I don't get the desire to get engaged.

[Brightyellowspyrograph]

Maybe I am just cranky and old, but in this day and age with women having careers, being independent, raising children single-handedly, having equal rights ( almost ) in employment yada yada yada why do women go all gushy over an engagement ring?
We don't have to be passed on from fathers to our husbands like chattels as we once did. We mostly live with our partners before we get married and already have a partnership so why do we react like this man is going to carry us off into the sunset and save us from the shame of spinsterhood?
It's anachronistic for independent women earning their own living, with important job roles and responsibilities; to be desperately yearning for some man to put a ring on them to show possession.
I don't get it.
And yes I have been "engaged" (x3) and it is pretty meaningless. Being married wasn't all that either.
A good strong relationship is a fantastic thing. The support and love of another person that lasts is truly wonderful, don't get me wrong. But do we need this old fashioned rubbish?

Yes so don’t get with someone who’s broke if
you want to be sustained.

It’s hard to know, when one is making the decision to get married in their 20s or 30s, whether the person they’re marrying is going to become so rich that a split of assets in the event of divorce will leave the financially dependent party with enough money to live on for the rest of their life.

In any case, this scenario is quite rare. Few people build up 10s of millions of pounds of assets by middle age (peak divorce time).

Better to plan to take responsibility of your own finances, and not leave it in the hands of another person.

Yes but I think most people who are thinking of marrying for pragmatic reasons would have a child or two. common cited reason here for marrying is protection during maternity leave etc.

Dh's grandpa assets amount to a bit over 1 million and he will pay tax but not much. I don't think they will increase the thresholds so many average people will be property millionaires and have to pay the tax..

Oh dear, what a depressing post.
How about making sure you earn your own livelihood, that way you can marry (or choose not to marry) whoever you truly love?

Well yes. Obviously. The post has evolved to speaking about the financial implications though.

It does seem pretty meaningless in your 3 cases.
Perhaps when you meet the right partner it will feel different.

Yes - my point was just if people are no better off having married then don’t come to a marriage expecting to be sustained if they’ve not got the means 🤷🏼‍♀️

If you are married and divorce and own a family home, it is possible that in the interests of the children, the judge may order that you and the children can stay in the family home until the youngest turns 18. This buys you time to save up in preparation for the time when the children leave and you have to sell up and buy your own place.

However if you aren't married, you would have to sell up and just accept whatever place you can afford with your share of the divorce money even if it means renting somewhere very unsuitable. Even with child maintenance it wouldn't be enough to make up the short fall you would need to live in somewhere suitable as few people can afford a decent property (in many areas) without 2 incomes esp when there are kids to pay for.

Many couples own a family home without having other significant assets or being particularly high earning. Even if the family home was a 2 bed flat it's still miles more suitable than a rental or potentially being totally priced out of the area near kids schools and support networks. After the kids are done with school there is then more flexibility to move to somewhere that is much cheaper.

The desire is not to be 'engaged' but to be in a committed, loving relationship with your partner. I think to the majority of people (men and women) the quality of our relationships bring us far more joy in life than any career goal ever could.

I know - I’ve said this upthread. I’m not against marriage.

It sounds like it was your engagements and marriage that were the issue here

So Its alright for you because it was a precursor to marriage…… like it is with the vast majority of people who get engaged. Is your problem with people who then don’t get married quickly enough by your standards once they’ve got engaged? You clearly don’t think everyone should elope otherwise you’d have done that yourself. It’s a nice thing to be engaged, it’s an exciting part of life, so of course people are excited by the prospect of it. It’s not rocket science 😆

Absolutely.

I can see the point in being engaged to be married. i.e. Actively planning a wedding.

I’m a bit more sceptical about people who get “engaged” with no plans to marry, Similar to a lavatory.

I don't think it's silly to have rites of passage and celebrations and symbols of significant life events. It's what humans do. And since they still do it, en masse, I'm not sure it can really be called old-fashioned.

I don't see what is wrong with retaining the nice, celebratory elements of a tradition and ditching any aspects you find sexist or outdated. The giving and receiving of a ring to mark and celebrate your commitment to marry someone doesn't seem in any way negative to me. You don't have to be 'given away' if you don't want to be.

Yes my point...put way better than I did.

I got engaged because I needed to.show an intention to marry for.immigration reasons and this was 35 years ago. I got engaged the third time with no desire to because the other.person had their own agenda which was nothing about wanting to cherish and spend our lives together. The second one was an ambush.
No none of it was romantic or loving.

I agree that "being engaged" is not a status in itself, so people who seem to have neverending engagements do confuse me.
But marriage is about commitment and legal protection, so it is important. An engagement is merely an agreement to get married - preferably ASAP.

But I like a nice piece of jewellery myself, so I don't have a problem with a ring - equally, the ring isn't compulsory and is the least important part of the process.

I saw a ring i loved, bought it, and a year later, proposed to him. Yes, he has a ring too.
For us its a sign to others we are seriously comitted to eachother, as there are reasons we cannot live together or marry in the near future. If it were purely choice engagement would have been a short lived formality and we'd be husband and wife already. I'd far rather be engaged than just a girlfriend, as an adult "girlfriend" sounds ridiculous and childish.

I think alot of people have long engagements because they dont prioritise spending all that money on a wedding (but dont want to compromise on a wedding) and put it towards a house purchase and renovations. Then they’ve had a baby or two and before you know they’re worse off than before. So it’s not a lack of intention but balancing priorities, probably more true in the modern world where there’s less pressure to get married before living together.

I never used the term “finance” when engaged I thought it sounded pretentious 🫢

You have had a remarkably odd love life, which may be colouring your view of a perfectly normal and pleasant step in life for many.

We never did get engaged - we just set a date. At the time (early 70s) dh thought that ‘getting engaged) was desperately uncool.

But he bought me a lovely ring right after the birth of dd2, which TBH meant a lot more to me.

I agree with OP re engagements and a ring that marks ownership. I know people will argue otherwise, but it's amazing how male engagement rings have never taken off! Long engagements that somehow are supposed show commitment, but never lead to marriage are ridiculous.

Marriage is important though, especially if you're planning children.

You've had 3 failed engagements/marriages and now you can't understand why anyone would do it 😂