Jump to content

"First Date" restaurants in NJ


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 209
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

NJ.com has a sampling of "first date" restaurants in NJ. Putting aside for a moment whether people even have first dates, or simply "hang together" more often, here it goes. Haven't couples put aside

Sometimes I give money, but if I want to give a gift, I send it to the bride or couple or couple before the wedding.   I do not have an engagement ring* and didn't even really get a proposal. We so

It seems to me there are two issues in play here. One is the senimental value represented by the ring, the public committment of two people to a life together, the other is the asset value of the ring

The issue here is that it is absolutely still expected for the man to part with money for an engagement ring as a precondition for marriage, even though only one party benefits from the transaction.

 

You're totally ignoring the fact that a man is literally displaying his networth as a percentage by claiming his woman's finger in a manner visible to all. The idea that he doesn't derive some benefit (thrill, exercised fetish, etc) from her wearing the diamond he bought her is preposterous. If you're going to make the argument that people are still sexist, why make it halfway?

 

My great great grandparents kept all their chickens and cows in the yards so that all the neighbors would know how awesome they were. What's the difference?

 

Gratuitous displays of wealth are way more powerful than investments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're totally ignoring the fact that a man is literally displaying his networth as a percentage by claiming his woman's finger in a manner visible to all. The idea that he doesn't derive some benefit (thrill, exercised fetish, etc) from her wearing the diamond he bought her is preposterous. If you're going to make the argument that people are still sexist, why make it halfway?

 

My great great grandparents kept all their chickens and cows in the yards so that all the neighbors would know how awesome they were. What's the difference?

 

Gratuitous displays of wealth are way more powerful than investments.

The difference is that if your great great grandparents didn't keep their chickens and cows in the yard, they would still be allowed to have a farm and people wouldn't think they were jerks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oy. Be well.

Thanks, I appreciate it. The liquid diets have been awful!

 

I like my ring, my husband put a lot of thought into it, and I'm not apologizing for it. The concept that anyone should be made to feel guilty about spending money they have in whatever manner they choose- whether it's thousand dollar dinners, luxury cars, jewelry, homes, vacations, etc. is just ridiculous. I don't judge people who choose to dine at Per Se, nor do I judge people who choose to eat at TGIFridays.

 

It's a personal choice how to spend ones money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me there are two issues in play here. One is the senimental value represented by the ring, the public committment of two people to a life together, the other is the asset value of the ring (or Mercedes SUV, Land Rover, etc).

 

Different people balance these things in different ways. For me, at least, there's no single right way or wrong way. Different strokes for different folks, etc.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're totally ignoring the fact that a man is literally displaying his networth as a percentage by claiming his woman's finger in a manner visible to all. The idea that he doesn't derive some benefit (thrill, exercised fetish, etc) from her wearing the diamond he bought her is preposterous. If you're going to make the argument that people are still sexist, why make it halfway?

 

My great great grandparents kept all their chickens and cows in the yards so that all the neighbors would know how awesome they were. What's the difference?

 

Gratuitous displays of wealth are way more powerful than investments.

The difference is that if your great great grandparents didn't keep their chickens and cows in the yard, they would still be allowed to have a farm and people wouldn't think they were jerks.

 

Right, they'd just think they were poor, which is the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It completely depends on the couple and their financial situation and what makes sense for them. There isn't a universal answer.

There is no financial sense at all in buying a diamond engagement ring, and considering the groom gets no utility out of it, I don't see why he should contribute anything to the cost.

 

i'd much prefer that the proposer pay off my student loans or buy me a house

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Right, they'd just think they were poor, which is the same thing.

You can rationalize it however you want, it's still a double standard.

 

I'm not rationalizing it at all. I'd never suggest that it is rational. I simply disagree that the man gets nothing out of branding his woman with a clear symbol of his wealth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with that. The part of Liquid's argument (I think) that I do agree with is that it's more or less expected that an engagement ring (size matters of course) is part of the proposal. Or if one is not, the fiancees are looked at in a certain way. Of course this shouldn't matter to anyone who doesn't care themselves, but social norms, the links upthread regarding why women say no, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I was trying to think away from the engagement situation: for birthdays, Christmas, and on other occasions, there's an expectation of a gift, and I don't see where the calculation about value to the giver comes in. So I'm not sure why it should in this case.

 

I don't know what to make of people who make relationship decisions on the basis of how much is being spent on them. That's a mystery to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion puzzles me, because it seems grounded in the notion that giving a gift is worthwhile only if some material benefit accrues to the giver.

In this case, it doesn't really matter if the giver benefits. The fact that he has to give it at all is a double standard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...