<\/p>
An article over at the Atlantic <\/em> web site describes the original purpose of diamond engagement ring: \u201cA now-obsolete law called the \u2018Breach of Promise to Marry\u2019 once allowed women to sue men for breaking off an engagement. Back then, there was a high premium on women being virgins when they married \u2014 or at least when they got engaged. Surveys from the 1940s show that roughly half of engaged couples reported being intimate before the big day. If the groom-to-be walked out after he and the bride-to-be had sex, that left her in a precarious position. From a social angle, she had been permanently \u2018damaged.\u2019 From an economic angle, she had lost her market value. So Breach of Promise to Marry was born.\u201d <\/p>\n It didn\u2019t last. Women eventually lost the right to sue for broken engagements: \u201cBy 1945, 16 states representing nearly half of the nation\u2019s population had made Breach of Promise a historical relic. At the same time, the diamond engagement ring began its transformation from decorative to de rigueur <\/em> . Legal scholar Margaret Brinig doesn\u2019t think that\u2019s a coincidence, and she has the math to prove it. Regressing the percent of people living in states without Breach of Promise against a handful of other variables \u2014 including advertising, per capita <\/em> income and the price of diamonds \u2014 Brinig found that this legal change was actually the most <\/em> significant factor in the rise of the diamond engagement ring. It\u2019s historically plausible. The initial mini-surge in diamond imports came in 1935, four years before DeBeers launched its celebrated advertising campaign.\u201d This throws light on what has become an etiquette question: \u201cshould a jilted bride give back the engagement ring? Today, the answer is often yes. But back when rings first came into vogue, part of the point was that she wouldn\u2019t. It was a security against a default on the engagement.\u201d <\/p>\n Of course, the article ends with a celebratory summary of the progress we\u2019ve made since the old days. Premarital sex is no longer taboo. Women have their own careers and their own money. And men can make and break promises at a whom. Now that\u2019s <\/em> progress. <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" An article over at the Atlantic web site describes the original purpose of diamond engagement ring: \u201cA now-obsolete law called the \u2018Breach of Promise to Marry\u2019 once allowed women to sue men for breaking off an engagement. Back then, there was a high premium on women being virgins when they married \u2014 or at least […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7372","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-history"],"yoast_head":"\n