Should the man always pay for the engagement ring?!

catkins

Person_one wrote: »

Its also kind of old fashioned to think that you're only engaged if you have a ring!

Unless you got married in Vegas on the spur of the moment then you were engaged at some point, from the time you both agreed to marry each other to the time you did it!

I didn't regard myself as engaged because I don't believe in engagements. I don't personally see the point in "being engaged to be married". It just seems to be an excuse for a ring.

I know couples that have been "engaged" for years with no wedding date set and don't see the point

Fly_Baby

Person_one wrote: »

Material goods are no indicator of equality! Look at the expensive clothing of Victorian women bought by men, look at the gold jewellery worn by women in the Middle East bought by men.

You seem to be very hung up on equality.

euronorris

Fly_Baby wrote: »

You seem to be very hung up on equality.

What's wrong with that? Don't you want to be equal?

Fly_Baby

catkins wrote: »

I believe strongly in marriage which a lot of people think is old fashioned and I also believe infidelity is wrong which, again, a lot of people think is old fashioned.

I do not however understand what is wrong in a woman paying towards an engagement ring especially if she wants something her boyfriend would struggle to pay for.

People who believe that marriage - and consequently matrimonial fidelity - old-fashioned do not really care for engagement rings, do they?

The beauty of "new fashion" though is that everyone is free to choose their own values provided that they coincide with your partner's.

Paying for my engagement ring would be absolutely unimaginable for me, however easily I can afford it. That's my purely personal view of the OP's situation which is precisely what she was looking for when she opened this thread.

GracieP

Fly_Baby wrote: »

But why shake them off at all?

All inequitable traditions should be shaken off. The symbolism of engagement rings stems from a tradition which was inequitable for women. But in present day the actual act of a man having to buy an expensive piece of jewellery in exchange for nothing* is inequitable for men. I would not have been happy to set forth in our marriage by stiffing my partner. When we decided to get married we each treated ourselves to an item which we would not otherwise have splashed out on.

euronorris wrote: »

From what we understand, without that little bit of paper, we couldn't guarantee things without a multitude of other paperwork, some of which could still be contested.

So it's a) easier to just get one piece of paper and b) provides extra peice of mind as we absolutely would not want our children to be brought up by OH's family (and they are the ones most likely to contest stuff too).

That's honestly very wise. When my husband was in an ICU last year for the first few days I had to confirm that I was his wife at every staff change just so I could sit by his bed. I would have been lucky to get near him as a girlfriend/fianc!e/non civilly recognised partner. I certainly wouldn't have been made privy to his condition or prognosis. In most countries marriage is incredibly important legally so if you are living in such a country you take a big risk to not share those legal rights with your life partner.

*Yes he's getting her hand in marriage but she is getting his too yet she also gets a ring.

Fly_Baby

euronorris wrote: »

What's wrong with that? Don't you want to be equal?

I know that I cannot be equal to men in everything - and nor can you - that's the whole point and beauty of us being women and them being men.

Fly_Baby

GracieP wrote: »

All inequitable traditions should be shaken off. The symbolism of engagement rings stems from a tradition which was inequitable for women. But in present day the actual act of a man having to buy an expensive piece of jewellery in exchange for nothing* is inequitable for men. I would not have been happy to set forth in our marriage by stiffing my partner. When we decided to get married we each treated ourselves to an item which we would not otherwise have splashed out on.

I am genuinely alarmed by your post - which school did you go to?

Person_one

Fly_Baby wrote: »

You seem to be very hung up on equality.

Um, I don't know about 'hung up' but of course I believe that gender equality is an important goal we should all be aiming for. Don't all reasonably intelligent women?

Person_one

Fly_Baby wrote: »

I know that I cannot be equal to men in everything - and nor can you - that's the whole point and beauty of us being women and them being men.

Equality of opportunity.

euronorris

Fly_Baby wrote: »

I know that I cannot be equal to men in everything - and nor can you - that's the whole point and beauty of us being women and them being men.

I know. We are different in many ways, but also equal in many more.

And there is absolutely no reason why you cannot be his equal in the relationship. To be anything else devalues your worth as a person, imo.