sharing cost of ring

[TooPatient]

Here is a good LIW question:

What do you think about the woman paying for 1/2 of her E-ring? Is this good/bad? Why?

 

[sunnyd]

Good. Becoming engaged to be married is a joint decision, so why shouldn''t the ring be a joint purchase?

I paid for a little less than half of my ering because it would have taken FI another year or so to save up for it. What can I say, we were antsy.

 

[Snicklefritz]

I paid for 1/3 of my ering and it''s worked out great for me so far. If it doesn''t go against any spoken or unspoken codes in your relationship, having the woman pay for part of the earing can be a win/win solutions.

 

[vc10um]

I wouldn''t mind paying for part of my E-ring, but I don''t think A will let me!

I''ve showed him a few e-rings I like...but there''s one particular WB I''m dying for. Regardless of whatever he chooses for my e-ring, I want that WB, so if that''s out of his price range, I''ll happily chip in to make up the difference, and I don''t think he''ll mind at that point, since he knows how much I''ve been lusting after it!

 

[Luckyeshe]

I agree with the other ladies. If it''s possible to get engaged sooner (like in sunnyd''s case) or if it''d get you the ring of your dreams and there are no upgrades later, why can''t it be a joint purchase? My FI wanted to do it all on his own, but I would have been more than happy to pitch in to get exactly what I want. Fortunately for me, he knew what I wanted and got it anyways.

 

[*Danielle*]

I would help in a heartbeat. The sentiment is what is important to me.

 

[AustenNut]

I'm a traditionalist and would prefer that my FF pay for the entire ring. I also know that it's what my bf prefers, particularly since right now I'm in a financially stronger position than he is. But I'm also happy to get a relatively inexpensive ring, and to wear it as my forever ring. I'd been planning on a gemstone ring, but we popped into a jewelry store the other day and he was kind of like, "But aren't diamonds traditional?" and though I gave him some e-ring history, I might have to look more into diamonds if that really is his preference of what to get me.

Anyway, long story short, I prefer that he pays entirely.

 

[BlingADing]

I''m old-fashioned and love chivalry. I think asking for permission, saving up for the ring, surprising the girl is such a charming old-fashioned thing to do. Everyone has different preferences and it really depends on your situation: ie. in grad school, buying a house, etc...

 

[Sizzle]

I don''t see the big deal either way. I never really understood the whole "surprise" proposal concept anyway. It''s the biggest decision of my life, so what''s up with the springing the actual question out of the blue or in public? There are so many other romantic opportunities. I also don''t get the whole pick out the ring without including me and pray I''ll like it".. Why put that kind of pressure on someone? .. I am married and we came to a joint decision to get married but he STILL did the whole ask on one knee thing one night.. It was cute, but not necessary.

 

[lilyfoot]

Date: 10/13/2009 7:27:20 PM
Author: Luckyeshe
I agree with the other ladies. If it''s possible to get engaged sooner (like in sunnyd''s case) or if it''d get you the ring of your dreams and there are no upgrades later, why can''t it be a joint purchase? My FI wanted to do it all on his own, but I would have been more than happy to pitch in to get exactly what I want. Fortunately for me, he knew what I wanted and got it anyways.

I totally agree with this.

Personally, me and the BF live together and completely share our money. So, "technically", I guess I am paying for half of the ring, because our money is really our money.

But if our finances weren''t combined, honestly, I wouldn''t want to pay for any portion of my engagement ring. I would never ask for anything over what he could afford, and I know there''s no way he would ever let me pitch in anyway.

 

[princessplease]

I paid for some of my ring, because like sunnyd, it would''ve taken FI about two more years to save up for the ring. We both wanted to be engaged so badly, so I paid for some of the ring. Marriage is about the couple working towards their goals, so why not pay for the ring jointly?

 

[princesss]

I don''t think there''s anything wrong with it as long as the couple agrees it''s what is best for them, and it''s not used as a way to a) push the guy before he''s ready and b) steamroll over his objections and contribute to it solely because you want a bigger/better/fancier ring than he can afford. Ultimately, though, it''s up to the couple to make the decision, and everybody should do what''s best for them.

 

[Amzizzle]

My FF and I have live together for years and also have a joint bank account,so were not sure who really paid for it lol!

 

[tlh]

I''m old fashioned in that I like chivalry, asking for permission -- surprise proposal etc.

I''m new world in that I know divorce does happen 51% of the time... so I wanted it to HURT- so that he HAD to save up for a long time, so that both of us had the time (and agony) to really think about our compatability, and if marriage is the right thing for US. I felt that he suffered from the financial hardship of giving up things he may have wanted to purchase w/ the ring savings, and I in turn suffered (and not in silence) by the waiting.

Sometimes TIME is an important and often overlooked factor in this world of extended credit, and I HAVE to have it NOWs. Everything is so immediate, and our society is based around consumables. And sometimes waiting, and really thinking about what a commitment marriage is... matters. Because the things you go through and experience, on both ends as a LIW and a GIW, really forces you to deal with a lot of emotional baggage and other issues together as a couple... that are more than just an object (a ring).

That said, to each his own. If a couple wanted to get married, and a woman wanted to chip in... I DO NOT have an issue with this either. Because when you are married, his money IS your money and his debt IS YOUR debt. So dealing with this practically - it really wouldn''t make a difference who''s pot the money originally came from... because when married - it is all just one pot.
But keep in mind, the ring is a symbol of a life he can offer you. (Or that is the commerical intentions behind it.) So there is something that is subconciously spoken when the woman chips in for the payment of the ring. Subconciously - it sends a message that anytime you want something and it is important to you - YOU''LL have to make it happen. But then I know many men who would ring their lady and be married today, if she didn''t have what he considered impossibly high expectations based upon her perceived worth in her social circle - and the carat on that finger. So if that were the case, then chipping in is an excellent solution to the problem.

However I in no way endorse a woman chipping in for the ring, when there are other issues on the table- and it is a way to pressure him into a decision or make things sooo easy for a man who may not really be ready or want to marry.

 

[lucyandroger]

Date: 10/14/2009 10:56:49 AM
Author: tlh
I'm old fashioned in that I like chivalry, asking for permission -- surprise proposal etc.

I'm new world in that I know divorce does happen 51% of the time... so I wanted it to HURT- so that he HAD to save up for a long time, so that both of us had the time (and agony) to really think about our compatability, and if marriage is the right thing for US. I felt that he suffered from the financial hardship of giving up things he may have wanted to purchase w/ the ring savings, and I in turn suffered (and not in silence) by the waiting.

Sometimes TIME is an important and often overlooked factor in this world of extended credit, and I HAVE to have it NOWs. Everything is so immediate, and our society is based around consumables. And sometimes waiting, and really thinking about what a commitment marriage is... matters. Because the things you go through and experience, on both ends as a LIW and a GIW, really forces you to deal with a lot of emotional baggage and other issues together as a couple... that are more than just an object (a ring).

That said, to each his own. If a couple wanted to get married, and a woman wanted to chip in... I DO NOT have an issue with this either. Because when you are married, his money IS your money and his debt IS YOUR debt. So dealing with this practically - it really wouldn't make a difference who's pot the money originally came from... because when married - it is all just one pot.
But keep in mind, the ring is a symbol of a life he can offer you. (Or that is the commerical intentions behind it.) So there is something that is subconciously spoken when the woman chips in for the payment of the ring. Subconciously - it sends a message that anytime you want something and it is important to you - YOU'LL have to make it happen. But then I know many men who would ring their lady and be married today, if she didn't have what he considered impossibly high expectations based upon her perceived worth in her social circle - and the carat on that finger. So if that were the case, then chipping in is an excellent solution to the problem.

However I in no way endorse a woman chipping in for the ring, when there are other issues on the table- and it is a way to pressure him into a decision or make things sooo easy for a man who may not really be ready or want to marry.

Awesome post!

ETA- BF and I are currently buying a house. At one point, we thought his ring fund was going to be necessary to cover closing costs. Luckily it turned out we won't need to touch that money. If we had, I certainly would have split the cost of the ering with him! At this point it all feels like OUR money anyway.

 

[TooPatient]

I''m torn on this issue. I''ve been thinking about it a lot the last few weeks.

I think it is fine (good even) to share the cost if it is right for the couple.

I''ve seen some great points that leave me leaning towards wanting to split the cost 50/50. But then I keep reading and see some more great points that leave me leaning towards waiting for him to purchase the entire thing himself.


Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. Keep them coming.

 

[FrekeChild]

FYI TLH, there isn''t really a reliable way to measure the "divorce rate" so any statistics you hear regarding that particular topic are essentially made up.

My dad, the divorce attorney, estimates it to be around 40%, taken from personal experience.
My FI, the statistician, says there is no reliable way to measure this because there isn''t any one agency (Census for example) that does any kind of detailed enough survey to get an accurate measure.

Now, if there was a "National Divorce Rate Agency" that sent out detailed surveys to 100% of the marriageable (read: pf age) population that published statistics, then THAT might be reliable. But what the Census collects (which is usually the data used) is not.

"Have you been divorced?" is not a reliable question to base ANYTHING off of. Especially once every ten years.

Now if it was, "Have you been married in the past year?" "Have you been divorced in the past year?" How many times have you been married?" "How many times have you been divorced?" etc, then we might be getting somewhere.

But those outliers that get divorced 4-5 times artificially raise those numbers that are out there now.

 

[princesss]

Date: 10/14/2009 12:29:46 PM
Author: FrekeChild
FYI TLH, there isn''t really a reliable way to measure the ''divorce rate'' so any statistics you hear regarding that particular topic are essentially made up.

My dad, the divorce attorney, estimates it to be around 40%, taken from personal experience.
My FI, the statistician, says there is no reliable way to measure this because there isn''t any one agency (Census for example) that does any kind of detailed enough survey to get an accurate measure.

Now, if there was a ''National Divorce Rate Agency'' that sent out detailed surveys to 100% of the marriageable (read: pf age) population that published statistics, then THAT might be reliable. But what the Census collects (which is usually the data used) is not.

''Have you been divorced?'' is not a reliable question to base ANYTHING off of. Especially once every ten years.

Now if it was, ''Have you been married in the past year?'' ''Have you been divorced in the past year?'' How many times have you been married?'' ''How many times have you been divorced?'' etc, then we might be getting somewhere.

But those outliers that get divorced 4-5 times artificially raise those numbers that are out there now.

To track it accurately, wouldn''t you have to have basically a record of every marriage in the country, and then check it every year? "Still married? Okay, good." "Still married? Oops, sorry to bring up a sore point, Mrs. Robins- Ms. Greene." It''s an overwhelming idea - I can''t even imagine putting it into effect.

 

[BlingADing]

Date: 10/14/2009 10:56:49 AM
Author: tlh
I''m old fashioned in that I like chivalry, asking for permission -- surprise proposal etc.

Sometimes TIME is an important and often overlooked factor in this world of extended credit, and I HAVE to have it NOWs. Everything is so immediate, and our society is based around consumables. And sometimes waiting, and really thinking about what a commitment marriage is... matters. Because the things you go through and experience, on both ends as a LIW and a GIW, really forces you to deal with a lot of emotional baggage and other issues together as a couple... that are more than just an object (a ring).

But keep in mind, the ring is a symbol of a life he can offer you.

I thought you were quoting me! LOL...we''re totally on the same page.
If you are 19 or 20 years old, been with your guy since high school, I absolutely think you should wait longer. Being together for 5 years through the teenage years is completely different than dating for 5 years as adults (Real adults that have to deal with real adult issues). So many people evolve and change through their 20''s prematurely get engaged because they''ve been together 4, 5, or 6 years since they were 14! Now, if you''re both mature independent adults and you''ve been waiting 6, 7, 8 years...time to get a move on...but of all things, do not help pay for the ring to speed things along. The symbolism there is just wrong. (that''s me...not everyone has to agree).

 

[princessplease]

TLH-
The fact that I contributed to my ring does NOT subconsciously say anything about me or that I''ll have to act when I want something from
him. It was a joint decision to get engaged, and it was a joint purchase, just like our house and items for the house, kids, etc will be. My ring was not pricey at all and FI was saving, but realistically told me it would take him quite some time to save it all up because he is the breadwinner in our relationship. He was willing to do it on his own but didn''t want to wait to propose. I know you can marry without a ring but the ring was important to fi. If you think I''m impaitent or anything else, then so be it. Fi did not ask me to contribute; I offered. The decision wasn''t materialistic or anything, and I did not give a lot, but I did give something. Fi saved and cut back a lot, but still was struggling to save, so I offered. I have no problems or qualms with paying for some of the ring. By no means did I pressure fi to propose by offering to contribute to the ring. He initiated the engagement and marriage talk, not me. The ring is OUR symbol of OUR committment to a life together, so paying for it jointly was the appropriate decision for us.

 

[princesss]

Date: 10/14/2009 1:42:54 PM
Author: princessplease
TLH-
The fact that I contributed to my ring does NOT subconsciously say anything about me or that I''ll have to act when I want something from
him. It was a joint decision to get engaged, and it was a joint purchase, just like our house and items for the house, kids, etc will be. My ring was not pricey at all and FI was saving, but realistically told me it would take him quite some time to save it all up because he is the breadwinner in our relationship. He was willing to do it on his own but didn''t want to wait to propose. I know you can marry without a ring but the ring was important to fi. If you think I''m impaitent or anything else, then so be it. Fi did not ask me to contribute; I offered. The decision wasn''t materialistic or anything, and I did not give a lot, but I did give something. Fi saved and cut back a lot, but still was struggling to save, so I offered. I have no problems or qualms with paying for some of the ring. By no means did I pressure fi to propose by offering to contribute to the ring. He initiated the engagement and marriage talk, not me. The ring is OUR symbol of OUR committment to a life together, so paying for it jointly was the appropriate decision for us.

I love that logic. Engagement is a big step that needs to be discussed and decided on BEFORE the actual proposal, and honestly, we all end up paying for part of our e-ring in some way or another anyways. Whether it''s picking up the tab for dates more often because they''re trying to save, paying more of the bills, or just us cutting back totally as well to help them save, we help(whether it comes out of our pockets and goes directly into the ring fund or not).

 

[princessplease]

Thnk princesss. It all about what works for you and your FF/FI. Just like FI and I determined how to pay bills when we moved in together, there was a financial decision to me made with the ring, and how the ring was paid for was what worked for us. If you feel comfortable with contributing, as does your FF/FI, then do it. If you and/or FF/FI don''t feel comfortable with you contributing to the ring, then don''t pay. With that, we all are entitled to our own opinions, and what works for me may not work for you, but don''t generalize about those of us who''ve contributed.

 

[fieryred33143]

It depends on the reason why.

If she''s paying for half in order to get her bf to propose faster or as an incentive for him to hurry up with his purchase, then bad.

But if the couple made a mutual decision to view the ring as an "investment" and both contributed towards that "investment", then good.

 

[sunnyd]

Date: 10/14/2009 10:56:49 AM
Author: tlh

But keep in mind, the ring is a symbol of a life he can offer you. (Or that is the commerical intentions behind it.) So there is something that is subconciously spoken when the woman chips in for the payment of the ring. Subconciously - it sends a message that anytime you want something and it is important to you - YOU''LL have to make it happen.

I think this is a pretty outdated notion. Carat size doesn''t equal quality of life in my book. Like you said, his debt becomes my debt in a month anyway, so what different would it have made? This way, we got to have no debt because my ring was paid for in cash.

 

[bee*]

Date: 10/14/2009 9:49:29 AM
Author: princesss
I don''t think there''s anything wrong with it as long as the couple agrees it''s what is best for them, and it''s not used as a way to a) push the guy before he''s ready and b) steamroll over his objections and contribute to it solely because you want a bigger/better/fancier ring than he can afford. Ultimately, though, it''s up to the couple to make the decision, and everybody should do what''s best for them.

This is exactly what I feel. Personally I like the fact that D saved up and bought my ering for me but each couple should definitely do what''s best for them.

 

[4ever]

I think it''s fine to help pay for the ring. I didn''t contribute towards the ring because a) I''m a broke uni student with some uni debt and b) BF wouldn''t have let me. He''s very proud that he managed to pay for a nice ring for me and I think me helping would be taken as a bit of a dig at his masculinity.

 

[Haven]

As long as you''re paying cash for the ring, I don''t really have an opinion either way regarding who pays for what percentage of it.

My husband paid for my ring on his own, he wouldn''t have it any other way. Had he wanted to split the cost, I would have been fine with that, too.

 

[musey]

Date: 10/14/2009 10:56:49 AM
Author: tlh
But keep in mind, the ring is a symbol of a life he can offer you. (Or that is the commerical intentions behind it.) So there is something that is subconciously spoken when the woman chips in for the payment of the ring. Subconciously - it sends a message that anytime you want something and it is important to you - YOU''LL have to make it happen.

Hubs is not my meal ticket, he is my partner.


When *I* want something, *I* make it happen. This was true before I met my husband, and it''s still true now. My wants are my responsibility. My needs (and his) are our responsibility. I do not mean this solely in a financial sense.

All that said, my husband paid for my engagement ring and wedding band. I paid for his. It was something he wanted to do, and while I would have been happy to chip in, it mattered more to him than it did to me... so I deferred to him.


Freke, the last semi-reliable (ie. not really at all

) statistic I heard was actually only 34%, but I don''t know the source - it was shared verbally in a marriage & family composition course I took in college, taught by a woman who used to work for the census bureau. I''m right there with you on the impossible-to-know front, and to be perfectly honest, I could care less what percentage of marriages end in divorce. It is meaningless to me and has no bearing on my life or marriage. Just because whatever percent of people get divorced, doesn''t mean I will or won''t.

 

[Sizzle]

Date: 10/15/2009 12:40:13 AM
Author: musey

Date: 10/14/2009 10:56:49 AM
Author: tlh
But keep in mind, the ring is a symbol of a life he can offer you. (Or that is the commerical intentions behind it.) So there is something that is subconciously spoken when the woman chips in for the payment of the ring. Subconciously - it sends a message that anytime you want something and it is important to you - YOU''LL have to make it happen.

Hubs is not my meal ticket, he is my partner.


When *I* want something, *I* make it happen. This was true before I met my husband, and it''s still true now. My wants are my responsibility. My needs (and his) are our responsibility. I do not mean this solely in a financial sense.

All that said, my husband paid for my engagement ring and wedding band. I paid for his. It was something he wanted to do, and while I would have been happy to chip in, it mattered more to him than it did to me... so I deferred to him.


Freke, the last semi-reliable (ie. not really at all

) statistic I heard was actually only 34%, but I don''t know the source - it was shared verbally in a marriage & family composition course I took in college, taught by a woman who used to work for the census bureau. I''m right there with you on the impossible-to-know front, and to be perfectly honest, I could care less what percentage of marriages end in divorce. It is meaningless to me and has no bearing on my life or marriage. Just because whatever percent of people get divorced, doesn''t mean I will or won''t.

Yes, I''m definately not into the "asking" for my hand or looking at my ring as a "Symbol of the life he can offer me". That symbol comes in the form of sitting down with me and making joint decisions. Asking what I want, and telling me what he wants and working together to make those things happen. I a job of my own. I can offer MYSELF material things should I so choose. I am blessed that he is also gainfully employed, but should something happen to him where he could not work. As long as he continued to love and respect me and value our love, THAT life he offers me on a daily basis is a greater gift than any ring, necklace or bracelet someone could buy.

There are plenty of people who have fallen on hard times as of late. I think when a man is placed in a position where he offered you a 3 carat "symbol" and then loses his 6 figure income without any prospects in site.... how is he supposed to feel when he can''t give you that lifestyle anymore? There are plenty of people who have saved up for a long time to buy a ring and gotten divorced months later. There are plenty that got no diamond and used a cheap silver band in vegas and have been together for years. In the end, a ring is a material object with a value you assign to it.

 

[AdiS]

Date: 10/15/2009 12:40:13 AM
Author: musey

Date: 10/14/2009 10:56:49 AM
Author: tlh
But keep in mind, the ring is a symbol of a life he can offer you. (Or that is the commerical intentions behind it.) So there is something that is subconciously spoken when the woman chips in for the payment of the ring. Subconciously - it sends a message that anytime you want something and it is important to you - YOU''LL have to make it happen.

Hubs is not my meal ticket, he is my partner.


When *I* want something, *I* make it happen. This was true before I met my husband, and it''s still true now. My wants are my responsibility. My needs (and his) are our responsibility. I do not mean this solely in a financial sense.

All that said, my husband paid for my engagement ring and wedding band. I paid for his. It was something he wanted to do, and while I would have been happy to chip in, it mattered more to him than it did to me... so I deferred to him.

Totally agree, musey. No offence, tlh, but something about this statement "the ring is a symbol of a life he can offer you" just rubs me the wrong way. Personally, when I got engaged, I didn''t want hubby to "offer" me anything but himself, which he did. Just to be clear, he did pay for my e-ring because it was important to him. Later, when he got me my upgrade, we already had combined finances so there was no "his money" and "my money" anymore. And I got him a watch.