Dating "policy" in the family.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

She wanted to go with a teenager boy about her age on a trip to the beach — not for romanticism, but as a platonic thing — to take pictures as she is a photography nut.

This may be you daughter’s take on the “date”, but it is NOT what the 16 year old boy is thinking. Having been one myself, I can assure you the boy is hoping that this dating will eventually turn into a romantic relationship. Unless a boy is gay, and there is nothing wrong with that (said in my best Seinfeld voice) 16 year old boys do not go looking for a “platonic” date.

You should articulate this to your daughter, so that she can be prepared for then he wants more, she doesn’t, and it ends with hurt feelings on the guys side (experience speaking here)

[Anonymous]

I have always been comfortable with the no dating until 16 policy. I don’t care for the “commandment” like air that recommendation has taken on. It really depends on the maturity of the child (as some have pointed out). There was a girl I knew in high school (in a predominantly Mormon community) who went out on a date at 15. We (her classmates) were scandalized and she took quite a bit of good natured(?) ribbing about it. Looking back now, I see that it was foolishness (on our part). She was mature for her age and nothing bad happened just because she didn’t wait until 16.

The group dating recommendation I have mixed feelings about. I have watched my college-aged girls “date” and have found that many college-aged young men will cloak their interest in a girl by going out with a group. The result is confusing for the girl but “safer” for the boy. Some young men and women don’t learn HOW to do a one on one date without some experience with it. So I would encourage the 16 age policy but not feel compelled to “enforce” a group dating policy.

[Anonymous]

This speaks to the definition of “dating” I believe: In my area many 16 and 17 year boys are not particularly interested in dating. In fact most kids around here don’t get their drivers license until 17 or later either. BUT… in some cases they have been texting girls for years. For some boys, it’s easier and less threatening to flirt with girls through an endless series of text messages.

Seems somewhat strange and counter-productive if you want a physical relationship, but some teenagers probably engage in “virtual” dating.

[Anonymous]

Roadrunner wrote:

This speaks to the definition of “dating” I believe: In my area many 16 and 17 year boys are not particularly interested in dating. In fact most kids around here don’t get their drivers license until 17 or later either. BUT… in some cases they have been texting girls for years. For some boys, it’s easier and less threatening to flirt with girls through an endless series of text messages.

Seems somewhat strange and counter-productive if you want a physical relationship, but some teenagers probably engage in “virtual” dating.

I would agree. I can tell I am turning into an old fart. It really bugs me than as I drive to work in the morning I see crowds of kids waiting at the bus stop. They are all heads-down on their phones. I want to shake them and say, “what about the people right next to you!!” We have heard that there is a trend with missionaries basically being somewhat socially inept due to never experiencing face to face communication with strangers.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

Roadrunner wrote:

This speaks to the definition of “dating” I believe: In my area many 16 and 17 year boys are not particularly interested in dating. In fact most kids around here don’t get their drivers license until 17 or later either. BUT… in some cases they have been texting girls for years. For some boys, it’s easier and less threatening to flirt with girls through an endless series of text messages.

Seems somewhat strange and counter-productive if you want a physical relationship, but some teenagers probably engage in “virtual” dating.

I would agree. I can tell I am turning into an old fart. It really bugs me than as I drive to work in the morning I see crowds of kids waiting at the bus stop. They are all heads-down on their phones. I want to shake them and say, “what about the people right next to you!!” We have heard that there is a trend with missionaries basically being somewhat socially inept due to never experiencing face to face communication with strangers.

Wouldn’t surprise me, but I haven’t heard this before.

While I put forward the chaperone idea above, which is a bit old fashioned… surely it is good for males and females to learn to develop non-physical relationships with each other, instead of viewing each other as aliens which they get busy with occasionally and produce kids.

[Anonymous]

We had to vary the rules per the child like most everyone else said. Some kids aren’t interested some are too interested. Be open and blunt if you need to, but communicate a lot. Getting them to communicate is another story, but it sounds like your daughter has a good head on her shoulders.

Roadrunner wrote:

I respectfully disagree with President Kimball about where kids get into trouble. I think most kids have sex in their own home and bed when mom and dad are away.

Too true, having raised sons and daughters, I’ve found it doesn’t matter as much where, but it’s time ‘doing nothing’ and ‘hanging out’ that got them into the most trouble.

LookingHard wrote:

I would agree. I can tell I am turning into an old fart. It really bugs me than as I drive to work in the morning I see crowds of kids waiting at the bus stop. They are all heads-down on their phones. I want to shake them and say, “what about the people right next to you!!” We have heard that there is a trend with missionaries basically being somewhat socially inept due to never experiencing face to face communication with strangers.

Then call me an old fart too. :clap:

[Anonymous]

LDS_Scoutmaster wrote:

Then call me an old fart too. :clap:

OK, your an old fart.

[Author]

Posts