Women: would you marry a guy without a diamond ring?

[5150guy]

Originally Posted by superdave
How about the best year of his life, father to your children and his fidelity if you are lucky. Since those things obviously merit equal worth to a woman, the woman still nets a diamond ring from the deal. So we are back to square one and why the ring is still a big deal.


Nope - an older man's value INCREASES and he does not NEED to be faithfull in order to secure his progeny.

Sorry, but the double standard bites men in the ass.

Men value beauty and women value security. When men regularly start valuing women for MORE than *just* their external beauty, maybe. Till then sorry, you boyz are left slaves to your drives.

I have got to say that I agree with Super Dave on this one, and he is one of the few men who has had the backbone to bring this up with such candor.

Women do not have to be faithfull to secure their progeny either. IF this were the case, there would be far less women cheating on their husbands and having kids outside of wedlock, much less state resources being dedicated to ORS in persuing dead beat dads and dead beat mothers and society would not be burdened with the plague of professional welfare mothers.

I cant count the number of mothers that i have come accross in my profession who have kids by three to five different men, and my coleagues have this happen to them a great deal as well.

My sister and I compare notes with her clients. She works for a rather high end divorce attorney in AZ, and she sees similar things in the divorces of the well to do professional people as well. So I don't think a woman's fidelity has any relevance to this whole issue. We have compared the clients and the number of paternity tests that have had to be done to either prove or disprove that a given man is the father of a given child, and the end results more often than not provide script material for Jerry Springer.

What a man gives to a woman is of equal value-the best year of his life, his fidelity(it is practically a crap shoot for both marital partners now days that they will have a faithfull partner) and his being a father to THEIR Projeny and yet she still gets the ring.

I would beg to differ with you on this next point as well. Accross the general population, a man's value does NOT [increase] as he ages. There are the Don Trumps who are worth much more as a senior citizen than they were when in their prime, and we have all seen what he is able to do in the dating and marriage world becuase he is so wealthy, [and alot of women think he is a sexist pig, and many women silenty would love to be rented by Mr Trump bad hair cut and all].

However, Trump probably rents his women[ a face, vagina, and uterus] for at least a million a year as a part of an iron clad prenup, and then rents new woman flesh when the old model "needs replaced". However, he and the other big time sugardadies have NO more probablity [or guarentee] that his wives will be faithfull to him than joe six pack, and in no concieveable way can any of these women be considered victims or morally superior to Mr Trump.

Furthermore, a man who spends his early years struggling to establish himself and to pay for children can not go back and fullfil his dream of going to medical school or being a [classically trained] musican---he is too old now ect. His being a good husband and a good father has cost him dreams [and opportunites] as well. However, the way you put it, his sacrifice is discounted wholesale becuase he is man.

The so called double standard has another facet to it as well. When women start dating and marrying men for character, commitment to fatherhood and family, and for the way he treats his fellow human beings.....

So I ask, what really does a man get in return for the huge outlay of cash and/or going into debt for a diamond ring to please a woman and to give her sufficient carbon based dowry that she feels like he really loves her and has demonstrated a sacrifice worthy of her? Where is the equivalant sacrifice and symbol/token of devotion for her husband and what she is able and willing to provide for him--dont say her looks, apearance, opportunity to have sex with her or her ablity to bear children becuase he has to supply the equivalent on the same if not equivalent criteria for her even to consider saying yes to his marriage proposal

How would you defend or justify the sense of entitlement that many women have when it comes to thier prospective husbands making sure they have an adequte rock for them?

If you want to put it in symbolic framework, where and what is the correlating symbol for the man? What does he have to present to the public or to relish in private that X is a symbol of his wife's love, comitment, sacrifice [for him] ect or what ever else the ring is supposed to mean.

Now before all the woman call for my head on a platter, this is meant to raise some questions about societal norms, marital traditions and just what women think real world gender equality is all about. FWIW i have always been taught that women are equal to men in every way. However, their roles, talents and needs are just different and that this is needed to solidify the basic buidling block of society-the family.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

I have got to say that I agree with Super Dave on this one, and he is one of the few men who has had the backbone to bring this up with such candor.

Women do not have to be faithfull to secure their progeny either. IF this were the case, there would be far less women cheating on their husbands and having kids outside of wedlock, much less state resources being dedicated to ORS in persuing dead beat dads and dead beat mothers and society would not be burdened with the plague of professional welfare mothers.

I cant count the number of mothers that i have come accross in my profession who have kids by three to five different men, and my coleagues have this happen to them a great deal as well.

My sister and I compare notes with her clients. She works for a rather high end divorce attorney in AZ, and she sees similar things in the divorces of the well to do professional people as well. So I dont think a woman's fidelity has any relevance to this whole issue. We have compared the clients and the number of paternity tests that have had to be done to either prove or disprove that a given man is the father of a given child, and the end results more often than not provide script material for Jerry Springer.

What a man gives to a woman is of equal value-the best year of his life, his fidelity(it is practically a crap shoot for both marital partners now days that they will have a faithfull partner) and his being a father to THEIR Projeny and yet she still gets the ring.

I would beg to differ with you on this next point as well. Accross the general population, a man's value does NOT as he ages. There are the Don Trumps who are worth much more as a senior citizen than they were when in their prime, and we have all seen what he is able to do in the dating and marriage world becuase he is so wealthy.

However, Trump probably rents his women for at least a million a year as a part of an iron clad prenup, and then rents new woman flesh when the old model "needs replaced". However, he and the other big time sugardadies have NO more probablity that his wives will be faithfull to him than joe six pack.

Furthermore, a man who spent his early years struggling to establish himself and to pay for children can not go back and fullfil his dream of going to medical school or being a musican---he is too old now ect. His being a good husband and a good father has cost him dreams as well. However, the way you put it, his sacrifice is discounted wholesale becuase he is man.

The so called double standard has another facet to it as well. When women start dating and marrying men for character, commitment to fatherhood and family, and for the way he treats his fellow human beings.....

So I ask, what really does a man get in return for the huge outlay of cash and/or going into debt for a diamond ring to please a woman and to give her sufficient carbon based dowry that she feels like he really loves her and has demonstrated a sacrifice worthy of her?

How would you defend or justify the sense of entitlement that many women have when it comes to thier prospective husbands making sure they have an adequte rock for them?

If you want to put it in symbolic framework, where and what is the correlating symbol for the man? What does he have to present to the public or to relish in private that X is a symbol of my wife's love, comitment, sacrifice ect or what ever else the ring is supposed to mean.

Now before all the woman call for my head on a platter, this is meant to raise some questions about societal norms, marital traditions and just what women think equality is all about. FWIW i have always been taught that women are equal to men in every way. However, their roles, talents and needs are just different and that this is needed to solidify the basic buidling block of society-the family.

You are somewhat correct in your assumptions.

As far as renting, everyone "rents" ....The definition of renting is?

The amount is inconsequential based upon the annual income of the "landlord".

Going into debt for a ring is kinda stupid, either you can buy it or you can't.

The amount of committment is what is important. Some committment, a little, not much etc. I "rented" six for a couple years, like an investment, risk vs reward. Trade for time and trade for committment: worked for me. The true test of a human is when they MAKE the committment. I will and we will and you will.... Then there's not a question. Either WE live up to our promise or we don't. Nothing less than the promise is acceptable. So a ring makes no sense to be some sort of marker to establish a relationship. It is a piece of jewelery that one can afford or not. Liken it to a nose ring. If you can buy it you can have it in your nose. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[5150guy]

You are somewhat correct in your assumptions.

As far as renting, everyone "rents" ....The definition of renting is?

The amount is inconsequential based upon the annual income of the "landlord".

Going into debt for a ring is kinda stupid, either you can buy it or you can't.

The amount of committment is what is important. Some committment, a little, not much etc. I "rented" six for a couple years, like an investment, risk vs reward. Trade for time and trade for committment: worked for me. The true test of a human is when they MAKE the committment. I will and we will and you will.... Then there's not a question. Either WE live up to our promise or we don't. Nothing less than the promise is acceptable. So a ring makes no sense to be some sort of marker to establish a relationship. It is a piece of jewelery that one can afford or not. Liken it to a nose ring. If you can buy it you can have it in your nose. Nothing more nothing less.

This can get pretty pragmatic in a hurry, and I agree with you that "a ring makes no sense to be some sort of marker to establish a relationship". However, this still begs the question of why so many women have a sense of entitlement when it comes to a getting a huge rock or one that they feel is symbolic of theit worth and their husbands sacrifice to have the chance for them to be married to that particular woman.

The argument could and in many cases should be raised that if a woman needs a symbol or a man's sacrifice to have the chance to have sex with her in the context of marriage, what does it say about the woman? Also, if you continue in the line of thought that you propose, the ring is nothing more than an additional specialized rent payment made in her preferred currency or at the very least a sunk cost(due to societal norms) for man to get the chance to be married.

However, the issue and question of what symbol or token does the woman provide or offer in reciprocation still remains, and I hope the men and woman on EF chime in and give some honest gender politc free candid answers.

 

[Bikini Mod]

This can get pretty pragmatic in a hurry, and I agree with you that "a ring makes no sense to be some sort of marker to establish a relationship". However, this still begs the question of why so many women have a sense of entitlement when it comes to a getting a huge rock or one that they feel is symbolic of theit worth and their husbands sacrifice to have the chance for them to be married to that particular woman.

The argument could and in many cases should be raised that if a woman needs a symbol or a man's sacrifice to have the chance to have sex with her in the context of marriage, what does it say about the woman? Also, if you continue in the line of thought that you propose, the ring is nothing more than an additional specialized rent payment made in her preferred currency or at the very least a sunk cost(due to societal norms) for man to get the chance to be married.

However, the issue and question of what symbol or token does the woman provide or offer in reciprocation still remains, and I hope the men and woman on EF chime in and give some honest gender politc free candid answers.

You raise some very good points.

The size of the ring or lack thereof really has very little do with a man's worth (in so far as what he brings to the table). My first husband (who I didn't marry for money) bought me a very nice engagement ring and wedding band. One of the ONLY selfless things he ever did in that he bought me the nicest set he could afford even though it was above and beyond what I had asked for. He treated me like garbage and is the scurge of the earth. My LAST husband couldn't even afford to buy our wedding bands (my sister bought them, though they are unique they are made of silver and the two together didn't cost 100$ - though I don't feel the need to volunteer that ) but he has exhibited more strength of character, sensitivity and kindness then I could have ever imagined....

One day my husband will gift me with the engagement ring that I have chosen because he WANTS to spoil me... treat me like no other man has ever desired. And it has naught to do with my sense of entitlement, though we never try to hide that fact that money certainly DID play into the equation. Say whatever you want... you can't pay the rent with love. But he WANTS to give it to me because I don't ask for much... EXCEPT EVERYTHING... as I have already given him everything and then some. I chose HIM to share my only children with.... I shared my family with him and he has my fidelity and support. Apparently he values this...

Don't know what else to say.

We all have to live with our own choices.

I have always looked at the engagement ring as a symbol of what comfort and security the man can provide the woman. As for what he gets in return? If he valued the woman enough to pursue her in the first place and ask her to be his lifemate then only HE can answer that question.... no?

 

[Jon79]

good lord

 

[LoneTree]

If I was a woman, I wouldn't.
I will not marry a 'loser' who can't afford even a tiny fucking diamond ring.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

good lord

AMEN..