Engagement Rings - good or bad idea?

Whispered

I got an engagement ring. It was sprung on me and was a total suprise. I don't like "blingy" things at all and I would have said I didn't want one but TBH I love it. More so because when I have it on, it's a reminder of poor K white as a ghost and stuttering nervously

We will definately have a wedding ring though. Or some other symbol of being married. It will be a cheap plain one. I've been pricing them and was suprised at how cheap you can get them.

peepeep

amdublin wrote: »

How so?

It is sexist because an engagement ring is a physical and observable signal to other men that the woman is taken and 'off the market', so to speak. Men are not expected to wear similar tokens of commitment. In this regard, engagement rings are symbols of possession; they denote the idea that a woman belongs to a man, ergo other men should not try their luck.

The Big Red Button

peepeep wrote: »

It is sexist because an engagement ring is a physical and observable signal to other men that the woman is taken and 'off the market', so to speak. Men are not expected to wear similar tokens of commitment. In this regard, engagement rings are symbols of possession; they denote the idea that a woman belongs to a man, ergo other men should not try their luck.

In my opinion, that's a really archaic way of looking at it.

I always wear my engagement ring; it doesn't stop other men chatting me up.

My fiance doesn't wear a ring; it doesn't mean that, if girls chat him up, it's going to go anywhere.

The ring doesn't act as some sort of forcefield to stop girls from doing anything, while allowing men to (pardon the pun! ) ride rings around themselves!

peepeep

This may make for interesting reading for those readily accepting of engagement rings... it's not that long and worth the read.


The "tradition" of the diamond engagement ring is newer than you might think. Betrothal rings, a custom inherited from the Romans, became an increasingly common part of the Christian tradition in the 13th century. The first known diamond engagement ring was commissioned for Mary of Burgundy by the Archduke Maximilian of Austria in 1477. The Victorians exchanged "regards" rings set with birthstones. But it wasn't until the late 19th century, after the discovery of mines in South Africa drove the price of diamonds down, that Americans regularly began to give (or receive) diamond engagement rings. (Before that, some betrothed women got thimbles instead of rings.) Even then, the real blingfest didn't get going until the 1930s, when—dim the lights, strike up the violins, and cue entrance—the De Beers diamond company decided it was time to take action against the American public.

In 1919, De Beers experienced a drop in diamond sales that lasted for two decades. So in the 1930s it turned to the firm N.W. Ayer to devise a national advertising campaign—still relatively rare at the time—to promote its diamonds. Ayer convinced Hollywood actresses to wear diamond rings in public, and, according to Edward Jay Epstein in 'The Rise and Fall of the Diamond', encouraged fashion designers to discuss the new "trend" toward diamond rings. Between 1938 and 1941, diamond sales went up 55 percent. By 1945 an average bride, one source reported, wore "a brilliant diamond engagement ring and a wedding ring to match in design." The capstone to it all came in 1947, when Frances Gerety—a female copywriter, who, as it happened, never married—wrote the line "A Diamond Is Forever." The company blazoned it over the image of happy young newlyweds on their honeymoon. The sale of diamond engagement rings continued to rise in the 1950s, and the marriage between romance and commerce that would characterize the American wedding for the next half-century was cemented. By 1965, 80 percent of American women had diamond engagement rings. The ring had become a requisite element of betrothal—as well as a very visible demonstration of status. Along the way, the diamond industry's guidelines for the "customary" cost of a ring doubled from one month's salary to two months' salary.


But behind every Madison Avenue victory lurks a deeper social reality. And as it happens there was another factor in the surge of engagement ring sales—one that makes the ring's role as collateral in the premarital economy more evident. Until the 1930s, a woman jilted by her fiance could sue for financial compensation for "damage" to her reputation under what was known as the "Breach of Promise to Marry" action. As courts began to abolish such actions, diamond ring sales rose in response to a need for a symbol of financial commitment from the groom, argues the legal scholar Margaret Brinig—noting, crucially, that ring sales began to rise a few years before the De Beers campaign. To be marriageable at the time you needed to be a virgin, but, Brinig points out, a large percentage of women lost their virginity while engaged. So some structure of commitment was necessary to assure betrothed women that men weren't just trying to get them into bed. The "Breach of Promise" action had helped prevent what society feared would be rampant seduce-and-abandon scenarios; in its lieu, the pricey engagement ring would do the same. (Implicitly, it would seem, a woman's virginity was worth the price of a ring, and varied according to the status of her groom-to-be.)


On the face of it, the engagement ring's origins as a financial commitment should make modern brides-to-be wary. After all, virginity is no longer a prerequisite for marriage, nor do the majority of women consider marriageability their prime asset. Many women hope for a marriage in which housework, child-rearing, and breadwinning are equitably divided. The engagement ring doesn't fit into this intellectual framework. Rather, its presence on a woman's finger suggests that she needs to trap a man into "commitment" or be damaged if he leaves. (In most states today, if a groom abandons a bride, she is entitled to keep the ring, whereas if she leaves him, she must give it back.) Nor is it exactly "equitable" to demand that a partner shell out a sixth of a year's salary, demonstrating that he can "provide" for you and a future family, before you agree to marry him.



For those who aren't bothered by the finer points of gender equity, an engagement ring clearly makes a claim about the status of a woman's sexual currency. It's a big, shiny NO TRESPASSING sign, stating that the woman wearing it has been bought and paid for, while her beau is out there sign-free and all too easily trespassable, until the wedding. (There might be an equitable case for pregnancy rings, since bearing children is inherently unequal—but that's its own can of worms.) In fact, many ads, including a recent series by Tiffany, imply that giving a ring results in a woman's sexual debt.


It may seem curious that feminism has made inroads on many retrograde customs—name-changing, for example—but not on the practice of giving engagement rings. Part of the reason the ring has persisted and thrived is clearly its role in what Thorstein Veblen called the economy of "conspicuous consumption." Part of the reason could be that many young women, raised in a realm of relative equality, never think rigorously about the traditions handed down to them. So it's easy to simply regard a ring as a beautiful piece of jewelry and accept it in kind (I'm guilty myself). But it's also the case that a murkier truth lies within its brilliance: Women still measure their worth in relationship to marriage in ways that men don't. And many are looking for men who will bear the burden of providing for them, while demanding equality in other ways. (It's telling, for example, that in many parts of Scandinavia, where attitudes toward gender are more egalitarian, both men and women wear engagement rings.) Women are collectively attached to the status a ring bestows on them; otherwise more would demand some equal sign of commitment from their husbands. Say, a tattoo. For two. Now there's an idea.

bangersandmash

peepeep wrote: »

This may make for interesting reading for those readily accepting of engagement rings... it's not that long and worth the read.

If you're going to repost an entire article you could at least name and credit the source

http://www.slate.com/id/2167870/

A few interesting bits of history there on De Beers. But the article has been widely rehashed in various forms. And somehow I'd imagine that many people here might find your insistence that the modern day interpretation of the ring still signifies ownership and possession as being a little risible or even offensive.

SeekUp

Stella777 wrote: »

You wouldn't believe how women in NYC are about their engagement rings. The expectation is that the man spend at least 2-3 months salary. Anything less than one carat raises eyebrows... Then they all spend God knows how much a year having the rings insured.

Hold on a minute -- NYC women certainly don't have a hold on the 'crazy about their engagement rings' market. People in large cities tend to pay more for things, whether it be a piece of jewelry or a piece of property. And likewise in the cases of major cities, it's social pressures just as much as anything else; it's not uncommon that people want to outdo each other with the apartment location, the designer clothes in their closet, the summer home, etc. etc. etc. Furthermore, people tend to make more money in big cities, where the cost of living is higher and everything costs more in the first place.

You're correct, many people are obsessed with the ring (and the dress, and the lighting, for heaven's sake), but it's not just the women in New York.

Kooli

Kooli wrote: »

So what do you think ladies? Anyone decide not to have a ring and get any negative reactions? Anyone do something different instead?

Assuming we make it that far we would both get engagement rings. Nice german tradition!

smiley girl

I personally would like a ring. Purely for traditional reasons though. A ring is a symbol for everlasting love, the love like the ring has no end. The ring is given with a promise to marry and love forever. I wouldn't, however, be bothered about the cost of the ring, I would prefer to spend our money on our life.
But years ago the cost of the ring was supposed to be more than a mans months wages! I would like my boyfriend to put thought and consideration into the decision more so than a lot of dosh!
These days though, girls propose! It's the 29th Feb, once every four years! Doubt I would do it though!;)

central

I know this was posted a long time ago but was just browsing and came across it and had to say something.

I must admit that I would like a ring but it does not have to be super expensive, massive and sparkly.

A few years ago I was at lunch in work with some of the girls (all from affluent backgrounds, not that it should matter) and one of them was talking about "when my boyfriend proposes....", Anywho she said her ring had to be the following:
1. A massive diamond(s)
2. Platinum
3. Cost a minimum of €6k
4. Have all the 4 C's (have never understood this fully but she had to have the best of the best).

Majority of the girls at the table all agreed and stated their wants for the type of ring they "expected" etc.

I piped up and said "well actually I don't care how much it cost, what claret, colour etc it is, I want the ring for what it sympbolises and if it costs a few hundred euro then so be it". Well.......the shocked faces around the table, they couldn't believe it.

While I like my nice clothes, shoes, bags, house etc I would not for a second expect my other half to spend a "minimum" on my ring, once it fit and suited me. I have never been a shallow person and I am certainly not materialistic when it comes to jewellery, this kind of talk I find is disgusting and any woman should feel lucky enough to be in a happy, loving, secure relationship without putting a price tag on it, in my opinion anyway.

To OP - I understand where you are coming from and say fair play, go for it, it's your decision and your life and you chose what to spend money on, whether it's a ring or a holiday or a car.

rainbowtrout

I like the idea of engagement rings(as opposed to other items) as a token to mark the occasion. But just that - a token. They fit the bill nicely because they are small, portable and durable. But I don't wear much jewellery or place any value on it. If I like it, I like it so spending thousands on a ring for me would be pointless, and wasted on me. I wouldn't even want a diamond, I just don't think they're anything special. I'd prefer something more colourful - green or purple would keep me happy.

Giselle

bluewolf wrote: »

Assuming we make it that far we would both get engagement rings. Nice german tradition!

I think thats a nice idea. I think the occasion should be marked by an exchange of commitment rings rather than a one sided he-buys-she-gets scenario.

Catari Jaguar

I would love to have an antique ring, with a romantic history, to be a family heirloom down the line. Nothing too flashy. But I do love filagree and delicate, hand made, artistic touches. The idea of a large laser cut diamond on a plain band is so unoriginal.

I will go 50-50 on the cost of the ring. Max of €1500. I wouldn't feel right taking such an expensive gift from someone. And the money should be put towards our life together.

There'll probably be no grand gesture of proposal because we've talked about it for years. It's more when we're ready to announce it, we will, as we're pretty private and don't like a huge fuss. February 29th though.. so I might make a show of him in public and get down on bended knee.

Acoshla

Lil Kitten wrote: »

I would love to have an antique ring, with a romantic history, to be a family heirloom down the line. Nothing too flashy. But I do love filagree and delicate, hand made, artistic touches. The idea of a large laser cut diamond on a plain band is so unoriginal

When I get engaged I am lucky enough to have my grandmother's engagement ring as mine, she died a few weeks before I was born, was very into her jewellery, and when my Grandad decided a few years back to divide it all between the family I got first choice. My grandparents were very happily married and I love the idea of wearing her ring, hope I have a marriage as happy as theirs was and as I never knew her it makes me feel some bit closer to her.

Now, the thing about this ring is, it's insane. Her original engagement ring was only found recently, it's tiny and tarnished but lovely. The one I have is one she had made a few years later, it's platinum, 3 huge diamonds, beautiful hearts on the settings, and worth twice as much as my car :eek: So I find wearing it kind of stressful, terrified I'll damage it! But my family's theory is it's better for it to be worn and enjoyed than locked in the safe where it spent 20 years.

But yeah, it is lovely that it has a happy romantic history, if I didn't have this ring I would only want a few hundred spent on a ring, if even, anymore than that is just a waste, and I hate all the competition between girls about them, so pathetic.

Catari Jaguar

That's lovely Spadina You're very lucky

Ashlinggnilsia

I don't particularly want a cheap ring but I wouldn't want it over 1,000 either, but really the money and how much it costs wouldn't matter to me, I don't understand these carats and all that lark but i know what colour I would like and what style and if it looks that way i don't care if its made with the cheapest diamonds out there, as long as its to my taste. I would hate if I was proposed to with a ring I thought was ugly. But he is very good at picking out the jewlery. I would want a ring, for definite but in relation to the actual topic of the post my OH thinks there is no point in proposing until we can afford to pay for a wedding. I don't agree with this but what can ya do! TBH i dont think he will ever propose but if he does I will be so happy and in total and utter shock! :eek::D

vicecreamsundae

I don't think I ever plan to get married, though I suppose that could change. But if I did, deciding to marry would be the result of a lot of conversation about our plans -why, and how and when etc. Not the result of being "proposed" to, with a flashy ring. I don't really get this whole concept of being engaged... why not just be in a relationship and then be married? anyway, back on topic, i love jewellery, and i love rings..plastic ones, wooden ones , silver ones. BUT i change my rings according to how i feel, what i wear, what colour nail polish i have i couldn't commit to wearing one ring practically every day! -so you can see why i don't plan to marry and when it comes to an engagement ring, if its something you're not going to wear everyday i don't see the point.
would i accept a ring? if i liked it... maybe, sure, just for the kitschness of it. but i wouldn't want or expect one. to me shiny trinkets and a happy marriage/relationship have nothing to do with one another.