Jump to content


Photo

Arranged Marriages


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#41 ExtraHye

ExtraHye

    #1 Admin Assistant :)

  • Nobility
  • 3,600 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:In a world with happy people who like to play all day

Posted 26 February 2008 - 12:40 AM

QUOTE (Harut @ Feb 22 2008, 07:50 AM)
fixed marriages work out better in terms of lesser divorces, because people who are pushed into that kind of marriages are people who are generally "hnazand"/"hamakerpvogh"/"anvoghnashar"/etc people who, no matter how bad their situation is, are afraid to do anything about it... there is no way back or out of it... so they stick to the marriage their parents chose for them and that's the end of story... because for them, the other option is jumping from the clip, just like Maro did...

In other words they're very unhappy, but they have to be "hnazand"/"hamakerpvogh"/"anvoghnashar"/etc and live with it, right?

#42 ExtraHye

ExtraHye

    #1 Admin Assistant :)

  • Nobility
  • 3,600 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:In a world with happy people who like to play all day

Posted 26 February 2008 - 12:48 AM

QUOTE (gamavor @ Feb 22 2008, 03:39 PM)
Yes!Yes!Yes! By "arranged" I don't mean only parents or someone from your family circle to "arrange" somebody for you. A friend in need is a frend indeed! Friends, esp. after certain age know you better than anybody else. Plus, a friend will never blame you for "dumping" her/him if something goes wrong. smile.gif

This isn't what I would call arranged marriage. This is a friend or a family member introducing you to someone they think you might like. At the end you will make the last chose. I'm talking about when the guy or the girl have no say in who they will spend the rest of their life with.

#43 Ashot

Ashot

    www.HyeForum.com

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,080 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Van Nuys, California, USA
  • Interests:Anything and Everything

Posted 26 February 2008 - 12:49 AM

Extra jan, I am simply not going to answer your questions, because my opinion stays the same, and it yells out im my post... So think whatever you want to think!!! Devorce rate with aranged marriages is way lower then the so called "love of your life" I also explained that love is blind... I have seen it, know it, and there is just too many people, especially girls suffering from "LOVE OF THE LIFE" spamm...

Extra - there is nothing in this world that will be said to convince you what I beleive and nothing will change my opinion eigther, so there is no point of criticising everything around us... Yes I would love to see my parents find that girl and place her infront of me and say here is the one for you, unfortunately they haven't found anyone as I haven't eigther!!!

#44 Anoushik

Anoushik

    Veteran

  • Nobility
  • 3,973 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Los Angeles
  • Interests:Armenians, music, philosophy...

Posted 26 February 2008 - 12:54 AM

Ashot, it doesn't make sense to me though. You say you'd love for your parents to find you a girl and say marry her, but your parents are not you! No one knows you better than you do.

#45 Ani

Ani

    Veteran

  • Nobility
  • 1,656 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Yerevan, Armenia

Posted 26 February 2008 - 12:56 AM

Hetaqrqir e...Chamusnacats mardiq esqan shat ban giten amusnutyan masin smile.gif...

#46 ExtraHye

ExtraHye

    #1 Admin Assistant :)

  • Nobility
  • 3,600 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:In a world with happy people who like to play all day

Posted 26 February 2008 - 12:57 AM

QUOTE (Ashot @ Feb 25 2008, 10:49 PM)
Extra jan, I am simply not going to answer your questions, because my opinion stays the same, and it yells out im my post... So think whatever you want to think!!! Devorce rate with aranged marriages is way lower then the so called "love of your life" I also explained that love is blind... I have seen it, know it, and there is just too many people, especially girls suffering from "LOVE OF THE LIFE" spamm...

Extra - there is nothing in this world that will be said to convince you what I beleive and nothing will change my opinion eigther, so there is no point of criticising everything around us... Yes I would love to see my parents find that girl and place her infront of me and say here is the one for you, unfortunately they haven't found anyone as I haven't eigther!!!

You don't have to answer my questions only because I already knew you weren't.

As for you wanting your parents to place "that girl" in front of you. How long are you going to have your parents do things for you? Are you also going to ask them how to run your family? I for one can't imagine a relationship like that.

Oh you don't have to answer this question either. wink.gif

#47 ExtraHye

ExtraHye

    #1 Admin Assistant :)

  • Nobility
  • 3,600 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:In a world with happy people who like to play all day

Posted 26 February 2008 - 12:58 AM

QUOTE (ANI @ Feb 25 2008, 10:56 PM)
Hetaqrqir e...Chamusnacats mardiq esqan shat ban giten amusnutyan masin smile.gif...

You read my mind Ani jan, I was just about to say the same thing smile.gif

#48 Ashot

Ashot

    www.HyeForum.com

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,080 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Van Nuys, California, USA
  • Interests:Anything and Everything

Posted 26 February 2008 - 01:08 AM

It would seem to me they know me better then I know myself!!!
For the past, what, ummm, 8 years I have been involved in very many different dates, relationships, etc... and you know what, personally I am not looking for someone that I will fall in love with the first look... Do you know that most of the couple's that start dating are simply attracted to one another and that's where evrything starts from? Well I do, and I don't like it, because you never find out who they really are untill it's a bit too late... How many cases do you know? Now let's be honest with one another, how many girls do you people know that have gone out with a guy LOVED them to death and then it didn't work out... one in a thousand will work out, and that's not enough... I am looking for a girl that would be a support to me, and viceversa, that will be a friend forever, kyanqi @nger... I don't want someone to start loving her and then gradually stop the love theme... I want someone that will be a good mother to my children, a good wife, and I will be a better person for her and my children...

How about talking about - " It didn't click" - oh, so in order for you to get to know someone, it must click nowadays.
How about talking about - " I loved that person, but we weren't meant for one another" - that's not what you said when before.
How about talking about - " I never loved that person, I just went out with him/her because she was too darn attractive" - oh don't tell me that you don't know of this kind of people...

So I am for and will always be for arranged marriages!!!
It actually helps to establish yet another intelligent family, imagine, My parents are inteligent people, came from Erevan, originally from Nor Bayazet, if my family finds a girl that is from an intelligent family, that is from Erevan, I will never say no... therefore with the help of my parents I get a decent family... So that is what I think and believe!!! nothing will change my mind!!!

#49 Ashot

Ashot

    www.HyeForum.com

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,080 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Van Nuys, California, USA
  • Interests:Anything and Everything

Posted 26 February 2008 - 01:10 AM

I won't Extra jan!!! Little that you know about me and my family!!!

#50 ExtraHye

ExtraHye

    #1 Admin Assistant :)

  • Nobility
  • 3,600 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:In a world with happy people who like to play all day

Posted 26 February 2008 - 01:16 AM

QUOTE (Ashot @ Feb 25 2008, 11:10 PM)
I won't Extra jan!!! Little that you know about me and my family!!!

True and from what I know you seem to be a GREAT guy, I just don't agree with this one thing that you seem to believe in. We don't have to agree about everything, right?

#51 Ashot

Ashot

    www.HyeForum.com

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,080 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Van Nuys, California, USA
  • Interests:Anything and Everything

Posted 26 February 2008 - 01:21 AM

NEVER!!! lol tongue.gif

#52 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 26 February 2008 - 01:31 AM

QUOTE (nairi @ Feb 25 2008, 10:17 PM)
The above often follows the one before, namely: * They stopped talking. Then they stopped having sex.

Personally, I don't think either is a good reason for divorce. At least, not unless the couple has been to therapy and has genuinely tried to resolve their problems.


Really? I'm surprised at that stance from you. I would have assumed you would be all about divorce in cases of infidelity and drugs or whatever. As the saying goes, "Once a cheater, always a cheater." Of all the things on that list, infidelity is truly the thing that which I cannot forgive.

QUOTE (nairi @ Feb 25 2008, 10:17 PM)
Or women. wink.gif Or because people don't report it as often, out of fear.


Oh no, not the "they don't report it out of fear" response! I find that to be complete baloney especially in this day and age in Western societies. Women are not the disadvantaged little creatures they once were, and I firmly believe that while there are your run of the mill abusive men, they aren't in great numbers these days, or instead they feel socially castrated from even coming close to abusing their women even if they entertained the thought for fear of ramifications of divorce (especially considering how slanted divorce laws are against men in the States).

QUOTE (nairi @ Feb 25 2008, 10:17 PM)
On a purely linguistic level, what is this expression supposed to mean?


It means I don't find sympathy with people who divorce on those trivial reasons, because they don't like something about the person that they chose!. I think that is stupid, selfish and silly and reflects only about how weak and pointless the lives that they have led have been, and its sad that their own jollies are via the next thrills and chills about being "happy" (whatever that means). Who is to say that leading a happy life is the way things ought to be, and not the more difficult, unhappy and struggling life? That then prompts one to ask, does one prefer to live a life of happiness or a life of meaning? A life of happiness is outward driven. What thing that I can do here and now and next that will maximize my utility of being happy, content and pleased? It means supposedly correcting "bad choices" because one perceives a worse social state of existence. So thereby, the presumption, the selfish happiness is the end all of all things. On the flip side, a life of meaning is always about reflecting on the past, and pondering the future. This process does not necessarily involve moments without worries, moments without unhappiness, and moments without depriving yourself of certain dreams or happier avenues you had planned for yourself. It is inward driven in the sense that it requires introspection, self-reflection, self-discipline and self-realization, and of course, the weighing of divergent interests, not just of yours, but of others like children who are now dependent on you. A life of happiness is almost like a life of blindness. Blindness to the trials and tribulations that go and grow with the choices one makes and the unforeseen and perhaps not-always-beneficial pathways that each choice contains.

So when you make certain choices and bring children into this world, in my eyes you have lost the right to pursue what you're supposed dreams were, or what you perceive as would put you in a better social state of existence than staying in that situation. If you don't like it, perhaps you shouldn't have made the shortsighted and stupid choices that you made in the heat of passion or imaturity. And if you did, live with it, as it is "till death due us part". It seems modernity has quite a deaf ear for that particular phrase. Every situation has a silver lining and I don't think staying in what one selfishly presumes as an "unhappy marriage" is a bad thing, for if you put aside the prurient and hedonistic interests of a vague and undefined happiness, staying for the greater good of depriving that child or children of a broken home is much wiser in the long run.

Edited by Anonymouse, 26 February 2008 - 01:37 AM.


#53 Ashot

Ashot

    www.HyeForum.com

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,080 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Van Nuys, California, USA
  • Interests:Anything and Everything

Posted 26 February 2008 - 01:56 AM

Anoushik jannn, this is to your post regarding me knowing myself... I know myself perfectly well!!!
And I am 99% sure you know yourself as well
But,
The reason why a lot of people do not know about themselves well, is because they are too busy talking about the affairs of other people than their own.

#54 Em

Em

    Em

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 26 February 2008 - 02:21 AM

A-
Your point has been dully noted. I get it. But there is one thing you have failed to mention. Marrriage is a difficult relationship to uphold. It requires labor, dedication, sacrifice and respect from BOTH parties involved. One person can bear the weight but for a finite period of time. No one is capable of pulling double duty. After a while the mission becomes gitole and the well being of the child outside of that relationship has to come first.

Please go ask the grown children of the innumerable families whose parents stayed together whether they think their mothers were right in staying in intolerable marriages for the sake of the kids. See if they don't pity their mothers and resent their fathers. Ask them if they would opt to live in a peaceful environment even if that meant having to homes and sepetTed parents.

Emotional abuse as witnessed by children does just as much harm as a divorce. Happy endings are not guaranteed. And some of us do give up our lives after divorce as well. In the end being a patent means that your identity as an individual is first and foremost that of a provider, nurturer, the one who sacrifices her life so that the child she brought into the world knows that there nothing of importance beyond him/ her.


Do not wax philosophical on a matter of this nature which u have no firsthand experience with. It is tasteless and viravorakan.



#55 Em

Em

    Em

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 26 February 2008 - 02:25 AM

QUOTE (ANI @ Feb 25 2008, 10:56 PM)
Hetaqrqir e...Chamusnacats mardiq esqan shat ban giten amusnutyan masin smile.gif...



Ba. Chigiteyr? Vomanq karan boloris das tan.

#56 Ashot

Ashot

    www.HyeForum.com

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,080 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Van Nuys, California, USA
  • Interests:Anything and Everything

Posted 26 February 2008 - 02:27 AM

Em jan, havata xosq@ voch qo masiner vochem im krochs... yes chem asum vor petqa nsteq yev tarapeq... indz liovin sxales haskatsel... yes asumem yerkkoghmani, martnel petqe iren drsevori enpes vor zspi iran amen inchin, tekuz knik@ iran lav chi pahum, ch@petqa xpi viravori yev ayln... qez yete tvuma yes chem tsavum sxalvumes Em jan...

#57 Em

Em

    Em

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 26 February 2008 - 02:48 AM

Ash jan, my posts directed to A- are for Anonymouse. Not you.

I know where you are coming from. I know what you mean. Please see you new PM. :-)

#58 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 26 February 2008 - 04:06 AM

QUOTE (Em124 @ Feb 26 2008, 03:21 AM)
A-
Your point has been dully noted. I get it. But there is one thing you have failed to mention. Marrriage is a difficult relationship to uphold. It requires labor, dedication, sacrifice and respect from BOTH parties involved. One person can bear the weight but for a finite period of time. No one is capable of pulling double duty. After a while the mission becomes gitole and the well being of the child outside of that relationship has to come first.

Please go ask the grown children of the innumerable families whose parents stayed together whether they think their mothers were right in staying in intolerable marriages for the sake of the kids. See if they don't pity their mothers and resent their fathers. Ask them if they would opt to live in a peaceful environment even if that meant having to homes and sepetTed parents.

Emotional abuse as witnessed by children does just as much harm as a divorce. Happy endings are not guaranteed. And some of us do give up our lives after divorce as well. In the end being a patent means that your identity as an individual is first and foremost that of a provider, nurturer, the one who sacrifices her life so that the child she brought into the world knows that there nothing of importance beyond him/ her.


Do not wax philosophical on a matter of this nature which u have no firsthand experience with. It is tasteless and viravorakan.


I disagree completely. An illuminating point on the matter written with far more clarity and substance that I ever can. Particularly lucid are the passages I have marked in bold.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The American Myth of Divorce

"Don't stay together just for the sake of the children." "If divorce is better for you, it will be better for your kids."

By William C. Spohn

For the past 30 years, Americans have used these ideas to justify their increasing recourse to divorce. Recently, however, mounting empirical evidence indicates that these justifications are illusions. The widespread practice of divorce in this culture has been based on the wishful thinking of adults while its tragic cost has been borne by children.

Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's The Divorce Culture analyzes the history and social significance of divorce. More importantly, she raises troubling ethical questions about the practice.

First, the factual profile: From 1965 to 1975, the rate of divorce doubled in the United States. It peaked in 1979 at 22 per thousand married women and then stabilized at the 1994 rate of 20 per thousand. Since 1974, 1 million children a year have seen their parents divorce, and 45 percent of all American children can expect their families to break up before they reach the age of 18.

This historic increase in divorce evoked minimal public anxiety or debate, unlike previous eras when the divorce rate rose, as it did between 1910 and 1920, and after World War II. Dafoe charges that this change in attitude resulted from a change in the ethical frame of reference applied to divorce.

Instead of looking at marital breakup in terms of an ethic of obligation to others, Americans began to see it in terms of an ethic of obligation to the self. In other words, no longer were the parents' interests presumed to be subordinate to their children's; instead, individual happiness became the new standard by which a marriage was judged.

According to Dafoe, this shift was a result of the psychological revolution of the 1960s and '70s, which changed "the locus of divorce from the outer social world to the inner world of the self." In this view, "the family, once the realm of the fettered and obligated self, [became] a fertile realm for exploring the potential of the self, unfettered by roles and obligations."


The first wave of literature on the new divorce culture, largely written by relatively affluent and recently divorced women, celebrated these trends as liberating for women and children. After the mid-1980s, however, popular advice books began to challenge some of the earlier assumptions.

A more troubling picture emerged from studies of larger populations and from tracing the effects on children over time. It turned out there was no trickle down of psychological benefits from mothers to their children. Even though 80 percent of men and 50 percent of women felt their lives were better after divorce, the effects on children were disastrous. By almost every measure, children in divorced families fared worse: emotional problems, early sexual experimenting, dropping out of school, delinquency, teen pregnancy, and drug use.

Remarriage was no solution; children in stepfamilies were two to three times more likely than their counterparts to suffer emotional and behavioral problems and twice as likely to have learning problems.

Long-term studies by Judith Wallerstein and others argue that the impact of divorce on children is cumulative. Even 15 years after their parents' divorce, many children are emotionally troubled, occupationally aimless, and unable to sustain a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Their parents' inability to sustain the relationship that counted most to them and the subsequent loss of connection to their fathers seem to have eroded these young peoples' sense of identity and ability to trust others and commit themselves.

In the ethos of expressive individualism, where self-fulfillment is the central moral norm, the parents are the only stakeholders in the marriage. But once we pay attention to the children, it becomes impossible to pretend that divorce is primarily an individual's choice rather than a profoundly social event.


Dafoe questions whether our reluctance to blame individuals who divorce has stifled ethical criticisms of the divorce revolution. She writes, "The truth is that divorce involves a radical redistribution of hardship, from adults to children, and therefore cannot be viewed as a morally neutral act."

So, should we stay together for the sake of the children? Dafoe argues that in most cases the answer is yes. Divorce makes sense in the 10 percent to 15 percent of troubled marriages that involve high-level and persistent conflict with severe abuse and physical violence.


But the case is not so clear in marriages marked by marital dissatisfaction, emotional estrangement, boredom, or another romantic interest. In these instances, adults, who are more resilient than children, can be expected to sacrifice some of their own interests in order to preserve the stable and caring home necessary for their offspring to flourish. Traditionally, spouses were obligated not merely to stay in a troubled marriage for the sake of the children but to improve it.

Society also has a stake in parents' remaining committed: "It is the experience of dependable and durable family bonds that shapes a child's sense of trust and fosters development of such traits as initiative, independence, and even risk-taking," Dafoe writes. "Without these traits, it is extremely difficult to cultivate other personal characteristics such as resourcefulness, responsibility, and resilience, which are essential in a pluralistic society and a demanding global economy."

The American discussion of divorce seems to be moving back to the conviction that divorce has ethical and social dimensions. There are calls to retrieve some traditional standards: Children have moral priority; the social cost of divorce has to be counted even more than the benefit to the individual spouse; society has a stake in keeping marriages together; fathers are not dispensable. Such appeals may be able to counter the ethos of expressive individualism that has redefined marriage as an institution for the self-fulfillment of adults.

William C. Spohn is Presidential Professor of Ethics and the Common Good at Santa Clara University.


http://www.scu.edu/e...n2/divorce.html

Edited by Anonymouse, 26 February 2008 - 04:07 AM.


#59 nairi

nairi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,704 posts

Posted 26 February 2008 - 07:01 AM

QUOTE (ExtraHye @ Feb 26 2008, 07:48 AM)
This isn't what I would call arranged marriage. This is a friend or a family member introducing you to someone they think you might like. At the end you will make the last chose. I'm talking about when the guy or the girl have no say in who they will spend the rest of their life with.


It's called matchmaking. smile.gif

#60 nairi

nairi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,704 posts

Posted 26 February 2008 - 07:46 AM

QUOTE (Anonymouse @ Feb 26 2008, 08:31 AM)
Really? I'm surprised at that stance from you. I would have assumed you would be all about divorce in cases of infidelity and drugs or whatever. As the saying goes, "Once a cheater, always a cheater." Of all the things on that list, infidelity is truly the thing that which I cannot forgive.


I've changed my mind over the years.

QUOTE
Oh no, not the "they don't report it out of fear" response! I find that to be complete baloney especially in this day and age in Western societies. Women are not the disadvantaged little creatures they once were, and I firmly believe that while there are your run of the mill abusive men, they aren't in great numbers these days, or instead they feel socially castrated from even coming close to abusing their women even if they entertained the thought for fear of ramifications of divorce (especially considering how slanted divorce laws are against men in the States).


I think abuse has too many definitions, from very broad to very narrow. It depends on how you look at it. And sadly, yes, many women are still too afraid to step out of their relationship and report it. But this isn't just about women. It's also about men. Women can be just as abusive as men, though usually psychologically instead of physically, for the obvious reason. In the latter case, it's the men who are too afraid (or, I should say, embarrassed) to report what their wives do as abuse.

QUOTE
It means I don't find sympathy with people who divorce on those trivial reasons, because they don't like something about the person that they chose!. I think that is stupid, selfish and silly and reflects only about how weak and pointless the lives that they have led have been, and its sad that their own jollies are via the next thrills and chills about being "happy" (whatever that means). Who is to say that leading a happy life is the way things ought to be, and not the more difficult, unhappy and struggling life? That then prompts one to ask, does one prefer to live a life of happiness or a life of meaning? A life of happiness is outward driven. What thing that I can do here and now and next that will maximize my utility of being happy, content and pleased? It means supposedly correcting "bad choices" because one perceives a worse social state of existence. So thereby, the presumption, the selfish happiness is the end all of all things. On the flip side, a life of meaning is always about reflecting on the past, and pondering the future. This process does not necessarily involve moments without worries, moments without unhappiness, and moments without depriving yourself of certain dreams or happier avenues you had planned for yourself. It is inward driven in the sense that it requires introspection, self-reflection, self-discipline and self-realization, and of course, the weighing of divergent interests, not just of yours, but of others like children who are now dependent on you. A life of happiness is almost like a life of blindness. Blindness to the trials and tribulations that go and grow with the choices one makes and the unforeseen and perhaps not-always-beneficial pathways that each choice contains.

So when you make certain choices and bring children into this world, in my eyes you have lost the right to pursue what you're supposed dreams were, or what you perceive as would put you in a better social state of existence than staying in that situation. If you don't like it, perhaps you shouldn't have made the shortsighted and stupid choices that you made in the heat of passion or imaturity. And if you did, live with it, as it is "till death due us part". It seems modernity has quite a deaf ear for that particular phrase. Every situation has a silver lining and I don't think staying in what one selfishly presumes as an "unhappy marriage" is a bad thing, for if you put aside the prurient and hedonistic interests of a vague and undefined happiness, staying for the greater good of depriving that child or children of a broken home is much wiser in the long run.


For once, perhaps, I fully agree. I'd like to add that I have become increasingly more annoyed at complaining parents about children. Especially mothers saying things like (in a complaining manner): "I'm so tired all the time; I haven't slept in four years; I have to plan everything around my child; I don't get to do anything anymore; my child demands soooo much attention; etc." No, having children is NOT easy, which is why the moment you decide to have children you should be FULLY aware of the limitations a child will bring into your life. If you are not aware of them, I suggest you babysit your friend's child or children for a week. If you're not "dead tired" at the end of the week, you may be somewhat ready to have children. But if you are dead tired, don't think "but if they were my own children, I'd be more patient" is true; in fact, it's probably further from the truth than anything else. The chance that you will be ten times (or more) less patient with your own children than with other people's children is very probable. And when you decide to go ahead and have children anyway, all the "limitations" that come with it should become a source of happiness instead of a source of misery. You should be able to say things like: "I'm so glad I haven't slept in four years" and "I love revolving my entire life around my children." I have already promised myself to smack the first mother (or father, for that matter) that I hear whining about how difficult and tiring it is to have children.

Regardless, that still doesn't answer my linguistic question as to what the expression or idiom "to dish out what one reaps" means. I'm assuming it means something like: "to distribute what you have created," but I don't see how it fits in that particular sentence.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users