Engaged?

[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.



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). Somehow, I doubt those who can't wait will be arrested by the tradition police...

 

[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

 

[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.