Engaged or not? (with poll)

---

Posted by 2Be1

Just playing devils advocate here would you ladies say the same thing would apply if you were married, but didn't have any wedding bands? Isn't that what makes a wedding ceremony . . . the exchanging of the rings. IMO if the girl says she is engaged, then she is engaged. I just found it interesting that FH (and his best man) said that she is not because there is no ring, thats why I posted this poll. I also find it interesting that these are men who are saying this, not women.

---

My FH is the same way ... he doesn't feel you're engaged until you have the ring. Too many of his friends have went down this path bc it was easier with out the ring and then in the end all that rushing didn't work out and they split... he feels the ring makes it serious and makes you really think about your decision (since it's so much $$$)

---

Posted by 2Be1

Just playing devils advocate here would you ladies say the same thing would apply if you were married, but didn't have any wedding bands? Isn't that what makes a wedding ceremony . . . the exchanging of the rings.

---

No, this isn't true. What makes a wedding ceremony are the vows. Exchanging rings is not necessary for marriage.

i am seriously in shock....i have never heard of someone getting engaged without a ring before reading this thread ............ i'm glad to see it works out though.......you girls probably can prob afford to spend more more on your wedding (or on a downpayment for a house)!

I have to admit that DH and I were techincally 'engaged' without a ring for about a month or so. We had talked about marriage and agreed, looked at halls, and actually put down half of the deposit on our hall before a ring was on my finger.

but i knew the ring was coming, and a month later he had it and we were engaged. but every person is different. some ppl don't need a ring....and i didn't require one to get a hall with my DH, cause i knew we were marrying.

---

Posted by 2Be1

Just playing devils advocate here would you ladies say the same thing would apply if you were married, but didn't have any wedding bands? Isn't that what makes a wedding ceremony . . . the exchanging of the rings.

---

have to disagree on that one. exchanging of rings is not a tradition that has to be done. my parents have been married for 27 years, and they didn't exchange rings. does that mean they aren't as married as other couples?

sure we exchanged rings at our ceremony, but our wedding was about our LOVE and COMMITTMENT to one another.

---

Posted by kzecha

JMO.....I think too many people put TOO much attention on all the little details on the day of their wedding and lose focus on what the day is about...the exchanging of vows and marriage and building a life together. You dont need a ring, a dress, a hall, a band, a DJ, etc. in order to really have a wedding and be committed to each other. That is all just an added bonus.

---

Amen to that.

I just wanted to post this, cause we all make a big deal of the diamond e-ring and such, when in reality it was just something that the DeBeers corporation used to get ppl to want diamonds and raise sales back in the late 1940's:



The history of the engagement ring is more about myth and fantasy than actual fact until you enter the 20th Century when a marked turn of events shapes public opinion beyond all doubt.
Today almost everyone's interpretation of the engagement ring is something along these lines: 'A symbol of ever lasting purity, love, devotion and commitment between two people'. But where did it all start?

The earliest surviving records have shown that Archduke Maximillian of Hamburg may have started the trend among the European wealthy and royalty of giving diamond engagement rings in 1477 by giving Mary of Burgundy a diamond betrothal ring.

What happened before 1477? Was there such a thing as an engagement ring and if so were they set with diamonds?

Pre - History
Lets go back to our ancestors, 'prehistoric man' who are supposed to have tied the woman's arms and legs together so she could not escape. It wasn't an attempt at deviant sexual acts, but it wasn't the most flattering way to show how you care either!

Eventually the 'bride's' legs would have been released and if she made no attempt to run away then she would just have worn a tied cord with a trailing end around one of her little fingers.

It's certainly an interesting theory ahem!...

Ancient History
The ancient Roman's called their engagement ring the betrothal (Truth) ring. The Romans were the first to wear the ring on the third finger of the left hand.

This surviving tradition seems to stem from the Egyptian belief that the vein from this finger leads straight to the heart. It's thought that the Romans were the first to start inscribing or engraving their rings.

The Middle Ages
The Middle Ages and the Gimmal or 'bond' ring was invented, but it's doubtful that this was an engagement ring design. However, sapphires, emeralds and rubies would have been the norm for those who could afford them.

Because diamond is the hardest and strongest mineral on earth it was seen to resist fire and steel and thus symbolize the unbending union of a man and woman in wedlock. So it became more commonplace for the European super wealthy and royalty to give a diamond engagement ring at this time.

Less wealthy citizens would have given a Fede (faith) ring in the form of two clasped hands more akin to the more modern claddagh (clasped hands) engagement rings.

The 18th Century
Diamonds became more readily available when diamonds were discovered in Brazil. Diamond cluster engagement rings were fashionable among the wealthy.

The 19th Century
In South Africa 1870, the vast, newly discovered Kimberley diamond region began to flood the market with not so rare a gem after all! The supply increased whilst the prices fell.

Within 10 years the now famous De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd. was formed by the Englishman Cecil John Rhodes to control the sale of diamonds throughout the world. Even today they control 65% of the world's diamond trade.

At this time during the history of the engagement ring, the diamond rush gave rise to the notion that the various birthstones were seen to be a rarity (and more desirable) compared to the diamond.

Elaborate engagement rings of sapphire, emerald and rubies (and other precious gems) with diamond accents were therefore more commonplace among those with appropriate wealth.

The 20th Century
From 1880 De Beers were able to control the supply (and price) of diamonds but how were they going to control demand during a period when sales began dropping dramatically (up to 50%) in the 20s and 30s onwards through the great depression?

Just as platinum started to become popular in diamond engagement rings, diamonds were becoming less valued. Platinum was banned for all but war use during WWII and so the platinum diamond engagement rings as we know them today almost died out.

The answer to the problem was a new marketing campaign commissioned by De Beers that began in 1947. Perhaps you've heard the slogan 'A Diamond is forever'? This was to mark the beginning of a change in the history of the engagement ring.

Subsequent campaigns would convince families to hold on to their diamonds as family heirlooms... and it worked! Used diamonds were not being released back into the industry which in turn created the demand that De Beers were seeking.

Jewelers were unofficially educated by De Beers to instruct men that two to three months personal wages were an ideal price to pay for the diamond engagement ring that their prospective fiancée's would gladly accept.

In 1953 the world's two most glamorous women of the time Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russell were the stars of the hit film musical Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.

The plot involves Monroe and Russell chasing potential husbands on a cruise to France. The movie also features a very famous song sung by the blonde bombshell Marilyn Monroe, Diamonds Are A Girls Best Friend.

This film would have undoubtedly influenced public opinion at the time and will have advanced the popularity of diamonds for years afterwards through Hollywood glamour.

The film is now 50 years old but it's still a firm favorite of all who love Hollywood and the legend of Monroe. (Of course there are others: High Society, Breakfast At Tiffany’s, Diamonds Are Forever among them)

This is where the tradition of the diamond engagement ring really started, all from an advertising campaign that literally 'rocked' the world! (Get it? 'rocked'.... okay I'll shut up!) So you see buying a diamond engagement ring isn't really a popular ancient tradition.

It's more a combination of 'dreaming of being a princess', a clever marketing campaign and compelling Hollywood glamour that ultimately promotes diamonds as the only jewels with which to furnish your loved one as a sign of engagement.

The 21st Century
The history of the engagement ring has moved on and demand for diamonds and platinum diamond engagement rings is still rising. The tradition is here to stay. Estimated 78% of all engagement rings sold every year are diamond.

what do materialistic goods have to do with committment or intent to marry?

A thread earlier this week went on a tangent and briefly discussed how some cultures forbid ornate decoration / diamonds on wedding bands.... I brought up the point that a band is a religious symbol, and is not supposed to provide adornment or 'bling'. Rather, it is a solemn reminder of vows taken before God to be true to your spouse....

never forget the entire purpose of a wedding... it's not the tulle, the party, the bling, the gifts.... it's about committing to your spouse and start of a household! To lose sight of the basics will inevitably set a person up for a major disappointment once the guests return home....

ok, that's the end of my preachy soliloquy...

---

Posted by portjeffbride

what do materialistic goods have to do with committment or intent to marry?

A thread earlier this week went on a tangent and briefly discussed how some cultures forbid ornate decoration / diamonds on wedding bands.... I brought up the point that a band is a religious symbol, and is not supposed to provide adornment or 'bling'. Rather, it is a solemn reminder of vows taken before God to be true to your spouse....

never forget the entire purpose of a wedding... it's not the tulle, the party, the bling, the gifts.... it's about committing to your spouse and start of a household! To lose sight of the basics will inevitably set a person up for a major disappointment once the guests return home....

ok, that's the end of my preachy soliloquy...

---

Amen. . . that is what I was trying to get across up top. Too much focus on the day itself makes people lose focus on the actual committment that they are making...what happens to the relationship when you dont have 'wedding details' to talk about anymore. FH and I try not to let the wedding consume our lives and ALL our conversations. JMO...sorry to preach.

---

Posted by MJDoc12

I just wanted to post this, cause we all make a big deal of the diamond e-ring and such, when in reality it was just something that the DeBeers corporation used to get ppl to want diamonds and raise sales back in the late 1940's:



The history of the engagement ring is more about myth and fantasy than actual fact until you enter the 20th Century when a marked turn of events shapes public opinion beyond all doubt.
Today almost everyone's interpretation of the engagement ring is something along these lines: 'A symbol of ever lasting purity, love, devotion and commitment between two people'. But where did it all start?

The earliest surviving records have shown that Archduke Maximillian of Hamburg may have started the trend among the European wealthy and royalty of giving diamond engagement rings in 1477 by giving Mary of Burgundy a diamond betrothal ring.

What happened before 1477? Was there such a thing as an engagement ring and if so were they set with diamonds?

Pre - History
Lets go back to our ancestors, 'prehistoric man' who are supposed to have tied the woman's arms and legs together so she could not escape. It wasn't an attempt at deviant sexual acts, but it wasn't the most flattering way to show how you care either!

Eventually the 'bride's' legs would have been released and if she made no attempt to run away then she would just have worn a tied cord with a trailing end around one of her little fingers.

It's certainly an interesting theory ahem!...

Ancient History
The ancient Roman's called their engagement ring the betrothal (Truth) ring. The Romans were the first to wear the ring on the third finger of the left hand.

This surviving tradition seems to stem from the Egyptian belief that the vein from this finger leads straight to the heart. It's thought that the Romans were the first to start inscribing or engraving their rings.

The Middle Ages
The Middle Ages and the Gimmal or 'bond' ring was invented, but it's doubtful that this was an engagement ring design. However, sapphires, emeralds and rubies would have been the norm for those who could afford them.

Because diamond is the hardest and strongest mineral on earth it was seen to resist fire and steel and thus symbolize the unbending union of a man and woman in wedlock. So it became more commonplace for the European super wealthy and royalty to give a diamond engagement ring at this time.

Less wealthy citizens would have given a Fede (faith) ring in the form of two clasped hands more akin to the more modern claddagh (clasped hands) engagement rings.

The 18th Century
Diamonds became more readily available when diamonds were discovered in Brazil. Diamond cluster engagement rings were fashionable among the wealthy.

The 19th Century
In South Africa 1870, the vast, newly discovered Kimberley diamond region began to flood the market with not so rare a gem after all! The supply increased whilst the prices fell.

Within 10 years the now famous De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd. was formed by the Englishman Cecil John Rhodes to control the sale of diamonds throughout the world. Even today they control 65% of the world's diamond trade.

At this time during the history of the engagement ring, the diamond rush gave rise to the notion that the various birthstones were seen to be a rarity (and more desirable) compared to the diamond.

Elaborate engagement rings of sapphire, emerald and rubies (and other precious gems) with diamond accents were therefore more commonplace among those with appropriate wealth.

The 20th Century
From 1880 De Beers were able to control the supply (and price) of diamonds but how were they going to control demand during a period when sales began dropping dramatically (up to 50%) in the 20s and 30s onwards through the great depression?

Just as platinum started to become popular in diamond engagement rings, diamonds were becoming less valued. Platinum was banned for all but war use during WWII and so the platinum diamond engagement rings as we know them today almost died out.

The answer to the problem was a new marketing campaign commissioned by De Beers that began in 1947. Perhaps you've heard the slogan 'A Diamond is forever'? This was to mark the beginning of a change in the history of the engagement ring.

Subsequent campaigns would convince families to hold on to their diamonds as family heirlooms... and it worked! Used diamonds were not being released back into the industry which in turn created the demand that De Beers were seeking.

Jewelers were unofficially educated by De Beers to instruct men that two to three months personal wages were an ideal price to pay for the diamond engagement ring that their prospective fiancée's would gladly accept.

In 1953 the world's two most glamorous women of the time Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russell were the stars of the hit film musical Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.

The plot involves Monroe and Russell chasing potential husbands on a cruise to France. The movie also features a very famous song sung by the blonde bombshell Marilyn Monroe, Diamonds Are A Girls Best Friend.

This film would have undoubtedly influenced public opinion at the time and will have advanced the popularity of diamonds for years afterwards through Hollywood glamour.

The film is now 50 years old but it's still a firm favorite of all who love Hollywood and the legend of Monroe. (Of course there are others: High Society, Breakfast At Tiffany’s, Diamonds Are Forever among them)

This is where the tradition of the diamond engagement ring really started, all from an advertising campaign that literally 'rocked' the world! (Get it? 'rocked'.... okay I'll shut up!) So you see buying a diamond engagement ring isn't really a popular ancient tradition.

It's more a combination of 'dreaming of being a princess', a clever marketing campaign and compelling Hollywood glamour that ultimately promotes diamonds as the only jewels with which to furnish your loved one as a sign of engagement.

The 21st Century
The history of the engagement ring has moved on and demand for diamonds and platinum diamond engagement rings is still rising. The tradition is here to stay. Estimated 78% of all engagement rings sold every year are diamond.

---

This is very interesting! Thanks for posting it!

If he officially asked her then yes, I think the ring is insignificant. Personally, I would've said yes if I was asked without a ring because I don't feel the ring makes it official. I think your commitment to eachother is what makes it official but it was much nicer with the ring.

it doesn't matter if you have a ring or not BUT the whole are they engaged or not engaged thing depends on a few things...If they had a serious talk and he said yes i want to marry you, or something along those lines, and he is serious about it, and they have serious conversations now about their wedding plans, not those conversations almost every couple has, the oh wouldnt it be nice if we did this or that.

If they both are serious and both want to get married and consider themselves engaged then yes they are.

If they just casually talked about it, then that is different...Im sorry but i know some girls who pressure their bf's and dont shut up about it and always giving them hints, and the guy after a while is just gonna yes them to shut them up, but they actually never end up proposing. They might just say yes i want to marry but to them its yes one day eventually down the line i will, but not that he is actually thinking about this seriously

---

Posted by Espo22

it doesn't matter if you have a ring or not BUT the whole are they engaged or not engaged thing depends on a few things...If they had a serious talk and he said yes i want to marry you, or something along those lines, and he is serious about it, and they have serious conversations now about their wedding plans, not those conversations almost every couple has, the oh wouldnt it be nice if we did this or that.

If they both are serious and both want to get married and consider themselves engaged then yes they are.

If they just casually talked about it, then that is different...Im sorry but i know some girls who pressure their bf's and dont shut up about it and always giving them hints, and the guy after a while is just gonna yes them to shut them up, but they actually never end up proposing. They might just say yes i want to marry but to them its yes one day eventually down the line i will, but not that he is actually thinking about this seriously

---

i agree, i have friends who have had 'the talk' and basically think they are 'engaged' but then the guy never mentions it again until the girl is like 'uuhh whats next' LOL and this repeats many times . . . .

To me the ring is secondary (coming from a girl who's FH cant afford one) as long as the two people involved love each other and one asks the other to marry them and the other accepts, they are engaged. The ring is more a modern thing as well, for many centuries they dindt exchange engagement rings, just wedding bands. Some vendors may not take you 'as' seriously as if you had a ring, but their opinion doesnt matter.

Least thats my opinion