8 Simple Rules for dating a Duggar Daughter

[sailor28]

The Duggars are part of the Christian Patriarchy movement - I believe daughters are generally expected to remain under their father’s care until they marry. Financial independence on the part of a woman would be treated as unbiblical; she is viewed as answerable to her father until she marries.

I would be careful with this sort of thing. Legalism, over-control, and scrupulosity are as poisonous to the faith as permissiveness.

Just reading through the posts now. This is all true. It looks all “sweet” These kids do not have a choice.

Please do your research on the groups this family is connected to. This movement has damaged a lot of people. The men leading the groups and creating all of these strict rules are hypocrites. (ie Doug Philips, Bill Gothard)

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I’ve known way too many Catholic couples living together before marriage and/or getting pregnant before being married. I really appreciate the Duggars giving an example to the country on how to be chaste and date in a way that honors God and each other.

Single Catholics, are you dating in a way that gives witness to Christ in the world? When you see how many abortions happen each year, know the world is desperate for your good example!

tlc.com/tv-shows/19-kids-and-counting/games-and-more/rules-dating-duggar-daughter.htm?mkcpgn=fbtlc1&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=19Kids&Counting

God save us from the authoritarian example set by these “courtship” rules.

Seriously, that structure is pretty awful. It’s overly controlling and needlessly patriarchal in the negative, paternalistic sense.

#3, #4, and #5 are completely absurd, authoritarian to a self-parodying degree.

“Courtship” in general is a disaster. Read here for one person’s insightful take on why.

The infantilization of women that exists within Christian Patriarchy is highly problematic. It’s nothing to want for one’s children.

Exactly.

It takes a mature young man that is serious to approach the girl’s dad to ask permission. If he cannot muster the courage than perhaps he’s too young to think of dating his daughter.

I highly recommend the article I linked to just above in this post.

Having to ask for dad’s permission is deeply problematic; it induces an inevitably disingenuous sense of emotional seriousness that not only does not come naturally before any dating has happened, but that probably can’t exist without actually getting to know the other person first.

I think this level of control shows an inherent lack of faith in one’s ability to raise daughters who want to make good choices.

I agree.

how many of you would want to marry a spouse when you hadn’t been able to so much as have a private conversation? It practically ensures that you haven’t had a chance to really get to know your spouse.

Very true.

Keep in mind the daughters they’re talking to are 20 and 22 and not allowed to go to a real college or have jobs outside the home. Judging by the resources the duggars use, if they did so in defiance of their parents they would both lose financial support (and they probably have no idea how to get a job) and be forbidden to speak to their siblings.

Pretty disturbing.

There is a whole bunch of stuff being brought in this thread to derail it, which I thought would happen.

It’s not derailing the thread, because it’s all critically relevant. Won’t you at least humbly consider what these others are saying? They’re making points that cry out to be heard.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

As far as not having a kiss or holding hands goes, if they decide that as a couple to not do that until later on, all the blessings to them for exercising such a self control. If they wish to honor God and each other in such a way, I commend them. The world needs a holy example to fight against having sex by the third or fourth date, or living together without marriage. Our Blessed Mother has asked for sacrifices for the conversion of sinners and peace in this world at Fatima. I think this is a beautiful self discipline, pleasing to God and bringing down blessings. Better than eating fish on Fridays and abstaining from meat.

But you aren’t advocating for a couple making that decision-you are saying that parents should impose these strange rules on their adult children. Imagine how terrifying it would be to marry a man that you had not so much as shared a secret with. That’s the situation that you are wanting to put young adults in.

And for what it’s worth, a convent would not take a girl who had never been allowed to go to school, have a job, interact with anyone in a normal way, or experience anything. They realize that it is not the best way to bring in healthy postulants who have properly discerned a vocation.

Would you really want your son to marry one of the Duggar daughters? Would you want a DIL who had absolutely no clue whatsoever about the world, or how to interact with it, or how to make healthy decisions for herself? Is that the kind of person you would want raising your grandchildren? What if your son died and it was just her and the kids? That thought should be enough to scare you away from this idea.

But even if it isn’t, that’s fine. But understand that this is in line with your views, and not the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[sailor28]

Except that their dating rules do not honor God nor each other. The rules infantilize the young women and have a truly bizarre involvement of the father in his daughters’ spouse choices. Treating women as perpetual children does not give glory to God.

True. We do not need to look to the Duggars for dating guidelines. They are not healthly.

10 or 20 years down the road someone in the family is going to start thinking for themselves.

Sure it all looks pretty. But it is spiritual and emotional abuse. Not something Catholics should follow.

I am so relived to see so many Catholics understanding how unhealthy this family is.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

True. We do not need to look to the Duggars for dating guidelines. They are not healthly.

10 or 20 years down the road someone in the family is going to start thinking for themselves.

Sure it all looks pretty. But it is spiritual and emotional abuse. Not something Catholics should follow.

I am so relived to see so many Catholics understanding how unhealthy this family is.

Yes, yes it is. Religious abuse is a very serious, scary thing. It rips apart families, sends children out to fend for themselves when they “misbehave”, forces young adults into bad marriage, and is often a cover for physical and sexual abuse.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have this problem. So do Mormons, Scientologists, and several hard-line Protestant and Muslim groups. But almost remarkably (to an outsider anyway) the Catholic Church seems to have avoided that kind of…well, brainwashing. It seems counter-intuitive that a global community with a rigid hierarchy would be free of that, but for the most part, it is.

OP: If you ever have a chance to speak with someone that had their lives affected by this kind of environment and upbringing, I would encourage you to do so. This sort of insular community that gives the “patriarch” such total and absolute access to and control over the lives of children and women who are so uneducated and inexperienced that they might as well be children themselves is downright dangerous.

 

[masondoggy]

But you aren’t advocating for a couple making that decision-you are saying that parents should impose these strange rules on their adult children. Imagine how terrifying it would be to marry a man that you had not so much as shared a secret with. That’s the situation that you are wanting to put young adults in.

And for what it’s worth, a convent would not take a girl who had never been allowed to go to school, have a job, interact with anyone in a normal way, or experience anything. They realize that it is not the best way to bring in healthy postulants who have properly discerned a vocation.

Would you really want your son to marry one of the Duggar daughters? Would you want a DIL who had absolutely no clue whatsoever about the world, or how to interact with it, or how to make healthy decisions for herself? Is that the kind of person you would want raising your grandchildren? What if your son died and it was just her and the kids? That thought should be enough to scare you away from this idea.

But even if it isn’t, that’s fine. But understand that this is in line with your views, and not the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I wouldn’t want my son to date a Duggar daughter just simply because I wouldn’t want him to bend over backwards trying to please Jim Bob and have him poking his nose in my son’s business. And I really doubt that Jim Bob’s controlling ways will stop once the wedding happens. I think the man has control issues.

Did y’all see the episode where Jim Bob and Michelle had a “marital counseling” session with Derrick and Jill? Rather than their pastor counseling them, Jim Bob did it himself. And the whole thing revolved around grilling Derrick to make sure he would make every financial decision the way Jim Bob would.

That is so unhealthy I don’t even know where to begin. So what happens now that they’re married and they decide it’s time to buy a car. Is Derrick going to be grilled by Jim Bob because he didn’t “buy used and save the difference”? Never mind Derrick may be more interested in buying something new with a warranty and decides for himself that he can afford it. But nope, he has to answer to Jim Bob as to why he didn’t do what he promised in their “marital counseling” session.

The dysfunction astounds me.

 

[leahkari]

I’ve known way too many Catholic couples living together before marriage and/or getting pregnant before being married. I really appreciate the Duggars giving an example to the country on how to be chaste and date in a way that honors God and each other.

Single Catholics, are you dating in a way that gives witness to Christ in the world? When you see how many abortions happen each year, know the world is desperate for your good example!

tlc.com/tv-shows/19-kids-and-counting/games-and-more/rules-dating-duggar-daughter.htm?mkcpgn=fbtlc1&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=19Kids&Counting

I think its bull. How they make up those rules for them. Its disgusting.

 

[thewanderer]

This is not a thread about their religious affiliation and how we should stay away from it. The purpose of this thread was to look at how their dating rules honors God and each other for the couple. I’ve seen too many pregnancies and living together couples and wished to discuss that. We as Catholics can do better than we are.

The thing is, their dating rules do ** not ** honor God. The fact is that the answer to people living together before marriage is not to force them to follow the ridiculous rules the Duggars laid out. I am a Catholic who remained chaste while dating my spouse. We didn’t follow a single one of these rules the Duggars are imposing. Not one of them is necessary and some of them are so clearly harmful to the process of discerning your spouse that I am honestly kind of shocked to find any Catholic promoting them as though they were good and honored God. Is chaste dating important? Absolutely. But these rules are terrible and should not in anyway shape or form be set up as an ideal for Catholic dating.

 

[jaimeleglise]

After reading these posts, I no longer wish to watch “19 Kids and Counting”.
I think it is a form of child abuse to not allow your children to pursue a college education. It is wrong that the girls are not taught how to support themselves financially in case they become widowed, divorced, orphaned someday. Or they may choose to remain single. What is wrong with that?
These young ladies should be taught to think for themselves. They are capable of making wise, holy decisions.
Believe me, I’m all for chastity. However if I cannot be trusted to chastely hold hands with a guy then maybe they should throw a burqa over me and force me into an early arranged marriage.
(I don’t literally mean that)

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I wish that all our kids got a post secondary education and lived on their own, supported themselves, travelled a bit, before getting married. It’s a great idea. However, why do our Catholic young women, when they go out on their own, move in with a boyfriend? The world does that, but why is our Catholic youth following the world for dating and married life? I am not going to criticize a young Duggar lady staying at home and saving money for her future.

As many others have stated, the Duggar girls are NOT saving money for their future; they have no jobs, and no real education to speak of. They stay at home and remain financially dependent on their parents until/unless they get married. Then they are expected to respect and obey their husbands.

You seem to think that the only two possible options are to (1) date the secular way, with sex expected by the 3rd or 4th date, “trial marriage” considered the norm, etc. or (2) date the Duggar way, with extreme parental control and supervision over their children’s relationships; not only as teenagers, but as young adults.

Yet, many Catholic young people HAVE given testimony on this site that they did remain chaste while dating, and were virgins on their wedding nights, without following all the rules followed by the Duggars.

Even the TLC website (which tends to market the Duggars as fairly mainstream except for the number of children) makes it clear that these rules are NOT decided by the couple, but by Jim Bob. The “rule” about no hand-holding until marriage is illustrated by what I found a very disturbing clip of JB literally PUSHING Jill out of the way when Derek tries to put his arm around her shoulders. It wasn’t Jill who made that decision that she didn’t want that, it was her father. Women aren’t in control of their own sexuality in Duggar-land, it’s either the father, or the husband, who is. (I didn’t catch the episode in which Michelle states a wife is not allowed to say “no” to her husband, but I certainly have no problem believing she said that.)

Even if you don’t find that disturbing, note that this way of “courting” is ONLY possible if the daughters live with their father well into adulthood, and have a large family of siblings and relatives available to chaperone all their dates. It would NOT be practical for most women who are in college, living on their own, etc. Unless you think that the only important asset to a woman is her virginity, and that parents are allowed to take any measures necessary to ensure she remains “pure”, even if this results in a naïve, dependent person who has no clue how to handle life without her father, mother, or husband telling her what to do.

Now, I do think Jill/Derek will probably turn out okay (even if Jill’s midwifery training didn’t lead to a career, it certainly gave her a chance to use her brain, and Derek actually has a job and is not a teenager). Really not as sure about Jessa/Ben, but in both relationships, what struck me is that the girls are really acting like they are junior high schoolers mooning over their first crush, when they are actually well into their twenties. Jessa is actually older than Ben, but I sure wouldn’t get that take from the show.

 

[schaeffer]

This guy is exploiting his kids (and their sex lives…even if they are virgins, it is NO ONE’S business) and the most important issues in their lives…education, spouse etc to make money.

He may be doing it under the guise of good old fashioned values, but it’s exploitation.

I hate these reality shows that allow parents to put their kids private lives on display for money. And I am not just talking about sex issues etc. It’s just wrong to make money off your kids that way, by exposing them like that.

It’s not like a child actor, they are inviting the world into their personal lives.

 

[Iheartcoffee]

I have to imagine that if a marriage tribunal was held for a Catholic couple seeking an annullment they might get it with the kind of courtship the Duggars have. If the tribunal learned they never had an ounce of alone time to actually talk about anything privately before marriage it would be safe to assume that one could consider the marriage fraudulent since the couple didn’t even get a chance to see if they like spending any alone time together before they commit to a lifetime of being able to be alone together!

I have to also think it would be ridiculously terrifying to go from side hugs and supervision at the rehearsal one day to sex on the wedding night. I’m all for saving sex until marriage, but when you haven’t even been alone with ANYONE of the opposite sex or had a real hug and yet you are expected to kiss in front of everyone you know and then hours later sleep together that night that would probably terrify anyone.

The best thing my husband and I ever did when we were dating was to spend hours talking outside in the middle of the night. At 1 am on a park bench on campus, we were totally alone and could talk about anything. I would hope that my child will one day have that same feeling of really getting to say anything and learn everything about each other’s beliefs, hopes, and thoughts with someone they love. You can’t be that candid with chaperones lurking around. That kind of complete alone time was a gift from God and good for our relationship.

 

[Xantippe]

I have to imagine that if a marriage tribunal was held for a Catholic couple seeking an annullment they might get it with the kind of courtship the Duggars have. If the tribunal learned they never had an ounce of alone time to actually talk about anything privately before marriage it would be safe to assume that one could consider the marriage fraudulent since the couple didn’t even get a chance to see if they like spending any alone time together before they commit to a lifetime of being able to be alone together!

**That is a very, very good point.

There are actually quite a number of points about the Duggar kid marriages that would concern a Catholic marriage tribunal–the youth of the participants, their possible lack of freedom, etc. **

I have to also think it would be ridiculously terrifying to go from side hugs and supervision at the rehearsal one day to sex on the wedding night. I’m all for saving sex until marriage, but when you haven’t even been alone with ANYONE of the opposite sex or had a real hug and yet you are expected to kiss in front of everyone you know and then hours later sleep together that night that would probably terrify anyone.

**That is also an excellent point.

I’m very pro-handholding and pro-kissing for serious dating couples for this reason–it’s helpful not to have to go from 0 to 60 with regard to a physical relationship.**

The best thing my husband and I ever did when we were dating was to spend hours talking outside in the middle of the night. At 1 am on a park bench on campus, we were totally alone and could talk about anything. I would hope that my child will one day have that same feeling of really getting to say anything and learn everything about someone they love. That kind of complete alone time was a gift from God.

Yes!

Speaking one’s mind in front of one’s siblings might be particularly uncomfortable.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I have to imagine that if a marriage tribunal was held for a Catholic couple seeking an annullment they might get it with the kind of courtship the Duggars have. If the tribunal learned they never had an ounce of alone time to actually talk about anything privately before marriage it would be safe to assume that one could consider the marriage fraudulent since the couple didn’t even get a chance to see if they like spending any alone time together before they commit to a lifetime of being able to be alone together!

I have to also think it would be ridiculously terrifying to go from side hugs and supervision at the rehearsal one day to sex on the wedding night. I’m all for saving sex until marriage, but when you haven’t even been alone with ANYONE of the opposite sex or had a real hug and yet you are expected to kiss in front of everyone you know and then hours later sleep together that night that would probably terrify anyone.

The best thing my husband and I ever did when we were dating was to spend hours talking outside in the middle of the night. At 1 am on a park bench on campus, we were totally alone and could talk about anything. I would hope that my child will one day have that same feeling of really getting to say anything and learn everything about each other’s beliefs, hopes, and thoughts with someone they love. You can’t be that candid with chaperones lurking around. That kind of complete alone time was a gift from God and good for our relationship.

I don’t quite agree with “it must be terrifying to go from side hugs to sex”; sure, it COULD be, but certainly it doesn’t seem either Jill or Anna were scarred for life from their wedding nights. Anna was even making jokes about Jill having babies soon on the Jill/Derek wedding episode.

Also there are certainly many secular relationships where people go from “0 to 60” in the context of ONE date, or on-line relationships with no physical contact at all, suddenly becoming sexual once the couple meets up in person. Now, granted usually people in such relationships have been sexually active with others before, so there’s no fear of the sex act itself, but going from “hi, nice to meet you” to having sex in, say, 6 hours, strikes me as much more anxiety-inducing than interacting with someone in person for several months (in Jill’s case) or over a year (in Jessa’s case) before having sex.

I really don’t have too much issue with couples who choose of their own accord to avoid physical contact before marriage. What I do have a problem with, is how these restrictions, despite Michelle’s claims, are so obviously imposed from without, than decided by the couple themselves. And I certainly agree that the lack of ANY privacy to actually talk to each other without a chaperone hovering about, is a problem in really getting to know the other person.

Yes, this is the way people “used to find mates”, but even in accounts from that time period, we have Mr. and Mrs. Bennett winding up hating each other in Pride and Prejudice, or Mr. Rochester tricked into marrying an insane Bertha in Jane Eyre, so certainly reverting to Regency/Victorian customs is far from a surefire way to guarantee happy marriages.

 

[Xantippe]

Also there are certainly many secular relationships where people go from “0 to 60” in the context of ONE date, or on-line relationships with no physical contact at all, suddenly becoming sexual once the couple meets up in person.

Now, granted usually people in such relationships have been sexually active with others before, so there’s no fear of the sex act itself, but going from “hi, nice to meet you” to having sex in, say, 6 hours, strikes me as much more anxiety-inducing than interacting with someone in person for several months (in Jill’s case) or over a year (in Jessa’s case) before having sex.

I expect alcohol helps a lot, too.

I really don’t have too much issue with couples who choose of their own accord to avoid physical contact before marriage. What I do have a problem with, is how these restrictions, despite Michelle’s claims, are so obviously imposed from without, than decided by the couple themselves. And I certainly agree that the lack of ANY privacy to actually talk to each other without a chaperone hovering about, is a problem in really getting to know the other person.

Yes, this is the way people “used to find mates”, but even in accounts from that time period, we have Mr. and Mrs. Bennett winding up hating each other in Pride and Prejudice, or Mr. Rochester tricked into marrying an insane Bertha in Jane Eyre, so certainly reverting to Regency/Victorian customs is far from a surefire way to guarantee happy marriages.

I think Regency couples probably got a bit more privacy than the Duggars give. In fact, it seems to have been a standard ploy by girls’ parents to give the young people some privacy, in the hope that a proposal would pop out (see, for example, Mrs. Bennet’s various attempts at this). My understanding is that while it was improper for a young couple to correspond privately, that engaged couples could expect the right to correspond by letter. (See Sense and Sensibility–Elinor assumes that Marianne must be secretly engaged to Willoughby because they are corresponding.)

So, I feel like a lot of the Duggar practices are actually a novelty, rather than a reversion to traditional practices.

However, it’s true that it’s true that traditional engagements were relatively short.

 

[masondoggy]

I think the only reason why engagements are so long now is because it can easily take a year or more to plan a traditional wedding. Venues and services book far in advance.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I think Regency couples probably got a bit more privacy than the Duggars give. In fact, it seems to have been a standard ploy by girls’ parents to give the young people some privacy, in the hope that a proposal would pop out (see, for example, Mrs. Bennet’s various attempts at this). My understanding is that while it was improper for a young couple to correspond privately, that engaged couples could expect the right to correspond by letter. (See Sense and Sensibility–Elinor assumes that Marianne must be secretly engaged to Willoughby because they are corresponding.)

So, I feel like a lot of the Duggar practices are actually a novelty, rather than a reversion to traditional practices.

However, it’s true that it’s true that traditional engagements were relatively short.

Re the alcohol comment; are you talking about the secular examples of casual acquaintances having sex? Or are you suggesting the Duggar girls likely got drunk on their wedding nights to get through them without totally freaking out? The Duggars actually don’t drink alcohol. And I don’t think they’re totally ignorant about sex, either. I recall Jim Bob gave a sex ed book to his son Josh before his wedding, and Michelle did hint at giving similar talks to her daughters.

I really don’t want to assume that the Duggar couples had awkward, miserable wedding nights. That’s going a little too far into the schaendfreude “savoring in the suffering of another” territory for me. I want both Jill and Jessa to be happy in their marriages, I’m not hoping they fail just to prove us right about their courtship practices.

And regarding Regency customs and books, as I recall Marianne and Willoughby do go on “curricle” rides together alone. And while their behavior is regarded as borderline scandalous, no one ever accuses Marianne of being unchaste, even though Willoughby is later found to have seduced at least one woman, Eliza, and I suspect likely seduced his eventual wife as well (why else would a heiress who I’m sure had many suitors, marry a man she knew to be a “libertine”?)

It also seems that “chaperones” in those times weren’t actually hovering over a couple the way the Duggars mandate, they were close enough to serve as a deterrent to sexual sin, but not so close that the couple had no privacy at all. Also, as I recall, in Northanger Abbey, Catherine’s parents allow her to correspond with Henry Tilney even before they are officially engaged, and do NOT demand access to their letters the way the Duggars demand to be cc’d on texts. And in that case, Catherine was only 17 and certainly considered under the authority of her parents in regard to being allowed to marry, in England at the time, you had to be 21 to marry without parental permission.

I think it’s telling that if you actually look at the comments posted in response to the TLC.com article linked by the OP, one of them is from a Muslim who states “courtships” are conducted this way in HIS culture too. Now, I have no idea how strict of a Muslim, but I certainly find that comment to be disturbing.

 

[adawgj]

I’m sorry, but all 8 rules in my opinion are just ridiculous.

These rules seem to be for a middle schooler.

For example, one of the rules is no chest to chest contact. Really?

I don’t really date and these rules are so silly.

 

[petitfleur]

Fwiw, I don’t have any issues with couples saving the first kiss for marriage or limiting contact to hand holding…if it’s THEIR choice. In this case, even though they try to make it appear that it is their choice, it clearly is NOT. It is Jim Bob’s rule and they are expected to obey him.

There’s nothing romantic about a couple saving their kiss for the wedding because daddy won’t allow them to even be alone together or have a private conversation.

Still plowing through this thread (where was I when this started?). I love, love, love this point.

 

[Xantippe]

Another problem I see is that I think that one of the really important things that need to happen no later than during engagement is for a couple to develop a sort of “bubble of privacy” with regard to their relationship and their doings. It’s very important that future spouses get out of the habit of sharing every single detail of their lives and every single flicker of disappointment with their beloved with parents. (Assuming that the relationship is a generally healthy one.) A lot of bad marital stuff (that you can read about on CAF every week) comes out of over-sharing with parents and others and not respecting the primacy of the marital bond and the couple’s need for privacy and independence. (Marriage-counseling one’s daughter and future son-in-law is particularly boundary-violating.)

I feel like the Duggar model does not provide well for the need for couples to be on a trajectory to leave and cleave. It’s virginity and chastity at the expense of a lot of other very important human needs, and I personally don’t think that you need to choose.

Of course, I understand that it’s not reasonable to expect that a reality TV show dad would understand the need for privacy.