Anonymous wrote:No way would I marry someone who proposed without a ring. Especially if they knew it was important to me. This is a non-negotiable rite of passage for me and a totally baseline normal cultural expectation and anyone who doesn’t understand that is either too insecure about what he is offering, or has nothing to offer, or is withholding. They are seeing what they can get at the cheapest possible price and I value myself more than that.

I hate to say it, OP, but the only guy I know who is “pretty much engaged” but hasn’t bought a ring is very wish washy about the engagement and potential marriage and has had cold feet since the relationship got serious.

I have friends who have received big old diamonds, small antique rings, and even less traditional rings with other gems like sapphires. In all of these cases, their boyfriends put a lot of thought into picking something their fiancé would love and felt proud taking this next step.

Anonymous wrote:It’s just a ring. Why do you feel like it’s a dealbreaker?

I think it’s important to many people in the way wearing a tux or nice suit and wedding dress at a wedding is important to many grooms and brides. Some people really don’t care but lots of people enjoy the traditional aspects of an engagement and wedding. An engagement ring (expensive or not) carries sentimental value and is a physical representation of the couple moving onto another, more serious, phase of life together. For many, saying “yes” and wearing an engagement ring is a significant milestone they look forward to.

Personally, I think if there is something your partner is really excited about and if that thing doesn’t overextend you in any way, you should try to honor your partners wishes. You should never go into debt over an engagement ring but I don’t think one partner should write it off as unimportant just because they don’t get what the whole big deal is. It’s important to your future spouse who you, presumably, love! At least making an effort to do something meaningful for them is important.

It’s just a ring. Why do you feel like it’s a dealbreaker?

No way would I marry someone who proposed without a ring. Especially if they knew it was important to me. This is a non-negotiable rite of passage for me and a totally baseline normal cultural expectation and anyone who doesn’t understand that is either too insecure about what he is offering, or has nothing to offer, or is withholding. They are seeing what they can get at the cheapest possible price and I value myself more than that.

Can pps stop acting incredulous about OP wanting an engagement ring? Traditionally, men propose with a ring, this isn’t some wild idea OP has concocted. An engagement ring does not have to be expensive but it often holds great symbolic meaning and sentimental value.

The fiancé shouldn’t go into debt over a ring and OP shouldn’t ask him to. He also shouldn’t be going into debt buying stuff for himself. It sounds like he is not great with money and that is concerning. OP has said he is making ok money but is currently spending based on future earnings. Not good.

OP, you should encourage him to cut back his spending until he is actually making the money he expects to be making. You should also discuss with him what your expectations are regarding a ring. Maybe it’s a cheap placeholder now and an upgrade down the line, maybe it’s something very simple and inexpensive, maybe he waits until he is making great money to get you something. Whatever you want, you need to discuss this with him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You two are not in a financial position to get married.

Forget the finances, they're not emotionally mature enough to marry. If they do, it will end within 5 years.

This!

This is about poor communication skills, lack of shared financial goals, and a lack of emotional maturity for both of them. Even if he caves and buys the ring, this is not going to be a happy relationship long term.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends upon the reason.

Rings were made up as an emblem in order to sell diamonds by the De Beers Consolidated Mines to make money. I don't put much stock in a ring that was invented as part of a marketing plan to sell more diamonds, yet others do.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/how-an-ad-campaign-invented-the-diamond-engagement-ring/385376/

PS: The idea that a rock from the dirty ground worn on my finger means anything is awfully strange. The fact the size of a rock can impress someone (or not) is pretty funny. De Beers controlled the supply and demand of diamonds in order to make them seem more rare and, therefore, more valuable.

Their "value" is all made up!

Do you have a diamond engagement ring, a diamond wedding band or ANY diamonds whatsoever? 🤔

I do! But it’s a lab diamond. I highly suggest this option to those looking for something more ethically sourced and affordable.

+1 Everyone always comments on my gorgeous ring... which cost $35 and is stainless steel and a lab created diamond which is brilliantly sparkly and identical to a natural diamond. It also cost about 25K less than its platinum twin at Tiffany's!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends upon the reason.

Rings were made up as an emblem in order to sell diamonds by the De Beers Consolidated Mines to make money. I don't put much stock in a ring that was invented as part of a marketing plan to sell more diamonds, yet others do.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/how-an-ad-campaign-invented-the-diamond-engagement-ring/385376/

NOPE! Diamonds were pushed and made popular by de Beers when they capitalized on the tradition of diamond engagement rings by royalty. The exchanging of RINGS certainly predates that, just not diamond rings. For example, when Henry VIII married his sister Mary to the king of France in the 1496, a proxy ceremony took place first on English soil, with the exchanging of rings and even a ceremonial bedding happening with a proxy French duke. Henry's fourth wife, Anne of Cleves, had a wedding ring with her motto inscribed: God Send Me Well to Keep. Laura Ingalls Wilder's engagement ring was a garnet set with pearls. Rings have been around for centuries.

The exchanging of rings is an ancient tradition that happened lonnnnngggg before de Beers was established. You are right that they made diamond rings "the standard," but they didn't make RINGS the standard.

Yes, but this conversation isn't about wedding bands.
It's about sparkly diamond engagement rings.

Anonymous wrote:It depends upon the reason.

Rings were made up as an emblem in order to sell diamonds by the De Beers Consolidated Mines to make money. I don't put much stock in a ring that was invented as part of a marketing plan to sell more diamonds, yet others do.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/how-an-ad-campaign-invented-the-diamond-engagement-ring/385376/

NOPE! Diamonds were pushed and made popular by de Beers when they capitalized on the tradition of diamond engagement rings by royalty. The exchanging of RINGS certainly predates that, just not diamond rings. For example, when Henry VIII married his sister Mary to the king of France in the 1496, a proxy ceremony took place first on English soil, with the exchanging of rings and even a ceremonial bedding happening with a proxy French duke. Henry's fourth wife, Anne of Cleves, had a wedding ring with her motto inscribed: God Send Me Well to Keep. Laura Ingalls Wilder's engagement ring was a garnet set with pearls. Rings have been around for centuries.

The exchanging of rings is an ancient tradition that happened lonnnnngggg before de Beers was established. You are right that they made diamond rings "the standard," but they didn't make RINGS the standard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Holds deep cultural meaning”, wow. Just wow. You all have no idea the whole thing was a marketing ploy, huh? It’s gauche, materialistic, and impractical. Grow up.

exchanging gifts as part of a wedding or engagement is pretty much a feature of all cultures everywhere.

So you'd be happy with a couple of donkeys, then?

OP, I have a $60K engagement ring that I adore. I am pro ring if that's what you want. However:
- it is insane to go into debt to buy an engagement ring, truly a terrible idea
- you and your boyfriend clearly need to iron out a lot of issues before you move forward
- you should never be embarrassed/nervous/whatever to discuss finances with the person you plan to marry
- you should both see a financial advisor/counselor because you both have really messed up ideas about money

Anonymous wrote:You two are not in a financial position to get married.

Forget the finances, they're not emotionally mature enough to marry. If they do, it will end within 5 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP and yes, that is exactly my thought. People cut back to save up for a ring all the time. For the PP above, we are on separate salaries and I do not spend on bars/restaurants beyond my means. He does, bc he knows he will be making more later.

Hmmm. Interesting. I do not think anyone should go into debt for a ring. I would be turned off by my partner spending excessively on himself and not even considering cutting back on discretionary spending to get me an engagement ring. If he’s going on golf trips, eating our every night, out buying the latest electronics and blatantly refused to save for a ring because it’s not as important to him as doing things he likes to do that would be a red flag.

All of this. OP, you're hosed either way. Scenario one, he spends on everything but you, which won't change even *if* he ends up making more money down the road. Scenario two, he goes into further debt to buy you a ring and then you two can never dig yourselves out of that hole (carrying credit card debt with 25% interest is literally the stupidest thing anyone could possibly do). Scenario three, he buys you the ring to shut you up and resents you for it forever and then leaves you once he does actually make money. I could go on and on. But there is no scenario in which this works out well for you. The two of you should never get married, for both of your sakes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should bail on this marriage. There is not any way someone who expects him to take on debt to pay for jewelry is going to be a responsible financial partner.

He already has debt that he assures me will
Be paid off when his contracted pay increase arrives. That debt predated me and he is not worried about it. He will be making like $500K in a few years.

What's the previous debt for?

How much does he make now?

How much do you make?

What's "a few years"?

Sounds to me like he's trying to rein in his spending and you're encouraging him to take on more. And no, pre-marital debt isn't joint debt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You shouldn’t marry someone who is dismissive of your preferences simply because they don’t align with their own preferences.

And he shouldn’t marry someone who is dismissive of his preferences simply because they don’t know align with her preferences.

This is a value shoot and she values A ring to prove love. I don’t think either of them should marry the other.

It’s not proof of love. I know he loves me. It’s something else, a values issue, and how we treat each other.

Yes, and you treat him very badly!