What''s more important?

[TravelingGal]

Date: 8/15/2006 1:15:54 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 8/15/2006 11:19:11 AM
Author: Larissa

You can be with someone without a ring and without marriage. Neither a ring or marriage is actually necessary to continue a relationship with the person you love.

We got engaged without rings. I wanted to get married without rings (but that didn''t happen, he liked his ring too much). And we don''t believe in upgrades so option 2 doesn''t leave me the ability to go with a great ring now and a dream ring later.

Yes, you can be with someone without being engaged or married.....but it''s not the same. Just isn''t.....in my personal opinion, no matter how ya slice it.

If there weren''t a difference between being ''in a relationship'' and being ''engaged/married'', no one would bother marrying because it would be the same thing, right? It''s not the same thing.....and while the relationship may be great, it''s not the same as being engaged/married (to me).

I actually agree with your choice.....to become engaged without the ring. Engaged means promise of marriage....the ring symbolizes it, but it''s not a requirement.

I can understand the rationale that says ''we''re sentimental and won''t want to upgrade'', so let''s wait on the ring.

However, neither of the choices given presented that option. It was either ''don''t get engaged until dream ring'' or ''get engaged with less than dream ring''.

I''d rather see ''get engaged with no ring and save for dream ring'' for those folks....instead of delaying the commitment of one''s life to another over a piece of jewelry.

Again, I''m with Alj. The way I read the question, I thought it was assuming all ducks are in a row except finances for a ring, i.e. both are ready to get married "now", but are only holding off for a better ring. Some of the other gals say it''s fine with them...if you know you want to get married and have the time to wait, why not? I agree with that point, but I didn''t interpret the question that way. I saw it as "Gosh, he''s gonna ask, but can''t afford the ring I want now. Should we wait a COUPLE OF YEARS?" Hm.

I think it''s great that you got engaged without rings. That was what I initially wanted to, but FI was more traditional than me. If I were you, and already engaged without a ring and still needing time for that dream ring, I would just get married with a wedding band. Then, I would get something wonderful for that first anniversary. They say that the first year of marriage can be tough, so I think we ladies deserve a reward! Hee hee...

The majority of us found this forum because e-rings ARE important to us. I won''t wear a pair of flip flops I don''t like, much less a ring that costs 1000s of dollars. Nothing wrong with trying to figure out a solution so both people are happy (in my case, I contributed. What can I say...I am not a traditionalist!) Like Allycat says...where I would wonder is if the gal said she won''t get engaged unless she can get XYZ ring. Sounds like that would be ridiculous, but there ARE women like that, believe it or not!

 

[ladykemma]

larissa - I''m confused. aren''t you already a ring wearing engaged person?
I like the estate ring you have....it''s purdy.
I also respect and admire people who live modestly within their means. yay good for you!

have you purchased a home yet? Old lady talking here (read: nag), but I strongly promote having a "paid fer" home and no debt before large luxury expenses. Is it you who wants a 15k ring or is it someone else?

as far as the question of saving to buy a ring, i would rather get engaged sooner, but i was over 30 and my clock was ticking. i wasn''t 21 and had no time to waste. so i think age factors in as well. wait, heck no!

 

[Larissa]

Date: 8/15/2006 7:48:35 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 8/15/2006 1:15:54 PM

Author: aljdewey

Date: 8/15/2006 11:19:11 AM

Author: Larissa


You can be with someone without a ring and without marriage. Neither a ring or marriage is actually necessary to continue a relationship with the person you love.


We got engaged without rings. I wanted to get married without rings (but that didn''t happen, he liked his ring too much). And we don''t believe in upgrades so option 2 doesn''t leave me the ability to go with a great ring now and a dream ring later.

Yes, you can be with someone without being engaged or married.....but it''s not the same. Just isn''t.....in my personal opinion, no matter how ya slice it.


If there weren''t a difference between being ''in a relationship'' and being ''engaged/married'', no one would bother marrying because it would be the same thing, right? It''s not the same thing.....and while the relationship may be great, it''s not the same as being engaged/married (to me).


I actually agree with your choice.....to become engaged without the ring. Engaged means promise of marriage....the ring symbolizes it, but it''s not a requirement.


I can understand the rationale that says ''we''re sentimental and won''t want to upgrade'', so let''s wait on the ring.


However, neither of the choices given presented that option. It was either ''don''t get engaged until dream ring'' or ''get engaged with less than dream ring''.


I''d rather see ''get engaged with no ring and save for dream ring'' for those folks....instead of delaying the commitment of one''s life to another over a piece of jewelry.

Again, I''m with Alj. The way I read the question, I thought it was assuming all ducks are in a row except finances for a ring, i.e. both are ready to get married ''now'', but are only holding off for a better ring. Some of the other gals say it''s fine with them...if you know you want to get married and have the time to wait, why not? I agree with that point, but I didn''t interpret the question that way. I saw it as ''Gosh, he''s gonna ask, but can''t afford the ring I want now. Should we wait a COUPLE OF YEARS?'' Hm.


I think it''s great that you got engaged without rings. That was what I initially wanted to, but FI was more traditional than me. If I were you, and already engaged without a ring and still needing time for that dream ring, I would just get married with a wedding band. Then, I would get something wonderful for that first anniversary. They say that the first year of marriage can be tough, so I think we ladies deserve a reward! Hee hee...


The majority of us found this forum because e-rings ARE important to us. I won''t wear a pair of flip flops I don''t like, much less a ring that costs 1000s of dollars. Nothing wrong with trying to figure out a solution so both people are happy (in my case, I contributed. What can I say...I am not a traditionalist!) Like Allycat says...where I would wonder is if the gal said she won''t get engaged unless she can get XYZ ring. Sounds like that would be ridiculous, but there ARE women like that, believe it or not!

That''s EXACTLY why I wanted an answer from this group rather than another group. I''m not trying to start a debate, and I realise that the answer will be different for everyone. In reading these boards it seems as though a lot of people are saving up or the guy is saving up rather than getting engaged now...so I wondered what the split would be like if the decision of when was entirely up to the female (or whichever half is using these boards).

 

[Larissa]

Date: 8/15/2006 9:33:21 PM
Author: ladykemma
larissa - I''m confused. aren''t you already a ring wearing engaged person?

I like the estate ring you have....it''s purdy.

I also respect and admire people who live modestly within their means. yay good for you!


have you purchased a home yet? Old lady talking here (read: nag), but I strongly promote having a ''paid fer'' home and no debt before large luxury expenses. Is it you who wants a 15k ring or is it someone else?



as far as the question of saving to buy a ring, i would rather get engaged sooner, but i was over 30 and my clock was ticking. i wasn''t 21 and had no time to waste. so i think age factors in as well. wait, heck no!

Yes, am engaged and married. Yes, I do have a ring. We both got our engagement rings after we''d been engaged for 4 months.
No, we don''t own a home yet. I immigrated to a country where homes are expensive and jobs in my field are hard to come by if you haven''t been educated in the same country you are attempting to work in. We simply cannot afford $500,000 for a 1-2 bedroom flat right now.
I don''t want another ring. Okay, I lied. I do...kinda, but I''d never get one. We agreed no upgrades, which are unheard of in my peer group. We need a 2 bedroom condo and vacations much much more.

We shopped within a limit and I found a ring that was way less than our agreed upon limit. Sometimes I wish had either bargined for a higher limit or that I actually used all the limit.

My reasons for this questions are:
1-it seems that guys on these boards and women on these boards want different things (guy-save more money, woman-get engaged now)
2-I wondered why people would chose one way or another - it seems that most people would chose to get engaged now, but qualify that they would upgrade later

3-I''m just nosy, people and relationships (what my career is in) fancinate me

 

[littlelysser]

I must say that I am a number 1 as well.

I got engaged last December.

I love my FI. Prior to getting engaged we had already purchased a house and we owned two dogs. The car was in both of our names. Indeed, we were, for all intents and purposes, already married. We had already thrown our lot together and the ring is really more of a formality and some lovely bling for me!

I am entirely missing the bridal gene. I will not be having a large wedding. We are going to get married on a beach somewhere...but I have always wanted an amazing engagement ring. My FI knew how important that was to me - and luckily we didn''t really have to save once we decided to make it official, but if we needed to, we would have.

I am going to have this ring until the day I die. It is darn near my perfect engagement ring. I look at it and just LOVE it everyday...even 9 months later! I don''t want to upgrade it. I love it. and I love my FI for knowing how much it meant to me.

 

[Larissa]

Date: 8/16/2006 9:43:08 AM
Author: littlelysser
I must say that I am a number 1 as well.


I got engaged last December.


I love my FI. Prior to getting engaged we had already purchased a house and we owned two dogs. The car was in both of our names. Indeed, we were, for all intents and purposes, already married. We had already thrown our lot together and the ring is really more of a formality and some lovely bling for me!


I am entirely missing the bridal gene. I will not be having a large wedding. We are going to get married on a beach somewhere...but I have always wanted an amazing engagement ring. My FI knew how important that was to me - and luckily we didn''t really have to save once we decided to make it official, but if we needed to, we would have.


I am going to have this ring until the day I die. It is darn near my perfect engagement ring. I look at it and just LOVE it everyday...even 9 months later! I don''t want to upgrade it. I love it. and I love my FI for knowing how much it meant to me.

My big things were always an amazing ring and an awesome honeymoon. Priorities, people!!

I wish we had been able to hold to these, but seeing as how I was moving 5000 miles away from family we decided that a wedding on both sides of the ocean so that both families could attend was important...memories and all that...and 2 weddings adds up quickly. Your ring is amazing!!