Dating questions after seeing Courageous.

[punkin]

But what if your 17 year old believes differently?

If your child wants to date a super nice, honest, fun, cute peer, but they are not the same religion, what does it matter to the parent?

If your child makes it to 17 and has NOT jumped on the "Religious background is a deal breaker for my choice of a date" you're not going to change their mind.

Ahh, now we are back to parents screening boyfriends, which I am against. Ultimately it is my children's decision whom to date and marry. Hopefully, I have sufficiently indoctrinated them into my beliefs before that age.

 

[LittlePinkDot]

I think the difference being you're looking at it from an adult perspective. Kids change. What they like changes. What interest them changes. They may be religious while under their parents' roof and completely turn from their faith once outside that family home. They may not be interested much in outside activities until they meet someone who is, who introduces them to a healthy lifestyle. Why should children limit themselves to a certain group of people? Most people at 15-16 are not the people they will become as adults. I wonder how many kids ever thought about the military until 9/11 happened? Now some have made a career out of it. Events change and shape the people we will become. To me this is like saying "I'm a Democrat and I could NEVER marry a Republican." Is that really the only thing you see about that person -- their politics? To me it's just

You are so right.

Or "I'm white, I couldn't date a black person because my parents said the Bible says it is wrong"

Or, "I am gay, but my parents are against it beacause their religion tells them it is wrong" .

I am sorry. It all seems so backwards to me.

Date who you like. Gay, straight, black, white, and so on.

Make sure they are kind, loving, honest, fair, etc.

Nothing else should matter.

 

[LittlePinkDot]

Hopefully, I have sufficiently indoctrinated them into my beliefs before that age.

Hopefully they go out into this big, wonderful world and have their own beliefs.

Because indoctrinating children into dating/marrying only their "own kind" seems a bit off to me.

 

[Scurvy]

I think the difference being you're looking at it from an adult perspective. Kids change. What they like changes. What interest them changes. They may be religious while under their parents' roof and completely turn from their faith once outside that family home. They may not be interested much in outside activities until they meet someone who is, who introduces them to a healthy lifestyle. Why should children limit themselves to a certain group of people? Most people at 15-16 are not the people they will become as adults. I wonder how many kids ever thought about the military until 9/11 happened? Now some have made a career out of it. Events change and shape the people we will become. To me this is like saying "I'm a Democrat and I could NEVER marry a Republican." Is that really the only thing you see about that person -- their politics? To me it's just

Yes, kids change. But they have to choose who to date somehow, unless they are just going to say yes to everyone who asks them out, or are going to ask out everyone that they know. If their religion (or vegetarianism, or technology, or activity level, etc) is important to them at that moment, then it's logical to make their choices at that moment based on those interests. People's interests or beliefs can change throughout their lives. It's unrealistic to think that you should ignore the things that are important to you because someday you might decide they aren't important after all.

 

[punkin]

Hopefully they go out into this big, wonderful world and have their own beliefs.

Because indoctrinating children into dating/marrying only their "own kind" seems a bit off to me.

OK, don't indoctrinate your children then. Let them make their own decisions about everything. I have no objections to you raising you children your way. I will raise mine in my own way.

 

[LittlePinkDot]

OK, don't indoctrinate your children then. Let them make their own decisions about everything. I have no objections to you raising you children your way. I will raise mine in my own way.

I am glad my parents raised me to think for myself and choose to surround myself with kind, honest, loving people.

I am glad religion was never mentioned in that list above, or else Catholic Girl wouldn't be very happily married to the most amazing Jewish Boy for 23 (almost 24) years

 

[pacrosby]

I only read up to the first couple of pages but I'm confused here. People are discussing high school dating as if it's the equivalent of adult dating. Maybe it's a regional thing but I've never heard of high school kids dating like this. My experience is that the relationships are developed in school.....they meet in class, hang out at lunch, go to the library or a friend's house to hang out after school, meet at the basketball game, go to weekend parties together. By the time they've moved on to movies and dinner they are already well into the relationship.

Given my experience sitting down and chatting with Johnny once the relationship has developed to the point of him actually wanting to spend some money is worthy of alittle chat with Mom and Dad. What are you waiting for? The pregnancy announcement?

 

[FireDancer]

Sure, people can have great relationships with those of different faiths. Vegetarians can spend their lives with meat eaters, too. But if something is important to you, why should you have to find the common ground to build a life on with someone who doesn't share that with you? Excluding someone from your pool of potential dates because they don't share your religious beliefs is no different than excluding someone because they don't share your beliefs about vegetarianism. It's no different than someone who is very active and loves to run and hike (like Firedancer, for example) choosing not to date someone who is a couch potato and doesn't even want to venture outside. Sure, they might have tons of other things in common but if Firedancer wants to spend a big portion of his life outside being active, and wants his future spouse to share that with him, does it make sense for him to date and marry someone who has no interest in those activities? It seems to me he'd be far more likely to choose someone who would be out there hiking with him.

We choose the people we date based on common interests and lifestyles all the time. It doesn't matter what those interests and lifestyles are, it just matters that they are important to us. I love computers and wouldn't want to live without them. I wouldn't have dated someone whose religion forbids the use of electricity or technology, even if he was a great friend who I enjoyed going hiking with all the time. Our lifestyles would have been too different to even bother trying to find a common ground to build a life on. There's no reason we would have had to - we could have remained great friends and each found people whose lives better meshed with ours to build a marriage with. For some people, religious beliefs and traditions are comparable to that. They wouldn't want to live a life with someone who can't (or won't) share those things with them, and so they use that as one major factor in determining their compatibility with a potential date. There's nothing unreasonable about that.

I know what you are saying and I think for a long term relationship common interests (and maybe even religion and political beliefs) are important. I think were some people are differing is that every date isn't about a long term relationship, especially not in high school.

I didn't think about whether the person I was taking out would made a good spouse down the road or if we had much in common when I asked someone out in high school. I was just concerned with whether or not they were hot.

Even now I wouldn't date someone long therm that I didn't have a lot in common with (and you hit the nail on the head with the active lifestyle) but I don't go on every date hoping for or wanting something long term. Sometimes I want to go out for a little while and have some fun and move on.

Personally I don't care what anyone else's criteria is, it isn't my business. I just hope parents don't think that trying to force restrictive rules on their kid and who they date will really change much. It will often just make your (general your) kid go behind your back because they want to go out on a date with someone they know their parent's wouldn't approve of for whatever reason. I also find the notion that you are going to "weed" out bad apples a bit laughable. I went out with plenty of girls in high school I had only one intention with but I could sit there and talk to their parents all day about whatever they wanted if that is what it took to get there.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Hell, I'm confused that on a board where folks predominantly get all riled up about 6-8 year olds bein' sexualized as adults, now support high school kids gettin' engaged 'n married off before they graduate!

 

[sam_gordon]

Given my experience sitting down and chatting with Johnny once the relationship has developed to the point of him actually wanting to spend some money is worthy of alittle chat with Mom and Dad. What are you waiting for? The pregnancy announcement?

I don't think anyone's saying parents shouldn't meet and talk to the potential date, it's simply what the expectations of that conversation are.

My opinion...
Asking the kids' interests (school, sports, hobbies), OK
Asking the kids' religious feelings, NOT OK
Asking what they'd like to be when they get out of school, OK
Asking who they hope will win the election, NOT OK

The meeting/converstation should NOT be an 'application'. Hopefully parents have instilled good values in their kids, and the kids used those values in choosing someone to date.

 

[wvjules]

Hell, I'm confused that on a board where folks predominantly get all riled up about 6-8 year olds bein' sexualized as adults, now support high school kids gettin' engaged 'n married off before they graduate!

Amen!

 

[pacrosby]

My parent's weren't strict but that's because they had raised me with the values that they wanted me to have.

I hear people throw this around a lot........ "You don't need to be strict and have all sorts of rules if you raised your kids the right way." Makes me wonder. Do those of you who think this way really believe that the only kids who make bad decisions are kids whose parents didn't try to raise them right? No offense intended but, if so, you are all very naive.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

Yes, kids change. But they have to choose who to date somehow, unless they are just going to say yes to everyone who asks them out, or are going to ask out everyone that they know. If their religion (or vegetarianism, or technology, or activity level, etc) is important to them at that moment, then it's logical to make their choices at that moment based on those interests. People's interests or beliefs can change throughout their lives. It's unrealistic to think that you should ignore the things that are important to you because someday you might decide they aren't important after all.

I agree completely. "They have to choose who to date" not the parents. It has to be what is important to the child, NOT the parents necessarily. Now I'm not saying you should be happy if your child starts dating a drug dealer but to a certain degree your child needs to make the decisions. And interviewing and interrogating prospective dates for a teenager is way beyond reasonable. Not saying that pertains to you, but others have expressed their feelings and will decide who their child will and won't date.

 

[Tinkermommy]

So I am curious for those of you who think dating only within their religion (for example) if your child did bring home a date that was not your same religion, what would you do?

Or do you just tell your kids they can only date someone within your religion?

 

[Scurvy]

I know what you are saying and I think for a long term relationship common interests (and maybe even religion and political beliefs) are important. I think were some people are differing is that every date isn't about a long term relationship, especially not in high school.

I didn't think about whether the person I was taking out would made a good spouse down the road or if we had much in common when I asked someone out in high school. I was just concerned with whether or not they were hot.

Even now I wouldn't date someone long therm that I didn't have a lot in common with (and you hit the nail on the head with the active lifestyle) but I don't go on every date hoping for or wanting something long term. Sometimes I want to go out for a little while and have some fun and move on.

Thank you for understanding what I was trying to say! I was starting to feel like I wasn't wording it right at all. I agree with you - the bolded does seem to be a big part of the difference between many posters on this thread. I posted earlier that I don't think either approach to dating is better than the other. They are just different. The people who are more casual about it are not at all likely to consider whether they'd be happy spending the rest of their life with the person they are considering going out with. They are more concerned with whether they are going to enjoy that specific date with the person. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all!

The people who view dating as more of a process - you go on a date, if it goes well maybe it develops into a more serious relationship, eventually maybe you fall in love, etc - are probably less likely to go on that first date with someone they have a major difference with, just because they don't want to deal with the complication of that difference if they become more attached to the person. If you are that type of person, why progress beyond friendship with someone you already know you aren't going to be happy with longterm, if you can just stay friends with them and date someone more compatible instead? And there is nothing wrong with that approach, either. I was just trying to explain the school of thought that would lead to someone not dating a person that lacks a particular quality that is important to them, and how that choice doesn't mean you think they aren't "worth your time or love". I'm starting to feel like this is one of those issues that some people either get or they don't, which is weird because it seems totally logical to me. (Not that you have to agree with it to understand it, obviously.)

 

[pacrosby]

I don't think anyone's saying parents shouldn't meet and talk to the potential date, it's simply what the expectations of that conversation are.

My opinion...
Asking the kids' interests (school, sports, hobbies), OK
Asking the kids' religious feelings, NOT OK
Asking what they'd like to be when they get out of school, OK
Asking who they hope will win the election, NOT OK

The meeting/converstation should NOT be an 'application'. Hopefully parents have instilled good values in their kids, and the kids used those values in choosing someone to date.

Point taken and agreed. I think I was just commenting on those who keep saying 'it's just a casual date'. Like I said, maybe it's a regional thing, but my experience is that teens don't do '*************' like adults do (causal hooking up at parties, yes; ************* to the movies, no). From what I see/have seen with that age group relationships are pretty much formed already (in school) before they are going out on car dates solo. Even in college there wasn't much '*************'. I think of that as more of an adult thing.

 

[punkin]

So I am curious for those of you who think dating only within their religion (for example) if your child did bring home a date that was not your same religion, what would you do?

Or do you just tell your kids they can only date someone within your religion?

I am curious if some parents never talk to their children about values and beliefs and what's important before said child brings home an "unacceptable" date. The teen years are the worst time to try and influence your children. By that time they think you're stupid and clueless and won't listen to a word you say. However, if they have been internalizing your values from birth, hopefully the "unacceptable" date will only be a small rebellion and not a lifelong choice.

 

[Scurvy]

Hell, I'm confused that on a board where folks predominantly get all riled up about 6-8 year olds bein' sexualized as adults, now support high school kids gettin' engaged 'n married off before they graduate!

I must have missed some posts, because I didn't notice anyone supporting high school kids getting engaged or married before graduation. Yikes! That's certainly a very different thing than most posters were saying.

 

[punkin]

Thank you for understanding what I was trying to say! I was starting to feel like I wasn't wording it right at all. I agree with you - the bolded does seem to be a big part of the difference between many posters on this thread. I posted earlier that I don't think either approach to dating is better than the other. They are just different. The people who are more casual about it are not at all likely to consider whether they'd be happy spending the rest of their life with the person they are considering going out with. They are more concerned with whether they are going to enjoy that specific date with the person. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all!

The people who view dating as more of a process - you go on a date, if it goes well maybe it develops into a more serious relationship, eventually maybe you fall in love, etc - are probably less likely to go on that first date with someone they have a major difference with, just because they don't want to deal with the complication of that difference if they become more attached to the person. If you are that type of person, why progress beyond friendship with someone you already know you aren't going to be happy with longterm, if you can just stay friends with them and date someone more compatible instead? And there is nothing wrong with that approach, either. I was just trying to explain the school of thought that would lead to someone not dating a person that lacks a particular quality that is important to them, and how that choice doesn't mean you think they aren't "worth your time or love". I'm starting to feel like this is one of those issues that some people either get or they don't, which is weird because it seems totally logical to me. (Not that you have to agree with it to understand it, obviously.)

I think you've worded it beautifully. I also think you are right that some people just don't "get" the other point of view. Like every other discussion, everyone brings their own biases and histories to the table, making it difficult to understand that others with different perspectives have diametrically opposing (yet equally valid) views. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[punkin]

I must have missed some posts, because I didn't notice anyone supporting high school kids getting engaged or married before graduation. Yikes! That's certainly a very different thing than most posters were saying.

Strawman arguments are just so much easier to make fun of. That's all.