• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Engaged?

sphenisc said:
Well spotted, however my statement is true.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
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)?
Click to expand...

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?
 
athon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

athon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

athon said:
*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.
Click to expand...

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.

athon said:
You're being pathetically ridiculous, Claus.
Click to expand...

Why? It's a perfectly valid question.

athon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

athon said:
Why did you ask?
Click to expand...

Because I was curious.

Jaggy Bunnet said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for other people.
 
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.
 
athon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Obsequious said:
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?
Click to expand...

Probably not.
 
tkingdoll said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
The Atheist said:
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!)
Click to expand...

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.
 
CFLarsen said:
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!"
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Number Six said:
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.
.
Click to expand...

I always figure the ring is the woman's way of keeping other guys from bothering her.
 
madmonk76 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to let you know that you're breaking hearts here :(
 
pgwenthold said:
I always figure the ring is the woman's way of keeping other guys from bothering her.
Click to expand...

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"
 
Ryokan said:
I just wanted to let you know that you're breaking hearts here :(
Click to expand...

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

pgwenthold said:
I always figure the ring is the woman's way of keeping other guys from bothering her.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Purely in the interests of stirring... are people who have agreed to join in a civil partnership, engaged, "engaged" or some other term?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom