Reith-Bates Courtship Ended

Kelly has posted to end the speculation or our near certainty that the courtship ended.

Many have asked for an update on Zach and Sarah’s courtship that was announced last June. After prayer, Sarah decided to end the courtship several months after it began. We have not posted any updates or answered any comments about it until now, in order to give both Zach and Sarah time to heal.
Any parting of a relationship causes pain, and although we would love to avoid heartaches in life, it is through these very trying times that character and faith often grow. For Zach, it has been a time of learning, thinking, and drawing closer to Christ.
Zach is grateful that he and Sarah hadn’t chosen the traditional path of dating, since it protected them from wrong goals and further pain. The three main goals of their courtship were 1. to maintain purity, 2. to discover if they were the right life partners for marriage, and 3. to honor God first and foremost in their relationship. In that sense, their courtship was a success, as they achieved each of these goals.
Although the relationship did not progress into engagement and marriage, their time together was focused on strengthening their walk with the Lord, and therefore ended in friendship. Zach is grateful for having developed a relationship with Sarah and her family. He has learned valuable insights from the example of their family harmony and love for God. In spite of the pain of parting, he is full of memories and experiences that have encouraged him, strengthened him, challenged him, and humbled him. He can appreciate the growth that has taken place in his life as a result of these circumstances.
Thank each of you for your prayers and thoughtfulness!

61 comments:

Nancy said...

Just coming here to post that.

This is the hypocrisy of "giving away pieces of your heart" that they don't get. Yeah, they're not SUPPOSED to fall in love during this "phase" of the fundamentalist marriage ritual, but this outcome happens more often than these families are willing to admit. So, they don't fall in love (Sarah obviously didn't), but they need time to "heal?" That sounds like a broken relationship, complete with FEELINGS they aren't supposed to be expressing until they're engaged.

Sarah didn't seem all that enthused in the courtship pictures and the performance schedule for her band for the rest of the year had no performances in Tennessee.

I hope TLC knew this when it happened, otherwise they'll be scrambling to put together some really crappy stuff in place of whatever meetings Zack and Sarah had between when we last saw them at the beginning of the courtship. As I said in a post recently (possibly under "ennvee" - in my other gmail at the time, I guess), rather than say anything on the show, they may just hope it quietly goes away. IIRC, the ratings on their little special sucked anyway, so it's not going to be a big deal.

I love it when I'm right. :D

romance writer said...

Maybe this will be an opportunity for one of the Duggar sister-moms to break free. Zach seems like a wonderful, godly young man. From personal experience, it's hard to be on the "losing end" of the courtship so I'll be praying for his heart to heal and move on.

Patrice said...

Well, it's about time they came out with the truth. I personally think the "courtship" rules are ridiculous. How can a couple possibly get to know each other with their only dates taking place under the watchful eyes of their parents, siblings, or other chaperones? During the short relationship, Kelly stated that Zach shared all his texts and phone calls with his parents and siblings. Whenever he went to see Sarah, he was accompanied by Michaella or another watchful sibling. I could see this if the couple was 14, but these people are all of legal age, and they cannot have so much as a dinner date without a chaperone. Poor Zach; it was probably doomed from the start. I would love to see the older Bateses, as well as the Duggars, tell their parents to shove the old fashioned courting crap, and then watch them get out on their own to meet people they want to meet, and spend time alone with them. It's all very sad, IMO.

tulip said...

Sad. I was hoping to see Zach & Sarah get married since I liked them both, and would much rather watch them than Josh & Anna. I agree that it seemed Sarah wasn't as "emotional" as Zach in the courtship, Zach was obviously head over heels. I'm wondering if the music group, or even her dad, ultimately had anything to do with it, or if she just realized Zach wasn't for her. That's the problem I see as well-when these "courtships" start, it's almost assumed it's a pre-engagement, and if it doesn't work out, it seems like it would be more of a blow then if it were just a casual, innocent time of dating. News for the Gothard-sect: People CAN go on dates, WITHOUT a chaperone, just plain having a fun time and it not leading to anything hot and heavy. Besides, how can you not feel self conscious, or even embarrassed, and get to a more mature level of getting to know each other's hopes, goals, dreams, etc. while your siblings/parents are hanging around like a hall monitor?

I still think it was rude of Kelly to just ignore, and even delete people's questions about the courtship for all that time. If it ended after "several months" of it starting, to me, that would probably mean it ended by the start of this year. Was Zach (or Gil & Kelly) hoping Sarah would change her mind? I still think they should have just said they didn't want to comment about the courtship just yet, instead of blowing off their fans-the ones that give TLC the reason to put them on TV and deliver a paycheck.

Jac&Jil said...

All that Kelly needed to say is that they are no longer seeing each other and end it at that. Also, both Zach and Sarah are adults and should not need anyone speaking on their behalf regarding their relationship. Time for the older ones in the Bates family to start acting like the adults they are.

Jen said...

I personally think that any future Bates courtships will not be announce publicly until an engagement is ready to be announced.

I thought that this was the practice in most "like minded" families, keeping courtships private (at least for the most part) until an engagement is ready to be announced.

Andrea said...

OMG - Zach totally dodged a bullet on that one. You're 23 years old have FUN and live a life. It's great that he has a elected position within local government and hopefully he can standup to his parents enough to have enough with the dumb courting idea, he could say: "I'd like to go on an actual date without a chaperon present - thanks, but I'm 23."

Patrice said...

"Time for the older ones in the Bates family to start acting like the adults they are."
Exactly. Parents who keep their children infantile after they have reached adulthood are not doing the kids any favors. In these families it only works in the parents' favor-as in, "let's keep them at home to raise the rest of our spawn while we get busy making the next one..."

mom in texas said...

I saw this coming. Glad they finally decided to tell the truth instead of deleting everyone's inquiries from their blog. I agree with others, if courtship is about protecting one's feelings and not giving away pieces of the heart, then what do they need to heal from? Sarah Reith never seemed interested in Zach, in my opinion. But how can a girl say "no" when someone films such an intimate moment? This is unfortunate for both young people. A break up is very rarely pleasant, but hopefully they grow from it.

I wonder what happens to Sarah now since she rejected this courtship? Her father approved it, obviously he felt Zach was worthy of his approval but what happens when the next man comes along to propose a courtship? Is Daddy Reith hesitant or does he trust his daughter's judgement? I am just curious as to what happens when feelings are hurt. I am also curious as to what caused Sarah to end it and will it be documented on the new show.

Alberta Rose said...

How can a couple possibly get to know each other with their only dates taking place under the watchful eyes of their parents, siblings, or other chaperones?

The same way people who aren't under the watchful eyes of chaperones do. It's only if pleasure sex is the main goal of the relationship that the presence of a chaperone can make a difference. If pleasure sex isn't the main goal, the person will behave the same whether or not there is a chaperone around.

Betty said...

That is simply hysterical to me. I absolutely could not see them having an honest discussion of say how many children they really want with his parents or a tattle tale sibling listening in.

Alberta Rose said...

It takes more courage to be honest in front of a witness then it does to say what you think the other person wants you to say. By being honest with each other when someone else is observing means you have someone who will hold you accountable. That's one of the concepts of courtship that I like.

Betty said...

I think that the courtees are more likely to say what their parents want to hear or what they think will please their parents than be totally honest. Just think if one of the "children" really adults kept as children wanted out and was looking for someone who wanted a Christian life but not a stifled one, they wouldn't be able to discuss that because it wouldn't match what their parents want. If they haven't brought their children up to do right in the 20 plus years and can't trust them without a chaperone, they've done a lousy job in my opinion. There is nothing magical about a marriage certificate that changes a person into a responsible adult yet that's what these cults basically say. It's nonsensical.

j said...

Alberta Rose said: "It's only if pleasure sex is the main goal of the relationship that the presence of a chaperone can make a difference. If pleasure sex isn't the main goal, the person will behave the same whether or not there is a chaperone around."

I disagree. Strongly. EVERYONE is going to behave differently with their peers when someone is watching them than if they were left alone. Even people who are just friends are not going to talk about or do the same things around their parents than they would if the parents were not there. Even full-grown adults who are not insanely sheltered fundamentalists. Regardless of whether or not "pleasure sex" is a goal, people are going to behave differently when someone is watching them, period.

Sarah said...

I agree, everyone will behave differently when they know that someone is watching. The scary part of this is that it becomes a shock when the 2 people are FINALLY allowed to be alone with each other, after the wedding. And then the hard part begins. This is not the way I'd prefer to start my marriage.

Wampascat said...

Well, of course if they're left alone, they're going to have sex! You can trust a woman to be alone with a man without defrauding him. God forbid they practice some self discipline! Oh, please!!!!

Nancy said...

All that Kelly needed to say is that they are no longer seeing each other and end it at that. Also, both Zach and Sarah are adults and should not need anyone speaking on their behalf regarding their relationship. Time for the older ones in the Bates family to start acting like the adults they are.

==================================

Amen! And how "Christian" of Kelly to throw Sarah under the bus like that. A simple "After much prayer, God laid it upon the hearts of the couple to go their separate ways."

Kelly must really think her fans are morons since a girl can't end the courtship without her father's consent. It's also possible that HE ended the courtship to keep the Reith's main stream of income (the band) intact. Kelly showed absolutely NO CLASS in that post.

Patrice said...

"By being honest with each other when someone else is observing means you have someone who will hold you accountable."
And just why does a third party have to hold a grown couple accountable for their words and actions? I don't understand. If a couple cannot be honest with each other without mommy and daddy hanging out to tell them what is right or wrong, that is extremely sad.
Also, not everyone jumps into the first date with sex in mind. Many people go out to eat, go to a movie, walk on the beach, even have study dates if they are in college or whatnot and then have more dates before they even think about getting intimate. I cannot imagine following around my twenty-somethings on their dates just to hear what they talk about and make sure that (gasp!) their hands don't touch, much less their lips. And really, what parent in their right mind tries to control their grown childrens' sex lives? The natural order of things is usually that couples get to know each other and then get intimate to some degree. It's their choice whether they want to wait until marriage for intercourse, but it is extremely unnatural not to hug, touch, and kiss the one you love. Some of the courting couples go out of their way to not even brush arms. The whole nonsense about being chaperoned, not touching, and sitting with a Bible width between them is absolutely non-sensical. I just want to scream when I hear about legal adults being treated this way, and likely threatened with fire and brimstone if they dare cross the line. And being brought up as sheltered as they were, they believe that they really will suffer eternal damnation if they happen to break the parental/Gothard-made rule.

i-like-pie said...

I have a question for people who might know such things. Where does the chaperone thing end? Say for example that the couple are in their late thirties. Are they still chaperoned? What happens if their parents are no longer living? Are the women subject to a brother's "authority"?

I met my spouse when I was 29. I was living on my own (which I know is a big no-no in Gothard families) but even if I had been living in my parents' home, they wouldn't have even considered sending a chaperone on a date with me. Sure, they might have liked to meet the other person, but I doubt it would even have occured to them that they they should send a chaperone.

I feel sad for Zach that he really liked this girl and she told him she didn't want to get married. That's hard to hear at any age or maturity level, and the first time is usually the worst. But at the same time, I am relieved... I don't want anyone to leap into a relationship they aren't ready for.

Rudy Tecat said...

It is sad that this whole courship ordeal has to be such a newsworthy event. If they had just gone on a couple of dates, they might have figured out they weren't meant for each other, and this wouldn't have been such a big deal for the kids, the parents, and all the viewers on TLC. Instead, it is here on the internet, probably on video tape, and will follow these kids around forever. Thanks, parents, thanks Gothard, thanks TLC.

Beth Anne said...

Patrice said: "I just want to scream when I hear about legal adults being treated this way, and likely threatened with fire and brimstone if they dare cross the line."

I totally agree. The whole "chaperoning" aspect of the Gothard followers smacks of control, versus having anything to do with one's personal development and growth as a Christian. I've said it before, but what do the Duggars/Bates think the "rest of us" do on a daily basis? If they step foot onto the campus of the University of Arkansas, do they think there are people openly engaging in sex during class lectures? Do they think every dating couple has sex on the first date? How can the young adults ever truly mature if they don't get to exercise self control?

Like, Erin Bates cannot go to her one-class-a-day at The Crown College of the Bible unchaperoned. If you have looked at Crown's website, read brochures, etc., you can tell it is as strict a fundamentalist institution as you can get. Required prayer services, codes of personal conduct, etc., and the degrees are not just a B.A. or B.S. - it's a "B.B.A", which is Bachelors of Biblical Arts or Bachelors of Biblical Sciences. And, the Bates think Erin would somehow fall into sin and be defrauded, or defraud others, if she attends a music class on her own???

What do they think would actually happen? The minute Erin gets out of sight of Gil, Kelly, or whoever is chaperoning her, she'll rip off her dress, swing it over her head, and say, "Come and get me, boys!!!" It's RIDICULOUS. And if that's the case, all the "character building" education they received during homeschooling didn't work....

londonbridges said...

My opinion is that it was not up to Mom to explain the break-down of the so-called courtship. And to throw Sarah under the bus was totally uncalled for. I am really glad that this situation ended, as it is far better to admit prior to marriage that one or both partners know they are not a great match. I also am confused as to why healing needs to take place, as the individuals aren't to give any part of their heart away during courtship.

Zack and Sarah, you both dodged a big bad bullet. You could be married to each other, even though you don't love each other. Blessing number one would be forming, and several more would probably be expected in the next few years. JMHO.

Wampascat said...

Yes! And the desperate finger/hand sex displayed by Josh and Anna was, in my opinion, disgusting. I'd much rather see them kiss!

Elvira said...

Any of the Duggar or Bates daughters may end up like Sarah Maxwell who is 30 and still waiting for daddy to find the right man. Even her brother six or seven years her junior is engaged but none of the daughters have even courted. This whole super fundy cult is run by weak, control-freak men who want to "put women in their place" and keep them there. They have no respect for a woman's ability to do anything except be "keepers at home." It's revolting.

Beth Anne said...

Elvira said...

"Any of the Duggar or Bates daughters may end up like Sarah Maxwell who is 30 and still waiting for daddy to find the right man."

That is revolting and completely insulting to Sarah's person. I am sure she is a God-loving, nice person who is perfectly capable of exercising wisdom in her relationships with others.

And where is the Biblical edict for daddy picking suitors? I know in the Old Testament, it was common for men to approach the fathers to ask for the daughter's hand in marriage, and for the fathers to "offer" their daughters as wives to other men, but that was the HUMAN custom from thousands of years ago. The Word of God comes forth in the Ten Commandents, which says no adultery - be faithful to your spouse, and there is the command for husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church, etc. But where does it say: "God says that daddy picks the daughter's mate, even if daddy isn't the sharpest tool in the shed."

I know people defend the Duggars and Bates by saying they are following Biblical edicts or trying to live their lives via what the Bible says to do, but God's Biblical message about marriage is basically, Love each other faithfully.

Ugh!

SmokeyKitty said...

They talk about giving away pieces of your heart and how courtship prevents that. I think its the opposite! When you go through the trouble of obtaining permission from family and then spring a big engagement like event on a woman when you just want to start courting it is far more damaging than quietly asking her out for a cup of coffee and meeting at a Starbucks.

Honestly, I know ultra orthodox Jews who have a far more logical form of courting. Your dates are either arragned through your parents, a matchmaker or your friends, or you use the internet. Or its more typical in that you ask out someone who you met during your normal life. Sometimes there are singles mixers too. You meet in PUBLIC places like cafes or libraries or (I kid you not) hotel lobbies and you have a date. Ya, you don't touch and you are both marriage minded but you aren't watched by a family member at all times. Also, I know of couples who dated while they each lived at home and their parents didn't know until they were ready to get engaged. So I'm assuming emails and texts and phone calls are not monitored either. The man is not the only one who can ask someone out on one of these dates. I know at least 3 couples where the woman was the instigator of the relationship. In Duggar/Bates world the woman just has to wait for the guy to ask... and if the guy she really is interested in is too shy or doesn't know she's interested she has zero control over that... So she's just stuck with whoever does have the balls to ask.
And in the Chabad Orthodox Jewish courting if it doesn't work out then there was no big deal and big announcement made so you can go your separate ways unscathed. You are still "pure" and untouched and you've at least gotten to know someone of the opposite gender and maybe were able to make some real judgements about what you wanted in a spouse. I understand that there are some super fundamentalist Jews out there who are more like the Duggars/Bates in their courtship practices but they are not the norm.

Patrice said...

Another Wack-a-doodle Gothard rule seems to be that when a man finds his mate,(or is fixed up by the parents) he stays on the family compound and his new wife must leave her family. So in the three families mentioned above, they think it is ok to pull another family's daughter away to live near them, but are unwilling to spring their own daughters, for fear that they may move too far away to control. Probably why Sarah made the break from Zach. She was unwilling to leave her family and their singing group just to sit around and watch Zach help his dad cut trees for the next fifty years.

Flower child said...

I wonder if some of these fundie girls aren't putting off marriage because of what their married life would be, birthing babies til you die. Its not an appealing life for young women you're under a man's thumb with no hopes of dreams or individualism. You're a prisoner to your family as brood mare, cook, housekeeper, teacher etc. I know that's the same as being a sister wife to your mom, but your mom will eventually stop reproducing. These older Bates & Duggar girls have already raised family of kids. Perhaps a single life is their only birthcontrol- no marriage no babies. And although daddy controls your entire life often the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

Jen said...

"Like, Erin Bates cannot go to her one-class-a-day at The Crown College of the Bible unchaperoned...What do they think would actually happen? The minute Erin gets out of sight of Gil, Kelly, or whoever is chaperoning her, she'll rip off her dress, swing it over her head, and say, "Come and get me, boys!!!" It's RIDICULOUS. And if that's the case, all the "character building" education they received during homeschooling didn't work...."
----------------------------

Maybe I miss understand why someone is chaperoned. I thought that it was to hold rumors and lies at bay. Someone is with you to be a witness to what happened, what was true was not true, thus it is harder for a person to spread a rumor or untruth against you.

Sort of like when Amy had the scandal of the pictures. She mentioned her grandmother was there and that was the end of the controversy. No one wondered if there were more elicit photos hidden away like the lady suggested.

This seems like it would be a good reason for the Duggars and now the Bateses to have a chaperone.

Jen said...

I wonder if the Bates Family show had something to do with Sarah deciding to break off the courtship. Maybe she was uncomfortable with being a reality tv person.

Nancy said...

Oh Kelly, Kelly, Kelly. Here are excerpts from her blog. The first is from the "break-up" post, the second a post explaining the lofty perch of Courtship.

What Kelly says on their blog now:

Zach is grateful that he and Sarah hadn’t chosen the traditional path of dating, since it protected them from wrong goals and further pain. The three main goals of their courtship were 1. to maintain purity, 2. to discover if they were the right life partners for marriage, and 3. to honor God first and foremost in their relationship. In that sense, their courtship was a success, as they achieved each of these goals.

Nice spin doctoring there, Kelly. A break-up is a break-up, call it whatever you will.

What Kelly said on their blog a year ago:


By Gil [Kelly doesn't even have her own identity on the blog she maintains], June 28, 2011 @ 5:52 am

Dear Karen,
For us, courtship is like a pre-engagement stage. It allows them the chance to get to know each other on a closer emotional level than just getting to know each other on a friendship basis. The difference between dating and courtship is in the goals & commitment involved. Often people date for fun and companionship, but not neccesarily with marriage in mind. They may have dated quite a large number of people before settling down to the person they decide to marry. Courtship comes after spending time with the person and their family and getting to know them enough to sense God’s leading them toward marriage. During courtship they can “date” (We prefer chaperoned time together to avoid temptations that accompany being alone together). Its different from what most people call dating though, because there is a definite plan to move toward engagement and then marriage. Love, Kelly


So she admits the end-goal is marriage and admits the hurt involved, yet they are supposed to also guard their hearts to avoid this "hurt and pain" and so pieces aren't given away until you meet your REAL intended spouse?

I see a lot of hypocrisy and the BS meter is maxed out. This is, in Kelly's own words, proof that the dissolution of a courtship is MORE hurtful than a break-up of a couple who has dated a while and decided to call it quits because they want different things at different stages in life.

Nancy said...

Ugh, forgot to tag on the end of that magnum opus:

In the end, courtship does not protect hearts. It protects VIRGINITY.

FWIW, plenty of people date for the length of a typical Gothard courthip/engagement period and don't have sex. The Gothardites seem to think the rest of us are having one big ole orgy out here in Sodom/Gomorrah.

Beth Anne said...

Jen said:

(Re: chaperoning) "Someone is with you to be a witness to what happened, what was true was not true, thus it is harder for a person to spread a rumor or untruth against you....This seems like it would be a good reason for the Duggars and now the Bateses to have a chaperone."

Interesting points, but wouldn't that mean ALL people, young and old, regardless of religious affiliation, should have a witness/chaperone with them at ALL times, so no make can make a false claim against them? Or is a good idea for only the Duggar and Bates families because of the "fame" they have acquired due to their TV shows? In that case, it's really borne of a desire for self-preservation, versus having anything to do with growing closer to God.

Also, Kelly said the following on the blog: During courtship they can “date” (We prefer chaperoned time together to avoid temptations that accompany being alone together).

The chaperoning thing to me was always associated with some other person watching over the unmarried Gothardites to ensure virginity/purity are maintained, as if a young adult Christian could not maintain those virtues on his or her own.

Willow said...

I certainly feel that the courtship route is for protection of purity. It is also, mostly, for power. My opinion is that this is set up so the parents can pick the partners, in order to maintain the family's "lifestyle", if you will. The "witness" excuse is just that. They just don't want to come out and say what the real reasons for things are. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out. I admit, however, I am quite synical of the patriarch-type system. I think there are lots of reasons that most of us would consider untoward, but thats just me and I will keep them to myself for now.

Thanks Nancy for answering my question the other day about Josh and the fireworks.

Stephanie said...

This is why I really get bugged by these people. Not long ago we joked about Zach sweating profusely just from talking to Sarah. Sarah may be smarter than we thing because that would be a HUGE turn off to a young woman. Be a man Zach yuck.

2nd, most if us regular folks don't just date guys that we don't like nor could see any future with. No one really does that. For example, it I knew I couldn't be married to a smoker, I don't think I would even go out with a smoker. If I don't think I could marry a man who has children, I don't think I would even date a man who has children etc etc. So the entire arguement of courting to find a future spouse is stupid because that's what normal people do when they "date". Unless they really want to Jersey Shore skank around with one night stands but that is the minority of people.

Wampascat said...

I thought the same thing about the break up. The sight of Zach showing up, sweating like a billy goat, arms laden with flowers and cheesecake, crying like a baby...Huge turnoff. Some folks said it was sweet. Naw, it was pathetic.

Seriously? said...

"1." was 'purity'????

That is a higher priority than figuring out if they could make a go of a marital relationship???

Was Zach the one who CRIED on camera about their plans for courtship?

If I'm supposed to be impressed with Zach's holiness, sorry to disappoint, but NOT SO MUCH. I'm more UNimpressed with his both his apparent immaturity and cluelessness about real life.

He seemed not at all good marriage material at this point in his stunted development IMO.

I feel sorry for both - hard when a relationship does not pan out. But such is part of the human condition. Let us hope this experience adds to his much-needed maturation.

elaine said...

Glad we finally got an update about this.

Sad it ended (mostly because I'm sure we can all empathize with the ending of a relationship), but it may have been a good thing.

Like a couple of the previous comments: I was totally embarrassed for Zach when they showed him blubbering through his big, planned courtship question. I think I had to look away from the TV because I just couldn't watch him anymore! And to be poor Sarah on the receiving end of that; I don't know how she didn't just get up and walk away. It was not a cute or endearing situation at all.

sandi said...

>Kelly must really think her fans are morons since a girl can't end the courtship without her father's consent.
Kelly showed absolutely NO CLASS in that post.

I totally agree.Kelly totally threw Sarah under the hus by calling out the fact she was the one who ended it.She could have just simply said they decided to end the courtship,or some other mutual comment.I think it's a good thing they didn't get married;I for one would not care to have someone like that as a mother-in-law.Can you imagine what she would say if one of her kids ever gets a divorce? I don't think I'm wrong to assume if that ever occurs,that neither the Duggars nor the Bates will accept any blame on their offspring's part.JMO.
That said,I wish Zach and Sarah the best.Zach seems like a very respectful young man,and I hope they both find the one they are looking for in life.

stephanie said...

Since this subject is back up I am going to remind us what Sarahs dad said on camera during Zachs sweating show.

Sarahs dad said from the moment she was born he (the dad) prayed for her to keep herself pure for her future husband. THAT'S WHAT HE PRAYED FOR WHEN HIS INFANT DAUGHTER WAS BORN? HER SEX LIFE? GROSS

That wasn't even a thought in my head when I had my daughter. Her sex life? What? If that doesn't show how sex obsessed these people are I don't know what does.

When my daughter was born and I held her in my arms I prayed for thankfulness of a healthy baby and she would stay healthy, that she would go to VA Tech or UVA, that she would be a ballerina, she would be smart, she would be a senator or movie star. You get the idea. I Never Once Thought "I hope her sex life is the way some man would want her when he marries her.

I think the Duggars do wear the purity rings but keep it quiet on advice of Public relations. Majority of Americans think the purity ring ceromonies keeping your legs closed for just your daddy until he approves who you can open them for grosses people out. Sorry to be so blunt but I can't put it is "nice" as they do.

Patrice said...

These people, despite all their "modesty" and "purity" talk, are way more obsessed with sex than the rest of us heathens. I would never have thought of praying for my daughters' "purity" when they were born. Like most people, I prayed for their good health and safety and wisdom in life. It's really scary thinking about how much control the dads have over their daughters' sex lives. Although I'm not sure about any physical incest going on, the psychological aspect of being tied to "Daddy" gives me the creeps too. Is this all a Gothard thing too or does it have ties to some other wacky religious beliefs?

Beth Anne said...

Re: "Kelly must really think her fans are morons since a girl can't end the courtship without her father's consent."

Ugh, the sometimes adult 'girl' in the courtship model CAN'T end the relationship without her father's consent??? Can someone clarify that for me, or is that for real? So, Sarah needed to go to her father and tell him that she no longer wanted to be in a courtship with Zach, and the dad had to OK the request? Is that an actual rule in the courtship model the Gothard/ATI people follow? What if the father does NOT give his consent to ending the relationship?

I am sick to my stomach right now...

Seriously? said...

re: praying for a female infant's purity at her birth: and just what is the pretzel logic that makes 'purity' so important for either gender? WHO SAYS abstinence is the measure of morality (except nuns and priests, of course, who like to think their calling is somehow 'higher' than those of us who sink to our supposedly baser instincts by getting married)? Adding to this whole 'purity' concept that it is somehow more important for FEMALES to remain premaritally virginal than for males to remain celibate til marriage makes this whole Gothard/fundie thing even more ridiculous. And to be 'pure' for daddy - blech!

I agree with the comment(s) that these people, Bates, Duggars, Gothardites, are far more sex-obsessed than the rest of us.

Meaningless and cultish, all of it, IMO.

Penny said...

Do we reaaly know that the Reith's are Gothard/ATI-Do we even know is Sarah was homeschooled-All I know is the Reith's were introduced to the Bates by the Duggers as a family that had attended their church at one time and I was assuming a regular church not the home church. Maybe Sarah did not like the courtship untrust-chaporoning, monitoring emails and phone calls,etc.

mom in texas said...

Penny said: Do we reaaly know that the Reith's are Gothard/ATI-Do we even know is Sarah was homeschooled...
___________________________________
It is pretty safe to say from all that I have seen of the Reith family, not just on the Duggars show but the Reiths website as well as videos of their performances, that the family shares the same ideals as the Bates and Duggars. If they didn't, it's not likely that either family would have had a heavy association with them. Sarah's father made his feelings clear when Zach proposed courtship to Sarah. If any of the reason you mentioned were why Sarah called off the courtship, she would likely never say it aloud.

Personally I don't think she owes any of us an explanation as to why she changed her mind. A young woman is entitled to do so and it's better she do it before an actual marriage than suffer through a life time of unhappiness. I do feel, as I stated before, that the Bates were wrong for ignoring inquiries about the courtship. Maybe Sarah's reasoning was something much deeper than the lack of privacy. That is something she is probably used to growing up the way she did. It really, truly could have been a feeling she (or her father) had towards Zach and the Bates that didn't bode well.

Seriously? said...

Too bad Zach's parents didn't consider this downside to pimping out their kids for profit.

Painful whenever a wanted relationship doesn't work out, and now Zach has to have the public aware of his humiliation.

Not the brightest bulbs, Michelle, JimBob, Kelly and Gil. Also, contrary to their own belief, not the holiest on the planet.

Seriously? said...

IMO, Sarah dodged a bullet on this one.

Alysa said...

Kelly wrote about Michaella's name... I have always wondered how they came up with it.
---------
Dear Glory,
When Michaella was born, I was a very young Christian. We wanted to name her a name that would remind her of her Christian heritage. We didn’t want to use a traditional Bible name, because at the time we had so many college friends with children who had Bible names. We researched girl Bible names and found Michal, David’s wife. Unfortunately, I had not studied the Bible enough at that time to know the story of David’s wife, who wasn’t a good role model. After Michaella’s birth, I committed to read through my Bible, and was heart sick to find that the name we had chosen had that background. Wanting to make sure she knew how special and loved she was, we attempted to have her name legally changed. She was under a year old, so they told us if we would just change the spelling, but not the name, we could do it quickly at no cost. It could only be a slight change in order to avoid the hassle and expense of a lawyer and court costs… so we changed it to Michael (only one letter different, and the traditional spelling). As she got older, we realized her name was often confused with the boy name of Michael, since that is more popular. So the nickname of Michaella developed… we tried different spellings at first, but Michaela was pronounced with a long a sound in the middle. We weren’t creative enough to spell it with the variety that some use today like Mykalla or something (plus we wouldn’t have been able to make that drastic of a change without court proceedures.) Anyways, now she usually goes by her real name… Michael… but I’ve written Michaella for so long that it has stuck. The siblings call her Micky as a nickname.Love, Kelly

SmokeyKitty said...

How was Zach planning on supporting Sarah if she hadn't changed her mind? I'm so confused as to how a boy living at home whose job is as an elected official who probably only gets paid a nominal salary if anything at all (where I'm from a position like his pays like 5k a year I think) could support himself let alone a wife and children? There's thrifty and then there's impoverished. Can anyone enlighten me?

sandi said...

If Sarah's seen Kelly's blog post about it,I bet she knows for sure she dodged a bullet! JMO.

Nancy said...

True dat! The Bateses didn't even have the proper pronunciation of Michal to begin with. Not to mention, the David/Michal story makes HIM look like an ass; ironically, Michal laughed at David for DANCING in the streets after the ark was brought into Jerusalem. And Kelly blames MICHAL for being "disobedient" and a
"bad example????" What's wrong with this picture? Talk about some major twisting of the Bible to hold up the kings, who were HUMAN!

Also, Sarah passed out from heat exhaustion at a recent concert. One has to wonder if built-up stress exacerbated her condition. It can't be easy performing knowing a woman who almost became your MIL threw you under the bus. How soon they turn...

Reith's blog: http://southernraisedbluegrass.com/journal-2/

She dodged a HUGE bullet. The brother, who is the most talented of the four, IMO, is still in his early teens (15 or so). They could easily go another 10 years and I bet Daddy Reith would give each of his kids a decent chunk of change to either build a house for a wife, or bring to a marriage to start up housekeeping. The good news in that scenario is that there would be fewer members of their "army" to take over, as is the stated goal of most of these people.

tulip said...

Oh-poor Michaella. I didn't know the story behind the name, but what a story. To think, Gil and Kelly became ashamed of her name and it made Kelly heartsick?, wanted to change her name legally, but to save money changed the spelling so she had a boy's name? (of course, as she said, people would confuse it for the boy's name!...Michael, #1 boys name for how many decades?), and now she actually still goes by Michael (although still not her legal name), but her family calls her Micky?...while the show calls her Michaella. Wow.

No wonder the Bateses kids names are all over the board, from the traditional, to common, to popular (Zach, Alyssa, Erin, Katie) to the not so common and nod to southern roots (Carlin, Warden, Trace, Jeb) and even the Biblical (Isaiah)... Well, at least they all start with different letters.

Seriously? said...

re: Michaela's name story:

The Bates are every bit as stupendously stupid as the Duggars.

I rest my case.

It seems low IQ must be the primary membership criterion for Gothardism.

These people are a nat'l embarrassment.

tulip said...

According to Wikipedia...It's showing "Michael" as Michaella's given name, and middle name "Christan"-supposed to be "Christian", or not? Also, check out some of the other middle names...Warden Justice, Isaiah Courage, Zachary Gilvin, and Nathan is actually Kenneth Nathaniel and Lawson is William Lawson. Looks like the Bates really had no idea what they were doing with names.

nana sew dear said...

Sounds like Zachary gave away a piece of his heart after all. Next courtship should be conducted with the participants across a large room from one another to avoid developing any affection whatsoever.

SmokeyKitty said...

The only woman I ever heard with the name Michael was the actress Michael Learned who was one of the Waltons.

How was her name pronounced?

Patrice said...

The only woman I ever heard with the name Michael was the actress Michael Learned who was one of the Waltons.
How was her name pronounced?
*********************************
Her name was pronounced like the man's name of Michael.
I think it is odd that the way Kelly wrote the blog, she seemed almost shocked that naming a girl Michael would be confusing to people, and people would mix it up with the boy's name! Duh! Michael is a boy's name,and while there are hundreds of names now that are interchanged between males and females, Michael is not generally one of them. Just weird...

katie_elaine said...

The name thing with Michael/Michaela is very odd. We are currently expecting and have put a great deal of thought, effort, and debate into naming our child. We've discussed what rhymes with it, what nicknames could be made from it, what spelling mistakes might be made, what the initials spell, and so forth. Everyone I know who is also expecting or has recently had a child has done the same thing. Why anyone would NOT do those things is beyond me.

Does anybody know at what point the Bates entered into ATI/Bill Gothard? Were they just incredibly naive and immature when they named their daughter?

sandi said...

Kelly says on her blog they were young in their Christian walk;that's all she says though.

Patrice said...

I'm hoping that these Gothard followers start to get the idea that their way of arranging marriages is not working. On the Maxwell site, it states that the latest engagement/courtship of one of their sons just ended. Maybe that worked hundreds of years ago or in different cultures but in this day and age, it is ridiculous to have the dads try and match up a couple, not let them see each other unless their families are along, and then expect them to jump into marriage when they have only known each other through long distance daddy-monitored communication. Thankfully in both the Bates and Maxwell cases, the girls came to their senses before they jumped into a lifelong sentence of misery. I do wish the "kids" knew that they have the choice to escape their controlling dads and make their own life somewhere. No doubt they are mentally sound enough to pick their own mates, not have their dads (who were somehow sent a magical message from God)do it for them.

Alberta Rose said...

"Someone is with you to be a witness to what happened, what was true was not true, thus it is harder for a person to spread a rumor or untruth against you....This seems like it would be a good reason for the Duggars and now the Bateses to have a chaperone."

Interesting points, but wouldn't that mean ALL people, young and old, regardless of religious affiliation, should have a witness/chaperone with them at ALL times, so no make can make a false claim against them?

I was referring to the lines males and females will say in an attempt to impress someone. With a chaperone, you know someone witnessed what you are said and can't claim "I didn't say that when I get married I would/wouldn't do....." With a chaperone you can retort "I'll double check with the person who was there."