[pyre]

Huh? Having the money to splurge on a ring is a signal of financial fitness because you have the extra money to spend on something that will 'have no return' (so the speak). It's hardly a case of 'burning of your ships.' If you have the financial security to splurge on some ridiculous ring, then it's also possible that you have the ability to just absorb the cost if you don't like the marriage.

Besides, depending on the cost of the ring, and the length of the marriage, it would make you more likely to terminate the marriage over time as the cost of the ring gets amortized over the length of the marriage.

[n09n]

Two people propose to you with rings that cost 25k each. One ring is resellable for 20k. One is resellable for 5k. Which one do you think is more likely to renege?

[checker]

If a proposer reneges, then you'll own the ring:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_ring#Legal_ownership

[n09n]

By then it's too late. The point is not to get more out of it if things go south. The point is to make sure they don't. This is basic game theory, buddy.

[checker]

Perhaps I should have been more verbose. The point I was trying to make is that neither proposer is more likely to renege. Since they have both given away their 25k investment, it doesn't matter to either of them what the resale value is and thus it has no impact on their decisions. Unless it's assumed that you'll be combining assets upon marriage, which I hadn't taken into account in my original post.

Since you'll have to decline one of these proposals, one of them gets their ring back. Which one are you more likely to accept? All things equal, the 20k resale ring.

[Nursie]

Why would two people propose?

[jdechko]

http://abc.go.com/shows/the-bachelorette

[Nursie]

LMAO

[transitionality]

The one with better romantic prospects, obviously.