my fiance and i both have rings which were affordable and personal.

i think its an choice that can differ in each relationship. for us it was something we wanted to do together and for one another and it worked for us.

it can be patriarchal as its history is, but part of feminism is reinventing and transforming society and old traditions. i think this is one that is totally possible to do that with.

but if you choose not to have a ring, i totally understand that as well.

I loathe diamond rings, mostly for the consumerist aspects but also for their dubious origins. I've known about blood diamonds for quite some time & try to tell everyone I know who's interested in diamonds about them.
What bothers me almost as much as engagement rings is "right hand rings," diamond rings marketed to women to take their money celebrate their independence. I think DeBeers is the company selling right hand rings & what really sucks is how they've appropriated the language of feminism to market the rings. They feature lots of copy with the words "choice" & being proud & showing your independence. If I wanted to celebrate my independence & had the money to spend, I think I'd rather do something actually independent like learn to rock climb or do something that required strength & sacrifice, not put a very expensive shiny thing on my credit card. Are we women or are we magpies?
When my friend Lauryn (a Feministing founder!) got engaged, her boy bought her this amazing art deco sapphire ring that he spent forever looking for, and made a little book about the ring's history and how he came to find it. It was from the heart, not the wallet.
OmG, that is so sweet! If anyone did that for me I would melt.

I despise diamonds. Even non-conflict diamonds are usually routed through the De Beers company, which profited extensively both from imperialism and from Apartheid.

It's all about what he can afford. I won't begrudge anyone who spends large gobs of cash on a diamond ring or an elaborate wedding IF they can afford too. The problem lies when people over-extend themselves financially to keep up with the Jones'.

I have an engagement ring that I still wear along with my wedding ring. I can't really be accused of over-the-top consumerism . . . my engagement ring has a very small diamond and only cost a couple hundred dollars. My wedding ring and engagement ring TOGETHER only came to about $600-$700. Of course, I'd be lying if I said that at the time I wouldn't have preferred something more expensive. But we bought what we could afford, and now I love my rings.

If I had known 2-3 years ago about the horrors of the diamond industry, I probably would have gone with a different stone or a "recycled" ring. Unfortunately, I didn't, and that sucks.

The patriarchal symbolism . . . sigh. I'm not really sure what to say. I keep reading posts on this and feeling slightly offended, because I don't think of my ring that way, and my husband doesn't, either. But the fact is, I don't think that either of us really thought about the political implications of it at all. There are a lot of other gendered issues that come up when you're getting married, and we worked towards a gender equal goal. . . but the whole ring question didn't even make it onto our radar.

I think that's the problem. that we don't think about those sorts of things. So that's why, despite my personal situation and personal love of my ring, I support this discussion (as long as no one over-zealously accuses me of selling out to the patriarchy or being "owned" by my husband) and think that it's a healthy one to have.

My take is it's great to discuss this stuff. The negative symbolism inherent in engagement rings is less obvious (to me at least) than changing one's name or being given away at the altar. So I'm glad to be exposed to the controversy.

But I don't like it when people feel they have to justify their own actions. Lauryn's art deco ring sounds awesome, but she doesn't have to explain herself to me or anybody else. I'm all for exploring hidden aspects of sexism, but I don't want to give any woman grief over her choices.

Posted at the same time as you Cara and I think we're on the exact same page!

I think so, too!

As a male, I always thought a lot of this ring stuff was really unnecessary. Why should I need to spend all of this money lavishing my partner with gifts? I thought she loved me, not the money. I clearly love her otherwise I wouldn't have even gone through the effort to propose. So, what is this ring other than a piece of metal with some stones in it?

I have to thank you, Jessica, for getting me to rethink this whole institution of marriage. I think that it is still a fantastic way to declare eternal love between two people, but I think that a lot of the traditions and customs that come along with are really sort of bullshit. A declaration of love shouldn't leave you in the poor house. And, additionally, what does it all matter if you end up with the one you truly love?

cynical blandishments FABULOUS phrase.

and let's not forget the obsession with platinum vs white gold vs yellow gold vs pink gold vsetc... ugh! how is that about love?

The moral of engagement/wedding rings may be that women need not go cold-turkey on gender roles to express themselves as feminists. My wife and I originally decided we weren't going to get an engagement ring, but after a while I could tell it was bothering her, until eventually she broke down in tears. Not because she was consumerist or patriarchal, but just because she had grown up with a particular conception of what getting married was supposed to include, and some of that conception involved arbitrary and, depending in your point of view, silly conventions like diamond rings and a father giving a daughter away. Not including these things just caused too much discomfort for her, regardless of her personal politics.

She kept her name, we sought out a minister who we were comfortable with who would not include gender asymmetries in the ceremony, and her father escorted her down the aisle, kissed her, and sat down with no acknowledgment of transfer of property.

Someday, maybe our socialization process won't include asymmetrical conventions in marriage ceremonies. But simply having the choice about which asymmetries are important to reject and which are benign expressions has to be a major improvement over past generations.

I have an engagement ring... I don't think I was really thinking about all of the symbolism that it implied. To me it was just a way of making sure my b/f was damn sure that this is what he wanted. Now I'm kind of feeling bad about it and kind of wish I'd thought more about it. I think I'm going to get him one of those male engagement rings though.

I have an engagement ring... I don't think I was really thinking about all of the symbolism that it implied. To me it was just a way of making sure my b/f was damn sure that this is what he wanted. Now I'm kind of feeling bad about it and kind of wish I'd thought more about it. I think I'm going to get him one of those male engagement rings though.

Aside from the diamond issue - yes, a ring is just a band of metal, but it has symbolism that extends beyond what we've come to tend to associate it with (ie. patriarchal marriage). It is a circle. A circle is a very old symbol of eternity & cycles. When two people pledge their eternal love to one another, they use the rings to represent that eternal love and the cycles of life that they will share. When the ring is worn, it is a reminder of that (I think of this in a positive way).

Now I suppose this makes sense in understanding the wedding bands more so than the engagement ring - I guess I've thought of it more as a gift to celebrate the decision to commit, and a gift that represents the promise to come. So maybe it is a bit redundant? idk.

I have major distaste for the consumerism, too. But I love the thought of giving gifts to one another, assuming they're personal decisions, not the recommendation of some business, industry, or corporate mega-machine.

My partner's engagement gift to me, when he proposed: an exquisite little ammonite fossil. It was perfect. (And should I feel the need to wear it on my person, I can always get it made into an eyepatch.)

I gave my in-laws a silly "dowry" for my partner, when we told them that we'd decided to hitch. We colored forty little pictures of camels, and I gave them wine, olives, and a little treasure-chest of chocolate coins. They got a huge kick out of it. :)

We're clearly rather silly people. But we had a fantastic time with the decisions we made to commemorate the decision. I think that's what it's all about: an engagement gift can be a ring or something else, it can be expensive or cheap, but if it's not something personal and fun that you truly enjoy together, then who is it really for?

This is an interesting discussion with a lot to think about. Personally, I'm getting an engagement ring, but it's going to be my favourite stone, which happens to be blue topaz, not a diamond. I generally don't wear jewelry at all--the exceptions would be a necklace that my partner gave me for Christmas and a diamond ring that happens to be a family heirloom (we've had since at least the 1820s, and it's got a really pretty engraving of what appears to be a combination of stars and flowers), both of which are recent aquisitions. I get asked pretty regularly (and excitedly) if my family ring is an engagement ring, and I always say no, but sometimes people are interested in looking at it anyway.

I never really thought about the ring symbolism but now that I do, it doesn't really change the way I feel about them, because I never bought into the symbolism in the first place. When we first discussed an engagement ring, my reaction was basically: wow, a pretty shiny present?! Of COURSE I want one! I told my partner immediately that the kinds of rings I'd always had my eye on were really, really simple (I HATE gaudy jewelry; for one thing, I have very petite hands and most of those things take over a whole finger up past the knuckle, AND they're ugly as fuck!) and cost around $70. He actually WANTS it to be more expensive than that, god knows why.

To me, an engagment ring has always meant "I love you so much that I want to spend the rest of my life with you, no matter what happens," and I don't find that to be a particularly sexist message. It's about the gesture. I've always said that I'd be as ecstatically happy if he decided to get me a 25 cent vending machine ring or one of those tacky Halloween spider rings as a big huge diamond ring.

As for other wedding related traditions, we're not having a public wedding--it's going to be the two of us and a justice of the peace somewhere beautiful & secluded, and a reception afterward for our family to celebrate. It's an extremely personal moment for the two of us, it seems kind of weird to have everyone watching in on it--especially those who don't care and are bored. I WILL be changing my last name, but only because I seriously cannot stand saying my given last name out loud. I avoid saying it whenever possible. Anyway, if I "belong" to anyone, it IS my partner, definitely NOT my dad, who I share this name with (my mom didn't change her last name when she married--further evidence that this last name sucks).

I'm glad we're talking about this. I don't remember when, but a while ago I started thinking about engagememtn rings and realized they kind of bothered me. At first it was the most obvious thing: the woman gets one and the guy doesn't. Um -- why? The whole world needs to know I'M taken but it doesn't matter if HE is? Seems very archaic/patriarchal; kind of like, make sure that when they're married the girl is kept pure and virginal, but the guy can be a free man until he's legally bound to her. Just skeezed me out.

And as I thought about it, I didn't like the fact that, if I ever get married, I'd be starting my life out with a guy who blew a TON of money we could have spent on a house or -- hell, a crazy killer once-in-a-lifetime dream vacation honeymoon. I mean, I'll take that over a piece of jewelry.

Then I heard about the atrocities perpetrated against the oppressed people who actually MINE the diamonds, and that was the last straw. I FORCED myself to get over my desire to have a ring. It's to the point now where mostly I just feel the teeny tiniest little pang when I think about the fact that if and when I do get engaged, people will give me all kinds of holy hell for not getting a ring. Which will only be the start of many prying questions about my personal life (why didn't your father walk you down the aisle? Why aren't you going by "Mrs."? Why didn't you change your name? Why are you adopting when you're perfectly capable of having your "own" kids?) Sigh...

Now, granted, I've just plain never been a huge jewelry person anyway, so I'm totally willing to consider the possibility that this just wasn't as hard for me to give up, conceptually, as it might be for other women. And obviously I would never judge someone for having one. All of my female married/engaged friends have them. ALL of them. Hey, I've always been the outlier :)

For me personally, I might might MIGHT do wedding rings/some kind of pre-wedding ring (NOT diamonds, they are ridiculously overpriced) for BOTH of us. But, again, this is one of those many issues that I've just ridiculously over-thought. Ahhh, the joys of an analytical, argumentative brain ;)

The only diamond I would ever consent to own would be one that is already an heirloom. I would much rather have a thoughtful, meaningful gift than some ostentatious show of wealth.

This would hold even if I became a millionaire tomorrow. I can think of plenty of frivolous things I'd buy, but diamonds are nowhere on the list.

This may vary for your region, TLF, but I never even got a raised eyebrow over my lack of an engagement ring. Nor about my choice to keep my name.

I got a few questions about the decision to have silver, rather than gold, wedding rings, and about our refusal to have God mentioned in any of our vows (except as "the divine"), but that's about it.

I have an engagement ring and a wedding band- both are distinctive, personally flattering, and affordable. But I also remember what it was like swimming against the tide of popular opinion. To buck trends requires more will and creativity than I see many people display. This is not to excuse people who buy these things regardless of how it looks or how much it costs, it's to point out that many people are sadly lemming-like, following one another into a sea of debt and mediocrity. And they all wish their weddings were hot like mine. Tee Hee.

Wow, I wonder if this topic will get another 200 comments.

I didn't want or get an engagement ring either time I got married. Nor a proposal, come to think of it.

I have a real problem with diamonds on many levels, especially with how they are used to fund bloody guerrilla groups. I also think it's ridiculous that there are a glut of them, so I have heard, and they are artificially suppressed to keep them scarce.

I think antique rings and alternate stones are nice.

I am not sure if this is a feminist issue I personally prioritize as much as the name thing. Mostly because I am one of the only women I know who doesn't wear one or have one, so it seems like a lost cause to me.

I've been thinking a lot about this since Amanda wrote about it at Pandagon. I have to admit that when my husband and I went shopping for my engagement ring, it honestly didn't occur to either of us to do something a little different. Which is weird, looking back, because at the time we were stressing out a lot over what "marriage" meant to us, whether or not I wanted to change my name and why, what we wanted to do with the ceremony (translation: how much dog-and-pony show for the family were we willing to put up with). Perhaps because it's less obvious than name changing (as someone pointed out above), it never occured to me.

With that said, we didn't spend nearly the "acceptable" amount of two-month's salary on it, and we did the shopping together, which was fun because my husband is a geologist who gets very excited about rocks and all things shiney. I love my ring.

My only two regrets are 1) that I didn't give him a ring in exchange at the time, and 2) that I didn't know anything about the atrocities perpetrated against diamond miners. Is there a way to figure out where gemstones come from when you're shopping? Not just diamonds, but other precious stones that aren't lab-created.

I never had an engagement ring.

When we got married, my husband and I went together to the jewlers and bought our wedding bands. Not very "romantic".

The thing that has always bothered me about engagement rings is that even upon marraige, they are the primary symbol of "commitment" for the woman. No one even notices the actual wedding band when there's a 2 carrat daimond in the way.

I can't articulate exactly why this bothers me, but it does. To me it makes more sense for both parties to have an equal show of their commitment to each other.

I don't think it's a lost cause. Like I said, the first step is getting people to even think about this in the first place.

If this had been brought to my attention several years ago, or if I had thought about it on my own, I probably would have still ended up with a ring, but I also probably would have insisted that my (now) husband have an engagement ring, too.

My wife and I bought our wedding bands from GrenKarat.com. They use recycled gold and gems. Some of it even from computer parts.

The diamond industry has always struck me as fairly despicable. There is no way I'd ever buy a diamond after reading about how diamonds are mined and how poorly the workers are treated, and also how the whole diamond ring thing was a marketing ploy.

For engagement rings we used silver Claddagh rings bought online for ~$25 each. They are still beautiful.

What's wrong with women making the proposal?

There is the Orango Island in tiny Guinea-Bissau where women nearly completely control the marriage rites, and in their society it is tradition for the woman to makes the proposal by leaving a home cooked meal at the door of the man whom she wants to spend the rest of her life with (if he eats the meal that means he accepts).

Much more beautiful tradition don't ya think? When I ate my then girlfriend now wife's cooking that was when I knew I had to marry her.

Forget over priced trinkets that support new-age apartheid, and instead just ask the guy to spend the rest of his with life with you.

"the engagement ring is an outmoded commodity—starting with the obvious fact that only the woman gets one"

As a matter of fact, in traditional Greek culture, each person of the engaged couple wears a very thin gold band--I can't recall if it's on the left hand or the right hand. At the wedding they trade in the betrothal rings for wider, but still plain gold, wedding bands.

My uncle's wife actually proposed to him. She bought him a ring and everything. And got down on her knee and proposed to him.

It was very cool. They're both a couple of old bikers who have been married a couple of times each.

My partner and I (we're both women) have rings that are sort of like engagement rings. Except for the size, they're the same ring. They weren't expensive.

I hadn't really thought about the nature of engagement rings until this series of articles and blog posts. I don't like conspicuous consumption aspect or the one-sided nature, but I don't think rings as a sign of commitment are inherantly bad.

I certainly don't judge people who choose to have engagement rings, though I do if they're too excited about the size of the rock.

I personally do not want to be legally married but have toyed with the idea of a ceremony (with just my partner and me) and exchanging rings/something.

I don't like being given ANYTHING from my partner that I feel I cannot give back (ie: I like receiving presents, but only because I like giving them too - and not for goddam valentines, but because I WANT to)

My partner wears a ring (on his R hand) that I bought him all the time. It makes me happy to see him wearing it - and I bought it for no other reason than I had some money at the time (unusual) and wanted to buy him something nice

I proposed to my now husband in the parking lot of my favorite pancake house. :)

We had already discussed marriage - so it was no surprise when we got "engaged." However, I bought him a simple band for him and I bought one for myself. We each wore them and then were married with them.

We kept everything as egalitarian and simple as possible throughout the whole wedding. We didn't do traditional invitations and we didn't gender divide our wedding parties. It was all very nice.

--

"it can be patriarchal as its history is, but part of feminism is reinventing and transforming society and old traditions. i think this is one that is totally possible to do that with."

I couldn't have said it better.

I just wrote about this on my blog, but I thought I would also post it here because this issue has bothered me for a long time.

When my husband and I became engaged we were young, in college, and utterly without money. So I had a very simple engagement ring with a tiny, tiny diamond. Since we got married, I’ve just worn my band. I’m confidant that I’m not any less married and that we don’t love one another any less.

But the reaction that I have received from other people is telling. People have said to me that they didn’t know that I was married because I wasn’t wearing a diamond, just a band. I’ve had people apologize to me for my lack of an engagement ring and express shock that I said yes in the absence of one.

It isn’t just my experience that bothers me. I knew someone who, when she was hoping her boyfriend would proposed, had a photo of the ring she wanted as the screensaver on her computer. A picture of a diamond engagement ring as a screensaver. Now that’s just sick.

I’m not categorically opposed to rings; I wore (and wear) one, albeit one that violates social norms and expectations. But something about what we’ve come to expect is really messed up.

My husband gave me a gold band--wide and curved life a wave--and asked me to marry him. Then we went to the jewelry shop where he had bought it and ordered another one made for him.

They refused! They wouldn't make one for him because the ring was rounded and curved so it was "feminine" and they would not make it for a man! He argued and argued until they gave in, but when he went to pick it up days before the wedding, they had not made it.

I took my ring to a jeweler I knew who made a cast of it and from the cast made the ring for my husband.

Was this crazy or what? How absurdly far these ideas of what's feminine or masculine are carried.

Good points about blood diamonds. I have a few pieces of jewelry that look like diamonds (I think they're cubic zirconia or something) which I stopped wearing because I don't want people to see me wearing them and think "Doesn't she know how those get mined? Is she callous or just clueless?"

Conflict diamonds: enough said.

A big giant rock as a symbol of big giant love? If anyone really believes they have anything to do with each other, I blame the diamond industry.

I proposed to my husband. Hence, no ring. After we were married (wedding bands for both of us), I started wearing my great-grandmother's (modest ) engagement ring with my wedding band.

Of course, the ring arguably isn't the half of it. Consider Twisty's take on the marital institution:

Oenophile:

Like other commenters here, I'm disturbed by your willingness to resort to anti-woman rhetoric (e.g., the Summers comment, the Midol comments), but I'm going to offer a couple of comments/questions in hopes of a good-faith dialogue. Here goes:

1) You commented in your first post that there is complaint from pro-choice persons when pro-lifers are inconsistent, i.e., when they condone abortion in instances of rape/incest, but that we also complain when a pro-lifer is consistent, e.g., Brownback , who does not condone such an exception.

On the contrary. Speaking only for myself, what is outrageous about Brownback's remark is not that he consistently opposes abortion rights, but that he's arguing that abortion doesn't benefit (or prevent further harm to) women who is pregnant by rape in any way. In my view, that is preposterous. For all I know, there are rape survivors who find solace in carrying a rape-pregnancy to term, but I doubt this is usually or even often the case. Brownback's remarks demonstrate insensitivity to and ignorance of the experiences of women who have been raped. This compromises his credibility, i.e., it suggests that his "consistent" pro-life position is tinged by the same misogyny that many pro-choicers find evident in the "inconsistent" pro-life stance.

2) You support birth control and oppose abortion. Does this mean that you advocate as strongly for the availability of comprehensive sexual education and readily-accessible birth control for everyone, at state expense wherever necessary? No snark; I'm asking. I will add that I don't think your position (women should be denied abortion because they have the option of preventing pregnancy) is tenable unless your answer is yes, i.e., unless that option is realistically available to every single woman.

Also, I do think that there are other reasons, besides than the difficulty of accessing reliable birth control, that preventing pregnancy is not a realistic option for many women - e.g., women are coerced into inadequately protected sex in ways that don't fall into the legal definition of rape, but nonetheless prevent us from exercising enough "choice" to justify an implied-consent rationale for compulsory pregnancy. Frankly, until we have an end to patriarchy, there's going to be far too much gray area for your reasoning to be satisfactory, at least to me.

3) Per your position that abortion is "okay" when the pregnancy is the result of a rape: I understand your point about balancing, and while I think it's a fair argument, I think it weakens your pro-life position. If life does not absolutely trump other concerns, then it seems to me that your pro-life position is not, in fact, that fetal life is sacrosanct; it is, instead, that fetal life is more important than the hardships suffered by all women who are pregnant as a result of voluntary sexual activity (setting aside the difficult question of what constitutes voluntariness). That's a very difficult argument to sustain, it seems to me, because surely some women who are not impregnated by rapists suffer quite substantial hardships in carrying the pregnancy to term and either giving up or raising the child. If there is a balancing of interests, wouldn't we have to consider the appropriateness of abortion on a case-by-case basis?

Perhaps a stronger argument for your position would be that women who are raped may not have an opportunity to use birth control, hence there is no "implied consent" to a potential pregnancy. But this argument has at least two problems: 1) It looks a lot like a "pregnancy as punishment for voluntary sexual activity " position, though perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it treats enforced pregnancy as punishment for a failure to use (100% effective) birth control. 2) All women capable of being impregnated could, of course, use 100% birth control at all times, regardless of voluntary sexual activity, because there is always the possibility of impregnation-by-rape. So by your logic, any woman who doesn't do this has implied her consent to pregnancy-by-rape. Of course, this reproduces the tendency in our society to make women responsible for taking precautions against rape, a tendency that most of us (including you?) find odious.

4) Though I am firmly pro-choice, I can respect a sincere belief that life begins at conception, and that abortion = killing a (nascent) human being. While I don't agree, as a philosophical matter, that abortion = killing, I do agree that killing = wrong, at least as a general proposition.

Given the technology that currently exists, an abortion before viability (which describes the vast majority of those actually performed) does two things: It desprives the embryo/fetus/baby of the wombic environment, and it physically destroys the embryo/fetus/baby.

I've asked myself: if we had the technology to remove the fetus (my preferred language) from the womb without destroying it, and could then bring it to term without the participation of the biological mother, would the mother have a right to end the fetal life? My answer is no.

However, I assert (and this is the part where I CANNOT reconcile the pro-life position, even with all due respect for different beliefs) that a woman has a right to her bodily integrity. And while the fetus arguably has a right not to be killed, it does not have a right to be nourished in her womb. Similarly, while I have no right to murder a person dying of kidney failure, that person has no right to take one of my kidneys, even though it would save her/his life. Would giving that kidney kill me? Barring complications, no, nor would (probably) carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term. But if the kidney patient can't survive without my kidney, and the fetus can't survive without my womb, it does not constitute murder to deny either one of them those things. In fact, it is each person's right to deny both of those things.

Responses?

My partner and I didn't really talk about the whole ring thing before getting engaged--even though we talked about getting married in some detail. I had mentioned years before, when we were not even dating, that I would like an heirloom or non-conflict diamond ring *if* any ring at all, and that I would want to buy my fiance a present that would be a public signal of our engagement. He somehow remembered all this and bought me a simple, non-conflict diamond solitaire. Since he surprised me with it, I bought him a series of smaller gifts (he woudn't wear a ring before we married) over the year before we were married.

I think if I did it over again I would probably tell him I didn't want a ring. But I love the one I have.

kattyben, I think you posted the wrong comment. But Twisty definitely has a monstrously awesome thread going on marriage. Though nothing about rings that I can remember.

Grace, that is completely insane. What kind of business is that? What kind of jeweler turns away business? I would tell everyone I know about that experience, and encourage all of them to never go there. Aside from being shitty, narrow-minded people, they obviously have a few things to learn about customer service, too.

My boyfriend & I talked about getting tattooes when we discussed marriage. This definitely isn't for everyone. The idea worked for us--we both love tattooes and I love the idea of tattooes marking symbolic moments in our lives.

When my husband and I were talking about getting married and looking at rings I saw one that I completely fell in love with. We bought it and had the diamond from my mother's wedding band put in it as it happened to be a perfect fit. I love the ring and I love the fact that the diamond has more meaning than "expensive" (we actually ended up only spending a few hundred dollars for both rings). I also wore my wedding band as my engagement ring.

I've never been a fan of jewelry at all (being something of a tomboy and all) -- the best I can say for diamonds is that you can pawn them for more than most other bits of useless junk.

That, and I really don't like the way that a ring seems to have replaced the more traditional bride-price, or the way the cost of the ring is somehow supposed to signify the depth of your love and committment to each other. Bollocks, all of it.

I already love Lauryn's fiance!

I've dumped people for sending me flowers. If you know me well enough to send me flowers, you know I don't want them.

I'm all about romantic gestures, but if they fall into the realm of the expected, I'm not interested. My favourite gift from a partner, thus far, was a pack of cigarettes wrapped in newspaper and artfully used duct tape.

Something thoughtful and outside of the expected is waaaay better than something bought because it falls into the established order.

"My boyfriend & I talked about getting tattooes when we discussed marriage. This definitely isn't for everyone. The idea worked for us--we both love tattooes and I love the idea of tattooes marking symbolic moments in our lives."

I have always told women never ever do this, because I have seen too many horror stories involving breakups and tattoos. But it sounds like you and your BF got matching, but non-binding tattoos. If it work's for you Marcyfight, then you have my respect, but when you mentioned tattoos chills went down my spine.

I knew I fell in love with the right man when he proposed to me without an engagement ring. What was upsetting in the first days of our engagement was telling people about it, and the first thing they did (not my closest friends, though) was taking a glance at my ring finger or just say, "Oh let me see the ring!" Cause, you know, it's all about the ring. Argh.

What Mr. Cosmic did do after exactly a month when we were vacationing in San Francisco was way more romantic and sweet and meaningful than any diamond (I have real problems with diamonds, btw.). He took me to this great vegetarian restaurant for dinner and then he gave the most beautiful silver ring with a moonstone. The Moon has been such a significant thing in our relationship (among other things, he proposed under the full moon), so this ring means so much. And I love it. My wedding band is also silver and his is gold/silver. We picked them together.

wandergrrl, I LOVE the "dowry" idea. That's hilarious and very charming, and must've been a blast.

I recently got engaged and yes I have a ring. Engagement and marriage traditions are a great topic for discussion on a feminist blog, however I think there is a fine line between really analyzing the issue and guilt tripping those of us who have received engagement rings and have followed these traditions. Heck, as partriarchal as it sounds, I wanted my fiance to ask for my dad's blessing before proposing, more so because I think it just would have meant a lot to my dad. My dad and I have a great relationship and I still want him to walk me down the aisle, but do so in a way where it's not like he is tranferring ownership. ...plus my dad knows I'll all about the feminism.
The tricky thing with feminism, and I think this is something we should all tread carefully on, is that when we examine certain issues like marriage, work-family balance and childbearing it is important to be aware of the various choices women make in their lives and not to come across as advocating one as better than the other.

When we decided to make our engagement official, my spouse and I exchanged engagement watches. We were looking at rings but I'm just not a ring person and neither is my husband. The store we were in happened to have these great, stainless steel Swiss Army watches so we thought, screw the rings. (Are we romantics or what?) After 17 yrs of marriage, we both still wear the watches but we don't wear our wedding bands. Like I said, we're not ring people.

It was interesting to see the reaction I got from people. My close friends and my sister were all supportive of our choice. Some of my acquaintances actually told me that I shouldn't marry him because he hadn't ponied up for a huge rock.

My aunts gave my mother a lot of grief about it too. But my mother always said that she lived her life and we lived ours - as long as it didn't hurt us, she wouldn't interfere.

Actually, one of the biggest laughs on our wedding day was when the officiate talked about the engagement watches. He said that instead of wedding bands, he half-expected us to exchange wedding Swiss Army knives.

An engagement ring from the heart, as opposed to the wallet, seems fine to me. My husband got me a really simple white gold ring with a cubic zirconia (sp?). In turn, his engagement ring, from me, is a stainless steel skull and crossbones. (both were very inexpensive!) I like shiny sparkly things, but I am very careful to do things my own way with regards to tradition and patriarchal norms. My black wedding dress and potluck reception illustrate that...as well as not being "given away" and having my brother as my "maid of honour."

If I ever get married (doubtful), I wouldn't mind both of us getting simple gold or silver bands, and then spending the rest of that money on the honeymoon. Or a house. Or a car. Or, hell, anything but a fucking diamond.

I'll put my thoughts in a list:

1. My engagement ring is an heirloom, so it was free. The 2 months salary BS goes out the window with that.

2. I got my husband an engagement ring. He picked it out and showed it off to people "look at MY engagement ring!"

3. Neither of us wear our engagement rings on a regular basis now that we're married. And no one ever wants to look after the engagement. That ONLY happens during the engagement. So if you want to avoid all that crap, have a short engagement.

4. I was a nutcase before and shortly after the wedding. Part of it was trying to reconcile being a feminist and the patriarchal history of marriage. But part of it was just that marriage is a major life event, like moving or having a kid.

5. I'm really glad I got married. I'm one of the lucky ones who found a great partner. I imagine I will be happy with him for the rest of my life. We're extremely compatible.

6. I don't like rings. (Earrings I like, finger rings not so much) It took a lot of getting used to. I'm honestly still not used to it. I don't wear a wedding ring half the time and it's no big deal. My husband knows I love him and we don't need rings to prove it.

7. But, that said, I will go out of my way to make sure I have it on during certain situations because I don't like having to explain myself to people. It's just easier to "pass," as it were.

8. I was just looking at rings today. I change out which ring I will wear as my wedding ring. I have the diamond engagement ring, two different bands, and an emerald ring, all of which symbolize our relationship. So I swap them out depending on how I feel or the weather (hot days require a larger ring, cold days a smaller size).

9. My dream engagement ring that I never got and I think one day I will hunt down and buy for myself is a solitaire emerald from a pawn shop. It has to be from an actual pawn shop, not a vintage jewelry store. I don't know why, I just really want one. But right now I'm in the market for an ultra plain silver or platinum band with a secret message engraved in it.

I want to see Lauryn's ring. It sounds cool. That's the kind of ring I would want if I had to have a ring; I'd want a unique antique.

I didn't want an engagement ring but my mother (traditionalist that she is) insisted. He did end up getting me a diamond ring, but he designed the setting, which is pretty awesome. We also decided that he should get a ring too, and I insisted that it have a diamond as well! We didn't do wedding bands, so the engagement rings serve as both. (Yeah, that confuses stupid guys who hit on me, thinking I'm not yet hitched.)

My husband was a poli-sci major, so we were aware of, and against conflict diamonds. However I also wanted some kind of ring. I don't wear a lot of jewelry, but I've frequently had a piece of some personal significance I wore all the time. As we had gotten engaged sitting on our couch watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I wanted to do something to really mark the occasion. We weren't sure what to do.

Thus, my parents offered us the diamond from my mother's engagement ring. My Mom had retired her engagement ring in favor of her very wide 10 anniversary ring many years ago. She said that she'd rather see it on me than in a drawer, and as it was second hand from 30 years ago, we didn't have any moral opposition on that level.

We went shopping to many places big and small to find a nice setting. I had a mental image of what I wanted, a filigree art-nouveau sort of ring, organic and antique looking, but everything I saw was very modern and very flashy and I didn't want to spend too much money. I had suggested we get him a ring too, but he didn't want one.

My husband found this tiny, hole in the wall, independent place that mostly operated through catalogs. I showed the woman a sketch I had done to explain what I was looking for and she found something that fit almost exactly.

As we are proud to report, since he didn't want a ring, we split the cost down the middle but it still cost less than $300. Which might be worrisome but it looks enough like a gorgeous old antique that no one actually believes me. And my husband loves telling anyone that even shows a passing interest in it that HE found the place.

I didn’t want an engagement ring for all the reasons already cited here. So, my husband and I ordered matching wedding bands with an overlayed claddagh when we got engaged and wore them (on the left hand with the heart pointed in, of course!) as soon as we received them. We took them off before the wedding and exchanged them again during the ceremony. I came up with this idea before I met my husband, and I didn't tell him about it until we were engaged. He loved it.

My boyfriend and I have matching "engagement" rings. They are silver with working compasses and a small star sapphire. Inside we got the Chinese characters for love and friendship. They are huge and look like they came out of a comic book. I could never accept a torture stone. Oy.

My partner and I got engaged a year ago. We got plain matching bands and engraved messages to each other on them.
It's funny, the fact that he wears a band makes everyone assume that he's married although we are not (and no date is set). Whereas no one in the entire year that I've worn my ring has ever asked if I'm engaged or married.
De Beers has really done an excellent job convincing people that a diamond ring is the *only* symbol of matrimony for a woman.
I would not wear a ring if he didn't wear one too.
I'm not opposed to "upgrading" our rings to more personal and unique ones in the future, but I've always found the whole flashing diamond "taken" thing to be backward.

I got a little more creative. At the time I had access to a friend's small foundry. I cast a silver ring and bought a nice big blue topaz for his ring (he doesn't like gold anyway, lol). It doesn't look anything like a wedding ring and honestly, silver and topaz costs next to nothing, but he wouldn't trade it for the world because I made it. :)

The ring he got me is small and understated, which is perfect for me. Although I can make jewlery, I really don't care for wearing it and so the small ring with the small (but very well cut) diamond is the best ring he could have gotten me for any price. I've gotten so many compliments on it too. :)

I got a little more creative. At the time I had access to a friend's small foundry. I cast a silver ring and bought a nice big blue topaz for his ring (he doesn't like gold anyway, lol). It doesn't look anything like a wedding ring and honestly, silver and topaz costs next to nothing, but he wouldn't trade it for the world because I made it. :)

The ring he got me is small and understated, which is perfect for me. Although I can make jewlery, I really don't care for wearing it and so the small ring with the small (but very well cut) diamond is the best ring he could have gotten me for any price. I've gotten so many compliments on it too. :)

I have always told women never ever do this, because I have seen too many horror stories involving breakups and tattoos. But it sounds like you and your BF got matching, but non-binding tattoos. If it work's for you Marcyfight, then you have my respect, but when you mentioned tattoos chills went down my spine.
LoL we never got the tattoos. We had an amicable breakup and are still in touch. I don't do name tattoos, but I don't think I would have minded having a tattoo from that relationship. I get tattoos to symbolize important moments in my life. The next one will be for my entry to the art world.
BtW, Itazura, I'm the one who posted the tattoo coment, not Marcyfight.

My apologies Moxie Hart.

I have gotten one tattoo in my life, and I had it removed, because I didn't want my children to see it.

A lot of people I know have paid 3 times as much to get tattoos removed than what they paid for the tattoos. But most of them have other tattoos they intend to keep forever. However when I hear people talk about matching tattoos, I always tell them to get matching piercings instead.

The sign that a man really loves you, is if he gets a cock-ring for you.

I design my own tattoos & put them in places that are easily covered by clothes. Mine are keepers.
LoL seriously, pretty much any genital piercing is a sign of love.

I design my own tattoos & put them in places that are easily covered by clothes. Mine are keepers.
LoL seriously, pretty much any genital piercing is a sign of love.

sharon: "in traditional Greek culture, each person of the engaged couple wears a very thin gold band--I can't recall if it's on the left hand or the right hand. At the wedding they trade in the betrothal rings for wider, but still plain gold, wedding bands."

that sounds more reasonable. otherwise engagement rings are just sexist

We used heirlooms, which we intended to replace at five years, a plan which went by the wayside for both budgetary and philosophical reasons.

The sister of a friend of my wife's had her engagement ring redone three times at exponentially greater cost each time until it was just right; the last time we saw her she didn't have it on because she works as a bartender and "it would get in the way."

No, really.

Diamonds are sparkly and shiny and I love them, but I can't stand spending money on such thing, as a result, my engagement ring is probably the only TRULY nice piece of jewelry I will ever own. And I really really love it. Radical feminist I may be, but I think my marriage is unconventional enough without feeling the need to throw out my beautiful (estate case) diamond ring too.

That said, I do totally understand why some people object to them. I really do. My dad isn't "giving me away" at the wedding because I hate that symbology.

But I really like my ring, and my fiance really likes his, and that's all that should really matter ultimately right?

Diamonds are the triumph of the public relations industry. Until the mid-20th century, when the "Diamonds are a girl's best friend" campaign was rolled out, they weren't considered all that precious, to the extent that they generally weren't even in anyone's crown jewels. Plus, the world is lousy with them. The only scarcity is artificially imposed by the industry itself. Until the PR industry successfully managed to dethrone the ruby, which enjoyed very much the same status as the diamond does now (and was in the crown jewels of at least a few European monarchies), diamond prices were more or less commensurate with supply, which was, and remains extensive.

Wow, Elise, I didn't know that. Interesting.
I've always liked rubies (my birthstone), opals & sapphires better than diamonds.

I can't believe that it's an engagement ring post that finally got me to register, but I've been reading the comments and felt the need to throw in my two cents as well.

What seems like years ago at this point, my then boyfriend (now husband) asked me what I thought about engagement rings. I echoed many of the sentiments here - I was unsure about the sexist overtones of the tradition, the origins of the diamonds, and the fact that the most jewelry I wore was a nose ring and a Cape Cod bracelet. But, I let it slip that I once-upon-a-time had little girl dreams about getting a blue box from Tiffany's. But that's just silly, we live in the midwest.

We pretty much decided (later) that we would be spending our lives together, but we never made it "official." So I was floored when he did the proposing - with a little blue box in one hand and the Tiffany position on conflict diamonds and their policy on same-sex partner benefits in the other. It wasn't so much the diamond ring itself, it was that he remembered every little detail that I mentioned in passing. So that's why he's my husband now.

And at the time, all the very valid points about the sexist symbolism of the ring, et. al., didn't even cross my mind. Which, in my opinion, shows how deeply rooted sexist gender roles are in our society.

To add to Elise's post, if I may, the modern inception of an engagement ring, with a Diamond, was created by the De Beers company. They created an advertising campaign in the 40s, with the slogan "A Diamond is Forever".

Also, a brief history of the engagement ring, from wikipedia: "The inception of the engagement ring itself can be tied to the Fourth Lateran Council presided over by Pope Innocent III in 1215 [2]. Innocent declared a longer waiting period between betrothal and marriage; plain rings of gold, silver or iron were used earliest. Gems were important and reassuring status symbols to the aristocracy. Laws were passed to preserve a visible division of social rank, ensuring only the privileged wore florid jewels. As time passed and laws relaxed, diamonds and other gems became available to the middle class."

To summarize: The pope invented engagement rings, Gems were required as a status symbol by the aristocracy, and De Beers commercials convinced people they needed diamonds.

The whole thing sounds really romantic.

i'm probably late to the 'show', but here goes my take. i think its a clear sign that a couple is not ready for marriage when they are swayed by the diamond industry's advertisements for a diamond ring for HER that is the equivalent of a house payment. If the opinion of strangers means that much, then a couple isn't strong enough for the inevitable ebbs and flows of marriage.

that said, i have no objection to marking the commencement of a lifetime partnership with something beautiful and personal - so i'm not taking exception to the alternatives listed above. A freely made choice is what life should be about.

i met my husband two weeks before my first cancer diagnosis. we married the new years eve immediately afterwards. OUR bands were sterling posie rings from a museum catalog. They read in french 'i love & i hope'. It seemed appropriate because marrying after my cancer diagnosis was a risk of sorts. Members of his family warned him not to marry someone who could be dying of cancer. that was 10.5 yrs ago.

since then he gave me a heirloom family ring. The ring was made in new orleans just after the civil war, from diamonds from a pair of earrings that had been in the family for many decades before that. Of course because i have lymphedema my wedding band is on my right hand and my 'heirloom' ring is my pinkie ring on my left. The original wearer of the heirloom ring was not the family's first choice as a bride. The ring indicates that their wedding date was the day the groom turned 21 and could marry without his family's consent.

Oddly enough no one has said boo to me about my ring choice. But i think that them that 'knows' me wouldn't dare. Not only am i wordy but i'm frequently a proud spoken bitch.
nadine

BTW, I heard that one can get a diamond which is neither a blood diamond, nor even involved with DeBeers, via the Argyle company. Is this true?

Just as marriage can be defined variously by, and have various meanings for, different people, so engagement and wedding rings probably mean something to the couple involved that no one else can really share.

My wife and I went straight for wedding bands, purchased together at a place meaningful to us, with no gemstones involved, and with nonidentical designs. People are free to assume what they want about the lack of an engagement ring, but that has nothing to do with the meaning our rings have for *us*.

You know what this sounds like to me? An incredible amount of "open-minded" women who came here to justify why they and their partners got rings after all, and how precious they all are (borrowed, low cost, passed down from some family member). Are you all hearing yourselves? (most of the people who commented, not all) How drab can you be to take a tradition and "reinvent it?" Newsflash: the messages remain, patriarchy persists. So while you enjoy your little shiny prize on your finger, the rest of us will actually deny the whole thing all together and not be so insecure as to buy into the whole traditional thing. Just because your rings were affordable and super special, doesn't mean you completely bypassed this disgustingly unfair and sexist custom. But if you would like to think that you did.. hey whatever helps you appear "open-minded," right?

I'm not getting an engagement ring, but that's primarily because I don't like big hunks of rock sticking out of my rings. It just bugs me.

My wedding band, however, does have diamonds in it. But my wedding band only costs $600, so...

Basically, even if I wanted a big diamond ring, I don't think I'd get it. Because my future fiance and I would much much rather have a down payment on a house than a rock on my finger.

And as far as I'm concerned, our finances are already intertwined, so him spending a hunk on a ring is really me spending a hunk on a ring. If I wanted jewelry, I'd go buy it myself.

Rings cause quite the debate and interesting stories!

I love my engagement ring. It is non traditional, simple and beautiful and exactly like my grandmother's even though my husband had never seen it. I could never feel comfortable with a diamond ring knowing about blood diamonds. I don't believe we should ever measure another person's love by the size of a stone. It's sickening.

I gave my husband an engagement ring and I am so happy to hear that others did this as well! I hear that this is actually common in Europe, is this true? Is it common anywhere else?

Mina,

I think you can find conflict-free non-DeBeers diamonds. But, I wonder, are any diamonds really conflict-free when supporting the diamond trade from any angle strengthens the whole thing? I don't know, but I tend toward saying no.

Funny thing...most of the obnoxious ads for jewellry ultimately end up telling us a diamond will shut a woman up (you must have seen those ones). Many women here today have proven how untrue that is!

So I've been perusing the comments and perhaps I've missed someone previously bringing up this point, but to me it sounds a lot like the ongoing debate about whether feminists should wear make-up, heels, etc..

Yes, engagement rings are a sexist tradition. So is marriage. So a