Lauriebell82 Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 I put this in the wrong section, couldn't figure out how to move it. I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on this. Long engagement vs. short one? I would like to hear experiences or opinions.
Balthazar Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 Long, protracted engagements are a respectable, time-honored way of getting out of a relationship headed towards marriage.
Carmen87 Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 From observing people around me, 6-18 months seems to be a good length.
Art_Critic Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 Whatever length you both decide on is what is okay... I think 6-months is a perfect amount of time personally.. and if it goes past a year and a half or so then I think other things are in play that have more to do with one of the parties not committing.
Touche Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 I agree with Art. Our engagement period was 7 months. I would have been happy to make it longer though.
lovestruck818 Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 I agree with Art. Our engagement period was 7 months. I would have been happy to make it longer though. wow...and you were able to plan a wedding in 7 months? Most people I know take at least a year to a year and a half to plan it.
Touche Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 wow...and you were able to plan a wedding in 7 months? Most people I know take at least a year to a year and a half to plan it. Let me put it to you this way: I have a theory, the bigger the wedding the greater the chance of the marriage failing. So in that way, I'm nothing like "most" people. Our wedding took me weeks to plan. It was beautiful, small, intimate and everything we thought a wedding should be.
porter218 Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 My engagement lasted 10 months. That is about the perfect amount of time, given that the R is all good...but I think if there are doubts about the R then it should be longer. I tried to push for a longer engagement but H wouldn't agree to it. Also I think if you have already lived together for a long time then a 6 month engagement is good.
Author Lauriebell82 Posted August 11, 2008 Author Posted August 11, 2008 After the drama of last month, you're still really overly eager to get married. Hmm. Disclaimer: Thread is for discussion, not personalized.
Author Lauriebell82 Posted August 11, 2008 Author Posted August 11, 2008 A lot of good replys. I have friends who have had really long engagements (like 1.5-2 years), and while this is all well and good I'd think that would be sort of dragged out. I guess it could take that long to plan a wedding if it was like HUGE though. A friend of mine got engaged 7 months into the relationship and then was engaged for 1.5 years after that. They broke off their engagement around 2 years of being together, due to fighting over where they both were in life at the time. It was one of those engagements where they were just engaged "for the heck of it" no plans to really plan a wedding (due to lack of finances) or really planning any future together. She said that was a huge part of the breakup.
Author Lauriebell82 Posted August 11, 2008 Author Posted August 11, 2008 My engagement lasted 10 months. That is about the perfect amount of time, given that the R is all good...but I think if there are doubts about the R then it should be longer. I tried to push for a longer engagement but H wouldn't agree to it. Also I think if you have already lived together for a long time then a 6 month engagement is good. 10 months sounds about right to me. It gives you time to find a place to have it, invite people, set up bridal party. It's not sooo prolonged that you are literally just waiting for your wedding to happen. You are right though, I think that it should be shorter if you live together.
HiItsMe Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 I have a noticed a big trend in engagements not going anywhere, they might as well be a "glorified" boyfriend and girlfriend. Now, it's great people finally get engaged, but I usually like to hold my "congrats" when I ask, "So, about when you guys getting married?" And they say, "Oh, I dunno, we're in no rush" Or just "I dunno." Typically, engagements without even a BALLPARK date or season I find meaningless.
Art_Critic Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 A friend of mine got engaged 7 months into the relationship and then was engaged for 1.5 years after that. They broke off their engagement around 2 years of being together, due to fighting over where they both were in life at the time. This is where I feel their engagement was too long... Since they were not married it was tons easier to call it quits and since all relationships have bad patches there might have been a chance for them if they HAD been married at lets say 1 year.. then one year in the marriage they would have had to work it out for commitments sake... Just a thought...
Author Lauriebell82 Posted August 11, 2008 Author Posted August 11, 2008 I have a noticed a big trend in engagements not going anywhere, they might as well be a "glorified" boyfriend and girlfriend. Now, it's great people finally get engaged, but I usually like to hold my "congrats" when I ask, "So, about when you guys getting married?" And they say, "Oh, I dunno, we're in no rush" Or just "I dunno." Typically, engagements without even a BALLPARK date or season I find meaningless. Yeah, that usually means one person isn't ready to get married yet. Being engaged to be married means your GOING to get married, not that you are just contemplating it.
Touche Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 I agree with HitsMe. To me it's not an engagement without a date (and a ring for that matter.)
Arise_Serpentor Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 Everyone's situation is DIFFERENT!!! What do you both want?! Is your wedding date available for church, reception, etc! Whats the money situation like?! There is no magic time period! The only thing is, you might get sick of talking about it with others if its too long!
porter218 Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 I agree with HitsMe. To me it's not an engagement without a date (and a ring for that matter.) yeah, those type of engagements really annoy me(I am not even sure why). I see way to many couples with no ring and no date referring to their SO as their fiance. It makes me want to correct them and say "that is not your freakin fiance he is just your bf!!"
lovestruck818 Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 Everyone's situation is DIFFERENT!!! What do you both want?! Is your wedding date available for church, reception, etc! Whats the money situation like?! There is no magic time period! The only thing is, you might get sick of talking about it with others if its too long! or temple perhaps...I love how people automatically associate weddings with a church...
Author Lauriebell82 Posted August 11, 2008 Author Posted August 11, 2008 Everyone's situation is DIFFERENT!!! What do you both want?! Is your wedding date available for church, reception, etc! Whats the money situation like?! There is no magic time period! The only thing is, you might get sick of talking about it with others if its too long! Very true. Everyone IS different, therefore the purpose of the thread is to share different opinions or experiences.
Author Lauriebell82 Posted August 11, 2008 Author Posted August 11, 2008 or temple perhaps...I love how people automatically associate weddings with a church... Yes, that is a good observation. I do not personally know anyone who has gotten married in a temple, but I am sure there are lots of them.
lovestruck818 Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 Yes, that is a good observation. I do not personally know anyone who has gotten married in a temple, but I am sure there are lots of them. hah well jews...but also some people actually have the ceremony at the reception hall...in a seperate room or whatever.
Author Lauriebell82 Posted August 11, 2008 Author Posted August 11, 2008 Really? I NEVER start threads on subjects I'm not interested in. Do you? You're not fooling anyone, LB. Not even yourself. I never said I wasn't interested in it. But no justification needed here, do not post if you are going to start anything please.
porter218 Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 Yes, that is a good observation. I do not personally know anyone who has gotten married in a temple, but I am sure there are lots of them. My friend just did last year. However I was not allowed to attend because I am not Mormon , or some crazy reason like that. Those are very private weddings, that is why you never hear about them.
Touche Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 yeah, those type of engagements really annoy me(I am not even sure why). I see way to many couples with no ring and no date referring to their SO as their fiance. It makes me want to correct them and say "that is not your freakin fiance he is just your bf!!" I know! I totally agree. And I see this ALL the time lately. It devalues the whole meaning of what an engagement is and what it is supposed to be.
lovestruck818 Posted August 11, 2008 Posted August 11, 2008 My friend just did last year. However I was not allowed to attend because I am not Mormon , or some crazy reason like that. Those are very private weddings, that is why you never hear about them. Well jews also marry in temples, and they have spectacular weddings. At the reception the bride & groom get lifted up and swung around on chairs. It's awesome.
Recommended Posts