4 ms·

> the giver can sue the receiver to recover the ring if the engagement is broken off. Which contradicts the whole idea of an engagement ring: > In the United

> the giver can sue the receiver to recover the ring if the engagement is broken off. Which contradicts the whole idea of an engagement ring: > In the United States, until the Great Depression, a man who broke off a marriage engagement could be sued for breach of promise. Monetary damages included actual expenses incurred in preparing for the wedding, plus damages for emotional distress and loss of other marriage prospects. Damages were greatly increased if the woman had engaged in sexual intercourse with her fiancé.[32] Beginning in 1935, these laws were repealed or limited. However, the social and financial cost of a broken engagement was no less: marriage was the only financially sound option for most women, and if she was no longer a virgin, her prospects for a suitable future marriage were greatly decreased. The diamond engagement ring thus became a source of financial security for the woman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_ring#Purchase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_ring#Purchase

stephengillie 8y ago
> The diamond engagement ring thus became a source of financial security for the woman. Which is ironic, given the low resale value of diamonds. > In fact many jewelers won't buy a diamond back unless you've previously purchased that same diamond from them and have the documentation to prove it. Even then they'll typically only do a trade in, whereby you buy another higher priced diamond and trade your old diamond in. [0] [0] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-21/ugly-truth-about-diamonds https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-21/ugly-truth-about-d...
- rdsubhas 8y ago
  Yep, this (financial security) is why Indian marriages stick to gold and silver, because it has a defined market value.
  - xeromal 8y ago
    Kurdish as well. They tend to favor Indian gold for some reason.
    - chiph 8y ago
      Gold sold in India is almost always 24ct (pure). Gold sold in other countries for jewelry is an alloy (usually 18ct) so that it can stand up better to daily wear. So you're technically not getting as much gold.
DoreenMichele 8y ago
So, we are celebrating women as chattel property who need to preserve their virginity to enhance their capacity to marry well. In 2018. Your comment is making me feel vastly better about never having had an engagement ring, though I got married at age 19 and spent about 2 decades as a homemaker in a 1950s style marriage. (Edit: I'm a woman, in case that actually needs to be said.)
- AckSyn 8y ago
  If there were any wrong way to take it, you certainly found it. This isn't what they're saying at all but the ring is a kind of contract between two people and all states except Montana seem to recognize that.
- jfoutz 8y ago
  Perhaps the poster was celebrating women as chattel property. I don't know. I thought it was an interesting fact. It's weird more states haven't determined an engagement ring is simply a gift, and not a sort of (as i learned today from the poster's comment) bizarre form of insurance policy.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    It is interesting historical information. Except for the introductory statement "Which contradicts the whole idea of an engagement ring" which essentially asserts an expectation that we should accept this historical practice as the correct basis of laws today. I'm currently 53. When I was 19 or 20, I had a college classmate in her 70s iirc who talked about legally needing her husband's written permission to even get a job when she was in her twenties. This was the degree to which women were treated as property. So, yes, around 80 years ago, marrying well was just about the only hope of financial solvency a woman had. I'm a former homemaker. I raised two special needs kids and followed my husband's military career around the world. Between that and a serious medical crisis, I've been really dirt poor for years and spent some years homeless. So I think quite a lot about the degree to which society and husbands really ought to compensate women more for their labor and personal sacrifices in raising kids and supporting male careers at the expense of their own. But policies are always two edged swords. Given how incredibly poor I have been, I am incredibly leery of the existence of actual laws still on the books that are rooted in the historical artifact of treating women literally as property of their husbands, even if that law is supposedly in the interest of the woman who is otherwise expected to accept being treated as a man's possession. I have worked hard to try to find my voice in a world that is often openly hostile towards a former homemaker and her views being treated like a real person. I get crapped on a lot by self-proclaimed feminists who are often childless career women who seem to not actually be happy with their lives and are taking it out on me for various reasons. The world needs very much to find a way to help people both stay home to care for children when that is the right answer for the family and also help them get a real career afterwards when that time has passed. The law in question is part of the manacles that keep women oppressed and poverty-stricken. Please note I was careful to not attack the GGP. I just commented that it made me feel better about a detail of my life that I occasionally lament as evidence of a lack of "romance" in my life. I had something better than romance. I had a husband who genuinely cared about my welfare, something that is typically lacking in marriages based on the idea that he basically bought her because he has money, even if it isn't as explicit as such arrangements once commonly were. The engagement ring laws cited are part of a polite form of selling oneself into slavery. It should be ancient history, but in 49 states, it is still the law.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
paulddraper 8y ago
Something most have changed in the last 80 years. > marriage was the only financially sound option for most women, and if she was no longer a virgin, her prospects Ah, that.

stephengillie 8y ago

> The diamond engagement ring thus became a source of financial security for the woman. Which is ironic, given the low resale value of diamonds. > In fact many jewelers won't buy a diamond back unless you've previously purchased that same diamond from them and have the documentation to prove it. Even then they'll typically only do a trade in, whereby you buy another higher priced diamond and trade your old diamond in. [0] [0] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-21/ugly-truth-about-diamonds https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-21/ugly-truth-about-d...

rdsubhas 8y ago
Yep, this (financial security) is why Indian marriages stick to gold and silver, because it has a defined market value.
- xeromal 8y ago
  Kurdish as well. They tend to favor Indian gold for some reason.
  - chiph 8y ago
    Gold sold in India is almost always 24ct (pure). Gold sold in other countries for jewelry is an alloy (usually 18ct) so that it can stand up better to daily wear. So you're technically not getting as much gold.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

So, we are celebrating women as chattel property who need to preserve their virginity to enhance their capacity to marry well. In 2018. Your comment is making me feel vastly better about never having had an engagement ring, though I got married at age 19 and spent about 2 decades as a homemaker in a 1950s style marriage. (Edit: I'm a woman, in case that actually needs to be said.)

AckSyn 8y ago
If there were any wrong way to take it, you certainly found it. This isn't what they're saying at all but the ring is a kind of contract between two people and all states except Montana seem to recognize that.
jfoutz 8y ago
Perhaps the poster was celebrating women as chattel property. I don't know. I thought it was an interesting fact. It's weird more states haven't determined an engagement ring is simply a gift, and not a sort of (as i learned today from the poster's comment) bizarre form of insurance policy.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  It is interesting historical information. Except for the introductory statement "Which contradicts the whole idea of an engagement ring" which essentially asserts an expectation that we should accept this historical practice as the correct basis of laws today. I'm currently 53. When I was 19 or 20, I had a college classmate in her 70s iirc who talked about legally needing her husband's written permission to even get a job when she was in her twenties. This was the degree to which women were treated as property. So, yes, around 80 years ago, marrying well was just about the only hope of financial solvency a woman had. I'm a former homemaker. I raised two special needs kids and followed my husband's military career around the world. Between that and a serious medical crisis, I've been really dirt poor for years and spent some years homeless. So I think quite a lot about the degree to which society and husbands really ought to compensate women more for their labor and personal sacrifices in raising kids and supporting male careers at the expense of their own. But policies are always two edged swords. Given how incredibly poor I have been, I am incredibly leery of the existence of actual laws still on the books that are rooted in the historical artifact of treating women literally as property of their husbands, even if that law is supposedly in the interest of the woman who is otherwise expected to accept being treated as a man's possession. I have worked hard to try to find my voice in a world that is often openly hostile towards a former homemaker and her views being treated like a real person. I get crapped on a lot by self-proclaimed feminists who are often childless career women who seem to not actually be happy with their lives and are taking it out on me for various reasons. The world needs very much to find a way to help people both stay home to care for children when that is the right answer for the family and also help them get a real career afterwards when that time has passed. The law in question is part of the manacles that keep women oppressed and poverty-stricken. Please note I was careful to not attack the GGP. I just commented that it made me feel better about a detail of my life that I occasionally lament as evidence of a lack of "romance" in my life. I had something better than romance. I had a husband who genuinely cared about my welfare, something that is typically lacking in marriages based on the idea that he basically bought her because he has money, even if it isn't as explicit as such arrangements once commonly were. The engagement ring laws cited are part of a polite form of selling oneself into slavery. It should be ancient history, but in 49 states, it is still the law.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

paulddraper 8y ago

Something most have changed in the last 80 years. > marriage was the only financially sound option for most women, and if she was no longer a virgin, her prospects Ah, that.