Arranged marriages are barbaric and effectively rape in many cases, though, especially when they are forced based on threats of disownment or worse, which is common depending on the culture. In some places it is a lot more explicitly threatening. I don't really care whether people who are abused and brainwashed into signing on to participate in and perpetrate on the next generation horrific practices claim to be fine with the crap themselves, that's basically the story of every abusive religious practice ever, beat kids into thinking God will hate them unless X and they're going to tell you X is amazing as adults.
That's not how most arranged marriages work, it just means instead of getting options from Tinder, people get options through their parents' social network.
Which usually means they're more selected for things the parents like (well respected in the community) rather than things that look good in pictures (shirtless pics).
I think any useful definition of arranges marriage involved one or both parties not having a say in it, or maybe where one party has such a better negotiating position (such as immigration rights to the USA), that it precludes any other notions of compatibility.
It is not racist. I have family members who were married without consent of both parties. That is an arranged marriage with a distinct difference than that of a marriage that happens with the consent of both parties.
Getting introduced to a potential partner by family or friends and then dating is not any different than flirting with a partner and then dating, for the purposes of describing the circumstances that resulted in marriage.
I think common-sense suggests being involuntarily married and obliged to have regular sex with someone not of your choosing probably leads to an unhappy condition, particularly if your community also punishes or forbids divorce or separation, particularly if you’re female.
Who or what do socially conservative practices like arranged marriage, prohibition on fornication, restriction on contraception (etc) serve? - the maximisation of happiness … or … often paternalistic control over a population for the greater benefit of a socially powerful elite?
There's also the big benefit of essentially eliminating STDs.
In my view, a lot of it comes down to what does sex mean? To me, sex says "I love you so much I want our love to overflow into new life. I love you so much I want to raise a child with you." Raising a child within a marriage is generally much better than raising a child outside of a marriage.
> restriction on contraception
One big problem with contraception is that it's not reliable. The pill has a 7% failure rate on average, and condoms have a 12% failure rate on average. People use contraception thinking it will prevent a pregnancy, but they're wrong.
> benefit of a socially powerful elite
I don't really understand how a prohibition on fornication benefits a powerful elite. The elites in the media industry seem to be promoting fornication in movies, TV shows, books, videogames, etc. I think elite men often want to use their position to have sex with a lot of women, which would be easier if women are ok with fornication. Also they won't be regarded as hypocrites if they say what they're doing is ok. Take for example Aziz Ansari. A woman accused him of some bad sexual thing. Much of the media defended Aziz saying it was just awkward sex, and that's not unethical. If Aziz had been publicly against fornication though, the media wouldn't have defended him.