Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Portia wrote:Ooh! Found another thing that perhaps Vorpal and I will agree on. Namely, that this use of the term "fiancé/e" is a joke.

Yep, we agree. If you don't have a ring and a wedding date, you aren't engaged.

What if you have a wedding date but no ring? (This at least 50% sarcasm. )

mic0 wrote:What if you have a wedding date but no ring? (This at least 50% sarcasm. )

I… maybe fell into that category. Despite all my determination to never be one of "those" girls. But as Yellow was waiting on a third party to ship an olive wood engagement ring from Jerusalem to propose. And almost by accident we realized that there was only one weekend that summer we could get married and have all of our siblings there. So quite by accident we had a date without a ring. And that weekend my mom happened to be in town. And since the date was rather soon (less than 2 months), and she was making my wedding dress, we went fabric shopping before I got my ring.

Yeah… I was one of those girls.

mic0 wrote:What if you have a wedding date but no ring? (This at least 50% sarcasm. )

Having been in this situation once before, it's easier to tell people you were engaged than to describe the relationship that ended ("We'd set a date and been ring shopping but then he worried about becoming his parents and broke up with me.") to every stranger.

Vorpal, Vorpal, we all know the engagement piano is what counts. If you can't commit enough to have a date, you probably oughtn't have kids with this person

I decided I needed a nap this afternoon and ended up sleeping for 2 1/2 hours.

I might've just gotten through one of the hardest weeks of my semester so far. I feel super bad for my friend Klaus who gets colds when he's stressed.

vorpal blade wrote:

Portia wrote:Ooh! Found another thing that perhaps Vorpal and I will agree on. Namely, that this use of the term "fiancé/e" is a joke.

Yep, we agree. If you don't have a ring and a wedding date, you aren't engaged.

In a particular societal context I think it makes sense. The word "boyfriend" could mean anything, and so isn't strong enough to describe these sorts of relationships where you've been living together for 15 years. "Fiance" gives the relationship a significant amount more gravitas from an outsider's perspective, even if it isn't technically accurate. I suspect that most on this forum just don't know a whole lot of people in that situation.

Emiliana wrote:

vorpal blade wrote:

Portia wrote:Ooh! Found another thing that perhaps Vorpal and I will agree on. Namely, that this use of the term "fiancé/e" is a joke.

Yep, we agree. If you don't have a ring and a wedding date, you aren't engaged.

In a particular societal context I think it makes sense. The word "boyfriend" could mean anything, and so isn't strong enough to describe these sorts of relationships where you've been living together for 15 years. "Fiance" gives the relationship a significant amount more gravitas from an outsider's perspective, even if it isn't technically accurate. I suspect that most on this forum just don't know a whole lot of people in that situation.

I know a few people in this situation, not tons. It confuses me why you wouldn't want to provide for someone you've been with for several years, especially if you have children. Marriage is so strongly incentivized in this country, that forgoing it is an active statement of protest. I feel like educated, white, yuppies like myself, who are most able to provide for ourselves, marry at the highest rates. So my future children have that much of a head start in life.

This seems like a fairly recent societal development. I don't think it can be good for society.

Violet wrote:

mic0 wrote:What if you have a wedding date but no ring? (This at least 50% sarcasm. :))

Having been in this situation once before, it's easier to tell people you were engaged than to describe the relationship that ended ("We'd set a date and been ring shopping but then he worried about becoming his parents and broke up with me.") to every stranger.

Yeah, you were engaged. And that sucks. I'm sorry.

Portia wrote: Marriage is so strongly incentivized in this country, that forgoing it is an active statement of protest.

To give an example of someone who isn't married but in a LTR, I'll give my Russian professor from last year. She is from Russia/Ukraine (equal time in both) and has a child with her partner, but she doesn't want to get married because she wants to earn her green card the hard way. (In reality, I gotta say there is really not an "easy" way to get a green card; getting married isn't an automatic in... unfortunately.) She figures they can just live together, call him her partner, and that's good enough. There is my one data point. I also have a lot of cousins who didn't get married to their long-term partners for quite some time, and I'm speculating it is because of their own issues having grown up in a polygamous family living in the desert.

I think my data points are getting a little weirder now... Point is, when you are in a serious relationship, "boyfriend" may not cut it. "Partner" has a strong affiliation with the LGBTQ scene. "Fiance" is technically wrong. GUESS WE NEED A NEW WORD, GUYS!

But what about the Russo-Ukrainian woman's child? She isn't legally entitled to anything of her father's. To me, that seems wrong and selfish.

If I were to enter into such a relationship, I'd call myself his mistress or long-term girlfriend.

It's for this reason I support gay marriage. Commitment and stable structures for children, if you have them, are social goods.

Okay, I see that I jumped to conclusions about the people y'all know. My bad. I probably have an excessively descriptivist view of language, though.

Emiliana wrote:Okay, I see that I jumped to conclusions about the people y'all know. My bad. I probably have an excessively descriptivist view of language, though.

All of us on this forum are a bit odd after all, you never can tell. I'm not bothered by the fiance thing.

mic0 wrote:What if you have a wedding date but no ring? (This at least 50% sarcasm. )

I wondered if someone would call me on that. Actually I was just quoting Dr. Laura. She is my age and I know not everyone agrees with her. I'm not too sure how important a ring is, but I suppose it does symbolize a firm commitment.

I remember a few decades ago when people were trying to figure out what to call your live-in boyfriend or girlfriend. This was when only a small percentage of couples lived together before marriage. Now it is commonplace. People wanted to avoid words with negative moral connotations like mistress, unpaid whore, shack up honey, and so forth. For understandable reasons you can see. It was about then that the new term "Significant Other" began to become popular. So now what, Significant Other is no longer significant enough? We have to corrupt the word fiancée?

It is already corrupted by being French.

Marduk wrote:It is already corrupted by being French.

What can I say? When you're right you're right!

My wife and I had a wedding date, but no ring. She refused - did not want a ring because to her, it symbolized being bought and paid for. So no engagement ring. We did purchase silver bands with a celtic pattern to wear after we were married (about $70 for both).

Just finished writing an "addition" to Paradise lost, in free verse and Miltonic language. It was quite enjoyable.

And that's when I know that I belong in the English department.

I got a text that awoke me at 9:45 pm, which is no big deal.

The big deal is my roommate starting to vacuum at ten minutes before midnight. When she started vacuuming again ten minutes after midnight I got up and glared at her until she stopped, then I put the vacuum away for her. (She might not have been able to tell I was glaring. I have a resting glare face.)

Now it sounds like she's putting away dishes which is not a quiet chore, but at least won't wake the neighbors.