Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)
Reply to "Women: do you care how much your engagement ring costs?"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][b]Expensive engagement rings have been linked to higher divorce rates.[/b] [b]Spending two months' salary (or some other ridiculous sum) on an engagement ring is not only the norm, it's expected[/b]. But unless your monthly earnings are less than $1,000, that might not be the best decision, at least according to a study out of Emory University last September. The study, from Andrew M. Francis and Hugo M. Mialon, surveyed 3,000 heterosexual couples and found that "marriage duration is inversely associated with spending on the engagement ring and wedding ceremony." Specifically, those who had spent $2,000-$4,000 were 30% more likely to get divorced.[/quote] That is BS, and Carolyn Hax has debunked this hundreds of times through the years (advice columnist for those that do not know). [/quote] Carolyn Hax, advice columnist, debunks empirical, peer-reviewed research? Hahahaha, no. Just no. She might have some good insights, but she's no scientist. [/quote] Not the PP, but you clearly didn't notice that the person was speaking specifically of the bolded text. So unless you think that scientists developed the "two months salary rule," you should admit you are wrong. [/quote] No, I clearly noticed that the topic sentence she bolded was "Expensive engagement rings lead to higher divorce rates." Again, Carolyn Hax is an advice columnist, and doesn't have the clout to "debunk" anything. [/quote] Sorry, you are still wrong. The PP who claimed that CH debunked the two months rule was herself replying to a post in which the first statement was bolded (poster at 13:39, if you need to verify. The only statement she bolded was the part about two months salary.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics