By EVA BOTANY
Hey ladies!
Remember the days when a gentleman would go out and buy an engagement ring, and then hire a flash mob/book a nice holiday/find a restaurant and a nice dessert for said engagement ring to be hidden in, and then eventually get down on one knee and pop the question: will you marry me?
Say goodbye to those days. Wave as they pass you by in a whirlwind of dead traditionalism. And if you’re hoping to get engaged soon? Prepare to pull out your credit card.
Because, according to a new survey by wedding website The Knot, more and more couples are choosing to split the costs of engagement rings. Forty six per cent of women surveyed said that they’d be happy to share the cost of a diamond ring. Comments on their Facebook post about the issue varied from “welcome to the women’s rights movement, ladies” to “why should the man have to pay for a ring solely?”
Now.
I can see the arguments towards sharing the cost of an engagement ring. I really can. So you don’t have to go bringing them up for me.
I know that rings can be really expensive and that it’s unfair to expect a a gentleman have to go broke for you, if you specifically want something that costs $15,000.
I know that women now have the opportunity to earn equally as much, if not more than their male counterparts these days, and that they’re in a perfectly good position to cough up some cash for that Tiffany rock.
I know that so many couples already live together these days and share expenses long before they’re married, so that it makes sense to purchase the ring as a couple. After all, you have to wear it (hopefully) for the rest of your life.
I know that on many economic and logical levels, the argument for equal payment towards an engagement ring does make perfect sense.
But I’d like to step away from logic for the minute and admit that I have absolutely zero interest in going halfsies on an engagement ring- or even negotiating my way down to, say, paying 25 per cent of the cost.
Like so many other girls, I’ve always looked forward to the proposal that I will hopefully one day obtain from an amazing gentleman. I’ve envisioned the moment so many times in my head.
I’m not terribly fussed about too many details. I don’t mind where the proposal takes place and I don’t have my mind set on a particular ring. I don’t care if it’s a vintage ring or one handed down from his great-grandmother. I just want there to be a ring and a general understanding that it’s something he pays for. Not me.
I just love a tradition – and a romantic one at that.
To me, paying for half the ring would kill any aspects of romance associated with the ring at all.
I don’t want to get to a point where every part of my relationship is negotiated and then re-negotiated. I don’t want to get to the stage where every cost is divided exactly into half, where there’s no longer any room left for surprise, spontaneity and romance. I don’t want to lose every tradition for the sake of practicality. What wukk be the next to go? Will we also have to agree to pay for half our birthday and Christmas presents? And push presents will definitely be a goner (don’t worry, I jest. Never been a fan of the push present idea).
Perhaps it’s not entirely logical to assert that I have no interest in paying for my engagement ring. Perhaps it’s not wise to cling to old-fashioned notions of romance and love, often not even based on romance but on economics and ownership.
But you know what? Love isn’t always logical. Look at the greatest love stories of our time.
Carrie and Big – the most tumultuous fictional relationship of the last few decades – was entirely nonsensical. And yet it was fiercely followed by women around the globe, watching with bated breath as she eventually ended up with the man to whom her heart had always belonged. Ridiculous, but romantic.
Romeo and Juliet wouldn’t have been nearly so famous if they’d simply decided to hold hands and gently break the news of their love to their families at the end of the play – rather than, you know, rather dramatically committing suicide simultaneously. Ridiculous, but romantic.
Titanic wouldn’t have been nearly as popular as a film if Jack had managed to get on the door too. And look at Rose’s earlier actions in the film – climbing out of lifeboats to chase around a man she’d met nearly hours before? Ridiculous, but romantic.
And my proposal won’t be nearly as incredibly romantic if I’m forced to fork over a few grand for the engagement ring. It’s as simple as that.
Eva is an aspiring writer from Melbourne. She’s not very technologically savvy and spends most of her spare time trying to figure out Macs. One day she will write the next great Australian novel.
Would you contribute towards paying for your wedding ring? Or are you also of the “no way in burning hell” mindset?
Top Comments
I think it makes perfect sense to split the cost of an engagement ring. A diamond ring can be so expensive - but this way you get to choose together and you make sure it doesn't all come out of the man's pocket.
I bought my own engagement ring.
Over the years my partner has seen a number of opportunities he thought were ideal to propose. But he didn't have the ring and that was the important thing for him was to have the ring first.
My partner is currently a full time student and can barely afford his share of bills. I have a job, it's not great, but it pays the bills and there's enough each week to save up a small amount. Last year, I saved for six months, found a ring I loved on sale, bought it and handed it over with the understanding that, with that out of the way, he can propose to me whenever he feels the time is right.
Apparently that time was my birthday party. I love my ring, it suits me and we have an understanding that when he has a decent job, for one of our anniversaries we'll get it modified, upgrade it to platinum or maybe a bigger centre diamond. We'll also probably redo our wedding bands, they're just jewellery after all, the marriage is way more important than a little bit of metal.