At New York Magazine, Chloe Angyal has a piece about Facebook photos of engagement rings. She doesn’t like them, but I don’t think she goes far enough in her disdain for the whole thing:
I’m almost four years out of college, and around me, the dominoes are starting to fall. Of course, they aren’t all going to get engaged, and certainly not all at once. But it can feel that way thanks to Facebook’s relationship updates, and to an in-your-face trend those updates enable: the stand-alone engagement ring photo op. Because, as daunting as seeing my acquaintances getting hitched left and right can be (this adulthood thing is not really going away!), I’m thrilled, delighted, tickled pink, and other adjectives, for all of them. But the subset for whom I’m slightly less tickled are those who insist on posting pictures of their newly bedazzled left hands — just the hands — on Facebook to announce the changes in their relationship statuses. Call it the context-free diamond; even if the stones are ethically sourced, the status update is irksome.
It’s funny that she cites a third-world problem in this piece about a first-world problem.
A picture and Facebook – and doubly so for a Facebook picture – is about jamming as many “words” as possible into one image. The problem is that the ring has become so symbolic of the engagement in the first place that all pixels have gravitated to the small area of the body which is now known as the ring finger. Like a book jacket or an abstract or the Facebook profile pic or a cover letter to a resume, that image tells you all you need to know about the piece of information that, according to Angyal, deserves delight. But if you want to avoid this symbolism, you should get rid of the entire concept of the engagement ring, or rail against the pressure men face in purchasing them. But Angyal is a feminist so she doesn’t think along those lines. She’s forever looking for ways in which women are made to feel bad, and in this case the in-your-face bling causes her Sunday morning nausea:
Of course, the engagement ring is symbolic of more than just wealth. Once, it was virginity insurance; now, most couples would say, it’s a mark of commitment and a metaphor for the happy brilliance of love. Symbols are powerful things; the average American couple spends $5200 on the bride’s engagement ring, and then another $1126 for her wedding band. On one (expensively adorned) hand, that’s an investment you might want to flaunt. On the other hand, it’s probably plenty potent even without its own Facebook photo album.
And by “the average American couple” she means the “average American man” because it’s not like women are buying engagement rings for themselves or for their husbands-to-be. The outfit sourced by Angyal also indicated that “couples” are purchasing these rings and also shows us that the so-called End of Men – or, precisely, the relative economic rise of women – has not really hindered the engagement ring biz:
Other data reveals that just 14 percent of grooms claimed to have scaled down the size and cost of engagement rings purchased due to the economy, while 1 in 4 grooms spent more than he originally budgeted. Buyers are, however, still spending less than they did a few years ago; today, couples are spending just under $5,200 on the ring, compared with $5,800 for engaged couples in 2008.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Sounds like a young, female writer is upset that she isn’t getting engaged but won’t admit it so she’s redirecting her anger at the ring photos.
Looking at the source data for this “$5,200″ survey, it appears to be an Internet poll of brides who were using TheKnot.com or WeddingChannel.com. In other words, TOTES rigorous enough for a lib-arts major at New York magazine.
1) Not a random sample
2) The BRIDES were estimating the cost of the engagement ring. Most couldn’t know the actual amount unless their new hubby is one of those tacky guys who says things like “order anything you want!” when they go to a restaurant. Others probably guessed inaccurately from the insurance appraisal, which always exaggerates the amount on the high side.
3) Lion Of The Blogosphere once posited that moissanite could be the engagement ring choice of the recession, but this doesn’t appear to have panned out (link below)
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=moissanite
From a provider beta perspective, the ring showing-off trend is great. One of a very few trends of recent years that actually helps betas. Many of us know how those vague, cynical promises of marriage are a key part of alpha game in Bible Belt America (see: Levi Johnston, Dinesh D’Souza) and how being the “FIANCEEEE” gives their partner a magical glow in that world. So grown-up!
The “show me your ring” trend makes it tougher for those dudes to co-opt the fiance glow on the cheap.
In the realm of wedding rings, (we didn’t do engagement ring) my husband and I always feel unabashedly superior to all others.
Our gold came from a dead person whose family forgot to retrieve it from the funeral director. My husband took an ancient desk from his funeral director father. While transporting the drawers, a gold ring rolled out. Finders keepers. The rings were created by an jewelry grad student friend of ours. The diamonds were purchased at an estate sale. Total cost= $1000 for two rings paid to the grad student friend.
correction: I recall that we purchased a bit more gold to make two rings out of one.
The final cost was about $1100 for two rings.
Just go with cubic zirconia, she’ll never know the difference. Use the money you save for something fun like the bachelor party.
Another trend that needs to start on social media is sharing a snazzy wedding-ceremony invitation.
The jerk who married my oneitis at a little Justice of the Peace thingy told her – no joke – that the full reception would be her reward once she “got her associate’s degree.” And she repeated this to her orbiters like this was a great motivator and she believed it! I love congratulating her on her anniversary and saying, “wow, I’ll bet you’re going to get a great reception, huh!” Hopefully it’s caused a few arguments back at home.
Serendipity – the ring issue came up today with Emily Yoffe at Slate, whose anti-ring advice was so wrong…a woman writes in to observe that a fiance avoiding an engagement ring is a red flag, and Yoffe basically says, “oh, that’s OK because MY husband wanted to go low-key.” As if Yoffe’s personal experience as an intellectual, 38-year-old East Coast SWPL marrying a like-minded widower is an any way relatable to how things work in Red America.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2013/01/dear_prudence_is_my_engagement_ring_diamond_too_small.html
Q. Re: The value of the relationship is tied up in the size of that rock: When I got engaged, I insisted on no ring. I knew my fiancé probably couldn’t afford it anyway, and I’d rather have a down payment to a house. Well he did a 180 and bailed on me in the middle of wedding planning. My family and I lost money, and he was able to walk away with no consequences. (Interestingly enough he decided to bail when a financial commitment was required of his family.) If I had asked for an engagement ring, he would have bailed a lot faster minus the embarrassing announcement/renege and without the loss of money. I cannot tell you HOW MANY people said this is why I needed a damn ring. I felt like an idiot. As valiant as you may think it is, the ring IS a symbol of a guy’s commitment. As I learned the hard way by being naive, what a guy puts into the engagement IS a reflection of his dedication.
A: You are lucky this jerk left before the wedding. Stop fixating on the idea that you would have been saved this heartache if you got a ring. I assure you the absence of an engagement ring is not the sign of lack of committment. I say this as someone married to a great guy for 18 years, and all I’ve got to show in the jewelry department is a gold band.
I would rather find a woman who would prefer an M86A1 as an engagement gift. Much more useful.
She thinks that “the average American couple” spends whatever the amount is because she considers the boyfriend’s income to belong to the two of them.
“Ethically sourced” diamonds. LOLZ!
We married late in life (both of us for the first time): I was 46 and she was 39, and I told her engagement rings were for 22-year olds. She was really ticked, but I held firm and offered a much bigger ring for our tenth anniversary (with the idea in the back of my mind that we might not make it that long).
Well, ten years flew by and I had to make good, so I did. Last June was No. 15 and still going strong. One never knows, do one?
Not many 22-year-olds have that kind of money lying around.
At over $5k a pop, these rings may well have something to do with the crashing marriage rate amongst the young.
If I were a parent asked for some help with something like that, I’d make my son get a prenup with a clause stating she’s got to give the ring back if she leaves the marriage, or fork over the equivalent in cash (learned that lesson hard way).
BTW, Lara’s right about the cubic zirconia — just don’t go overboard and make it look like something you couldn’t afford, and you’ll probably get away with it.