Engaged?

[CFLarsen]

Something struck me recently.

Danes don't get engaged. We tend to skip that part. Usually, people decide to live together, and if people do agree to get married (often after the kids have arrived), it seems like a good occasion to have a great party, fill up the house with blenders and microwave ovens, and get the tax issues out of the way. The latter matters a lot here.

In this day and age, what's the point of getting engaged? Historically speaking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement#The_engagement_period), getting engaged apparently was to ensure that someone could make a fuss, if "legal impediments" were discovered.

Let's face it: Betrothal is ridiculous: What will you do, if your betrothed one breaks up with you? Sue for breach of promise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_Promise)? So much for female empowerment.

Today, it seems more like a tradition for the sake of tradition. But what is the point of upholding a tradition, if it doesn't mean anything?

What about your country? Do people (still) get engaged? If so, why?

[schplurg]

As a newlywed (married 7 days now) my engagement was simply the amount of time necessary to plan the wedding ceremony after proposing marriage to my wife-to-be. Our wedding was small and was planned and completed in 2 weeks.

In my personal experience, being engaged was "necessary". The answer to your question seemed obvious to me at first. However, some people remain engaged for years...I don't know why that is. Hmmmm.....

[Miss Anthrope]

Another reason I'm like a Dane I guess. This is exactly what I did, barring the kids first. There was no official engagement. I had a child from a previous marriage, there were legal concerns regarding the future, so we said "Oh, I guess we'll get married to settle that."

Had a party. The bride wore red.

[Cain]

Engagement is a way to draw out the process. American girls are indoctrinated from an early age, and it's not unheard of to start wedding planning at the age of 12. Sure, a lot of people will dismiss that as idle kid's play, but they're mistaken. The whole thing is deranged. Even if there was only one bridal magazine then things would be ridiculous. There's this whole marriage industry and it's obscene.

[tkingdoll]

I don't understand engagements. Either you want to get married or you don't. If you do, what's stopping you?

Ah, yes, of course. The three years of saving up to pay for the huge dress that looks like a cake, and the huge cake that looks like a dress. Plus food for hundreds of guests, pink dresses for your fiance's nieces to wear as bridesmaids, groom, best man and usher outfits, gifts for them all, flowers, favours, balloons, decorations, invites, disco/band, and so on.

Which is fine if that's what rings your bell.

However, what annoys me is that during this period the woman will wear an engagement ring but the man will not. That seems to me like the man has marked his territory but feels no obligation to reciprocate in a public showing of 'I'm taken, thanks'. Why not pee on her leg to leave a scent while he's at it?

We were never engaged, but then again we were married within months of meeting. And we had a very simple wedding and spent all our cash on a massive honeymoon instead. We did say no gifts, but people seem to hate that, so we asked for music gift vouchers so we could get CDs and movies. Much better than endless toasters.

I have observed two types of engagements. Those where the couple really do intend to get married, and need a few years to plan and save. Groovy. Then there is the other type of engagement, where the woman is demanding 'a ring on her finger' and the guy complies to keep her quiet while he looks for a better model. I have seen this many times, sometimes with the gender reversed. Usually it's couples who are late teens.

I also know women who demanded to get engaged because they wanted a diamond. And I know women who got married because they wanted the fairytale wedding, with little thought to the less fairytale-ish life they'd have to live with the guy afterwards.

Amusingly, there's a pre-engagement thing you can do called 'getting eternitised'. I guess it's the promise that one day you might promise that one day you might promise to stay together forever. Or something.

[Ryokan]

Strangely enough, in Norway it's the opposite. I know a whole bunch of people who are engaged, but have made no plans to marry. When I inform them that engagement is a result of asking your beloved to marry, most are quite surprised. In other words, 'engagement' has lost its meaning here.

[quixotecoyote]

Speaking as someone who is engaged, I agree with the incomprehension in this thread. My fiancee has been hoping for a big fancy wedding since she was in junior high as a way (she's hinted to me) of showing up people who told her she'd never find somebody.

Now if it was me, I'd let it go since those people don't care what she does and probably won't even notice. But since it matters to her, we're having a long engagement so she can plan the perfect (and brutally expensive) wedding. I just try not to think about it too much.

[Ryokan]

Oh, I'm actually engaged myself. Sort of. I think.

[kmortis]

Oh, I'm actually engaged myself. Sort of. I think.

Goats don't count, Ryo.

[roger]

never mind.

[Hokulele]

I was engaged for 4 years before getting married. We met while I was still in school, and although we planned to marry, coursework came first. For us, the engagement was more a statement of intent for our families than much of anything else. And no, we did not have a big wedding. It was a beach party/clambake that we just happened to get married in the middle of. The largest expense was 100 pounds of Maine lobster purchased right of the boat. (Drool, drool, drool.)

[Caius Textor]

It´s really unusual to get engaged in here in the traditional sense, and even those numbers are deminishing. Usually people "engage" when they can´t afford to get married right away, or when they find out there´s a kid on the way.
This tends to vary a lot though, our culture is not very homogeneous.

I moved in with my then-girlfriend 2 years ago. Shortly after that we adopted "husband" and "wife" styles even though we didn´t sign any papers. We will when I graduate, even though the law here would treat us as married anyway.

[orphia nay]

I'd known my husband 2 months before he proposed, and we got married 2 days after that. We had no engagement ring or specially-bought wedding rings. Our 16th anniversary is in a couple of months.


As a newlywed (married 7 days now) my engagement was simply the amount of time necessary to plan the wedding ceremony after proposing marriage to my wife-to-be. Our wedding was small and was planned and completed in 2 weeks.

In my personal experience, being engaged was "necessary". The answer to your question seemed obvious to me at first. However, some people remain engaged for years...I don't know why that is. Hmmmm.....

Congratulations, newlyweds!

Oh, I'm actually engaged myself. Sort of. I think.

Congratulations! I think. :)

[Marquis de Carabas]

However, what annoys me is that during this period the woman will wear an engagement ring but the man will not. That seems to me like the man has marked his territory but feels no obligation to reciprocate in a public showing of 'I'm taken, thanks'. Why not pee on her leg to leave a scent while he's at it?
Because humans have poor sense of smell compared to other mammals, so potential romantic rivals might not notice, particularly in light of most women's fascination with such arcane rituals as showering and applying all manner of strange smelly ointments to every available piece of skin. This is why the best option is for the man to brand his fiancee on the forehead.

[NorwegianSquirrel]

Strangely enough, in Norway it's the opposite. I know a whole bunch of people who are engaged, but have made no plans to marry. When I inform them that engagement is a result of asking your beloved to marry, most are quite surprised. In other words, 'engagement' has lost its meaning here.

That sounds about right yes. I know of many couples that have gotten engaged, for no specific reason. Most of them never got married, they broke up.

If I were getting engaged, it would be to "pronounce" that the person I was getting engaged to was the person I wanted to be with for the rest of my life (yeah, I'm a sucker for traditions), but to get married was something that needed some more planning.

In my family, I know when people gets engaged if often mean "we've started planning our wedding, see you in 1-2 years"

[CFLarsen]

my engagement was simply the amount of time necessary to plan the wedding ceremony after proposing marriage to my wife-to-be. Our wedding was small and was planned and completed in 2 weeks.

Those where the couple really do intend to get married, and need a few years to plan and save.

we're having a long engagement so she can plan the perfect (and brutally expensive) wedding.

But, Shirley, it is possible to plan ahead without getting engaged?

For us, the engagement was more a statement of intent for our families than much of anything else.

Here, that may happen in some religious families, but in everyday Dane-life, it would be incomprehensible. That's simply not the families' business to know if the couple intend to get married or not. A family inquiring "Well, are you two going to get married or not?" is something of the past.

Because humans have poor sense of smell compared to other mammals, so potential romantic rivals might not notice, particularly in light of most women's fascination with such arcane rituals as showering and applying all manner of strange smelly ointments to every available piece of skin. This is why the best option is for the man to brand his fiancee on the forehead.

You know, there's a time and place for the scientific explanation... :)

[athon]

Well Noblecaboose and I are engaged. That means we discussed it, came to the conclusion that it was what we both wanted, and are now going about the paperwork and organising of events. We didn't have an engagement party or anything but we did tell people our intentions.

I'm assuming, however, that 'engaged' means something else in the context of this thread. I mean, I can't foresee people coming to a conclusion that they want to marry and then file the papers and arrange the services that very same moment.

Athon

[tkingdoll]

But, Shirley, it is possible to plan ahead without getting engaged?


You must have missed the 'marking of territory' bit in my post. How do you stop your woman finding a better man during the planning stage? Buy her a diamond! How do you stop other men approaching your woman during the planning stage? Brand her forehead!

etc

I completely agree that it's possible to plan ahead without being engaged. But I guess people like to label the section of time in between the 'yes let's' and 'I do'. Plus, it's always handy to have a practice run, I suppose. If you decide you are uncomfortable with the commitment of being engaged, then it's fortunate you didn't go all the way and get married. Better to break off an engagement than a marriage.

ooh, spin-off thread idea: why do women find diamonds so attractive? Is it just what they represent, is the way they look, a combination of both? Years of canny marketing? Diamonds seem to have a unique position, but many other stones are prettier and more expensive.

[geni]

But, Shirley, it is possible to plan ahead without getting engaged?

Sure but it is a convient way to tell everyone else to start planning


Here, that may happen in some religious families, but in everyday Dane-life, it would be incomprehensible. That's simply not the families' business to know if the couple intend to get married or not. A family inquiring "Well, are you two going to get married or not?" is something of the past.


If you don't tell the family/friends:
1)they may not show up
2)Tradition demands that you get married in Gretna Green and these days that would require you to spend 3 weeks in Scotland


The other thing is demark hasn't fought worth a damn since the Second Schleswig War so the number of young men going off to war and worried about their ladies staying faithful has been limited.

[Tanja]

This thread reminded me of the following quote I remember reading once (from Dave Barry, apparently)

Have you ever wondered why it takes a bride months and months to plan a wedding, but a good funeral can be pulled together in two days? The elements are all the same—church, minister, music, flowers, guests, food.

I recently went to a wedding that has been planned for over two years. It was supposed to happen last year, but they could not get the restaurant they wanted wit the band they wanted etc, so they postponed it. The wedding was great, but I am glad mine was smaller and more spontaneous. My husband and I never got engaged, we just decided it was time to get married. :)

[CFLarsen]

Sure but it is a convient way to tell everyone else to start planning

For what?

If you don't tell the family/friends:
1)they may not show up

I'm not talking about not telling family/friends that you are getting married. You can tell them the date long time in advance. But why get engaged for that?

2)Tradition demands that you get married in Gretna Green and these days that would require you to spend 3 weeks in Scotland

"Demands"? Should people uphold traditions because others think they have meaning, or because traditions have meaning to themselves?

The other thing is demark hasn't fought worth a damn since the Second Schleswig War so the number of young men going off to war and worried about their ladies staying faithful has been limited.

Ah, but then, those off to war got married - or postponed it altogether until after the war.

[athon]

I'm not talking about not telling family/friends that you are getting married. You can tell them the date long time in advance. But why get engaged for that?

Claus, what the hell do you think an engagement actually is, if not just proclaiming intent to marry?

Athon

[CFLarsen]

Claus, what the hell do you think an engagement actually is, if not just proclaiming intent to marry?

I know what the hell an engagement is. I'm asking why people in this day and age do it.

[athon]

I know what the hell an engagement is. I'm asking why people in this day and age do it.

You didn't answer the question. If it is just an intent to marry, then what's the issue? Two people who feel they want to be married discuss it and then say 'cool, let's do it'. They organise paperwork, save some money, make arrangements for an event, and in the meantime tell people they are going to get married.

What's the alternative? What do you think an engagement is, if not that?

Athon

[Ian Osborne]

I met my partner while we were students. We were engaged within three months of getting together, but we'd known each other for over two years as friends by then.

We were engaged in the Summer of 1989. We're still together and still happy (probably because I didn't pee on her leg after proposing ;) ), but still unmarried.

incidentally, I've never understood the need to get eternitised either. What a silly ritual. I guess it was made up by the jewellers as a way of selling more rings, just like Mothers' and Fathers' Days were created by greetings cards manufacturers... :duck:

[CFLarsen]

You didn't answer the question. If it is just an intent to marry, then what's the issue? Two people who feel they want to be married discuss it and then say 'cool, let's do it'. They organise paperwork, save some money, make arrangements for an event, and in the meantime tell people they are going to get married.

What's the alternative? What do you think an engagement is, if not that?

Ah, but there is sometimes a little more to it than that, isn't there? There's the ring issue, which Teek pointed out - a rather anti-feministic thing. There's the need to publically announce plans to marry, maybe years ahead in time. And there's the pressure on women that start at a very early age. The whole ritual of engagement seems to have little value in today's modern world. Apparently, in Norway, it has lost its original meaning altogether.

The alternative? Just live together, and if you want to get married, announce a date, and start planning.

[athon]

Ah, but there is sometimes a little more to it than that, isn't there?

Such as? I ask yet again, what is an engagement, then, if not an intent to marry? Why is it so difficult for you to answer that I have to ask three times?

There's the ring issue, which Teek pointed out - a rather anti-feministic thing.

I'm not sure I understand why it is an 'anti-feministic' thing, however this is a separate issue. Asking 'why do people get rings at engagements?' is rather different to 'why do people get engaged?'.

There's the need to publically announce plans to marry, maybe years ahead in time.

The alternative is what? Keeping it a secret? Are you serious? Two people begin to make plans to get married, and they tell people this. That is an engagement. My brother has been engaged for about a year to his fiancee and the mother of his kid. They're trying to scrape enough together to have a nice little wedding, and in the meantime are telling people that they love each other enough to be married.

And there's the pressure on women that start at a very early age.

Huh? What does this have to do with being engaged? This is a marriage issue more than just an engagement one.

The alternative? Just live together, and if you want to get married, announce a date, and start planning.

I've seriously missed something here, then. You'll have to explain what an engagement is in Denmark in which case. Because in my corner of the world, and in the US, and in the UK, that is an engagement. Sometimes the date isn't set in stone due to planning or funding constraints, but it's still an intent to marry.

Athon

[geni]

For what?

Turning up.



I'm not talking about not telling family/friends that you are getting married. You can tell them the date long time in advance. But why get engaged for that?

Convient way to do it.


"Demands"? Should people uphold traditions because others think they have meaning, or because traditions have meaning to themselves?

The tradition has a meaning. There are still relivant legal issues. You might want to consider where Gretna Green is geographicaly.


Ah, but then, those off to war got married - or postponed it altogether until after the war.

Nyet. Can't get married before war since you don't really have time. Engagement is the tool by which people make it clear that the duration of the war is only a postponement. Engagement rings in particular are due to this.

[CFLarsen]

Such as? I ask yet again, what is an engagement, then, if not an intent to marry? Why is it so difficult for you to answer that I have to ask three times?

Why is it so difficult for you to read what I say?

I'm not sure I understand why it is an 'anti-feministic' thing, however this is a separate issue. Asking 'why do people get rings at engagements?' is rather different to 'why do people get engaged?'.

Is it? Rings at engagements have a meaning: It is a visible symbol of the commitment to marry later on. But if it is just the woman who wears an engagement ring, then it is very much anti-feministic. Or, if you like, anti-equality.

The alternative is what? Keeping it a secret? Are you serious? Two people begin to make plans to get married, and they tell people this. That is an engagement. My brother has been engaged for about a year to his fiancee and the mother of his kid. They're trying to scrape enough together to have a nice little wedding, and in the meantime are telling people that they love each other enough to be married.

No, I am not saying they should keep it a secret. The alternative is - like I said - live together, and if you want to get married, announce the date.

Huh? What does this have to do with being engaged? This is a marriage issue more than just an engagement one.

But engagement is seen as a necessary preamble to marriage. Which is what I find peculiar, in this day and age.

I've seriously missed something here, then. You'll have to explain what an engagement is in Denmark in which case. Because in my corner of the world, and in the US, and in the UK, that is an engagement. Sometimes the date isn't set in stone due to planning or funding constraints, but it's still an intent to marry.

Engagement in Denmark is the same. But - again, like I said - people here don't "get engaged". We skip that. No rings (or ring), no ceremonials. Couples live together, and at some point, if they decide to get married, they get married. But no formal announcements of "engagement".

[Luciana]

You must have missed the 'marking of territory' bit in my post. How do you stop your woman finding a better man during the planning stage? Buy her a diamond! How do you stop other men approaching your woman during the planning stage? Brand her forehead!


This is curious, around here, if they get engaged at all, both men and women get rings. On the left hand means they're married, on the right hand means they're engaged. It's a gold ring for both. The definitive ones are exchanged, of course, at the wedding ceremony.

I believe engagement means different things. a) we have the date, let's get engaged until then; b) we don't have a date or definite plans, but this is more than a passing relationship. This one works also for couples who never intend to get legally married.

I believe it's only a stage, not a black and white thing, as things related to relationships.

Not that anyone is asking, but I think that spending an awful lot of money on a wedding ceremony is only acceptable if you're wealthy. If you're not, that money is better saved for the honeymoon and the future.

I know a woman who spent all her savings, including an inheritance, in a party. Two years later both lots their jobs and for six months they ate rice and bananas and she had a nervous breakdown because of all the debts. Wow, I hope that was a great party.

[CFLarsen]

Turning up.

Like I said, announcing a marriage date will do the trick. Why wouldn't it?

Convient way to do it.

Just as convenient as announcing they will get married a particular day.

The tradition has a meaning.

But to whom?

There are still relivant legal issues.

What legal issues?

You might want to consider where Gretna Green is geographicaly.

Yes, the Scottish Las Vegas. So?

Nyet. Can't get married before war since you don't really have time. Engagement is the tool by which people make it clear that the duration of the war is only a postponement.

How do you know you don't really have time?

Engagement rings in particular are due to this.

Wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_rings#History)

[Brian Pears]

What about your country? Do people (still) get engaged? If so, why?

A few weeks ago a couple of youngsters I know announced that they were 'engaged', but when I asked if they'd 'named the day' - ie arranged a date for the marriage - they burst out laughing as if that was a ridiculous notion.

Another young couple - the girl is a distant relative - held an "engagement party" as a prelude to the birth of their daughter, but again show no inclination to marry.

I suspect that "engagement" these days is a state in itself rather than a prelude to marriage. Something to give a semblance of 'respectability' to their cohabitation wthout the legal commitment of marriage.

People who want to marry, on the other hand, tend to live together and then marry without any formal 'engagement' - others just live together without any thoughts of either engagement or marriage. So, without any real evidence, I think that heterosexual couples these days mostly divide into three groups

1) Those who cohabit then marry.
2) Those who cohabit and are 'engaged'.
3) Those who cohabit.

In recent years I don't know of anyone who has taken the traditional route of a formal engagement followed by marriage - nor anyone who hasn't cohabited before marriage.

For my own part - my wife and I lived together for four months and then decided to marry - and three days after making that decision we married in a civil ceremony. (That was in 1980 - more notice is needed these days.) We both wanted something very quiet so we told nobody of our intention to marry apart from the two close friends who acted as witnesses - even our parents weren't informed until afterwards. I thoroughly recommend this practice. :D

[geni]

Like I said, announcing a marriage date will do the trick. Why wouldn't it?

Well to start with any randomly chosen date will result in a large number of no shows due to prior comittments


Just as convenient as announcing they will get married a particular day.


see above announcing a particular day has problems.


But to whom?


Signficant chucnk of the UK population.


What legal issues?


Differences between english and welsh law and scotish law.


Yes, the Scottish Las Vegas. So?


Not remotely.


How do you know you don't really have time?


Time between reciveing call up papers and have to join the relivant unit compared to typical time to plan a weding.


Wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_rings#History)

Dude that has like zero citations and is mostly talking about the upper class.

[CFLarsen]

Well to start with any randomly chosen date will result in a large number of no shows due to prior comittments

Why is a marriage date announced without a prior engagement "randomly chosen", but a marriage date announced with a prior engagement is not?

Signficant chucnk of the UK population.

Evidence?

Differences between english and welsh law and scotish law.

Such as?

Not remotely.

OK, Gretna Green is not a preferred place to marry. What did you mean, then?

Time between reciveing call up papers and have to join the relivant unit compared to typical time to plan a weding.

But weddings don't need to be planned way ahead in time. Find someone who can marry you, and go.

What, you never heard of marriages at sea?

Dude that has like zero citations and is mostly talking about the upper class.

Dude, I don't see you coming up with better references. Or even references at all.

[geni]

Why is a marriage date announced without a prior engagement "randomly chosen", but a marriage date announced with a prior engagement is not?

Because it gives the family a chance to sort out what dates are doable.



Evidence?


~1/8th of scotish wedings take place there.


Such as?


Question not well enough diffined we are talking about two seperate legal systems. There are various differences one is that 16 year olds do not require parental permission to marry in scotland.


OK, Gretna Green is not a preferred place to marry. What did you mean, then?


It is but not for the same reasons as vegas and I don't think it has casinos or neon on a large scale.


But weddings don't need to be planned way ahead in time. Find someone who can marry you, and go.

Historicaly this hasn't been the case in england. Generaly major contractal arangements whould be planned ahead of time.


What, you never heard of marriages at sea?


Legal validity isn't always great.

[CFLarsen]

Because it gives the family a chance to sort out what dates are doable.

That is only a reassertation of your postulate. You need to explain why this isn't possible with a marriage date sans engagement.

~1/8th of scotish wedings take place there.

Are you going somewhere with this?

Question not well enough diffined we are talking about two seperate legal systems. There are various differences one is that 16 year olds do not require parental permission to marry in scotland.

What does that have to do with engagement?

It is but not for the same reasons as vegas and I don't think it has casinos or neon on a large scale.

Nevertheless, people go to both places in great numbers to get married.

Historicaly this hasn't been the case in england. Generaly major contractal arangements whould be planned ahead of time.

Evidence?

Legal validity isn't always great.

What does that have to do with whether it is possible to marry quickly?

Any chance of a reference of your claim that engagement rings are due in particular to the postponement of marriage due to war?

[geni]

That is only a reassertation of your postulate. You need to explain why this isn't possible with a marriage date sans engagement.

It's posible but since you would be going for an engagement in everything but name there would be little reason to do so.



Are you going somewhere with this?


Provideing evidences


What does that have to do with engagement?


Marriage Act 1753 in effects mandates a minium of 3 weeks engagement.


Nevertheless, people go to both places in great numbers to get married.


Vegas is what I understand is technicaly called a city. Gretna Green is a small village.


Evidence?


Marriage Act 1753


What does that have to do with whether it is possible to marry quickly?


legaly invalid marrages are largely meaningless


Any chance of a reference of your claim that engagement rings are due in particular to the postponement of marriage due to war?

nope google reacts badly to any mention of ww2 and engage.

[CFLarsen]

It's posible but since you would be going for an engagement in everything but name there would be little reason to do so.

Rrrrrright. :rolleyes:

Marriage Act 1753 in effects mandates a minium of 3 weeks engagement.

Where does it say that? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753)

If true, is it still mandatory with 3 weeks of engagement?

Vegas is what I understand is technicaly called a city. Gretna Green is a small village.

And this is relevant how?

legaly invalid marrages are largely meaningless

Wrong. (http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/ht/marriedatsea.htm)

nope google reacts badly to any mention of ww2 and engage.

Too bad for your argument.

[TragicMonkey]

I can't believe nobody's brought up the whole point of engagement:

It's to give your friends and family time to find ways to show you what a horrible choice you've made and how you're about to ruin your life.

If they can't convince you to snap out of it in the time allotted, either your love is strong enough to make it through, or else you're stupid enough to deserve the disaster you're bringing upon yourself.

And if you think people aren't going to say "I told you so!" during the divorce proceedings, well, you're naive and that maniac you married is going to have you on toast in the settlement.

[Ysidro]

I'm friends with at least two couples where both partners where/wore engagement rings. None of them had gemstones at all, IIRC.

Never heard of getting "eternitised" before. Sounds rather silly, though I can't find much information about it beyond what's been mentioned here.

Claus, are you saying that weddings are pretty much spur of the moment things over there? Because otherwise I can't see how there isn't an engagement.

Mind you, there's the whole "fairytale tradition gimie diamonds and I'm going to show everything off" engagement. Then there's the "let's get married, we'll tell everyone, and take some time to put our affairs in order. Oh and there may or may not be a ring involved in this." Don't get them confused. Both ostensibly end in marriage, but one is purely a show-and-tell event.

[CFLarsen]

Claus, are you saying that weddings are pretty much spur of the moment things over there? Because otherwise I can't see how there isn't an engagement.

Oh, no, marriages are very much the planned event. Couples just don't announce their "engagement". They go straight from living together for a while (often years, maybe more than a decade, sometimes raising a family, buying a house etc inbetween), to announcing that they are getting married.

[Ryokan]

Oh, no, marriages are very much the planned event. Couples just don't announce their "engagement". They go straight from living together for a while (often years, maybe more than a decade, sometimes raising a family, buying a house etc inbetween), to announcing that they are getting married.

Well, technically they're engaged then.

If you ask someone to marry, and they say yes, then you're engaged until the wedding ceremony takes place.

ETA: The fact that there's so much confusion around what an engagement actually is just proves that the word engagement has lost its meaning.

[CFLarsen]

Well, technically they're engaged then.

If you ask someone to marry, and they say yes, then you're engaged until the wedding ceremony takes place.

ETA: The fact that there's so much confusion around what an engagement actually is just proves that the word engagement has lost its meaning.

Indeed. Because I've never heard that definition before!

[athon]

Well, technically they're engaged then.

If you ask someone to marry, and they say yes, then you're engaged until the wedding ceremony takes place.

ETA: The fact that there's so much confusion around what an engagement actually is just proves that the word engagement has lost its meaning.

I agree, which is why I've been asking for a definition of 'engagement'. If Claus had said 'why is there so much ceremony about the engagement', I might agree. Myself and NC haven't had (and won't have) an engagement party. I bought her a small opal pendant as a gift, not because tradition demanded it but rather I felt I wanted to mark the moment with something special.

However, we are engaged in every sense of the word.

Athon

[CFLarsen]

I agree, which is why I've been asking for a definition of 'engagement'. If Claus had said 'why is there so much ceremony about the engagement', I might agree. Myself and NC haven't had (and won't have) an engagement party. I bought her a small opal pendant as a gift, not because tradition demanded it but rather I felt I wanted to mark the moment with something special.

That's exactly what I did, mate: Ask why there is such a hubba hubba about engagement - especially when it seems to have lost its original meaning.

However, we are engaged in every sense of the word.

Ayup. But why do you feel the need to proclaim the intent to marry, without actually naming a date?

[quixotecoyote]

Indeed. Because I've never heard that definition before!

I've never heard of a different one. Odd.

[CFLarsen]

I've never heard of a different one. Odd.

There's a difference: Intent without a set goal.

When you ask someone to marry you, you set a date.

When you agree to get engaged, you agree to get married, but you don't set a date.

[The Atheist]

But what is the point of upholding a tradition, if it doesn't mean anything?

Tr this instead:

This tradition means nothing to me, so it should be dispensed with.



Couple of other points:

Anti-feminism??????????

Maybe in some cases. Personally, it was "buy an engagement ring or wake up sans ***** tomorrow."

So, the reason I spent two grand of hard-won cash was cowardly, sure.

Anti-feminist, no way. The only choice I had was how to pay for it.

Aside from seeing no harm in a tradition which ....

....does no harm at all.



So what? Lots of women love being engaged - I'm sure some men do, too, but they possibly would be the ones marking territory - and I'm sorry, but Claus does not get to say which traditions are upheld and which aren't. Especially when the world's full of useless and stupid traditions. I'd rate all of the following as a great deal more useless than engagements. (Much as I think engagements are stoopid!)

Easter eggs
Sant Claus
Tooth fairy
St Valentine's Day
Mothers' Day
Fathers' Day
Birthday celebrations




But in the end, what could be funnier than Claus looking to dispense with traditions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67670&highlight=demolition+vegas+casino)

[athon]

That's exactly what I did, mate: Ask why there is such a hubba hubba about engagement - especially when it seems to have lost its original meaning.

Your very first post said:

In this day and age, what's the point of getting engaged?

You then quoted a historical source which gave historical tradition why engagements were publicised occasions. But at no point was your query phrased 'why is there so much ceremony surrounding engagements today?'. Hence we're scratching our heads saying 'how can you marry without first asking one another and then informing others of your intentions?'.

Ayup. But why do you feel the need to proclaim the intent to marry, without actually naming a date?

Ah, and here we are again. Make up your mind; is the ceremony surrounding it which bothers you or the fact that people tell others of their intention? Which is it? Because one is an actual engagement, the other is a celebration of the engagement.

I ask you this as an answer; why would you keep your intention a secret? The reason we haven't set a firm date is that it depends on numerous factors such as availability of venues, costs, negotiation of when people can make it etc.

Athon

[The Atheist]

When you agree to get engaged, you agree to get married, but you don't set a date.

Demonstrably wrong.

Maybe that applies in the minute percentage of the world which constitues the Monarchy of Denmark, but in the rest of the world you are so wrong it is half-past laughable.

I can disprove your statement all on my own.

Sure, lots of people have no exact date, but I'd say the majority (and definitely the vast majority of the hundreds of married couples I know and have known) usually look to get married, "next December", or some reasonably specific date, subject to availability, etc.

Now change the subject.

[CFLarsen]

Couple of other points:

Anti-feminism??????????

Maybe in some cases. Personally, it was "buy an engagement ring or wake up sans ***** tomorrow."

So, the reason I spent two grand of hard-won cash was cowardly, sure.

Yeah. You discovered you had to pay for sex.

Anti-feminist, no way. The only choice I had was how to pay for it.

Oh? How is paying for sex pro-feminist?

Aside from seeing no harm in a tradition which ....

....does no harm at all.

So what? Lots of women love being engaged - I'm sure some men do, too, but they possibly would be the ones marking territory - and I'm sorry, but Claus does not get to say which traditions are upheld and which aren't. Especially when the world's full of useless and stupid traditions. I'd rate all of the following as a great deal more useless than engagements. (Much as I think engagements are stoopid!)

Where do I claim I get to say which traditions are upheld and which aren't?

Easter eggs
Sant Claus
Tooth fairy
St Valentine's Day
Mothers' Day
Fathers' Day
Birthday celebrations

Indeed. Why do we uphold traditions, if they don't mean anything to us?

But in the end, what could be funnier than Claus looking to dispense with traditions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67670&highlight=demolition+vegas+casino)

Not upholding traditions for the sake of upholding traditions, but preservation of history.

[The Atheist]

Not upholding traditions for the sake of upholding traditions, but preservation of history.

:dl:

[CFLarsen]

:dl:

You didn't find these funny:

How is paying for sex pro-feminist?

Where do I claim I get to say which traditions are upheld and which aren't?

Why do we uphold traditions, if they don't mean anything to us?

[The Atheist]

You didn't find these funny:

No, you're right, I found them absurd, irrelevant, or both.

How is paying for sex pro-feminist?

Now, I realise that your understanding of human sexual relationships is tempered by the fact that you lack experience in them, but the point is both ridiculous and incorrect.

Buying an engagement ring has nothing to do with paying for sex. Wives are not prostitutes.

Where do I claim I get to say which traditions are upheld and which aren't?

The OP is all about your personal dislike of a tradition - again which must be tempered by the fact that you have no experience in the field. Accordingly, you're asking for people to take heed of what you say.

Fat chance.

Why do we uphold traditions, if they don't mean anything to us?

For precisely the same reasons as you want to preserve history. Would you like the link again?

[CFLarsen]

Now, I realise that your understanding of human sexual relationships is tempered by the fact that you lack experience in them, but the point is both ridiculous and incorrect.

Buying an engagement ring has nothing to do with paying for sex. Wives are not prostitutes.

And yet, you said:

Personally, it was "buy an engagement ring or wake up sans ***** tomorrow."


The OP is all about your personal dislike of a tradition - again which must be tempered by the fact that you have no experience in the field. Accordingly, you're asking for people to take heed of what you say.

Fat chance.

Wanting people to take heed is different than demanding that others do what I want. Any "grammar stalin" would know.

For precisely the same reasons as you want to preserve history.

And what reasons are those?

[The Atheist]

Now change the subject.

:s2:

[Darth Rotor]

:s2:
May I suggest, for no particular reason, that you adopt Grammar Tyrant rather than Grammar Stalin as your avatar label?

This is suggested to keep in theme, as Grammar Nazi would go with Grammar Communist, or Grammar Gestapo would go with Grammar Police, or even Grammar KGB(NKVD?). What I like about Grammar Tyrant is that it connotes the generic sentiment of absolutist grammar authority by decree of TA, without pandering to any particular creed or political system.

The Atheist: a Grammar Tyrant for all seasons, or all reasons.

For your consideration.

This thought was brought to you by People for Pointless Pedantry, and, based on unsubstantiated rumor, Claus Larsen's (mythical) :goat. I promise to give it back as soon as it gives me a gallon's worth of Skeptical Yogurt.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I don't understand engagements. Either you want to get married or you don't. If you do, what's stopping you?
*Chorus from Fiddler on the Roof*

Tradition!
However, what annoys me is that during this period the woman will wear an engagement ring but the man will not.
Jewelers the world over share you annoyance, as it precludes another profit line.
That seems to me like the man has marked his territory but feels no obligation to reciprocate in a public showing of 'I'm taken, thanks'. Why not pee on her leg to leave a scent while he's at it?
I had not heard that Golden Showers were back in vogue, but if they are, I suppose some men do. :eek:
And we had a very simple wedding and spent all our cash on a massive honeymoon instead.
Briliant! I would suggest that to any couple, given what my wife and I decided after all was said and done: more for the honeymoon would have been neat.
We did say no gifts, but people seem to hate that, so we asked for music gift vouchers so we could get CDs and movies.
More brilliance. One of the first weddings I went to as a kid was a big time Italian wedding, and what went on there was a passing of the hat.

Fifties and hundreds, mostly. Saw something similar at a Greek Wedding back in 99.
Much better than endless toasters.
My wife and I decided, after a few years, that all of the silver trays and so on were fine for people with maids to polish them, but in retrospect were much less than pleased with that tradition. We one by one dispensed with them.

Then there is the other type of engagement, where the woman is demanding 'a ring on her finger' and the guy complies to keep her quiet while he looks for a better model.
Or a super model. :eye-poppi Most of them then learn about the reality of the Holy Graille legend.
I have seen this many times, sometimes with the gender reversed. Usually it's couples who are late teens.
My comments on folks getting married in that phase of their lives shall remain censored.
I also know women who demanded to get engaged because they wanted a diamond.
A baseball field is a nice present, I never thought to get my wife one. :eek: Doh!
Amusingly, there's a pre-engagement thing you can do called 'getting eternitised'. I guess it's the promise that one day you might promise that one day you might promise to stay together forever. Or something.
Is that anything like getting a bucket galvanized?

DR

[NobbyNobbs]

But, Shirley, it is possible to plan ahead without getting engaged?



Here, that may happen in some religious families, but in everyday Dane-life, it would be incomprehensible. That's simply not the families' business to know if the couple intend to get married or not. A family inquiring "Well, are you two going to get married or not?" is something of the past.



You know, there's a time and place for the scientific explanation... :)




I completely agree that it's possible to plan ahead without being engaged.


I can't believe the amount of chutzpah I'm about to demonstrate, but...

Teek, I have to disagree with you.

To my way of thinking, two people (a) decide to get married, and (b) get married. There has to be some time in between (a) and (b), whether it's 5 minutes or 5 years. During this time, you are "engaged", by definition. The engagement may or may not involve a ring, it may or may not involve deciding on china patterns, it may or may not involve hiring a 12-piece orchestra, it may or may not even involve telling anybody about it. But either way, that time period exists, and that is the "engagement".

[NobbyNobbs]

But, Shirley, it is possible to plan ahead without getting engaged?



Here, that may happen in some religious families, but in everyday Dane-life, it would be incomprehensible. That's simply not the families' business to know if the couple intend to get married or not. A family inquiring "Well, are you two going to get married or not?" is something of the past.



You know, there's a time and place for the scientific explanation... :)




I completely agree that it's possible to plan ahead without being engaged.


I can't believe the amount of chutzpah I'm about to demonstrate, but...

Teek, I have to disagree with you.

To my way of thinking, two people (a) decide to get married, and (b) get married. There has to be some time in between (a) and (b), whether it's 5 minutes or 5 years. During this time, you are "engaged", by definition. The engagement may or may not involve a ring, it may or may not involve deciding on china patterns, it may or may not involve hiring a 12-piece orchestra, it may or may not even involve telling anybody about it. But either way, that time period exists, and that is the "engagement".

[baron]

The word "engaged" means that a betrothal has taken place; a vow to marry at some time in the future. It's therefore the period between the agreement to marry and the actual marriage. In my case it was more like engaging the enemy, but I gather that's not always the case.

[MWare]

In my case (I am planning on proposing this weekend), I see the proposal as the promise to dedicate the rest of my life to my gf. That's what's important IMO. The wedding is a legal arrangement which will most likely happen in a small civil event (just the two of us) at City Hall. This legal arrangement has a lot of implications since my gf is an immigrant. Some serious legal and cultural logicistics will need to be worked out between the engagement and the wedding.

The wedding will occur whenever she wants it to occur, but whether it happens next week or next year is of little importance to me. I've made the promise. I'm not sure what this "what if she finds better man" nonsense is, so I really can't speak to that. Our engagement is not a warranty period. It is the time between making the promise and getting the logistics settled for getting married.

Incidentally, I get the sense that the whole proposal, engagement, fanfares, traditions stuff is not very popular in this thread. For added punch, I'm also calling her parents Wednesday to formally ask her hand. How's that for traditions?

But pointless? I wouldn't call it that. All the time and effort I put into making the proposal and the engagement special will be abundantly obvious to her. Since my promise is to do everything I can to make her happy for the rest of my life, it doesn't seem pointless to me.

Maybe I'm a romantic. I believe this in no way contradictory to my being a skeptic.

Now having said all this, there is no 100% guarantee that she will actually say yes. Perhaps next week I may be less of a romantic. We will have to wait and see.

[Brian Pears]

Marriage Act 1753 in effects mandates a minium of 3 weeks engagement.

You mean the act that was repealed by the Marriage Act 1836 which in turn was amended by Marriage Acts in 1898, 1936, 1949 and 1994 (I may have missed one or two). When I married in 1980 the minimum period between giving notice of marriage and marrying was 3 days, since 1994 it has been 15 days.

[The Atheist]

May I suggest, for no particular reason, that you adopt Grammar Tyrant rather than Grammar Stalin as your avatar label?

Excellent idea, thanks.

Custom change requested!

Now having said all this, there is no 100% guarantee that she will actually say yes. Perhaps next week I may be less of a romantic. We will have to wait and see.

Probably more chance of you becoming less of a romantic in the long term if she says yes!

(Good luck!)

[tkingdoll]

I can't believe the amount of chutzpah I'm about to demonstrate, but...

Teek, I have to disagree with you.

To my way of thinking, two people (a) decide to get married, and (b) get married. There has to be some time in between (a) and (b), whether it's 5 minutes or 5 years. During this time, you are "engaged", by definition. The engagement may or may not involve a ring, it may or may not involve deciding on china patterns, it may or may not involve hiring a 12-piece orchestra, it may or may not even involve telling anybody about it. But either way, that time period exists, and that is the "engagement".

This is nothing but a semantics debate. You are defining 'engaged' as 'the period of time between agreeing to get married and actually doing it. I am defining it as 'the period of time where a couple declare themselves engaged'. Clearly, other cultures do not call that period an engagement. My hubby and I didn't call it an engagement either, and none of the hallmarks of an engagement were present, other than an eventual wedding.

You can't say "you were engaged because Nobby Nobbs says you were according to his definition of the word."

[The Atheist]

You can't say "you were engaged because Nobby Nobbs says you were according to his definition of the word."

No more than you claim that you weren't "engaged" because you don't like the term.

Throughout the British Commonwealth at least, "engaged" merely means that you have agreed to get married. Given the universality of meaning, backed by any dictionary you choose to use, there's not really any way out.



Interesting aside.

Dictionary.com, when I checked to make sure that some other Grammar Tyrant hadn't hacked the dictionaries in my absence, I looked up "betroth", which brought up these ads:

Ads by Google
The Truth About Hell
No One Will Burn in Hell For All Eternity-And We Can Prove It!
www.realtruth.org

God is Warning the World
Repent or perish! 3 prophecies re the coming judgement of God
www.godswarningtotheworld.com/

:dl:

I've always thought god must be pretty useless when people have to resort to paying for ads for him.

[The Atheist]

May I suggest, for no particular reason, that you adopt Grammar Tyrant rather than Grammar Stalin as your avatar label?

And done, as quickly as that!

Good thought, cheers.

[tkingdoll]

No more than you claim that you weren't "engaged" because you don't like the term.

Throughout the British Commonwealth at least, "engaged" merely means that you have agreed to get married. Given the universality of meaning, backed by any dictionary you choose to use, there's not really any way out.




Sorry, but in the UK, it is absolutely clearly defined. Many, many people are married but were never engaged. An engagement is a period whereby the couple announce their engagement, the woman usually has a ring, often an engagement party, etc. But always, always, the couple call themselves engaged and refer to each other as 'fiance'.

There are people who don't do any of the above, but have to wait a few weeks to get married because of the law, as per my hubby and myself. They don't call themselves engaged, and no-one else does either.

Engaged is a really specific thing in the UK to anyone who has ever been engaged, or avoided it. Simply "waiting for the legal paperwork to go through" is not it.

Engaged is not a legal term. This is nothing but a semantics debate based on differences in usage. You might as well argue that 'fanny' means buttocks. In the UK, it does not.

And as has already been demonstrated here, many people get engaged with no intention of marrying. Does that mean they're not really engaged? Cause TA and Nobby say so?

[HarryKeogh]

There are people who don't do any of the above, but have to wait a few weeks to get married because of the law, as per my hubby and myself. They don't call themselves engaged, and no-one else does either.

I would. I never saw an engagement as requiring a ring, a party or special announcement. In my neck of the woods a conversation would be like:

Teek and her husband are getting married!

Really? When did they get engaged?

Yesterday. He proposed via the scoreboard at Wembley.

How wonderfully romantic! Who won the game?


I always saw it as just a term for that period between deciding to get married to each other and the actual wedding. No more, no less. So to me, the OP doesn't make much sense. In fact, I would find it impossible to get married and not be engaged (even if for a few minutes).

Now if we're talking about couples who are living together for 10 years, call themselves engaged but have no plans to marry...I've known people like that and that makes zero sense to me. What's the term? Crap or get off the pot.

[athon]

Well that's news to me. Can anybody British back up Teek's claim? Not to say I was married or engaged in the UK, but here in Australia (which reflects English tradition and culture in many respects) there's no real petty distinction. And I never encountered that feeling with those British friends of mine in the UK (of who I had three different couples get engaged, two of which had simple drinks-at-the-pub celebrations and didn't engage rings. The other couple didn't have any celebration but bought each other a simple token, in the form of a ring for her and a watch for him).

I couldn't imagine somebody saying to me 'we're getting married', and I say, 'so who's your fiancee', only to be told, 'oh we're not engaged'. That seems absolutely absurd to me. Sure, you mightn't use the term fiancee, but then I know of one or two couples who don't like the terms husband and wife, and don't use them (they typically just say 'my partner'). Doesn't mean they don't have a partner referred to in common tradition as a husband or a wife.

I can see all sorts of arguments for and against celebrations and rings at a time of engagement. I can see some people not feel comfortable with the term fiancee. But to say 'we're getting married but aren't engaged' is insanely foreign to me. I associate nothing else with the term other than the fact two people are in the process of arranging a wedding and a marriage.

Athon

[DanishDynamite]

Something struck me recently.

Danes don't get engaged. We tend to skip that part. Usually, people decide to live together, and if people do agree to get married (often after the kids have arrived), it seems like a good occasion to have a great party, fill up the house with blenders and microwave ovens, and get the tax issues out of the way. The latter matters a lot here.

In this day and age, what's the point of getting engaged? Historically speaking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement#The_engagement_period), getting engaged apparently was to ensure that someone could make a fuss, if "legal impediments" were discovered.

Let's face it: Betrothal is ridiculous: What will you do, if your betrothed one breaks up with you? Sue for breach of promise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_Promise)?
Why is betrothal ridiculous?
Today, it seems more like a tradition for the sake of tradition. But what is the point of upholding a tradition, if it doesn't mean anything?
Tradition is often tradition for traditions sake. What exactly is the point, other than tradition, to have a Sankt Hans fire? Or to celebrate Morten's aften? Or to celebrate New Year? Or....?

[tkingdoll]

I would. I never saw an engagement as requiring a ring, a party or special announcement. In my neck of the woods a conversation would be like:

Teek and her husband are getting married!

Really? When did they get engaged?

Yesterday. He proposed via the scoreboard at Wembley.

How wonderfully romantic! Who won the game?


I always saw it as just a term for that period between deciding to get married to each other and the actual wedding. No more, no less. So to me, the OP doesn't make much sense. In fact, I would find it impossible to get married and not be engaged (even if for a few minutes).

Now if we're talking about couples who are living together for 10 years, call themselves engaged but have no plans to marry...I've known people like that and that makes zero sense to me. What's the term? Crap or get off the pot.

But the very fact that you are aware that couples who are engaged but have no plans to marry proves that 'being engaged' does not mean what some people are claiming it does.

Absolutely anyone you ask, friends or family, will tell you that I was never engaged. I was unmarried, then married. There was a brief period in the middle where we had to make lots of phone calls and sign some stuff. But no-one referred to that as an engagement, and no-one referred to either of us as 'fiance' during that period without being told that we were not any such thing. And this is not uncommon, I assure you. My sister and her boyfriend plan to marry but would laugh if I suggested they are 'engaged'.

I suspect that most couples these days use an engagement as a road test as much as anything. Of my friends who are or were engaged, most didn't start planning the actual wedding until quite some time into the engagement.

I couldn't imagine somebody saying to me 'we're getting married', and I say, 'so who's your fiancee', only to be told, 'oh we're not engaged'. That seems absolutely absurd to me.

This absolutely happened, regardless of whether or not you can imagine it :)

I think it's a cultural shift. I think couples are moving away from traditionalism and all the labels that go with it.

[Number Six]

However, what annoys me is that during this period the woman will wear an engagement ring but the man will not. That seems to me like the man has marked his territory but feels no obligation to reciprocate in a public showing of 'I'm taken, thanks'. Why not pee on her leg to leave a scent while he's at it?

I think you'll find in the US at least that the engagement ring exists because women want it, not men. You won't hear many men say that in mixed company though because not only does the guy have to buy an engagement ring he has to pretend like he enjoys it, otherwise something hits the fan. I think 99% of guys would be ecstatic if their marriage proposal and engagement ring gift were answered with "I'll marry you on one condition: you take the ring back and get a refund." Maybe in the past it was meant to mark territory but not any more. And I don't think something that can be removed so easily is much of a territory mark anyway.

As far as the engagement period in general goes I think it's serves as a time when people ask themselves "Are you really sure you want to make a permanent commitment?" Of course, it's taken too far sometimes with long engagements and a long time to plan a big wedding, but I think at least some time to really think over what you're getting yourself into is good.

[madmonk76]

Well Noblecaboose and I are engaged. That means we discussed it, came to the conclusion that it was what we both wanted, and are now going about the paperwork and organising of events. We didn't have an engagement party or anything but we did tell people our intentions.

I'm assuming, however, that 'engaged' means something else in the context of this thread. I mean, I can't foresee people coming to a conclusion that they want to marry and then file the papers and arrange the services that very same moment.

Athon

That is pretty much the exact case with Mr Humphreys and I.
The official date, by the way, is to be 10th November.
Most of our engagement was spent filing paperwork for the proper visa.


ETA: I like my ring very much, but it isn't a diamond.
I'm not a big fan of the diamonds.
They're very expensive for something that looks quite boring, IMO.
I got something pink, cuz I'm a big girl.
The truth is, I don't really own a lot of jewelery, so I'm glad we got a ring.
I absolutely love it, and since it doesn't look like an engagement ring, I'll be able to wear it forever on my right hand anyway.

Does this make me a horrible person?

[athon]

But the very fact that you are aware that couples who are engaged but have no plans to marry proves that 'being engaged' does not mean what some people are claiming it does.

Plan is different to intent. They mightn't have a celebrant organised, and papers filed, or a date set in their diary, but they fully intend on getting married.

This absolutely happened, regardless of whether or not you can imagine it :)

Oh, knowing you I don't doubt that this occured. We're not discussing so much whether situations such as that have occured, but rather what the common view of the term is. As I said earlier, just because some people avoid terms such as husband and wife doesn't mean that a guy's married partner is not commonly referred to as his wife, in law and in common acceptance.

I think it's a cultural shift. I think couples are moving away from traditionalism and all the labels that go with it.

But 'engagement' is an accepted term following the decision of intent to marry. It's not a legal or even so much a religious state of being (except in some cultures where betrothal is still all the rage). I'd agree that more and more couples aren't doing parties and buying rings, which is a drift away from tradition, but unless the vernacular changed radically to drop the label, the period of time still exists and is typically referred to as an engagement. Abandoning the term doesn't mean you're not engaged - it means you're not openly using the terms that go with it, such as 'fiancee'.

I don't begrudge anybody that, but how you can define that as not being engaged when that's what the term means in the wider community makes no sense to me.

Athon

[tkingdoll]

I don't begrudge anybody that, but how you can define that as not being engaged when that's what the term means in the wider community makes no sense to me.



I think that's the crux of of our disagreement - I believe the wider British community would consider a couple only engaged if they declare themselves engaged. But that's likely to be biased by my own social circle, which isn't particularly representative of anything but the bohemian 30-something middle classes.

Some of it is down to little semantic differences too - for example many couples 'get engaged' which I would see very clearly as a formal announcement of their betrothal. But is that the same as 'being engaged' - perhaps not. As I said, pre-engagements (eternity rings) are also popular. People plan to get engaged, so to many it must be a formal state, not just an inbetweeny nothingness.

But in the absence of any countrywide 'what is an engagement' study, I guess we'll never know. It really doesn't matter. I and many others will continue to say 'I was never engaged' and some people will continue to insist that we were, even though no traditional aspects of engagement were present.

[athon]

That is pretty much the exact case with Mr Humphreys and I.
The official date, by the way, is to be 10th November.
Most of our engagement was spent filing paperwork for the proper visa.

That's where Noblecaboose and I are at now. The fact her family is in the US and mine is here means we'll be having a couple of parties, it seems, but we haven't gone to any lengths with the engagement. The papers are completed, celebrant in the process of being organised...it's now a waiting game.

ETA: I like my ring very much, but it isn't a diamond.
I'm not a big fan of the diamonds.
They're very expensive for something that looks quite boring, IMO.
I got something pink, cuz I'm a big girl.
The truth is, I don't really own a lot of jewelery, so I'm glad we got a ring.
I absolutely love it, and since it doesn't look like an engagement ring, I'll be able to wear it forever on my right hand anyway.

Does this make me a horrible person?

According to some, it seems so.

I bought NC an opal pendant because I know she likes opals. I wanted to get her a gift to mark the moment. Gifts are for just that - mementos to say you're loved. I sure as hell don't own her and I'm certainly not under her thumb (just don't let her know that ;)).

Athon

[madmonk76]

Bah!
The world thinks less of me for having a ring.
I am crushed...or something or nothing.
;)

[athon]

I think that's the crux of of our disagreement - I believe the wider British community would consider a couple only engaged if they declare themselves engaged. But that's likely to be biased by my own social circle, which isn't particularly representative of anything but the bohemian 30-something middle classes.

I'm pretty much of the same class, albeit here in Australia, and (admittedly suffering from the same alleged bias) feel that if I said 'we're getting married but aren't engaged' I'd get some pretty peculiar looks. My time in the UK was probably too limited to get a good feel on this ground, but nothing in my experience made me think it was any different.

Some of it is down to little semantic differences too - for example many couples 'get engaged' which I would see very clearly as a formal announcement of their betrothal. But is that the same as 'being engaged' - perhaps not.

This is the root of my confusion. I can't see the difference at all. Both are being engaged to marry - one has more formal celebration about it, the other less so. If 'being engaged' had some legal or social connotation, adding an expectancy to behave differently or to perform some ritual, and the couple didn't perform said rituals or behaviours, I might agree that there needs to be a distinction. But there isn't.

As I said, pre-engagements (eternity rings) are also popular. People plan to get engaged, so to many it must be a formal state, not just an inbetweeny nothingness.

Which says, to me, that such a practice makes even less sense. Not saying this doesn't happen, but I've never known anybody do this, so can't even begin to fathom what they're thinking. Then again, people do a lot of silly things that hardly makes any sense.

But in the absence of any countrywide 'what is an engagement' study, I guess we'll never know. It really doesn't matter. I and many others will continue to say 'I was never engaged' and some people will continue to insist that we were, even though no traditional aspects of engagement were present.

The thing is that the distinction seems to matter enough for some people to say they aren't engaged. I'm curious to know if this is based on a real social phenomena that actually exists, or if its a perception of some undefined state of relations that some small groups have.

I might be swayed to think it's an actual phenomena if there were couples who were engaged and had no intention to wed. I don't mean they have no solid plans set down, but they have absolutely no intention of ever being married.

(we can agree to disagree, but this really has me curious).

Athon

[sphenisc]

My girlfriend and I got engaged in March and eighteen months later we got married, in November.

[CFLarsen]

Now having said all this, there is no 100% guarantee that she will actually say yes. Perhaps next week I may be less of a romantic. We will have to wait and see.

Why isn't it your girlfriend who proposes to you?

There are people who don't do any of the above, but have to wait a few weeks to get married because of the law, as per my hubby and myself. They don't call themselves engaged, and no-one else does either.

Here in Denmark, there is no such waiting period. It all depends on how quickly you can book the church/city council. You can call the city council this morning to see if they have free time this afternoon.

Why is betrothal ridiculous?

It's the announcement of betrothal that is ridiculous.

Tradition is often tradition for traditions sake. What exactly is the point, other than tradition, to have a Sankt Hans fire? Or to celebrate Morten's aften? Or to celebrate New Year? Or....?

You're right (for once!): These traditions mean nothing to us, except a chance to get together and par-tay!. Ask a Dane the meaning of Pinse (Pentecost), and you will get a blank stare.

I think you'll find in the US at least that the engagement ring exists because women want it, not men. You won't hear many men say that in mixed company though because not only does the guy have to buy an engagement ring he has to pretend like he enjoys it, otherwise something hits the fan. I think 99% of guys would be ecstatic if their marriage proposal and engagement ring gift were answered with "I'll marry you on one condition: you take the ring back and get a refund." Maybe in the past it was meant to mark territory but not any more. And I don't think something that can be removed so easily is much of a territory mark anyway.

But, isn't the ring a very real symbol of the man marking his territory? "She's taken, by me!" "I'm his, look here!"

As far as the engagement period in general goes I think it's serves as a time when people ask themselves "Are you really sure you want to make a permanent commitment?" Of course, it's taken too far sometimes with long engagements and a long time to plan a big wedding, but I think at least some time to really think over what you're getting yourself into is good.

That should be something people living together should consider anyway.

[athon]

So, Claus, let me get this straight - in your view, people should discuss getting married, go out that afternoon and sign the paperwork, and at no point in between tell anybody who matters to them what they're doing?

This might sound facetious but any alternative is to announce to people you are intending to marry in the future...which is technically being engaged.

Oh, and a ring can't be given to mark the occasion. And the guy can't ask the girl if she wants to marry him.

:rolleyes:

Athon

[CFLarsen]

So, Claus, let me get this straight - in your view, people should discuss getting married, go out that afternoon and sign the paperwork, and at no point in between tell anybody who matters to them what they're doing?

No, I gave an example of how it could be done.

This might sound facetious but any alternative is to announce to people you are intending to marry in the future...which is technically being engaged.

You can call it that. There is, however, a difference between implied engagement and announced engagement.

Oh, and a ring can't be given to mark the occasion.

No, I didn't say anything about that.

And the guy can't ask the girl if she wants to marry him.

No, I asked why it couldn't be the girl who asked the guy. Not that it had to be the girl.

[athon]

You can call it that. There is, however, a difference between implied engagement and announced engagement.

Most people don't make such a distinction, and I'm yet to see any evidence that this is a widely viewed phenomena. Engagement seems to be accepted as the term for what you call two people who intend to marry. It can either be celebrated or not. But even a non-celebration is an engagement.

No, I didn't say anything about that.

To you, the ring is taken to be a symbol of 'marking one's territory':

But, isn't the ring a very real symbol of the man marking his territory? "She's taken, by me!" "I'm his, look here!"

I assume you feel a man marking a woman as his territory isn't a good thing. Ergo, a man shouldn't give his girlfriend a ring on engagement.

No, I asked why it couldn't be the girl who asked the guy. Not that it had to be the girl.

Who said it couldn't? MWare says he's asking his girlfriend to marry him. Why assume his girlfriend couldn't be the one to do the asking?

Athon

[CFLarsen]

Most people don't make such a distinction, and I'm yet to see any evidence that this is a widely viewed phenomena.

Has anyone claimed this?

Engagement seems to be accepted as the term for what you call two people who intend to marry. It can either be celebrated or not. But even a non-celebration is an engagement.

If you look at the symbolism attached to formal engagements, you can hardly call an implied intent to marry an "engagement".

Does this mean that even going steady implies an intent to marry, and thus can be called an engagement? What about having sex on the first date?

To you, the ring is taken to be a symbol of 'marking one's territory':

Yes. And?

I assume you feel a man marking a woman as his territory isn't a good thing. Ergo, a man shouldn't give his girlfriend a ring on engagement.

You are quite right: I don't think a man marking a woman as his territory is a good thing.

Who said it couldn't? MWare says he's asking his girlfriend to marry him. Why assume his girlfriend couldn't be the one to do the asking?

I didn't assume. I asked.

[Ian Osborne]

Who said it couldn't? MWare says he's asking his girlfriend to marry him. Why assume his girlfriend couldn't be the one to do the asking?

Traditionally, the woman shoul only propose to the man on February 29th each leap year (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_year#Marriage_proposal)). Somehow, I doubt those who can't wait will be arrested by the tradition police... :D

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I'm pretty much of the same class, albeit here in Australia, and (admittedly suffering from the same alleged bias) feel that if I said 'we're getting married but aren't engaged' I'd get some pretty peculiar looks. My time in the UK was probably too limited to get a good feel on this ground, but nothing in my experience made me think it was any different.

I completely agree - I have never heard of anyone saying they are making arrangements to marry someone but are not engaged to them.

[tkingdoll]

Here in Denmark, there is no such waiting period. It all depends on how quickly you can book the church/city council. You can call the city council this morning to see if they have free time this afternoon.


According to some people in this thread, that half-day waiting period is your engagement. I bet millions of Danes will be surprised to hear that...

Also, anybody who read my initial post as me declaring engagement rings are marking territory needs to go back and read it again. Here is what I said:

However, what annoys me is that during this period the woman will wear an engagement ring but the man will not. That seems to me like the man has marked his territory but feels no obligation to reciprocate in a public showing of 'I'm taken, thanks'. Why not pee on her leg to leave a scent while he's at it?


Clearly, I said that it seems to me. That is, I didn't wear a ring my husband does not also wear because it seems like I'd be 'reserved' while he is not. It's old fashioned. I dislike tradition. I am not saying everyone feels that way. However, would anyone like to explain why men don't wear an engagement ring but women do? Because I suspect the history of that particular tradition dates back to a time of less equality.

[CFLarsen]

According to some people in this thread, that half-day waiting period is your engagement. I bet millions of Danes will be surprised to hear that...

Very much so.

Historically speaking, engagement was a very serious matter here. But today, it means nothing except tradition. There are no legal implications of any kind.

Forlovelse (http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forlovelse)

[tkingdoll]

I completely agree - I have never heard of anyone saying they are making arrangements to marry someone but are not engaged to them.

You mean in your social circle. Clearly you have heard of it, as several people in this thread have declared it so. In MY social circle it's pretty commonplace. Many people find engagements belong to the same era as dowries and church weddings.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You mean in your social circle. Clearly you have heard of it, as several people in this thread have declared it so. In MY social circle it's pretty commonplace. Many people find engagements belong to the same era as dowries and church weddings.

Several people? I know you have, but I am not sure others have. CFL's posts seem to draw a distinction between formally announcing you are engaged and agreeing to marry one another, but I am not clear on whether he thinks you are only engaged if you do the former rather than the latter.

Having checked several online dictionaries for engagement, all include something along the lines of "a mutual promise or pledge to marry". This seems to suggest that common usage is what Athon and I understand it to be - i.e. that engagement is the period between agreeing to marry and actually getting married. None that I saw had any requirement for a public announcement, an exchange of rings or, in the modern context, any legal implications.

I am not clear on what distinction you are drawing between being engaged and having agreed to marry someone. Can you elaborate on what the difference is (or is it simply a dislike of the word because of its historical connotations)?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If you look at the symbolism attached to formal engagements, you can hardly call an implied intent to marry an "engagement".

Does this mean that even going steady implies an intent to marry, and thus can be called an engagement? What about having sex on the first date?

Where do you get "implied" intent to marry from? I was not aware anyone had proposed that as a definition.

The dictionary definition talks of a mutual promise or pledge to marry, which seems entirely in line with what Athon is saying - if you and another person agree to marry each other, then you are engaged whether or not you tell nobody, tell close friends only or put an advert on the front page of every newspaper on the planet.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

My girlfriend and I got engaged in March and eighteen months later we got married, in November.

March + 18 months = November?

[CFLarsen]

Where do you get "implied" intent to marry from? I was not aware anyone had proposed that as a definition.

When you announce that you are going to get married.

[athon]

Has anyone claimed this?

I'm totally lost. For one, you seem to indicate this is the Danish way, and there is something of a subtext to your posts, either intended or not, that this extends beyond Denmark. Many posters here are indicating that the distinction is news to them, making me think that engagement means something different in Denmark than it does in most other countries.

Therefore you might be free to make that distinction with regards to Danish interpretation of the term, but to most an engagement simply refers to a period of time. Nonetheless, this means nothing to you and you storm on ahead, continuing to assume that engagement widely implies something more ceremonial.

If you look at the symbolism attached to formal engagements, you can hardly call an implied intent to marry an "engagement".

*sigh* You're either being deliberately ignorant or stubborn. I'm certain many people still attribute some ceremony to engagements such as parties and gift exchange. I'm not sure what you mean by 'symbolism', though, other than the giving of a ring. Beyond that there's no practice or behaviour that reflects engagements to be anything other than a description of the intent to marry.

However, for many people any such ceremony doesn't exist. It doesn't for me; I had no such party. And I fail to see how giving my girlfriend a pendant as a gift to mark the occasion is any real crime.

Does this mean that even going steady implies an intent to marry, and thus can be called an engagement? What about having sex on the first date?

You're being pathetically ridiculous, Claus.

Yes. And?

Ok, so in your opinion a ring should not be offered? And don't go playing semantics with my original use of the word 'can't' rather than 'should not'. You tend to pick and choose when your understanding of English subtext fails, and I'm not buying it with this one.

I didn't assume. I asked.

Why did you ask?

Athon

[athon]

When you announce that you are going to get married.

How is that an 'implication'? It's pretty bloody blatant to me.

'So, babe, you want to get married?'
'What are you implying?'
'Do you want to get hitched? Tie the knot?'
'I don't understand the implications of that question?'
'It's a straight forward question. Marry me!'
'Are you implying that you want us to get married?'
'Ugh. Not any more dumbass.'

Athon

[athon]

Ok, I just did a quick MSN poll. I asked a Dutch friend of mine no living in Australia, a friend back in the UK who lived in Denmark for two years and a friend of mine who spent six years in France. I asked them all:

Could one ask somebody to marry them, get an affirmative response, and not be considered engaged?

All offered various responses. Not one felt it reflected any culture they understood. By no means comprehensive, and it doesn't exclude pockets of social views where engagement means something more than 'intent to marry', however unless somebody produces some evidence I consider myself unmoved on the belief that engagement means nothing more than that.

Athon

[Brian Pears]

Many people find engagements belong to the same eraas dowries and church weddings.
That certainly seems to reflect the attitude of my social circle. As I've previously mentioned, the only couples I know who've ever claimed to be "engaged" seem to regard it as an end in itself ... a sort of licence to cohabit.

[athon]

That certainly seems to reflect the attitude of my social circle. As I've previously mentioned, the only couples I know who've ever claimed to be "engaged" seem to regard it as an end in itself ... a sort of licence to cohabit.

Serious question; if they were to tick a box on a legal form that had 'single', 'engaged', 'married', 'divorced', what would they tick?

Additionally, even if they didn't celebrate it with a party, did they tell people they were getting married? Did they deny they were engaged if so?

Athon

[Jaggy Bunnet]

When you announce that you are going to get married.

What is "implied" about that?

Sounds fairly explicit.

Given you choose that definition, it would appear to clear up your "confusion" about whether "going steady" or "having sex on the first date" amount to engagement.

[sphenisc]

March + 18 months = November?

Well spotted, however my statement is true.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Well spotted, however my statement is true.

I thought there was going to be a clever answer involving getting engaged in one time zone on the last day of March (April in some timezones) and getting married in a different timezone on the first day of November (October in some timezones) which made the 18 months true, provided you picked your timezones carefully.

[tkingdoll]

I am not clear on what distinction you are drawing between being engaged and having agreed to marry someone. Can you elaborate on what the difference is (or is it simply a dislike of the word because of its historical connotations)?

It could well be the latter, but the definition of a word is how it is used, and in my social circle, and my observation of wider British society, it is used to denote a formal engagement (as I said, almost always complete with a ring, party, etc). People who want to get married right away and have to jump through the legal waiting time hoop to do so don't generally refer to themselves as engaged, and consider themselves never having been so.

Being engaged is a formal thing. Some people skip that formal stage and go straight to the even more formal 'actually getting married' part. I don't see what the problem with those people not regarding themselves as engaged is. I can't think of anything more private, really, than the state of a relationship, so quite why anyone thinks it's OK to declare "you are engaged because some people in society label you so whether you like it or not!" is beyond me.

I'll throw another cat among the pigeons too...I never proposed to my husband and he never proposed to me. Perhaps you might demand that we acknowledge the 3am pizza-eating-on-the-bed conversation in which we mutually agreed that getting married might be the thing to do as 'a proposal', but I do not. What difference does it make to anyone else if we choose to reject traditional labels?

[CFLarsen]

I'm totally lost. For one, you seem to indicate this is the Danish way, and there is something of a subtext to your posts, either intended or not, that this extends beyond Denmark.

No. You have totally misread what I said. I specifically asked in the OP what the situation was in other countries.

I really have no idea how you can possibly get from my posts that I think it extends beyond Denmark. Could you provide quotes, please? In fact, could you go through this thread and provide quotes in the cases where you repeatedly misunderstood me?

Many posters here are indicating that the distinction is news to them, making me think that engagement means something different in Denmark than it does in most other countries.

Therefore you might be free to make that distinction with regards to Danish interpretation of the term, but to most an engagement simply refers to a period of time. Nonetheless, this means nothing to you and you storm on ahead, continuing to assume that engagement widely implies something more ceremonial.

It isn't something different in Denmark than in other countries. There might be legal implications in other countries, though.

*sigh* You're either being deliberately ignorant or stubborn. I'm certain many people still attribute some ceremony to engagements such as parties and gift exchange. I'm not sure what you mean by 'symbolism', though, other than the giving of a ring. Beyond that there's no practice or behaviour that reflects engagements to be anything other than a description of the intent to marry.

However, for many people any such ceremony doesn't exist. It doesn't for me; I had no such party. And I fail to see how giving my girlfriend a pendant as a gift to mark the occasion is any real crime.

Here is perhaps the biggest implication of officially being engaged: You now proclaim that you are going to get married, and got the ring to show for it. Well, maybe not men.

You're being pathetically ridiculous, Claus.

Why? It's a perfectly valid question.

Ok, so in your opinion a ring should not be offered? And don't go playing semantics with my original use of the word 'can't' rather than 'should not'. You tend to pick and choose when your understanding of English subtext fails, and I'm not buying it with this one.

I think any "marking of one's territory" is distasteful, oppressive and demeaning.

Why did you ask?

Because I was curious.

What is "implied" about that?

Sounds fairly explicit.

Given you choose that definition, it would appear to clear up your "confusion" about whether "going steady" or "having sex on the first date" amount to engagement.

I can't speak for other people.

[madmonk76]

Why isn't it your girlfriend who proposes to you?


It could be.
At least, I proposed to Mr. Humphreys.
I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[Obsequious]

I am a culturally impoverished USian. Could someone please explain for me what exactly constitutes a formal engagement these days and how it differs from an informal one, and how an informal engagement differs from a simple duration of agreement between two people on intent to marry? Or if I missed it, could you please point me to the relevant post? Thanks in advance.

[Ysidro]

That's where Noblecaboose and I are at now. The fact her family is in the US and mine is here means we'll be having a couple of parties, it seems, but we haven't gone to any lengths with the engagement. The papers are completed, celebrant in the process of being organised...it's now a waiting game.



So you're engaged or just plan to get married? I'm so confused ;)

Seriously congrats to both of you, I didn't know this. Although damn you for taking her off the market. :D

[madmonk76]

Could someone please explain for me what exactly constitutes a formal engagement these days and how it differs from an informal one, and how an informal engagement differs from a simple duration of agreement between two people on intent to marry?

Probably not.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It could well be the latter, but the definition of a word is how it is used, and in my social circle, and my observation of wider British society, it is used to denote a formal engagement (as I said, almost always complete with a ring, party, etc). People who want to get married right away and have to jump through the legal waiting time hoop to do so don't generally refer to themselves as engaged, and consider themselves never having been so.

Being engaged is a formal thing. Some people skip that formal stage and go straight to the even more formal 'actually getting married' part. I don't see what the problem with those people not regarding themselves as engaged is. I can't think of anything more private, really, than the state of a relationship, so quite why anyone thinks it's OK to declare "you are engaged because some people in society label you so whether you like it or not!" is beyond me.


Maybe I am being dense but I still don't understand what distinction you are drawing. Two people agree to get married - by my understanding (and Athon's and all the definitions I can find online) they are engaged (there is a mutual promise or pledge to marry).

I am not clear what else you think is necessary for them to be engaged as opposed to just intending to get married - is it the ring and the party? I don't understand what you mean by it being a "formal thing" - what formality are you referring to?

As for the latter point, words have meanings - it appears pretty clear from a search of online definitions of engagement is the state that exists between two people who have made a mutual promise to marry. I don't see this as any more of a label than describing two people who live together as "cohabiting" or two people who have had a wedding as being "married", it is simply a description of the state of their relationship.

[Ysidro]

This is a very strange thread. I mean, I can take posts by woos, trolls, and troothers and deal with disagreements. I can understand.

This one. This just messes me up.

One one side, we have folks (including myself) who believe an engagement is the period of time between deciding to get married and actually getting married. There may or may not be certain rituals involved with the engagement depending on the couples' desires.

On the other, we have the belief an engagement is a formalized declaration of intent to marry with specific rituals that may or may not vary by location and culture. Any intent to marry without these specific rituals is just "we're going to get married."

Obviously this is never going to reach a point of consensus. I only say this to admit to myself that anyone (again including myself) engaging in this discussion does so purely for the chance to discuss and argue points.

Now that being said, I feel better with saying the following.

What the heck do you call the period of time between the agreement to marry and the marriage? It seems to be the arguement against using the word "engagement" is really an arguement against the rituals (ring, parties, formal announcements, etc.) instead. And I'm all for argueing against those things, personally. But it seems to me there's a perfectly fine word to describe a period of time that isn't getting used.

Won't you think of the poor word? It's sitting all alone, like a spinster oddly enough, just waiting to be used in certain circles. Look at it, all sad and distraught. Come on, you know you want to give this word a home. A home in a nice vocabulary where it can be loved and cherished.

Or.... maybe not.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It could be.
At least, I proposed to Mr. Humphreys.
I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Who else do you think proposed to Mr Humphreys?

[MWare]

Excellent idea, thanks.

Custom change requested!



Probably more chance of you becoming less of a romantic in the long term if she says yes!

(Good luck!)

A man can be happy with any woman as long as he does not love her.
- Oscar Wilde

(and thanks)

And as for the comment: "Why doesn't she propose to you?", a few have responded accurately that there is nothing preventing her from doing that, which highlights what a naive question it was to begin with.

[madmonk76]

Who else do you think proposed to Mr Humphreys?

I'm not sure, but whoever they are I suggest they change their name and go into hiding. I get quite jealous.

[Number Six]

But, isn't the ring a very real symbol of the man marking his territory? "She's taken, by me!" "I'm his, look here!"

I don't think the engagement ring is a marking of territory at all. Do guys care about the ring? Not in my experience. Now if the guy went to the bother of getting a ring and the woman didn't wear it then the guy might be annoyed but that's only because he went to the bother of getting the ring and there proved to be no point in doing so. But I think if he didn't have to get the ring in the first place he'd be even happier.

The woman is the one always wanting to show off the ring. The guy doesn't care. That's not to say that the guy doesn't care if another guy moves in on his woman, but it's just that an engagement ring is such a lousy way of marking territory anyway. It can be taken off easily.

If we're talking about ways of marking territory I'd say one strong one is when the man insists that the woman take his last name after they marry.

[pgwenthold]

Woody Boyd: We could get secretly engaged.
Kelly Gaines: Oh yes, Woody. That's a wonderful idea. It'll be our special secret. I'll be in Europe, and you'll be here, and we'll have an unspoken bond across the ocean.
Woody Boyd: Oh, that sounds swell. So you won't date any other guys while you're in Europe?
Kelly Gaines: Well Woody, if I don't date any other guys, then people might suspect that I'm secretly engaged.
Woody Boyd: Yeah, that's right, yeah. So I'll have to do the same thing back here in the States, 'cept of course I'll date women.
Kelly Gaines: Right Woody.
Woody Boyd: Yeah.
Woody Boyd: Hey, wait a minute. You're not already secretly engaged to someone else, are you?
Kelly Gaines: No. But even if I were, I couldn't tell you because it'd be a secret.
Woody Boyd: Boy, I can trust you.

[pgwenthold]

I don't think the engagement ring is a marking of territory at all. Do guys care about the ring? Not in my experience. Now if the guy went to the bother of getting a ring and the woman didn't wear it then the guy might be annoyed but that's only because he went to the bother of getting the ring and there proved to be no point in doing so. But I think if he didn't have to get the ring in the first place he'd be even happier.
.

I always figure the ring is the woman's way of keeping other guys from bothering her.

[Ryokan]

That is pretty much the exact case with Mr Humphreys and I.
The official date, by the way, is to be 10th November.
Most of our engagement was spent filing paperwork for the proper visa.

I just wanted to let you know that you're breaking hearts here :(

[HarryKeogh]

I always figure the ring is the woman's way of keeping other guys from bothering her.

True.

I also figure the ring is the woman's way of showing off to her friends how much her man is willing to spend on a stupid, overpriced rock.

I agee with Number Six. I couldn't care less about the ring. Nothing would make me happier than for my girlfriend to say "I don't want a ring. How about we put the money towards a house instead?" It's been my experience men buy rings becauce women want them and not of any urge to "mark their territory"

[madmonk76]

I just wanted to let you know that you're breaking hearts here :(

You've got a thing for the preggos, have you?
:p

I always figure the ring is the woman's way of keeping other guys from bothering her.

In my experience, it doesn't work.
If a guy is going to hit on you, he's going to hit on you, whether you're wearing a ring or not.
I thought I'd get hit on less with Mr Humphreys' name tattooed on me, but you'd be surprised how little of a deterrent that is as well.

[sphenisc]

Purely in the interests of stirring... are people who have agreed to join in a civil partnership, engaged, "engaged" or some other term?

[The Atheist]

It's the announcement of betrothal that is ridiculous.

Amazing. Even on such a nothing subject, you feel the need to lie!

The OP:

Let's face it: Betrothal is ridiculous: ...

[pgwenthold]

In my experience, it doesn't work.
If a guy is going to hit on you, he's going to hit on you, whether you're wearing a ring or not.

1) Creeps are always creeps.
2) It's a lot easier to blow them off by waving a ring in their face if they do come at you, as opposed to simply telling them to buzz off.

[The Atheist]

1) Creeps are always creeps.

Why is a bloke who chats up an engaged woman automatically a creep?

I can think of several instances where engagements have been broken off because one or other party has found someone better and with whom they've ultimately ended up living happily ever after.

[pgwenthold]

Why is a bloke who chats up an engaged woman automatically a creep?



Nothing wrong with "chatting up." OTOH, approaching an engaged woman with an intent to try to get her to have a romantic encounter (aka "hitting on") is creep personified.

[Sinisterdan]

I know what the hell an engagement is. I'm asking why people in this day and age do it.
In order to give your relatives enough time to buy some shiny, shiny presents.

...and my wife asked me...