?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

we're living.. in a material world...

My suspitions have been confirmed...

My sister is shallow as hell.

Now I thought I knew this before, but I guess I didn't realise how shallow.
Let me explain.

For some reason we were talking about people getting engaged, can't remember what brought that up, but we were. Anyhow my sister goes on to say that long engagments (and by this she means 2 years plus) are "stupid and pointless."
Please note.. this is not that she sees no point in being engaged long term, but that the whole idea of anyone being engaged for that long is stupid and pointless. I took issue with this.

Now, for me, getting engaged is about making a commitment to marry someone. Whenever that is, but the commitment to marry is there. I don't get these people that are enganged for say.. 26 years or something. That IS pointless because it removes the point of engagment.
But anyhow...

*sighs*

You know I was going to write a VERY long rant here.. but the mere thought of dredging up all that shallow crap depresses me.


Suffice to say my sister and her friend seem convinced that its the things that make something important.. not the feelings, and that when you get engaged you should concider that if you can't afford to get married in the next year or so then you should put off the engagment.

I'm about as far away from that ideology as I can be. I accept that its nice and all to have pretty things, but thats not what its about.
As I said to Avi earlier...

darkcryst: we were having a discussion about engagement.. which led to marriage. All her ideas of what marriage mean hinge on material things. I'll give her that she thinks theres more to it than money, but basically that was one of the main things - not that she'd only go out with someone if they had money.. but basically you have to have 'things' to make a wedding special.
shineyquarter: No you don't
darkcryst: Exactly my point... like engagment is pointless without a ring was one of her things
darkcryst: I was like WTF?
shineyquarter: Um...
darkcryst: engagment is two people making a commitment to marry each other
darkcryst: that is it
shineyquarter: Exactly
darkcryst: the ring symbolises it.. sure - but if I couldn't afford a ring I'd still concider myself able to get engaged
shineyquarter: Yeah definitely
darkcryst: she (and her friend, who isn't shallow usually, but was here) were like "well fine, but you'd get one eventually"
darkcryst: I was like "er... no" - they scoffed
darkcryst: I don't see the point in getting a ring AFTER
shineyquarter: Yeah
darkcryst: thats like "oh yeah... our engagment is THIS"
darkcryst: thats all it is.. my arse *shakes head* I was so.. I dunno I can't find the word.. flummoxed is a good one.. agast at the materialistic shallowness of it. They claimed it wasn't materialistic
shineyquarter: Yeah... well it sounds like it is
darkcryst: yes.. "well it needs to have THIS to be a wedding" sounds materialistic to me- then they said that that doesn't apply to weddings because 'its tradition'
shineyquarter: Bah!
darkcryst: yeah fine.. sure. But if it doesn't have that does it make it any less? no! Sure its nice to have those things - because we've been taught its nice.

Some edits for flow, but yeah... thats how I feel.

I'm just... I duno it makes me sick how shallow some people are.

Comments

( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
kaleidoscopes
30th Jan, 2003 08:52 (UTC)
Bah... Shallow people suck. I used to want to have the biggest diamond and the prettiest ring but realized it's not everything. It's materialistic and will fade. Love is what lasts and getting engaged IS about commitment above all else. It's a special thing and just because someone doesn't get a ring doesn't make it any less important.

When I got engaged, we were both in school and dirt poor. We went out and looked at rings but just had no idea how we were going to afford one. Finally I said he didn't need to do that. We'll just get bands when we get married. It's special in my heart and I don't need a ring to show people that. Little did I know, he had been plotting the whole time with my mum for a ring. He proposed to me with the engagement ring my dad used on my mum. It meant the world to me since I lost my father when I was 13 and they had such an amazing marriage. Sure, it was free and didn't cost him a dime but it meant more to me than any other ring in the world could. *grin*

So, alas, you've found two women who agree with you. *hugs* Feel better, Greg.
darkcryst
30th Jan, 2003 09:11 (UTC)
Re:
*hugs*

Oh I wasn't unsure about my ideas.. just absolutly apalled at the shallowness of my sister...

bugs me.
galateadia
30th Jan, 2003 10:16 (UTC)
the long engagement thing -
its amazing to me that i didn't turn out more warped then i did when i think about how many times i have had the "long engagements are stupid" discussion with my mom. she thinks the same as your sister on that one, and i think like you on it. i don't see the problem, you have made the commitment, and if circumstances dictate that you need some time to get a wedding together then you need it. she thinks that once you get engaged you should immediately, if not sooner, have the wedding and you should not ask until you are financially (or whomever is paying for the wedding is financially) ready. and my mom is also all into the things at a wedding. it was hard for me to reign her in with mine. they paid for most of it and it made me feel immensely guilty to think of how much they were spending on it, so i tried to turn her down on a lot of ideas she had. but in the end we did ultimately have a wedding for our families, they wanted it more than us. we wouldn't have cared so much and probably would have had a small ceremony in the woods somewhere, but they all wanted the big to-do-dah so we tried to oblige as much as we felt comfortable.

the ring thing -
there are two ways i have gone with regards to rings and neither is materialistic by any stretch. i don't think that a ring is essential i have been engaged once without one at all.
the second time i got engaged it was just insulting though. he bought me a ring and gave it to me (now if you were absolutely stuck on the idea of getting a symbol of your commitment wouldn't you want it to be nice?), it was a single silver band with a floral stamp design in it. very pretty. but i found out that he spent all of $11 on it. of course the fact that this ring also represented cheapness to me might have been due to the fact that he was a jerk too.
so as symbols go, the ring was appropriate to how he felt about me i guess.
the second engagement ring was the ring i got with me husband. yes, i said with.
we both spent time looking for rings, and finally settled on putting one we both liked together. be picked out the stones and the setting and had it put together here in town by the same guy who engraved our wedding bands. and because of circumstances and being able to take advantage of certain things, we did not spend a lot of money on the ring. (if $ must be flung around it was less than $250, but that was really not the point) the best part of the ring was the fact that we put it together together. it really does symbolize something with us, but its not the amount of money that was put into the aquisition of said symbol, it was the fact that we are partners in everything. its not my ring, its our ring. in fact i think he has pointed it out to people more often than i have, lol.

but anywho to make a long post less long i will say one last thing -
tradition is not an excuse for being shallow and materialistic.
in my opinion tradition is a good reason for much of anything, but that is whole other post... ;)
darkcryst
30th Jan, 2003 10:20 (UTC)
Re:
hehe.. no I totally agree.

I don't disagree with getting a ring at all.. just that it should be done as part of it.. rather than for the sake of having a ring.

Sounds like we'd get one quite well in a discussion :)
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )