8 Simple Rules for dating a Duggar Daughter

[ToeInTheWater]

sailor28, I’m very happy that you clarified your thoughts just for the record. I totally agree that being a virgin at marriage, and having large families, is NOT any proof of being a spiritually healthy person. (Indeed, it is possible for someone to have a completely secular outlook on life, and still be a virgin at marriage and have 12+ children. Likely not very common, but possible.)

Personally, my contention with the original premise of this topic, is that EVERYONE should follow the “Duggar rules” for courting, or that the only alternative to the Duggar approach is the “Sex and the City” secular approach to dating in which sex is expected at least by the 4th date, moving in together isn’t just tolerated but expected, etc. I think this is a totally false dichotomy.

 

[sailor28]

What it does bring to light-- is that a large number of children-- can be the result of unhealthy spirituality.

Yes, this is preciously my point again. Quiverfull theology whether in Catholic or Protestant circles is not a healthy theology. It is rare for a very fertile couple to be able to handle as many kids as they can biologically have. Some couples just naturally have kids every 2 to 3 years but some have them every 12 to 18 months. (Michelle Duggar stops breastfeeding at less than a year to become pregnant AND she hands off the 1 yr old to buddies (older children) to care for) If you marry at 22 and have 20 years of fertility that is more kids than the vast majority of people can handle. Quiverfull may work for the couples with below average fertility.

Couples should wait until marriage to have sex. My husband and I did. But that by itself does not make my marriage spiritually or emotionally healthy.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Personally, my contention with the original premise of this topic, is that EVERYONE should follow the “Duggar rules” for courting, or that the only alternative to the Duggar approach is the “Sex and the City” secular approach to dating in which sex is expected at least by the 4th date, moving in together isn’t just tolerated but expected, etc. I think this is a totally false dichotomy.

If you ask me, the Duggar approach and its sympathizers on these boards are exactly why I’m giving the Sex and the City approach a second glance. (That and of course the painful experience of former approach blowing up in my face.)

Of course, being truly open minded requires staying open to moderate (name removed by moderator)ut. But you know, there’s just something soooo off-putting about the way even moderate views on the dating scene are still lumped in with the sex crowd. It’s why, at this point, I’ve mentally flipped the table and just stuck to doing what gets me where and what I want in this scene. It’s not free of frustration but it’s proven better than methods/views I’ve truly experienced failing.

 

[sailor28]

Sailor. Please keep the personal attacks and observations charitable. You do not have much experience with me in threads. Xantippe does.

HD, Everyone time someone offers you correction you call it a personal attack. This has been my experience with you. I am letting you know how you are coming across. Several people in this thread have let you know this and you are still not listening to them either. This was a charitable observation. I understand you can’t read tone or intent so you may be hearing something different. Know that it was written in peace and charity. My response to you was not just based on your note to me. It was based on me reading this whole thread and seeing how you respond to others.

 

[sailor28]

sailor28, I’m very happy that you clarified your thoughts just for the record. I totally agree that being a virgin at marriage, and having large families, is NOT any proof of being a spiritually healthy person. (Indeed, it is possible for someone to have a completely secular outlook on life, and still be a virgin at marriage and have 12+ children. Likely not very common, but possible.)

Personally, my contention with the original premise of this topic, is that EVERYONE should follow the “Duggar rules” for courting, or that the only alternative to the Duggar approach is the “Sex and the City” secular approach to dating in which sex is expected at least by the 4th date, moving in together isn’t just tolerated but expected, etc. I think this is a totally false dichotomy.

Balance and moderation. Healthy emotional and spiritual space. It is possible without going to either extreme.

Ironically, I never watch the Duggars but saw part of the show today. When Jim Bob said he was in contact with Derrick for 1.5 years and he was exactly what “we” were looking for it was odd. Listening to his comments when they mistakenly gave a frontal hug instead of a side hug also odd. It was very creepy and controlling.

As for being a virgin at marriage: I know plenty of Catholic couples who were not virgins at marriage and they still have healthy marriages. Do they wish they did things differently? Yes. But it has not destroyed their entire life.

I can’t imagine going from having my first kiss with my husband to sex in less than 12 hrs. Or waiting until we were engaged to hold hands. EXTREME!!!

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

HD, Everyone time someone offers you correction you call it a personal attack. This has been my experience with you. I am letting you know how you are coming across. Several people in this thread have let you know this and you are still not listening to them either. This was a charitable observation. I understand you can’t read tone or intent so you may be hearing something different. Know that it was written in peace and charity. My response to you was not just based on your note to me. It was based on me reading this whole thread and seeing how you respond to others.

Nope. It isn’t but you are the one making about me. No need to. I would like to continue the conversation with you, but if you insist on this route I cannot. You have very little experience with me to be making these observations.

I would also note that you don’t respond to anything I put forth in the conversation.

I will ask you one more time to keep it polite or I will have to let a moderator sort it out.

I have no bone with most posters on here.

Have we tangled before? I am not sure why you seem to make judgement on my personality when I have not had many posts with you.

I would hope you can move beyond any personality differences we have. I am wiling to.

 

[sailor28]

So can suicide. or radical political movements that engage in terror. honestly think it is unfair to suggest that large families are indicators of problems.

it is one of the reasons I have felt unwelcome at CAF sometimes. But, I sure don’t subscribe to any group or movement. I think there is a stigma that deserved or not, we should try to recognize and weed out.

Just to try to help you to understand what I am trying to say to you: The poster did not say large families ARE indicators of problems. They said they CAN be indicators of unhealthy spirituality. This is true. This needed to be said because often the premise in Catholic circles is that a large family is an automatic indicator of spiritual health and holiness. It has taken me 20 years to realize people can look really good on the outside and be very unhealthy on the inside.

Small families can be unhealthy too. But in conservative Catholic circles I see small families looked at more suspiciously. I am very surprised to hear you feel unwelcomed here because you have a large family. I have not seen people be unfriendly to large families here. In this thread in particular it is your interpretation of what people are saying.
They are not saying all large families are unhealthy or bad.

 

[Xantippe]

I don’t think the problem is with having large families. The problem is when a couple, especially a women, is pressured into having a large family because it’s “God’s will” even when it’s not in their best interest or something they can personally handle. The Quiverful movement believes that NOTHING should be done to prevent a pregnancy and that a woman cannot say no to her husband. She* is* essentially a baby-making machine, even if a pregnancy can be dangerous to her health.

This is not Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching allows couples the freedom to discern what is best for their situation and allows them to use NFP to prevent a pregnancy when needed.

In one situation a couple is essentially given no choice but to have a large family, whether it’s something they can handle or not, the other situation allows a couple to have the size of family that’s right for* them*.

Yes. There’s an enormous difference between “You may have a large family” and “You must have a large family, no matter what.”

 

[sailor28]

Hoosier Daddy,

I wanted to let you know that I think it is remarkable and wonderful that you stay home with you kids. What a gift it is for them to be close to their dad. You obviously love them to the moon and back. That is a really hard job being a stay at home dad to 5 kids. You and your wife work as a team doing what is best for your family. I think large families are beautiful. (I also think small families are beautiful…) I do love my kids so much I wish I could have 10 of them.

The Duggar theology has no flexibility like this. Couples can not do what is best for them. They follow a very strict prescription for gender roles. One that is very confining. They definitely think it is not God’s will for a women to work outside the home and a man to stay at home. It is just not right to put everyone into that box.

 

[Xantippe]

If you ask me, the Duggar approach and its sympathizers on these boards are exactly why I’m giving the Sex and the City approach a second glance. (That and of course the painful experience of former approach blowing up in my face.)

Of course, being truly open minded requires staying open to moderate (name removed by moderator)ut. But you know, there’s just something soooo off-putting about the way even moderate views on the dating scene are still lumped in with the sex crowd. It’s why, at this point, I’ve mentally flipped the table and just stuck to doing what gets me where and what I want in this scene. It’s not free of frustration but it’s proven better than methods/views I’ve truly experienced failing.

You’ve done formal courtship, with a formal request to the father to court the young lady, and lots of chaperoning, and it was a failure?

Tell us more!

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Balance and moderation. Healthy emotional and spiritual space. It is possible without going to either extreme.

Ironically, I never watch the Duggars but saw part of the show today. When Jim Bob said he was in contact with Derrick for 1.5 years and he was exactly what “we” were looking for it was odd. Listening to his comments when they mistakenly gave a frontal hug instead of a side hug also odd. It was very creepy and controlling.

As for being a virgin at marriage: I know plenty of Catholic couples who were not virgins at marriage and they still have healthy marriages. Do they wish they did things differently? Yes. But it has not destroyed their entire life.

I can’t imagine going from having my first kiss with my husband to sex in less than 12 hrs. Or waiting until we were engaged to hold hands. EXTREME!!!

You know, perhaps I should point out that personally, I actually could imagine myself not kissing my husband until the wedding day, and I don’t think I’d even mind waiting until engagement to hold hands.

But I really have never been that much of a touchy-feely person, I don’t need to be constantly touching someone in order to feel close to them. I do know “touchy-feely” people who are the type to constantly slap people on the back, greet even casual friends with frontal hugs, and I do not feel comfortable around some of them.

So certainly, if I were to ever meet a man who had very strict boundaries about physical contact before marriage, I likely wouldn’t have trouble respecting them. And certainly, there are couples for which, say, passionate kissing would be a near occasion to sin, and therefore should avoid it before marriage. But I certainly don’t think this is the case for all couples.

What I DO have a problem with, is the lack of EMOTIONAL intimacy that “courting” in public would entail. Especially as my personality is rather introverted, I would not be comfortable discussing intimate issues and feelings in public. Also because it seems the lack of emotional closeness pre-wedding isn’t just a byproduct, but expected, because of the whole “guard your heart” idea.

Suddenly going from just holding hands to kissing to sex, I actually think I could handle. But suddenly going from “never alone in public without a chaperone/guard, with almost every thought and emotion toward my beloved being open to viewing by parents, siblings, and strangers” to “completely alone and expected to become one not just physically, but emotionally and spiritually”? I don’t think I could deal with that.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Hoosier Daddy,

I wanted to let you know that I think it is remarkable and wonderful that you stay home with you kids. What a gift it is for them to be close to their dad. You obviously love them to the moon and back. That is a really hard job being a stay at home dad to 5 kids. You and your wife work as a team doing what is best for your family. I think large families are beautiful. (I also think small families are beautiful…) I do love my kids so much I wish I could have 10 of them.

The Duggar theology has no flexibility like this. Couples can not do what is best for them. They follow a very strict prescription for gender roles. One that is very confining. They definitely think it is not God’s will for a women to work outside the home and a man to stay at home. It is just not right to put everyone into that box.

I appreciate that you are making an effort to be kind. I still am a little uncomfortable with your need to somehow approve or disapprove of my family or myself personally. But I think this post is a genuine attempt to make a point and be charitable. So for that, thank you.

That said, I don’t believe your assessment of what duggar theology allows or not is accurate.

 

[masondoggy]

Well FWIW, I think in general that large families are awesome. My mom came from a family of 13 and my grandma came from a family of 13. We have very large family reunions every year and my large extended family has always been a special part of my life.

So I hope that I have not come across in this thread as being anti-large family because that is absolutely not how I feel. I have great admiration and respect for those who have made that sacrifice (because it IS a sacrifice in many ways) and especially those who have made it work so well.

I even wanted to emulate my grandma and have a large family myself. But as I started having kids, I recognized my own limitations and decided that me having a lot of kids probably wasn’t a good idea for my sanity.

That’s sort of my point, though. The desire to have a large family is a great thing. But a couple needs to have the freedom to decide to STOP when they’re overwhelmed without feeling that they’re sinning or failing in their faith. That is the decision that I had to make and I’m just glad that I was able to make it without guilt or completely destroying my relationship with God. What I have now is a healthy family. That’s what counts.

 

[Estevao]

I’m not going to read this thread, but the Duggars have a connection with Bill Gothard, who has a rather cult-like personality in his leadership actions, like Kip McKean, Mark Driscoll, Jimmy Swaggart and others. I would stay away from groups associated with this streak of American evangelicalism.

 

[Xantippe]

Balance and moderation. Healthy emotional and spiritual space. It is possible without going to either extreme.

Ironically, I never watch the Duggars but saw part of the show today. When Jim Bob said he was in contact with Derrick for 1.5 years and he was exactly what “we” were looking for it was odd. Listening to his comments when they mistakenly gave a frontal hug instead of a side hug also odd. It was very creepy and controlling.

As for being a virgin at marriage: I know plenty of Catholic couples who were not virgins at marriage and they still have healthy marriages. Do they wish they did things differently? Yes. But it has not destroyed their entire life.

I can’t imagine going from having my first kiss with my husband to sex in less than 12 hrs. Or waiting until we were engaged to hold hands. EXTREME!!!

Yes.

Even in traditional European culture, a gentleman might give a lady his arm on a walk for support. This comes up in Jane Austen (it’s a plot point in Persuasion–some ladies are vying for a particular gentleman’s arm on a country walk).

Oh, and dancing would involve a lot of physical contact. As we lovers of 19th century fiction know, balls were a big deal for meeting new people and getting to spend time with a special someone.

(Of course, there’s always been a lot of fundamentalist Protestant suspicion directed toward dancing.)

These Duggar rules are largely made up out of whole cloth and don’t bear a lot of resemblance to our traditional Anglo-American culture.

 

[Xantippe]

What I DO have a problem with, is the lack of EMOTIONAL intimacy that “courting” in public would entail. Especially as my personality is rather introverted, I would not be comfortable discussing intimate issues and feelings in public. Also because it seems the lack of emotional closeness pre-wedding isn’t just a byproduct, but expected, because of the whole “guard your heart” idea.

Suddenly going from just holding hands to kissing to sex, I actually think I could handle. But suddenly going from “never alone in public without a chaperone/guard, with almost every thought and emotion toward my beloved being open to viewing by parents, siblings, and strangers” to “completely alone and expected to become one not just physically, but emotionally and spiritually”? I don’t think I could deal with that.

Yes.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You’ve done formal courtship, with a formal request to the father to court the young lady, and lots of chaperoning, and it was a failure?

Tell us more!

Worse than that. I tried the very basic, core tenet of Duggar dating theology: Taking it slow.

I couldn’t even get past her stupid friends.

Oh but if Duggar rules are any indication, anything I do shouldn’t be seen as trying too hard. Nope. I should take it slow, be nice, and hope to God I don’t get picked over. And if I do get picked over, I shouldn’t fight. I should just ‘move on’ and pray the Almighty throws me another fish. But above all, I should never attempt to flirt, hit on, and charm women because it’s so un-Christ-like. God’s plan comes first, not yours nope.

Honestly, looking up the male-to-female marriage rate of the Duggar children gives me a very grim impression of the success rate the older male children have.

 

[Estevao]

Yes.

Even in traditional European culture, a gentleman might give a lady his arm on a walk for support. This comes up in Jane Austen (it’s a plot point in Persuasion–some ladies are vying for a particular gentleman’s arm on a country walk).

Oh, and dancing would involve a lot of physical contact. As we lovers of 19th century fiction know, balls were a big deal for meeting new people and getting to spend time with a special someone.

(Of course, there’s always been a lot of fundamentalist Protestant suspicion directed toward dancing.)

These Duggar rules are largely made up out of whole cloth and don’t bear a lot of resemblance to our traditional Anglo-American culture.

Xantippe what are the must-read Jane Austen novels for impressing women? Just the main ones please I’d like to just get through them and impress the ladies, it seems that the kind of ladies who like her are otherwise rather fetching.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Xantippe]

That’s sort of my point, though. The desire to have a large family is a great thing. But a couple needs to have the freedom to decide to STOP when they’re overwhelmed without feeling that they’re sinning or failing in their faith. That is the decision that I had to make and I’m just glad that I was able to make it without guilt or completely destroying my relationship with God. What I have now is a healthy family. That’s what counts.

Yes.

From the quotes I’ve seen, it sounds like the adult kids are under tremendous pressure to “keep up production,” which is not great. When your mom and dad have 19 kids, not making it into double digits could easily feel like failure.

As we’ve discussed on various occasions, friends and family (and particularly parents) should not be pressuring couples with regard to family size in either direction. It’s none of their business.

 

[Xantippe]

Worse than that. I tried the very basic, core tenet of Duggar dating theology: Taking it slow.

I couldn’t even get past her stupid friends.

Oh but if Duggar rules are any indication, anything I do shouldn’t be seen as trying too hard. Nope. I should take it slow, be nice, and hope to God I don’t get picked over. And if I do get picked over, I shouldn’t fight. I should just ‘move on’ and pray the Almighty throws me another fish. But above all, I should never attempt to flirt, hit on, and charm women because it’s so un-Christ-like. God’s plan comes first, not yours nope.

Honestly, looking up the male-to-female marriage rate of the Duggar children gives me a very grim impression of the success rate the older male children have.

That’s no good!

You should have corresponded by email with her dad for a year or so and then made your move.

Basically, you woo dad and then move on to the daughter.

(I do not recommend this method by the way.)