Concerning our discussion of engagement rings: if an engagement ring is used by a man to vicariously demonstrate his wealth through his soon-to-be wife, does the same idea apply to the quality of a woman’s wedding band? If so, isn't it redundant for the man wear a wedding band as well? Or instead, is the quality of wedding bands, compared to an engagement ring, a conspicuous demonstration of wealth of the _Italic text_couple (and if so, why do they tend to be more modest than engagement rings?)?

-- WhytneBrooks - 27 Mar 2008

My impression is that the fashion for men to wear wedding bands is rather modern.

-- KateVershov - 27 Mar 2008

I think Veblen might say that the husband's wedding band is much more modest because the point of the relationship is to show how much the man has and how much he can waste, not how much he can get from the woman. The stark contrast between the man's wedding band and the woman's engagement ring further highlights the pecuniary power of the man. He spends so much money on an extravagant ring in exchange for something relatively little because he can afford to assume the cost or "loss in value." Also, I think the difference in value of the rings underscores the ownership and gender status dynamics of the relationship. That is, the man shows ownership of the woman by displaying for the world to see that he has the luxury of adorning and taking care of his wife. On the other hand, the woman, by providing her husband an “inferior” ring, shows that she cannot afford to provide her husband with luxuries. She is his pecuniary inferior.

-- ChristinaYoun - 29 Mar 2008

Perhaps a man's wedding band serves as an announcement that he has a wife. Otherwise, how would people know that he spends an exorbitant amount of money on his wife?

-- MinaNasseri - 31 Mar 2008