(Closed) Why do you prefer a long ltr over a long engagement?

posted 7 years ago in Relationships
Post # 3
Member
3461 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: May 2012

I’ll take a stab at this but please note, all comments are personal opinions about what is best for me! and not trying to say my way is best for all:  To me, I see engagement as a transitional step, not a state of being.  So one could possibly date indefinitely, but shouldn’t be engaged indefinitely as the point of the enagement is because you want to change to a married couple.  I think it is better to get to know someone very well and then have a shorter engagement, than to get engaged quickly.  I noticed some bees have said they see engagement as time to get to know their partner better (as in, no need to worry about a short dating time frame as a result), which really baffles me because the time to really get to know someone should be prior to getting married.  I do appreciate longer engagements lead to more planning time, as you mentioned, but I don’t need to be engaged to feel secure about where my relationship is going.  (Other bees I know feel differently about how secure they feel based on comments their SOs have made or avoided making.)

Post # 5
Member
2893 posts
Sugar bee

I’m going to ditto Kay01. That’s my take on the long relationship/engagement. I would feel less secure with a long engagement, if it was due to something other than planning hickups, than a long relationship. Reason being is I’m getting to know someone during the dating part. During the engagement part I don’t want anyone trying to still figure anyone out because I would hope at that point they’d know what they were getting into. If they still weren’t sure about me then they shouldn’t have asked me to marry them. I want engagement to be a temporary rush of excitement. I don’t want any lull time due to questions about the rightness of the relationship. Just my 2 cents.

Post # 6
Member
7587 posts
Bumble Beekeeper
  • Wedding: December 2010

When we did get engaged we knew we wanted a winter wedding, so that either meant married in 9 months or married in 21 months. I simply knew I would drive myself crazy and change my mind way too many times if I had 21 months to plan it. So for us, it really had nothing to do with gaining more knowledge of eachother (if I felt like I didn’t know him, I wouldn’t have said YES in the first place), it was more about me not becoming a nutty bridezilla with too much time on my planning hands.

Post # 7
Member
3297 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: August 2013 - An amazing non-profit retreat

I don’t!

Post # 8
Member
3572 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: September 2011

i think a shorter engagement is nice because it seems like one year or more is a LONG time to be thinking about and planning a wedding.  that’s just me though!  i think sometimes when people have long engagements the relationship is taken less seriously…as if it’s not a real engagement without a date set (even though it shouldn’t be)

Post # 9
Member
361 posts
Helper bee

I think it depends on how long the engagement is. If by long you mean say a year and a half or two years, I’m all for it. But long as in 5 years, no thank you. I think that when you know, you know. Just because you can’t get married *right then* doesn’t mean you can’t take that next step and then work toward it. My personal opinion is that you shouldn’t wait to get engaged until you can afford to pay for the wedding, you should get engaged when you’re ready to be engaged. 

The topic ‘Why do you prefer a long ltr over a long engagement?’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors