefits that would otherwise need to be conferred by a visit to a lawyer to draw up documents...kinda like what happens when you get married. Legal documents are generated. Now I have no problem, per se, with marriage (I'm married) but it is not a panacea for all that ills you. In fact, it can exacerbate your ills with a pile of new ills, particularly if you enter into it out of desperation.

Besides that, there is "chemistry" involved. No one "learns" to really love (and desire) a person. That either happens or it doesn't, and forcing two people together who don't have "chemistry" is a future divorce (unless you are in a despotic society that prevents such release).