This question poses many different perspectives and is applicable in many other conversations- in this instance specifically is what is the future husband and his family buying, a cook, a sex object, a womb, a partner, etc. This can also be argued in a college degree, what is it that I paying for, a degree, experience, networking, etc. Specifically in feminism since this highlights the argument that women are concisely objectified and seen as anything but a human.

If ind this point very historically interesting because of how the concept of marriage is and has changed. In our current reality, marriage is a union and something to be celebrated with joy. In a past time, marriage was almost a business deal between a father and a suitor- the father is being paid for his daughter, to not only buy her but for compensation for his now loss after raiser her into a role. After this male centered transaction, the woman will enter into a contract with the man to become under his name and property. I find it interesting this comes into the conversation of debts.

I find it interesting that sports can have Taboos because I personally more often associated a Taboo with a social norm- what you should and should not do to ward off negative associations.

I think this specification that a Fetish is more typically a physical item helps differentiate a Fetish from a ritual. While Rituals are done to seek something often from a higher power they are private actions while a Fetish is a item to 'embody luck' or the preferred outcome. For example holding onto an old charm to continue its controlled outcome.

While shelling out money to create an experience for viewers may seem odd, it has shown to be much for effective than simply putting a statement out, or conversations/discussions to be held to get said viewer to understand or agree with the rhetors argument. Rather than convincing the audience that this is truth or worth something, they are putting them through an emotional experience that people want.

I find this to be a very interesting and agreeable definition to entertainment in relation to religion beause it emphazises the immersion that people look for specifically with religion, in my personal beliefs I can understand and have observed that groups of people participate in church not for the connection with the scripture or testimonies, but the community and experience. This leads me to question to motives of churches in correlation to this idea.

It can be difficult to admit it but economic status plays a heavy role in both only peoples linguistics but the ways they are raised. This can also often affect morals, views and perceptions on experiences. Without acknowledging this fact and variable we are discounting peoples (especially minorities) experiences.

This empashisis on distinctions within an already existing groups, specifically the language aspect reminds me slightly of discord groups- leading me to wonder if discord groups are a topic of discussion within anthropology. While I understand why it this might be odd for wrong from an outside perspective , just because people come from the same place does not mean they have the same experiences, especially when ecumenical variables are added in. While this does not justify the separations or the exclusion of others, it seems natural in some sense.