Engaged?

[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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

 

[Darth Rotor]

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) . 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.

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. 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. 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".