Wedding ring tattoos?

[Kyng]

https://talker.news/2023/01/03/1-in-5-mi...g-tattoos/

One in five millennials would be open to tying the knot permanently with a tattoo ring, more than any other generation.

That’s according to a new poll of 500 Gen Z, 500 millennials, 500 Gen X and 500 baby boomers in serious relationships, engaged or married, where the majority (66%) of all respondents said they would be interested in giving or receiving an engagement ring that doesn’t feature a diamond.

The survey showed that younger generations are most open to alternate rings — 74% of both Gen Z and millennials are open to it, while only half of baby boomers agree.

In addition to tattoos (15%), metal (40%), emeralds (37%) and sapphires (36%) topped the list of alternate engagement ring focal pieces.

---

Well, I can certainly see why younger people are considering alternatives to diamond wedding rings: they're really expensive, and many of us can't really afford one . But, a tattoo instead of a physical ring? To me, that just sounds tacky TBH .

Whatever floats your boat, but if I ever get married, I'm not doing that .

[Pyrite]

I'm intrigued to know the reason behind all these people wanting something instead of diamond in their engagement ring. If it's to do with concerns over the way diamonds are obtained, then I'd recommend a lab-grown diamond ring. If it's a price thing, I can understand it a lot more, but a good number of the responders seem to suggest other gemstones, which will also be pricey...

Not a fan of the tattoo idea at all. It's tacky, and runs a great risk of being stuck with it if the engagement breaks off.

[Lurkerish Allsorts]

I'm intrigued to know the reason behind all these people wanting something instead of diamond in their engagement ring. If it's to do with concerns over the way diamonds are obtained, then I'd recommend a lab-grown diamond ring. If it's a price thing, I can understand it a lot more, but a good number of the responders seem to suggest other gemstones, which will also be pricey...

Not a fan of the tattoo idea at all. It's tacky, and runs a great risk of being stuck with it if the engagement breaks off.

The only advantage of a tattoo ring I can think of is not needing to worry about losing it, in a profession where rings can be a safety hazard, or some one who is really fearful that there will be a medical necessity to cut the ring in an ER/A&E or something.

That said not a fan of tattoos really, and I've been stuck with enough needles in my life.

[Kyng]

I'm intrigued to know the reason behind all these people wanting something instead of diamond in their engagement ring. If it's to do with concerns over the way diamonds are obtained, then I'd recommend a lab-grown diamond ring. If it's a price thing, I can understand it a lot more, but a good number of the responders seem to suggest other gemstones, which will also be pricey...

Not a fan of the tattoo idea at all. It's tacky, and runs a great risk of being stuck with it if the engagement breaks off.

Well, I suspect only a small number are primarily concerned with the way in which diamonds are obtained. For most, I expect the main concern will be the price (although, a lab-grown diamond could probably help with that too ).

Indeed, I think the only real disadvantage of a lab-grown diamond ring (or cheaper diamond-like alternatives, such as moissanite) is that to some people it won't feel very romantic. But at some point, I guess people's ideals are going to run into financial reality .

[Moonshroom]

Great idea.

Let's make divorce PHYSICALLY and EMOTIONALLY painful XD

[Pyrite]

I'm intrigued to know the reason behind all these people wanting something instead of diamond in their engagement ring. If it's to do with concerns over the way diamonds are obtained, then I'd recommend a lab-grown diamond ring. If it's a price thing, I can understand it a lot more, but a good number of the responders seem to suggest other gemstones, which will also be pricey...

Not a fan of the tattoo idea at all. It's tacky, and runs a great risk of being stuck with it if the engagement breaks off.

The only advantage of a tattoo ring I can think of is not needing to worry about losing it, in a profession where rings can be a safety hazard, or some one who is really fearful that there will be a medical necessity to cut the ring in an ER/A&E or something.

Well that's true - I myself work with lasers so would have to take off any rings while doing optical alignment, for instance, but I think I'd rather run the risk of losing it than have a tattoo.  
 

I'm intrigued to know the reason behind all these people wanting something instead of diamond in their engagement ring. If it's to do with concerns over the way diamonds are obtained, then I'd recommend a lab-grown diamond ring. If it's a price thing, I can understand it a lot more, but a good number of the responders seem to suggest other gemstones, which will also be pricey...

Not a fan of the tattoo idea at all. It's tacky, and runs a great risk of being stuck with it if the engagement breaks off.

Well, I suspect only a small number are primarily concerned with the way in which diamonds are obtained. For most, I expect the main concern will be the price (although, a lab-grown diamond could probably help with that too ).

Indeed, I think the only real disadvantage of a lab-grown diamond ring (or cheaper diamond-like alternatives, such as moissanite) is that to some people it won't feel very romantic. But at some point, I guess people's ideals are going to run into financial reality .

You'd be surprised how often it comes up - a lot of the conversations I've had about people getting engaged have involved the origin of the diamond in the ring. Although granted my social circle is biased towards science brains, so it's more likely that it might spring up.  

But I expect lab grown diamonds will also have the advantage of being cheaper, if not now then certainly in the years to come when the processes are refined.

[Shiny Star]

I always said if I was married to someone I would get a finger tattoo of their initial subtly on my wedding finger. The rationale for this is that I have sensory issues for such things, would have been dating the person for years before being married and my field of work often doesn’t allow jewellery. Plus, if it’s subtle you can get a cover up. Finger tattoos also wear away and would need to be topped up anyways as we use our hands a lot.

[Pyrite]

To be fair, that actually sounds a lot better than the sort of thing I was picturing. I think my chief objection to a tattoo would be that you can't hide it or take it off. But your idea sounds a lot more subtle.

[Shiny Star]

To be fair, that actually sounds a lot better than the sort of thing I was picturing. I think my chief objection to a tattoo would be that you can't hide it or take it off. But your idea sounds a lot more subtle.

Yeah like I get a full on ring could be seen as too full on but people do get married for the hopeful lifelong commitment. Plus, the top ups would be too frequent for a full on wedding band. Get it in the inside of the finger, same meaning. I have a friend with a finger tattoo and it does fade pretty quickly.