Slate's Human Nature -- which I always enjoy reading -- reports:
Men are hiring photographers to surreptitiously record their marriage proposals. Photographers say the practice has been growing for three years. In some cases, the client and photographer arrange the timing and location for picture quality, e.g., where to stand (unbeknownst to the woman) so the camera can see both faces. One man choreographed his proposal so his girlfriend would "look pretty for the photographs." Rationales: 1) It's romantic. 2) It's a way to "share" a special moment with friends and family. 3) "The smile on her face in that moment is something you can't recreate." Critiques: 1) It's "stalkerish." 2) It's narcissistic. 3) It's a self-discrediting attempt at authenticity. 4) People are putting the photos on the Internet, so the "sharing" is indiscriminate. 5) We've come to think that photos and video are "the only way to document something" and that "if it's not on Facebook, it didn't happen." Feminist spin: It's another creepy thing men do to women. Misogynist spin: But the women are so vain they email the photos to all their co-workers. Human Nature's challenge: Find a guy who has posted photos of his girlfriend saying no. (Contestants please submit entries here.)
(IMHO, stalkerish and creepy. Is nothing sacred?)
I find any proposal made in the company of others to be dangerous. What if she feels pressured to say yes (if she knows they're there)? If she doesn't know they're there, what if he's embarrassed when she says -- not even "no" -- but just "Wow, this is unexpected, let's talk about it"?
I don't find it creepy, just tacky. Videotaping any other reasonably private proceeding (including childbirth) also falls in this category. Videotaping weddings or baptisms is normal, because they're meant to be "public" to one's community.
And who does it harm? Many proposals are traditionally in public or semi-public locations. The photographer is hardly a bigger cue to the audience that there is a proposal happening than the man getting down on one knee and opening a box from Tiffany's. Yeah, its an intimate moment, but its an intimate moment which is already quite scripted and which is *designed* to be retold incessantly for the next year and periodically for the rest of your life.
by the way, waiting until 30 to get married is a great idea if you don't care about having children, but if you do, a woman's fertility is well into sunset by that age. and this sounds crude and sexist, because it is, but it's also true: women bounce back better after having a kid at 21 than after having a kid at 35. sorry but it's just true.
FOTFLMAO... That was great. I had to show that post to my wife... Then she was FOTFLMAO...
This was not what the crowd was expecting... didn't play well at all. Frankly I felt sorry for her. Talk about no way to back out gracefully.
Sure, maybe there's 10% of couples who are both extroverts, bubbly, and would love this type of shared attention. But for 90%, I'm guessing, the quite genuine moment is preferable over the hype.
Kids get themselves into those big production weddings, and go through with it, but what percentage don't have regrets on the Big Day and wish they would have toned it back to more enjoyable, genuine moments with friends and family?
It is creepy to think nothing is private anymore, between the two people in the couple and a moment savored by them alone. Plus, I don't think everyone in the restaurant or stadium necessarily enjoys sharing these private moments of courtship.
It's like the guy saying "Look at Me! Look at Me!", and not taking the woman's response into account, as PGofHSM and ed in texas have noted.
John Tabin: Hilarious! I blame those damned "metrosexual" breed of men, who are all about looking good.
It's not inappropriate because she can do what she wants with the pics, the guy being in the background means the intorversion doesn't matter, and hey, the concept of "spend your whole life with me and only me" is kind of narcissistic to begin with.
I do wonder of course, why some guys get a 'no' during their proposal. On some level, one should have laid the groundwork and sort of preasked (insert proper bit of machiavellian sneakiness as required), and the actual answer should be a forgone conclusion.
... or a baseball game at Yankee Stadium.
I congratulate myself for having had the sense to accept a good offer.
No photographer was present.
I don't know whose idea it was first, but I suspect she (and our parents, and our friends, and everyone else) knew it was going to happen before I did -- mostly I just fell into the whole thing.
We have photos of the babies within the first minutes of their life, but neither the deliveries nor the conceptions.
I had set up my proposal well, I thought; I had her find the ring as a toy surprise in a Cracker Jack box.
As she's taking it out (opaque-side up - got lucky)
JRM: You can only keep the toy surprise if you're willing to make a deal.
Her: (cheerfully tearing the wrapper) What do I need to do to keep it? (Sudden realization of contents.)
JRM: Will you marry me?
Her: AAAAAAAHHHHHH!
JRM: This is the kind of question that requires a yes or no answer.
Her: Yes! I said "Yes"!
She *still* says she said "Yes." If I had recorded it 11 years ago, we could be arguing about the quality of the recording rather than the quality of my hearing.
--JRM
(Blushes) That's quite kind, but I couldn't possibly accept.
I agree with bellisaurius that a man should really know the result before he asks. A couple should have talked about the possibility of marriage and what it will mean before anyone pops the question, IMO.