8 Simple Rules for dating a Duggar Daughter

[robwar]

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 haven’t read through the whole thread but I do have experience in attending Bill Gothard seminars and am very familiar with the Duggars. It’s one thing to follow the Churches clear moral teaching that sex is to be for marriage. It is another to applaud the Duggars. While maybe you are applauding them, there is nothing healthy here. Arranged marriages, using a homeschool program that doesn’t even end in a high school diploma, having your parents micro-manage your every move, following a single man’s (Bill Gothard) homemade ridiculous “rules” about dating and touching etc, having only a 4 month “courtship” where the couple is never allowed to be alone to even talk, chaperone dates with younger sibs and cameras rolling. If you think all this is healthy and “Biblical” then I want to sell you the Brookline Bridge because that is what these people are doing. The biggest hypocrisy of all is that these people have no TV in the home yet they feel they are so good that they are doing a reality show to show everyone else how good they are even though real Godly families don’t have TV’s in them.

 

[masondoggy]

I haven’t read through the whole thread but I do have experience in attending Bill Gothard seminars and am very familiar with the Duggars. It’s one thing to follow the Churches clear moral teaching that sex is to be for marriage. It is another to applaud the Duggars. While maybe you are applauding them, there is nothing healthy here. Arranged marriages, using a homeschool program that doesn’t even end in a high school diploma, having your parents micro-manage your every move, following a single man’s (Bill Gothard) homemade ridiculous “rules” about dating and touching etc, having only a 4 month “courtship” where the couple is never allowed to be alone to even talk, chaperone dates with younger sibs and cameras rolling. If you think all this is healthy and “Biblical” then I want to sell you the Brookline Bridge because that is what these people are doing. The biggest hypocrisy of all is that these people have no TV in the home yet they feel they are so good that they are doing a reality show to show everyone else how good they are even though real Godly families don’t have TV’s in them.

To be fair, I believe the Duggars do the show as a form of evangalizing and that’s an honorable reason, imo. This is a ministry to them.

And even though there is a lot that I don’t agree with them on, I do think their show is serving a good purpose. There is so much junk on tv. There are not many shows that young people can watch that promote good values and encourage them to follow God.

I think there are many things that we can learn from and admire in the Duggars. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water, kwim?

But there are areas where they have gone wrong should be pointed out, especially from a Catholic perspective.

 

[robwar]

To be fair, I believe the Duggars do the show as a form of evangalizing and that’s an honorable reason, imo. This is a ministry to them.

And even though there is a lot that I don’t agree with them on, I do think their show is serving a good purpose. There is so much junk on tv. There are not many shows that young people can watch that promote good values and encourage them to follow God.

I think there are many things that we can learn from and admire in the Duggars. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water, kwim?

But there are areas where they have gone wrong should be pointed out, especially from a Catholic perspective.

I don’t believe in reality TV because it for the most part in contrived. Likewise, the reality show has allowed them to afford a number of things that Jim Bob couldn’t do otherwise. I also feel it promotes an unhealthy quiver full lifestyle and there are enough blogs and forums out there that talk about the real reality behind these sorts of families.

 

[masondoggy]

I don’t believe in reality TV because it for the most part in contrived. Likewise, the reality show has allowed them to afford a number of things that Jim Bob couldn’t do otherwise. I also feel it promotes an unhealthy quiver full lifestyle and there are enough blogs and forums out there that talk about the real reality behind these sorts of families.

I think that is a good point.

BUT, as far as I know they were getting by just fine before the TV show came along so it’s not like they were struggling in poverty before. But yes, it does put a false sense out there that you can have 20 kids and still build a huge, spacious house and go on all these family outings. And that’s definitely NOT reality.

Shoot, we have 4 kids and my husband makes a pretty decent salary and we still struggle to make ends meet sometime. We are definitely not living the same lifestyle as the Duggars.

 

[sailor28]

Err, I would have to agree with those priests. Granted a definition of passionate kissing would be helpful. If you kissed each other on the lips out in public then yeah thats okay, but if your making out on the sofa and basically having sex with clothes on then yeah thats not okay. I always assumed making out was considered passionate kissing

Hello WildCatholic,

I just wanted to say that passionate kissing is not sex.

You are free to form your conscience on this matter thru prayer, study and asking the Holy Spirit for guidance. You also will want to discuss it with your future fiance. If you are single and not dating you may have formed different opinions than you would have if you were dating. I would object if you felt it necessary that everyone conform to this opinion.

I personally had a lot of very strict rules when I was in my early 20’s. I gave away all my possessions, had no tv, wanted to take a vow of celibacy, would not talk or make friends with anyone who did not want to have intense theological discussion etc etc. As I got older my views and the way I felt called to live my faith changed.

For me personally, no passionate kissing before marriage falls in the extreme fundamentalist category. My husband (then fiance) and I prayerfully considered all these things when dating.

 

[Rau]

For me personally, no passionate kissing before marriage falls in the extreme fundamentalist category. My husband (then fiance) and I prayerfully considered all these things when dating.

Where did you determine the line lies between acceptable and unacceptable ?

 

[sailor28]

Where did you determine the line lies between acceptable and unacceptable ?

We decided we were going to be virgins when we got married. We were firm and strong in that decision. If we felt things we getting too intense we would stop kissing. That is the short and simple version.

A couple needs to have physical chemistry and compatibility to have a healthy marriage. Expressing physical intimacy while dating is important.

 

[Xantippe]

We decided we were going to be virgins when we got married. We were firm and strong in that decision. If we felt things we getting too intense we would stop kissing. That is the short and simple version.

Yes. If one is a grown up, one knows where the brakes are.

Unfortunately, it may require some previous mistakes to figure out what level of physical expression will prove problematic, but by the time one is in striking distance of marriage, one should have figured this out.

I’d say passionate but not physically uncomfortable is reasonable for a couple that is serious.

Oh, and I think it ought to be at least a little difficult for unmarried couples. If it’s too easy to abstain, it may be because one party isn’t interested at all. But at the same time, the physical side of the relationship shouldn’t totally eclipse all other aspects of the relationship.

 

[DarkLight]

The side hugs only thing though…that’s the one I couldn’t stand.

 

[Rau]

I’d say passionate but not physically uncomfortable…

What does that mean?

The line will always be grey. One might ask what degree of “touching” is OK? Side hugs, frontal hugs, lying side by side on the sofa watching TV, wandering hands, etc.

Where is the near occasion of sin?

 

[Xantippe]

What does that mean?

The line will always be grey. One might ask what degree of “touching” is OK? Side hugs, frontal hugs, lying side by side on the sofa watching TV, wandering hands, etc.

Where is the near occasion of sin?

I think it depends a lot on the people involved–some people are more excitable than others. Genital touching is out, obviously, because that goes beyond “near occasion of sin” straight to sin. But otherwise, if it’s a grownup couple with patience and character and who care deeply about each other (and have a wedding date within a reasonable distance), quite a lot of physical coziness can be safe and a relationship-builder.

 

[robwar]

I think that is a good point.

BUT, as far as I know they were getting by just fine before the TV show came along so it’s not like they were struggling in poverty before. But yes, it does put a false sense out there that you can have 20 kids and still build a huge, spacious house and go on all these family outings. And that’s definitely NOT reality.

Shoot, we have 4 kids and my husband makes a pretty decent salary and we still struggle to make ends meet sometime. We are definitely not living the same lifestyle as the Duggars.

I think one of the clips I watched which obviously was from an early show was the Duggars visiting a hand made pretzel factory. The kids were all trooped in and then showed different shots of them making pretzels and doing goofy kids things with them. Now would the Duggars as a form of enrichment take all their kids to a pretzel factory, disrupting it in doing a tour or was this and many other things being done for the TV cameras? I think the Duggars wouldn’t being doing these things without it at all.
The other clip I watched was about some rare snow storm in Arkansas. The cameras panned the snow bound home, showed Jim Bob telling Michelle how bad it is out while she stood there googoo eyed. Then the cameras went to some mall and started interviewing total strangers on what it would be like for Michelle to be “stuck” at home with 19 children in a snow storm. The reality is that Michelle is always at home with the children, the oldest boy isn’t there, he is married, the oldest girls are co-parents with the mom and all no one was going anywhere whether it snowed or not. It was totally contrived and done to highlight what a super woman Michelle is. Oh please spare me. I have no idea how this is so good, it’s done to make the parents be super dupers.

 

[sailor28]

I think it depends a lot on the people involved–some people are more excitable than others. Genital touching is out, obviously, because that goes beyond “near occasion of sin” straight to sin. But otherwise, if it’s a grownup couple with patience and character and who care deeply about each other (and have a wedding date within a reasonable distance), quite a lot of physical coziness can be safe and a relationship-builder.

I agree.

A couple needs to have experience with physical intimacy if they are planning on marrying each other. There is a sense of companionship and compatibility that is found in it. I find it disheartening that CAF allowed a priest to answer a question on this matter in the way that Fr Serpa did. It really is poor advice. (ie no passionate kissing before marriage)

Xantippe,

I’ve really enjoyed reading your perspective. You have a way of articulating thoughts in a charitable, balanced and welcoming manner. That’s not just a comment on this note but I’ve noticed this in general on this thread and others. Your style is the way to draw people into the faith. You don’t alienate people that don’t share your views. It is a great example to follow.

 

[Xantippe]

I agree.

A couple needs to have experience with physical intimacy if they are planning on marrying each other. There is a sense of companionship and compatibility that is found in it. I find it disheartening that CAF allowed a priest to answer a question on this matter in the way that Fr Serpa did. It really is poor advice. (ie no passionate kissing before marriage)

**Yeah. I get why Fr. Serpa was worried about that particular couple, but he probably should have handed that one off to somebody else who could have given a more positive, humanistic response.

If I’d gotten that question, I would have said that physical affection is a mode of communication, and that it’s important not to “say” things with our bodies that we don’t actually mean and aren’t willing to live up to. I’d recommend to be careful to have the emotional relationship keeping pace with the physical relationship, rather than have the physical relationship leave the emotional relationship in the dust. **

Xantippe,

I’ve really enjoyed reading your perspective. You have a way of articulating thoughts in a charitable, balanced and welcoming manner. That’s not just a comment on this note but I’ve noticed this in general on this thread and others. Your style is the way to draw people into the faith. You don’t alienate people that don’t share your views. It is a great example to follow.

Awww. That’s really sweet.

I will try to live up to it!

Thanks!

 

[ToeInTheWater]

"masondoggy:

I think there are many things that we can learn from and admire in the Duggars. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water, kwim?

But there are areas where they have gone wrong should be pointed out, especially from a Catholic perspective.

Masondoggy, let me just say, I really commend you for your balanced, charitable take on the Duggars, it’s pretty close to my own take on them. I will also note that even though the Duggars are very rigid about gender roles when it comes to paid work, child-rearing, etc., I haven’t seen anything on the show that suggests they hold men and women to different sexual standards, as some traditionalists do, or blame women for all sexual sin, etc.

(Something I’ve even seen at times on CAF as well, very few people have actually stated “that men should have more leeway to sow their wild oats” or that men are just incapable of controlling their sexual urges, but I have seen some posts that hint at such a mentality.)

Yes. If one is a grown up, one knows where the brakes are.

Unfortunately, it may require some previous mistakes to figure out what level of physical expression will prove problematic, but by the time one is in striking distance of marriage, one should have figured this out.

I’d say passionate but not physically uncomfortable is reasonable for a couple that is serious.

Oh, and I think it ought to be at least a little difficult for unmarried couples. If it’s too easy to abstain, it may be because one party isn’t interested at all. But at the same time, the physical side of the relationship shouldn’t totally eclipse all other aspects of the relationship.

Xantippe, I am probably just misinterpreting you, as you’ve been very balanced on this topic so far, but are you actually stating that it’s preferable to err towards being MORE physically affectionate even if that risks falling into actual sexual sin, than to err towards being LESS physically affectionate and risk being “sexually incompatible” (for lack of a better word?)

I also think that even if couples who focus on the physical side of the relationship don’t fall into sexual sin, they could still be at risk of being carried away by hormones and overlooking other issues that make for “incompatible” marriages, such as attitudes toward finances, childrearing, etc.

I also think that this really is not a case where every couple should be following the exact set of “rules”. I mentioned this in my spinoff topic regarding kissing, but IMHO, stating that “ALL couples should kiss” is just as rigid and arbitrary as stating “NO couples should kiss” before marriage.

I think it should also be mentioned that kissing as a sign of romance is really a primarily Western idea. Most Asian cultures don’t have any tradition of romantic kissing, tend to be less “touchy-feely” in general, and also have a tradition of arranged marriages, but this doesn’t mean there were NO romance or love-based marriages before they were influenced by Western culture.

I do think there should be more leeway for physical affection between serious couples than the Duggars, and certainly frank discussion of sex should occur at some point between the couple, but I don’t think the act of kissing specifically is mandatory for a “healthy” romantic relationship.

 

[Xantippe]

Xantippe, I am probably just misinterpreting you, as you’ve been very balanced on this topic so far, but are you actually stating that it’s preferable to err towards being MORE physically affectionate even if that risks falling into actual sexual sin, than to err towards being LESS physically affectionate and risk being “sexually incompatible” (for lack of a better word?)

**I think that grownups who are of age to think seriously about marriage should know enough about their sexuality by then that they have a good idea what a safe distance from sin looks like in their particular cases.

If they aren’t of an age to be able to think seriously about marriage or aren’t sure about what is and isn’t safe for them, even more caution (and maybe a more rule-based approach) is probably in order. **

I also think that even if couples who focus on the physical side of the relationship don’t fall into sexual sin, they could still be at risk of being carried away by hormones and overlooking other issues that make for “incompatible” marriages, such as attitudes toward finances, childrearing, etc.

Right. I forget if I said it in this thread or another, but the physical side of the relationship should not be racing ahead of the other aspects of the relationship. The physical side should reflect the state of the relationship as a whole.

I also think that this really is not a case where every couple should be following the exact set of “rules”. I mentioned this in my spinoff topic regarding kissing, but IMHO, stating that “ALL couples should kiss” is just as rigid and arbitrary as stating “NO couples should kiss” before marriage.

I think it should also be mentioned that kissing as a sign of romance is really a primarily Western idea. Most Asian cultures don’t have any tradition of romantic kissing, tend to be less “touchy-feely” in general, and also have a tradition of arranged marriages, but this doesn’t mean there were NO romance or love-based marriages before they were influenced by Western culture.

Yes. But if one member of the couple wants to kiss and the other doesn’t, it would concern me.

I do think there should be more leeway for physical affection between serious couples than the Duggars, and certainly frank discussion of sex should occur at some point between the couple, but I don’t think the act of kissing specifically is mandatory for a “healthy” romantic relationship.

Certainly. I can imagine a couple being warmly and licitly physically affectionate without kissing, but I feel that there should be a fairly clear distinction between the body language of platonic friendship as opposed to a romantic relationship.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Certainly. I can imagine a couple being warmly and licitly physically affectionate without kissing, but I feel that there should be a fairly clear distinction between the body language of platonic friendship as opposed to a romantic relationship.

Thanks for clarifying your thoughts! I totally agree that there should be some kind of definite distinction between the body language of platonic friendship vs. a romantic relationship, even if this boundary line is drawn at different places depending on the couple.

One aspects of “courtship culture”, that I’ve noticed even some Catholics buy into, is this idea that a couple should actually be no more physically affectionate than “brother and sister” before marriage. I do find this idea to be rather disturbing, for though I do realize many platonic friendships DO evolve into romances, the idea that there should be no discernible difference between the two stages just doesn’t seem right.

(And in the case of the Duggars, at times I wonder if they believe that a courting couple should be LESS physically affectionate than a brother and sister! Somehow, I don’t think Michelle and Jim-Bob would find a brother and sister high-fiving or holding hands when they pray before a meal, to be inappropriate, yet per the show and TLC blog, apparently these are considered “grey areas” at best for courting-but-not-engaged couples.)

 

[Xantippe]

One aspects of “courtship culture”, that I’ve noticed even some Catholics buy into, is this idea that a couple should actually be no more physically affectionate than “brother and sister” before marriage. I do find this idea to be rather disturbing, for though I do realize many platonic friendships DO evolve into romances, the idea that there should be no discernible difference between the two stages just doesn’t seem right.

**That is very true.

It seems like a recipe for continuing as “brother and sister” after marriage, or at least feeling very weird about sex. That is really 0-60. **

(And in the case of the Duggars, at times I wonder if they believe that a courting couple should be LESS physically affectionate than a brother and sister! Somehow, I don’t think Michelle and Jim-Bob would find a brother and sister high-fiving or holding hands when they pray before a meal, to be inappropriate, yet per the show and TLC blog, apparently these are considered “grey areas” at best for courting-but-not-engaged couples.)

Yes.

 

[masondoggy]

Masondoggy, let me just say, I really commend you for your balanced, charitable take on the Duggars, it’s pretty close to my own take on them. I will also note that even though the Duggars are very rigid about gender roles when it comes to paid work, child-rearing, etc., I haven’t seen anything on the show that suggests they hold men and women to different sexual standards, as some traditionalists do, or blame women for all sexual sin, etc.

(Something I’ve even seen at times on CAF as well, very few people have actually stated “that men should have more leeway to sow their wild oats” or that men are just incapable of controlling their sexual urges, but I have seen some posts that hint at such a mentality.)

.

Well, all in all, I actually really like the Duggars. There is a lot to admire and respect and I think Jim Bob and Michelle are very nice people. I’ve never seen or heard of them saying a rude or mean word to anybody…even people who they would view as “secular”. I respect them for that.

But yea, there are things that concern me, mostly things that are starting to come out now that they have adult children. I think they’re very misguided, but I also believe those two love their kids and only want the best for them. But I think they’ve been so brainwashed and misled by the movement they were drawn into that they can’t see the ways that their practices have the potential to hurt their kids.

 

[Ms_Manners]

A couple needs to have experience with physical intimacy if they are planning on marrying each other.

Not to mention intimate communication. And I don’t mean sex talk, or at least not only sex talk, but other things that are a couple’s private domain, even if they do plan to adopt their parents’ model.
Especially with one of the younger children as a chaperone, physical intimacy is not the part I’d miss the most. Adult conversation is what new parents sometimes miss, and these young people discussing marriage get no opportunity to have a real, honest discussion.