Post # 1
Member
24 posts
Newbee
This is mostly a vent and I’ve gone anonymous because this is stupid internal drama and selfishness. I’d love to know what the Hive thinks of no-ring engagments.
I’m afraid that due to expenses related to my moving across the globe to be with my SO there won’t be funds for any ring. He fully intends to propose at his chosen time with or without it though and I’ll be happy having that commitment even with a twist tie for a “ring” but part of me still wishes we could afford the ring we talked about. Instead, the money meant for that might be used to pay for moving some precious live cargo into our new country. I’d leave him with someone and bring him over later but he’s a rescue dog, still unpredictable, and I’m the only person he’s bonded with.
I was the one who brought up cutting the ring from the picture for now until we can afford it but I still hate myself for saying it and even more for still wanting the ring. Hopefully I’m worrying for nothing but unless I get a new job or my crafty skills bring in some money, I think there shall be no ring. Is this odd to be engaged with no ring? Do you consider people engaged without it? I should probably just suck it up and be excited about moving but I can’t help worrying about the looks on people’s faces (specifically my family) when they ask to see the ring and I have to say, “There isn’t one, yet.”
Post # 3
Member
118 posts
Blushing bee
If you want a ring why not just get a stand in for temporary purposes? It may be a good idea to bring up to your SO to get a CZ , moissy or something like that for now until you are both more comfortable with spending money on a lifetime ring, and you will have something to look at and get an idea of what you like and can afford in the meantime.
Atleast this way you can say , this is the ring I am wearing until we can both find something we both love enough to keep for life. Good luck to you and don’t let anyone make you feel awkward about whatever decision you and your SO do make.
Post # 4
Hostess
2997 posts
Sugar bee
It is pretty hard for me to wrap my head around a couple being engaged without a ring. I agree a “stand in” ring might do the trick and you don’t have to break the bank!
Post # 5
Member
2779 posts
Sugar bee
A ring doesn’t make an engagement, it’s simply a symbol of the commitment you are making to eachother. Not having a ring won’t make your commitment any less committed.
Post # 6
Member
9076 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
I don’t think there is anything wrong with a no ring engagement or a no ring marriage.
I don’t need a materialistic object, an overpriced ring of metal and shiny stones to prove to myself, my husband, or to the world that I love my husband and am 100% committed to him.
I don’t need a ring to ward off “suitors” because I love my husband enough to tell them no.
I don’t need a ring as a fashion statement, or a statement based on how “much he loves me” or how much we make.
At the end of the day, I just want to be with my husband, and if that means no formal wedding, no ring, no frills, that’s fine with me.
Post # 7
Member
24 posts
Newbee
I joked with him about being ok with a twist tie dipped in glue and coated in glitter, it’s honestly better than nothing and I think it’s cute but other people have asked if I’m missing my brain. The ring we decided on is a simple petite Tiffany setting with an Amora Moissanite in palladium (I have an allergy). I think he said the price was around $1,500.
I’m feeling better about the idea of a stand-in!
Post # 8
Member
1719 posts
Bumble bee
I was engaged for a few months without a ring. My fiance asked me to marry him and I said yes, therefore we were engaged. A ring means nothing in the grand sceam of things, if the commitment is there then what else do you need? Yes it is the most important piece of jewlery you will ever wear but it is still just jewlery. If you lost your wedding ring and didn’t have one for a while would you still be married? It’s the same thing. Having a ring is really special and it will feel great once it is on your finger and you are selfish for wanting one, but don’t worry to much about not having yet, because it is knowing that your SO is completely commited to you that is important.
Post # 9
Member
1073 posts
Bumble bee
An engagement is an engagement. Rings are nice, but not necessary. I mean, I would still consider a couple married if they didn’t have a traditional wedding, and instead went to the courthouse. Who cares what people think. All that matter is the love and committment you two have for one another. Hope it all works out! 🙂
Post # 10
Member
6354 posts
Bee Keeper
I do see an engagement as just as legit without a ring. However, I know I’d really like one. That’s normal. It is so common to have one in our culture, and even my Fiance wants a man-gagement ring.
If money were an issue I would ask for a plain gold band. If it were even more of an issue… silver, or even steel. I don’t like “fake” anything, but there’s always an elegant, cost-effective option.
Post # 11
Member
1880 posts
Buzzing bee
I see an engagement as just the same with or without a ring. A ring is nice and sparkly, but unnecessary.
You can always get a temporary ring like CZ, or if you think sentimentality would cause problems with that, get a band first and choose a solitaire later that he can put on your finger at your wedding (so opposite order as usual).
Post # 12
Member
1348 posts
Bumble bee
Engagement rings are primarily common in Western culture, I’m not ethnocentric so I understand that many engagements are valid no matter their differences and think that betrothal “gifts” are something that should be mutally given (ie. I plan on getting my SO a watch for engagement when the time comes, I’d be happy with a watch or ring, whatever he wants to give me) or not given at all. I think the most important part of engagement is the mutal understanding that you will be married soon. Rings and things are just bonuses and not necessary.
Post # 13
Member
309 posts
Helper bee
I would definitely get a CZ or some type of stand-in ring for the time being. You can find BEAUTIFUL rings from less than $500 and even less than $100.
Post # 14
Member
469 posts
Helper bee
@LemonyItch: My fiance and I are still pretty tight with expenses. I’m in college and he had recently just chaned jobs and bought a new car. What we did (I went with him to pick out my engagement ring before we were engaged) was that instead of spending $1000+ on a diamond, we opted for a white saphire. NO ONE notices the difference and ppl say how pretty and shinny my diamond is.
My saphire is pretty huge and was $250. So that could be an option for you.
I fully support stand in rings. We’re gonna replace my saphire with a real diamond on our one year anniversary when we’ll be established in our jobs. My sister and her fiance also used a stand in ring, i believe he bought it from kohls or macy’s. It was like a $50 ring that looked like an engagement ring.
Hope that helps!
Post # 15
Member
102 posts
Blushing bee
Yes someone can ask without a ring and its an engagement but the ring is symbolic of that. doesn’t matter if the ring costs $100 or $10,000 the ring is the public signifier that you are officially taken, in my opinion.
Post # 16
Member
5148 posts
Bee Keeper
An engagement is not dependent on a ring. An engagement is an agreement to marry. No jewelery necessary for that.
I was engaged without a ring, I opted not to have one at the time for various reasons. Somehow we still managed to be married a couple months later so obviously we were engaged. So yeah, not necessary.
I did get rings later on, after we were married but again, even if I do not wear them I am still married. Rings do not themselves make the engagement or the marriage. At least I sure hope not!
ETA: also, I agree with Hyperventilate in full. I do not need to publicly “prove” I am “taken” by wearing a ring (I actually hate that terminology and concept…my husband and I both freely choose to be together, freely love each other, we are equals, we are not there to be “taken” by the other or anything of that sort, we do not own each other after all).