Is it just me, or is this article making a bigger stink about engagement rings than necessary: Diamonds Are a Girl’s Worst Friend? The author brings up some interesting information, but completely fails on this point: the symbol of a ring means something different in 2007. For instance:
Rather, its presence on a woman’s finger suggests that she needs to trap a man into “commitment” or be damaged if he leaves.
Huh? And the number of people today who think this way is…?
The article also notes that the diamond engagement ring is a relatively new custom–which is true–but I don’t understand the point. The idea of some sort of ring (ie, non-diamond rings) is very old.
If one wants to say the engagement ring is useless, fine. And if one wants to discourage diamonds in particular due to the immorality of that industry, fine.* But to say engagement rings are demeaning seems a little far, and doesn’t take into account the usual meaning of the ring for any particular couple.
The next girl I ask to marry is getting (or at least being offered) an engagement ring. For me, it’s a symbol of a willingness to make a sacrifice–in this case financial–for something I may not have a particular use for, but will make my partner happy.
remind me again, why are you still single? 😉
Carlos asked me to marry him without a ring. The less it matters to a girl, the more she deserves it. Not to say I deserved my ring. Or my man. Stop babbling, annie.
The author of this article sounds like the kind of woman who yells at a man for holding the door open for her. Hope she gets hit in the butt with a doorknob.
by the way I believe if the engagement ends, for any reason, the ring goes back to the groom or groom’s family. so the “trapping into commitment” or “damage” that occurs should the man leave is a non issue. Stupid misguided feminist crazies.