English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Think about it for a minute before You dismiss the idea out of hand.
In a politically correct world where there should be no advantages born from an accident of birth, would it not make sense to 'de-objectify' the parties by the simple expedient of each supplying the other with a suitable "token" of Their mutual love and respect? Not merely exchanging "Wedding rings" or Marriage Bands" but an actual "Engagement Ring" given to the betrothed Male.
How many Women, when confronted by this situation would break with tradition as opposed to following the normal proceedure?
I have been asked to marry twice (some people have no taste or are really desperate), and am just curious as to Your perspective.
What are Your personal, honest, rather than P.C., thoughts on the subject?

2007-05-28 19:31:58 · 28 answers · asked by Ashleigh 7 in Social Science Gender Studies

OK. For the sake of mutual sanity. Suppose I was to tell You that this was the topic of conversation at a cocktail party held for "International Nurses Day", and that the general consensus of opinion, amoungst the "Girls" I graduated with is that I am entiled to a ring (gold band, square faced, onyx signet design, with a small diamond {not diamonti} inlayed. But then came the "price versus Love" debate. The majority thought that $2.500.oo was more than enough for a 'Man's" ring. But that there is not end to the value of a "REAL" Engagement Ring. They also came to a split decision as to whether "real" Men would wear one. 50% each way. So You see just how controvertial this could become.

2007-05-29 18:48:35 · update #1

28 answers

Edit: I changed my mind. After I read all the details of the question I asked myself how can a person put a price on love? You can't, so what I would do is I would take him down to the jewelers let him pick out the ring he wanted and no it does not have to be a signet gold with onxy it can be silver with a ruby or sapphire with or without diamond, btw diamond size does not matter, just so as long as its the one he wants. Why would I do that? Like I said before you cannot put a price on love.

2007-05-29 00:31:43 · answer #1 · answered by Laela (Layla) 6 · 3 1

In my opinion, both parties are entitled to a ring. I've always wondered why only the female wears an engagement ring, but both wear wedding bands. I've never researched the subject though. So i'm sure there's a reason. I just think that both should if they really want to.

An engagement ring is so that a woman can show that she's about to be married, so don't some men want to show the same?

Or maybe, just maybe, the idea of an engagement ring is leftover from a time when men owned their women. And it symbolizes that her ownership is about to be passed from her father/brother to her future husband. Just a thought, but an interesting thought.

2007-06-02 21:08:16 · answer #2 · answered by . 6 · 3 0

If he wants a ring, then yes. It is an old tradition that when a man proposes, the woman is supposed to get him an expensive watch...maybe that would be more appropriate. I would not think that the woman would present a solitaire diamond ring to a man, because it is not a manly ring. however if a woman really knows the man, she will know what to present him with... a watch, a ring, or in my case a 20x24 framed autographed photo of Wayne Gretzky and Mark Messier

2007-06-03 13:13:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

This question prompted me to examine the origin of the engagement ring tradition.



IF this tradition is the basis for our current engagement ring tradition, then if the woman does the asking, and she gives him a ring, he should then take her surname, and become a part of her family/clan.
What do you think about that?

It leads to an interesting question about how far we are willing to take role-reversals.

Most of the info I dug up on the topic was inconsistent except for the fact that it sells precious gems and metals. One source cited the Classical era as the origin, another attributed it to Pope Innocent III in 1215.

My personal feelings: I chose an inexpensive "fun" ring as a token, since we were buying a house right away. Land contracts for marriage are the way to go. Joint ownership of real estate casts a different light on the meaning of commitment, doesn't it?

I have never regretted my decision.

Edit: It does not matter whether a so called "real" man would wear one. It matters if YOU would.

2007-05-29 05:38:38 · answer #4 · answered by not yet 7 · 3 1

Entitled? Not a good mindset for marriage in general. I don't see why anyone has to "propose". I think two people who want to get married should decide together if that's what they both want and proceed from there.

2015-11-14 00:35:04 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 0 0

If he wants one, certainly. I would probably prefer to buy a man something more masculine, like a gold watch, but exchanging engagement rings sounds like a lovely idea. After all, wedded couples usually both wear wedding rings, so why not?

These days, young couples might very well opt for matching nipple piercings or something.

2007-05-28 23:34:11 · answer #6 · answered by Girl Machine 7 · 1 1

i once heard that the engagement ring is a sign of ownership, like the branding of cattle. "she is mine and therefore there is a little shackle on her finger".with that line of thinking, it might be good not to have a ring just to show you "belong to someone". if you get proposed to, and you accept, a ring is the last thing you should think about. you have something so much more precious than a diamond...love! haha. sorry for being so sappy. :)

2007-06-03 13:19:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes! You are definitely entitled to a ring, I would try to arrange also....that you get a ring for her as well....later is fine....if she's going to Pop The Question to you! The ring is an outter symbol to others....so they will ask about it...that's why folks wear them!

2007-06-05 05:24:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

thats just odd. not common i guess.

no, i think he's not entitled to an engagement ring. i think he has to buy one for her tho, if he agrees to get engaged. cause the whole ring thing is the girl's thing. the only ring guy gets is the wedding band, no? most guys don't even like to wear rings anyways.

i still think no, cause the traditional engagement ring is supposed for the girl.

up to preference / culture too.

2007-06-05 13:22:43 · answer #9 · answered by saramints 1 · 0 1

I would rather suggest that when you propose to a man you should be giving him your heart not a ring. Material objects are insertions made over a period of time. What happens if you are a poor lady but a good one and are proposing to a male who is again a good one - you cannot give a ring, what would you give? Rings can come and go anytime but relationships are for keeps. Agree?

2007-05-28 21:36:14 · answer #10 · answered by aski 3 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers