What are the pros and cons of a prospective bride/groom not having any siblings?
13.06.2025 02:39
But if she’s the type to poison my life, I won’t tolerate the toxicity. But also no matter how much by her karmic accounts she deserves to be on streets or old-age homes—I don't wish it for anybody. So if she has other kids—she’ll have a place to go.
Image Source: My gallery
Hawwww, no brother? Never marry her! Worst choice ever. You’ll end up wasting your life serving her parents. Of course, she’ll run behind her parents, and you’ll be stuck running behind her. So, a big NO.
I’m not greedy for money—just greedy for a little peace of mind. So, if his parents choose to be vile continously, they can always move in with their other "precious" kids who have a higher tolerance for drama and toxicity than I ever will.
If his mother is kind, I’d happily keep her around, good women always have valuable things to teach. I enjoy the company of nice women. They've stories to tell. I love them.
Ahh, the obsession with the “iklauta”!
Are people who cite the 2nd Amendment honestly familiar with what it establishes?
Should I marry a boy with no siblings?
Should I marry a girl with no siblings?
Girls and their families are obsessed with an iklauta (single boy child) because, obviously, most Indians live in poverty, and money is a big deal. A brother means property division, and sister means money “wasted” on her marriage. To ensure that the tiny two-room house and the small 2x2 cm plot of land— remain theirs, they target a boy with no siblings.
Awwww, what a remarkable golden jackpot you’ve hit! Marry him immediately. A big YES!
Personally, it doesn’t matter to me. The person’s character is what counts and not the sibling count. But if at all I had to make a choice, I’d go for someone with at least one brother or a sister—who should be a capable woman. Here’s why:
Iklauta logic doesn’t apply here—everyone gets their share, as long as it’s not my favourite Broccoli momos! They belong only to me!