Talk:Groom kidnapping

neutrality?
The article states that the practice is widespread amongst families not able to pay high dowries, then later asserts that the victims are generally unsuccesful in annuling the forced marriages, because the brides' families are "financially strong and politically connected". This seems either inaccurately expressed or possibly lacking in neutrality. The difference between not being able to pay & not wanting to pay, being the central question ... Cmissy (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this too. Memextropy (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this as well as the fact that no one has made a counter argument or changed the article after the complaint had been up for a year. Sdmitch16 (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Similar practices in places other than India?
I am curious to know that is there any similar practice or phenomenon of kidnapping men to marry women, excluding Shotgun wedding which I mean 'to force the man who impregnated one's daughter to marry her', and regardless of whether the man has met the woman or not, that existed or still exists in places other than India? 183.179.52.78 (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Groom kidnapping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101118055756/http://ww.telegraphindia.com/1100827/jsp/bihar/story_12859560.jsp to http://ww.telegraphindia.com/1100827/jsp/bihar/story_12859560.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Really a result of dowry?...
According to the article: "The practice, which is a fallout of the dowry custom, first came to light in the 1980s."

Now it's my understanding that dowry exists as a sort of compensation for the social and legal obligations which husbands have to provide financially for their wives.

It also strikes me that, absent the existence of dowry, the motive for such kidnapping and extortion would still exist, provided that there were still such obligations for husbands to financially provide for wives, and that such obligations were *so* deeply rooted in society as to be enforced even in cases where the marriage was clearly not consensual.

The dowry doesn't really seem to be the issue at all because, were there no dowries, the sort of men being targeted for extortion (men with good middle to upper class income) wouldn't be marrying these women anyway. Instead they would seek out women whom they found attractive, and/or whose own earnings would significantly contribute to household expenses.

I'm not from India though, or an expert on Indian society, so someone with more information is welcome to chime in. But, from what I do know, it seems that the reasons these men are being kidnapped and forced into marriage is to extort them based on societal obligations associated with marriage. If I don't hear back from anyone for a while though I might go ahead and edit to reflect the situation more accurately. -2003:CA:83C6:E300:C0B0:1514:243:FDDE (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)