Materialism and the absurdity of engagement rings
A friend of mine recently got engaged while on a trip out of state. I'm going to assume that he did the live action cliche of "buy her an expensive ring and get down on a knee when asking". While I lament that yet another man will be descending from the high ranks of bachelorhood (I myself am still a bachelor, but in a serious relationship), I am also reminded in how much materialism has perverted the concept and execution of the engagement/marriage cycle. While I have more of a problem with weddings themselves, this writing is restricted to the idea of engagement rings.
A quick glance at the Zales website soon showed me that any diamond ring that didn't look like a metal washer with a glass shard glued on would run about at least two thousand dollars, with most coming in the multiple thousands range. Now lets look at what exactly this excess of spending has bought you...... absolutely nothing. Let me explain:
Centuries ago when the idea of engagements and betrothals were first popularized, they were mostly done by parents. This daughter is betrothed to this son in exchange for 12 heads of cattle, or goats, etc. This was done for centuries (and to a small extent, is still done) until people as a whole generally decided that women weren't actually property, and were people themselves. Damn us and our progression as a species!!
Along the way, some rich bastard decided that in exchange for her hand in marriage, he would give his bride-to-be a diamond ring. As can be expected, this idea soon spread and women everywhere wanted their very own diamond rings, and men everywhere were just pussy-whipped enough to actually buy into the idea that women deserved these extravagant gifts. Now, in general, women expect rings, and probably wouldn't get married without them. In fact, it would not surprise me to hear of women dumping guys because they didn't get a ring, or even one they particularly liked.
Another change from the practice of betrothal centuries ago is an actual legal implication in the engagement. Originally, being engaged was an actual legal status, and had its own set of laws that applied to that status. But in the present time, being engaged means absolutely nothing legally. The only thing of legal concern is the ring itself. In the case of the engagement being broken off, who now has legal possession of the ring? That question varies greatly by state and other factors, such as who broke of the wedding, and if the ring was given on a nationally recognized gift-giving day such as Valentine's Day. And even if the donor of the ring legally still owns the ring, he often has to go to court just to get it back. With all that trouble, what purpose does that $5000 ring have except to cause headaches, drain bank accounts, and give the recipient a reason to gloat?
Honestly, the actual practice of engagement in present day United States is nothing more than the declaration of two people's intention to get married. How exactly does that equate to a man going in debt just to give a girl a piece of jewelry?
But apparently in our materialisic society, just a declaration that you intend to do something warrants an extravagant, useless gift. So with that, I hereby pronounce:
I fully intend to take a shit when I finish writing this, so I deserve a sapphire headband.
A quick glance at the Zales website soon showed me that any diamond ring that didn't look like a metal washer with a glass shard glued on would run about at least two thousand dollars, with most coming in the multiple thousands range. Now lets look at what exactly this excess of spending has bought you...... absolutely nothing. Let me explain:
Centuries ago when the idea of engagements and betrothals were first popularized, they were mostly done by parents. This daughter is betrothed to this son in exchange for 12 heads of cattle, or goats, etc. This was done for centuries (and to a small extent, is still done) until people as a whole generally decided that women weren't actually property, and were people themselves. Damn us and our progression as a species!!
Along the way, some rich bastard decided that in exchange for her hand in marriage, he would give his bride-to-be a diamond ring. As can be expected, this idea soon spread and women everywhere wanted their very own diamond rings, and men everywhere were just pussy-whipped enough to actually buy into the idea that women deserved these extravagant gifts. Now, in general, women expect rings, and probably wouldn't get married without them. In fact, it would not surprise me to hear of women dumping guys because they didn't get a ring, or even one they particularly liked.
Another change from the practice of betrothal centuries ago is an actual legal implication in the engagement. Originally, being engaged was an actual legal status, and had its own set of laws that applied to that status. But in the present time, being engaged means absolutely nothing legally. The only thing of legal concern is the ring itself. In the case of the engagement being broken off, who now has legal possession of the ring? That question varies greatly by state and other factors, such as who broke of the wedding, and if the ring was given on a nationally recognized gift-giving day such as Valentine's Day. And even if the donor of the ring legally still owns the ring, he often has to go to court just to get it back. With all that trouble, what purpose does that $5000 ring have except to cause headaches, drain bank accounts, and give the recipient a reason to gloat?
Honestly, the actual practice of engagement in present day United States is nothing more than the declaration of two people's intention to get married. How exactly does that equate to a man going in debt just to give a girl a piece of jewelry?
But apparently in our materialisic society, just a declaration that you intend to do something warrants an extravagant, useless gift. So with that, I hereby pronounce:
I fully intend to take a shit when I finish writing this, so I deserve a sapphire headband.