|
Aaron
|
 |
« on: January 12, 2006, 01:03:49 PM » |
|
Inspired (or rather sickened) by some idiocy and immature actions by people I know, I pose this question: How soon is too soon for people to get engaged? Do you think it's smart, wise, recommended to get engaged after only dating someone for a month or less? Especially if your relationship wasn't based on a solid friendship in the first place? I know that everyone's emotions mature at a different pace but I feel that there is absolutely no way that you can really determine if you want to spend the rest of your life with somebody after barely being together. What does everyone else think? From the married people here (AJ, Murlough, Bloop, Tom, dgp, and anyone else), share any personal experiences if you would like. From the single or in dating relationships people, what are your feelings? This is a topic that constantly intrigues me and I battle over daily (plus my background in Interpersonal and Gender Communication makes me do this).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Usadingo
|
|
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2006, 01:16:51 PM » |
|
I've always recommended dating at least a year so that you get to see how someone acts during each part of the year.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you've ever taken me seriously, you seriously need to evaluate yourself.
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2006, 01:27:42 PM » |
|
"Do you think it's smart, wise, recommended to get engaged after only dating someone for a month or less?"
I think that depends on if you knew the person before you started dating. It may be that you have known one-another for a long time but only recently started dating, in which case getting engaged (especially with a fairly long engagement period) after just a month or so may not be premature. If you met in a bar, started dating, and then popped the question a few weeks later, though...yeah, that's a bit too fast.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
bloop
|
|
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2006, 01:40:45 PM » |
|
I don't know if there's a fast and hard rule here. I've known people that moved to marriage very quickly that seem to have a wonderful and loving relationships with their spouses. Likewise, the opposite is true in some cases.
Personally, I knew my wife through all of college before I married her, so I guess we had 4 years that we knew each other, but we weren't yet married. As a general rule, I think it's kind of obvious that it's best to know a person before you marry them.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 12, 2006, 01:42:24 PM by bloop »
|
Logged
|
Enjoy our pub. user/pw: thephorum Follow me on Grooveshark or Spotify. username: iceybloop |
|
|
|
Brenden
|
|
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2006, 01:40:47 PM » |
|
I'm gonna agree with Vlad on this one. If the couple already knew each other really well before dating, it's probably not a problem.
If they didn't know each other much at all before dating, then they are probably worthy of being called "morons".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bethany
|
|
« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2006, 02:27:05 PM » |
|
I don't really think there is any guideline that you can apply to every relationship/couple. In general, what most people do is probably what works the best for most people - date for a year or more before getting engaged. However, I know people who have dated for five weeks before getting engaged (albeit after being friends for two years). I have a friend whose parents met and married the same night, and who are still happily married 30 years later. Of course those are the exceptions rather than the norm, but depending on the people involved, it is certainly possible to build a lasting and committed marriage regardless of time of dating. We live in a culture now that assumes you takes several years of relationship-building before marrying, but certainly that hasn't been the norm throughout most of history (nor is it the norm everywhere in the world today).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ajyouthguy
|
|
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2006, 02:52:37 PM » |
|
while I wouldn't say there is even close to a hard and fast rule here, in general, when I talk to people about this, especially my former students and/or college students, I suggest at least a year for the reasons previously mentioned. There are some people who are really different in the winter than in the summer, or the fall vs. the spring. And some people, like for instance my wife who is a CPA, their work is different for parts of the year than other parts. Plus it allows you to experience all of the holidays, especially the big ones like Christmas, Thanksgiving, Valentine's, 4th of July, etc, with them, and see what they might have as traditions, what their family does, etc. I do think it's possible to do it in far less time, especially if you have known them for a while, but I think the 'at least a year" idea normally is a good suggestion.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 12, 2006, 02:54:18 PM by ajyouthguy »
|
Logged
|
"When we spend so much time promoting everything we're against that the message of who we are for gets lost, when Christians are putting everyone else down, how is Jesus lifted up in that?." Doug Fields
|
|
|
|
RedcoatJones
|
|
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2006, 02:56:05 PM » |
|
I'm with those that say it's too hard to assign a hard/fast rule.
I think the two keys to a successful marriage are having a common set of main beliefs and the awareness that it takes work.
My wife and I (married 4.5 years) are opposites. SHe's the extrovert. I'm the introvert. I love indie music/movies/etc., she only likes the popular stuff. But where it counts - our faith, our main beliefs and values, we're alike. This creates a bond that we know we're moving together in the same direction.
Also, no matter how long you date, you have to be aware that a marriage takes work, and both parties have to be willing to stick through the harder times. My wife and I dated 5.5 years, but part of the reason was we started dating in high school. If I had not met her until late college, we probably would have only dated a year or so. For us, the infatuation stage had passed long before we got married, but even then, there were challenges as we lived together for the first time, moved into the "real world" etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
BecauseEdwardISEdward
Inphrequent Poster
Posts: 91
On loan from elsewhere
|
|
« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2006, 10:43:03 PM » |
|
Yeah, no solid rule, but there are probably decent guidelines, fair warning - I'm not in a relationship or anything like that.
- Maturity and age probably can help out in cases where the couple only knew each other, dated, and married in a short time. Obviously, two people around 30 who know themselves fairly well are probably going to have a better shot at a solid good realtionship than two 17-year-olds who try the same thing (and, yes, someone tried this on me back then). A friend of mine in her late 20s did this with a guy she met across the country on Match.com. To say I was worried for her would be an understatement. She's just fine, and so is he.
- I'm with Dingo, a year with the person makes sense. Dating for only a month is unwise, at least in my opinion -- unless the rare case they've known each other for a long time before. Even then, I'd be concerned.
- The media gives a distorted view of realistic relationships. If someone gets their relationship advice or worldview from the TV, movies, or Romance novels, expect trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Oh, you meant post-modern. Phew, for a second there I thought it said 'porno Christian,' which made me really intrigued to see exactly what your church's average Sunday service was like." - murlough
|
|
|
|
Aaron
|
|
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2006, 02:03:31 AM » |
|
If they didn't know each other much at all before dating, then they are probably worthy of being called "morons". The situation I've referred to falls under this category. Plus it doesn't help when the two people, both over 20, have the maturity level of high schoolers. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Brenden
|
|
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2006, 04:54:52 AM » |
|
If they didn't know each other much at all before dating, then they are probably worthy of being called "morons". The situation I've referred to falls under this category. Plus it doesn't help when the two people, both over 20, have the maturity level of high schoolers. No, that doesn't help at all, but then I know people who are still high schoolers who are engaged (and one is married). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
BecauseEdwardISEdward
Inphrequent Poster
Posts: 91
On loan from elsewhere
|
|
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2006, 05:51:21 AM » |
|
edited. nevermind.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 13, 2006, 06:33:29 AM by BecauseEdwardISEdward »
|
Logged
|
"Oh, you meant post-modern. Phew, for a second there I thought it said 'porno Christian,' which made me really intrigued to see exactly what your church's average Sunday service was like." - murlough
|
|
|
|
