Marriage is commonly portrayed as a personal choice rooted in love and emotional certainty. Stories, films, and traditions reinforce the idea that marriage is the natural outcome of desire and commitment. Yet for many people, marriage is not the result of wanting something deeply—it is the result of needing something urgently.
Across cultures, individuals enter marriages for protection, stability, or social acceptance rather than romance. These unions are sometimes labelled “fake,” but that word oversimplifies what is actually happening. Most of these marriages are not built on deception, but on negotiation. They are responses to systems that leave little space for honest alternatives.
This inner conflict is best explained through the concept of cognitive dissonance: the discomfort that arises when actions clash with personal beliefs or identities. When marriage is chosen to reduce fear, pressure, or risk, the dissonance does not disappear after the ceremony. It simply becomes part of daily life.
India: Marriage as Shield
In India, marriage often functions as social protection. Despite legal reforms, personal freedom is still limited by family expectations and public scrutiny. Being unmarried past a certain age invites questions, judgment, and speculation. For queer individuals, the pressure can be even heavier.
Many enter heterosexual marriages not out of attraction, but out of necessity. These unions offer relief from constant surveillance and provide a sense of safety within the family structure. Outwardly, rituals are performed with care and sincerity. Inwardly, individuals manage silence, emotional distance, and unspoken agreements. The conflict between identity and obligation becomes something to be quietly endured.
China: Marriage as Responsibility
In China, similar arrangements exist under the idea of “formality marriages.” Here, the pressure is often less about public morality and more about duty to parents. Remaining unmarried is commonly viewed as a failure to fulfil one’s role within the family.
These marriages are frequently practical and openly discussed. Agreements may cover finances, parental visits, and plans. Emotional intimacy is not expected to be central. Instead, marriage is treated as a social contract designed to maintain harmony, even if personal fulfilment exists elsewhere.
The West: Marriage as Strategy
In Western societies, the meaning of marriage is also shifting. Rising living costs, unstable employment, and increasing loneliness have changed how people view long-term partnerships. Romantic relationships can feel uncertain, while the legal benefits of marriage remain concrete.
Some friends now choose to marry platonically to share responsibilities, secure housing, or gain legal stability. Unlike earlier examples, these arrangements are often transparent rather than secretive. Marriage becomes less about passion and more about mutual support and survival.
Real-Life Case Study: The "Paper-Thin" Marriage of Aisha and Rohan
To understand how this looks in practice, consider the story of Aisha and Rohan. In a quiet suburb of Bengaluru, Aisha, a 29-year-old marketing professional, recently celebrated her second wedding anniversary. To her neighbours and parents, she and her husband Rohan are the "perfect match". But inside their apartment, the reality is a carefully managed negotiation.
The Conflict: Aisha is a lesbian who faced intense pressure from her conservative family, including threats of being disowned if she didn't "settle down".
The Negotiation: She met Rohan, a gay man, through an online community specifically for Lavender Marriages (marriages of convenience). They spent six months discussing "terms" before ever meeting each other's families: how they would share expenses, how many times a month they would visit their respective in-laws, and how to handle the inevitable questions about children.
Cognitive Dissonance in Action: Aisha describes her life as living in a "witness protection program." During the day, she is a high-performing professional. On weekends, she puts on her mangalsutra and plays the role of the dutiful daughter-in-law at family brunches. The psychological discomfort—the cognitive dissonance—comes when she hears her mother praise her "happy marriage." She values honesty, yet her social survival depends on this daily performance.
Marriages formed under pressure are not failures of character. They are reflections of social systems that prioritise conformity over honesty. When marriage becomes the safest option rather than the most authentic one, people adapt to move forward with their lives.
Cognitive dissonance does not end at the mandap or the registry office. It continues quietly, woven into everyday routines. What appears traditional or stable from the outside often contains a complex inner story—one shaped not by love alone, but by compromise
References:
- Stanford University Press: A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957)
- Hindustan Times: Is Lavender Marriage a Sad Reality in India?
- The Yale Globalist: The Rise of Xinghun Marriages in China
- BBC Worklife: The Rise of the 'Friendship Marriage'
- Refinery29: Our Platonic Marriage Is No Less Legitimate