Synthetic diamond technology is getting better and better. If the husband-to-be bought a big, shiny, synthetic diamond that was visually identical to one dug out of the ground - except that it only cost a couple of dollars, would it still be romantic. Is it the diamond itself that's romantic? Or is it the fact that of the man is losing out on bundles of cash that gets you going?

Anonymous wrote:I like wearing a beautiful ring. If the guy I am considering marrying doesn't want to purchase a ring, in the context of a long term plan together, a lifetime, if he thinks that symbolism is petty or frivolous, I don't know what to think. I'm not saying go in debt or not be practical. But there is something magical in commemorating lifetime of love in a symbol that I wear daily. I know several women who are good solid contributing women, earning half of household income, having hot meals for their spouse in their clean house because of their hard work in doing their part, who are secretly disappointed that they wear tiny stones when their guy thinks nothing of chartering the next best hunting trip on a private plane. Just saying.

I think it's irrational and frivolous to be disappointed because a guy didn't buy you a shiny lump of carbon. Why you think it symbolizes anything is a mystery to me. If my wife said she was disappointed about the jewelry in which we didn't overindulge, I'd be disappointed in her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God, this thread is so retro. I had no idea so many women were still living in the 50s.

How old are you?

I'm 49. How old are you?

I like wearing a beautiful ring. If the guy I am considering marrying doesn't want to purchase a ring, in the context of a long term plan together, a lifetime, if he thinks that symbolism is petty or frivolous, I don't know what to think. I'm not saying go in debt or not be practical. But there is something magical in commemorating lifetime of love in a symbol that I wear daily. I know several women who are good solid contributing women, earning half of household income, having hot meals for their spouse in their clean house because of their hard work in doing their part, who are secretly disappointed that they wear tiny stones when their guy thinks nothing of chartering the next best hunting trip on a private plane. Just saying.

Anonymous wrote:...l.lwhen husbands family pays for things like reversal dinner.......

Love that.

My husband spent around $1k. We were in our early 20s when we married so neither of us made much money. My proposal was truly magical. I think about that more than my ring.

The resell value on diamond rings is pretty bad also. I see some posters saying they are investments but they are not. You will never get back what you paid for a diamond ring because their is no shortage of diamonds and the price of diamonds are artifically inflated.

Anonymous wrote:
Hmm well, i am the one that originally said the ring is a gift. I sadi nothing abotu wedding etc. I actually paid for most of the wedding because it mattered to me and he would have been happy with JOP. I pay the cost to the boss. I want a wedding? I pay for anything extra above and beyong what he can afford. What have I done for him? he is able to live in a much nicer house than if he just worked on his own to buy a house. He gets to have a family that he wouldnt have without me. If his car breaks down, I am Johhny on the spot. I can either pick hiom, help shoulder the car repair bill if needed ( he is a grown man and can take care of it on his own for routine things but emergencies? yeah sure we're both all in). I don;t need to deman total equality in marriage. I get it because he knows I pull my weight.

Glad you see the wedding as a shared cost. But I still do not see your "reciprocity" for him buying you an expensive ring.
All the things you "do for him" that is all great stuff, good for you, but doesn't he do all that same stuff for you (if not, why not)?
Also I'm glad you have an equal marriage without any demands. You are missing my point:

Where was your initial "gift" to him that would compare to an expensive ring?
And if you didn't purchase him a Harley-Davidson or something equally expensive, then I would say your marriage did not start off "equal" so why are you OK with that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But the women posters above on here whining about how he should have spent MORE on the ring, to them I say this entire wedding nonsense, especially an expensive ring, is all a gift for YOU. Now what have YOU done FOR HIM to deserve all these expensive gifts? Then after all the wedding bills are paid, why do you suddenly demand total equality in the marriage?

x a million

PP poster that said the ring is a gift. I also think that a man should not be paying for more for a ring than he can afford. To finance a ring is insanity and if you don't want to marry someone because they can't afford as big of a ring as you wanted, then he should be happy to be rid of you. That being said, if all he could afford is a $100 ring, I am not going half on it!

There is no "should".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A man should spend an amount that is about equal to the amount his woman spends on her engagement gift to him.

In marriage, both partners are 100% equal, right?

The woman should give birth to as many babies as she does. The man should pay as much for the wedding as the bride and bride's family does.

so the fact a woman can give birth (but man can't) earns her a ring? Also I've yet to see any woman make her own baby without a man's help so his sperm contribution isn't worth a gift for him too?

As for wedding costs: basically i agree costs should be shared and in many cases this does occur when husbands family pays for things like reversal dinner and honeymoon. But regardless the ceremony itself is far more another gift for the bride versus anything the man would (independently) care much about

In other words your examples do not equalize things in the least.

Also for the record the bride's dress is often the same cost as a rehearsal dinner. The rehearsal dinner and a honeymoon does not add up to the cost of the wedding.

However the brides dress is yet another "gift" for her. In fact, few men really care much at all about all these wedding related things. So the woman is basically the one driving all of these choices and costs, again because these are usually important TO HER.

So we are back to my original statement that engagement ring costs (and weddings in general) are a gift to the woman.
And what does the man get out of it?

I'm married and not actually complaining ... much.
But the women posters above on here whining about how he should have spent MORE on the ring, to them I say this entire wedding nonsense, especially an expensive ring, is all a gift for YOU. Now what have YOU done FOR HIM to deserve all these expensive gifts? Then after all the wedding bills are paid, why do you suddenly demand total equality in the marriage?

Hmm well, i am the one that originally said the ring is a gift. I sadi nothing abotu wedding etc. I actually paid for most of the wedding because it mattered to me and he would have been happy with JOP. I pay the cost to the boss. I want a wedding? I pay for anything extra above and beyong what he can afford. What have I done for him? he is able to live in a much nicer house than if he just worked on his own to buy a house. He gets to have a family that he wouldnt have without me. If his car breaks down, I am Johhny on the spot. I can either pick hiom, help shoulder the car repair bill if needed ( he is a grown man and can take care of it on his own for routine things but emergencies? yeah sure we're both all in). I don;t need to deman total equality in marriage. I get it because he knows I pull my weight.

Anonymous wrote:
But the women posters above on here whining about how he should have spent MORE on the ring, to them I say this entire wedding nonsense, especially an expensive ring, is all a gift for YOU. Now what have YOU done FOR HIM to deserve all these expensive gifts? Then after all the wedding bills are paid, why do you suddenly demand total equality in the marriage?

x a million

True story. When I purchased my wife's engagement ring umpteen years ago, the person who sold it to us said that he can tell whether a couple will get divorced just by how they handle that transaction. Major future marriage breakers? 1) girl who says I want the biggest ring you have (will be great with money issues later on) and 2) she is excited, shows him a ring, asks what he thinks, and says "I don't care" (so this is the woman you are going to marry, who is excited about you, and this comes out of your mouth?).

He told me then a year later the woman comes back to sell the rank and his thoughts are yup, something happened.

My piece of advice is to get a ring YOU are comfortable spending for. YOU know if something is priced too high based on what you earn. YOU know if your money philosophy is to buy something that will still allow enough money to help save for a house. If you get a pit in your stomach on the price, DON"T DO IT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever the people in the DeBeers marketing arm get paid, it's not nearly enough. The success of their parasitic attachment to the institution of marriage is beyond imagining. They have convinced generation after generation of young women that the love of their suitor is directly related to how much the guy pays in tribute to DeBeers.

This February 1982 Atlantic article on the diamond industry entitled "Have you ever tried to sell a diamond" is an oldie but a goodie: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/

I applaud these people. Stupidity should be exploited. That's what it's for.

Not at the expense of human lives. Anyone buying a diamond that doesn't thoroughly research the origin of it is a possible supporter of a horrible, corrupt industry, as well as being a shell for a marketing scam. There's more beautiful, less bloody gems to buy.

Not all diamonds are blood diamonds. I think blood diamonds are a topic for another discussion. I was talking about DeBeers marketing without delving into all possible scenarios.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A man should spend an amount that is about equal to the amount his woman spends on her engagement gift to him.

In marriage, both partners are 100% equal, right?

The woman should give birth to as many babies as she does. The man should pay as much for the wedding as the bride and bride's family does.

so the fact a woman can give birth (but man can't) earns her a ring? Also I've yet to see any woman make her own baby without a man's help so his sperm contribution isn't worth a gift for him too?

As for wedding costs: basically i agree costs should be shared and in many cases this does occur when husbands family pays for things like reversal dinner and honeymoon. But regardless the ceremony itself is far more another gift for the bride versus anything the man would (independently) care much about

In other words your examples do not equalize things in the least.

Also for the record the bride's dress is often the same cost as a rehearsal dinner. The rehearsal dinner and a honeymoon does not add up to the cost of the wedding.

However the brides dress is yet another "gift" for her. In fact, few men really care much at all about all these wedding related things. So the woman is basically the one driving all of these choices and costs, again because these are usually important TO HER.

So we are back to my original statement that engagement ring costs (and weddings in general) are a gift to the woman.
And what does the man get out of it?

I'm married and not actually complaining ... much.
But the women posters above on here whining about how he should have spent MORE on the ring, to them I say this entire wedding nonsense, especially an expensive ring, is all a gift for YOU. Now what have YOU done FOR HIM to deserve all these expensive gifts? Then after all the wedding bills are paid, why do you suddenly demand total equality in the marriage?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever the people in the DeBeers marketing arm get paid, it's not nearly enough. The success of their parasitic attachment to the institution of marriage is beyond imagining. They have convinced generation after generation of young women that the love of their suitor is directly related to how much the guy pays in tribute to DeBeers.

This February 1982 Atlantic article on the diamond industry entitled "Have you ever tried to sell a diamond" is an oldie but a goodie: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/

I applaud these people. Stupidity should be exploited. That's what it's for.

Not at the expense of human lives. Anyone buying a diamond that doesn't thoroughly research the origin of it is a possible supporter of a horrible, corrupt industry, as well as being a shell for a marketing scam. There's more beautiful, less bloody gems to buy.