Last time when we discussed marriage customs, we were clueless about metti ie Why it went to women from men.?
I was now told that when the " Piranmanai Nokka per Anmai" ( not seeing other's wife) became a virtue for men, women also started wearing metti. That is how a man can recognise without looking a woman.
Looks a good logic. As far as thali is concerned, still searching and will come back some time latter.
metti - i read somewhere is worn by married women only..
it has a therapautic effect.. read that if worn on the correct finger on the toes, it helps the ovary to maintain good health and helps in proper conception..please note that it is worn not only by hindu women, but across religions in India...
typically is a method of "accupressure" which is very famous in China..
Initially metti was worn by both. Remember thirumangai alwar story. Vishnu and lakshmi coming as newly wed. When thirumangai asks them to remove all jewels.
The metti of the groom coulnot be removed and thirumangai mannan tries to remove by holding the feet of the groom and ralises the lord..
Looks we men have silently removed that. may be paladara manam? dont know. we have yet to get more info on that. As said the reasons given are trying to be logical but no litrerary or any other proof.
to my knowledge, pala dhaara manam was prevailing for most of the time.. only "ramar(may be his brothers also)" i think are ekapathni viradhan (pls corerct me if iam wrong"..
think the practice of paladhaara manam was more prevalent and that is why valluvar talks about "piran manai nokkaa peraanmai" and condemns the practice as he might not have liked it..
but anyway we are nobody to decide on whether pala dhaara manam is right or wrong.. as customs and parctices are decided right or wrong depending upon the circumstances present at that point of time and the consensus in the particular society..