Short engagement vs. long engagement?

[CanadianGirl]

I was reading something online today that got me thinking. I'm not really sure what my opinion is yet, and I want to ask you guys because LDRs have their unique problems.

Do you guys think it's better to have a short or long engagement? What do you consider being engaged to be, anyways? Do you consider it as a "next level" of relationship or a time to actively plan weddings?

[snow_girl]

I definitely think its a step up in the relationship. I don't like the idea of an engagement longer then a year and a half. You lose the flare of calling your fiance that and it just doesn't seem to have the specialness to it anymore. It would also give you a good amount of time to plan a wedding. A short engagement can be okay but I could see it being stressful if you have lots to plan.

[jiynx]

Fantastic thread!! My SO and I always talk about this. He's all about the really short engagements (4 months at the MOST) but that seems a little soon for me. I think getting engaged is a step forward in a relationship. You're not just "boyfriend-girlfriend" anymore but you're not quite married. I think it's an exciting time that should have some time to it. For me, I think 1-2 years would be perfect. I won't get engaged until we are living in the same place first though. I want us to know that we can stand each other 24 hours a day before being married.

[mllebamako]

Me and my SO are on the super long engagement track. But it's more situational. We got engaged over a year ago and we were planning on doing the fiance visa for the US. But then we both got jobs we love here (in West Africa), so we decided to put the visa on the back burner. So now we'll just wait and see how the job thing goes next year or whatever. I would prefer not to get married here because the laws aren't very favorable to women and if anything happened, I would not have as many rights as I would like.

So long story short, it depends on the situation. But if there hadn't have been visa/international couple/job complications, I would probably prefer a 6 month-1 year engagement.

[Mara]

I think being engaged is a sort of 'level up' in the relationship. It's the promise that the two of you will get married as before there was no such promise.

My SO mentioned to me once that he doesn't like long engagements and I have to say I concur. The only reason it would be long in our case is if the reception hall we wanted couldn't be booked within 6-9 months or so. A lot of places where I live [which is where I think we'll be getting married] have really long waiting lists and you have to book usually 9 months-1 year in advance to get the day you want.

[Trethsparr]

I was engaged for a little under a year before I got married, and that worked out just fine. It was both a step up in the relationship and time spent actively planning the wedding, since we knew we wanted to marry in Summer 2011 because he had a long break from classes.

I'm not a fan of long engagements myself unless there are extenuating circumstances. As for us, we both knew we were in love and completely committed to our future, and we'd just as soon just take the plunge. So we did.

[Haley53]

I think it would depend on the circumstances.

For example, I would want a longer engagement if we had not lived together prior to the engagement, though I would likely want to be living together before or at the time of proposal, primarily because I believe in living together prior to getting married. If we had lived together before the engagement, I do think I would like to be married within a year or two. The reason I distinguish between the two is because we're an international couple. We'd had it decided he'd come here on a work visa so that we could test out living with one another before we made permanent arrangements, hence why an engagement might be extended out longer. However, if he proposed during the time he was out here on a work visa, I would want to apply for a fiance visa sooner than if he'd proposed before we'd gotten the chance to live together with one another, if that makes any sense at all. :P

[Engel]

Do you guys think it's better to have a short or long engagement? What do you consider being engaged to be, anyways? Do you consider it as a "next level" of relationship or a time to actively plan weddings?

I hate that people banalized being engages as "the next level" sometimes. I think you should only get engaged with real plans to get married, be it in 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 2 or 3 years, but actively starting to plan it! not just because is the next level and it is 'what it is expected to happen'.


Me and my SO just didnt get oficially engaged yet because of the ring, like someone else in here. He is trying to buy me my engagement ring now, and I said he can give it to me after we are married or give me a provisory plastic one, until he can give me the 'real thing', is just the feeling behind it. we will get married the end of january anyway, and already chose our wedding bands together, so I guess I am semi-engaged, as we will get married in 3 months (OH MY!), having those plans since july.


anyway, long or short engagement, only if you are planning the wedding, IMHO.

[Madge]

I don't think it matters to much tbh. I would of loved to have had a short engagement but due to visa's and other things occuring my SO and I will of ended up being engaged for more than two before getting hitched.

Each to there own

[11MikesGirl21]

I've been engaged for four months. We've talked in general about wedding details, but we're still looking at AT LEAST 3 more years of distance. We may even have to do a long distance marriage for a year, depends on where I can afford to go to get my master's degree. I'm looking at a very long engagement. Thing is we haven't officially announced it yet, because we're so young. Some of my friends know but they're keeping it quiet also which is nice. So the "real engagement" is going to be long, and the "official engagement" is going to be short, it looks like.

[leonsfangirl]

I don't really think it matters really, it's a realationship step in it's own right so then length really shouldn'e be a factor as all kinds of things can become a factor.I was engaged for 4-5 YEARS before i got married, it wasn't planned that way it just happened. This time, it will hopefully be considerable shorter at under a year but if i have to wait longer thats fine with me.

[Josephine Falnor]

I think it depends on the couple. My SO and I will probably be engaged for a long time, since we're a same sex couple, and making wedding arrangements will be tricky because of that. I don't think we'll be getting married for a few years at this point, but I plan to propose to her as soon as I can (just waiting until we close the distance. Falling asleep without being close to my SO is hard enough. If we were engaged, I think it would be so much harder...).

Anyways, long or short engagement, either is good.

[ioanna]

that's an interresting question

When my SO and I got engaged, we were planning on getting married two to three years later, after i'd finished my studies. we were CD then. for us, being engaged was making our relationship official, involving both our families in what would become "our" family, and prepare for marriage (yes the marriage, not just plan the wedding ).

Well, things don't always happen as initially planned, and now that my SO and I are LD, our marriage plans have moved... when we get married (in three years) we will have been engaged for 7 years. I wouldn't trade the wait for anything. this delay has reinforced our bond, and deepened our understanding of eachother in ways i can't begin to decribe. but it's a disgression so i'll stop here

[squeeker]

I think official engagements are seen to others as when you'll start to plan the wedding so ideally it would be around the 1 year mark, maybe a bit less or maybe a bit more. But in my case with my international relationship, my SO and I are pretty much engaged as we have made that commitment to each other that we both want to get married to each other and spend forever with each other. But right now we are not in the position that we could actively plan a wedding or our lives together. (EDIT: So we're not officially engaged or anything, we're waiting to do the ring thing.. whenever my SO decides.. it'll be a few years yet) We did the math last night and we're looking at 4-5 years more of distance, and about 10 years before we get married. It is a long time, but I know he's worth it, and I couldn't imagine doing anything else, and at least we both know we have a set goal in mind that we're working towards. Also, on the plus side, after these years of being together, it will be almost expected we get married and people won't think we rushed into things. So I guess I'm saying is... long engagement or short engagement, it's different for each couple, and it's however long it takes, longer might be better so the couple can actually enjoy being engaged without as much stress on wedding plans and things...

[Dziubka]

I hate that people banalized being engages as "the next level" sometimes. I think you should only get engaged with real plans to get married, be it in 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 2 or 3 years, but actively starting to plan it! not just because is the next level and it is 'what it is expected to happen'.


Me and my SO just didnt get oficially engaged yet because of the ring, like someone else in here. He is trying to buy me my engagement ring now, and I said he can give it to me after we are married or give me a provisory plastic one, until he can give me the 'real thing', is just the feeling behind it. we will get married the end of january anyway, and already chose our wedding bands together, so I guess I am semi-engaged, as we will get married in 3 months (OH MY!), having those plans since july.


anyway, long or short engagement, only if you are planning the wedding, IMHO.

I wouldn't say I 'hate' it, but I agree with this in general.
Being engaged doesn't make the relationship more valid or official. Just because the title changes from "boyfriend" to "fiance" doesn't mean it's any more serious. You can be committed without and engagement and you can be engaged without being committed.

To me the engagement is the time for actively planning the wedding. Being engaged without so much as a year set seems sort of pointless to me. My boyfriend and I want to get married, we've discussed what we want our wedding to be like and stuff. Be he hasn't proposed yet (and I'm old fashioned in that, without a ring and him getting down on his knees, there will be no wedding), so we're not engaged. I'd like to get engaged maybe about two or one and a half years prior to the wedding, so we can plan everything on time.