Is the concept of Australian men or fiancee’ paying for engagement rings an old tradition that’s ebbing away or is it growing stronger?
According to information from the United States, more and more couples are splitting the costs. This is a good idea since the partner gets the ring they desire and there are no unnecessary surprises. Some would argue, and rightly so, that this could lead to diminished romance.
Should it be mandatory for the man to buy the engagement ring, even in instances where the wife-to-be makes significantly more money than the man?

Oh really? Women are actually buying their own engagement rings, or at least splitting the costs?

According to the “Cut and the Knot”, this is true as there is an ever increasing willingness amongst engaged couples to split the engagement ring cost. This act fits very well into the 21st century system of managing family finances, in which both parties make contributions to every project at hand since they both have stable jobs. Findings from a Today poll revealed that almost half of the respondents were in support of the idea that each couple should bear the cost of the engagement ring and this number is expected to rise if they are told by their husband-to-be that they would have to go forgo their precious diamonds (not fun at all, especially since they would have to wave good bye to their dreams of flaunting their beautiful diamond engagement ring!) if costs are not shared.

This entire issue certainly brings up unsettling existential drama: the question then arises- is it really an engagement ring if you contributed to its purchase? The engagement ring is meant to be a gift from the man to a woman to demonstrate his level of commitment. When you display your diamond ring for all to see, you do that with the intention that everyone sees how invested your man is, financially, in acquiring you as his bride-to-be. (Quite funny to note that the man doesn’t need to demonstrate how committed you are to him. The women’s commitment is assumed to be assured and they are so grateful to be counted worthy to be selected for the honourable position of being someone else’s sandwich maker). So, if you paid for the ring yourself, it doesn’t matter if it is just half the price, it defeats the whole purpose. It’s no longer a show of his commitment anymore. Does the engagement ring, which isn’t a down payment on a future commitment even shine as brightly?

All these comes with the realisation that it is high time we ended the tradition of the engagement ring and other wedding rituals that were built on the premise that the bride is meant to be dependent and virginal. The idea that a woman has to get a husband and claim expensive totems of his commitment in order to hold him in place before the wedding is repulsive to both genders. It just does not make sense especially now that women provide for themselves. Let us come up with new traditions that adequately reflect our modern era and let go of sexist, retrograde wedding traditions that just doesn’t cut it anymore.
A new tradition has come up which involves broadcasting your engagement by means of a photo shoot. This presents a far more cost effective way of reflecting the couples’ enjoyable and romantic lives; without the expensive display of an engagement ring. More of this please!