Joy-Anna Duggar Courting at 19- WDYT?

[FaithManor]

Agreeing with homeschoolmom. This are has seen numerous teens at the altar due to a pregnancy and the abandonment and divorce rate is bizarrely higher than the national average. In so many of these cases, keeping the child and having the assistance of grandparents to help the young woman parent effectively which provides stability and a safety net while both parents grow up seems to be a much better plan for baby. In the case of my cousin, the mother chose to leave baby with him, he parented while finishing high school and college but with the expert help and support of his parents and oldet sister. His son is such a delight, and mom, who would have been an awful wife, has seen her son during the times in her life when she has been stable. If they had married???? I shudder to think!

 

In terms of the state, it is probably in its best interest to set an age of majority and endow it with the rights of adulthood the end, no exceptions. It would not eliminate child forced marriage, but at least make it harder since the 18 year old has some rights.

[Mimm]

Prosecuting a parent who raises their child in the way their faith dictates? Can you imagine that scenario in court? "Your honor, the defendants are accused of reading, believing, and following the holy bible to raise their children in the way the holy spirit guided them, within the parameters of the law. Your honor, not only is this within their rights as Christians, but is the American way. Nor are they alone. There is a rich history of young couples getting married with the full approval of their parents, which is what we have here...." 

 

People can be raising their children in the way their faith dictates and it can still be harmful to the child to such a degree that society is obligated to step in and say, "No, you can't do that." Coercing underage teens into marriage unequivocally falls under that category.

[Crimson Wife]

I don't think there's any reason to allow minors to marry period.  We're not living in a day in age where there are severe social stigmas for out of wedlock births and having a child together is not, by itself, a legitimate reason to get married.  

 

I wholeheartedly disagree with the bolded. When there is a child, the parents should marry unless there is a legitimate reason NOT to (and when we're talking older teens, age by itself wouldn't count). There is numerous research to show that children whose parents marry do better than children whose parents do not marry. The strongest argument in favor of legal recognition for homosexual unions is that it is better for their children.

[Crimson Wife]

  This are has seen numerous teens at the altar due to a pregnancy and the abandonment and divorce rate is bizarrely higher than the national average. 

 

Is the breakup rate and child abandonment rate higher than for unmarried teen couples? That would be contrary to the overall breakup rate of nonmarried couples who have a child together vs. married couples with a child together.

[maize]

I am also in favor of marriage being an option for older teens who have a baby together. Not by force or coercion, but if that is their choice. Unless the baby is put up for adoption or one parent's rights are terminated, those three individuals are going to be tied to one another for at least the next 18 years. Allowing them an opportunity to form an official family with social and community support can be a very good option for some.

 

Obviously whether marriage would be a good or bad idea is going to depend on the specific individuals and circumstances involved; it should not be a default, it must not be under outside pressure. But two sixteen year olds are not so very far from being full legal adults and I cannot see that they and their mutual child are automatically best served by being prevented from marrying.

[ktgrok]

I wholeheartedly disagree with the bolded. When there is a child, the parents should marry unless there is a legitimate reason NOT to (and when we're talking older teens, age by itself wouldn't count). There is numerous research to show that children whose parents marry do better than children whose parents do not marry. The strongest argument in favor of legal recognition for homosexual unions is that it is better for their children.

 

The problem is, when pregnant and stressed, it is very hard to discern the reasons for and against marriage. As somone that married because they were pregnant, and later got divorced, I can say that there were VERY legitimate reasons not to get married (mental health, etc) , but they were overlooked by me because of  the desire to get a ring on my finger. 

 

My denomination now won't marry you if you are pregnant, because of this. Too many people get married without really thinking it through....when you are under societal or parental pressure to marry you can't truly consent. 

[Charlie]

People can be raising their children in the way their faith dictates and it can still be harmful to the child to such a degree that society is obligated to step in and say, "No, you can't do that." Coercing underage teens into marriage unequivocally falls under that category.

 

Well sure, I agree with you and if I were in charge things would be different. But in this case, a lawyer would have to successfully make the argument that young marriage is harmful to in general, and even here in this discussion we've got examples of people arguing exceptions to that claim. And besides, I don't think any lawyer wants to open the can of worms regarding what is legitimate biblical training and what is not.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Charlie

[Southern Ivy]

Is that Joy-Anna in the family picture on his family's camp's website? https://www.fortrock.org/

a bit off topic, but I've actually been to Fort Rock with a women's retreat (not associated with Duggars, Gothard, or anything remotely close). lol

The Forsythe's seem like a nice enough family, though I am quite far from their ideology. 

 

 

ETA: I grew up in an independent fundamental Baptist church that had quite a few Gothardites and Pearl followers. I am so thankful that my dad refused to get involved in that nonsense. I'm a people pleaser and would have followed the crowd and had a horrible life if he had allowed that cult to infiltrate our home. 

Edited November 21, 2016 by Southern Ivy

[HS Mom in NC]

I wholeheartedly disagree with the bolded. When there is a child, the parents should marry unless there is a legitimate reason NOT to (and when we're talking older teens, age by itself wouldn't count). There is numerous research to show that children whose parents marry do better than children whose parents do not marry. The strongest argument in favor of legal recognition for homosexual unions is that it is better for their children.

 

No one is saying the couple can't shack up or still date.  But the government has absolutely no business being involved in child marriage and under US law, minors are children.  If anyone wants to enter into any legal contract of any kind, they should be legal adults. Child (minor) marriage should be banned in the US because a government issued marriage license is a legal contract.  A quality, dedicated minor couple with an out of wedlock baby won't become a problem couple if they're denied a government issue marriage license as minors. Even suggesting it is ridiculous. They'll stick together and make it work until they can legally wed. 

 

Meanwhile the problem couples will be able to part without the added layer of difficulty that comes with having been a minor aged child bride and a minor aged child groom in a government recognized marriage.  

 

[Guest]

I have a question"....do the Duggars deny they are Gotherdites? I just read about them on Wikipedia and they say they are Baptists.

 

Also someone mentioned up thread that before they became a reality tv family they were living in poverty. Like poverty where the kids didn't have enough food. That is mt my memory of them pre tv at all. They both have their RE licence, they have rental property, JB was in politics briefly....has a used car business...I don't remember anything about them having a destitute life way back then. And they only live about an hour or two from me......so we heard quite a bit about them early on.

 

I don't really understand the courting thing.....sounds like chaperone dating for purpose of getting married.....that may seem extreme to people who date for recreation but it is how we do things in my religion to an extent.

 

I think these girls can have happy lives in spite of their parents weird and extreme views of sex and fertility.

 

I also agree with the comments about how the Amish do a simple life 'right'. They live in a community very near me and they are well fed and clean and warm.

Before they did any TV shows or had obtained any measure of fame, they were quite poor. It is true they both had RE licenses and JB had several different businesses, but once they stopped using b/c, Michelle didn't do any RE or other paying work. I cannot say whether or not they were actually going hungry, but the way she describes their living situation when they had the first six, seven, eight kids would be a deal-breaker for me. There is not a chance in he// I would blithely conceive more children while living in a 900 sq. ft car lot office building with no yard. Also, JB was working or available to work 24 hours a day; he had the car lot, a convenience store and a 24-hour towing business. I am all for hard work, but that IMO is a very bad existence and not a situation into which I would have more and more children with no idea how the circumstances could improve. They also did not have health insurance for the first few babies. Even when the first few Discovery TV feature shows were aired (15 kids), they were living in a rental house with one bathroom. I recognize that there are people living in worse conditions, but I think we can agree that these are not good circumstances under which to plunge ahead with having more children.

 

The other important thing to realize is that they are ONE very large QF family who got a boon deal to bring in income apart from their regular income-producing activities. It is a simple fact that if you take a young couple with no education beyond homeschool high school and never use b/c or even simple fertility-based abstinence, they could potentially have quite a large family and no real way to bring in a sizeable and reliable family income, especially since you can expect that mother will most likely not earn if she is continuously pregnant and caring for babies. Families who follow the prescribed Gothard ideas are *extremely likely* to live in poverty.

 

I was on the QF loop at one point in my past and this was one issue that came up often enough that it gave me serious pause. There was one particular post from a woman who was having doubts about continuing the QF concept because she had already a quite large family was pregnant again, which she admited to feeling very negatively about and said she had doubts that God would supply all their needs because her children already lacked absolute NEEDS, like shoes and coats. They lived in a trailer. She talked about complete and utter lack of space. She had potentially many more fertile years ahead of her. Reading this post, more than any other, convinced me that in that direction Kookiness lies, especially given the number of people who chimed in the "encourage" her to keep trusting in God in spite of obvious evidence that this was unwise in a huge way.

 

I think having a bunch of kids is a great thing; I thought I would have a larger family than what I ended up with and very much wanted to have six or seven kids. No, I don't think every kid needs to go to Disney World or have their own Pottery Barn bedroom. But there's also a minimum standard under which I would not choose to have more kids.

[gardenmom5]

 given the number of people who chimed in the "encourage" her to keep trusting in God in spite of obvious evidence that this was unwise in a huge way.

 

I

 

there's one thing about God they leave out.  He gave us a brain - and expects us to use it.

 

I have no problem with a couple having a large family - but I would expect them to also put in the effort to develop the skills to earn an adequate income to support said family.

[luuknam]

No one is saying the couple can't shack up or still date.  But the government has absolutely no business being involved in child marriage and under US law, minors are children.  If anyone wants to enter into any legal contract of any kind, they should be legal adults. Child (minor) marriage should be banned in the US because a government issued marriage license is a legal contract.  A quality, dedicated minor couple with an out of wedlock baby won't become a problem couple if they're denied a government issue marriage license as minors. Even suggesting it is ridiculous. They'll stick together and make it work until they can legally wed.

 

16yos can become emancipated if circumstances warrant it in many/most/maybe even all? places. At which point they can sign legal contracts, of which marriage would be one, I'd imagine.

 

In NL it used to be that you could get married at 16-17 if you were pregnant and had parental consent, and under 16 if you were pregnant and had parental and the queen's consent (in practice I think that just meant a judge, though I'm not sure), but they got rid of that last year and now you have to be 18.

[happypamama]

NM

Edited November 21, 2016 by happypamama

[Mimm]

Well sure, I agree with you and if I were in charge things would be different. But in this case, a lawyer would have to successfully make the argument that young marriage is harmful to in general, and even here in this discussion we've got examples of people arguing exceptions to that claim. And besides, I don't think any lawyer wants to open the can of worms regarding what is legitimate biblical training and what is not.

 

A lawyer doesn't have to argue anything about the Bible at all. They just have to argue that in the US, adulthood is 18 and the US government shouldn't be officially sanctioning a marriage between anyone under 18, regardless of what the parents think about it. The opportunity for harm in that situation is too great.

 

No one is saying the couple can't shack up or still date.  But the government has absolutely no business being involved in child marriage and under US law, minors are children.  If anyone wants to enter into any legal contract of any kind, they should be legal adults. Child (minor) marriage should be banned in the US because a government issued marriage license is a legal contract.  A quality, dedicated minor couple with an out of wedlock baby won't become a problem couple if they're denied a government issue marriage license as minors. Even suggesting it is ridiculous. They'll stick together and make it work until they can legally wed. 

 

Meanwhile the problem couples will be able to part without the added layer of difficulty that comes with having been a minor aged child bride and a minor aged child groom in a government recognized marriage.  

 

 

All of this. :iagree: 

[HomeAgain]

To be fair, there may be some extenuating circumstances.  I think I'd put the age at 17 for legal contracts, or adulthood, whichever comes first.  There are some 16 and 17yos who are emancipated, and should have all rights of adulthood.

 

I signed a legal contract when I was a minor.  I was 2 months from turning 18 when I joined the military.  That's legal to do at 17.5yo, with parental consent.  It was the best option at the time and I don't regret it.

[HS Mom in NC]

Emancipating minors is part of the problem. My oldest brother's former wife (now in her very early 50s) was emancipated at 16 because her foster home was awful. (Her parents were deceased.)  It didn't solve things. A different foster home might have helped.  She went on to get pregnant by a drug addict when she was 17, took the standard advice at the time that marriage would make it better, had the baby and several years of a terrible marriage that included adultery, substance abuse and financial disaster. Then she had to pay for a divorce. While he was ordered to pay child support, he didn't.  That scumbag would bring drugs to their son while the son was in rehab in his teens.  The gift of emancipation kept on giving for years.

 

The state of CA pursued him for child support for years and finally, a decade after the son was out of the house managed to take money from him and pay her, but only a fraction of what she was owed.  He died several years ago and because of the judgement against him his assets went to his ex-wife for back child support, which sounds good, but he had a young wife and young second child at the time, which were already not especially financially stable. 

That's what emancipation and letting a 16 year old make life decisions can look like. Not that never being married would've solved all of it, but my point is people often look at emancipation as some sort of solution when it can just be a change to a new set of problems. Again, there's no reason in the 21st century in America why a couple can't just wait until they're both 18 to marry, even if they have a baby together.

[HS Mom in NC]

 

 

I signed a legal contract when I was a minor.  I was 2 months from turning 18 when I joined the military.  That's legal to do at 17.5yo, with parental consent.  It was the best option at the time and I don't regret it.

 

My dad joined the navy when he was 17 and did well there. I don't doubt it worked out for you, but I still stand by my conviction that there's no legitimate reason people can't wait until their 18th birthday to enter any and all legal contracts, and I would include joining the military in that.  It wouldn't have been the end of the world for you or the nation if you and all other military personnel had to wait until they were 18.  Years into a world war where the US is about to collapse because our military is losing and we're all about to be overtaken is the only time I would be willing to consider allowing minors in, so I suppose I do believe in  extenuating circumstances, but we'll cross that bridge if we ever come to it as a nation.

[Schadenfreude]

My dad joined the navy when he was 17 and did well there. I don't doubt it worked out for you, but I still stand by my conviction that there's no legitimate reason people can't wait until their 18th birthday to enter any and all legal contracts, and I would include joining the military in that. It wouldn't have been the end of the world for you or the nation if you and all other military personnel had to wait until they were 18. Years into a world war where the US is about to collapse because our military is losing and we're all about to be overtaken is the only time I would be willing to consider allowing minors in, so I suppose I do believe in extenuating circumstances, but we'll cross that bridge if we ever come to it as a nation.

There are other reasons. My son was 17 when he graduated high school and wanted to take time off to find out what he wanted to do in life before college. He said it was too much money to waste on something he may not want to do. We decided to allow him to join the Marines instead of risk him getting into trouble trying to figure out life. There are many parents that make this compromise.

[KungFuPanda]

I don't think there's any reason to allow minors to marry period.  We're not living in a day in age where there are severe social stigmas for out of wedlock births and having a child together is not, by itself, a legitimate reason to get married.  There's no social need to come running in to cover up fornication because no one will be ostracized for it in society at large and creating that provision for the sake of bizarre social norms in a cult is just feeding the monster. We just have to draw the line that marriage is for adults and if you don't like that, too bad.  The government shouldn't be participating in that kind of nonsense. Everyone should have to wait until they're at least 18 to get a government recognized marriage license because it's not 1936 anymore.

  

A lawyer doesn't have to argue anything about the Bible at all. They just have to argue that in the US, adulthood is 18 and the US government shouldn't be officially sanctioning a marriage between anyone under 18, regardless of what the parents think about it. The opportunity for harm in that situation is too great.

 

 

 

All of this. :iagree:

 

  

To be fair, there may be some extenuating circumstances.  I think I'd put the age at 17 for legal contracts, or adulthood, whichever comes first.  There are some 16 and 17yos who are emancipated, and should have all rights of adulthood.

 

I signed a legal contract when I was a minor.  I was 2 months from turning 18 when I joined the military.  That's legal to do at 17.5yo, with parental consent.  It was the best option at the time and I don't regret it.

I don't think people realize just how many people in the military sign those documents before they turn 18. It's not a small number. Heck, some people complete basic training before they complete high school. Legally they get around it by having the service member sign everything again, for realsies, when they turn 18, but the body is pretty much secured by then. I don't see the government taking a firm stance on this ever because such a large percentage of our service members come straight out of high school with contracts secured before graduation or 18th birthdays ever occur.

[HS Mom in NC]

    

I don't think people realize just how many people in the military sign those documents before they turn 18. It's not a small number. Heck, some people complete basic training before they complete high school. Legally they get around it by having the service member sign everything again, for realsies, when they turn 18, but the body is pretty much secured by then. I don't see the government taking a firm stance on this ever because such a large percentage of our service members come straight out of high school with contracts secured before graduation or 18th birthdays ever occur.

 

But it doesn't follow that they would choose not to sign up when they turn 18 if the law changed, so while people may not be aware that so many kids are signing legal contracts, it's doesn't make the idea that a person should be an adult before signing that contract a bad one. 

 

We're talking about what?  Waiting a year at most?  Hardly a potential problem for the nation or a kid for that matter. 

 

[HS Mom in NC]

There are other reasons. My son was 17 when he graduated high school and wanted to take time off to find out what he wanted to do in life before college. He said it was too much money to waste on something he may not want to do. We decided to allow him to join the Marines instead of risk him getting into trouble trying to figure out life. There are many parents that make this compromise.

 

I would consider a kid who couldn't manage a year of not getting into trouble before signing up for the military to be inherently unfit for the job.  I honestly don't believe the argument that waiting a year at most until being a legal adult is a legitimate factor that contributes to anti-social or illegal behavior.  We're talking about a single year at most. For  one year the kid can't keep it together to make their goal of military service? If that's the case then some sort of professional counseling should be in order.  

 

They can work a couple of part time jobs.  They can do intensive physical training.  They can self study about military tactics, military history, interview veterans for advice, volunteer to work for a local charity in the mean time.    I just don't buy into the idea that it's absolutely critical that a 17 year old  join the military or all is lost for him or her. 

 

I do get that it may be a strong preference, but we need a distinct line between adulthood and childhood in America and we don't have it now.  We need to decide when legal adulthood is and then allow all adult activities when someone reaches it.  Now we have schizophrenic policies with conflicting ages for signing legal contracts, consuming alcohol, getting married and the like.  Pick a number stick with it already, America.

[KungFuPanda]

But it doesn't follow that they would choose not to sign up when they turn 18 if the law changed, so while people may not be aware that so many kids are signing legal contracts, it's doesn't make the idea that a person should be an adult before signing that contract a bad one.

 

We're talking about what? Waiting a year at most? Hardly a potential problem for the nation or a kid for that matter.

 

I don't think it's a bad idea at all. I just think it won't happen. A LOT of teens WOULD find another path in a year's time and never make their way back to signing up for the military. The armed services absolutely rely on teenaged enlistment to fill those lower ranks.

[Schadenfreude]

I would consider a kid who couldn't manage a year of not getting into trouble before signing up for the military to be inherently unfit for the job. I honestly don't believe the argument that waiting a year at most until being a legal adult is a legitimate factor that contributes to anti-social or illegal behavior. We're talking about a single year at most. For one year the kid can't keep it together to make their goal of military service? If that's the case then some sort of professional counseling should be in order.

I'm sorry you think that. It must be nice to live a little place in the world where other peoples decisions do not affect you. This child, as many others, would be fine if they are only affected by their decisions. We are military. A child is no longer considered a dependent when they graduate school, unless they go to college. We were being moved over seas and he was not allowed to go. He would have been homeless due to nothing more than wanting to wait a year. Our military career was OUR decision, but it dictated his actions. Please think before you post hurtful comments. You may have a privaledged life but not everyone does.

[FaithManor]

I think that Michigan should not be able to sign up for the military until 21 because if your state considers you too immature to handle a beer,it should for darn sure not be handing you an AK47.

 

My state...I just do not get it.

 

Thst said, I am in no rush to send teens to die so am fine with not being able sign up ahead with parental consent.

[HS Mom in NC]

I'm sorry you think that. It must be nice to live a little place in the world where other peoples decisions do not affect you. This child, as many others, would be fine if they are only affected by their decisions. We are military. A child is no longer considered a dependent when they graduate school, unless they go to college. We were being moved over seas and he was not allowed to go. He would have been homeless due to nothing more than wanting to wait a year. Our military career was OUR decision, but it dictated his actions. Please think before you post hurtful comments. You may have a privaledged life but not everyone does.

 

If the military stopped taking minors then obviously it would need to change to treating them like normal minors-dependent until age 18.  (Actually they should've done it long ago because it's a crappy policy that you describe.  What idiot came up with that policy? ) Again, this is all easily fixable with some coherent legislation and policy making.  Obviously no one is suggesting throwing minors out on their ears.  If the military throws kids out on their ears at 17 because they graduated and didn't opt for college and the parent is stationed elsewhere, it's not anyone's fault but the military's by making such a bad policy.  Obviously I was wasn't suggesting that the minors of military parents be treated differently than minors of non-military parents. I'm arguing that all minors be treated alike they're not legally minors anymore.  If other entities like the military have to adjust their policies accordingly, then that's a good thing too.

 

  You did notice that my theme all along was about minors being minors and adults being adults, right?  You do know that most people would not have assumed the military treated minors who didn't opt for college like emancipated adults and cut off all normal support, if a parent is stationed somwhere else, right? Mistakenly assuming the military had rational policies toward graduated minors not enrolled in college isn't a fault of mine and it's certainly nothing to be hurt by.

[HS Mom in NC]

I think that Michigan should not be able to sign up for the military until 21 because if your state considers you too immature to handle a beer,it should for darn sure not be handing you an AK47.

 

My state...I just do not get it.

 

Thst said, I am in no rush to send teens to die so am fine with not being able sign up ahead with parental consent.

 

That's the kind of schizophrenia I think needs correcting.  I'm not saying it has to be 18 or 20 or 21, that's a different debate entirely, but the idea that we'll let a parent sign the permission slip to marry off a 16 year old, but we wouldn't even consider letting that same 16 year old legally buy rum, buy cigarettes, sign most other legal contracts or buy a high powered rifle.  And the 17 year old can joint the military if mommy and daddy sign the permission slip but the kid isn't old enough to register for the draft or consent to many medical procedure.  Good grief, Congress!  Do something that makes coherent sense for once.

 

[FaithManor]

That's the kind of schizophrenia I think needs correcting. I'm not saying it has to be 18 or 20 or 21, that's a different debate entirely, but the idea that we'll let a parent sign the permission slip to marry off a 16 year old, but we wouldn't even consider letting that same 16 year old legally buy rum, buy cigarettes, sign most other legal contracts or buy a high powered rifle. And the 17 year old can joint the military if mommy and daddy sign the permission slip but the kid isn't old enough to register for the draft or consent to many medical procedure. Good grief, Congress! Do something that makes coherent sense for once.

 

Agreed! It is stupid.

[EmseB]

On the military at 17--

 

I would have managed to stay out of trouble for a year, but there was no reason to waste the time, either.  It wasn't "critical" that I join at 17, but for some people it is a really good job option right out of high school. There's no real reason to wait.  I could stay and work at Taco Bell for six months, or I could go and be challenged and do what people do after high school - start a new part of their life.  Recruiters and boot camp do a surprisingly adequate (though not perfect) job of weeding out the immature and unfit for service. Interestingly, as long as you are in training (and even to some extent after training for your whole career), the military very much acts like your "parent".  The training time period varies, but we're talking curfews, where you're allowed to go, what you can wear, etc, and that is no matter how old you are.  The people I knew who had the toughest time adjusting to military life were people who were older and had lived a few years in college or independently and were suddenly thrust into a life where they were not allowed to go off base and had to have their room inspected by someone who had six more months in service than they did, and may have been younger.  Kind of funny.  But, if I had gone away to college, I would have been away from home with much less accountability and supervision than I had joining the military at 17.

 

And to say, "well if they can't keep out of trouble for six months they aren't fit to serve" -- I think that's extremely naive.  Some of the finest people I served with came from places where staying out of trouble was not an option had they not left their hometowns immediately after graduation.  The reason they got out as soon as they could was to get away from toxic home lives and neighborhoods.

 

17 year olds may be minors, and they may not be able to drink legally (which is silly, IMO), but they are not children.

 

But, no, the military isn't, or hasn't been as of late, so hard up that they are relying on 17 year olds to fill out their ranks.  It just happens that some of us have fall birthdays and graduate high school a bit earlier than others.  The idea that we aren't capable of making mature decisions is silly.

Edited November 21, 2016 by JodiSue

[Denisemomof4]

I have concerns, in general, about life "choices" made by young people within the context of Gothardism.

 

I have to wonder about the unhealthy obsession with sex that causes parents to assign lust to something as simple a hugging one's child. So much of what this family does, including the posting of the mother's menstrual cycles on the refrigerator during her fertile years so the older children could remind their parents of when to have sex for maximum fertility, as well as numerous other practices related to sex, modesty, and emotional intimacy combined with the sexual abuse that five of the girls received from their brother Joshua leads me to wonder if these young people are need some serious counseling.

 

That said, thank goodness I am not a relative so not my circus, not my monkeys.

That is so gross!!! "Mom!!! Dad!!! Time to have sex so you can make more children for us to care for!" Really? Where on earth did you hear this?

[FaithManor]

That is so gross!!! "Mom!!! Dad!!! Time to have sex so you can make more children for us to care for!" Really? Where on earth did you hear this?

It is in her book.

[IsabelC]

Er, I don't think I'd be in the mood for anything sexual if my children were issuing reminders to go and do the deed!  :huh:

[fraidycat]

On the military at 17--

 

I would have managed to stay out of trouble for a year, but there was no reason to waste the time, either. It wasn't "critical" that I join at 17, but for some people it is a really good job option right out of high school. There's no real reason to wait. I could stay and work at Taco Bell for six months, or I could go and be challenged and do what people do after high school - start a new part of their life. Recruiters and boot camp do a surprisingly adequate (though not perfect) job of weeding out the immature and unfit for service. Interestingly, as long as you are in training (and even to some extent after training for your whole career), the military very much acts like your "parent". The training time period varies, but we're talking curfews, where you're allowed to go, what you can wear, etc, and that is no matter how old you are. The people I knew who had the toughest time adjusting to military life were people who were older and had lived a few years in college or independently and were suddenly thrust into a life where they were not allowed to go off base and had to have their room inspected by someone who had six more months in service than they did, and may have been younger. Kind of funny. But, if I had gone away to college, I would have been away from home with much less accountability and supervision than I had joining the military at 17.

 

And to say, "well if they can't keep out of trouble for six months they aren't fit to serve" -- I think that's extremely naive. Some of the finest people I served with came from places where staying out of trouble was not an option had they not left their hometowns immediately after graduation. The reason they got out as soon as they could was to get away from toxic home lives and neighborhoods.

 

17 year olds may be minors, and they may not be able to drink legally (which is silly, IMO), but they are not children.

 

But, no, the military isn't, or hasn't been as of late, so hard up that they are relying on 17 year olds to fill out their ranks. It just happens that some of us have fall birthdays and graduate high school a bit earlier than others. The idea that we aren't capable of making mature decisions is silly.

Wellllllll, judging by all the stupid crap my DH has to deal with, dealing specifically with jr. enlisted making dumb choices and immature decisions, it's really not far out there to believe that many AREN'T capable of making mature decisions.

 

These are not the ones you want to "have your back" or fix your plane before you fly it. And there are a lot of them. They exist in every unit. It's not a small or inexpensive problem to the taxpayers paying these people's wages to pick up cigarette butts because they're not trustworthy.

[EmseB]

Wellllllll, judging by all the stupid crap my DH has to deal with, dealing specifically with jr. enlisted making dumb choices and immature decisions, it's really not far out there to believe that many AREN'T capable of making mature decisions.

 

These are not the ones you want to "have your back" or fix your plane before you fly it. And there are a lot of them. They exist in every unit. It's not a small or inexpensive problem to the taxpayers paying these people's wages to pick up cigarette butts because they're not trustworthy.

In my experience there were those people who made stupid choices. However, most of the people I worked with worked hard, weren't dumb, and stayed out of trouble. NJP's were rare enough that they were a big deal if they happened. Maybe I was just fortunate to work in good units. But, also, the majority of people I worked with (jr enlisted) were older than 18, many older than 21, as a matter of fact. So I don't think age was the determining factor on stupid behavior.

 

Also, I had some experience with officers straight out of OCS, and supposedly they had four years of college to mature and grow out of stupidness. Yeah, not so much.

 

ETA: shorter - if you're saying all those bad apples got there because they enlisted at 17, I heartily disagree.

Edited November 22, 2016 by JodiSue

[Bluegoat]

On the military at 17--

 

I would have managed to stay out of trouble for a year, but there was no reason to waste the time, either.  It wasn't "critical" that I join at 17, but for some people it is a really good job option right out of high school. There's no real reason to wait.  I could stay and work at Taco Bell for six months, or I could go and be challenged and do what people do after high school - start a new part of their life.  Recruiters and boot camp do a surprisingly adequate (though not perfect) job of weeding out the immature and unfit for service. Interestingly, as long as you are in training (and even to some extent after training for your whole career), the military very much acts like your "parent".  The training time period varies, but we're talking curfews, where you're allowed to go, what you can wear, etc, and that is no matter how old you are.  The people I knew who had the toughest time adjusting to military life were people who were older and had lived a few years in college or independently and were suddenly thrust into a life where they were not allowed to go off base and had to have their room inspected by someone who had six more months in service than they did, and may have been younger.  Kind of funny.  But, if I had gone away to college, I would have been away from home with much less accountability and supervision than I had joining the military at 17.

 

And to say, "well if they can't keep out of trouble for six months they aren't fit to serve" -- I think that's extremely naive.  Some of the finest people I served with came from places where staying out of trouble was not an option had they not left their hometowns immediately after graduation.  The reason they got out as soon as they could was to get away from toxic home lives and neighborhoods.

 

17 year olds may be minors, and they may not be able to drink legally (which is silly, IMO), but they are not children.

 

But, no, the military isn't, or hasn't been as of late, so hard up that they are relying on 17 year olds to fill out their ranks.  It just happens that some of us have fall birthdays and graduate high school a bit earlier than others.  The idea that we aren't capable of making mature decisions is silly.

 

I just don't get the "it won't hurt to wait a year" thing.  I think that's how you end up getting a drinking age of 21.  Yes, people can usually wait a year.  They can do it for years.  That isn't an argument for doing so, though.

 

The question is, why should they?  And how is it that in 1950 the idea that someone could marry or join the military at 16 or 17 didn't seem that odd, but now it does?  I don't think it really reflects a change in people's abilities, I think it's mostly that we've extended childhood and education.  I'm not convinced though that it is good for young people to be prevented from making serious decisions for so long.

[Bluegoat]

In my experience there were those people who made stupid choices. However, most of the people I worked with worked hard, weren't dumb, and stayed out of trouble. NJP's were rare enough that they were a big deal if they happened. Maybe I was just fortunate to work in good units. But, also, the majority of people I worked with (jr enlisted) were older than 18, many older than 21, as a matter of fact. So I don't think age was the determining factor on stupid behavior.

 

Also, I had some experience with officers straight out of OCS, and supposedly they had four years of college to mature and grow out of stupidness. Yeah, not so much.

 

ETA: shorter - if you're saying all those bad apples got there because they enlisted at 17, I heartily disagree.

 

I also worked with some good soldiers who were teenagers.

 

Some were on the immature side, in some ways, but they would be in whatever they were doing.  The military was actually not bad at providing some real responsibility that cured that fairly quickly - faster than university seemed to for the immature kids I met there.

[Bluegoat]

Emancipating minors is part of the problem. My oldest brother's former wife (now in her very early 50s) was emancipated at 16 because her foster home was awful. (Her parents were deceased.)  It didn't solve things. A different foster home might have helped.  She went on to get pregnant by a drug addict when she was 17, took the standard advice at the time that marriage would make it better, had the baby and several years of a terrible marriage that included adultery, substance abuse and financial disaster. Then she had to pay for a divorce. While he was ordered to pay child support, he didn't.  That scumbag would bring drugs to their son while the son was in rehab in his teens.  The gift of emancipation kept on giving for years.

 

The state of CA pursued him for child support for years and finally, a decade after the son was out of the house managed to take money from him and pay her, but only a fraction of what she was owed.  He died several years ago and because of the judgement against him his assets went to his ex-wife for back child support, which sounds good, but he had a young wife and young second child at the time, which were already not especially financially stable. 

 

That's what emancipation and letting a 16 year old make life decisions can look like. Not that never being married would've solved all of it, but my point is people often look at emancipation as some sort of solution when it can just be a change to a new set of problems. Again, there's no reason in the 21st century in America why a couple can't just wait until they're both 18 to marry, even if they have a baby together.

 

This scenario happebs quite a lot with adults, too.  I don't know that the age thing is really a factor.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Mimm]

    

I don't think people realize just how many people in the military sign those documents before they turn 18. It's not a small number. Heck, some people complete basic training before they complete high school. Legally they get around it by having the service member sign everything again, for realsies, when they turn 18, but the body is pretty much secured by then. I don't see the government taking a firm stance on this ever because such a large percentage of our service members come straight out of high school with contracts secured before graduation or 18th birthdays ever occur.

 

I had not considered that but it doesn't change my opinion at all. If anything, that's just another reason people before 18 shouldn't be able to enter into contracts. The military can wait till their 18th birthday. If the young person isn't committed enough to wait till then, then it's not something they need to commit 4+ years of their life to.

 

I think that Michigan should not be able to sign up for the military until 21 because if your state considers you too immature to handle a beer,it should for darn sure not be handing you an AK47.

 

My state...I just do not get it.

 

Thst said, I am in no rush to send teens to die so am fine with not being able sign up ahead with parental consent.

 

I have long said that I have a serious problem that we'll send a young person to die for their country but they can't have a beer at their going away party. That's seriously messed up. Decide when adulthood is and then treat people like adults.

[EmseB]

I had not considered that but it doesn't change my opinion at all. If anything, that's just another reason people before 18 shouldn't be able to enter into contracts. The military can wait till their 18th birthday. If the young person isn't committed enough to wait till then, then it's not something they need to commit 4+ years of their life to.

I graduated high school at 17. I would have gone off to college at that age under far less supervision and discipline than the military provided while taking out a huuuuuge loan to do so, which would take many more than four years to pay off. My friends went to college. Some of them are still paying off those commitments. But I'm supposed to stay home until I turn 18 because my life decisions are different? Because I had the misfortune of having a fall birthday and being put in kindergarten at four?

 

What does it even mean, not committed enough to wait? If I am committed enough to wait, I spend six months at a minimum wage job in a small town struggling to make ends meet? That makes no sense. I could not enlist without a high school diploma, so I don't know what the PP is referring to.

 

I just remember in stories of WWII vets and such it was always noted in the story about how so-and-so lied about his age to be able to fight for his country, and it was considered bravery. And now our youth can't handle making decisions six months shy of 18? I weep.

[fraidycat]

In my experience there were those people who made stupid choices. However, most of the people I worked with worked hard, weren't dumb, and stayed out of trouble. NJP's were rare enough that they were a big deal if they happened. Maybe I was just fortunate to work in good units. But, also, the majority of people I worked with (jr enlisted) were older than 18, many older than 21, as a matter of fact. So I don't think age was the determining factor on stupid behavior.

 

Also, I had some experience with officers straight out of OCS, and supposedly they had four years of college to mature and grow out of stupidness. Yeah, not so much.

 

ETA: shorter - if you're saying all those bad apples got there because they enlisted at 17, I heartily disagree.

I didn't say all young ones are bad apples. Or that all bad apples are young.

 

And I'm not suggesting every bad decision is NJP worthy. Things like forgetting to tighten bolts on aircraft, doing half-assed jobs, and generally just making more work for everyone else is bad enough. Everyone can make mistakes once in awhile, but when it's the same ones over and over, it becomes a problem.

 

You are right, most of the people work hard, but the military is a large enough employer that a small percentage of slackers still equals a large number of people who are not making good decisions. And a great number of those are straight out of high school and Mommy and Daddy's home.

Edited November 22, 2016 by fraidycat

[swellmomma]

Er, I don't think I'd be in the mood for anything sexual if my children were issuing reminders to go and do the deed! :huh:

My younger kids are constantly telling me to get a boyfriend so i can get married and have more kids. My oldest 2 just say i need to get laid to be more mellow. We are a weird family.

[Mimm]

I graduated high school at 17. I would have gone off to college at that age under far less supervision and discipline than the military provided while taking out a huuuuuge loan to do so, which would take many more than four years to pay off. My friends went to college. Some of them are still paying off those commitments. But I'm supposed to stay home until I turn 18 because my life decisions are different? Because I had the misfortune of having a fall birthday and being put in kindergarten at four?

 

What does it even mean, not committed enough to wait? If I am committed enough to wait, I spend six months at a minimum wage job in a small town struggling to make ends meet? That makes no sense. I could not enlist without a high school diploma, so I don't know what the PP is referring to.

 

I just remember in stories of WWII vets and such it was always noted in the story about how so-and-so lied about his age to be able to fight for his country, and it was considered bravery. And now our youth can't handle making decisions six months shy of 18? I weep.

 

Yeah, sorry, at 17, I don't think a person should be able to sign away the next four years of their lives. Yes, I believe this even if it makes some people's life plans inconvenient. Sometimes things don't line up perfectly but we don't throw out laws that have a good reason for existing just to accommodate that. And those laws don't exist but I think there are good reasons they should. There has to be a line somewhere. You want it to be 17 and a half. Why not 17? Why not 16? Why not 14? Where is the line? It has to be somewhere and there will always be people on the other side of the line for whom it is a hassle to wait. Our society has decided the line between childhood and adulthood is 18 and that should have some meaning or there's no reason for the concept to exist.

[gardenmom5]

Er, I don't think I'd be in the mood for anything sexual if my children were issuing reminders to go and do the deed!  :huh:

 

 

I don't think they're into women can/should enjoy s3x.  they certainly don't care about being private.   jb otoh . . .  had no problem being 's3xual'  with m in front of  his own daughter, on tv while playing mini-golf. (if they wanted to do such in private - fine.  but the location . . .  was gross.)

[EmseB]

I didn't say all young ones are bad apples. Or that all bad apples are young.

 

And I'm not suggesting every bad decision is NJP worthy. Things like forgetting to tighten bolts on aircraft, doing half-assed jobs, and generally just making more work for everyone else is bad enough. Everyone can make mistakes once in awhile, but when it's the same ones over and over, it becomes a problem.

 

You are right, most of the people work hard, but the military is a large enough employer that a small percentage of slackers still equals a large number of people who are not making good decisions. And a great number of those are straight out of high school and Mommy and Daddy's home.

 

I guess I'm not understanding your point as it pertains to the conversation, then.

 

In my experience in the military, the people who were slackers or not making good decisions spanned all age groups and backgrounds.  I thought you were trying to make the point that those people were directly related to the idea of 17-year-olds signing contracts. I mean, I thought that was the point of this line of the conversation.

 

Tangentially, I'm sorry you've had such a negative experience with who you served with. My experience was that the most egregious cases of people who were not fit for service were weeded out early in their career.  Of course there were people who fell through the cracks for whatever reason and ended up relegated to cleaning latrines because we didn't want them anywhere near expensive breakable stuff. Sometimes it got bad enough that CO's had to make tough decisions and kick people out. I don't know how you avoid that in any type of working environment, honestly. I worked in a job where we had maybe one out of our group of 15 at any given time who really couldn't do an adequate, safe job. It sounds like you've experienced a somewhat higher percentage of doofuses and slackers.

 

On the other hand, I had an overall positive experience with the vast, vast majority of people I served with, enough to say that I think the process of getting the bad people out - for the most part - works as it should. I think the culture was changing as I left because more "everyone gets a trophy, no one fails out" people were getting up in ranks, and that does not translate well to the military working environment. Maybe that's what's going on now, or what you dealt with when you were (are?) in.  I don't know what you consider a "large number of people" and I don't know what you mean by "a great number of those" either.  In my line of work, we had so many certifications, and zero tolerances for things like stupid mistakes or missed details that people did not last very long if they were not at least competent. Those that weren't able to hack it did get put into other useful and necessary jobs, though.

[Denisemomof4]

It is in her book.

Wrong on every level.

[FaithManor]

I don't know how this discussion devolved into slackers in the military. No one is saying all 17 yesr olds are slackers or anything even close. The problem is we have a lot of confusing ambiguity in the law and it does not serve our young people well. Not.at.all.

 

The bottom line is this though. If a 17 year old cannot sign for their own medical care and be held financially liable if they cannot even buy a beer, or enter a legally binding contract to finance a car, or many other things then legally they should be able to be sent to war trained to decide who to kill or not. Those other things are far LESS demanding than military life and decisions.

 

Why anyone is so eager to send their child to get killed, I cannot fathom. But whatever. The reality is we need a consistent line for adulthood and being held legally responsible.

 

I think this needs do apply to the sentencing of minors as adults too. I am not convinced our criminal justice system that in some states can try children/young teens as adults is wise either.

 

As pertains to marriage, since we do have a forced/coerced marriage problem in this nation I personally believe that 18 should be the line in the sand. Olman and his "let them marry" creepsters can stick it!

 

As bizarre and cultish as the Duggars are, I am at least happy they have not tried to pawn their daughters off at younger ages. There were a several hundred parents that signed up for "let's betroth 13 year olds and when they are 15 haul them to Kansas to force them to marry" cult conference. It is hard for me to wrap my brain around.

 

Kansas! Get your act together? 15 year olds should not be marrying.

[EmseB]

Yeah, sorry, at 17, I don't think a person should be able to sign away the next four years of their lives. Yes, I believe this even if it makes some people's life plans inconvenient. Sometimes things don't line up perfectly but we don't throw out laws that have a good reason for existing just to accommodate that. And those laws don't exist but I think there are good reasons they should. There has to be a line somewhere. You want it to be 17 and a half. Why not 17? Why not 16? Why not 14? Where is the line? It has to be somewhere and there will always be people on the other side of the line for whom it is a hassle to wait. Our society has decided the line between childhood and adulthood is 18 and that should have some meaning or there's no reason for the concept to exist.

 

The law is not thrown out.  There is a waiver.  In order to get the waiver, the person has to have a) parental permission and b) a high school diploma or equivalent and c) be 18 before they finish training status.  They also have to pass a battery of tests, make it through basic training, and then through some form of technical school for their job.  And by the time they finish that training, they have to be 18.  The line is 17.5 because often people graduate high school by then. It is not 16 or 14, because a person will not be able to reach legal adulthood by the time they finish their military training and enter the fleet.

 

Our society has decided 18 is legal adulthood, so a person who wants to join the military before then and meets all other qualifications must have their parents permission.  Just like many other things in life. If a kid can't join the military, he shouldn't be able to go 2000 miles away to college with basically no adult supervision, and certainly should not be able to saddle himself with five figures in debt, right?

 

But it's interesting that you view six months waiting to join the military as simply an inconvenience or a hassle that's easily brushed off.  IME, many people did not have the luxury of looking at their job/life situation that way, and if the six months would have problem, it wasn't because they were too immature to handle the waiting.

[EmseB]

Why anyone is so eager to send their child to get killed, I cannot fathom. But whatever.

 

Wow. That is insulting on so many levels. To people who serve, to parents of people who serve, to Gold Star families, to a whole bunch of folks...just...sometimes this place makes me realize I'm so extremely naive and sheltered.

 

[Guest]

Wow. That is insulting on so many levels. To people who serve, to parents of people who serve, to Gold Star families, to a whole bunch of folks...just...sometimes this place makes me realize I'm so extremely naive and sheltered.

 

Agreed, though I wasn't going to say anything.

 

I'm sure most people are aware that millions of service members serve their duty without getting killed, right?

Edited November 22, 2016 by Kinsa

[Mimm]

The law is not thrown out.  There is a waiver.  In order to get the waiver, the person has to have a) parental permission and b) a high school diploma or equivalent and c) be 18 before they finish training status.  They also have to pass a battery of tests, make it through basic training, and then through some form of technical school for their job.  And by the time they finish that training, they have to be 18.  The line is 17.5 because often people graduate high school by then. It is not 16 or 14, because a person will not be able to reach legal adulthood by the time they finish their military training and enter the fleet.

 

Our society has decided 18 is legal adulthood, so a person who wants to join the military before then and meets all other qualifications must have their parents permission.  Just like many other things in life. If a kid can't join the military, he shouldn't be able to go 2000 miles away to college with basically no adult supervision, and certainly should not be able to saddle himself with five figures in debt, right?

 

But it's interesting that you view six months waiting to join the military as simply an inconvenience or a hassle that's easily brushed off.  IME, many people did not have the luxury of looking at their job/life situation that way, and if the six months would have problem, it wasn't because they were too immature to handle the waiting.

 

Ok, waived. Whatever, it's the same thing. A 17.5 year old in that situation signed a contract, and it seems kind of crazy to me that he or she would be allowed to do that. Joining the military, as Faith pointed out above, is kind of a big deal, a potentially life ending decision. And we're ok with minors making that decision? Yes, I think waiting six months to be really sure is necessary for someone considering such a huge decision.

 

Yes, I agree that a 17 year old shouldn't be allowed to borrow tons of money, though I suppose his parents could and use that to pay for his college. That's the decision of the parents. The adults.

 

Yes, six months is simply an inconvenience. Figuring out where to live, where to work, what to do in a transitional period in your life... these are things people deal with all the time. Even when you sign up for the military, there's frequently a gap in time (for my brother it was eight months where he was just waiting to go to boot camp).

 

ETA: I am vaguely aware of the requirements of signing up and your point about making it through training by 18 isn't completely invalid but neither is it completely valid. The training my brother is receiving is so specialized that he's been at it for two years and isn't done. He hasn't seen combat and never will. Technically, he could have signed up at 15-16 and been done with training by 18.... though that would have required granting a security clearance to a minor that I'm sure they never do... :)

Edited November 22, 2016 by Mimm

[Mimm]

I don't think they're into women can/should enjoy s3x.  they certainly don't care about being private.   jb otoh . . .  had no problem being 's3xual'  with m in front of  his own daughter, on tv while playing mini-golf. (if they wanted to do such in private - fine.  but the location . . .  was gross.)

 

 

I remember the first time the mini golf incident was brought up on a Duggar thread and I looked it up to see if it was as bad as it sounded. It was so awkward and weird I wanted brain bleach after seeing it. JB is seriously creepy. And that 50 page application? I really shouldn't be surprised.

 

My own father, after a disastrous divorce with my mother, years of lying, drinking, and more... told me he thinks parents should pick their children's spouses, that parents would do a better job. There are moments in life that render you speechless... :)