At a function I was at not long back, I was chatting with this woman. During the course of the conversation she announced she was engaged. I thought 'how nice' and I asked her 'when is the wedding?'. She said they haven't set a definite date yetbut she doesn't want no little affair and thatittakestime to sort stuff out for a big event. I then asked in a sort of matter-of-fact way when she got engaged......."Oh in 1998!"

Man, I thought she was making joke, but nah, she was deadly serious......1998!

I am there thinking 'What the.........? That's not an engagement that's an occupation.

But you know what? It got me thinking. We are always having debates on people's views about marriage, but how about our views on 'getting engaged?

It used to be the case that getting engaged was the prelude to getting married. In fact a guy (well it's usually the guy) would propose and the woman accepts (well sometimes). From that point on the couple were engaged......e.g. with the plan to get married sometime soon (well one would think).

In fact there was a time where the 'engagement' represented a firm contract 'to get married' and one could face punishment under the law if they tried to pull out of their part of the contract.

Nowadays it seems that in a lot of cases people don't make proposals of marriage as such, but simply ask "Shall we get engaged?"- the act of 'getting engaged' being an end in of itself, rather than a prelude to marriage...................or am I being too cynical?

Anyway folks. What do you think? Is 'getting engaged' used as a sort of halfway house between 'simply going out' and 'marriage' (the full monty)?

Is 'getting engaged' a way of giving some kind of public 'respectability' to your long-term 'non-committed' relationship without actually going down the dark and fearful corridors of matrimony?

For the guys. Do you see 'getting engaged' as a way of getting her to easeup theheat on you about marriage, yet still affording you the 'relative' independence that you willlose through out and out marriage?

For the women. Does 'being engaged' (and having an engagement ring on your finger'), make you feel more 'respectable' and more 'secure' in your relationship than merely being boyfriend and girlfriend? Irrespective of the fact of there being no firm plans/datefor completing the act of marriage?

What is a 'reasonable' engagement period? A few months? A year? Two years? More?

Is there anyone here who is enagaged and has been for say, more than a year? How do you feel about your prospects of actual marriage? Did the engagement do a 'holding' job on you, in that you may not still be in the relationship if not for the 'promise' of future marriage?

Would love to hear you views folks?

Respect

It's a good idea for those that are commit-a-phobic, it is the halfway point of showing you're committed without having to go the whole hog (as they say).

It appeals to me on some level, because I guess a tiny part of me fears the lifelong sentence of marriage, despite that fact that I would like to have a proper family unit which includes EVERYBODY having the same surname.

The only problem is that after a while long-term fiancé then looks a tad pathetic to me, it is also too much of an easy copout when the going gets tough, they are also benefits (legally) to being married as opposed to just being engaged.

For the men it keeps the women on ice...and temporarily off their case, for the woman itat least gives her a ring to kin teet with her friends with. Next people will be renewing their engagement vows

I see engagement as pagan myself - but in this day and time understandable.

I was engaged for nearly a year before I got married. Our wedding wasn't lavish cos we were only in our early twenties and I had just got myself established career wise, but the duration gave us enough time to save up as well as sorting out other tings between us. Being engaged for several years is just silly.....if you don't want to jump the broomstick then just be happy staying together.

Prince Hakeem - as longas the relationship lasts you can renew them vows again when you've won the lottery and have as lavish a celebration as you wish - made even nicer if the children are old enough to see and remember it as well

Miss Nellia - for many it's all about the title and the public face but that isn't all that bad if the two people are really there for each other. I suspect these long engagements are a sign that they really are not so some kind of cosmetic gesture is required - but hey, if that makess heaven in smeones world then why not - just know your class

For the guys. Do you see 'getting engaged' as a way of getting her to easeup theheat on you about marriage, yet still affording you the 'relative' independence that you willlose through out and out marriage?


Although this question isnt directly addressed to me, I think this is very true. I have known quite a few black men who have been "engaged" but then break the engagment off like its nothing. A cousin of mine in the military and was assigned to serve in Italy. He had a girlfriend who he had been with for a few years, the relationship was rocky, on and off, plus my aunt hated the woman's guts which didnt help at all. Anyway, sometime before or after he went to Italy he got engaged to the girl. He asked her to quit her job and come to Italy with him,and she quit her job and had a plane ticket to go to Italy, but soon after thathe called the engagement off.I have another friend who was in his twenties when he got engaged, but called the wedding off about as quickly as he proposed.