There Goes the Law, Making Things Unromantic Again

There Goes the Law, Making Things Unromantic Again

March 14th, 2010 @ 11:20 am by Mrs. Jellyfish
Share

One of my good law school friends sent me a link to this article the other day:

Engagement rings took off in the U.S. when the courts refused to hear “breach of promise” lawsuits. These suits were brought by women who had slept with their fiancés and then been abandoned. These women were then less attractive marriage prospects for anyone else.

Naturally, such lawsuits were sensational fun for the newspapers, and eventually the courts put a stop to the whole thing. The problem then became: how could a young affianced couple have sex with each other when she had no recourse to the law if he changed his mind? Both of them might well want to, but for the lady the risks were pretty high. And so the institution of the engagement ring came about. Such rings are non-returnable, meaning that if the man breaks off the engagement he doesn’t get the ring back. The system discourages him from running off and provides automatic compensation if he does. Very clever.

Source

Who knew?

Do you know of any other wedding traditions that have not-so-romantic stories behind them? I’d love to hear them!

Tags: humor, legal, pleasanton |

Share |

Latest Gallery Pics

Hot Pink and White with Zebra 36" Lighted Spandex Ostrich Feather Centerpiece

17 Responses to “There Goes the Law, Making Things Unromantic Again”

Member

xoxokristin (message) 541 posts, Busy bee

Iiiinteresting. I didn’t have an e-ring. I’m sure glad hubby didn’t run off! …. he would’ve taken off really early in our relationship too! *is naughty*

3/14/10 @ 11:33 am (reply)

Member

MsTerrapin (message) 609 posts, Busy bee

This article http://www.slate.com/id/2167870/ also goes into the reasoning for engagement rings that Miss Jellyfish mentions, but it also goes into the crazy advertising campaign by the diamond industry to ensure that men forked over more and more of their hard earned money to meet the “2 months salary” cap (it started out as 1 months salary, but they changed the ad copy to get some more money). The diamond industry’s role in all of this makes me so angry that I decided I wanted a white sapphire instead!

3/14/10 @ 11:46 am (reply)

Bee

Miss Snow (message) 916 posts, Busy bee

This is a great article! I read it to Mr. Snow, and he said that Beyonce’s Single Ladies has new meaning now…

It is also a great reminder for me to remember that all the tangible components of weddings shouldn’t trump the intangible components of a marriage… (and I love the history too!)

3/14/10 @ 11:52 am (reply)

Bee

Miss Hot Wings (message) 2,213 posts, Buzzing bee

so interesting! thanks for posting.

3/14/10 @ 12:15 pm (reply)

Member

Twista (message) 804 posts, Busy bee

Last year I read somewhere that the bridal party came about so that if someone wanted to murder the bride or groom, it would be more difficult because there were lots of people dressed the same way standing together. Originally the bridesmaids were dressed exactly like the bride.

3/14/10 @ 12:17 pm (reply)

Member

fudge88 (message) 58 posts, Worker bee

That is super interesting!
MsTerrapin: that is very interesting about the diamond companies as well - and somehow not surprising.

I have heard that tradition of carrying a bouquet has to do with the fact that people use to bathe much less frequently. haha!

3/14/10 @ 1:06 pm (reply)

Bee

Mrs. Hot Cocoa (message) 2,077 posts, Buzzing bee

If you get interested in the history of the engagement ring, there’s a fascinating article by Margaret Brinig that’s the basis for the Slate piece. I posted about it here: http://www.weddingbee.com/2008/08/16/mengagement-rings/

3/14/10 @ 2:02 pm (reply)

Member

AzinAugust (message) 1,651 posts, Bumble bee

Really interesting post Miss Jellyfish! Thanks for sharing it with the hive. :o)

3/14/10 @ 2:20 pm (reply)

Member

Professor (message) 422 posts, Helper bee

This article from the NYT has a great discussion of lawsuits where formerly engaged couples fight over the custody of the e-ring: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/fashion/weddings/05field.html

3/14/10 @ 2:27 pm (reply)

10.

Bee

Miss Giraffe (message) 4,216 posts, Honey bee

That’s wild!

3/14/10 @ 3:46 pm (reply)

11.

Member

jordynrose (message) 6,351 posts, Bee Keeper

This is pretty interesting. Thanks for sharing!

3/14/10 @ 4:03 pm (reply)

12.

Member

tea (message) 7,263 posts, Bee Keeper

haha, who knew such a romantic gesture started out so not romantic.

3/14/10 @ 7:20 pm (reply)

13.

Member

LittlestBirds (message) 2,605 posts, Sugar bee

A very comprehensive 1982 piece, still very relevant, from The Atlantic on the diamond engagement ring and its history in the US: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/4575/

3/14/10 @ 9:05 pm (reply)

14.

Bee

Mrs. Daffodil (message) 565 posts, Busy bee

fascinating!

3/15/10 @ 3:24 am (reply)

15.

Member

alivoo01 (message) 2,622 posts, Sugar bee

I came across this article awhile back and its similar in fashion to the article your friend sent you. Who would have ever known! http://www.hudsonvalleyweddings.com/guide/customs.htm

3/15/10 @ 11:46 am (reply)

16.

Member

clarerichardson (message) 93 posts, Worker bee

You can read in the NYTimes article above that engagement rings are now viewed by most states as a conditional gift (you have to give it back if the marriage doesn’t happen), so the Freakonomics blog is a little off.

My fiance was advised not to propose on any sort of holiday or occasion (Christmas, Valentines, my birthday, etc), or the ring could be viewed as a regular gift (that I would get to keep even if the engagement was broken off).

3/15/10 @ 2:28 pm (reply)

17.

Member

mrspaetz (message) 3,805 posts, Honey bee

Those rings used to be plain bands until the DeBeers company launched arguably the most successful campaign in history — “Diamonds are forever”. So it’s not really a meaningful tradition, just a devious marketing ploy.

3/16/10 @ 12:05 pm (reply)