Anonymous wrote:While the expense of a diamond engagement ring seems silly in hindsight, I do agree it seems odd to not have a formal marker of the occasion. Something like both partners having a simple band that that wear on their right hand and move to their left at the wedding.

Without a symbolic marker, it feels like no big deal. Want to get pizza on Friday? Want to get married in October?

I eschewed a lot of traditions for my wedding and in hindsight I regret it. You literally only get one chance to be a bride. I wanted to be laid back and chill.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who hurt you, PP?

-Wife who makes 3x as much as my husband who also makes us a delicious healthy dinner every night and volunteers for our daughter's Girl Scout troops and coaches their sports teams. You would hate us.

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.

Anonymous wrote:DH told me he loved me and wanted to marry me pretty early on. It didn’t feel formal until he had a ring.

If they have a date, that is more important than an actual ring. In some lower SES, people seem to be engaged forever and never have a wedding. It feels the guy gave the woman a ring and is not actually committed or wants to get married.

Anonymous wrote:Because we are now raising women to give themselves away and expect nothing in return. Presumably, they’ll have to support their families while the husbands play video games and watch porn in a state of perpetual adolescence.

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.

Anonymous wrote:So like no diamond engagement ring ever?

Just a question and start planning?

I suppose that’s how how lots of the world does it and then just wears wedding bands once married.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because to them it's acceptable. If none of the parties care about rings and proposals why should they go ahead with it? It sounds like you are the one with the problem.

I know they find it acceptable. That's the point. It's sad they're ok with it.

Anonymous wrote:Assuming you are not a troll, OP I would be less concerned about the ring and other trappings of the wedding and more concerned about how stable and long-term the guy seems to be. When I used to follow Babycenter a few years ago, I was shocked by the plethora of women who had multiple kids with their “fiance” or kids with multiple fathers. Opened my eyes to a different way of life. You don’t want your sister to join those ranks so make sure she thinks the guy will stick around.

Anonymous wrote:Diamond engagement rings are a consumer product created in the 20th century- congrats OP, you’re a brainwashed materialist!

Some of us think about bigger things and haven’t spent our whole lives obsessing over a piece of jewelry or our one day as princess of the world. We aren’t any less deep or committed than you - in fact, people with the simplest weddings statistically have the longest lasting marriages whilst many who get a big ring and have a huge wedding are relatively quickly divorced.

Why don’t you mind your own business?

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.