The engagement ring --- an "outmoded commodity?"

Stumbled across this on Slate this morning and thought it might made good discussion fodder, especially given the big-wedding debates here in the past. Personally, I have no idea what the rock is supposed to symbolize other than money that could have been used as a down payment on a house.

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

Pernicious? According to my dictionary, it means "causing insidious harm or ruin; ruinous; injurious; hurtful" and traces back to Latin words for "ruin" and "murder."

 

That was so condescending and trite it made my teeth hurt.

Next: the social ramifications and injustice of little girls wearing pink.

 

That story felt really bitchy/preachy to me. And I felt a little insulted that apparently I don't care about the finer points of gender equity, simply because I gave my then-gf a ring because I loved her with all my heart and wanted to marry her. (And yes, I realize that she's saying that males get screwed in the deal.)

With all that in mind: Engagement rings are fine so long as you resist the urge to turn it into a competition. A lot of my wife's friends have husbands that make a HELL of a lot more money than I do; they have the rock to prove it. So I had to get what I was comfortable paying, knowing that two months' salary is a ridiculous concept. A few of the ladies here will remember that I sent them a photo of the ring, and they all seemed to like it, despite the lack of an overwhelming diamond.

Maybe I'm just naive because I bought the ring out of love. Call me crazy.

 

That story stinks!

 

I'm not going to read that story. My fiancee is very happy with the ring I bought her, and I spent way more than two months salary. She makes more money than I do. We'll be moving into her house. So I think our gender roles are pretty even.

 

I agree with Hustle... you have to buy a ring you can comfortably afford, and not worry about keeping up with Jones in terms of size. I lucked out and although the karat size was small, the cut and clarity make it sparkle more than a ring that's 3-4 times its size.

 

I totally don't feel screwed with not getting an egagement ring. Hell, I just bught a plain wedding ring, too. Got a nice ring for Mrs. Slydell and she is very happy with it.

I'd feel kind of stupid with a big ring on my finger anyway.

Just sounds like somone is trying to blur gender lines again. Try not giving most women a ring because you wanted you two be equal since you don't get one. I dare ya.

 

However, I guess there could be an argument made for how diamonds are aquired in not giving the ring. Just watched a documentary on the "blood diamond" trade in Africa, and that was pretty horrific.

I guess of you were cheap rather than principled, you could use that line.

 

I'm pretty sure the author of that article has something against De Beers...she slams that company over and over. My take is if you don't buy an engagement ring like it's a deed of ownership, it won't be. If you don't buy it as a status symbol, it won't be. Others might think so, but that's their problem. As Bobby Sly hinted at, a relationship doesn't have to be completely gender-equal. If it were, you'd have big bouquets of flowers on fathers' day, power drill ads for mothers' day, and everything would go out of control.

 

Does it have to be a diamond?
Can't you get engaged with a nice piece of quartz?
(Ducking...)

 

Terribly written article. The best is that she admits at the end that she had an engagement ring as well.

 

I'm not speaking for all women (obviously) but diamonds are of no interest to me at all. I don't really get the point of them. I'm perfectly happy with cubic zirconia - it's pretty and sparkly and I don't have to worry about losing it.