Are People Getting Engaged for the Sake Of Getting Engaged These Days.

Gannicus

A quasi-mate of mine got engaged recently but to be honest I don't care at all. The reason being is, this is his 4th time getting engaged in about 5 or 6 years. Now I know people may say he's clingy or has abandonment issues and I'd be inclined to agree except for one thing. I know a few of people who have been engage multiple times.

1. This guy (4th Engagement)
2. Girl I casually hang out with (3 times single now)
3. Girl I regularly hang out with (Engaged twice broke up with second guy, got back with him not engaged now)
4. Close male friend engaged twice now single
5. Girl in work engaged 3 times (still engaged with last guy 4 years now)
6. A mates brother and his missus, engaged twice each but not yet to each other

All of this is among a slew of others I know and work with that are just perpetually engaged.

Now before anyone asks their age or family background they are all under 30 (eldest is 28) they come from all walks (parents still married, single parents and divorced parents etc) not gonna say who is what as they may recognize themselves in the post.


So I am asking exactly what the title says:

Are People Getting Engaged for the Sake Of Getting Engaged These Days?

Canis Lupus

People need to do it to get facebook likes.

kneemos

Sorry,no interest.

oppenheimer1

Gannicus wrote: »

A quasi-mate of mine got engaged recently but to be honest I don't care at all. The reason being is, this is his 4th time getting engaged in about 5 or 6 years. Now I know people may say he's clingy or has abandonment issues and I'd be inclined to agree except for one thing. I know a few of people who have been engage multiple times.

1. This guy (4th Engagement)
2. Girl I casually hang out with (3 times single now)
3. Girl I regularly hang out with (Engaged twice broke up with second guy, got back with him not engaged now)
4. Close male friend engaged twice now single
5. Girl in work engaged 3 times (still engaged with last guy 4 years now)
6. A mates brother and his missus, engaged twice each but not yet to each other

All of this is among a slew of others I know and work with that are just perpetually engaged.

Now before anyone asks their age or family background they are all under 30 (eldest is 28) they come from all walks (parents still married, single parents and divorced parents etc) not gonna say who is what as they may recognize themselves in the post.


So I am asking exactly what the title says:

Are People Getting Engaged for the Sake Of Getting Engaged These Days?

I think it's just the age you're at tbh. That said the traditional 9 month engagement has gone out the window these days. Many are several years in order for the couple to splash out on a big day, which is madness.

The length of the engagements is another reason why so many of these fail.

fonecrusher1

I'm getting a chinese takeaway tonight.

dgt

Engaged lets others know you are in the toilet

anncoates

I thought a quasi mate would jump at the chance to ring the bells

Packrat

Gannicus wrote: »

A quasi-mate of mine got engaged recently but to be honest I don't care at all. The reason being is, this is his 4th time getting engaged in about 5 or 6 years. Now I know people may say he's clingy or has abandonment issues and I'd be inclined to agree except for one thing. I know a few of people who have been engage multiple times.

1. This guy (4th Engagement)
2. Girl I casually hang out with (3 times single now)
3. Girl I regularly hang out with (Engaged twice broke up with second guy, got back with him not engaged now)
4. Close male friend engaged twice now single
5. Girl in work engaged 3 times (still engaged with last guy 4 years now)
6. A mates brother and his missus, engaged twice each but not yet to each other

All of this is among a slew of others I know and work with that are just perpetually engaged.

Now before anyone asks their age or family background they are all under 30 (eldest is 28) they come from all walks (parents still married, single parents and divorced parents etc) not gonna say who is what as they may recognize themselves in the post.


So I am asking exactly what the title says:

Are People Getting Engaged for the Sake Of Getting Engaged These Days?

Here's an idea: Stop worrying yourself about other people's relationships.

None of your business tbh.

CaptainInsano

Packrat wrote: »

Here's an idea: Stop worrying yourself about other people's relationships.

None of your business tbh.

Calm down.

anncoates

Packrat wrote: »

Here's an idea: Stop worrying yourself about other people's relationships.

None of your business tbh.

AH needs to renamed to Things We Are Too Hypocritical And Cowardly To Say To Our Facebook Friends.

I only know one person who has been engaged multiple times. He was engaged when he was in his early 20s and they split. He's getting married next year and has two children with his fiancé.

Other than that, I don't know of anyone who has been engaged more than once.

A good chunk of my close friends are married to people who they met when they were quite young. Most are very happily married too which is nice.

Gannicus

Packrat wrote: »

Here's an idea: Stop worrying yourself about other people's relationships.

None of your business tbh.

I'm not worried. I'm just really curious thats the reason I started this thread. just like SOO many other threads on boards.

wretcheddomain

For many people, it's considered the fashionable thing to do - they're more in-tune with that rather than the meaning of the relationship itself. Hence why the relationship tends to sour and they get engaged yet again within the next 18 months. It's like a desperate attempt to keep hold of someone, and if you say you're "engaged", it's like a mark of permanency. Though, as I've just described, due to its prevailing fashionable nature, things inevitably break down and the permanency is revealed as an illusion of sorts. Getting married these days, on the other hand (for many), is almost a parody event of trying to impress others as much as possible.

CaptainInsano

anncoates wrote: »

AH needs to renamed to Things We Are Too Hypocritical And Cowardly To Say To Our Facebook Friends.

I think it should be called 'The Leaving of Sh1t Comments on Threads That We Supposedly Have No Interest In Contributing To, To Get Thanks Forum.'
It rolls off the tongue better.

wretcheddomain

CaptainInsano wrote: »

I think it should be called 'The Leaving of Sh1t Comments on Threads That We Supposedly Have No Interest In Contributing To, To Get Thanks Forum.'
It rolls off the tongue better.

Thanks for demonstrating its supposed truth. :rolleyes:

corner of hells

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

I'm getting a chinese takeaway tonight.

Me too and I got a new razor , it's silvery.

my teapot is orange

anncoates wrote: »

AH needs to renamed to Things We Are Too Hypocritical And Cowardly To Say To Our Facebook Friends.

Hypocritical?

kneemos

my teapot is orange wrote: »

Hypocritical?

To criticise or denigrate Hypos.

anncoates

my teapot is orange wrote: »

Hypocritical?

Every second thread in here seems to allude to some supposed twat on somebody's Facebook. Nobody's problem but their own. Don't be friends with them so

my teapot is orange

kneemos wrote: »

To criticise or denigrate Hypos.

"behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case."

Are we accusing the OP of having had multiple engagements on the sly?

my teapot is orange

my teapot is orange wrote: »

"behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case."

Are we accusing the OP of having had multiple engagements on the sly?

I think what anncoates means is that people are using social media (boards) to bitch about people on social media (Facebook).

my teapot is orange

Deleted User wrote: »

I think what anncoates means is that people are using social media (boards) to bitch about people on social media (Facebook).

Fine and that's either being cowardly or being polite depending on your point of view, but it's in no way hypocritical.

my teapot is orange

my teapot is orange wrote: »

Fine and that's either being cowardly or being polite depending on your point of view, but it's in no way hypocritical.

Well it is bit, if they're using one source of social media to say that social media is the divil itself.

Cyber Ghost

There are inheritance and tax benefits to getting married but surely in this day and age that's discrimination against single or co-habiting people

Cyber Ghost

Ps: I'm getting married cause I don't want my kids to be little bastards

my teapot is orange

Deleted User wrote: »

Well it is bit, if they're using one source of social media to say that social media is the divil itself.

Social media is just a tool for communicating. It's not the action itself. That's like saying I can never criticize anything anyone ever says if I am in the habit of speaking myself. I can never criticize a publication, if I like to write myself. The link between the two things is so tenuous it's ridiculous.

anncoates

It's what whoopsadaisydoodles said for sure but it's also the relentless denigration of people you know for fairly innocuous lifestyle choices behind their backs on places like here for the purposes of getting good whingey threads going to impress strangers.

Buona Fortuna

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

I'm getting a chinese takeaway tonight.

Great idea - I might too. Was genna be pizzas but no Chinese the real deal

Nomnomnom

indigo twist

Cyber Ghost wrote: »

Ps: I'm getting married cause I don't want my kids to be little bastards

Seriously ...?

anncoates

I'm leaning toward a lamb bhuna tonight myself.

indigo twist

indigo twist wrote: »

Seriously ...?

I don't think marriage will stop his kids being little bastards :pac:

anncoates

Cyber Ghost wrote: »

Ps: I'm getting married cause I don't want my kids to be little bastards

Didn't work for me.

CaptainInsano

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Thanks for demonstrating its supposed truth. :rolleyes:

Voted in the poll, contribution enough.

Shakespeare's Sister

It is a fair point to object to bitching about your "friends" on Facebook.

I won't lie - some of my friends can post stuff that doesn't appeal to me, and I can post stuff that friends are going to think is stupid.
I have friended people on Facebook whom I don't know well but I like, and then I see their Facebook posts and think "Oh dear" - but I didn't know their Facebook posts were gonna be that way. So if their posts are really headwrecking I just block their feed - I may not like their posts but that doesn't mean I can't still like them as people.

But if it's someone you actually don't like, just added due to not wanting to reject their friend request/wanting to up your friend numbers (presume that's only a thing among kids now though) just defriend them ffs. Nobody should be friends on Facebook with someone they don't like. Or at least block their feed.

On topic: I'm not aware of this engagement fashion at all. I have two friends who are engaged a long time (one 11 years!) and still haven't set a wedding date. I know two people who got married very young and are now divorced/going through divorce proceedings, but other than them, people that I know just get engaged once (for on average 18 months) and then get married.

fonecrusher1

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Great idea - I might too. Was genna be pizzas but no Chinese the real deal

Nomnomnom

Well its either a chinese or a bungo and chips from the local chipper. As the saying goes, ya can't beat a bungo.

Last_Minute

I don't see the point in getting married. Why not just live with the person, It's exactly the same thing minus the huge cost of a wedding and potentially losing half of you cash/house etc.

Shakespeare's Sister

Last_Minute wrote: »

I don't see the point in getting married. Why not just live with the person, It's exactly the same thing minus the huge cost of a wedding and potentially losing half of you cash/house etc.

It's not exactly the same thing. Marriage brings about:

Improved parental rights for the father.

Next of kin status conferred on each other.

And it can be done without huge wedding costs.

irishmover

Gannicus wrote: »

A quasi-mate of mine got engaged recently but to be honest I don't care at all. The reason being is, this is his 4th time getting engaged in about 5 or 6 years. Now I know people may say he's clingy or has abandonment issues and I'd be inclined to agree except for one thing. I know a few of people who have been engage multiple times.

1. This guy (4th Engagement)
2. Girl I casually hang out with (3 times single now)
3. Girl I regularly hang out with (Engaged twice broke up with second guy, got back with him not engaged now)
4. Close male friend engaged twice now single
5. Girl in work engaged 3 times (still engaged with last guy 4 years now)
6. A mates brother and his missus, engaged twice each but not yet to each other

All of this is among a slew of others I know and work with that are just perpetually engaged.

Now before anyone asks their age or family background they are all under 30 (eldest is 28) they come from all walks (parents still married, single parents and divorced parents etc) not gonna say who is what as they may recognize themselves in the post.


So I am asking exactly what the title says:

Are People Getting Engaged for the Sake Of Getting Engaged These Days?

You know a lot of very strange people. I know only one single person who fits that bill. She was engaged once. Split a year ago and has now just bought a house with current boyfriend.

Aside from that I know nobody of the sort.

diomed

Beards are fashionable.

Packrat

Cyber Ghost wrote: »

Ps: I'm getting married cause I don't want my kids to be little bastards

Same here, but I'm not sure it'll work...

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think marriage will stop his kids being little bastards :pac:

Feck ya anyway.:pac:

anncoates wrote: »

Didn't work for me.

Double feck ya :pac:

Last_Minute wrote: »

I don't see the point in getting married. Why not just live with the person, It's exactly the same thing minus the huge cost of a wedding and potentially losing half of you cash/house etc.

Not being married won't save you from halving the house.

padd b1975

Cyber Ghost wrote: »

There are inheritance and tax benefits to getting married but surely in this day and age that's discrimination against single or co-habiting people

It's really not.




Jesus wept!

Is there anything left that people won't screech discrimination about???

The Strawman Argument

I feel like engagements are used to patch up problems in relationships a fair bit, that was certainly the case for the two engaged couples I know; big huge falling out, reconcilliation, engagement with some bullsh!t logic for it like "not many couples would have pulled through that rough patch".
At the very least, a lot of engagements are driven by a lack of trust in the other person sticking around without some kind of contract type deal going on, I can't imagine being engaged realistically would alleviate any concerns like that either tbh.

Gannicus

irishmover wrote: »

You know a lot of very strange people. I know only one single person who fits that bill. She was engaged once. Split a year ago and has now just bought a house with current boyfriend.

Aside from that I know nobody of the sort.

You're probably right there.

The Strawman Argument wrote: »

I feel like engagements are used to patch up problems in relationships a fair bit, that was certainly the case for the two engaged couples I know; big huge falling out, reconcilliation, engagement with some bullsh!t logic for it like "not many couples would have pulled through that rough patch".
At the very least, a lot of engagements are driven by a lack of trust in the other person sticking around without some kind of contract type deal going on, I can't imagine being engaged realistically would alleviate any concerns like that either tbh.

It may be me, but I just don't get how proposing and even the other side, saying yes, fixes a problem in the relationship. I would just see that as delaying the inevitable.

Lollipops23

I have a relative who was engaged, split up and both are with new people now. She got engaged again within a year, he's happily living with his new gf (I reckon an engagement will be on the cards soon). They were all wrong for each other, so I'm happy the figured it out before they tied the knot/had kids.

I used to work with a girl who had been engaged 3 times before she got married. She had some massive insecurity issues, so I wasn't remotely surprised when she told me.

indigo twist

I was engaged once, and would never do it again. I've been through the big romantic proposal, and picking out a ring, and the engagement party, and the cards and presents ... I'd feel like a right tool announcing a new engagement.

I'd never get engaged again, nor would I have a wedding. A €300 marriage would do the job for me, purely for legal reasons. Tell people about it afterwards. No big deal.

I'm 29 and those of my friends who have ever gotten engaged are either now still engaged, or married, or single. I'm really not seeing this trend you're referring to.

The One Doctor

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

I'm getting a chinese takeaway tonight.

An Indian takeaway for me.

chrissb8

Seen a couple in their mid twenties getting married recently. Bit of a joke to be honest. Why not just wait a couple more years if you're that committed and in love. Marriage is only good for legal reasons, kids, bills etc. One shouldn't have to put a contract on a relationship which supposedly should be able to stand the test of time. It's like saying "ok now you've signed this contract you can't leave me now". All seems a bit desperate.

chrissb8

chrissb8 wrote: »

Seen a couple in their mid twenties getting married recently. Bit of a joke to be honest. Why not just wait a couple more years if you're that committed and in love. Marriage is only good for legal reasons, kids, bills etc. One shouldn't have to put a contract on a relationship which supposedly should be able to stand the test of time. It's like saying "ok now you've signed this contract you can't leave me now". All seems a bit desperate.

There is a new Energia ad somewhere in that statement (You dont have to act like a business to save like one)

--LOS--

I don't see the trend you're talking about, under 30's getting engaged several times. I see people getting engaged too young imo, or getting engaged just because it's their first LTR, I think some of them will learn the hard way that things changes even far down the line.

fr336

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The length of the engagements is another reason why so many of these fail.

So what you're saying is they should rush into a marriage and get a few divorces under their belt instead? :pac:

Buona Fortuna

Wan Tun Soup
Beef with Green Peppers in Black Bean Sauce
King Prawn with salt and chilli
Special fried rice

Lovely job.