Should the man always pay for the engagement ring?!

MichaelCR

MoneySavingMouse wrote: »

I earn a tiny bit more than my boyfriend and I have more savings available to me. We chose a (not outrageously expensive) ring together last year but now my boyfriend can't afford it (change in job). Why shouldn't I pay towards it? It just seems to go against convention! But we split everything else!

I'd always pay for it all ! But i guess it depends on the relationship + People involved

katiecoodle

I personally think that this kind of thing will set the tone for the whole marriage - I mean, if you end up paying for half of your engagement ring (which ought to be really a gift from him to you, it signifies that you're "off the market" and committed to him) then look fowards & you'll find this behaviour will be replicated throughout the relationship. if you're happy with that, then that's fine.

My mother just accepted an engagement ring from her fiance that he'd bought for his previous fiancee.....:eek:
must be lovely to be so cherished...NOT

PaddyPaws

We'd been living together for about 2 years when we got engaged and I had said that I didn't want to bother with an engagement ring (I've been married before) and would rather we saved the money towards something we both wanted.

The following day we were in town and I saw a ring that I really liked in the jewellers, DH bought it for me.

I've always thought it grossly unfair that the man has to buy an engagement ring but the woman doesn't make any financial gesture of commitment to the man, so I bought my DH an xbox as he'd wanted one for a while but had decided he couldn't justify the expense

MrsWoolfe

We decided that we would rather not spend money we could not afford, and I had a simple black crystal....however in the run up to the wedding DH found a white gold ring with peridot and diamonds, he knows that peridot is my favourite stone- my uncle is a jeweller and the first piece he ever made was a long peridot ring which has been passed down to me and I adore it...

I was over the moon with the ring, it may not be super duper expersive- but it's beautiful and it showed how well he knew me, it wasn't something I would have though of but it's perfect a little bit quirky a little different and very me!

Oh and I bought him a ring too, an unpolished ruby that I had set in a chunky sliver ring for him...no reason why a girl shouldn't do something for her fiance if she expects a ring from him:D

Pee

In principle I see no reason why the woman should not contribute to the ring, but somehow it does still feel wrong.

If you are planning on getting married, as the engagement would suggest, means that you could be saving for the wedding and let him pay for the ring?

I don't see a problem with making a few payments whilst he is struggling, though.

Fly_Baby

Engagement ring is something a man PRESENTS you with and asks for your hand in marriage - it is not a present you get for getting engaged, so for the woman to pay for it is not really appropriate.

OP, you might be fine with it now but you might regret it in retrospect. I have been married for 10 years and while being an "equal partner" is a wonderful thing often you just want to be a woman. Getting proposed to is definitely one of those moments.

And don't worry, we get our share of "giving something to the man" back - we bear their children and no amount of money can ever make them able to reciprocate that.

onlyroz

Person_one wrote: »

In these days of sexual equality, why is the man not expected to show any external sign of being 'taken'?

Agreed. Isn't the purpose of these rings so that you can be marked as "property"? And the other implication is that, as rings are given from the man to the woman, then it *must* be the man who proposes.

euronorris

Fly_Baby wrote: »

Engagement ring is something a man PRESENTS you with and asks for your hand in marriage - it is not a present you get for getting engaged, so for the woman to pay for it is not really appropriate.

OP, you might be fine with it now but you might regret it in retrospect. I have been married for 10 years and while being an "equal partner" is a wonderful thing often you just want to be a woman. Getting proposed to is definitely one of those moments.

And don't worry, we get our share of "giving something to the man" back - we bear their children and no amount of money can ever make them able to reciprocate that.

But why does a man have to present me with something at all? That to me suggests that my hand in marriage is being bought and I am NOT comfortable with that in the slightest.

You give children as your example of equalising the balance. But what if you're a couple who don't have/want children? What then? And even if you are, and you stay at home whilst he's working, isn't that evening out the balance?

I think the ONLY reason it still feels 'wrong' to some of us that a man hasn't presented an engagement ring is simply tradition and social expectations. They're ingrained in us, so it takes time to shake them off, IYSWIM.

Kildare

Person_one wrote: »

In these days of sexual equality, why is the man not expected to show any external sign of being 'taken'?

He can now - it's called a Mangagement Ring http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mangagement%20ring

My OH loves his wedding ring and it was his choice to have one, but when we were engaged I pointed out an article on mangagement rings and he just laughed at the idea :rotfl:

Anyway, in theory there is no reason why you can't pay for part or all of your engagement ring. However, perhaps he would like to save up and buy it for you. He may be feeling a bit more traditional and wants to be able to give you this. Perhaps ask him why he feels he should pay for it all and if it is something he wants to do then let him. At the end of the day you are engaged with or without the ring.

catkins

Fly_Baby wrote: »

Engagement ring is something a man PRESENTS you with and asks for your hand in marriage - it is not a present you get for getting engaged, so for the woman to pay for it is not really appropriate.

OP, you might be fine with it now but you might regret it in retrospect. I have been married for 10 years and while being an "equal partner" is a wonderful thing often you just want to be a woman. Getting proposed to is definitely one of those moments.

And don't worry, we get our share of "giving something to the man" back - we bear their children and no amount of money can ever make them able to reciprocate that.

What an oldfashioned view. We did not get engaged as I don't see the point and am not into jewellery. We got married 5 months after meeting because we loved each other. If however we had decided to buy an engagement ring I would not have expected my OH to pay all of it.

As we chose not to have children maybe it is just as well I did not want a ring according to your views

I see no reason why the OP would regret it in the future. If she loves her future OH and they share finances what is the problem?