Reflections on life, marriage, and purpose...by a young woman who is constantly learning how much there will always be to learn!


Thursday, March 23, 2006

Single Female Seeking Home Ownership

Another insightful piece by Candice Z. Watters! I'm really coming to appreciate her writing and thoughts.

Edit: Also consider a thoughtful alternative perspective by Carolyn McCully.

17 Comments:

Blogger Lydia said...

You may be interested to see a slightly different perspective by Carolyn McCully at http://solofemininity.blogs.com/solofeminty.
I think she made some good points. Thanks for sharing the link to this article. It has given me much to ponder.

9:39 AM, March 24, 2006  
Blogger Mrs.B. said...

I liked this too. Thanks for posting it!

9:44 AM, March 24, 2006  
Blogger Erin said...

Lydia, thanks for pointing out Ms. McCully's article. As I read, I tended to agree with her as her points relate to older singles or singles with non-Christian parents.

When I read Candice's article, I was probably relating to it from my own experience as a young single woman living alone (or with peers) for a little while, and not considering the older, more established single's perspective. Thanks for bringing that to light!

11:21 AM, March 24, 2006  
Blogger Erin said...

That said, the concerns about protection and temptation are very real. When I lived alone or with friends, we experienced both potential danger (from some wackos we encountered, some of which lived in our same complex!) and increased temptation in our romantic relationships. An "older" woman (past teens and early to mid-twenties) who is strong in the Lord and has purchased a home for the right reasons would still be wise to take significant precautions against these problems. She should still seek accountability and help (if needed) from wise people in her Christian body, because NO man (or woman:o) is an island or should have to act like one!

11:30 AM, March 24, 2006  
Blogger Erin said...

I mean, um...that's what I think. Didn't mean to start sounding preachy *bashful grin* :op

11:40 AM, March 24, 2006  
Blogger Mrs.B. said...

I think you're right-on in your comments Erin....and it's your blog, so you have the perfect right to express a strong opinion about something.

All I can say is I was 17 when I graduated high school. I moved out and had my own apartment which was a TERRIBLE idea! Another thing is when you live alone it's very easy to get used to having things 'the way you like them'. Having been raised an only child, having my own place just enforced this. If I had a daughter I would hope she would want to live at home until marriage no matter how old she was.

Having said that, I do understand the differences....especially if you don't come from a Christian background. I wasn't raised in a Christian home so I can understand this. Not everyone's parents are going to let their children live at home until marriage. I don't think this issue is 'cut and dry'.

I also want to say that I'm not talking about the trend toward prolonging childhood. I think there is even a movie out about that now about a 35 year old man who lives at home and won't move out because he wants to live off of his parents. I see this as different than what we're discussing.

I know my thoughts are a littel scattered, I hope my thoughts made some sense. (o:

1:15 PM, March 24, 2006  
Anonymous The Happy Feminist said...

Watters says:
When you don't have parents or parental figures limiting the time you spend with your sweetheart (as well as supervising how you spend that time), you're likely to spend too much time with too little commitment in return.

In other words, why should the man buy the cow when he get the milk for free? The idea is that men will only marry us if marriage is the only way to gain access to us! Personally, I would rather be an unmarried homeowner than marry a man from whom I had to extract a commitment by withholding myself or "playing hard to get."

How much more firmly a woman's purity is guarded when she lives under the protection of a family . . .

This ignores the fact that it is our sons whose purity REALLY need guarding. I suspect that any study would show that it is MEN, not women, who are far more likely to become addicted to pornography, go to strip clubs, or patronize prostitutes. If guarding sexual purity is the goal, I propose sending young women out to set up a household in anticipation of marriage, while keeping the young men at home under the watchful gaze of their parents.

2:47 PM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous The Happy Feminist said...

Watters says:
When you don't have parents or parental figures limiting the time you spend with your sweetheart (as well as supervising how you spend that time), you're likely to spend too much time with too little commitment in return.

In other words, why should the man buy the cow when he get the milk for free? The idea is that men will only marry us if marriage is the only way to gain access to us! Personally, I would rather be an unmarried homeowner than marry a man from whom I had to extract a commitment by withholding myself or "playing hard to get."

How much more firmly a woman's purity is guarded when she lives under the protection of a family . . .

This ignores the fact that it is our sons whose purity REALLY need guarding. I suspect that any study would show that it is MEN, not women, who are far more likely to become addicted to pornography, go to strip clubs, or patronize prostitutes. If guarding sexual purity is the goal, I propose sending young women out to set up a household in anticipation of marriage, while keeping the young men at home under the watchful gaze of their parents.

2:48 PM, March 28, 2006  
Blogger Erin said...

Watters says:
When you don't have parents or parental figures limiting the time you spend with your sweetheart (as well as supervising how you spend that time), you're likely to spend too much time with too little commitment in return.

In other words, why should the man buy the cow when he get the milk for free? The idea is that men will only marry us if marriage is the only way to gain access to us! Personally, I would rather be an unmarried homeowner than marry a man from whom I had to extract a commitment by withholding myself or "playing hard to get."


HF, Since I believe it is a Christian unmarried person's duty (and in their best interest) to withhold themselves sexually until marriage no matter where they live, that's rather a moot point for me:o) And BTW...that goes for men too. Not only does limiting sexual expression to marriage encourage commitment, but it's a healthier way to live, physically and emotionally. I don't think God prescribes boundaries for us to follow because of a sick sense of humor. I think He knows what's best for us.

How much more firmly a woman's purity is guarded when she lives under the protection of a family . . .

This ignores the fact that it is our sons whose purity REALLY need guarding. I suspect that any study would show that it is MEN, not women, who are far more likely to become addicted to pornography, go to strip clubs, or patronize prostitutes. If guarding sexual purity is the goal, I propose sending young women out to set up a household in anticipation of marriage, while keeping the young men at home under the watchful gaze of their parents.


Interesting points! I'm afraid I don't have much of a basis of knowledge to draw from regarding young men, as I've never had a son or a brother. I DO believe that men should have an accountibility structure in place as well. What form that should take, I've never considered in depth.

However, according to my worldview, MEN are charged with the responsibility of setting up a household, not women. And in cases when a young woman is expected to marry, it doesn't make a lot of sense for both the man and woman to be out there setting up two separate households when only one is needed!

I'm not necessarily opposed to women living apart from their families if there's a good reason, however, I believe that strong accountibility and protection are both needed and desirable.

5:03 PM, March 29, 2006  
Blogger Erin said...

I might also add...

Why is it considered healthy and desirable to live with a family when you're a child, and then again when you marry and begin your own family, but not in the interim? (Leave out for the moment that some radical folks don't believe this). Don't we all need the support and accountibility and yes...protection that family offers throughout ALL of life? I know many single adults who are extremely lonely, because they do what society expects and live alone.

5:12 PM, March 29, 2006  
Blogger The Happy Feminist said...

I am not necessarily against the idea of young single people being more connected to family life. The common model of young people spending most of their home and social time only with other single people their own age is not the only way to live! The main thing about the boundless article that struck me as problematic was the double standard.

I am also not necessarily advocating sex before marriage. But what rubs me the wrong way is the idea (implicit in the Watters article) that sex is the motivation for men to marry.

10:26 PM, March 29, 2006  
Anonymous The Happy Feminist said...

This article got under my skin a little bit, so I just posted on it. My post is intentionally a bit sarcastic. The sarcasm is for the purpose of making my point, so I hope you don't interpret it as disrespectful to you.

Since my take on the article was negative, I didn't link back to this blog. I figured you probably didn't want a lot people flooding this blog just to argue with you. But if you prefer, I would be glad to link back to you since it was you who first brought my attention to this issue.

Thanks again for the thought provoking discussion.

7:32 AM, March 30, 2006  
Blogger Erin said...

But what rubs me the wrong way is the idea (implicit in the Watters article) that sex is the motivation for men to marry.

Or rather...the reverse, that sex outside of marriage is NOT motivation for men to marry! It may seem like quibbling, but it's an important distinction. Men certainly need and desire women for MANY reasons besides sex. But if they can get everything they want, including sex, outside of marriage, then some of the less conscientious ones will take advantage of that without being willing to make the honorable commitment of marriage. Who loses out in that scenario? Women, of course!

I never mind a good discussion, though I'm not in search of an argument. Also, this post is a week old and I've since moved on to other topics. Since you've got the topic going in a current thread, how about if I just link to you, and myself or some of my readers (if they desire) can comment over there?

9:27 AM, March 30, 2006  
Anonymous The Happy Feminist said...

Sounds lovely! I admit that your way of framing the issue of how to encourage men to marry is more palatable. But it is simply never occurred to me that sex should be used one way or the other (withheld or given) as a means to encourage marriage.

I'm a romantic so I guess I just find the idea of men having to be "motivated" to marry -- regardless of the means -- rather icky. I would vastly prefer to be single than married to one of those loss conscientious men!

12:53 PM, March 30, 2006  
Anonymous The Happy Feminist said...

Oh and the "sounds lovely" was with regard to continuing the discussion at my own thread -- not motivating men to marry!

12:54 PM, March 30, 2006  
Blogger BLOG REVIEWS said...

*****

8:36 PM, June 23, 2006  
Blogger The Scott said...

As an unmarried Christian myself I would discourage most unmarried Christians from buying a house. Although I think it's important for young Christian adults to get out of their parents house. It provides life experiences and gives one the opportunity to enjoy the blessings of premarital sex. But owning a house it a much greater responsibility than just renting. Owning a house of your own is a hassle. I was a home owner for 5 years, and I feel it was one of the greatest mistakes I've made in life.

The responsibilities of home ownership are a huge distraction from having a social life, which as an unmarried person you need. An apartment gets you a 'household' and you can often shorten your commute to work by renting than buying. This provides more time and money at your disposal for other priorities. If you decide to get married you'll need to combine households...and will probably sell any house you buy anyway.

All this said, some really enjoy the thought of having their own house. But for unmarried Christians, or even married Christians without kids, if you have any doubt about getting a house though then keep renting.

10:26 AM, January 27, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home