s/o Duggar/courtship threads - criticism from former courtship advocate

[Catwoman]

Given that in our faith there are those that do become nuns after they're done raising their children, it didn't seem funny, but rather insulting. Given that she had no problem using other insulting examples, I figured this was another ignorant jab about people and people of faiths other than her own.

Wow. Harsh.

 

She was obviously joking.

[Liz CA]

But how is a young person supposed to know what they're looking for in a future spouse if they haven't had the opportunity to date at least a few different people?  Before I began dating, my idea of the perfect spouse was based primarily on movies and books.  It was by dating that I began to learn what I actually wanted and needed in a life partner.  Even dating a person you don't plan on marrying can teach you a lot about yourself and about life.  Only dating if you're considering the person a potential husband or wife is a lot of pressure for a teen.

 

Precisely. I think "lots of dating" acquired a negative connotation because it became synonymous with sleeping around. When our parents / grandparents dated, they just went to a movie or to the local "diner" or ice cream parlor together. So if you did this with a few different people in the course of three months, nobody thought much of it.

[Catwoman]

Albeto and mommaduck, I'm done explaining this. I explained my position in detail both on this thread and privately. I indicated these were my own experiences and the counsel that helped me with my marriage, and that I am a firm believer in the efficacy based on personal experience in having dragged a relationship (with a solid foundation of friendship, attraction, and compatibility) back from the brink.

 

I didn't make a blanket prescription for everyone else, I wasn't talking about unbelievers (note, the original blog was written by a Christian, I talked about courtship and marriage from that perspective alone), I specifically indicated that I don't believe abuse should be dealt with quietly or without interventions for safety, and I've been very clear and forthright in explaining my position both on the premise and the out working of it in my own life, having run the gamut of relationships from typical to abusive to a successful courtship model as an adult.

 

Personal experience, given respectfully for the discussion. And I'm DONE explaining it. I've done so a dozen times on this thread, please feel free to peruse and email me if you have specific questions not already answered that aren't argumentative in nature.

 

DONE.

I just wanted to mention that I think one of the problems you keep coming across in these discussions is that your definition of a "believer" seems to be only the people who believe exactly what you believe, and you consider everyone else to be a "non-believer."

 

There are many kinds of Christians out there, with many different beliefs, and they don't all agree with you. It doesn't make them any less Christian or their beliefs any less valid. And there are atheists and people of all other walks of life and religious beliefs whose opinions are just as valid as yours as well.

 

I think it's fine that you post your opinions, and I enjoy reading your posts. I think you are a very kind and caring person, but I do think you need to be prepared for people to disagree with you, and to question what you've said, without assuming they are attacking you. And when you frame your posts as being based on "the one real truth," it comes across as being kind of arrogant, even though I'm sure you don't intend it that way.

 

Ultimately, we're all sharing opinions in a topic like this. You may believe your way of looking at things is "the truth," but let's face it, it's still simply opinion and belief, not fact... just like everything the rest of us are posting.

[Catwoman]

Give me a break and take a chill pill, please. Not was a lighthearted comment meant exactly as Maize indicated, and I'm pretty sure the original poster got the gist of what I was saying as well. No need to randomly taken offense on someone's behalf.

I may not have agreed with a lot of what you have posted on this thread, but I thought your joke was pretty funny. It never dawned on me that anyone would take offense at it.

[Catwoman]

I don't mind disagreement, I refuse to deal with nonsense aggressive personal attacks or people constantly assuming the worst of a premise or post despite explanation to the contrary. Once it is explained and the explanation isn't accepted in good faith, I'm done discussing because respectful, open discussion is not being reciprocated.

 

My time is too valuable to waste breath arguing on the Internet with intentionally snarky people. Sorry, won't do it. Done. Fed up.

But that's what you always do.

 

You preach and argue, and then when people don't fall in line and agree with you, you play the victim and say you're taking your marbles and going home because everyone is being mean to you.

[Aelwydd]

We just don't know that we love Jesus. :closedeyes:

LOL.

[KungFuPanda]

I may not have agreed with a lot of what you have posted on this thread, but I thought your joke was pretty funny. It never dawned on me that anyone would take offense at it.

Oh, you can take offense at ANYTHING if you apply yourself.

[Catwoman]

Given that in our faith there are those that do become nuns after they're done raising their children, it didn't seem funny, but rather insulting. Given that she had no problem using other insulting examples, I figured this was another ignorant jab about people and people of faiths other than her own.

I thought you were being harsh at first, but now that I think about it, and given the tone of the thread, I can see where you could have taken her joke the wrong way.

 

It hadn't crossed my mind that women with children sometimes become nuns when their kids are grown, so I didn't think anything other than that she was kidding around, but if you thought she would have known that and was being intentionally insulting, I can see why you posted what you did.

 

I think it was just a simple misunderstanding, though.

 

Sorry I jumped on you for it, mommaduck. :(

[idnib]

It hadn't crossed my mind that women with children sometimes become nuns when their kids are grown, so I didn't think anything other than that she was kidding around, but if you thought she would have known that and was being intentionally insulting, I can see why you posted what you did.

 

I was ignorant of this. I thought nuns decided young to never marry men and/or have kids. I had no idea women with children could become nuns. Is it correct that fathers of children don't become priests? Or am I wrong here too?

 

Sorry I didn't know. 

[mommaduck]

I thought you were being harsh at first, but now that I think about it, and given the tone of the thread, I can see where you could have taken her joke the wrong way.

 

It hadn't crossed my mind that women with children sometimes become nuns when their kids are grown, so I didn't think anything other than that she was kidding around, but if you thought she would have known that and was being intentionally insulting, I can see why you posted what you did.

 

I think it was just a simple misunderstanding, though.

 

Sorry I jumped on you for it, mommaduck.

 

It's okay, Catwoman. I really didn't know it was a joke and that's why I asked what I did, so maybe she would explain it. I admit I got my feathers ruffled when I got told to chill and all, because I really wanted to know what she meant and could explain that such is usually viewed highly even by children whose mothers or grandmothers choose that vocation later in life. Thanks and I appreciate your posts. 

[Catwoman]

It's okay, Catwoman. I really didn't know it was a joke and that's why I asked what I did, so maybe she would explain it. I admit I got my feathers ruffled when I got told to chill and all, because I really wanted to know what she meant and could explain that such is usually viewed highly even by children whose mothers or grandmothers choose that vocation later in life. Thanks and I appreciate your posts.

Well, when someone tells me to "chill," I usually have pretty much the exact opposite reaction, too!

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

Catwoman - My intent is to state an opinion and discuss it, but there's a limit to what is tolerable. I just don't have the time or mental energy. Arguing about what I must *really* mean or implied subtext is beyond reasonable when an explanation is given. Won't do it. That's my limit. I'll give an opinion and try to do so carefully, truthfully, and thoughtfully. I'll generally explain it as clearly as I can, like the silly little offhand about Hitler and MT. But once it is explained as clearly as I can I've said what can be said.

 

I'm a sensitive person, and really bad at setting boundaries. But I'm setting one here and I'm not going to guilt myself about it. I do my best to engage thoughtfully and that's enough for me. I'll respond privately if needed and am generally not a yeti in disguise, or a troll bent on dropping inflammatory one liners and leaving the debate. I do my best to communcate, and that's all I can do.

 

No more of this. Message me if clarification is needed.

Didn't you say earlier you were done? If you don't have the mental energy, it's probably best for your health that you walk away for real and stop coming back. :grouphug:

[mommaduck]

I was ignorant of this. I thought nuns decided young to never marry men and/or have kids. I had no idea women with children could become nuns. Is it correct that fathers of children don't become priests? Or am I wrong here too?

 

Sorry I didn't know. 

 

It depends. I believe both Catholic and Orthodox have women that can choose later in life as well as early in life. It generally depends upon the order/monastery they are looking at. I know there is one monastery that requires all the women to "never have known a man" (no exceptions...even though it seems offensive, that is the decision of the abbess), there is a Catholic nunnery for women with Down's syndrome, and there are others that are more open. There is a process and fit. One of our monasteries was started by a Romanian princess that had escaped with her six children to America. She later remarried, then, for whatever reason, she and her husband chose to divorce (release her from her marriage), as she felt called to start a monastery (children were grown and on their own). It's a monastery that is very highly respected. (in Orthodoxy, we do not have marriage vows, ftr...marriages are blessed). In Orthodoxy, we do have married priests. You must be married BEFORE ordination. If you are ordained first, then you may not marry. I know some areas of the RCC also allow for married priests, but I don't have a lot of understanding of their rules. 

 

http://store.ancientfaith.com/royal-monastic-princess-ileana-of-romania/

[idnib]

It depends. I believe both Catholic and Orthodox have women that can choose later in life as well as early in life. It generally depends upon the order/monastery they are looking at. I know there is one monastery that requires all the women to "never have known a man" (no exceptions...even though it seems offensive, that is the decision of the abbess), there is a Catholic nunnery for women with Down's syndrome, and there are others that are more open. There is a process and fit. One of our monasteries was started by a Romanian princess that had escaped with her six children to America. She later remarried, then, for whatever reason, she and her husband chose to divorce (release her from her marriage), as she felt called to start a monastery. It's a monastery that is very highly respected. (in Orthodoxy, we do not have marriage vows, ftr...marriages are blessed). In Orthodoxy, we do have married priests. You must be married BEFORE ordination. If you are ordained first, then you may not marry. I know some areas of the RCC also allow for married priests, but I don't have a lot of understanding of their rules. 

 

Wow, thanks for all this. I had a very one-dimensional view of the situation.

 

We Muslims, when criticized about hijabs, like to point to nuns' habits as examples of females how cover their heads and are respected for it rather than criticized. :D

 

We should make the effort to delve deeper into their situations. I love the story of the Romanian princess. Fascinating.

[Spryte]

Didn't you say earlier you were done? If you don't have the mental energy, it's probably best for your health that you walk away for real and stop coming back. :grouphug:

 

I liked this post, and then realized that doing so might look odd.  I agree here.  If this is so upsetting, it's time to walk away for your mental health.  Not meant in a snarky way, but in a protect-yourself way.  

 

It's hard to understand when posters say they are done, and then come back to the same thread over and over.  Don't let it stress you out to that level.  The "fed up" level.  It's a message board. With people from all walks of life.  We don't all believe the same things, we're not going to agree. 

[mommaduck]

Wow, thanks for all this. I had a very one-dimensional view of the situation.

 

We Muslims, when criticized about hijabs, like to point to nuns' habits as examples of females how cover their heads and are respected for it rather than criticized. :D

 

We should make the effort to delve deeper into their situations. I love the story of the Romanian princess. Fascinating.

 

I added a link to a book about her. Yes, as a covering Christian, I know that many of us have been encouraged by Muslims, Jews, and Pagans that cover as well.

[idnib]

I added a link to a book about her. Yes, as a covering Christian, I know that many of us have been encouraged by Muslims, Jews, and Pagans that cover as well.

 

Thanks. I'm heading out but I'll read the sample later this afternoon.

[Cricket]

I'll generally explain it as clearly as I can, like the silly little offhand about Hitler and MT. But once it is explained as clearly as I can I've said what can be said.

 

As someone married to a man others find difficult, the line about Hitler and MT struck me funny! :-)

 

(No, he's not a Hitler or abusive in anyway. Just others have commented on how they can't understand how we get along so well in spite of very different personalities.)

[KungFuPanda]

I don't mind disagreement. I just refuse to deal with nonsense aggressive personal attacks or people constantly assuming the worst of a premise or post despite explanation to the contrary. Once it is explained and the explanation isn't accepted in good faith, I'm done discussing because respectful, open discussion is not being reciprocated.

My time is too valuable to waste breath arguing on the Internet with intentionally snarky people. Sorry, won't do it. Done. Fed up.

  

 

Psyche!

 

Catwoman - My intent is to state an opinion and discuss it, but there's a limit to what is tolerable. I just don't have the time or mental energy. Arguing about what I must *really* mean or implied subtext is beyond reasonable when an explanation is given. Won't do it. That's my limit. I'll give an opinion and try to do so carefully, truthfully, and thoughtfully. I'll generally explain it as clearly as I can, like the silly little offhand about Hitler and MT. But once it is explained as clearly as I can I've said what can be said.

I'm a sensitive person, and really bad at setting boundaries. But I'm setting one here and I'm not going to guilt myself about it. I do my best to engage thoughtfully and that's enough for me. I'll respond privately if needed and am generally not a yeti in disguise, or a troll bent on dropping inflammatory one liners and leaving the debate. I do my best to communcate, and that's all I can do.

No more of this. Message me if clarification is needed.

[Liz CA]

This must be a more common phrase in my circle than yours. It's a way of expressing that even two wildly different people, despite their history or qualities, can heal and improve their marriage. It was one of those things I held very closely to my heart when I was trying to save my own marriage from some very big trouble early on (long, complicated, mostly the fault of my selfishness and some past abuse). I had to believe that no matter how bad things seemed of what I was feeling at the time, that neither of us was beyond saving or not worth being with.

 

And having changed my thoughts and action, my husband having worked on himself as well, I have a beautiful and satisfying marriage. I might be Hitler to his Mother Teresa, but both of us could do our best, love The Lord, and love one another actively and intentionally. We healed our marriage precisely because we didn't give up and accept something not working or view our personality differences and quirks as insurmountable.

 

 

 

 

I find it boggling that everyone is assuming the worst of what I said instead of just a hyperbolic statement to demonstrate a concept.

 

Okay. So this was just an example, an extreme example but we can take the point and ponder it without thinking of these two specific people. You are basically saying anyone could make a marriage work if they are committed to it.

 

Principally, I would agree, practically it is just so complex because people are very complex. Kudos to you and your dh for making it work. I applaud this. Obviously, you found enough common values to hang a marriage on. Maybe I am thinking there still have to be some common values in order to make it work. If everything is oppositional even though you are civil to each other, it would end up being really stressful on a daily basis...just my thoughts.

The arranged marriages of which I know are all in the Indian culture. One young lady told me that her parents let the (considerable in size) extended family know that their daughter is of marrying age. She ended up being happily married to a young man her cousin recommended for her. This cousin knew the girl well and was good friends with the man. They had enough in common and their relatives realized it. I personally cannot imagine embarking on an arranged marriage but I did not grow up in that culture. I would have to rely that a relative/friend selects someone compatible for my quirks...it seems to come back to that for me.

 

[Seasider]

The arranged marriages of which I know are all in the Indian culture. One young lady told me that her parents let the (considerable in size) extended family know that their daughter is of marrying age. She ended up being happily married to a young man her cousin recommended for her. This cousin knew the girl well and was good friends with the man. They had enough in common and their relatives realized it. I personally cannot imagine embarking on an arranged marriage but I did not grow up in that culture. I would have to rely that a relative/friend selects someone compatible for my quirks...it seems to come back to that for me.

 

In a perfect world, I think we would all have friend groups that would notice when certain people seem to be a good match for us and recommend we get to know each other better! I know my oldest has friends like this, for which I am thankful.

[LucyStoner]

The only married RCC priests that I am aware of are married priests of other faiths (primarily Anglican/Episcopal) who convert to Catholicism. If their wife dies, they are not permitted to remarry. There are about 100 or so of these married Catholic priests in the United States. I know one who was raised in the Catholic Church, ordained in the Episcopal church and then returned to the Catholic Church as a married priest. I also know of at least one Catholic priest who was ordained after he became a widower and he was a father of several young children- the church wasn't used to housing children in the rectory.

[LucyStoner]

In a perfect world, I think we would all have friend groups that would notice when certain people seem to be a good match for us and recommend we get to know each other better! I know my oldest has friends like this, for which I am thankful.

Once at a party a friend wanted me to meet...my boyfriend (now husband). I hadn't seen this friend in awhile and she didn't know I was already seeing the person she surmised would be perfect for me. She was correct at least. It was pretty funny.

[Spryte]

Once at a party a friend wanted me to meet...my boyfriend (now husband). I hadn't seen this friend in awhile and she didn't know I was already seeing the person she surmised would be perfect for me. She was correct at least. It was pretty funny.

 

That is a great story.  :)

[mommaduck]

I introduced a couple to each other last year. They married this summer. He was single with no one in the parish that was single and interested and she was single and wanting to be married. Same faith. I told them that if nothing else, they would at least have gained another friend. Long distance, any chosen oversight was of their own choosing. There was no strict, it has to be a certain way, type of courtship model. They were adults, capable of managing their own lives and knowing what they wanted. They just needed help finding it. In our faith, it's not unusual for people to be introduced, particularly by older people (generally much older than myself).

[Mrs Mungo]

Arctic Mama said:

I find it boggling that everyone is assuming the worst of what I said instead of just a hyperbolic statement to demonstrate a concept.

That isn't what is happening. People are telling you that this concept has inherent flaws that you are completely ignoring, probably due to limited experience with people who are mentally ill.

 

Not every marriage can work. People hear this repeated in certain circles and believe that it is true. It causes them to stay with philanderers and control freaks and cheaters and abusive spouses and sociopaths. People need to know that they aren't a failure or are breaking Jesus's heart if their marriage doesn't work. We have seen women struggle with this in a truly horrible manner right here on this board.

[mommaduck]

Some of us have been married for twenty and thirty years. We've learned that everything can be peachy until suddenly it's not, and many times not even because either party quit putting God first, not because either party quit respecting or putting the other first, etc. Life throws curve balls. Not every marriage survives and those that do go through hell fighting to keep it. This is a warning to all of us that we need to be careful about being know it all's with broad brushed "solutions"... even towards those within our own faith. Btw, I've been just as guilty of this in the past and I would go back and set myself straight, if I could. There is no one size fits all. You can read relationship book after relationship book and not come up with sound advice for every situation (in fact, I've come to the conclusion that most relationship and parenting books, particularly those touted as Christian or "God's way", do more harm than good).

[FaithManor]

I was ignorant of this. I thought nuns decided young to never marry men and/or have kids. I had no idea women with children could become nuns. Is it correct that fathers of children don't become priests? Or am I wrong here too?

 

Sorry I didn't know. 

I don't know if this has been answered yet, but I have known two men who became priests after their children were grown and became widowers. They are wonderful, wonderful priests! If I think they are the tops because they have parenting and marriage experience, and then took their vows having no distraction of raising children.

[Rosie_0801]

Arctic Mama said:

 

That isn't what is happening. People are telling you that this concept has inherent flaws that you are completely ignoring, probably due to limited experience with people who are mentally ill.

 

Not every marriage can work. People hear this repeated in certain circles and believe that it is true. It causes them to stay with philanderers and control freaks and cheaters and abusive spouses and sociopaths. People need to know that they aren't a failure or are breaking Jesus's heart if their marriage doesn't work. We have seen women struggle with this in a truly horrible manner right here on this board.

 

Yeah, but when she experiences too many people correcting her, she gets defensive and any headway she might have made (and seemed to be making this time) in expanding her understanding gets shut right down and we all get to have the same conversation next time and the time after.

 

It is difficult when people reply before they've finished reading a thread. We all do it, of course, but it can result in reprimanding someone for something that has already been sorted a few pages back.

 

 

Small steps, and I do recommend eavesdropping. I learn a lot eavesdropping around here. :)

[Liz CA]

Arctic Mama said:

 

That isn't what is happening. People are telling you that this concept has inherent flaws that you are completely ignoring, probably due to limited experience with people who are mentally ill.

 

Not every marriage can work. People hear this repeated in certain circles and believe that it is true. It causes them to stay with philanderers and control freaks and cheaters and abusive spouses and sociopaths. People need to know that they aren't a failure or are breaking Jesus's heart if their marriage doesn't work. We have seen women struggle with this in a truly horrible manner right here on this board.

 

I have to say that I did not even consider mental illness issues when I posted above. I was just thinking about random two people - no serial killers or axe murderers or dissociative disorders...

[mommaduck]

Sadie, please read back. You'll find that it was explained to me and why I asked the question. There are mothers my age that have discussed future possibilities of choosing this vocation once their children are grown. You will also find where I stated that I didn't know this was supposed to be a "haha" joke until someone pointed it out.

[Greta]

I added a link to a book about her. Yes, as a covering Christian, I know that many of us have been encouraged by Muslims, Jews, and Pagans that cover as well.

Forgive me for veering off topic, but . . . there are Pagans who cover? I had no idea! If anyone would care to enlighten me, I'd be very curious to know why, what it means/symbolizes in Paganism. It's just a respectful curiosity on my part. (I'm a Christian who is struggling with mixed feelings on the issue.)

[mommaduck]

Forgive me for veering off topic, but . . . there are Pagans who cover? I had no idea! If anyone would care to enlighten me, I'd be very curious to know why, what it means/symbolizes in Paganism. It's just a respectful curiosity on my part. (I'm a Christian who is struggling with mixed feelings on the issue.)

Yes :) I've known Pagans and Pagan/Witches that cover. I had one contact me this past week on items and ways of covering since she is considering covering. I think each have their own reason. I believe they hold to a form of "power on their head" or controlling aura (?) I do know that it is a very personal decision for each of us, regardless of faith, as much as it's very personal for those that have chosen not to (if they'd ever considered it) and many times there are multiple reason. My own reasons have changed/evolved over the sixteen years I've covered. There is a group on FB for headcovering women of all backgrounds. I believe there are several Pagans on there that could answer. We are very gotten about the group being inclusive, because some groups have been unsafe for those that not only aren't Christian, but aren't a particular type of Christian (Catholics and Orthodox have even had to form their own groups because the ones listed as Christian are often aggressive against our presence and beliefs).

[KungFuPanda]

Forgive me for veering off topic, but . . . there are Pagans who cover? I had no idea! If anyone would care to enlighten me, I'd be very curious to know why, what it means/symbolizes in Paganism. It's just a respectful curiosity on my part. (I'm a Christian who is struggling with mixed feelings on the issue.)

Really? I know loads of pagans. I always thought they were more about uncovering.

[umsami]

Forgive me for veering off topic, but . . . there are Pagans who cover? I had no idea! If anyone would care to enlighten me, I'd be very curious to know why, what it means/symbolizes in Paganism. It's just a respectful curiosity on my part. (I'm a Christian who is struggling with mixed feelings on the issue.)

 

Back when I was on Mothering.com a lot, there were some pagans who covered who hung out in our head covering threads.  I don't remember the reasons why, but I do remember they existed. :)

[umsami]

DP.  Sigh….this always happens late at night. 

 

[mommaduck]

Back when I was on Mothering.com a lot, there were some pagans who covered who hung out in our head covering threads. I don't remember the reasons why, but I do remember they existed. :)

yes, that was another good place to find diversity in such. That board helped change a lot of things in my life... including attachment parenting and educated me on so many more things.

[bibliophile]

The interesting phenomenon is that the fundamentalist church that practices this is dying out. The boys marry outside the church and the strictness, cleave to their wive's more moderate family, and do not raise their children in the tradition. For the most part it seems to be single generation church and the numbers are dwindling.

 

 

So much for Daddy's "200 Year Plan"...

[bibliophile]

 

 

Curious how you explain healthy non-Christian marriages.

Common grace. Marriage is not an inherently Christian institution. It is common to all humans, and by God's grace, both Christians and non-Christians can be blessed with healthy marriages.

[livetoread]

Common grace. Marriage is not an inherently Christian institution. It is common to all humans, and by God's grace, both Christians and non-Christians can be blessed with healthy marriages.

What do you attribute unhealthy marriages to then?

 

If God's grace is the main factor in making a marriage healthy, then is lack of grace the main factor in making them unhealthy?

[duckens]

Thank you for posting this article!

[Greta]

Yes :) I've known Pagans and Pagan/Witches that cover. I had one contact me this past week on items and ways of covering since she is considering covering. I think each have their own reason. I believe they hold to a form of "power on their head" or controlling aura (?) I do know that it is a very personal decision for each of us, regardless of faith, as much as it's very personal for those that have chosen not to (if they'd ever considered it) and many times there are multiple reason. My own reasons have changed/evolved over the sixteen years I've covered. There is a group on FB for headcovering women of all backgrounds. I believe there are several Pagans on there that could answer. We are very gotten about the group being inclusive, because some groups have been unsafe for those that not only aren't Christian, but aren't a particular type of Christian (Catholics and Orthodox have even had to form their own groups because the ones listed as Christian are often aggressive against our presence and beliefs).

Thank you Mommaduck! If you don't mind, I'm going to PM you with a few questions. :)

[mommaduck]

Thank you Mommaduck! If you don't mind, I'm going to PM you with a few questions. :)

Absolutely!

[Shahrazad]

Forgive me for veering off topic, but . . . there are Pagans who cover? I had no idea! If anyone would care to enlighten me, I'd be very curious to know why, what it means/symbolizes in Paganism. It's just a respectful curiosity on my part. (I'm a Christian who is struggling with mixed feelings on the issue.)

 

Yes, I've met a few Pagans who covered too. I actually knew one pretty well, she was a Hellenistic Reconstructionist. MUCH later, she and her husband ended up converting to Islam together.

[Aspasia]

Not to derail the derailment of this thread, but...;)

 

I'm LDS and in our standards for the youth they are not supposed to "date" until they are sixteen. Once they start dating they are encouraged to "group date" and avoid pairing off or dating one person exclusively until they are at least 18 or so. When I was in high school my group of friends often went out on group dates and we rarely went out with the same person more than a couple times. I only had a few friends that ever had "boyfriends" or 'girlfriends." However, we had a lot of fun dating. I think that's what dating in the teenage years should be-- just a lot of fun getting to know different types of people, learning how to treat members of the opposite sex, etc.

 

While I strongly believe that teenagers should only be dating for fun, I do believe that young adults need to begin dating with a purpose. IMO, there's no point continuing to go out with a person if you can already tell they aren't somebody you want to marry. Not that anyone needs to rush out and get married, but I think young adults ought to be thinking about what they want in their future spouse and date with the purpose of really getting to know a person.

 

I was 23 when I got married and while DH and I were dating I was 600 miles away from my family at college. I had only had a couple "serious" relationships before meeting DH. But I absolutely can not imagine "courting" under the watchful eye of my parents and not having the freedom to really get to know a person like you do when you are dating. DH and I waited until we were married for s3x, but while we were engaged we learned to open up to each other, and communicate our thoughts, worries and expectations about marriage and intimacy. I really feel like those opportunities set us up for a successful marriage.

I'm also LDS and grew up dating this way. It was super fun and healthy. I've been out of the dating scene for ten years, and even when I was in it, it was Mormon style, so I'm super bummed to learn that this is not at all how people date these days! We live in an area that is decidedly NOT predominantly LDS. What am I supposed to expect for my kids? I've heard of these people who never really dated until college and that always seemed strange to me. But if the only options are pairing off and not dating until college...well, I'm just really bummed for my kids. :(

 

Maybe we'll move back to Utah before oldest dd turns 16. :)

 

ETA: Although I will say, this explains the teenage sex statistics. I've always found them shocking and not really believable, but if kids are feeling pressure to pair off instead of casually hanging out in groups...duh. What else would happen? I may have had a few friends who were having sex in high school, but they were the exception, and they were definitely in committed relationships that had gone on for a long time. When you're group dating, and dating different people every time, sex just really isn't that likely.

 

The problem now is often if they date more than one person they are looked down on. Even though they are casual dates often someone who dates a lot gets a bad rep. Also many guys and girls get jealous if the other person goes on dates with someone else My 22 year old dd dealt with this recently. She met a lot of guy friends while working at the Disney college program. For instance she went out to eat with one young man (she didn't even think it was a "date". )The following day he posted that he was in a relationship with her on FB. She explained to him that she just wanted to get to know him and enjoyed his company but that she didn't want to be exclusive. She hung out with other guys (again casually) and the first guy got very upset. Right now dd really wants to meet different kinds of people to learn what she is looking for in a relationship. I really like this article and I wish that society would make it easier for kids to date like this. Often it seems like if you go on one date they expect to be exclusive.

Edited to add: this is one reason why my 16 year old ds won't date. Right now he just wants to be friends with girls but they want to be exclusive.

 

This just sounds like that guy had some issues. I don't think it's normal to claim relationship status after one lunch. That's creepy.

[kiwik]

I usually try and stay out of these discussions....

 

My parents have an arranged marriage. They met once at a dinner and my dad's sister went to school with my mom but my dad never met her before the dinner. Their marriage was arranged and has been a good one, as have most arranged marriages I know. My parents have been married 46 years. All 11 of their siblings have arranged marriages and they have worked out well. No divorces, good kids.

 

There are many ways to find and love a spouse. The truth is if you marry a decent person from a good family and you have similar ideas about religion, children, and money, you can come to love them. Imagine being stuck on an island with a good and decent person. Would you seriously not come to care about them over the years?

 

I know more arranged marriages than not. The seem to have the same number of highs and lows as any other marriage, but with much lower divorce rates. It's nice to marry for love too. But it's not the only way.

 

:leaving:

I work with a lot of people who are in arranged marraiges. Their families picked people with shared interests, education and family background and both parties consented. They have gone into the marraige knowing what they were getting into and what the plans were for the marraige. It works for them and I think they work harder because of the family involvement. On the downside it would be harder to get out if it turned bad but it does seem to work.

 

Courtship such as in the article is not something i have ever heard of though and sounds a bit crazy.

[bibliophile]

What do you attribute unhealthy marriages to then?

 

If God's grace is the main factor in making a marriage healthy, then is lack of grace the main factor in making them unhealthy?

 

I believe unhealthy marriages, both Christian and non-Christian, are the product of sin.  We all must live with the natural consequences of our own sinful actions, as well as the consequences of the sins of our spouses.  Christians will be sanctified over time, which could certainly help build a healthy marriage, but is not a guarantee. Christians will always struggle with sin and will not reach perfection here on earth.

 

[From a Reformed Baptist perspective]

[Catwoman]

I believe unhealthy marriages, both Christian and non-Christian, are the product of sin. We all must live with the natural consequences of our own sinful actions, as well as the consequences of the sins of our spouses. Christians will be sanctified over time, which could certainly help build a healthy marriage, but is not a guarantee. Christians will always struggle with sin and will not reach perfection here on earth.

 

[From a Reformed Baptist perspective]

Not everyone will agree with you on that. People have very different definitions of "sin."

 

And are you suggesting that Christians have some sort of God-given advantage over non-Christians in terms of their chances of having a healthy marriage?

 

I think that is ridiculous.

[albeto.]

I believe unhealthy marriages, both Christian and non-Christian, are the product of sin.

 

This is an impossible variable to identify and define. This statement is as useful as saying "I believe unhealthy marriages, both Christian and non-Christian, are the product of stuff."

 

We all must live with the natural consequences of our own sinful actions, as well as the consequences of the sins of our spouses.

 

Cause and effect exist without sin. A mule dies on a mountainside and its decaying body provides nutrients for mushrooms. That's a consequence that requires no sin. A child slaps the ball out of his friend's hand. The friend feels mad and responds accordingly. That's as natural a consequence as a mushroom growing from decaying organic matter.

 

Christians will be sanctified over time, which could certainly help build a healthy marriage, but is not a guarantee. Christians will always struggle with sin and will not reach perfection here on earth.

 

[From a Reformed Baptist perspective]

 

It seems to me this Reformed Baptist reality looks functionally identical to a non Reformed Baptist reality The only difference is one believes there's a difference.

[livetoread]

I believe unhealthy marriages, both Christian and non-Christian, are the product of sin. We all must live with the natural consequences of our own sinful actions, as well as the consequences of the sins of our spouses. Christians will be sanctified over time, which could certainly help build a healthy marriage, but is not a guarantee. Christians will always struggle with sin and will not reach perfection here on earth.

 

[From a Reformed Baptist perspective]

You said that by God's grace both Christians and non-Christians can have happy marriages. I interpret that to mean that God does something (provides grace) to make marriages happier.

 

I'm a non-believer and I have a happy marriage (bordering on blissful in fact). Do you think that God has given us grace even though we haven't asked for it? What would that look like? Would my husband and I have a worse marriage if God wasn't doing something to help our marriage out? If so, why would God be providing it to our marriage and not a desperately unhappy Christian marriage?