Why do some women think it's acceptable to get engaged without a ring?

[Anonymous]

I wanted a ring, but I was willing to give my now husband a gift to conmemorate our engagement. He wanted a watch so I gave him one. A ring for him would have been ok too.

I agree with the poster who say that a one way expectation of a ring is anti-feminist, and that engagement shouldn't mark women only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I reject your version of feminism that is defined as the abolishment of gender norms.

I don’t have a problem with arbitrary gender norms like skirts or whatever. I have a problem with ones that limit the freedom or dignity of one sex while not doing so for the other.

If men also had to wear engagement rings, I’d have no problem with them. Why should women have to signal they are taken but men don’t? No.

You’re entitled to your opinion about gender norms. I have a problem with women suggesting that other women aren’t feminist because they don’t believe the same way you do. Women should do what they want about engagement rings, but wanting one doesn’t make a person NOT a feminist.

DP. Words have a meaning. Feminism means equality. Expecting someone to give you a gift on the basis of your gender is not feminist. The woman in question might be a feminist but her expectations in this regard are not.

Feminism is advocating for equal legal rights and opportunities. You don’t get to redefine the movement for everyone.

What millenium are you living in? You seem to be stuck in the Second Wave of Feminism. Fourth Wave Feminisists recognize gendered norms for men and women perpetuate inequality. They are harmful to everyone.

You are entitled to your opinion but that’s all it is. I am a feminist whether you are advancing towards a tenth feminism or what have you. And given the sales of engagement rings, I would say most American women are like me and would expect one so your opinion is the minority. You should move on, you aren’t convincing.

Spare us your alt-facts. Not a single person has said it's anti-feminist to want a ring. It's your expectation that you should get one because that's what men give women that's anti-feminist.

What's the difference between a want and an expectation?

"It would be nice to have x, but it's ok if x doesn't happen" vs. "I want x and I will get mad if you don't give it to me". Expectations come with a sense of self entitlement.

what about "I want a ring and won't get engaged to a man who refuses to give me one?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The olds’ hypocrisy of “The man proposes with a diamond ring on bended knee after getting permission from her father” but “I am a proud feminist” simply cannot die off soon enough.

Gag.

Has any of the women here who expects a ring identifiex herself as a feminist?

I don't know how they could. Feminism is about having choices and honoring the choice. Expecting a proposal and an engagement ring is anti-feminist even when it's a role reversal - their expectation is that a man will meet the expectation of gendered role simply because he's male. It's definitely contrary to feminism.

I expected a ring and consider myself a feminist for sure. Feminism is absolutely about a woman’s freedom to live her life the way she chooses, to vote and get an education just as any man could, to be president or a SAHM. It doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the differences between the sexes, both in terms of biology and society. Seems like we disagree on what feminism is.

I don’t care one bit if a woman wants a ring or not, but I do hope in these situations it’s not a woman wanting a ring and going along with not getting one to keep her guy or appear like a cool girl. I particularly love the greenhouse story.

If you consider yourself a feminist, how have you missed the Fourth Wave?

Feminists now recognize that it is not just women that are harmed by women's inequity. Everyone is harm even men. Gendered norms are just as much pillars of toxic masculinity and patriarchy as women's inequity. Expecting a man to propose and give you a ring just because he's a man and you're a woman is a gendered norm.

There is nothing wrong with wanting and asking for something. How a someone responds to a loved one's request is an indication of what kind of partner they will be. Expecting a ring and proposal from a man because you are a woman is no different than a expecting a woman to be responsible all gift giving for her DH's family simply because that's what women are supposed to do. Again, asking is perfectly fine. Expecting something because of gendered norms is not.

I feel like you completely don't understand fourth-wave feminism. You are just talking about equality, not equity. I am glad a lot of us have moved on from "choice feminism," but the idea that we can just switch gender roles to see what's okay and what isn't is poorly lacking in analysis. That's like saying that a woman catcalling a man is as bad as a man catcalling a woman. It sounds nice and tidy but ignores the element of traditional male entitlement to a woman's kindness and attention, as well as the very real physical danger men pose to women. Men and women are not the same because historically we have been treated very differently. In terms of rings, women have been groomed to believe that their worth depends on being married, and so a lot of women will be willing to give way more than they get in order to become and stay married. It's totally reasonable for a woman to say "look, marriage is often a better deal for men than it is for women, and I need to know that you're excited to marry me and commit to me, and to me, part of that is a ring." If a woman doesn't want a ring, then obviously that is fine too (I am not 100% with OP on that).

And in what way are men harmed by a woman refusing to marry without a ring? They might not get to marry that woman? They might have to buy a worse car so they can afford a ring? I can provide in specific detail the harm that comes from a man expecting his wife to take care of the mental load of gift-giving in his family. These are not equivalent.

PP you're responding to. Feminism is not about comparative injustice. We can all acknowledge the disproporationate degree to which women have suffered, been targeted and discriminated against. That doesn't mean it is acceptable to treat men in the way that we have been treated. Wrong is wrong no matter the gender.

It seems you are agreeing with me regarding the ring. There's nothing wrong with a woman asking/wanting/accepting a ring. What's wrong is the expectation of a ring because that's what men get women they want to marry.

I have no idea what you're trying to say in your last paragraph but it appears to be some sort of comparison of effort. It doesn't matter. Wrong is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with this. Nothing.

Just like there's nothing wrong to expect your wife and daughter to be housewives because that's what women do.

If my daughter wants to be a housewife, she has my blessing. That’s the beauty of real feminism - choice.

Wanting to be a housewife is basically saying "i don't want to work, i just want to be financially supported by a man i'm in a romantic relatiinship with". That sort of relationship is nothing but socially condoned monogamous sex work. I'd be really disapointed if any of my children went that route, and no, I'm not a feminist.

Prostitutes exchange sexual services for money. Housewives make home and raise children. Women who aspire to be housewives just want the best for their families.

There's no such thing as "making home". Making home is just doing chores, like any adult is supposed to. And kids should be raised by both parents, but then again, you're not raising them 24/7, especially if they're going to school and extra-curricular activities.

Feminist women make their own decisions whether you look down on SAHMs or not. Your judgment is useless.

Yes. And these posters who hate “housewives” don’t value childcare and don’t believe it’s work. This usually coincides with ignorance about the enormous physical, career, and emotional sacrifice of having children. Just lots of sexism and misogyny.

Um, no. We just believe that children should be taken care of by both parents.

If both parents are working, then the kids are cared for *less* by their parents than if there is a SAHM. So is your problem with the SAHM model the fact that the time the kids would otherwise spend in daycare or with a nanny is instead spent with one of their parents?

The issue is that this caretaker parent is almost always the woman. Parenting expectations are sky high for women and very low for men.

Well, that's true regardless of whether or not you're talking about a traditional setup or a setup with two working parents. When you have a good SAHM/working dad setup, the dad isn't spending less time with the kids than he would be if the wife were working. The prior comment said that posters who don't like "housewives" just believe that children should be taken care of by both parents. If a dad only spends time with his kids after work isn't taking care of his kids, what does that say about moms who only spend time with their kid after work?

This line of thinking just seems like a bizarre reason to dislike SAHMs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The olds’ hypocrisy of “The man proposes with a diamond ring on bended knee after getting permission from her father” but “I am a proud feminist” simply cannot die off soon enough.

Gag.

Has any of the women here who expects a ring identifiex herself as a feminist?

I don't know how they could. Feminism is about having choices and honoring the choice. Expecting a proposal and an engagement ring is anti-feminist even when it's a role reversal - their expectation is that a man will meet the expectation of gendered role simply because he's male. It's definitely contrary to feminism.

I expected a ring and consider myself a feminist for sure. Feminism is absolutely about a woman’s freedom to live her life the way she chooses, to vote and get an education just as any man could, to be president or a SAHM. It doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the differences between the sexes, both in terms of biology and society. Seems like we disagree on what feminism is.

I don’t care one bit if a woman wants a ring or not, but I do hope in these situations it’s not a woman wanting a ring and going along with not getting one to keep her guy or appear like a cool girl. I particularly love the greenhouse story.

If you consider yourself a feminist, how have you missed the Fourth Wave?

Feminists now recognize that it is not just women that are harmed by women's inequity. Everyone is harm even men. Gendered norms are just as much pillars of toxic masculinity and patriarchy as women's inequity. Expecting a man to propose and give you a ring just because he's a man and you're a woman is a gendered norm.

There is nothing wrong with wanting and asking for something. How a someone responds to a loved one's request is an indication of what kind of partner they will be. Expecting a ring and proposal from a man because you are a woman is no different than a expecting a woman to be responsible all gift giving for her DH's family simply because that's what women are supposed to do. Again, asking is perfectly fine. Expecting something because of gendered norms is not.

I feel like you completely don't understand fourth-wave feminism. You are just talking about equality, not equity. I am glad a lot of us have moved on from "choice feminism," but the idea that we can just switch gender roles to see what's okay and what isn't is poorly lacking in analysis. That's like saying that a woman catcalling a man is as bad as a man catcalling a woman. It sounds nice and tidy but ignores the element of traditional male entitlement to a woman's kindness and attention, as well as the very real physical danger men pose to women. Men and women are not the same because historically we have been treated very differently. In terms of rings, women have been groomed to believe that their worth depends on being married, and so a lot of women will be willing to give way more than they get in order to become and stay married. It's totally reasonable for a woman to say "look, marriage is often a better deal for men than it is for women, and I need to know that you're excited to marry me and commit to me, and to me, part of that is a ring." If a woman doesn't want a ring, then obviously that is fine too (I am not 100% with OP on that).

And in what way are men harmed by a woman refusing to marry without a ring? They might not get to marry that woman? They might have to buy a worse car so they can afford a ring? I can provide in specific detail the harm that comes from a man expecting his wife to take care of the mental load of gift-giving in his family. These are not equivalent.

PP you're responding to. Feminism is not about comparative injustice. We can all acknowledge the disproporationate degree to which women have suffered, been targeted and discriminated against. That doesn't mean it is acceptable to treat men in the way that we have been treated. Wrong is wrong no matter the gender.

It seems you are agreeing with me regarding the ring. There's nothing wrong with a woman asking/wanting/accepting a ring. What's wrong is the expectation of a ring because that's what men get women they want to marry.

I have no idea what you're trying to say in your last paragraph but it appears to be some sort of comparison of effort. It doesn't matter. Wrong is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with this. Nothing.

Just like there's nothing wrong to expect your wife and daughter to be housewives because that's what women do.

If my daughter wants to be a housewife, she has my blessing. That’s the beauty of real feminism - choice.

Wanting to be a housewife is basically saying "i don't want to work, i just want to be financially supported by a man i'm in a romantic relatiinship with". That sort of relationship is nothing but socially condoned monogamous sex work. I'd be really disapointed if any of my children went that route, and no, I'm not a feminist.

Prostitutes exchange sexual services for money. Housewives make home and raise children. Women who aspire to be housewives just want the best for their families.

There's no such thing as "making home". Making home is just doing chores, like any adult is supposed to. And kids should be raised by both parents, but then again, you're not raising them 24/7, especially if they're going to school and extra-curricular activities.

Feminist women make their own decisions whether you look down on SAHMs or not. Your judgment is useless.

Yes. And these posters who hate “housewives” don’t value childcare and don’t believe it’s work. This usually coincides with ignorance about the enormous physical, career, and emotional sacrifice of having children. Just lots of sexism and misogyny.

DP. It's not that childcare can't be work, it's that the entry barrier to providing childcare to your own kids is very low. Women don't become SAHMs because of their skills, they become SAHMs because they marry well or because they don't make enough money to justify paying for childcare.

Women also become SAHMs because men are not expected to do their faire share of childcare as they tend to see time spent on it less valuable than time spent making big bucks at a high skill job. Plenty of SAHMs wouldn't respect a man who stays home either.

SAHMs don't even do more childcare than working parents once children start school. At that point, most of the sophisticated childcare is performed by educators and childcare professionals.

I'm a working mom but this misogynistic drivel.

Some women become SAHMs because they truly want to do the work of raising kids and tending a home. They want to be the one to physically care for their children, instead of working and paying another woman to do it.

Some women become SAHMs because many women work in lower wage fields and they don't earn as much as childcare costs. So families choose to have the lower wage earner stay home (and due to patriarchal economies that devalue the work of many women) this is more likely to be the woman.

Most SAHMs do not stay in that role forever, though they also don't return to other paid full time work. Because of the continued stigma of resume gaps, and the fact that school is never a full childcare solution, many SAHMs go on to be one part time or underpaid workers whose work is further devalued because they are mothers who need flexibility for their kids.

The percent of families who can make enough money to either have one full time SAHP or who can afford to fully outsource all work-hours childcare is so small as to be almost irrelevant to this conversation. But this group is overrepresented on DCUM and many of you are too myopic to realize that your situation is rare, especially in high cost of living areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I reject your version of feminism that is defined as the abolishment of gender norms.

I don’t have a problem with arbitrary gender norms like skirts or whatever. I have a problem with ones that limit the freedom or dignity of one sex while not doing so for the other.

If men also had to wear engagement rings, I’d have no problem with them. Why should women have to signal they are taken but men don’t? No.

You’re entitled to your opinion about gender norms. I have a problem with women suggesting that other women aren’t feminist because they don’t believe the same way you do. Women should do what they want about engagement rings, but wanting one doesn’t make a person NOT a feminist.

DP. Words have a meaning. Feminism means equality. Expecting someone to give you a gift on the basis of your gender is not feminist. The woman in question might be a feminist but her expectations in this regard are not.

Feminism is advocating for equal legal rights and opportunities. You don’t get to redefine the movement for everyone.

What millenium are you living in? You seem to be stuck in the Second Wave of Feminism. Fourth Wave Feminisists recognize gendered norms for men and women perpetuate inequality. They are harmful to everyone.

You are entitled to your opinion but that’s all it is. I am a feminist whether you are advancing towards a tenth feminism or what have you. And given the sales of engagement rings, I would say most American women are like me and would expect one so your opinion is the minority. You should move on, you aren’t convincing.

Spare us your alt-facts. Not a single person has said it's anti-feminist to want a ring. It's your expectation that you should get one because that's what men give women that's anti-feminist.

What's the difference between a want and an expectation?

"It would be nice to have x, but it's ok if x doesn't happen" vs. "I want x and I will get mad if you don't give it to me". Expectations come with a sense of self entitlement.

what about "I want a ring and won't get engaged to a man who refuses to give me one?"

That transcends feminisism and lands you in red flag territory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The olds’ hypocrisy of “The man proposes with a diamond ring on bended knee after getting permission from her father” but “I am a proud feminist” simply cannot die off soon enough.

Gag.

Has any of the women here who expects a ring identifiex herself as a feminist?

I don't know how they could. Feminism is about having choices and honoring the choice. Expecting a proposal and an engagement ring is anti-feminist even when it's a role reversal - their expectation is that a man will meet the expectation of gendered role simply because he's male. It's definitely contrary to feminism.

I expected a ring and consider myself a feminist for sure. Feminism is absolutely about a woman’s freedom to live her life the way she chooses, to vote and get an education just as any man could, to be president or a SAHM. It doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the differences between the sexes, both in terms of biology and society. Seems like we disagree on what feminism is.

I don’t care one bit if a woman wants a ring or not, but I do hope in these situations it’s not a woman wanting a ring and going along with not getting one to keep her guy or appear like a cool girl. I particularly love the greenhouse story.

If you consider yourself a feminist, how have you missed the Fourth Wave?

Feminists now recognize that it is not just women that are harmed by women's inequity. Everyone is harm even men. Gendered norms are just as much pillars of toxic masculinity and patriarchy as women's inequity. Expecting a man to propose and give you a ring just because he's a man and you're a woman is a gendered norm.

There is nothing wrong with wanting and asking for something. How a someone responds to a loved one's request is an indication of what kind of partner they will be. Expecting a ring and proposal from a man because you are a woman is no different than a expecting a woman to be responsible all gift giving for her DH's family simply because that's what women are supposed to do. Again, asking is perfectly fine. Expecting something because of gendered norms is not.

I feel like you completely don't understand fourth-wave feminism. You are just talking about equality, not equity. I am glad a lot of us have moved on from "choice feminism," but the idea that we can just switch gender roles to see what's okay and what isn't is poorly lacking in analysis. That's like saying that a woman catcalling a man is as bad as a man catcalling a woman. It sounds nice and tidy but ignores the element of traditional male entitlement to a woman's kindness and attention, as well as the very real physical danger men pose to women. Men and women are not the same because historically we have been treated very differently. In terms of rings, women have been groomed to believe that their worth depends on being married, and so a lot of women will be willing to give way more than they get in order to become and stay married. It's totally reasonable for a woman to say "look, marriage is often a better deal for men than it is for women, and I need to know that you're excited to marry me and commit to me, and to me, part of that is a ring." If a woman doesn't want a ring, then obviously that is fine too (I am not 100% with OP on that).

And in what way are men harmed by a woman refusing to marry without a ring? They might not get to marry that woman? They might have to buy a worse car so they can afford a ring? I can provide in specific detail the harm that comes from a man expecting his wife to take care of the mental load of gift-giving in his family. These are not equivalent.

PP you're responding to. Feminism is not about comparative injustice. We can all acknowledge the disproporationate degree to which women have suffered, been targeted and discriminated against. That doesn't mean it is acceptable to treat men in the way that we have been treated. Wrong is wrong no matter the gender.

It seems you are agreeing with me regarding the ring. There's nothing wrong with a woman asking/wanting/accepting a ring. What's wrong is the expectation of a ring because that's what men get women they want to marry.

I have no idea what you're trying to say in your last paragraph but it appears to be some sort of comparison of effort. It doesn't matter. Wrong is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with this. Nothing.

Just like there's nothing wrong to expect your wife and daughter to be housewives because that's what women do.

If my daughter wants to be a housewife, she has my blessing. That’s the beauty of real feminism - choice.

Wanting to be a housewife is basically saying "i don't want to work, i just want to be financially supported by a man i'm in a romantic relatiinship with". That sort of relationship is nothing but socially condoned monogamous sex work. I'd be really disapointed if any of my children went that route, and no, I'm not a feminist.

Prostitutes exchange sexual services for money. Housewives make home and raise children. Women who aspire to be housewives just want the best for their families.

There's no such thing as "making home". Making home is just doing chores, like any adult is supposed to. And kids should be raised by both parents, but then again, you're not raising them 24/7, especially if they're going to school and extra-curricular activities.

Feminist women make their own decisions whether you look down on SAHMs or not. Your judgment is useless.

Yes. And these posters who hate “housewives” don’t value childcare and don’t believe it’s work. This usually coincides with ignorance about the enormous physical, career, and emotional sacrifice of having children. Just lots of sexism and misogyny.

DP. It's not that childcare can't be work, it's that the entry barrier to providing childcare to your own kids is very low. Women don't become SAHMs because of their skills, they become SAHMs because they marry well or because they don't make enough money to justify paying for childcare.

Women also become SAHMs because men are not expected to do their faire share of childcare as they tend to see time spent on it less valuable than time spent making big bucks at a high skill job. Plenty of SAHMs wouldn't respect a man who stays home either.

SAHMs don't even do more childcare than working parents once children start school. At that point, most of the sophisticated childcare is performed by educators and childcare professionals.

I'm a working mom but this misogynistic drivel.

Some women become SAHMs because they truly want to do the work of raising kids and tending a home. They want to be the one to physically care for their children, instead of working and paying another woman to do it.

Some women become SAHMs because many women work in lower wage fields and they don't earn as much as childcare costs. So families choose to have the lower wage earner stay home (and due to patriarchal economies that devalue the work of many women) this is more likely to be the woman.

Most SAHMs do not stay in that role forever, though they also don't return to other paid full time work. Because of the continued stigma of resume gaps, and the fact that school is never a full childcare solution, many SAHMs go on to be one part time or underpaid workers whose work is further devalued because they are mothers who need flexibility for their kids.

The percent of families who can make enough money to either have one full time SAHP or who can afford to fully outsource all work-hours childcare is so small as to be almost irrelevant to this conversation. But this group is overrepresented on DCUM and many of you are too myopic to realize that your situation is rare, especially in high cost of living areas.

I already expressed in my first paragraph the lack of money to pay for childcare is one of the factors pushing women to become SAHMs.

It's not that women's roles are devalued, it's that women are constantly pushed into roles that are seen as less valuable. It's a fact that almost any body could become a homemaker and that's the reason why the role is less valued than a role that requires training or skills.

[Anonymous]

And given the sales of engagement rings, I would say most American women are like me and would expect one

Imagine DeBeers switched their marketing/business model to "Season Tickets to your man's preferred sporting event is FOREVER". And this drove the equivalent level of sales revenue ("given the sales of engagement rings").

If a guy said, "And given the sales of Engagement Season Tickets, I would say most American men are like me and would expect [season tickets]"

My response: that guy is a complete idiot. Leave him immediately. Find love.

[Anonymous]

You're way too caught up on what society says is right before marriage. Who made the rule that an engagement ring is a must?! Do you even know? I'm sure you don't, but in your mind if that very non-important step isn't taken then the engagement isn't valid? There's so much more to marriage than engagement rings and ridiculously expensive weddings. Get a grip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're way too caught up on what society says is right before marriage. Who made the rule that an engagement ring is a must?! Do you even know? I'm sure you don't, but in your mind if that very non-important step isn't taken then the engagement isn't valid? There's so much more to marriage than engagement rings and ridiculously expensive weddings. Get a grip.

The Blood Diamond Cartel.

The answer is, literally, the marketing machine funded by The Blood Diamond Cartel.

[Anonymous]

Your sister sounds like a pick me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your sister sounds like a pick me.

And you sound materialistic

[Anonymous]

Why, oh why, would anyone other than the two people getting engaged care if there is a ring or not?!?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because to them it's acceptable. If none of the parties care about rings and proposals why should they go ahead with it? It sounds like you are the one with the problem.

I know they find it acceptable. That's the point. It's sad they're ok with it.

You find what sad? that others have different values than you? That others might not care about jewelry? That other people choose different ways of expressing their love/decision to marry? You are incredibly shallow and I am sad for you and whatever children you might have and are imparting your materialistic values on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because to them it's acceptable. If none of the parties care about rings and proposals why should they go ahead with it? It sounds like you are the one with the problem.

I know they find it acceptable. That's the point. It's sad they're ok with it.

You find what sad? that others have different values than you? That others might not care about jewelry? That other people choose different ways of expressing their love/decision to marry? You are incredibly shallow and I am sad for you and whatever children you might have and are imparting your materialistic values on.

That PP/OP is either a troll or a person who is too stupid to understand what she’s attempting to talk about. For people who have experienced real love, IYKYK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're way too caught up on what society says is right before marriage. Who made the rule that an engagement ring is a must?! Do you even know? I'm sure you don't, but in your mind if that very non-important step isn't taken then the engagement isn't valid? There's so much more to marriage than engagement rings and ridiculously expensive weddings. Get a grip.

The Blood Diamond Cartel.

The answer is, literally, the marketing machine funded by The Blood Diamond Cartel.

Yep. A case study in marketing creating demand.