I probably would want to intervene if I felt that drugs were destroying my (hypothetical) wife, not just because she's my wife and I love her, but also because I'm sure her family wouldn't want that. Sometimes you have to intervene if you think your partner is doing something dangerous.
Just a nitpicky point, if she's your wife, you're her family. But in the case of something like drugs, there is only so much you can do. The hypothetical wife has to choose herself to get off drugs. It's not something you or anyone else could make her do. You hear of so many instances where someone does choose drugs over their family.
Sorry 'bout that. Don't know how I missed something that obvious. But that's the sad truth of it, only that person can really decide and commit to changing him/herself, no matter how many members of his/her family tell them the addiction is killing them.
I think that a Marriage is a more convincing promise that you're not going to leave each other. Especially if you're religious and therefore making that promise to God too. Admittedly it's a promise plenty of people break, but it does mean people aren't going to take the decision quite so lightly. I think it's important that people get what assurances they can if they're thinking about taking the responsibility of having kids. It isn't fair on the kids if one partner says "actually this is tougher than I thought. I'm bailing"
I support marriage fully and totally. Will I ever get married? Probably not. I have no urge to date, never really have. So, unless something drastically changes marriage probably isn't in my future. Now, a big distinction in my support of marriage is that I do not view it as a goal in life. The idiocy of "everyone has a special someone" is second only in my list of things I despise to the "perfect family" idealogy. Both are one-size-fits-all, don't take risk mentalities. Thankfully, New Jersey is now allowing gay marriage, so it may possibly happen that I'll get married in my lifetime. By the way, I still believe in being a virgin before marriage (something that pisses off quite a lot of kids my age). Take all of this with a grain of salt though. My parents have been married for 20 years or something like that, and they're still happily married so that is a big influence. I haven't dated because there are no other openly gay kids in my school. So some people may consider my opinion on marriage essentially moot since I haven't even dated yet
The whole thing feels just this side of an arranged marriage. The only part that's different here is that the girl gets to pick the guy, with parental veto power in place, I'm sure. Honestly, I didn't even know about this Dugger Courtship thing until just now going through this thread and upon looking it up I was given the shivers. You're right, Liz, it's a whole set of events meant to obligatorily culminate in a marriage, else nothing at all is allowed to take place. A great deal for the guy who's looking for utter and complete compliance in a wife. To quote Michelle Dugger: “Anyone can fix him lunch, but only one person can meet that physical need of love,” Michelle explains. “You always need to be available when he calls.” When he calls? My personal opinion that I have a right to express just like everyone else is that that's horrifying.
You have no idea. The Duggars are a pet peeve of mine -- they are very dangerous propagandists, and are heavily involved in political causes. The oldest son works for a political organization that's been determined by the SPLC to be an anti-gay hate group. Their lives revolve around anti-gay and anti-abortion legislation. The poor kids are never allowed to be alone. If they go anywhere, they need an "accountability partner." They're not in school, they're not allowed to mingle with anyone unlike themselves, and their internet access is restricted. Their father needs to approve anyone who wants to "court" them -- the father indicated in a people magazine article that he'd rejected several men the one daughter who was most recently married had wanted to court. They really want nothing less than a Christian theocracy in the U.S., but they're dangerous because they have A LOT of fans, due to their show, and their views are totally whitewashed. I find them very disturbing.
I can't help but think you have a very limited view on love, especially with your talk on compromises, etc. It's about growth and acceptance not holding someone back.
I could consider that for the sake of argument in a marriage without minor children. I don't know if I agree or disagree. Parenting, however, is about being there while someone else grows. If I had children with someone, I absolutely would demand that that someone refrain from taking substantial optional risks until, at a minimum, the youngest child turns eighteen. Sure, you can still die; anybody can die any time. But you can make the effort to minimize the odds.
I don't understand the above sentence. I've never heard of the Duggars but from your post, they sound scary.
When I say compromise, I mean that you can't always have everything you want, get everything you want, do everything you want when you are responsible for someone else. Relationships are at its core about sacrifices - the right relationship should mean both parties are willing and happy to sacrifice for one another in order to that the other person might grow. It's not holding someone back. To give a practical example - my husband's Czech and I'm British, so needless to say we have families in different countries. He wants to be near his family, and I want to be near mine. What happens then? One of us has to sacrifice - both partners can't get what they want. One of us is gonna have to travel, and our children is going to end up being more immersed in one culture over and above another based on which country we end up in. Whether our children come to know and love our home is another matter that's dear to both of our hearts. So what happens? I guess compromise is the wrong word - perhaps sacrifice is the better word. Because one of us is going to miss out on some aspects of our family, and our kids are gonna end up knowing one culture a bit better than the other. There's not really a win-win situation here unless your priority is actually each other's happiness, and not only your own. Because if I consider it that "I win" (so to speak) when my husband's happy, I'd heavily and carefully consider staying in Prague (where I live now). And if for my husband, "he wins" when I'm happy, he would also carefully consider moving to England for my sake. When you have a partner, sometimes you have to give up what you love - things you wouldn't normally have to give up. Because when you're in a relationship, it's not about you anymore. It's about him (or her). And I find that is probably the healthiest state to be in, when you put the needs and desires of your spouse above your own - and your spouse puts your needs and your desires above his own. I dunno whether my view of love is limited - I believe in the definition in the Bible, where it says, "4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails." Ultimately, that's what I believe love to be. So far I've been married 3 years and dated him for another 3 before that. It's still going well and he's still happy. So whatever my views, I think it can't be too bad. Something's working. However, I totally agree with you - it's about acceptance and growth. You need to accept that your partner may not always do things the way you like, and may want to go places where you might not always be able to follow. (however, to some extent, your partner must be able to follow if you wish to actually stay together - here would be another point for that dreaded word, compromise For example, if travelling is important to you but your partner doesn't wanna go anywhere, you need to consider if giving up travelling for her sake is an option, and she needs to consider if travelling even though she doesn't wanna, for your sake, is an option for her. Maybe it ends up you travelling 3 times a year instead of the desired 5 - that would be a compromise. Maybe it ends up you travelling to places that she's also interested in - that would be a compromise. Maybe you give up travelling. Maybe she decides to fly with you wherever you go. Both would be sacrifices. And I believe it is up to the couple to decide what works for them. But where travelling is too important to one and NOT travelling is too important to the other - well, then in my opinion they're probably not suitable for each other and might be better off splitting up! I think perhaps you got me wrong when I said compromise - I do not mean your partner should compromise for you (though a good partner should), but rather that you should compromise for your partner. I didn't mean that you should hold your partner back - but that you should hold yourself back for the sake of the other, and hopefully when this is mutual, it results in something quite lovely. Where it is not mutual (eg. you're always the one compromising and holding back), then that is an unhealthy relationship and that person isn't for you, in my opinion. I think you should simply be clear about what is important to you, and what isn't. It's also about the personal balance between two people. Personally, whatever my view, if two people are perfectly happy with each other doing whatever they do in their relationship - well, it works for them, horray! It doesn't matter what I think. It only matters if it works for that couple. So perhaps my harping on about compromise is simplifying things a little too much. I don't mean you should compromise on all aspects, nor do I believe you should be the only one to compromise. But I simply mean that in every healthy, working relationship, sacrifices and compromises are an intergral part of it because we're simply different people with different flaws, and hold different things dear to our hearts. To pay proper respect and sensitivity to all of that, it simply can't work without sacrifices. But I do not believe it should be one-sided. Nor do I believe in giving it up just because your partner says so. You must consider 1. how important it is for you, 2. how important it is for him, 3. why your partner's saying it, 4. why you may or may not compromise/sacrifice in this particular aspect. For example, if my husband asked me to stop hanging out with every guy friend I have because he's jealous for no reason, I'd say no, get over it. I might try to help the situation by letting him know who I'm hanging out with, or perhaps bringing him along. But I'd keep my friends. Those would be my way of trying to soothe the situation, but since the request is unreasonable and based on nothing, I wouldn't follow. But if my husband asked me to stop hanging out with a particular guy because he feels that guy fancies me - now that's a good reason. You're naturally gonna be a bit jealous and apprehensive about someone else eyeing up your wife. In that situation I'd definitely bring my husband along whenever I do meet the person or, if we're only new acquaintances, stop contact altogether. Usually in these situations, my husband would tend to drop in the fact that he has a wife, for example (it actually happens far more often that there're girls eyeing him up - he's way better looking than me hahaha). Usually he just lets it be known that he's married, and if that doesn't work, he tends to naturally avoid the woman lol, or if invited to something he feels he can't refuse, he'd bring me along. It is appropriate, what he does, but I see even that as a compromise for him. Why should he tell me these things? Why should he say no to a lunch date with a hot woman when he clearly doesn't have any interest in her anyway? It's not like he would be doing anything wrong. Why should he cut short a potentially good friendship? I don't ask this of him, but he does it, for my sake. Or to give another example of compromise - he always visits his little brother every Friday, and he usually comes home at about midnight. But last Fri, he came home early at 10pm, because we had a fight earlier that week and I was still feeling a bit sensitive. For my sake, he decided to come home 2 hours earlier than normal, so he has a bit more time with me. That's compromise, in my book. He could've stayed till midnight - he could have stayed past midnight. But he doesn't, for my sake. So, like, use your judgement I really don't mean you should just give up whatever your partners asks you to!
They're this family in the US South that has a reality television show. The family has 19 kids, because they believe in having as many children as god gives them, and are part of this religious movement called "Quiverfull." They homeschool the kids and basically, kids don't leave home until they marry. Women are basically for marrying and having babies. The father has to approve any man who wants to court or marry his daughter. So, courting, which would be the closest thing to dating, cannot even occur unless the father gives his approval to the man. This family has been in a bunch of magazines, and there was one article about them a while back about one of the daughters who was newly courting. The father said something along the lines of "this was the first man she was interested in who seemed godly enough," implying that there were others who had previously sought to court this girl, and who she was interested in courting but Daddy said no, probably because he wasn't enough on their same page as far as life and world outlook. This daughter has since married the guy she was courting (an 18 year old with no job skills and no education -- well, now he's 19, actually.)
Thanks for the explanation. Aha Duggars is another term for Quiverfull? Yes, I've heard of them. These Christian fundamentalists in the US scare me...
The bright side is that there's no doubt in my mind that at least some of the Stepford Duggar wives, at some point a few years into their lives as brood mares, will shake themselves awake and say, "WTF?" and tell Daddy (both of them) where to get off.
They scare me, too. "Duggars" isn't so much another term for "Quiverfull," they're just the most famous adherents -- Jim Bob (yes, Jim Bob) and Michelle Duggar. I can only hope so. There's got to be at least one who's gay, so God help him or her.
FYI, I'm not really sure most of your examples here fit the definition of compromise More like being conscientious
Yeah, Duggar is the surname for the Quiverfull family that has gotten all the media spotlight and such. I've actually been reading numerous articles since discovering this term "Quiverfull" about children leaving the "the life". From a timeline perspective Quiverfull families are only just now in their second generation since the beginning of this movement and many are leaving for the expected reasons. A life of being little more than a broodmare and a housekeeper is unthinkable. If I discovered that a child in this system had to resort to violence in order to get out, I would be hard pressed to convict them of any crime.
Well then, I guess we've been using different words to express the same concept I see such compromises as the result of being conscientious Glad we understand each other now! How did you understand "compromise", out of interest?
Funny how you should mention that. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/31/oklahoma-christian-man-arrested-in-near-beheading-/
Here are some thoughts on marriage, just to add to the discussion “As I see it, out of a hundred marriages ninety-nine marriages are just licensed prostitution. They are not marriages. A marriage is only a real marriage when it grows out of love. Legal, illegal, does not matter. The real thing that matters is love. “If love exists between two persons, it is blessed. If love does not exist between two persons, then all your laws put together cannot bridge them. Then they exist separate, then they exist apart, then they exist in conflict, then they exist always in war. And they create all kinds of trouble for each other. They are nasty to each other, nagging to each other, possessive of each other, violent, oppressive, dominating, dictatorial.” Osho, Zen: The Path of Paradox, Vol. 2, Talk #8 ------------ “Marriage is a way to avoid intimacy. It is a trick to create a formal relationship. Intimacy is informal. If a marriage arises out of intimacy it is beautiful but if you are hoping that intimacy will arise out of marriage, you are hoping in vain. Of course, I know that many people, millions of people, have settled for marriage rather than for intimacy – because intimacy is growth and it is painful. “Marriage is very secure. It is safe. There is no growth in it. One is simply stuck. Marriage is a sexual arrangement; intimacy is a search for love. Marriage is a sort of prostitution, a permanent sort. One has got married to a woman or to a man – it is a permanent prostitution. The arrangement is economical, not psychological, not of the heart. “So remember, if marriage arises out of intimacy then it is beautiful. That means that everybody should have lived together before they get married. The honeymoon should not happen after marriage, it should happen before marriage. One should have lived the dark nights, the beautiful days, the sad moments, the happy moments, together. One should have looked into each other’s eyes deeply, into each other’s being.” Osho, Tao: The Pathless Path, Vol. 2, Talk #4 ------------ “Once two persons are tied together freedom is lost and anger arises. When freedom is lost everything becomes ugly. Love means that freedom remains intact: marriage means that freedom has been dropped. You have bargained for permanence, for security, and you have paid for it with freedom. “Marriage is going to disappear, should disappear. And now the point is coming in the history of humanity where it becomes possible that marriage can disappear. It is already an outmoded phenomenon, it has lived too long and it has created nothing but misery. Marriage should disappear and love should flower again. One should live with insecurity and freedom. That I call intelligence.” Osho, Tao: The Pathless Path, Vol. 2, Talk #2 ------------ "We have forced everyone to go into marriage because of love. Because you cannot love outside it, so we have unnecessarily forced love and marriage to be together – unnecessarily. Marriage is for deeper things – even more deep: for intimacy, for a “co-inherence,” to work on something which cannot be done alone, which can be done together, which needs a togetherness, a deep togetherness. Because of this love-starved society, we fall into marriage out of romantic love. “Love can never really be a great base for marriage because love is fun and play. If you marry someone for love you will be frustrated, because soon the fun is gone, the newness is gone, and boredom sets in. Marriage is for deep friendship, deep intimacy. Love is implied in it, but it is not alone. So marriage is spiritual. It is spiritual. There are many things which you can never develop alone. Even your own growth needs someone to respond, someone so intimate that you can open yourself totally to him or her.” Osho, The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol. 1, Talk #6
