Long engagements: What's the point?

[aerogurl87]

Ok some people may get mad at me for this, but I don't see the point in being engaged for like 1.5+ years. I mean to me, when you propose to someone you're in effect saying "I want us to get married soon". If you're going to wait to actually get married, why not wait and propose later instead of dragging out a long engagement? You can be boyfriend and girlfriend up till your financially and mentally able to get married in the near future, so why not go that route? Anyway, what is everyone else's opinions, do you like long engagements? Do you think their fine under certain circumstances? Just wondering.

[quankanne]

I've never understood exceedingly long engagements myself, and often wonder if that's a guy's way of "marking" his territory. And/or putting off a definite wedding date with someone he cares about, but not just enough to say "Eight months, baby, and you're my Missus!"

[allina]

Well that's your opinion, some couple would disagree. An engagement means that the couple is committing to being married in the future, that they know they are it for life. I don't see why it matters how long in the future the actual wedding takes place.

 

Some couples can't get married right when they want to due to a million different factors, money, finishing up an education, etc.

[quankanne]

hmm ... I'm thinking of guys back home I knew, shacking up with or becoming engaged to women they "loved," only to string them along for YEARS ... those pendejos aren't thinking about anything other than getting someone to shut up/stop questioning about marriage!

[aerogurl87]

 

Some couples can't get married right when they want to due to a million different factors, money, finishing up an education, etc.

 

I understand that, and to me if that's the case, why can't you just say "hey I want to get married in x months or years" and keep dating without being engaged. To me when you propose marriage that's saying "I want to marry you soon" and to me 2 or more years is not soon. Get your life straight and worked out before you pop the question is all I'm saying.

[sally4sara]

I figure its up to the couple to determine their own time table. And if you can't deal with a long engagement, how well do you think you're able to realistically say "till death do us part"?

 

All it really boils down to is find a person who shares your sentiment. If you can't agree on how long to be engaged, you probably should try to be married to them.

[allina]

I understand that, and to me if that's the case, why can't you just say "hey I want to get married in x months or years" and keep dating without being engaged. To me when you propose marriage that's saying "I want to marry you soon" and to me 2 or more years is not soon. Get your life straight and worked out before you pop the question is all I'm saying.

 

I don't know, I guess because they want to be engaged now. Some couples might want to have that commitment and be fiances, not just bf/gf even though they can't have the wedding right now.

[make me believe]

I would hate having a long engagement, but most people who have them do it for practical purposes. Saving up for the wedding/honeymoon, waiting until they're done with school, etc. I've also wondered why they don't wait until they are actually ready to get married before getting engaged, but I guess it's because they want the title of "fiance" rather than "boyfriend" or "girlfriend". IMO being engaged doesn't mean much unless you're actually setting a date & planning the wedding, though.

[ADF]

A 1.5 year engagement isn't unreasonably long. I think after proposing to your partner, she--and it is usually a she--has a right to expect a wedding within a year, two maximum if some unexpected obstacle comes up.

 

But I think your basic point is well taken. When someone refers to their GF of 5, 6, 7 years as "My fiance," I think they're full of it. These guys probably "got engaged" under pressure, as a way of keeping their GFs with them. Now they're just stringing them along, not really wanting to get married are all.

 

That, basically, is the answer to your question. The point of a long engagement is that it provides men reluctant to commit a delaying tactic.

[aerogurl87]

I figure its up to the couple to determine their own time table. And if you can't deal with a long engagement, how well do you think you're able to realistically say "till death do us part"?

 

All it really boils down to is find a person who shares your sentiment. If you can't agree on how long to be engaged, you probably should try to be married to them.

 

I can deal with dating for a few years through school, while waiting to save up for a wedding/honeymoon, figuring things out. I have no problem with that. But I don't see what the point in having a long engagement is personally. It's like a holding place between being married and dating exclusively. To me when a person says "will you marry me" to their partner they are essentially saying "I want to marry you in the very near future". I get setting a date for the wedding can take months, or maybe 2 years tops. But if your not able to start planning your wedding right then and there, whether that be looking for a venue or going to the local courthouse, then I think you should wait.

 

I would hate having a long engagement, but most people who have them do it for practical purposes. Saving up for the wedding/honeymoon, waiting until they're done with school, etc. I've also wondered why they don't wait until they are actually ready to get married before getting engaged, but I guess it's because they want the title of "fiance" rather than "boyfriend" or "girlfriend". IMO being engaged doesn't mean much unless you're actually setting a date & planning the wedding, though.

 

Yes I think it's all about the title. But to me, the title of fiance loses it's sparkle when you tell someone you've been engaged for 3, 4, or 5 years. And your last sentence reminds me of a quote from a book. It's called Wedding Belles and it it the author wrote that a woman with a ring and a date is a fiance, but a woman with a ring and no date is just a mistress.

[Lauriebell82]

I hate long engagements, but unfortunately had to have one. We couldn't get the date we wanted because our venue was booked a year 1/2 in advance. I am getting ancy. Thank goodness it's only 3 months away now!

 

I don't hate long engagments for the reason you do (you should wait until you are ready to get married right away to get engaged), I hate them because I did not want to go through the stress and drama of it all for more then a year and knew I would get ancy and impatient about it. Personally, to each his own. Every couple is different, not everyone feels that they need to get married directly after getting engaged.

[Lauriebell82]

Yes I think it's all about the title. But to me, the title of fiance loses it's sparkle when you tell someone you've been engaged for 3, 4, or 5 years. And your last sentence reminds me of a quote from a book. It's called Wedding Belles and it it the author wrote that a woman with a ring and a date is a fiance, but a woman with a ring and no date is just a mistress.

 

Oh come on, that's not true. I would think it would be the opposite! A woman who has been with a man for 5+ years and doesn't have a ring would be more considered a mistress then if the man had actually bought a ring and decided to committ to her for good (regardless of the wedding date).

 

You are entitled to your opinion on this, but I think your comments are a little judgemental and hurtful to some posters who have had long engagements.

[D-Lish]

An engagement period is an exciting time in the ritual process for a lot of people.

 

It takes TIME to plan a wedding- and a year is a super reasonable amount of time. A LOT of planning goes into a wedding- and it's nice to enjoy the process.

 

My engagement (1 1/2 years) was the best time of my life! You think it's a long period of time, but it's not really.

 

I savoured every moment of my engagement, right up to the build up of the actual day. Once the day hit and it was over... It was like getting off an awesome roller coaster ride and realizing the park is closed and there are no more rides- the lights go out, and you go home and think to yourself, wow...now what?

[aerogurl87]

Oh come on, that's not true. I would think it would be the opposite! A woman who has been with a man for 5+ years and doesn't have a ring would be more considered a mistress then if the man had actually bought a ring and decided to committ to her for good (regardless of the wedding date).

 

You are entitled to your opinion on this, but I think your comments are a little judgemental and hurtful to some posters who have had long engagements.

 

Lauriebell if my comments are hurtful then I apologise. But that's just my outlook on things. If a woman has been with a man 5 or more years and they're still just boyfriend and girlfriend, but for reasons that make sense (still being in school, not financially in a position to be married) then I can understand that. But my uncle's ex fiance's case comes to my mind. My uncle had proposed and they were engaged for 5 years and living together. Nothing was in his way of marrying her, but everyone but her knew he wasn't going to marry her. He had just given her a ring to shut her up. So maybe my views of long engagements are a bit tainted by that.

[txsilkysmoothe]

I've wondered about this myself OP and tend to agree with you. But I think we are referring to engagements that don't include a proposed/estimated wedding date, void of an actual plan.

 

I would also lump in live-in relationships where one person is hoping for marriage. They can go on too long which, imo, reduces the likelihood of marriage.

[Crazy Magnet]

My BF has told me that he wants short engagement. He feels like when two people are ready to get married they ought to go on and do it. I'm more for the long engagement because I know how much time a wedding takes to plan and I know that I'm going to need a few months to get an emotional grip on the fact that my mother won't ever see who I marry. I have a feeling that emotional weight won't hit until the ring is actually on my finger.

 

I've got a close friend who set her wedding for August 2011 and she got engaged this past December. Their reasoning was that she wouldn't live with him before he proposed, but living together provided the best way to save for the wedding. We bought her dress today so clearly she's in planning mode even this far out.

 

Honestly I could go either way. If the BF wants a short engagement I'll rally and do that if not, I'm ok with that too.

[allina]

Everyone will have standards when it comes to dating, engagement and marriage. When, how long, all that stuff. You should really apply your standards to your relationships and not to the relationships of strangers. Just because you want a certain kind of engagement doesn't mean that the girl who has or wants a different one is loved or valued any less by her fiance

[becky_star]

Well, we've been engaged for over 2 and a half years now.. We're currently still living at home but are looking to get our own house this summer. I would marry him today if I could but we didn't see the point in planning the wedding until we've got our own house.. realistically we'll have to wait another 2 years to get married cos we're going to have to save for a wedding but I'm still only young so it doesn't get to me so much.. Love him to pieces though!

[aerogurl87]

Everyone will have standards when it comes to dating, engagement and marriage. When, how long, all that stuff. You should really apply your standards to your relationships and not to the relationships of strangers. Just because you want a certain kind of engagement doesn't mean that the girl who has or wants a different one is loved or valued any less by her fiance

 

I didn't say it made her valued any less by her fiance. I think you can have a long engagement and still be valued highly by your partner. So where you got that from, I dunno. I just said I don't see the point in rushing an engagement only to prolong the day you actually get married. But that's just me. I always thought that when you got engaged that soon after you start the planning process of getting married by going out and picking out the venue(s), dress, cake, etc. If I offend you or anyone with my personal views, I apologise. This is a forum though, and I am free to speak my own opinion.

[allina]

I didn't say it made her valued any less by her fiance. I think you can have a long engagement and still be valued highly by your partner. So where you got that from, I dunno. I just said I don't see the point in rushing an engagement only to prolong the day you actually get married. But that's just me. I always thought that when you got engaged that soon after you start the planning process of getting married by going out and picking out the venue(s), dress, cake, etc. If I offend you or anyone with my personal views, I apologise. This is a forum though, and I am free to speak my own opinion.

 

I know that this is a forum where you are free to speak your opinion. I'm also speaking mine, which is that these are your standards, ones that you should apply to your relationship. As I said before, I think that something like engagement length depends on so much, and varies so greatly from couple to couple that it is nearly irrational to determine that only a certain time limit "make sense."

 

This doesn't mean that I'm in any way angered by or offended by your post. I myself am not having an extremely long engagement. I just think that it's silly to make such blanket generalizations, doesn't mean I have anything against you.

[threebyfate]

Ok some people may get mad at me for this, but I don't see the point in being engaged for like 1.5+ years. I mean to me, when you propose to someone you're in effect saying "I want us to get married soon". If you're going to wait to actually get married, why not wait and propose later instead of dragging out a long engagement? You can be boyfriend and girlfriend up till your financially and mentally able to get married in the near future, so why not go that route? Anyway, what is everyone else's opinions, do you like long engagements? Do you think their fine under certain circumstances? Just wondering.

Since my husband proposed a little after six weeks of dating, I wanted an extended engagement to ensure we were making the right move. It was breathing space for the intellect to catch up with emotions.

 

But I do have to turn this back at you. To say the above is like saying, everyone should just elope as soon as they're able to get a marriage license.

 

Unless there's a good reason why, what's the hurry?

[girlygirl25]

I think every couple is different..not everyone is in a rush to get down the alter. Usually there IS a good reason for an extended engagement, it's rare people just get engaged and never set a date. With the few people I have seen this happen to, it's the MAN who doesn't want to/won't set a date for the wedding. Probably because he was pushed into it (proposing) in the first place...

[RandomCat]

Well that's your opinion, some couple would disagree. An engagement means that the couple is committing to being married in the future, that they know they are it for life. I don't see why it matters how long in the future the actual wedding takes place.

 

Some couples can't get married right when they want to due to a million different factors, money, finishing up an education, etc.

This. I'm about to be in a very long engagement because though we both desperately want to get married now he's going to school out of state and we'd like to wait to get married until we can actually live together. To us engagement is the next best thing. I don't see the problem with people in a stable relationship doing this.