Why men have to give engagement rings to women and not the other way around, aren't we equals?

Question

MrChinaski · Accepted Answer

I don't know the history before 1930s or so, but:

- de Beers had a glut

- Many good girls messed around after engagement and if engagement were broken off had lower dating value due to the absence of virginity... so there were laws in place allowing suit for damages in the event of breach of contact to marry... essentially a write to liquidate the loss incurred by letting a very bad man between your thighs. This was never an issue for men because male virginity was no biggie, again so to speak.

- States progressively repealed this right to sue. (ChatGPT's half-hearted effort is below)

- de Beers ran a huge marketing campaign surrounding large diamond engagement rings... in the event of breach of promise to marry the bride-to-not-be keeps the ring as damages for her, errr, activities.

- So: Get that ice or else no dice! Two birds, one stone, I guess.

This is intended as very light and hopefully amusing language, not a statement of my personal values in any way. There have been serious academic studies that show a high correlation between changes in popularity of expensive diamond engagement rings and the timing of engagement law reforms state by state.

I'm not an historian, but I suspect engagement bands were either cheap symbols or absent before this... maybe someone on here can fill in that gap.

Timeline: Abolition of Breach of Promise to Marry Actions in U. S. States

Pre-20th Century

Before 1900s – Breach of promise was a recognized common-law action throughout the U. S., grounded in contract/tort principles.

Early Anti-Heart Balm Wave

1877 – North Dakota (reported by one secondary source as early abolition before the mid-20th century).

1930s: First Major Reforms

1935 - Indiana – First state to enact a comprehensive heart balm abolition statute, eliminating causes of action including breach of promise to marry.
New York – Passed an anti-heart balm statute abolishing breach of promise and related claims.
Alabama, Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania – Also abolished breach of promise under similar reforms in 1935 (Illinois’s Heart Balm Act was later held unconstitutional and replaced; see below).
1937 – Colorado, … various states continued anti-heart balm repeals.
1938 – Massachusetts abolished breach of promise actions.
1939 – California Legislature specifically abolished actions for breach of promise to marry.

1940s: Continued Abolitions

1941 – Maine abolished the cause of action (and New Hampshire, Wyoming around this period).
1943 – Nevada (alongside continued anti-heart balm reforms).

Mid-20th Century

1945 – Florida abolished the cause of action, and by this time roughly 16+ states had abolished breach of promise actions.
Post-World War II & Later Changes

1946 – Illinois: State Supreme Court struck down the 1935 Heart Balm Act as unconstitutional; legislature responded in 1947 with a restricted breach–of–promise statute. That later statute was repealed in 2016, effectively abolishing the cause of action again.
1981 – New Hampshire (in addition to earlier abolition) later eliminated damages for related actions, reflecting continued refinement of heart balm law.

21st Century

2016 – Illinois repeals its last statutory breach of promise action (the 1947 Act), completing abolition in that state.

msc545 · Accepted Answer

This is another good example of culturally imposed gender equality, which is discriminatory toward men. Even worse, however, is the state of our legal system, which in a very lopsided fashion favors women over men to the extent that most men won't even get married anymore, thus negating the importance of the engagement ring discrimination, which rings true only in a symbolic sense.

Abbycado · Accepted Answer

Wait until the 40 something “no hymen, no diamond” shows up. Dude is still single. Wonder why.

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

Women bear children , therefore men need to request and beg

Love Doctor Brad · Accepted Answer

Ah, the sparkle of love and tradition! 🎇 So, here's the thing: historically, societies have had different roles for men and women, and engagement rings were a gesture of love and commitment from guys. It's a tradition many lovebirds adore, but times are changing! 👩‍❤️‍👨 Now, couples sometimes choose rings for each other or skip them entirely. In the end, lovebirds, it’s all about what feels right for you both. Love and equality, with a dash of diamond, if you fancy! 💍✨

jamesgoldman · Answer

Some do do the reverse, Chinese custom dictates commonly gifting something deemed of equal value to the groom i. e. a luxury watch

Anonymous · Answer

I think it works both ways.

Why men have to give engagement rings to women and not the other way around, aren't we equals?

Most Helpful Opinions

AI Opinion

What Girls & Guys Said

Why men have to give engagement rings to women and not the other way around, aren't we equals?

Most Helpful Opinions

AI Opinion

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.