Getting engaged with out a ring....

[yorkpatties]

Again, people have different traditions. Since I am traditional enough to get married then I am traditional enough to adhere to the traditions within my culture, religion etc. Not yours or anyone else's traditions.

Of course, when your tradition is different, you don't feel that someone is putting you on the spot (well from my experience). You just explain the difference if asked and keep it moving.

Yes people have different traditions and I would appreciate it if someone took the time to explain to me what they do, speaking from MY peoples traditions (I am American) men TRADITIONALLY propose with a ring. The last female I know who became engaged is from a different country and in her country (and religion) it is typical for the man to purchase a ring. She did not receive a ring because she is the working professional and he is between jobs. They have been together for a long time and there is no doubt in her community that they will indeed get married, but the reality is just that he couldn't afford it.

No, every time a lady is without a ring it doesn't mean he couldn't afford one. But sometimes, that's exactly what it is.

Personally, I don't give a $hit what anyone wants to do, I am just speaking on my typical reaction to the news. If you want to follow the tradition of your tribe, that's cool, but personally I am the type to start my own traditions so I'm not mad at anyone for doing their thing, and that might include being committed and NOT getting married. To each his own.

But like I said, when you tell me you're getting married, my eyes naturally wonder to your hand. Perhaps that's the "traditional" response where I come from.

 

[Enyo]

Is that not the reality of life in pretty much every culture? Not least of all because when you examine wages in any given country, men are generally paid more than women even at the same positions? There are several factors that make the assumption of men being in a better position to be the primary wage earner just because he is male a logical conclusion. I'm not saying it's right or that that's the way it should be but that is the way it IS, so what's wrong with that implication?

So you're saying that because "that is the way it is" that it's OK to keep it going by continuing to imply that the man needs to make more? I just see that as being completely complicit instead of actively address the situation. It's like people implying that women will have kids. Even though that is the norm, lots of women do not wish to be pregnant or have children (like myself). I resent the implication because it assumes something that is not true for my particular situation.

If I was making at least 65k after taxes, I'd be totally fine with marrying a man who made less than me as long as he was the right man. It just annoys the mess out of me when people imply that I shouldn't do that. I do take it personally because it's basically saying that I'd be marrying down or doing something wrong because that's not the way it's "supposed" to be. I have enough issues trying to find a man. I resent any culture that says I should make it harder on myself because some men can't exceed me financially.

Everyone always starts reinventing the wheel and questioning common norms when their views conflict with another proposed view...

Yes, and that's a good thing. We should always question the "norms" of our own society. If others did this, there wouldn't be barbaric things like honor killings or female infanticide. Yes, those examples are dramatic, but such actions are part of certain cultures and even expected in certain cases. The lack of questioning is the main reason why they keep doing it. And how progressive are those societies now? Would you want to live there?

some of the women in this thread who claim they didn't need an engagement ring to be married all say that they went back and later got the engagement ring... ok what you needed to go back and get it for if it didn't matter so much? And is that actually not a CLEAR admission that the reason why they didn't have the ring to begin with was because his finances weren't straight? I mean, I don't understand what the contention is because really everyone is saying the same thing, only people are dressing it up differently.

No. You yourself said "some" people are saying the same thing, but I highly disagree that everyone is just switching things around for personal benefit. "Everyone" is an extremely broad brush.

 

[Syrah]

I don't think my dad would let me marry someone without a ring.

 

[meesch]

I don't think my dad would let me marry someone without a ring.

So what you tryna say... folks ain't got no daddy?

 

[Syrah]

So what you tryna say... folks ain't got no daddy?

Giiiiirrrrrlllll.

Seriously though, I don't think my dad is goin' for that. Or his best friends. Or my mother. Or my uncles. Or even some of my cousins. Shoot, some of my male friends will clown.

 

[chocolat79]

divya, I'm not referring to different cultures or practices of others. I'm specifically talking about the customs/culture traditionally observed in this country. I obviously understand that different cultures have different ways of demonstrating engagements/betrothals.

Also, I think lots of people are thinking BIG, EXTRAVAGANT ring. In my particular post, I'm talking about some outward symbol of betrothal, if you will. If a guy only can afford an $80 ring, then so be it. If you choose not to want one, then fine. That's still your personal feelings/wants/values, etc.

ETA: I think that if a guy is serious about marriage, then he should be saving for a ring (if there's no indications otherwise). I mean, if you're serious about buying a house, don't you start saving? Both are investments and can be sold for money, if needed. So, for me personally, if I'm dating someone who is marriage-minded and he knows he wants to propose to me, it's logical that he'd at least be saving for it. Most guys don't just up and just decide to marry one day with no prior thought to it, just like most people don't just up and decide to buy a house without any prior thought to it. And I think that's the premise of what other posters have mentioned about if he can't afford a ring, he can't afford a wife. It's just as important about the preparation as the action.

 

[divya]

Yes people have different traditions and I would appreciate it if someone took the time to explain to me what they do, speaking from MY peoples traditions (I am American) men TRADITIONALLY propose with a ring. The last female I know who became engaged is from a different country and in her country (and religion) it is typical for the man to purchase a ring. She did not receive a ring because she is the working professional and he is between jobs. They have been together for a long time and there is no doubt in her community that they will indeed get married, but the reality is just that he couldn't afford it.

No, every time a lady is without a ring it doesn't mean he couldn't afford one. But sometimes, that's exactly what it is.

Personally, I don't give a $hit what anyone wants to do, I am just speaking on my typical reaction to the news. If you want to follow the tradition of your tribe, that's cool, but personally I am the type to start my own traditions so I'm not mad at anyone for doing their thing, and that might include being committed and NOT getting married. To each his own.

But like I said, when you tell me you're getting married, my eyes naturally wonder to your hand. Perhaps that's the "traditional" response where I come from.

Just to clarify, I am American and in my faith (which was born right here in the U.S.), it isn't necessarily the traditional practice. I completely understand your tradition and why your eyes naturally wander to the hand. My only point is that when people start throwing around comments about being traditional and saying how they should be traditional enough to get a ring, it would behoove them to remember that traditions differ, even in the nation in which they live.

I do agree with you though that sometimes the issue is money.

divya, I'm not referring to different cultures or practices of others. I'm specifically talking about the customs/culture traditionally observed in this country. I obviously understand that different cultures have different ways of demonstrating engagements/betrothals.

Also, I think lots of people are thinking BIG, EXTRAVAGANT ring. In my particular post, I'm talking about some outward symbol of betrothal, if you will. If a guy only can afford an $80 ring, then so be it. If you choose not to want one, then fine. That's still your personal feelings/wants/values, etc.

ETA: I think that if a guy is serious about marriage, then he should be saving for a ring (if there's no indications otherwise). I mean, if you're serious about buying a house, don't you start saving? Both are investments and can be sold for money, if needed. So, for me personally, if I'm dating someone who is marriage-minded and he knows he wants to propose to me, it's logical that he'd at least be saving for it. Most guys don't just up and just decide to marry one day with no prior thought to it, just like most people don't just up and decide to buy a house without any prior thought to it. And I think that's the premise of what other posters have mentioned about if he can't afford a ring, he can't afford a wife. It's just as important about the preparation as the action.

See my above response. Different practices are observed right in the U.S. As stated earlier, I understand the prevailing American customs. All I said though was that comments like yours about really not believing or assuming people are saving face or hoping is a reminder of how unexposed some people are to different practices in the world, including the U.S. I understand & agree that a man who is serious about marriage and adheres to the ring custom should save for it. However, every couple is different...if they decide that something different works for them, that's fine too.

 

[nathansgirl1908]

First--I got married without a ring....didn't get one until 16th year--didn't matter. He had it reset last year--still don't wear it.

Second--Insurance companies must pay even for suicides if the policy has been enforced for at least 3 years. Reason being --folks that are going to commit suicide usually don't hold out for three years waiting for the policy to kick in.

They don't HAVE to pay for suicides if it's not included. Freedom of contract allows them to set the terms. I still see many policies that have a clause about suicide.

 

[TLC1020]

I would get engaged without a ring but I wouldn't tell anyone until I got the ring...(((shrugs))))