Engaged?

[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...

 

[The Atheist]

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.

If you say so.

I'll note this new meaning, thanks.

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

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.

Interregnum?

1. an interval of time between the close of a sovereign's reign and the accession of his or her normal or legitimate successor.

 

[athon]

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

Claus, is it old age that is making you forgetful, or is The Atheist correct and you just can't help but lie and dodge. The evidence is in the OP:

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

Nothing on the meaning of the term. Nothing on the sentiments of engagement. The subtext of 'engagement is historical and outdate, do people in your country still do it?' without pondering whether maybe, just maybe, you're amongst a minority who attribute more to the word than others do.

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

Again, not what you said. You said 'Do people (still) get engaged (in your country)?'. Not 'how do people view the meaning of engagement in your country?'. There's a significant difference - in the former you've already assumed that 'engagement' automatically has some celebratory meaning beyond just your neck of the woods.

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.

NC got an opal pendant. I know a lot of variations on the ring and a lot of couples who get each other a gift. Evidentally, therefore, it isn't about marking your territory. Such a tradition has evolved. Beyond that, many people don't even get gifts. I didn't do any such thing for my first marriage. And you know what? We were still engaged.

Why? It's a perfectly valid question.

No, it's you being a smart arse.

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

True, so do I. Did you want me to wait while you grab some marshmellows for that strawman? As I said, a ring is not automatically a symbol of ownership. True, wearing a ring on the left ring finger is a social code for 'I'm taken'. I know of no man, however, who insists that his girlfriend wears a ring.

Hence it's a female's desire to show she's off the market. Not a male's desire to show she belongs to him.

Funny how traditions change.

Because I was curious.

What invoked the curiosity?

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.

Because it's not, in my understanding, a label. It's an accepted term for a state of relationship. Nobody says you have to celebrate it, announce it, or do anything as a result of it. There's no new behaviour (other than assuming you're planning a wedding or to sign paperwork) or connotation you should stick to.

Let's use a similar term, 'divorce'. I can't go around now saying 'I'm no longer married to my ex wife, but we're not divorced, because it's not a label I like to apply to myself'. I don't enjoy the connotations of failure that accompany the term, to be honest (never did like ticking that box on forms), yet it would be downright confusing for me to say I'm not in that state of relationship in relation to my past marriage. I don't have to celebrate it, or announce it freely. But to say 'I'm not divorced' is essentially a contradiction.

Athon

 

[athon]

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

I don't know myself anymore. It's a relatively short engagement - we had no party (well, we went out to dinner), and we've pretty much got the first wedding (there's going to be a couple of small parties, it seems, to keep all of the relatives happy) sorted in about a month.

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

Haha, thanks. You have to be quick. Still, the timing was right for us and it all felt right. There's plenty of skepchicks out there somewhere still...I hear.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, is it old age that is making you forgetful, or is The Atheist correct and you just can't help but lie and dodge. The evidence is in the OP:

Nothing on the meaning of the term. Nothing on the sentiments of engagement. The subtext of 'engagement is historical and outdate, do people in your country still do it?' without pondering whether maybe, just maybe, you're amongst a minority who attribute more to the word than others do.

Again, not what you said. You said 'Do people (still) get engaged (in your country)?'. Not 'how do people view the meaning of engagement in your country?'. There's a significant difference - in the former you've already assumed that 'engagement' automatically has some celebratory meaning beyond just your neck of the woods.

I have to admit, I have lost count of how many times you have misread me in this thread. I am asking if people get engaged in their countries - if they still do, that is.

That's it. You don't need to read more into it than that. You don't need to overinterpret, or attribute motives to me that I don't have.

NC got an opal pendant. I know a lot of variations on the ring and a lot of couples who get each other a gift. Evidentally, therefore, it isn't about marking your territory. Such a tradition has evolved. Beyond that, many people don't even get gifts. I didn't do any such thing for my first marriage. And you know what? We were still engaged.

Still a visible symbol.

No, it's you being a smart arse.

If you don't want to answer, just say so.

True, so do I. Did you want me to wait while you grab some marshmellows for that strawman?

Oh, no, I wouldn't want to steal your idiomatic blunder.

As I said, a ring is not automatically a symbol of ownership. True, wearing a ring on the left ring finger is a social code for 'I'm taken'. I know of no man, however, who insists that his girlfriend wears a ring.

Hence it's a female's desire to show she's off the market. Not a male's desire to show she belongs to him.

Funny how traditions change.

How can you speak so authoritatively about everyone else? I hope you don't base it on your own MSN poll.

What invoked the curiosity?

A stray thought.

Because it's not, in my understanding, a label.

In my understanding, that's not my quote.

 

[athon]

I have to admit, I have lost count of how many times you have misread me in this thread. I am asking if people get engaged in their countries - if they still do, that is.

That's it. You don't need to read more into it than that. You don't need to overinterpret, or attribute motives to me that I don't have.

WTF?? How does one misread something so blatant as the phrase 'Do people still get engaged in your country?'. Seriously Claus, the sad thing is that it's all there to be seen. I don't have to twist anything - the words are as evident and obvious as it gets. You attacked 'engagment' as an act, not the ceremony around it. You ask if people still get engaged, not do people still celebrate it. They are you words, crystal clear.

TA is indeed right - even on a rather nothing subject as this one you feel the need to play stupid games. It's truly pathetic how far you've fallen.

Still a visible symbol.

A symbol of ownership? So every pendant you see on a girl represents ownership? If no, then it's not a very effective symbol. If yes, you're either lying or one sad guy.

How can you speak so authoritatively about everyone else? I hope you don't base it on your own MSN poll.

I say 'I know of no man who insists his girlfriend wears an engagement ring', and I mean just that. You have evidence to the contrary that it is a common practice for men to make their girls to wear a sign of ownership? Or more silly Claus games?

A stray thought.

Then put it back in its yard, because it makes you sound like you've got an issue you've not got the balls to air.

In my understanding, that's not my quote.

No, my apologies. I quoted Teek, and didn't refer it to her post.

Athon

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Still a visible symbol.

What complete and utter nonsense.

You claimed your concern was about "marking of territory". Which clearly does not apply here as there is no social convention that women wearing opal pendants are "taken", so your supposed concern is wholly irrelevant. However due to your apparent inability to consider the fact that you can ever make an error, you talk about it being a visible symbol (exactly what is it meant to symbolise?).

I can only assume that you have never given anyone, nor received, a gift due to your concern that this would amount to "marking of territory".

 

[CFLarsen]

WTF?? How does one misread something so blatant as the phrase 'Do people still get engaged in your country?'. Seriously Claus, the sad thing is that it's all there to be seen. I don't have to twist anything - the words are as evident and obvious as it gets. You attacked 'engagment' as an act, not the ceremony around it. You ask if people still get engaged, not do people still celebrate it. They are you words, crystal clear.

TA is indeed right - even on a rather nothing subject as this one you feel the need to play stupid games. It's truly pathetic how far you've fallen.

I have explained, even in depth, what I mean. You can interpret that as you please.

A symbol of ownership? So every pendant you see on a girl represents ownership? If no, then it's not a very effective symbol. If yes, you're either lying or one sad guy.

No, I don't see every pendant on a girl representing ownership.

I say 'I know of no man who insists his girlfriend wears an engagement ring', and I mean just that. You have evidence to the contrary that it is a common practice for men to make their girls to wear a sign of ownership? Or more silly Claus games?

The burden of evidence is on you.

Then put it back in its yard, because it makes you sound like you've got an issue you've not got the balls to air.

You do not decide what ideas I - or anyone else - float around here. If you don't like to discuss this, then don't.

I thought of this, and it gave me pause to think. Since this is a forum with many nationalities, I asked what people from other countries thought. You can jump in with your thoughts, or you can stay away.

 

[CFLarsen]

What complete and utter nonsense.

You claimed your concern was about "marking of territory". Which clearly does not apply here as there is no social convention that women wearing opal pendants are "taken", so your supposed concern is wholly irrelevant. However due to your apparent inability to consider the fact that you can ever make an error, you talk about it being a visible symbol (exactly what is it meant to symbolise?).

I can only assume that you have never given anyone, nor received, a gift due to your concern that this would amount to "marking of territory".

I have given gifts, and received as well, but I have always been very concerned that the gifts I have given were not seen as markings of territory.

I know: I'm such a bad guy for feeling this way.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I have given gifts, and received as well, but I have always been very concerned that the gifts I have given were not seen as markings of territory.

I know: I'm such a bad guy for feeling this way.

You moved on from "markings of territory" to "visible symbols". Did you ensure they were not seen as such?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I am asking if people get engaged in their countries - if they still do, that is.

Yet you appear to be working with a definition of "engaged" that is not common usage and does not appear to tie into those available in online dictionaries.

Perhaps the reason you are being misunderstood is because you have failed to explain what you mean by "engaged" and how this differs from "agree to get married".

If you did that, perhaps people would be able to understand you.

 

[athon]

You moved on from "markings of territory" to "visible symbols". Did you ensure they were not seen as such?

Claus is also conveniently ignoring the fact that the of bestowing a ring at an engagement is a tradition women drive rather than men. How this is therefore a 'marking of territory', complete with the connotation of cave-man territorial pissings, is beyond me.

I also fail to see how NC's opal pendant is a symbol of ownership. She looks at it and is reminded of me. Others look at it and think 'nice pendant'. No meaning of ownership (and believe me, Noblecaboose cannot be owned. I don't go for those sorts of girls) has been transferred.

Athon

 

[athon]

Yet you appear to be working with a definition of "engaged" that is not common usage and does not appear to tie into those available in online dictionaries.

Perhaps the reason you are being misunderstood is because you have failed to explain what you mean by "engaged" and how this differs from "agree to get married".

If you did that, perhaps people would be able to understand you.

Forget it; tried it, and this was his response -

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

No explanation. Just an obfuscative 'I know'.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

You moved on from "markings of territory" to "visible symbols".

No, I haven't "moved on" from "markings of territory" to "visible symbols". They aren't much of markings if they aren't visible.

Did you ensure they were not seen as such?

I said I was very concerned that they were not seen as such. What some choose to do is not my problem.

Yet you appear to be working with a definition of "engaged" that is not common usage and does not appear to tie into those available in online dictionaries.

Perhaps the reason you are being misunderstood is because you have failed to explain what you mean by "engaged" and how this differs from "agree to get married".

If you did that, perhaps people would be able to understand you.

But I am not working with a different definition of "engaged". As Teek correctly said in post 103, it is used to denote a formal engagement, with all the accompanying stuff.

Claus is also conveniently ignoring the fact that the of bestowing a ring at an engagement is a tradition women drive rather than men. How this is therefore a 'marking of territory', complete with the connotation of cave-man territorial pissings, is beyond me.

No, I am not "conveniently ignoring" anything. In post 104, I specifically say that I consider any "marking of one's territory" is distasteful, oppressive and demeaning.

You, OTOH, are ignoring this:

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?

I also fail to see how NC's opal pendant is a symbol of ownership. She looks at it and is reminded of me. Others look at it and think 'nice pendant'. No meaning of ownership (and believe me, Noblecaboose cannot be owned. I don't go for those sorts of girls) has been transferred.

Yet, you gave it to her as a symbol of ownership. You and her now belong to each other.

Is that not why you gave it to her?

 

[mgidm86]

4 pages? Didn't I answer this in the 2nd post of this thread?

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.

In my case it took 2 weeks to get the marriage license and arrange the small ceremony. Nobody told me "You are hereby engaged". Being engaged is like being drunk - it is not necessary for someone to tell you that you are drunk...you simply are.

End of thread. I win!