Why do some women think it's acceptable to get engaged without a ring?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are their relationships? Do their partners respect them and treat them well?

If the lack of a ring is combined with disregard - yes, that's a problem. If it's literally just that there is no ring but things are otherwise healthy and everyone is fine w/o a ring - then I don't see what the problem is.

If there's disregard the ring becomes irrelevant, doesn't it?

[Anonymous]

I did this.

I hate rings and never wanted one.

I find the whole diamond industry a cartel and don’t know why anybody supports it. You got caught up in Debeers market scheme… diamond are forever, gag.

The whole showey engagement thing baffles me. Really you were surprised this wasn’t something that you guys discussed, getting married and agree that you want to? You had to be asked? And it was surprise? Or is that performative!

The whole “he’s not serious until he buys a ring” was too similar to when I bought my house “you really need a down payment to show you’re serious”. Rings always felt like a down payment you might lose if you don’t follow through.

[Anonymous]

Not the topic here but it will be interesting to see what effect lab grown diamonds have on engagement ring preferences. Lab grown stones are chemically, physically, and optically identical to natural stones, but when the masses can now buy 2 - 3 ct diamonds for $1,200 - $2,000, it diminishes the prestige that many have historically associated with having a big rock. I wonder if this will push the higher end of the market to seek out other, more rare gemstones.

[Anonymous]

Of course it's acceptable for two people to agree to get married (which is what engagement is) without exchanging a specific piece of jewelry. So strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If there's disregard the ring becomes irrelevant, doesn't it?

PP here - yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say. Totally agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You may be wrong, you may be right. Depends on the circumstances. I do think that a lot of men have been sort of gaslighting (not the right word but something like it) women into thinking that wanting some material symbol of commitment is materialistic and high-maintenance. Meanwhile they're lusting after sports cars, ha. These women are being a little bit pick-me.

But some are just bucking tradition and have a strong sense of self-worth.

JFC to the bolded. They are being a picky me for NOT caring about rings?

+1 I think the poster meant “pick me” as in conscious social signaling to try to get guy to pick you over other girls. But it’s not like I was making (and him watching) TikToks about it before we went of a first date. To have an engagement ring or not, it is a private decision for the couple.

I'm the poster who mentioned that it can be pick-mes who are okay without a ring. I don't know what TikTok has to do with it? Having low standards significantly pre-dates Tiktok.

But anyway, I suspect that PP who was aghast at my comment doesn't know a lot of women without a strong sense of worth who convince themselves to be okay with very low standards from men. If a guy is making comments like "women are so materialistic" and "if you need a physical representation of my commitment that means you don't trust me" or stuff like that, then he is probably marrying someone with low standards and is a bit of a pick-me. There are all sorts of manifestations in something like this, like a woman being willing to play wife for a long time before getting married, a man refusing to put effort into vows, etc. And of course a fancy ring doesn't mean the guy will be a great husband, but a guy who is affronted at a woman's expectation of a ring is highly likely to be a bad husband.

Like I said, OP could be right about these people, and she could be wrong. I wanted a ring but my husband was a student and had very little income, so I basically bought it with my own money. I'm sure some people would think I was a fool for doing that.

Men don't need a physical representation of commitment because a woman's committment is just assumed to be there and it's taken for granted. The ring is just a band-aid for the fact that men in a relationship are not expected to be as committed as women and that their committment is much more important than the woman's. If an unmarried couple moves in together and both share expenses and chores equally it would never occur to you that the man has a low self-esteem, because you don't define a man's worth by his marital status.

If the woman is carrying most of the work, then why would you think that a ring and a wedding would justify this imbalance? It sounds like many women marry men who don't respect them enough, who never do anything around the house but believe that a ring and other material things will compensate for it. They call other women "pick-me" because they can't fathom the idea of a woman who partnered up/married with a man who's a true equal, who doesn't need to take extra steps to show how commited he is.

[Anonymous]

He didn't get a ring. I didn't want a ring. He built me a greenhouse, which is far more meaningful for me

We also just agreed to get married.


worry less about other people's relationships and focus on your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it sad that OP is so emotionally tied up in the idea that engagements should be inherently about a gender power imbalance?

Isn’t it great that ops sister and her husband were equal partners in their decision to get married?

Op get a life.

It’s actually about a power balance. Having to work and come up with a ring indicates he’ll work and support his family while his wife endures the ordeal of childbirth, etc. Your brand of feminism has ruined women’s lives. Women aren’t men.

Good grief! how many threads are you going to make?

[Anonymous]

This post says more about OPs need for validation then her sister's engagement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not the topic here but it will be interesting to see what effect lab grown diamonds have on engagement ring preferences. Lab grown stones are chemically, physically, and optically identical to natural stones, but when the masses can now buy 2 - 3 ct diamonds for $1,200 - $2,000, it diminishes the prestige that many have historically associated with having a big rock. I wonder if this will push the higher end of the market to seek out other, more rare gemstones.

Yeah with lab grown being popular, diamond rings seem kind of silly (as a status symbol; they're still aesthetically beautiful whether lab or not). There's even lab grown "fancy color" diamonds... so I don't know what could seem more rare in this context. Maybe a vintage Tiffany or Cartier ring.

Zoe Kravitz had a cool [first] engagement ring. The diamonds were old rose cut, so not ultra expensive, but being antique made the ring seem more special/unique. She opted for something more blingy for her second e-ring...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My sister and another friend got "engaged" recently. None of them had rings and in the case of my sister, there was not even a proposal, just her and the guy agreeing on a date to get married later this year. I feel like it sets the bar very low for their partners and it's not something women should be ok with. My husband too popped the question without one and it felt incredibly informal, as if he wasn't serious about getting married. I told him that a ring was important to me and he popped the question again a week later with a ring.

A ring doesn't even need to be expensive, there are many cute rings for less than $500. It's the symbolism behind it that's important. It doesn't seem that my friend and sister are being taken seriously by their men, but they look like they're ok with it which is baffling. Women should stop pretending to be cool girls and set higher standards for their partners.

People are different. Some don’t want a ring. Some want full control about deciding what it will look like.

[Anonymous]

Who wants to be branded?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who wants to be branded?

Oh God! another one! Getting something nice for your partner isn't branding them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it sad that OP is so emotionally tied up in the idea that engagements should be inherently about a gender power imbalance?

Isn’t it great that ops sister and her husband were equal partners in their decision to get married?

Op get a life.

It’s actually about a power balance. Having to work and come up with a ring indicates he’ll work and support his family while his wife endures the ordeal of childbirth, etc. Your brand of feminism has ruined women’s lives. Women aren’t men.

I got engaged via a conversation with my DH where we decided we wanted to get married. No proposal. I decided I liked the symbolism of a ring so we bought one together a few months later, a very simple band with a small diamond because I didn't want to spend a lot of money when we were saving for a house. My DH would have bought me something more expensive, but I worried if we got a larger ring I wouldn't wear it every day, and I wanted something to remind me of him every day.

When I had a baby, my DH supported our family for 3 years while I stayed home.

My "brand" of feminism involves talking and treating each other with mutual respect, making joint decisions in which both people's priorities are considered and respected. Not blindly following traditions with the assumption that men must be entrapped into doing the right thing, and women are helpless and passive.

But you do you. I don't care one way or another what other couples do when they decide to get married, as long as everyone is consenting.

You are proving my point. Your husband would have gotten you a nice ring had you wanted that. Subsequently, he proved to be a good husband. There is a big difference between your situation and what is often happening now, which is that the woman has to be the man and the woman financially while the man is a perpetual child.

Women aren't entitled to a ring any more than men are entitled to cars (or watches). This is the problem with tradition and it taht it creates a sense of entitlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not the topic here but it will be interesting to see what effect lab grown diamonds have on engagement ring preferences. Lab grown stones are chemically, physically, and optically identical to natural stones, but when the masses can now buy 2 - 3 ct diamonds for $1,200 - $2,000, it diminishes the prestige that many have historically associated with having a big rock. I wonder if this will push the higher end of the market to seek out other, more rare gemstones.

I had this same thought.