Not too long ago, someone made the following comment within earshot of me:

“If the engagement ring is any less than a carat, it means he doesn’t really love you.”

All I could think was, what is wrong with this person?  I initially shrugged off what I heard as someone being entirely too materialistic and unaware that other people could hear them, but the more I have thought about the remark, the more it has bothered me.

Who, exactly, is it that gets to decide the rules of what is and what is not a respectable symbol of a man and woman’s intention to spend the rest of their lives together?  I looked into it a bit, and the general consensus seems to be that DeBeers decided to run an advertising campaign promoting diamond engagement rings around the end of the 1930′s, and that combined with Marilyn Monroe’s famous “Diamonds Are a Girl’s Best Friend” raised diamonds to the status symbols they are today.

So, whatever, now a man is supposed to buy a diamond ring for a woman when he asks her to marry him.  I’d be lying if I sat here and wrote that I did NOT expect Alex to go buy me a diamond ring when he decided to propose to me.  But I also don’t think that is the only way to go.  I think it’s equally nice to give a girl a sapphire ring, or something else that is equally meaningful to the couple, as a symbolic, outward sign to the world that you are betrothed.

It’s not really that it’s supposed to be a DIAMOND that bothers me.  It’s the attitude so many people have about the expected SIZE and EXPENSE of the diamond that bothers me.  For example, many people seem to think it’s necessary for a man to spend at least 2-3 months’ salary on an engagement ring.  Other people, like the person I overheard talking, think the engagement ring ought to be as big as possible, and that certain smaller-sized rings are utterly sub-par.  I don’t know where this “wisdom” came from, but it seems horribly flawed.

Don’t people care about their MARRIAGE and their future AFTER the wedding?  Because if you’re asking a man to invest that much money in a ring, he probably isn’t going to be able to invest much money in anything else for a while after the proposal.  It seems perfectly ridiculous to put that kind of financial pressure on a guy, who is probably already completely nervous about pulling off the proposal right, and about getting married and being a good husband.  Not to mention, the engagement ring is supposed to symbolize love and commitment simply because he went and bought the ring and gave it to the girl!  Who cares if all he can afford is a quarter of a carat because he’s a waiter working his way towards a PhD, or a struggling actor, or a retail store employee?  Isn’t it the thought that counts, and not the net worth of the ring in this situation?

I guess my point is that the people who have these crazy guidelines in their heads really seem to be missing the point of the ring in the first place.  I’m not advocating that a man should go grab the first cubic zirconia ring he sees – by all means, save up what you can and put thought into the process!  But going into major debt, with no hope of being able to pull yourself out, just to buy an engagement ring is ridiculous.  It’s also ridiculous to go into debt to put a child into pre-school, or summer camp, or to go on a dream vacation, but that’s really another blog.

My point?  It would be nice to see more people focus on the endgame when it comes to engagements and weddings, rather than on the materialistic crap (for lack of a better word) that so many people parrot to each other.

{For the record, my own engagement ring is not too big and not too small, and my fiancee was intelligent and bought it in such a way that he does not owe anyone money for it, and hasn’t for many months.}

© 2010, The Table Has Shoes (and Other Ambiguities). All rights reserved.

No related posts.