Comments on: Be Honest With Yourself: Going Steady Too Early?

By: jeans

jeans — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 11:00:49 +0000

That girl don’t look 16 to me…

By: Stephen Taylor

Stephen Taylor — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 21:52:59 +0000

What’s amusing to me are reflections on how primitive things must have been in 1960 – “high school only for the girls and college for the boys”.

The party line of the present on the 50′s is that it was a dismal time, unlike the present, liberated as it is supposed to be by the late 60′s version of feminism and the sexual revolution. Like all times,it had its problems and its opportunities.

By: Clark

Clark — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 21:29:10 +0000

I hadn’t noticed the change in negative tone until it was pointed it out. What I noticed was the short words and choppy sentences that make the message seem like a Dick-and-Jane grade school reader.

I think many of our Church lessons (including the ones I teach) would be much improved if we accentuated the positive.

By: ji

ji — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:58:09 +0000

I don’t want to laugh at these things from the past — I see them as well-intentioned efforts to help our youth and membership, and I appreciate them. Thanks, Ardis, for sharing these glimpses from the past.

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:23:47 +0000

I agree, Ardis. There’s nothing wrong at all with the central concept of not going steady in high school – even though I chose to ignore it and will be celebrating 24 years next week.

I was struck by the following line:

it often leads to hasty marriages and the quitting of school before one’s education has been completed

Interesting. Did that relate to high school only for the girls and college for the boys in 1960, as I suppose? It sounds like great advice for many now, only changed to college for both parties. Maybe we can make it an official slogan at BYU.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:04:58 +0000

This one is less successful than the others in the series — evidenced, I think, by the (perfectly legitimate) snarkier responses. I think that’s because this card violates the cardinal rule of the series, which was to speak positively of the benefits of living the gospel (“live the Word of Wisdom and you merit blessings A, B, and C” rather than “you’ll suffer X, Y and Z if you violate the Word of Wisdom”).

This card should have talked about all the fun of getting to know a variety of people, the challenge of being exposed to different interests and activities, the reassurance of knowing what you want when you choose a marriage partner, that kind of thing, all of which require delaying exclusive dating until a more appropriate age. I think the message would have been far more successful had they not strayed from the positive message.

By: Left Field

Left Field — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:54:15 +0000

What’s with the quotes around “dates”? Was that a colloquialism back in 1960?

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:44:01 +0000

The fundamental argument hasn’t changed for years. A few years back I had a 15-year old girl ask why she couldn’t date and have a steady boyfriend. If I’d only had that couplet, I expect our conversation would have been even better…

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:38:20 +0000

Which Mark? Me or Twain? : )

Not to worry Ariel!

By: Ariel

Ariel — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:24:55 +0000

Cross posted with Mark. Sorry, Mark.