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.