3 ms·

But it is all just marketing. Before 1938 no one cared about diamonds, and people were able to show commitment just fine. If I'm not mistaken, the divorce rat

• facepalm 11y ago
  Hooking up might have worked very differently in 1938, though. I don't think relationships and marriage were the same as today. Maybe because we have more freedom in our relationships now, we need diamonds. As an extreme case, take a culture were arranged marriages are the norm. Then it seems obvious that you wouldn't need diamonds because you wouldn't have much of a choice to not commit to the relationship anyway. I don't know enough about 1938 to make a proper comparison, though. Edit: somebody else posted a more educated comment. Prior to 1935, apparently women were entitled to compensation when an engagement was broken off - http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~siow/332/rings.pdf http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~siow/332/rings.pdf
• BostonEnginerd 11y ago
  The divorce rate was likely lower for many reasons not involving diamonds.
  • pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    Marriages may have ended at a faster rate, but due to greater mortality, maybe?
• lmm 11y ago
  Isn't the argument the opposite direction? Before 1938 the divorce rate was significantly lower, so no-one needed to show commitment and no-one cared about diamonds.