aicirt, I don’t think those of us critiquing some aspects of the Duggars’ lifestyle are saying there’s nothing to praise about them. I’d agree that “I see more positives in this family than the train wrecks”. I realize we don’t know the whole story just based on edited videos and interviews (for the Duggars have been a lot more involved with “mainstream” media lately, I’ve seen Duggar interviews in many secular magazines such as People).
However, just because their lifestyle avoids certain sins and pitfalls of more “worldly” living such as Honey Boo Boo, the Kardashians, etc., doesn’t mean they are automatically morally superior and above criticism. (Much as the fact that earlier generations may not have been as sexually immoral, doesn’t mean they can’t be criticized for being more racist and bigoted than now.) I am trying to be fair to them and I don’t agree with ALL the critics, certainly not the insinuations that they are abusive “when the cameras are off”, with no proof other than who they associate with.
But we’ve seen the Duggar approach to courting on TV with 3 couples now (Josh/Anna, Jill/Derek and Jessa/Ben). It seems to have worked well with the first two, but there is no such thing as a perfect system and I am concerned about Jessa/Ben, simply because Ben does NOT seem ready for marriage. I don’t think Jim Bob is specifically “trying to marry his daughters off”. Also the TV show doesn’t give us everything and it’s possible Jana has had suitors of her own, but the family didn’t want that shown because none of them were found to be marriage material.
As for the awkwardness of no physical contact suddenly proceeding to full-on sex; as I recall, Jessa did say in an interview that they were allowed to hold hands when they were finally engaged. (Note that the show episodes air months after the events actually occured.) And I don’t think there’s anything specifically “wrong” with saving the first kiss for the altar. The same arguments used to denigrate that choice could be, and have been, used by secular society to denigrate the choice of saving sex for marriage, that oh isn’t that going to make for an awkward wedding night, what if you’re not sexually compatible, etc.
That being said, I don’t agree with “24/7 chaperoning” because (1) the couple depends on the chaperone, not inner self-mastery, to insure they won’t fall into sexual sin and (2) the couple cannot foster EMOTIONAL intimacy if they are in public all the time. I don’t know what the statistics are, but I have read stories of couples who courted their way to marriage who wind up divorced because they just didn’t have the chance to know each other well, and in the worst case scenario, wound up in abusive marriages.
In general, while I don’t think courtship is “wrong” I do think it’s “wrong” when its proponents hold it up as some surefire way of ensuring people don’t fall into sexual sin and ensuring happy marriages. As for the “but this is the way people USED to do it, dating is a modern invention that’s brought us sexual sin” argument, people USED to simply arrange marriages for their children, too. People used to sell their children into brothels when they couldn’t afford to feed them. (And in many parts of the world, still do). People used to preach against inter-racial marriages, even legally forbid them. Just because a practice has been going on for generations does NOT automatically mean they are perfect, or the best possible one.
I’m sure many who denigrate dating will say “courtship” or even arranged marriages were superior because they were less likely to end in divorce. But as I’ve mentioned before, there was nothing magical about that, of course the marriages were less likely to end in divorce back then because it was either impossible to get unless it you were rich and well-connected, or, even if it was posssible, heavily socially stigmatized. (Even LM Montgomery’s books, set around 1900, refer to long-estranged couples on PEI, some long-separated, one in which it’s strongly implied the husband has a mistress, who stubbornly refuse to get divorced, even though it was legally possible, because that’s Just Not Done Here, but I would NOT call such marriages “successful”.)
ETA: Though to clarify my thoughts regarding the Duggar approach to sex, I will say that it’s possible to be overly repressed about sex and paint sex as a dirty thing, or something only the man is supposed to enjoy, and this can certainly lead to problems in marriage, even vaginismus in the woman that means they cannot consummate the marriage. And in the “good old days” of arranged marriages, some brides were kept so ignorant about sex, often in an attempt to make sure they were virgins, that they did not have enough information to truly consent, and were essentially raped on their wedding nights.
So I do think an emphasis on chastity before marriage CAN go too far, but I don’t see any sign the Duggar girls are kept totally in the dark about sex, even though some of Jim Bob’s comments do seem to hint at his holding a stereotypical view about men wanting sex more than women, but certainly MANY posters on this site seem to share that assumption as well.
displayed by HONEY BOO BO (mother now dating the sexual abuser of her oldest daughter), HOUSEWIVES OF WHATEVER (how-much-stuff-can-I-own, cursing, dippy kids none of whom I can imagine hiring,immodest dress, multiple marriages, and parents in prison).