Why “man-gagement”? That’s stupid. It’s still an engagement ring.
Does the ring go in the guys’ nose?
Colleges admitting more women than men. Businesses refusing to hire males and preferring females. Women now have a lot of money. The castration of males is rapidly reaching a critical mass.
Any woman who would buy into this crap wouldn’t be worth marrying.
It’s nice when your future ex-wife gives you a present. Most beta males really like that.
“...“Cherry made it for me herself out of silver clay,” he said of his new ring, which was handcrafted by his fiancée, Cherry Seaborn. “I really like it.”...”
*************I*************************************
LOL — Wait til he tries to give Cherry an engagement ring that he “handicrafts” out of silver clay.
I wear one. I had a problem with so many hot looking young chicks hitting on me. Sometimes it gets annoying. When I wear my mangagement ring the girls know that I am not on the market right now.
Effeminate cucks...
Means you’re her property. What a wuss.
Hyphenated last name males everywhere rejoice!
Not really because it won’t catch on.
That’s weird. Just don’t get the woman having a hyphenated name thing either.....The man taking the woman’s last name, now that’s REALLY out there.
I can’t believe De Beers didn’t jump on this notion and market it heavily as soon as women started earning significant money in their careers.
Goes around his male parts and squeezes off the blood supply until they fall off — Eunuch! (Wasn’t using them, anyway.)
A man should only propose marriage if he is financially independent/self-sufficient to the point of supporting >2 (!) people.
In doing so, he is asking her to risk complete economic dependency on him (she may have an income, but it’s not guaranteed/required). She may, during the engagement period, leave her other source(s) of income - trusting that he will indeed support her.
The engagement ring is (in my view) literally wearable wealth: enough easy-to-liquidate value to, under whatever circumstance, provide for her basic needs for about 3 months (enough time for her to acquire other income streams). Should he bail out of the engagement, she may need resources to resumer her own independence. If he can’t provide her 3 months’ wealth up front, he’s not ready to support her. That it’s pretty is just a bonus.
Having her obtain him a “man-gagement ring” dilutes this: he should not be in a position to need such portable liquid wealth (and should provide his own reserve out of prudence), the cost diminishes her financial reserves, and ignores the biological realities that _she_ is the one prone to being financially out of commission (transitioning to dependency upon his income/wealth; possible pregnancy).
Insofar as feminists may object: he’s not the one likely to get pregnant, she is - and the greatest contributor to poverty is trying to be a single mother. Having that “3 months wealth” on her finger can at least get her through the toughest financial period she could face. Yes, procreation is the primary point of marriage (not “feelings” - those exist to induce reproduction).
She doesn’t have to be financially beholden to him, but realities of human sexuality mean she’s far more likely to be than the reverse. THAT is why he gives her a pretty - and expensive - ring to clinch engagement.
another ‘straight women’ culture item dewomanized
Our hair has been culturally appropriated, our clothes, our breasts, our names, our legal protections. Oh, and our wombs. Now our traditions.
Just say no.
I’ll look for Ed Sheeran sitting in the passenger seat of his wife’s minivan with the kids in the back.
Why is it that men seem so willing to surrender their man card? Do these men really enjoy being a sissy? Are all American women now eager to be the husband?