To fill the void, society came up with the clever institution of an expensive engagement ring. It basically works as a large, non-refundable deposit as an advance of marriage. If the engaged couple has sex and then the guy disappears, the girl gets to keep the ring. So, the fact that the guy is giving an expensive ring in the first place is a credible signal that he will not be trying to flee after all. Worked like a charm, too.
But, it's hard not to notice that since then times have changed, a lot. Nowadays, an overwhelming majority of women who get married are not virgins, and an overwhelming majority of men who get married do not care much either way. And yet engagement rings are still around, even more expensive than ever. Why?
commitment comes in other flavors than sex.
ReplyDeleteengagement rings are lovely conversation pieces for relatives
if an engaged or married woman must punch a guy for not "getting it" then the mark will be clearly identifiable
it's a way to show how much damn dough we have--or how much we aspire to have, together
a diamond is forever
we like narratives that provide meaning because then, there is some meaning
it was cheaper than a car, and less expensive to fix
it makes getting gloves on that much more difficult, facilitating the fingerprinting process at any randomly assigned juncture of time
i don't know why i got it, and it wasn't charles taylor who gave it to me
I think the basic reason is that the ring is thought to symbolize one's love, however tacky or inadequate or subject to criticism. Love isn't an easy concept generally, and in this case is still mixed up conceptually with exclusive possession (i.e. ownership), though it's not popular to talk that way.
ReplyDelete"I think the basic reason is that the ring is thought to symbolize one's love, however tacky or inadequate or subject to criticism."
ReplyDeleteAnd that's why they're supposed to be expensive? One of the things we preach as a society is that it's bad taste to show love through money.
Also, if the main purpose is to symbolize love, then why is it that men are expected to symbolize their love to women but not the other way around? When a couple gets engaged, they both love one another.
sure, but the other thing we preach is to value preferences monetarily. some people eschew this, and get simple plain rings, but many link the two.
ReplyDeletethe uni-directional nature of the ring is bound up with the history of it securing a form of property, or strict adherence to a specified behavior. of course, that history is one where women were not seem as independent and able to own property on her own (coverture).
i also think it true that men tend to value things in absolutist and material terms using binary distinctions frequently.
not to mention the dowry. perhaps it is the case that men have always had to show their emotions through property, not sure. but, having less access to build capacity for property accumulation, women consequently don't get a ring in this admittedly traditional practice.
okay, so if we actually do show preferences through money, and we value someone highly, then the engagement ring is an attempt to show that to the person, and those involved around the couple's relationship. i think the same way about life as about love, that it cannot be valued, but it is valued all the time, regardless. the only difference is that the ring isn't all inclusive (it doesn't symbolize all love).
ReplyDeletewhat it means is that men like to quantify their emotions instead of doing emotional heavy lifting. men would like to buy women roses and be done with a disagreement, instead of trying to genuinely understand the causes of the argument and then acting differently in the future. again, not all men, but generally.
money is continuous, yes, but once you set a price on something, you can compare prices. what i was saying was that men have been taught to do this with everything, like people, not just material goods.
i answered this last part: men have always had more access to material goods, and women have traditionally been denied the ability to own them or to have sole discretion regarding their use. that's historical, yes, but so is the ring.