Men: would you be willing to purchase an engagement ring for a woman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP sounds very very cheap. This is just a way of making excuses to not buy something expensive. Being cheap is really a red flag for other issues. If I was the girlfriend, I would not marry someone with this line of thinking. It's a preview of bigger issues to come.

OP here -- you sound ridiculously white. Only a WASP would use a term like 'cheap' as a pejorative rather than as a positive. I'm damn proud to be cheap, and so is my spouse.

In the multiethnic area I grew up in on the west coast, before I got assigned to this hardship post, as a kid in school with jews, mexicans, salvadorans, koreans, filipinos, vietnamese, chinese south asians... we'd actually have competitions to see who was the cheapest. Cheapness was a virtue. None of us were poor; the area ranged from working class to upper middle class. We just had superior values. Only the white kids wouldn't participate, because their parents didn't raise them right.

I pity the WASP saddies who see 'cheap' as a negative.

OP, cheapness is not a virtue. Frugality and being responsible with money are virtues, but cheapness is more akin to miserliness. If you don't want to spend money on a big ring for your wife, then don't, but don't sit there pitying your friends who are buying engagement rings as if they're being coerced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you are not a feminist. You can be an ally, but you are not female, and therefore cannot be a feminist.

However, a feminist ally would never speak the way you do. Never, ever ever and your flimsy attempts to couch your obvious misogyny behind feminism is a combination of amusing and just gross.

Wrong. Men can be feminist.

I see OP's point. It's similar to whether men are expected to pay for all dates or not. And I'm personally not a fan of the expensive engagement ring or the idea that it's the man who asks the woman to marry him and then gives her this big honking gift if she says yes.

But OP, is this as far as your feminism takes you? Is this where you put your feminist energy? I'd hardly pick this as a starting point to focus on equaling things out.

Men paying for dates is not a feminist issue.

Feminists are concerned with the very serious issues that face women, not least of which is the wage gap. Making it so men don't have to open their wallets.... yeah, not exactly on the list.

Well this makes no sense. We do not know the income of the OP or the woman he is buying the ring for....so if the woman makes more money she should buy the ring? You just can't say all women are oppressed because of a historic wage gap that takes no account of education, type of job etc and there all women are owed a ring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, OP, you would be happy for a woman to turn up for a date in scruffy clothes (perhaps man's sweats?), with a short man's haircut, no makeup, and smelling of man's shower gel and soap?

OP here -- before I got married I only dated queer women (hetero women are terrible at threesomes), so... Yes, since that suggests she's not 100% straight, all other things being equal?

You are totally gay. Just come out of the closet already.

OP here -- in the spirit of full disclosure I'm open to making out with dudes at parties, because kissing isn't particularly defined by sexual orientation, but no, not bi as I'm really not interested in dick in the slightest, and very happily married (to a queer woman). I do find it telling and sad that you see being gay as something negative that you'd try to use it as an accusation on an anonymous message board, though. Way to fail at being an ally!

I don't mean it as a negative. I just don't understand a formal marriage between a bi dude and a lesbian. What is tue point? And let's face it - you are judging hetero couples who clearly have different values than you do. Do you employ the charming word "breeder" as well? Then your clear derision for straight couples in traditional relationships would be complete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, OP, you would be happy for a woman to turn up for a date in scruffy clothes (perhaps man's sweats?), with a short man's haircut, no makeup, and smelling of man's shower gel and soap?

OP here -- before I got married I only dated queer women (hetero women are terrible at threesomes), so... Yes, since that suggests she's not 100% straight, all other things being equal?

You are totally gay. Just come out of the closet already.

OP here -- in the spirit of full disclosure I'm open to making out with dudes at parties, because kissing isn't particularly defined by sexual orientation, but no, not bi as I'm really not interested in dick in the slightest, and very happily married (to a queer woman). I do find it telling and sad that you see being gay as something negative that you'd try to use it as an accusation on an anonymous message board, though. Way to fail at being an ally!

OK, so what was the point of your post, OP? You would clearly never be interested in the kind of woman whose values tend to align with being bought an engagement ring by her huband-to-be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol feminism goes right out the window if the feminist thinks it means she won't be getting free jewelry any longer. A true feminist woman would insist on buying her own engagement ring And one for her man.

We all know that will never happen.

Oh, a TRUE feminist has to buy her own ring AND one for the man? Fascinating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, OP, you would be happy for a woman to turn up for a date in scruffy clothes (perhaps man's sweats?), with a short man's haircut, no makeup, and smelling of man's shower gel and soap?

OP here -- before I got married I only dated queer women (hetero women are terrible at threesomes), so... Yes, since that suggests she's not 100% straight, all other things being equal?

You are totally gay. Just come out of the closet already.

OP here -- in the spirit of full disclosure I'm open to making out with dudes at parties, because kissing isn't particularly defined by sexual orientation, but no, not bi as I'm really not interested in dick in the slightest, and very happily married (to a queer woman). I do find it telling and sad that you see being gay as something negative that you'd try to use it as an accusation on an anonymous message board, though. Way to fail at being an ally!

OK, so what was the point of your post, OP? You would clearly never be interested in the kind of woman whose values tend to align with being bought an engagement ring by her huband-to-be.

His point was clearly to be a smug self-satisfied prick and make a political statement about how all of us straight people in traditional relationships are so unenlightened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, OP, you would be happy for a woman to turn up for a date in scruffy clothes (perhaps man's sweats?), with a short man's haircut, no makeup, and smelling of man's shower gel and soap?

OP here -- before I got married I only dated queer women (hetero women are terrible at threesomes), so... Yes, since that suggests she's not 100% straight, all other things being equal?

You are totally gay. Just come out of the closet already.

OP here -- in the spirit of full disclosure I'm open to making out with dudes at parties, because kissing isn't particularly defined by sexual orientation, but no, not bi as I'm really not interested in dick in the slightest, and very happily married (to a queer woman). I do find it telling and sad that you see being gay as something negative that you'd try to use it as an accusation on an anonymous message board, though. Way to fail at being an ally!

I don't mean it as a negative. I just don't understand a formal marriage between a bi dude and a lesbian. What is tue point? And let's face it - you are judging hetero couples who clearly have different values than you do. Do you employ the charming word "breeder" as well? Then your clear derision for straight couples in traditional relationships would be complete.

Who said anything about my wife a lesbian?

"Queer" does not mean "lesbian". How do you not know what very basic terms mean? Are you over 40 or something? Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
OK, so what was the point of your post, OP? You would clearly never be interested in the kind of woman whose values tend to align with being bought an engagement ring by her huband-to-be.

Just sad seeing what my friends are coerced into because they feel they have no choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, OP, you would be happy for a woman to turn up for a date in scruffy clothes (perhaps man's sweats?), with a short man's haircut, no makeup, and smelling of man's shower gel and soap?

OP here -- before I got married I only dated queer women (hetero women are terrible at threesomes), so... Yes, since that suggests she's not 100% straight, all other things being equal?

You are totally gay. Just come out of the closet already.

OP here -- in the spirit of full disclosure I'm open to making out with dudes at parties, because kissing isn't particularly defined by sexual orientation, but no, not bi as I'm really not interested in dick in the slightest, and very happily married (to a queer woman). I do find it telling and sad that you see being gay as something negative that you'd try to use it as an accusation on an anonymous message board, though. Way to fail at being an ally!

I don't mean it as a negative. I just don't understand a formal marriage between a bi dude and a lesbian. What is tue point? And let's face it - you are judging hetero couples who clearly have different values than you do. Do you employ the charming word "breeder" as well? Then your clear derision for straight couples in traditional relationships would be complete.

Who said anything about my wife a lesbian?

"Queer" does not mean "lesbian". How do you not know what very basic terms mean? Are you over 40 or something? Jesus.

NP. I'm in my 20s and to me "queer" does mean a lesbian or bi person. I too don't understand why you want to get married if you judge so much?

[Anonymous]

Don't feed the troll!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OK, so what was the point of your post, OP? You would clearly never be interested in the kind of woman whose values tend to align with being bought an engagement ring by her huband-to-be.

Just sad seeing what my friends are coerced into because they feel they have no choice.

Is this OP? My DH wasn't coerced at all. He's 100% happy with marriage, even the ring part. Don't put words in your friends mouths. They're big boys and can say no if they want to. I think you're a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP sounds very very cheap. This is just a way of making excuses to not buy something expensive. Being cheap is really a red flag for other issues. If I was the girlfriend, I would not marry someone with this line of thinking. It's a preview of bigger issues to come.

OP here -- you sound ridiculously white. Only a WASP would use a term like 'cheap' as a pejorative rather than as a positive. I'm damn proud to be cheap, and so is my spouse.

In the multiethnic area I grew up in on the west coast, before I got assigned to this hardship post, as a kid in school with jews, mexicans, salvadorans, koreans, filipinos, vietnamese, chinese south asians... we'd actually have competitions to see who was the cheapest. Cheapness was a virtue. None of us were poor; the area ranged from working class to upper middle class. We just had superior values. Only the white kids wouldn't participate, because their parents didn't raise them right.

I pity the WASP saddies who see 'cheap' as a negative.

OP, cheapness is not a virtue. Frugality and being responsible with money are virtues, but cheapness is more akin to miserliness. If you don't want to spend money on a big ring for your wife, then don't, but don't sit there pitying your friends who are buying engagement rings as if they're being coerced.

You've invented a magical distinction between cheapness and frugality that doesn't exist, because white folks like yourself wouldn't know cheapness nor frugality if it bit you in the ass. The closest you can come up with for a distinction is "I'm still frugal if I spend money on stupid things, but in ways that my fellow WASPs will see as consistent with their mores."

You're blind to what you're doing because you're a part of a community of the blind. Thankfully, you're becoming a smaller and smaller share of the population such that your inadequate sense of virtue will no longer be the 'default' by 2040.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OK, so what was the point of your post, OP? You would clearly never be interested in the kind of woman whose values tend to align with being bought an engagement ring by her huband-to-be.

Just sad seeing what my friends are coerced into because they feel they have no choice.

They DO have a choice: they could choose to date the kind of woman whose values DON'T align with an expectation that her husband-to-be will buy her a ring; they could date a woman like the one you chose.

YOU had a choice, and you are happy with your choice. Your friends--who do not choose women like your wife--are most likely very happy with what they get in comparison, just as you are happier with your own choice than with how you imagine you would feel with what you see your friends are choosing.

See how that works? Do you understand how offended you would feel if one of your friends, who chose a straight with stereotypical feminine qualities, wrote a post asking why anyone would want a woman with the qualities YOUR wife has (and then named some of the qualities your wife has, which are NOT stereotypical straight, feminine qualities)?

Or...maybe you AREN'T so happy with your own choice.

[Anonymous]

Hey OP, shut the fuck up already and worry about your own life. Your political militancy is tiresome. No one here gives a flying fuck how you live your life whether you are gay/bi/curious/fluid, your wife is queer/lesbian/dresses like a man, you have an open relationship since you "kiss men at parties," and you think engagement rings are stupid. Stop worrying about how others live their lives and what they do with their money.

And to your other question, I am 38. Hardly old. But you clearly have the mental capacity of a 12 year old. I'm surprised you have any friends to pity given what an insufferable ass you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OK, so what was the point of your post, OP? You would clearly never be interested in the kind of woman whose values tend to align with being bought an engagement ring by her huband-to-be.

Just sad seeing what my friends are coerced into because they feel they have no choice.

They DO have a choice: they could choose to date the kind of woman whose values DON'T align with an expectation that her husband-to-be will buy her a ring; they could date a woman like the one you chose.

YOU had a choice, and you are happy with your choice. Your friends--who do not choose women like your wife--are most likely very happy with what they get in comparison, just as you are happier with your own choice than with how you imagine you would feel with what you see your friends are choosing.

See how that works? Do you understand how offended you would feel if one of your friends, who chose a straight with stereotypical feminine qualities, wrote a post asking why anyone would want a woman with the qualities YOUR wife has (and then named some of the qualities your wife has, which are NOT stereotypical straight, feminine qualities)?

Or...maybe you AREN'T so happy with your own choice.

Bingo!