When does courting begin?

[Kitty]

So, I've been wondering about dating, relationships, marriage, and age. Like, a lot of people my age are getting married (I graduated high school in 2010. wtf.). I live in conservative, rural North Carolina, so yeah, it's kind of easy to see why everyone seems to be in a rush. But courtship is likely unheard of here, and I can't find any info on any other part of the interwebs, so...

What age does courting start? I assumed that it started early, like 17, but from what I've seen on FJ it seems like it's around 19 or 20, later than I expected. :?

[maybeizfundie]

Depends on the family. The Maxwell's are noted for having "elderly" unmarried (and non-courting) kids.

The range I know personally goes from 16 (yes really) into the 30's, so a pretty big variance.

[bananacat]

A lot fundies plan to start courtships very early, around 16 or so. But when their kids actually reach that age, it usually don't work out as smoothly as they planned, because most 16 year-olds just aren't ready to be parents (which is the purpose of courtship and marriage). The boys need to have a steady career for any young virtuous maiden's father to consider him, and the girls are often needed at home to care for younger siblings. So it does seem that 19-20 is a common age of courtship. For all their talk about having as many arrows as possible, they are still willing to do the reasonable thing and miss out on those 2-3 potential kids that could be born to teenagers. There are rumors that Josh Duggar was courting/engaged/betrothed/whatever when he was a teenager though. If it's true then it didn't work out, which could be why all his siblings are waiting so long.

[tabitha2]

I don't see that.The majority of families we talk about have children almost 30 with no sign of prospects-the Staddons,Maxwells,Servens,Wissmans are notable.

[PBrooke]

Not to mention the most painfully obvious one - the Botkins. Those girls aren't near 30 yet, but when you've been talking about getting married since you were 17... well, it's been a long time.

I know of a few couples who got married just after high school, but the vast majority of the people I know got married between, say, 23 and 28. (EDIT: Non-fundies, that is, from a suburban/urban area).

[xDreamerx]

I can see the 16 thing, historically. I mean, isn't that why it's called "Sweet Sixteen" because in the 19th century that was considered the beginning of marriageable age? I could be wrong but that's what I thought. Upper class girls usually waited longer but in agricultural societies and in families that weren't as well off, it was considered better to marry so that your father wouldn't have to continue to provide for you. It's easy to see why that model might have been favored in that society, but in the 21st century it seems insane. Though, perhaps among poorer QF families it seems viable? I'm just guessing.

Waiting until you're into your 20s seems better, but a lot of these girls seem to be waiting a lot longer. I think it has more to do with controlling fathers than anything else. I don't find it so unusual, I mean I don't expect to get married until my 30s (if I choose to) and people in general are deferring marriage until later in life. However, most people have the opportunity to get an education and a career in that space of time. These girls are literally just sitting around waiting. They might have some hobbies to fill their time but that's about it. It must be awfully depressing. Even Victorian women who were single were allowed to become teachers and nurses. They were allowed some occupation. But these girls...they're prisoners. It's very sad.

[Kitty]

I can see the 16 thing, historically. I mean, isn't that why it's called "Sweet Sixteen" because in the 19th century that was considered the beginning of marriageable age? I could be wrong but that's what I thought. Upper class girls usually waited longer but in agricultural societies and in families that weren't as well off, it was considered better to marry so that your father wouldn't have to continue to provide for you. It's easy to see why that model might have been favored in that society, but in the 21st century it seems insane. Though, perhaps among poorer QF families it seems viable? I'm just guessing.

Waiting until you're into your 20s seems better, but a lot of these girls seem to be waiting a lot longer. I think it has more to do with controlling fathers than anything else. I don't find it so unusual, I mean I don't expect to get married until my 30s (if I choose to) and people in general are deferring marriage until later in life. However, most people have the opportunity to get an education and a career in that space of time. These girls are literally just sitting around waiting. They might have some hobbies to fill their time but that's about it. It must be awfully depressing. Even Victorian women who were single were allowed to become teachers and nurses. They were allowed some occupation. But these girls...they're prisoners. It's very sad.

I think poorer families it's viable, because if you don't get your ass out quick it's going to cause a lot of strain on Dad. Upper-class folks have pretty much always waited longer, so the Duggars and other fundie royalty would keep their daughters (and/or sons) around forever... less wealthy families would just marry the girl off at like, 17 or something. However with homeschooling and all that, the kids can graduate earlier, so they're out of school earlier, etc. But yeah, boys would still have to wait to get jobs or something.

But I think for the fundie royalty, or at least the fundies here, the daughters are sitting around from 17 or 18 to around 30 because of their controlling parents. The dads don't want to see them married off and the moms need "assistants." The girls may or may not at least attend community college and get some work, but for most it seems they're just dragged along to book signings and babysitting their younger siblings.

[bananacat]

I can see the 16 thing, historically. I mean, isn't that why it's called "Sweet Sixteen" because in the 19th century that was considered the beginning of marriageable age? I could be wrong but that's what I thought. Upper class girls usually waited longer but in agricultural societies and in families that weren't as well off, it was considered better to marry so that your father wouldn't have to continue to provide for you. It's easy to see why that model might have been favored in that society, but in the 21st century it seems insane. Though, perhaps among poorer QF families it seems viable? I'm just guessing.

It was actually just the opposite of that. Daughters weren't net resource drains in farm families, because they did a ton of work regardless of their gender. Farmers tended to wait longer to get married because the boys had to earn enough money to buy their own land, and the girls had to save up other resources in their hope chests as well as develop the skills to run a farm (rich girls would have servants to do that stuff). It was the royalty and upper classes that got married younger. Their parents could afford to just give them a life, and they wanted to get married early to ensure they would have enough heirs that at least one would make it to adulthood. We think about people getting married young in the past, but that's because only the royalty ever make history. For farmers and peasants, they got married a lot later, even with an average age of over 20 for girls in some times and places.

[Joykins]

I can see the 16 thing, historically. I mean, isn't that why it's called "Sweet Sixteen" because in the 19th century that was considered the beginning of marriageable age? I could be wrong but that's what I thought. Upper class girls usually waited longer but in agricultural societies and in families that weren't as well off, it was considered better to marry so that your father wouldn't have to continue to provide for you. It's easy to see why that model might have been favored in that society, but in the 21st century it seems insane. Though, perhaps among poorer QF families it seems viable? I'm just guessing.

For non-elite families in Northern Europe and cultures (like the US) descended from it, the typical age of first marriage is in the mid-20s for women, a few years older for men. The reason is the same--the man needs to have a career, or at least a job, capable of supporting a family household. This cultural pattern traces back to at least the middle ages.

Younger marriages were more typical among the aristocracy (where such resources were not a consideration) and cultures where extended-family households are more common (like India, where a very young bride would traditionally move into a household run by the groom's mother).

[xDreamerx]

I disagree. If you look at the American Prairies it was pretty common for girls to be married off younger than their European counterparts. In the English upper classes, girls were usually presented to the King at 18 and this marked them coming out into society. Then, they would spend the summer season in the country to try to find a match. If a girl went several seasons without being married it was kind of looked down upon. But generally, it was considered better to have a proper education before marriage and upper class girls received better educations and married later. Even going back to the Renaissance and the Tudor period it was not uncommon for noble girls to be well into their twenties before they married because they were sent abroad to be educated. There were of course, many girls who married very young for sake of politics but there were also many educated women.

[ladypuglover]

From the pile of history books next to me;

1620-1699 Average age of marriage was between 25-30 for women of who served as indentured servants. Woman free to marry was 23-25.

1700-1799 Average age for free women was 20-25

1800's women on the frontier east of the Mississippi married between ages 18-23 on anverage. After moving west like on the Oregon Trail, they would marry as young as 14 and up to 80 years old as women to to rare not to marry.

Women in settled areas would marry between 18-30 on average.

This isn't a complete look at women who married as there are some who married as young as 12 on the frontier and some women in settled areas such as New York as late as 30-45 for the first time. This is just an average for the times and places in America.

[moreorlessnu]

And yet, in the Little House on the Prairie books, when Laura was married and giving birth to her daughter Rose, Ma made a comment to the midwife (or whichever lady was present) that she thought Laura was too young at 19 to have a baby, but the lady said that her own daughter was about the same age, and it wasn't too young.

[ladypuglover]

And yet, in the Little House on the Prairie books, when Laura was married and giving birth to her daughter Rose, Ma made a comment to the midwife (or whichever lady was present) that she thought Laura was too young at 19 to have a baby, but the lady said that her own daughter was about the same age, and it wasn't too young.

And that would put her between the 18-30 range in settled areas.

[Ridiculous]

The Little House books are hardly a reliable historical source. Don't get me wrong, I love them, but they are more semi-autobiographical fiction than real memoir.

[ladypuglover]

The Little House books are hardly a reliable historical source. Don't get me wrong, I love them, but they are more semi-autobiographical fiction than real memoir.

Don't worry, I was using 8 different historical sorces and none of them written for YA. The one right here is The times of their lives, life, love and death in Plymouth Colony By James & Patricia Deetz. I can list the other too if you like. ;)

[tabitha2]

Trivia: Mary was not 14 when she gave birth to Jesus as many people assume but was 17.Her age is is mentioned in one of the bible books that did not make the cut with early Christian fathers :ugeek:

[moreorlessnu]

The Little House books are hardly a reliable historical source. Don't get me wrong, I love them, but they are more semi-autobiographical fiction than real memoir.

I don't doubt this. In fact, I read somewhere that Nellie was a composite of 3 people. It's just that this thread brought up a flashback of reading the book (and I believe Ma 'murmured' her comment to the midwife, if I recall correctly), and I needed to share. :lol:

[PBrooke]

I have never heard of an age being applied to Mary. Then again, I'm not religious at all.

I get so annoyed when people talk about Romeo & Juliet. "They were only 13 and 14!" Yes, and the real tragedy of the story is that the parents were morons in the first place, not that the babies were in Twoo Wuv. I often wonder why they teach that play in 8th and 9th grades, when the kids are more likely to self-identify and less likely to look at the big picture.

[Kitty]

I have never heard of an age being applied to Mary. Then again, I'm not religious at all.

I get so annoyed when people talk about Romeo & Juliet. "They were only 13 and 14!" Yes, and the real tragedy of the story is that the parents were morons in the first place, not that the babies were in Twoo Wuv. I often wonder why they teach that play in 8th and 9th grades, when the kids are more likely to self-identify and less likely to look at the big picture.

When I was in 9th grade my English class was all "What the hell? This isn't romantic! Everyone in this play is a complete idiot!"

Well, we were an honors English class, but still...

[Joykins]

And yet, in the Little House on the Prairie books, when Laura was married and giving birth to her daughter Rose, Ma made a comment to the midwife (or whichever lady was present) that she thought Laura was too young at 19 to have a baby, but the lady said that her own daughter was about the same age, and it wasn't too young.

There's a difference between society in general thinking a first-time mother "too young" and her mother thinking it or not. :lol: Averages are just average, it seem the average age at first marriage was a little younger than the cultural trend on the frontier, Laura would have fallen within the general range though.

As for Mary, I don't assume she was any age, just young enough to bear a child and not have not already been married. Tradition has Joseph as elderly but there's no *canonical* textual evidence in the gospels for this either.

[Joykins]

When I was in 9th grade my English class was all "What the hell? This isn't romantic! Everyone in this play is a complete idiot!"

Well, we were an honors English class, but still...

Teenage idiocy: fatal in 1585. Fatal now.

[emeraldskull]

When I was in 9th grade my English class was all "What the hell? This isn't romantic! Everyone in this play is a complete idiot!"

Well, we were an honors English class, but still...

Yeah, I've always thought that. Once I was old enough to understand and read the story, I was like WUT... :shock:

[liltwinstar]

I felt the same way about Othello. When we studied it in college, we went through the timeline and realized that there was no physical way for Desdemona and the guy she's supposed to have an affair with to have had any time together in which to accomplish their affair. Desdemona is either with Othello or on a separate ship from they guy that Othello thinks she cheated with - so there's no way they could have gotten together.

The prof said that it "heightened the tragedy" when you realize how pointless Othello's rage is; for me, I just thought of him as an abusive tyrant.

[tabitha2]

It seems to me Mary would have been around the usual age for girls marrying in her culture.Life was short and tough-females had to start IE. as soon as they were capable.Whether you believe she was 17 or not,she would have been very,very young.

[FlorenceHamilton]

There is a line in the Romeo and Juliet play where Juliet's mother mentions that when she was Juliet's age, she already had Juliet. That would make Juliet's mother about 28 years old. It was not unusual in the aristocracy of Europe for marriage and childbirth to occur this young.

We read Romeo and Juliet in 7th or 8th grade. There was a set of twins in our class who were from a fundamentalist family but were permitted to come to public school when the mother was recovering from an illness. I think they were with us for about 2 grades. Anyway, they showed the movie with Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting. After the couple marries, there is a brief bedroom scene where the couple is entwined after what we assume is lovemaking. There is a glimpse of Romeo's bare butt. The twins instantly got up and walked out. I remember being amused by the reaction of the boys.