At least one woman is over the whole engagement ring business. Writer Shannon Rupp argues that the giving of engagement rings is an “unsavory custom, given that it began in an era when women were chattel,” and “it’s hardly romantic.”
I think someone peed in her Cheerio’s. Engagement rings are so much more than a “lease-a-womb” scheme, as Rupp cleverly and wrongly describes the transaction that occurs when a man presents his lady with a ring in exchange for her acceptance of his marriage proposal.
When I was little, my dad used to tell a story about a young Indian brave that wanted very much to marry a girl in his tribe. He went to the girl’s father to ask for her hand, but the dad told him that if he wanted to marry his daughter, the young man would have to bring him 100 horses.
It took the man many moons to gather all the horses, build pens for them, feed them, and care for them, but he finally did it, and made the exchange for his bride (who was very happy about all of this by the way). When he asked his father-in-law what he planned to do with 100 horses, he responded, “Keep them if you want. Or let them go. I don’t really care.”
“Why would you ask me to bring you 100 horses for you daughter just to let them go?” The young man asked.
“It was never about the horses -- it was about your determination and dedication to my daughter, and your willingness to work hard for her that I cared about.”
And that’s why engagement rings matter.
(That sound you just heard was feminists’ heads exploding.)
Seriously though. People can say all they want that engagement rings are “barbaric” and like “a down payment on a virgin vagina,” but I’m probably never going to agree.
To me, an engagement ring is a symbol of a man’s willingness to work hard and sacrifice for the woman he wants to marry, and to put his bride-to-be’s desires ahead of his own. He could’ve bought some pretty nice man-toys (new media center maybe?), but instead he bought a ring.
A pretty, sparkly, absolutely nonessential and totally necessary ring.
Every girl that wants a ring should have one. She’s worth it.
Do you think engagement rings are barbaric?
by RADmommaOctober 11, 2013 at 9:07 AMNope. I love my ring.
October 11, 2013 at 9:08 AM
No, I like expensive shiny things.
I do not think it's silly or barbaric to get engaged and have a ring. I do think it's silly and financially unwise to buy a ring that cost as much as a house downpayment... Just my opinion. My husband spent about a 1000 for my rings and any more would have been absurd to me.
by kidlover2October 11, 2013 at 9:18 AMI think the silliness comes from women who demand an expensive ring to "prove" his love. I personally love my ring and am honored that he bought me a beautiful one. He also feels strongly about wearing his wedding ring. It doesn't bother me either way.
by elasmimiOctober 11, 2013 at 9:27 AM
I think a lot of our customs probably had "barbaric" origins. (don't ask me which ones, too early in am) That doesn't mean they are barbaric in the way they are used today. I actually did not get an engagement ring til we had been married for several years, couldn't afford it in the beginning. I only had my grandmother's wedding band, which I still wear today, along with the beutiful wedding set we bough when money wasn't so tight.
by p3rd_oneOctober 11, 2013 at 10:18 AM
I have a pretty wedding ring, but my engagement ring is a complete fake. Like, the "diamond" is all clouded over lol! But I love it. I love my rings. To me, my rings are a reminder of my wedding vows and what they mean; they remind me that I belong to my husband, and he belongs to me.
by RheaFOctober 11, 2013 at 10:28 AM
I agree with the writer of this article. I love my ring(which DH actually made,and is not a diamond).