Is the idea of the man paying for the engagement ring out of his own pocket outdated? Who should pay for the engagement ring?
Traditional wisdom says that men should splurge at least three months of their salary on buying their beloved their ideal engagement ring. But with rising debt levels and women often earning the same (or more!) than their partners, should the custom change?
For a lot of women, the idea of their fiance entering debt or paying more than they can afford for a shiny rock is ridiculous. Why enter married life with such a financial imposition? Especially since gender roles have equalised in the past fifty years, it seems like the idea of putting the burden of the engagement diamond on the man’s shoulders is continuing old-school tasks that should’ve been abolished a long time ago.
On the other hand, some women believe it’s a sign of romance and sacrifice that the man would commit himself financially to her with such an enormous purchase. They also love the thrill of surprise when they see what ring he decided she’d love the most.
There is a compromise though. More and more couples are going dutch on the engagement ring, only spending exactly what they can afford. Halving the cost of a diamond means that each person in the couple is involved in the purchasing process and they are able to save or splurge according to their budget. Maybe the couple would prefer an extravagant honeymoon as opposed to the old three-month salary rule rock.
What do you think? Do you think women should start going halvies on the ring? Who should pay for the engagement ring?