Discuss:Why Courtship is Fundamentally Flawed

[EasterJoy]

I think this is actually part of the issue with a lot of courtship models - it encourages boys and girls to think of opposite-sex relationships as automatically sexually charged. I think it’s good for boys and girls to get to know each other and have practice relating to each other as friends without having to worry about the pressure of romantic involvement.

There have been times when men and women spent no time with members of the opposite sex who were not their relatives or spouses.

We don’t live in that kind of time. Males and females have to be able to navigate interpersonal relationships with members of the opposite sex with whom they must refrain from relating in an explicitly sexual way. You’re going to have coworkers, you’re going to have vendors and service people, you’re going to have clients of the opposite sex that you have to deal with every day.

Some people in this world are capable of utterly ignoring the sexual attractiveness of someone with whom they have no chance of a licit sexual relationship. Others get there by consciously deciding to ignore it. Others can’t ignore it, but politely act as if they do. Others, well, they have to openly recognize it all of the time. It is rude, but to be blunt you have to admit that the rude people are being asked to live in a world with a double standard.

Our culture does not encourage people to think of others in a platonic way, alas. Fashions are meant to bring attention not just to the wearer’s sexual attractiveness, but to his or her unique brand of sexual attractiveness. People who do not dress that way are dismissed as boring, strait-laced, dowdy, and so on. Yet everyone is supposed to ACT as if they do not notice whether or not people who don’t happen to want their sexual interest actually succeeded in getting their interest.

We live under a total double standard. People purposefully dress to make you think “wow, that is sexy,” but if you ever say it, you are a pig. If you say “that dress leaves nothing to the imagination,” you are a prude. It is entirely hypocritical. Worse yet, though, it makes it far less likely that people of the opposite sex will get to know each other and appreciate each other in a non-sexual way.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

We live under a total double standard. People purposefully dress to make you think “wow, that is sexy,” but if you ever say it, you are a pig. If you say “that dress leaves nothing to the imagination,” you are a prude. It is entirely hypocritical. Worse yet, though, it makes it far less likely that people of the opposite sex will get to know each other and appreciate each other in a non-sexual way.

While I agree with the rest of your post, IMHO, this sounds more like a Red Pill rant than the kind of reasoned discourse I usually find in your posts. Not all people, or should we be frank and say “women” because men are almost never accused of this, who dress in a certain way are deliberately setting out to incite lust then cry “pig” or perhaps “harassment” if the heat gets too much to handle.

Of course, many women are indeed guilty of this, and certainly that many fashion designers are (though many are men, and not all of them are gay men).

But to make a blanket statement that “People purposefully dress to make you think “wow, that is sexy,”” I think goes into the realm of being uncharitable. Some women who dress in a certain way, especially young teenagers, are honestly clueless about the kind of reaction they will get.

Sadly, even clothing aimed at the “tween” or younger market now is designed to get a certain lustful reaction – but I doubt most of the kids wearing such clothing are guilty of “purposefully inciting lust”, either. Although I am sure some sexual predators would be happy to use that as an excuse.

 

[EasterJoy]

While I agree with the rest of your post, IMHO, this sounds more like a Red Pill rant than the kind of reasoned discourse I usually find in your posts. Not all people, or should we be frank and say “women” because men are almost never accused of this, who dress in a certain way are deliberately setting out to incite lust then cry “pig” or perhaps “harassment” if the heat gets too much to handle.

Of course, many women are indeed guilty of this, and certainly that many fashion designers are (though many are men, and not all of them are gay men).

But to make a blanket statement that “People purposefully dress to make you think “wow, that is sexy,”” I think goes into the realm of being uncharitable. Some women who dress in a certain way, especially young teenagers, are honestly clueless about the kind of reaction they will get.

Sadly, even clothing aimed at the “tween” or younger market now is designed to get a certain lustful reaction – but I doubt most of the kids wearing such clothing are guilty of “purposefully inciting lust”, either. Although I am sure some sexual predators would be happy to use that as an excuse.

I didn’t say that everyone has a double standard. I’m saying there are people (and I do not believe they are all women or gay men, not by any means) who dress in order to gain sexual attention from one part of the population but who also hypocritically find it disgusting when they gain attention in a sexual way from people not in their target audience. That is a double standard. What else do you call it, when someone would be insulted if one person says they don’t find him or her sexy and yet disgusted if some other person said they DID? This is not a rare thing. We have been taught that to be properly-dressed* is the same thing* as to be sexually attractive. As for lust, it is the work of modern advertising to excite and exacerbate as many desires as possible. People who don’t have their desires inflamed and their insecurities magnified do not buy as much stuff they don’t need.

There are children who have had their innocence ruined who try to gain sexual attention, not realizing what it is that they are doing. (Some of them have been influenced by advertising aimed at adults, others have literally been sexually assaulted, and those are not the only two ways for a child’s innocence to be ruined.)

Having said that, I’m not sure how even this would constitute an “excuse” for sexual assault. If someone rapes a prostitute, it is not a lesser crime than raping anyone else. There is no excuse for sexual assault, ever, no matter what sexual predators try to pretend.

 

[DarkLight]

That reminds me - I feel like we’ve lost the difference between a woman being attractive, and a woman being sexy. It’s almost like we’ve lost the idea of a woman being beautiful or classy. And I think sometimes the conservative movements can be equally guilty of this.

Us ladies like to look nice. Women are pretty, and it’s nice to look pretty! I think a lot of the conservative movement conflates wanting to look pretty and wanting to look sexy, and there can be a trend towards very plain, shapeless attire, or towards styles that are decades out of date, in an attempt to make women as uninteresting and unattractive as possible. There’s plenty of ways to be a lovely, well-dressed woman that are not intended to incite lust, even ways that may highlight some of the shape of that particular woman’s body!

Sadly I have also met men in the conservative movement who seem to deny this. I’ve actually had a guy tell me that the only reason women would wear makeup to work is to attract male attention. I suspect it also affects the secular man who comes under the delusion that anything a woman does to her appearance is for his attraction.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I didn’t say that everyone has a double standard. I’m saying there are people (and I do not believe they are all women or gay men, not by any means) who dress in order to gain sexual attention from one part of the population but who also hypocritically find it disgusting when they gain attention in a sexual way from people not in their target audience. That is a double standard.

First of all thank you for clarifying that not everyone has a double standard. I would agree with this, but I have seen people defend boorish behavior, cat-calling, or even sexual assault with the argument that, essentially, being dressed a certain way is essentially nonverbal communication stating “yes I am free and easy and open to sexual advances” and so they essentially are “asking for it”.

Having said that, I’m not sure how even this would constitute an “excuse” for sexual assault. If someone rapes a prostitute, it is not a lesser crime than raping anyone else. There is no excuse for sexual assault, ever, no matter what sexual predators try to pretend.

Thank you for clarifying that. Sadly, many people DO think that essentially, a certain mode of dress is a “nonverbal YES” to sex, and so even if such a woman is verbally stating NO, due to her clothing she is essentially sending mixed messages, both YES and NO, and a man who makes an honest mistake about what she really wants, should get a pass for the “mistake”, and not be labeled a predator for it.

People like the Duggars would call a woman who dresses a certain way who does NOT actually want sexual attention of being guilty of “defrauding” the man and hence sharing responsibility for a non-consensual sexual act.

That reminds me - I feel like we’ve lost the difference between a woman being attractive, and a woman being sexy. It’s almost like we’ve lost the idea of a woman being beautiful or classy. And I think sometimes the conservative movements can be equally guilty of this.

I think one problem with many “conservatives” of the fundamentalist variety is that they draw no distinction between “attraction” and “lust”. In a similar way, they condemn anyone with SSA as sinning merely by being attracted to the same sex.

Sadly I have also met men in the conservative movement who seem to deny this. I’ve actually had a guy tell me that the only reason women would wear makeup to work is to attract male attention. I suspect it also affects the secular man who comes under the delusion that anything a woman does to her appearance is for his attraction.

Interestingly, even the Duggar women make a point of wearing make-up, fixing up their hair, and doing other things, that do have the effect of improving their aesthetic value, but would certainly deny trying to incite lust in men by doing that. OK, maybe Michelle herself is equating modesty with frumpiness, but her daughters certainly don’t. Though I have read conservative criticism of the Duggars that their TV show and quasi-celebrity status has corrupted them and made them less committed to modesty. Some of the Bates women have also been accused of this.

 

[EasterJoy]

People like the Duggars would call a woman who dresses a certain way who does NOT actually want sexual attention of being guilty of “defrauding” the man and hence sharing responsibility for a non-consensual sexual act.

Interestingly, even the Duggar women make a point of wearing make-up, fixing up their hair, and doing other things, that do have the effect of improving their aesthetic value, but would certainly deny trying to incite lust in men by doing that. OK, maybe Michelle herself is equating modesty with frumpiness, but her daughters certainly don’t. Though I have read conservative criticism of the Duggars that their TV show and quasi-celebrity status has corrupted them and made them less committed to modesty. Some of the Bates women have also been accused of this.

Just to clarify: no one is bound to dress in the way least likely to make anyone remotely think of sex when laying eyes on them. A healthy, outgoing and well-groomed person is going to be attractive on many levels and in many ways to many people.

I don’t mean that a person can’t be open and friendly with the opposite sex without being accused of being a flirt. I don’t mean that anyone ought to dress in heavy-duty zip-front overalls and rubber boots like they’re getting ready to work in a sewer, just to make sure no one’s thoughts go the wrong direction.

No, I mean the fashions that are explicitly sold as “sexy” or “flirty” or the like, showing as much skin as the wearer can get away with. I mean choosing clothing isn’t much different in outline than paint would be. I mean what fashion magazines would call looks that are sexy, hot, sizzling and so on. I mean being provocative on purpose and then taking offense that the intended response is provoked in a target the wearer doesn’t happen to like. That doesn’t mean anyone has the right to be rude. It means that it is a double standard to* strive for* a reaction that you’d consider rude if anyone actually said it. I think that is hypocritical…that is, “I hope everyone but everyone thinks I’m sexy but that only people whose attentions would flatter me ever says what I’ve tried so hard to get them to think about me.”

The same thing goes for people who try to make others covet what they have who act as if it is disgusting or low when someone else says they covet what they have. Why would you try to make someone jealous and then act as if they’re terrible people because they feel the way you worked so hard to get them to feel?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I think this is actually part of the issue with a lot of courtship models - it encourages boys and girls to think of opposite-sex relationships as automatically sexually charged. I think it’s good for boys and girls to get to know each other and have practice relating to each other as friends without having to worry about the pressure of romantic involvement.

I just thought of a comment for this post. Ironically, as someone who recalls meeting people who “courted” when I was in college almost 2 decades ago, I recall that many early courtship proponents actually touted courting as a way to encourage boys and girls to relate as friends first, by getting to know each other during group activities, instead of artificially pairing off and engaging in 1 on 1 dating.

That version, I think, is quite different from the quasi-arranged marriage version of courtship that essentially depends on the Patriarch to act as matchmaker. Not all who support courtship do so from a Christian Patriarchy ideology that sees all women as perpetual minors who must be “under the protection” of either a father or a husband, or worse, are literally chattel that is “given away” to a suitor the father deems worthy based on HIS standards more than the daughter’s.

As the blogger himself notes, one of the issues with courtship is that different people define it totally differently, even the Duggars and Bates have very different standards. The only two constants are “it’s not dating” and “there’s no sex allowed”.

I guess the “your first kiss should be at the altar once you are married” is a fairly strong theme as well, but when to accept hand-holding, or “frontal hugs” vs “side hugs”, etc., are very different. The “no physical contact at all until engaged/you must always have a chaperone” version, I think is extreme even in the overall courting culture. So is the idea that young people should “guard their hearts” at least until engagement, or even until marriage itself, some even state “relate to your intended as brother and sister until you say the wedding vows” and to me, IMHO at that point it starts to resemble arranged marriage with only a thin veneer of free choice to make it culturally acceptable in the US.

Just to clarify: no one is bound to dress in the way least likely to make anyone remotely think of sex when laying eyes on them. A healthy, outgoing and well-groomed person is going to be attractive on many levels and in many ways to many people.

I don’t mean that a person can’t be open and friendly with the opposite sex without being accused of being a flirt. I don’t mean that anyone ought to dress in heavy-duty zip-front overalls and rubber boots like they’re getting ready to work in a sewer, just to make sure no one’s thoughts go the wrong direction.

No, I mean the fashions that are explicitly sold as “sexy” or “flirty” or the like, showing as much skin as the wearer can get away with. I mean choosing clothing isn’t much different in outline than paint would be. I mean what fashion magazines would call looks that are sexy, hot, sizzling and so on. I mean being provocative on purpose and then taking offense that the intended response is provoked in a target the wearer doesn’t happen to like.

Thanks for clarifying, I certainly agree that some people do dress like this and expressly *want * to be sexy and aim for a lustful reaction, but I do think it’s uncharitable to jump to the conclusion that everyone who is dressed “immodestly” is doing that. There is a topic on another subforum that has both the OP and at least one poster claiming that track and field clothing is “immodest” but I doubt even there anyone seriously think anyone wears it to incite lust.

 

[EasterJoy]

Thanks for clarifying, I certainly agree that some people do dress like this and expressly *want * to be sexy and aim for a lustful reaction, but I do think it’s uncharitable to jump to the conclusion that everyone who is dressed “immodestly” is doing that. There is a topic on another subforum that has both the OP and at least one poster claiming that track and field clothing is “immodest” but I doubt even there anyone seriously think anyone wears it to incite lust.

No, I’d say that most people who wear clothing that is more revealing that common sense would dictate are just wearing what they can find in a store. Some of us have bodies that give an impression more provocative than the clothing designer even intended!

 

[ToeInTheWater]

No, I’d say that most people who wear clothing that is more revealing that common sense would dictate are just wearing what they can find in a store. Some of us have bodies that give an impression more provocative than the clothing designer even intended!

Ok, I think we’re actually on the same page about this.

I’d also point out that the extreme of “the female body itself is an occasion of lust” and therefore must be covered up as much as possible, really is closer to fundamentalist, Sharia law supporting Muslim ideology than a Christian one. You mentioned past times when “men and women spent no time with members of the opposite sex who were not their relatives or spouses”.The idea that a woman should only come in contact with male relatives and be hidden from all others, is still current in many Muslim societies.

To bring this back to courtship, one problem with the extreme “the couple must always be chaperoned and never be alone together” attitude is that such a couple does NOT have a chance to actually learn how to control their sexual temptations. Many also wind up not really knowing what the partner is really like in private, though certainly people can be dishonest when dating as well.

Some also get a rosy picture of marriage as involving sex on demand, and may have trouble accepting that fact that even within marriage, there are times for sexual restraint. Maybe that’s not as much of an issue for the “quiverfull” types, or to Christians who accept ABC use, but even if ABC is used there are times that abstinence is required.

 

[DarkLight]

I think one problem with many “conservatives” of the fundamentalist variety is that they draw no distinction between “attraction” and “lust”. In a similar way, they condemn anyone with SSA as sinning merely by being attracted to the same sex.

I think this is one of those areas where both extremes of the spectrum, oddly enough, tend to unite. The fundamentalist says that any woman he is attracted to is an object of lust and must be covered up. The libertine thinks that any woman he personally finds attractive is a valid target for his lustful expressions. Either way, the woman is an object of lust if she is found attractive.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I think this is one of those areas where both extremes of the spectrum, oddly enough, tend to unite. The fundamentalist says that any woman he is attracted to is an object of lust and must be covered up. The libertine thinks that any woman he personally finds attractive is a valid target for his lustful expressions. Either way, the woman is an object of lust if she is found attractive.

Yes, and both men put all the responsibility for his lust, on the woman, not himself.

I also think many who champion extreme chaperoned courtship have much in common with those who champion Planned Parenthood and “comprehensive sex education”. There is an underlying assumption that “young people are incapable of restraining their sexual desires”, although the proposed solutions are different.

Extreme chaperoned courtship proposes “let’s admit we can’t solve that problem, but we can have the young people always be supervised until they marry, and then they can have all the sex they want”, while the PP supporters propose “let’s admit we can’t solve that problem, but we can prevent the bad consequences such as unwanted pregnancy and STDs with condoms, the Pill, and finally abortion, and then they can have all the sex they want”.

The issue, of course, is that neither getting married or having access to ABC actually guarantees anyone that “they can have all the sex they want”.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Another flaw I’ve observed in the courtship world is a kind of DIY approach. Back when the book “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” was popular I knew both parents and young people desiring this courtship approach. Without potential dates being on board with this the formalities that come with some versions of courtship made it awkward. There was something artificial about it and I think it scared off some potentials.

ETA: The parents and young people weren’t always in the same family. A girl I knew wanted to do this and introduced the idea to her parents. They tried but it was weird.

 

[EasterJoy]

Ok, I think we’re actually on the same page about this.

I’d also point out that the extreme of “the female body itself is an occasion of lust” and therefore must be covered up as much as possible, really is closer to fundamentalist, Sharia law supporting Muslim ideology than a Christian one. You mentioned past times when “men and women spent no time with members of the opposite sex who were not their relatives or spouses”.The idea that a woman should only come in contact with male relatives and be hidden from all others, is still current in many Muslim societies.

To bring this back to courtship, one problem with the extreme “the couple must always be chaperoned and never be alone together” attitude is that such a couple does NOT have a chance to actually learn how to control their sexual temptations. Many also wind up not really knowing what the partner is really like in private, though certainly people can be dishonest when dating as well.

Some also get a rosy picture of marriage as involving sex on demand, and may have trouble accepting that fact that even within marriage, there are times for sexual restraint. Maybe that’s not as much of an issue for the “quiverfull” types, or to Christians who accept ABC use, but even if ABC is used there are times that abstinence is required.

People who are wise self-chaperone, at least to some extent. I mean that professional people of the opposite sex, for instance, do not spend a great deal of time together alone when they’ve been kicking back and having a glass of wine or two. It is funny, but sometimes people do exercise more self-control and prudence when it comes to keeping out of situations that could torpedo their careers than they do for other reasons.

As you imply, marriage is not a state in life where self-mastery goes out the window. One still has to be able to subordinate one’s personal wants for what one discerns to be the legitimate needs. I don’t just mean needs of the rest of the family, but the person’s own real needs as opposed to their desires.

We simply do not live in a world where women’s lives are so circumscribed as they were in the past. Just as we don’t live in times where everyone lives by sweat work, we also don’t live in times where everybody knew their place within a few degrees from birth til death.

 

[ImmaCatholic]

The breakdown of marrige is the problem. As in people not being able to get married through no fault of their own.
What on earth did peopel think would happen when they pushed the average marriage age toward what used to be the average death age? Famines create bread theives; masses of lonely people who should have been married by now creates premarrital sex. What about this did they not comprehend? Why should we struggle to remain pure when every generation before us got to have sex by this age without sinning?

This courship garbage does not work. I garuntee anyone who spouts this nonsense, if they are married, either did not follow this lunacy themselves or is part of some dark misogynistic subculture.

Christians should get married in the only way that has ever worked in recent history to get married. Date another Christian of the opposite sex to get to know them in a public place with other people around so their is no question of morallity. Get married and make their wedding kiss their first.

Rant over.

    I agree with this. Most people nowadays are pressured to wait until they've finished school and have a stable, well paying job until they get married. This is by no means an issue, but it's important to known the modern timeline of things now. Young people now have to finish college, graduate school (most of the time), and land yourself a well paying job, which would leave the individual in their mid to late 20's. 

    This isn't an issue for people who have engage in premarital sex and cohabitation, but for a Christian following teaching and waiting, late 20's is a *long* time to wait to get married, and waiting to have children is an even longer wait! Everyone is free to live their lives as they choose though, and I can't think of a solution to this, except that it can be extremely frustrating.

 

[Xantippe]

I agree with this. Most people nowadays are pressured to wait until they’ve finished school and have a stable, well paying job until they get married. This is by no means an issue, but it’s important to known the modern timeline of things now. Young people now have to finish college, graduate school (most of the time), and land yourself a well paying job, which would leave the individual in their mid to late 20’s.

    This isn't an issue for people who have engage in premarital sex and cohabitation, but for a Christian following teaching and waiting, late 20's is a *long* time to wait to get married, and waiting to have children is an even longer wait! Everyone is free to live their lives as they choose though, and I can't think of a solution to this, except that it can be extremely frustrating.

It isn’t just a question of being “pressured”–20-somethings today are just not in the same place as 20-somethings people of 40 years ago.

“Almost 40 percent of young adults lived with their parents, step-parents, grandparents and other relatives last year, or the highest point in 75 years, according to data from real estate analytics company Trulia. The only time in U.S. history when the share has been higher was in 1940, when the U.S. economy was regaining its footing from the Great Depression and the year prior to the country’s entry into World War II.”

“The research echoes findings from the Pew Research Center earlier this year, which found that 32.1 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds lived at their parents’ homes in 2014, exceeding the 31.6 percent of young adults who were married or living with a partner in their own household.”

“Slightly more than 35 percent of Americans under the age of 35 own their own homes, a decline of 8 percentage points from 2004, Pew found in a study published earlier this month.”

cbsnews.com/news/percentage-of-young-americans-living-with-their-parents-is-40-percent-a-75-year-high/

 

[edwest2]

Interesting assumptions.

amazon.com/Extreme-Makeover-Transformed-Conformed-Culture/dp/1586175610

When I was dating, I could meet a total stranger and know we were on the same page. For those young ladies I did not consider, just watching their behavior was all I needed to do.

Ed

 

[DarkLight]

Interesting assumptions.

amazon.com/Extreme-Makeover-Transformed-Conformed-Culture/dp/1586175610

When I was dating, I could meet a total stranger and know we were on the same page. For those young ladies I did not consider, just watching their behavior was all I needed to do.

Ed

I’m curious what you mean by being “on the same page”?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I agree with this. Most people nowadays are pressured to wait until they’ve finished school and have a stable, well paying job until they get married. This is by no means an issue, but it’s important to known the modern timeline of things now. Young people now have to finish college, graduate school (most of the time), and land yourself a well paying job, which would leave the individual in their mid to late 20’s.

    This isn't an issue for people who have engage in premarital sex and cohabitation, but for a Christian following teaching and waiting, late 20's is a *long* time to wait to get married, and waiting to have children is an even longer wait! Everyone is free to live their lives as they choose though, and I can't think of a solution to this, except that it can be extremely frustrating.

Actually, the idea that “people used to get married as teenagers/right out of HS and grow up together, and modern couples are waiting way too long to marry” is somewhat of a myth though perpetuated in many pop culture classics such as “Our Town”.

Economic security before marriage has always been important, at least for a man. And women didn’t all get married off as teenagers, either.

Here’s one interesting stat-fact, the source is a blog but she cites a “Katie Cannon, assistant curator of education at the DAR Museum in Washington, DC” and also has citations of other historic sources"

historymyths.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/myth-136-women-married-very-young-in-the-olden-days/

In the early years of New England, 1650-1750, most women married and most around the age of 20-22, with men four or five years older. By contrast, at the same time in Europe (where many of those women or their parents came from) about 10% of the population did not marry at all.(1) In his book From British Peasants to Colonial American Farmers, Alan Kulikoff makes the argument that marriage age in 18th-century America was directly tied to land availability. The more land is available to start working and providing for a family, the sooner a person (male or female) can marry. Here is what he found: The English and their colonists assumed that men could not marry until they could support a household. This was easier in America where land was plentiful than in England where it was not. Benjamin Franklin observed that “Land being thus plenty in America, and so cheap as that a labouring Man, that understands Husbandry, can in a short time save money enough to purchase a Piece of new land sufficient for a Plantation, whereon he may subsist a Family.”(2)

Even in America, marriage age fluctuated with availability and cheapness of land, which varied between regions and decades. Here is a chart summarizing Kulikoff’s findings. The numbers indicate average age at first marriage.(3)

England, 1700s; Women: 25-26; Men: 30

New England, early 1600s; Women: Teens; Men: 26

New England, late 1600s; Women: 20; Men: 25

Pennsylvania Quakers, 1600s; Women: 22; Men: 26

Pennsylvania Quakers, 1700s; Women: 23; Men: 26

Rural South Carolina, 1700s; Women: 19; Men: 22

For comparison, here is the U.S. census data showing the median age of marriage for selected years in the more recent past:

1900 Women: 21.9; Men: 25.9

1950 Women: 20.3; Men: 22.8

1975 Women: 21.1; Men: 23.5

2000 Women: 25.1; Men: 26.8

As you can see, the age at first marriage in the 20th century is not that different from the 17th or 18th, depending on exactly where and when you are talking about. While there is a variety, they are all within the same general range rather than the drastic difference many imagine.

Even now, marriage ages vary widely based on the region and the culture. Here’s one set of stats for women:

livescience.com/27974-women-media-age-marriage-states.html

Here is the median age at first marriage for women in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. as of 2005-2009. To keep this post from being over a page long I’ll just list the Earliest 10 and Latest 10 rankings:

1. Idaho: 23.2
2. Utah: 23.3
3. Wyoming: 24.2
4. Arkansas: 24.3
5. Oklahoma: 24.4
6. Kentucky: 24.8
7. West Virginia: 25.0
8. Kansas: 25.0
9. Tennessee: 25.2
10. Texas: 25.2
11. Alaska: 25.2

(I went down to 11 as the #9, 10 and 11 all have the same numbers.)

Not surprisingly, the 3 states with the youngest median ages all have a heavy Mormon population.

On the other hand the oldest median bridal ages by state are:

1. Hawaii: 26.9
2. Vermont: 26.9
3. Illinois: 27.0
4. Pennsylvania: 27.1
5. Maryland: 27.3
6. Connecticut: 27.6
7. New Jersey: 27.7
8. Rhode Island: 28.2
9. New York: 28.4
10. Massachusetts: 28.5
11. District of Columbia: 29.7

I doubt anyone finds it surprising that women in “blue states that mostly voted for Hillary” tend to marry later in life.

BTW, one colonial/Revolutionary era mother gave this piece of wisdom that I think rings quite true even over 200 years later. Only the idea that “a Woman’s happiness depends entirely on the Husband she is united to” strikes me as somewhat anachronistic.

history.org/history/teaching/enewsletter/volume7/mar09/courtship.cfm

“It has ever been my wish to keep my Daughters single ‘till they were old enough to form a proper judgment of Mankind; well knowing that a Woman’s happiness depends entirely on the Husband she is united to; it is a step that requires more deliberation than girls generally take, or even Mothers seem to think necessary; the risk tho always great, is doubled when they marry very young; it is impossible for them to know each others disposition; for at sixteen and nineteen we think everybody perfect that we take a fancy to . . .” (Mrs. Anne Randolph to St. George Tucker, 1788.)

 

[SusanneT]

I think this is actually part of the issue with a lot of courtship models - it encourages boys and girls to think of opposite-sex relationships as automatically sexually charged. I think it’s good for boys and girls to get to know each other and have practice relating to each other as friends without having to worry about the pressure of romantic involvement.

I completely agree and I think you are right people need to relate to the opposite sex in a normal non-sexual way. BUT I think once it moves into an exclusive relationship between young people who are attracted to each other it is inevitably headed towards there being an element of sexual attraction and I do think couples need all the help that we can give to stop that leading into sin.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I completely agree and I think you are right people need to relate to the opposite sex in a normal non-sexual way. BUT I think once it moves into an exclusive relationship between young people who are attracted to each other it is inevitably headed towards there being an element of sexual attraction and I do think couples need all the help that we can give to stop that leading into sin.

So do you support the kind of courtship that never lets a couple be alone with each other, or pressures them to marry the first person they have any attraction to at all, because it’s better to marry than burn? Or shames people for breaking off courtships even for very good reasons? The ends do not justify the means, after all.

Now I realize not all courtship models are that extreme. But some really seem to assume the only way young people can avoid sexual sin is to have external, not internal, controls set upon them. But people need to have the ability to set their own boundaries, too.