No kissing before marriage?

[dearest]

We both were of the "no kissing" crowd, but we learned that leaving certain physical affections out of the relationship was not healthy. Our hugs were long, and we were distracted by a desire to kiss often.

After we were engaged, I slipped up one day and kissed him on the head in passing.

We found that kissing the face without kissing the lips or mouth is a good line for us as well as cuddling. Physical touch is a primary love language for both, and having this ability to communicate affection keeps us both relaxed and relatively satisfied.

After IMing, and emailing for 7 years, and talking over the phone and in person for 1, the important kinds of communication have not been ignored.

We have found a line of being too passionate, however, we were quick in identifying it and now we know where it is, and what it is in us that changes.

I still look forward to being married though and taking the restrictions off.

[indignant_ink]

This is one of my 'soapbox' issues, so bear with me! I'll just share my story and try not to preach

I was sexually abused as a child, and had many 'boyfriends' in elementary and middle school - basically it just meant I spent lunch times kissing guys. God gradually changed my attitude, and I made a commitment not to kiss til my wedding day when I was 16. Looking back I do think it was based a lot on emotion (I'd had a discussion that night with an exchange student who had also made the decision not to kiss) however I have been so grateful for it over and over and over. When I lived for a year in America as a relatively naive 20 year old, I was hounded by men, and one man in particular pushed me continually to have a relationship. But because I told him straight up about my commitment, every time he pushed me I was able to give a firm answer that eventually he respected. Later, travelling around America on Greyhound (not smart as a single 20 year old female!) another man started getting physical with me and I didn't tell him of my commitment. Things got more and more heated and I ended up doing much that I now regret, though thankfully I still maintained my virginity. Intrestingly, he tried to kiss me and without even thinking I automatically turned my head and said no very firmly. It was so ingrained that I would not kiss. So several lessons to be learned - not kissing does not automatically mean you will maintain your purity, as you can do a lot without kissing. But if you are upfront about your commitment it does make it much easier to choose purity. As a side note, apparently many prostitutes refuse to kiss their clients as they see it as something special they can one day share only with their partner/husband.

Now, it's only 10 days till my wedding! Immediately after my now fiance asked me if he could court me, we made the commitment to not touch at all. 6 months later, my df spent more than 20 minutes asking me if I thought it would be ok if we started holding hands. I agreed that it would be ok. At that time I had very little, if any, sexual attraction to him, and we both thought it would be beneficial to introduce a small amount of physical touch into our relationship. It was more than 3 weeks later before we actually did hold hands! We began side hugging after we'd been courting for more than a year, and did not hug front on til a month after our engagement (we were engaged after 16 months of courting). Even then it was a very light hug where really only our arms touched. About 2 months into our 4 month engagement df kissed my forehead, and gradually this has increased in frequency - but still only my forehead, not even my cheek. We have also started giving each other shoulder and foot massages, and sometimes stroke each other's arms. We often verbally express our desire for one another, and count down the days til we can satisfy one another. The slow, gradual increase in physical intimacy has suited us both perfectly - it has kept us pure but has also enabled us to veiw sexual desire as a God-given gift that is very very good - when expressed in marriage. Our desire is so so strong now, but because we have established such strong boundaries and are so committed to them we are able to stay pure and look forward with absolutely no shame to our marriage bed. These last few weeks we have been reading these forums, reading a couple of christian sex books, listening to tapes etc. We can very openly and frankly discuss sex, and we've discussed our expectations for our first night and honeymoon and started buying a few things. I began packing 3 days ago, and I'm a little shocked that my suitcase is 3/4 full - and I only have one set of proper clothes in there so far!

We're both a little nervous about our first kiss - it will be my first kiss in over 10 years, and my df's first kiss ever! We've been 'practicing' - moving into position, but still keeping our mouths more about 15cm away from each other. We want our first kiss to be spectacular (at least visually for the guests - if it's not spectacular for us we've got our whole lives to practice!) and we are so thrilled that our first kiss will be immortalised in photos and witnessed by so many. Most of my family and some of our friends think we are very strange, but we also have many friends (especially older married couples) who are so excited for us and wish they had made the same choice. Even my own father (who is currently on his 4th wife) has told me that he wished he had made the choices I have made when he was young. We are not perfect, and I also know several couples who have stayed pure while choosing to kiss, but I would not change a thing about our physical relationship. I am so grateful God took my emotionally made commitment and used it to bless us.

Perhaps I'll update this after we're married and let you know how it goes ... if I find the time

[My King's Queen]

I've read this whole thread over the course of a couple of days. I noticed a couple of mis-conceptions about the Duggar family that I didn't see pointed out yet, so I thought I'd contribute.

The misconceptions that stood out to me were these: That Josh and Anna's marriage was arranged by their parents. This isn't true. The two families met at some kind of conference (Maybe a homeschool conference? - not sure about that). Josh and Anna met there, and gradually over the course of a few years, they got to know each other. Josh was the one who proposed to her, and she accepted. Her father had given Josh his blessing to propose.

Another poster seemed to indicate an assumption that the no-kissing rule had been foisted on Josh and Anna. This is not true, either. In numerous interviews throughout the course of the show, the children have all indicated that the courtship model, the no-kissing, and other ideas about finding a life mate, have not been forced on them. The parents shared their thoughts about what would be a good path to follow, but they let their children follow the path they choose.

Someone else indicated that they thought that the relationship between Josh and Anna was an immature one. I had never seen it that way. Innocent, yes, but not immature. I'm not sure if this poster thought the relationship was immature because of the limited physical contact, but there are plenty of immature relationships that include kissing (and more) out there.

My mother is outright offended by the Duggar family. I always get a chuckle out of that. She has never met them, probably never will, but she can't stand the thought that someone would dare to have more than two or three children. (We have five.) She has been drawn into the thought in our culture that children are a burden, and a drain on a couple. While they do change our relationship, require tons of energy (If you are going to make an effort at growing up godly adults), deplete your sleep, and can break your hearts - the Bible is right when it refers to children as a blessing, a reward from the Lord.

I got a chance to meet the Duggars a couple of years ago at a homeschool conference I attended. I've listened to all the talks they gave at the conference just this last week. Michelle Duggar looks like a perfect person on the TV show, but she is really one of the most down-to-earth mommas I've seen. Their family has experienced crises, her house does get messy, they do not eat all organic 'perfect' food, their children fuss with each other, they are just a typical family in every way except the number of people in the family.

As to the OP original question about whether or not it is a good idea to have this no-kissing policy before marriage - I would have to agree with those who have said, it's something that needs to be decided by each couple. After all, they are the ones who live with the decision, so they should be the ones discerning whether the Lord would have them wait until marriage for kissing. My husband and I did not wait for kissing until marriage. While we were both virgins when we married, I didn't wait for anything but intercourse for marriage. This caused a lot of shame for me. I sometimes still struggle with that guilt - and I started dating my husband 24 years ago!

We are encouraging our children to save their first kiss for marriage. They seem to be on board with this. We are also encouraging them not to date, but to wait on the Lord and follow some kind of courtship model in their path to marriage. They are on board with this as well. We are praying for pure hearts, pure minds, and pure bodies for our children to bring to their marriages. With the Lord's guidance, they will achieve that goal.

I guess I kind of got off of the topic of the Duggars. I hope I contributed something good to the conversation.

[MayDayGirl]

The misconceptions that stood out to me were these: That Josh and Anna's marriage was arranged by their parents. This isn't true. The two families met at some kind of conference (Maybe a homeschool conference? - not sure about that). Josh and Anna met there, and gradually over the course of a few years, they got to know each other. Josh was the one who proposed to her, and she accepted. Her father had given Josh his blessing to propose.

Someone else indicated that they thought that the relationship between Josh and Anna was an immature one. I had never seen it that way. Innocent, yes, but not immature. I'm not sure if this poster thought the relationship was immature because of the limited physical contact, but there are plenty of immature relationships that include kissing (and more) out there.

I may have been the one who thought their relationship was immature.......maybe not the right word. Since she's from Florida and he's from Arkansas (or is it Oklahoma), I don't know how they got to know each other - it had to have been long distance. There was never an implication that they were dating or doing anything together. That's why it seemed 'arranged.' If nothing else, they probably both saw that their families were similar in many ways, and they believed that this meant that they were a good match. I have no doubt they will stay together; they are both so tied to their families that if anything went wrong, they'd have a lot of support and divorce would be totally out of the question. I'm not saying that's a bad thing!

I did watch the episode where he proposed and it was one of the oddest things I've ever seen on TV! They were clearly uncomfortable with each other and she didn't have what I'd call a 'normal' reaction to being proposed to. It appeared to be a stranger asking another stranger to get married. Well, strangers who have met once or twice......

[My King's Queen]

If anyone is interested, the story of how Josh and Anna got together is on their website: http://www.ja20.com/ourstory.html

They did get to know each other surrounded by their families, and long distance. It's so funny to me - your comments about how you saw their reaction to getting engaged were the opposite of what I thought. I was thinking - how sweet - he is self-conscious about being filmed, and she's feeling shy because they are in public. My oldest daughter, when she is extremely thrilled about something, gets extremely quiet. She kind of wants to enjoy the feeling privately at first, I think. This may just be a personality thing for her and Anna, both.

I don't know why I feel like I should speak up for the Duggars, but I hate to see folks mis-understand their family, faith, lifestyle, etc. They are open to this mis-understanding because they are on TV so much, but they feel the bad is worth it to be able to share their faith so regularly with so many people. It's very easy for fans (me included) to put them on some kind of pedestal and think, "Wow, they are PERFECT! I want to be just like them!" They aren't perfect, or, for that matter, any better than anyone else. While I want to emulate some of the things I see in them - like Michelle's working to gain the habit of LOWERING her voice when she is beginning to feel angry, instead of RAISING her voice (like she used to, and like I do too often!) - I don't think that everything they do is for me or my family. God's plan for them is different than His plan for my family.

BTW - there was someone else who indicated they thought that the Duggars do the TV show simply for the money they can make doing it. Well, I'm sure they get paid to do the show, however, it is not something that they sought out. An AP picture of them going to a polling place on election day was seen by some other people in the media - a magazine, I think. They sought out the Duggars. It eventually snowballed into them having a TV show. There are a few foreign governments who have done lengthy media stories on them to encourage their own people to have more children, because their populations are declining so rapidly. In every case, the Duggars let the people know that they want to have their faith included in whatever story is done on them, because it is such an integral part of their life. The Lord is using them to spread the gospel, as well as the idea that children are a treasure to be sought, and not a curse to be avoided. I'm thankful for that.

I'm realizing as I finish this that I'm tired, and so I hope my words are coming across the way I'm thinking them - I'm not trying to be snarky with anyone, and I hope it doesn't sound like I am!

[blushingwife]

It is just a price one has to be willing to pay when one welcomes tv cameras in their house: each person that watches your life will have their own personal perception of what they see, and whatever you do will be judged, for good or bad.

I don't see why worry so much about whether people understand or misunderstand them.
If people in reality shows worry about people think, they should have known better before joining one in the first place.

[MayDayGirl]

Not snarky at all, MKQ. I appreciate your viewpoint.

While I agree with that it's a good thing to share the Gospel, I fear that the Duggar's extreme lifestyle choices are going to turn more people off to Christianity than bring anyone into it. JMO.

[jokerman]

BTW - there was someone else who indicated they thought that the Duggars do the TV show simply for the money they can make doing it. Well, I'm sure they get paid to do the show, however, it is not something that they sought out. An AP picture of them going to a polling place on election day was seen by some other people in the media - a magazine, I think. They sought out the Duggars. It eventually snowballed into them having a TV show.

I was probably the one who first mentioned the TV money, and I'm pretty sure I did not say they do it "just for the money." The Duggars seem like very principled people, and I have no doubt that the TV show was someone else's idea.

That being said, I felt I needed to point out that the money is not some token amount. It's huge. So huge, in fact, that several of the episodes have shown the construction of a massive new house, which I assume is easy to afford now that they are on TV. Their lifestyle is artificially comfortable because they are on TV; there are fewer struggles, and more opportunities, because of the TV money. The show gives a very false idea of what it would be like to feed and clothe 20+ people.

The other reality shows (Jon and Kate, and the show about the small people) have the same problem. You have several episodes that are about exotic vacations and glorious home renovations, and you immediately realize the show itself is funding these things. These are not documentaries of real families, but are instead bankrolled fantasies starring actual families.

[InGodsGrace]

Idk, but somethng about the Duggars just creeps me out. I have not watched the series they have now, but have occasonally watched the specials they have had on them, like when they built there house. I just don't think it's very fair that the older kids are expected to help take care of the younger kids. I'm not saying they shouldn't help AT ALL, but I just don't like how they are EXPECTED to ya know? I just feel sorry for the kids. It's great that they are a close family with morals and love, but just not sure how just 2 parents could have a close connection with all of them. Maybe they do, I don't know them, but it seems to be a stretch.

As far as the not kissing before marriage, I think it's an awesome accomplishment if the couple are both for it, and I admire that kind of selfcontrol

I had to see if I wrote this post lol. I have the SAME thoughts. i wonder if the younger kids even know the mom and dad, but know their "buddy" VERY well.
the kids know them to be mom and dad, but do they REALLY know them?

To me, what's the point of having lots of children, if you can't give them the attention and love they can only get from mom and dad? And who will Josie be pawned off to when she goes home and is weaned? A preemie needs special attention, I think that's a lot to ask of a buddy, who is not their mom or dad.

[My King's Queen]

Well, I guess we are highjacking this thread, and I'm sorry to the OP.

Jokerman, it wasn't your post I was thinking of. I had to go back and look it up. "$$$Cash-Money$$$ " Was what I was remembering from the post in answer to a question from you. The home they built they started on long before the shows started. The early seasons show them working on building the home, and shared how it took them about 3 years to build, I believe. This is because of their commitment to avoid all debt. They did most of the work themselves, and eventually hired some people to help them finish. The home is actually built from a steel frame home kit. Well, I think it was two kits that they put together. They paid cash for them as they purchased them. The shows of the early seasons are very clear on what things they had before the shows started. I believe that TLC hired a designer to help them finish off the house, and this is spelled out in the show. They also showed one of their shopping trips to goodwill to clothe the family. They go once or twice a year. I'm sure they do benefit financially from the show. I'm sure they use it to help them pay for the things they buy. However, they are good stewards with what they have, and they don't take any of it for granted. They didn't by a $1+ million home, they don't take exotic vacations, they don't buy new (almost) anything. I think if a family of 4 lived the same lifestyle, we wouldn't think anything of it.

Have you ever heard their testimony of how their financial life has gone in their marriage? You might be surprised to hear that they were doing just fine feeding and caring for their 14 children before the shows started. (I'm pretty sure the first show was titled "14 kids and Pregnant again!")

As far as whether or not they are able to give each child enough individual attention - I would imagine every good parent wishes they could give more of themselves to their children. The thing is, what would be the 'right' number of children to have, to make sure that they all get 'enough' individual attention? Would the cutoff be at 4, 8, 10 children? Why? I don't think any of the older children feel that they have younger ones 'pawned off' on them, at least that's not anything I've seen from them - even in person the one weekend I got to meet them. This is a life that this family has chosen, and the Lord has blessed them in that life. It's not a life that many people are called to. It's not a life that the Lord expects me to live, as He gave us only 5 children (so far) in our 20 years of marriage. I do think you can look at the fruit to know the tree, and so far, the children are bearing good fruit.

I think it's dangerous to assume what will happen with Josie. I would guess that Josie will have a different first few years because she is a premie. Michelle has said that her focus for this year has changed - that she will be focussing on getting Josie through the first tough year of life. I think this shows a mom who understands what is happening with her baby, and is willing to do what is necessary to see her baby through.

I mean, I get it that it's hard for anyone who doesn't have a 'super sized' family to understand how that could be a good experience, just because we can't imagine having more to deal with than we have now. I just know that the Lord gave me enough grace to love and care for one child after we had our firstborn, until I had two - then He gave me grace for two. And I didn't get enough grace to mother three children until He gave us the third child. It has gone on like that as our family has grown in numbers and in age. I now have grace for 5 children. I don't think I'm near perfect, not even as good at it as I could be, but our family is generally happy, and we are learning to live at peace with each other. I believe this is because of the Lord's blessing, not how good a mother I am, and I think it's the same thing for the Duggars. They have been faithful with what He has given them, and He has blessed them immensely - in more ways than one!

[InGodsGrace]

Well, I guess we are highjacking this thread, and I'm sorry to the OP.

Jokerman, it wasn't your post I was thinking of. I had to go back and look it up. "$$$Cash-Money$$$ " Was what I was remembering from the post in answer to a question from you. The home they built they started on long before the shows started. The early seasons show them working on building the home, and shared how it took them about 3 years to build, I believe. This is because of their commitment to avoid all debt. They did most of the work themselves, and eventually hired some people to help them finish. The home is actually built from a steel frame home kit. Well, I think it was two kits that they put together. They paid cash for them as they purchased them. The shows of the early seasons are very clear on what things they had before the shows started. I believe that TLC hired a designer to help them finish off the house, and this is spelled out in the show. They also showed one of their shopping trips to goodwill to clothe the family. They go once or twice a year. I'm sure they do benefit financially from the show. I'm sure they use it to help them pay for the things they buy. However, they are good stewards with what they have, and they don't take any of it for granted. They didn't by a $1+ million home, they don't take exotic vacations, they don't buy new (almost) anything. I think if a family of 4 lived the same lifestyle, we wouldn't think anything of it.

Have you ever heard their testimony of how their financial life has gone in their marriage? You might be surprised to hear that they were doing just fine feeding and caring for their 14 children before the shows started. (I'm pretty sure the first show was titled "14 kids and Pregnant again!")

As far as whether or not they are able to give each child enough individual attention - I would imagine every good parent wishes they could give more of themselves to their children. The thing is, what would be the 'right' number of children to have, to make sure that they all get 'enough' individual attention? Would the cutoff be at 4, 8, 10 children? Why? I don't think any of the older children feel that they have younger ones 'pawned off' on them, at least that's not anything I've seen from them - even in person the one weekend I got to meet them. This is a life that this family has chosen, and the Lord has blessed them in that life. It's not a life that many people are called to. It's not a life that the Lord expects me to live, as He gave us only 5 children (so far) in our 20 years of marriage. I do think you can look at the fruit to know the tree, and so far, the children are bearing good fruit.

I think it's dangerous to assume what will happen with Josie. I would guess that Josie will have a different first few years because she is a premie. Michelle has said that her focus for this year has changed - that she will be focussing on getting Josie through the first tough year of life. I think this shows a mom who understands what is happening with her baby, and is willing to do what is necessary to see her baby through.

I mean, I get it that it's hard for anyone who doesn't have a 'super sized' family to understand how that could be a good experience, just because we can't imagine having more to deal with than we have now. I just know that the Lord gave me enough grace to love and care for one child after we had our firstborn, until I had two - then He gave me grace for two. And I didn't get enough grace to mother three children until He gave us the third child. It has gone on like that as our family has grown in numbers and in age. I now have grace for 5 children. I don't think I'm near perfect, not even as good at it as I could be, but our family is generally happy, and we are learning to live at peace with each other. I believe this is because of the Lord's blessing, not how good a mother I am, and I think it's the same thing for the Duggars. They have been faithful with what He has given them, and He has blessed them immensely - in more ways than one!

The older kids do not know it's not normal to "parent" the younger children. That's the problem. They are being raised to believe it's normal to have 19 kids and to let your older children parent them.

I say the cut off is, when you can no longer parent your old child individually. if you can't spend quality time w/each child everyday, you have too many. IMO of course.

[blushingwife]

What quality time means for you is different from what it means for another family.
Also "how much" of such quality time is enough is something one can't measure.

Some people can't give their 1 child the quality time they need because they are too absorbed in their own interests in hobbies. Yet, people probably assume that child has their parent's undivided attention all the time.
Whereas when people see moms of many like myself, they assume the kids just get thrown into a pile where therr individual personalities don't matter (I was told that to my face).

So I think it is a faulty logic to use, that the number of kids has anything to do with that. W
here there is a will - and a parent's love - there is a way

[My King's Queen]

Idk, but somethng about the Duggars just creeps me out. I have not watched the series they have now, but have occasonally watched the specials they have had on them, like when they built there house. I just don't think it's very fair that the older kids are expected to help take care of the younger kids.

I understand, but I think it is just a cultural reaction. God made many of us capable of producing families that large, and if a couple has the gifts to show that much love and the means to support them (and this family appears to have both), then I can't see the problem.

As for the older children being expected to help take care of the younger ones -- that's probably more common than you realize. It is a form of discipling. The notion that childhood carries on through the teen years was a 20th Century invention, and the last part of that century extended it to age 30 in many ways. It's not natural. For all of history before that, children were gradually treated as adults and given adult responsibilities, under the guidance of an adult, from the age of 12 or 13. In many rural communities, that is still how it is done. It's very rewarding to see a teenager's energy and creativity put to good use in that kind of setting. It's good for them, too. They don't get hobbled with a generational identity; that is, they feel accepted and a part of all of society, and are comfortable with people of any age.

I think it's hard for anyone to think that just because someone is living differently from us, it doesn't mean that it's not 'normal'. As someone with a somewhat larger family, I was surprised to find out how wonderful it is to see my children interact with each other, love each other, and watch out for each other.

[GrowingDaily]

You could ask any of my 8 children and they'd tell you they LOVE being part of a big family. They love always having someone to play with or talk to, and homeschooling by nature means that I interact individually with each one daily. I think ppl ought to live and let live.

[Job29Man]

The older kids do not know it's not normal to "parent" the younger children. That's the problem. They are being raised to believe it's normal to have 19 kids and to let your older children parent them.

I say the cut off is, when you can no longer parent your old child individually. if you can't spend quality time w/each child everyday, you have too many. IMO of course.

"Normal" is a relative concept. What is "normal" in a small family may seem "odd" to a large family, and vice versa. And we should remember that all large families start off as small families, and they finish off as small families. It's like a bell curve.

The story of humanity begins about 10,000 years ago (ish) and for the first 9,950 years of that time the "normal" thing has been to have "large" families (higher mortality rates notwithstanding) whose children do serious work and are contributing economically to the prosperity of the family. They did this by doing all manner of "adult" work (including childcare) when they get older, and by doing simpler tasks when they are younger. But work has always been a mainstay of the life of children until the most recent one percent of history.

It's kind of funny to me when I see modern people/societies pronouncing a standard of normal which embraces only the practices of the most recent one half of one percent of humanity, and rejects the traditions of the first 99.5%.

From necessity today's "larger" families have rather stayed with that "children work" tradition to some extent. To be sure there are plenty of smaller families who also put their children to productive work, but the opportunities for olders to help with the nurture of youngers is much greater in large families. We large families tend to see this as "normal." It is not a substitution for the love and affection, and attention that parents should show to their children. In my experience I see large and small families whose parents give plenty of attention to the youngers, and some large and small families who do not. Each family should be considered as it's own unique case.

(Caveat: To those who'd say "Yeah, but it's good to reject the slavery and tyrannies of the first 99% of time... etc, etc" Yes I get it. I'm not saying that everything new is bad and everything old is good. Thank you.)