Ever since I first heard this intriguing question, I have pondered over it. Why do men not wear engagement rings? After all, both partners are engaged, not just the woman.

Your first guess is probably correct — historical gender roles. Traditionally, it has been the man’s role to initiate a relationship and declare his intentions. Let us consider the practice of spooning, first used by lovesick men in Wales to describe an enamored suitor who would carve a wooden spoon as a token of his affection. If the woman accepted and wore it on a ribbon around her neck, it signified her reciprocation, and they became engaged.

Even when love was not the primary factor, engagement practices still reflected gender roles. Take one of the earliest recorded engagement rings in history. In 1518, Mary, daughter of Henry VIII, was given an engagement ring by the infant Dauphin of France, son of King Francis I. At the time, Princess Mary was two years old. Yes, take a moment to process that.

Although the Ancient Egyptians are credited with the first wedding rings — braided from reeds or leather — documented history traces engagement rings back to the Roman Empire. Roman wives wore rings attached to small keys, symbolizing their husbands’ ownership. From this brief history lesson, we see that it has always been the man’s role to give the woman a ring, which logically means he does not receive one himself. His act of proposing is considered sufficient proof of his commitment.

Beyond history, cultural norms have reinforced this practice. The idea that engagement rings are primarily for women has been passed down through generations, creating a strong association between women and engagement rings. Another key player in this tradition is the diamond company De Beers, which launched its iconic “a diamond is forever” campaign in 1947. By marketing diamond engagement rings exclusively to women and encouraging famous persons to wear them, De Beers solidified the expectation that men should be the buyers and women the wearers — especially at a time when men were more financially capable.

Then there’s societal expectation. Proposals are widely seen as a symbolic act, with the man proposing to the woman to signal his intention to marry. If he were to wear an engagement ring, it might seem redundant — akin to submitting an application to a school and then approving it yourself (that analogy might not be perfect, but you get the point).

However, times are changing. Are evolving attitudes toward relationships and gender equality leading to a shift in this tradition? My observation, here in 2025, is yes — gently but steadily. We are beginning to see more men wearing engagement rings, not out of obligation but as a personal choice. It is no longer viewed as unmanly or unnecessary. In fact, many men now wear engagement rings as a symbol of intentionality, a desire to be just as “claimed” as their fiancées.

Some men, of course, still see no need for an engagement ring. Cultural norms remain deeply ingrained, and practical questions arise — should he buy himself a ring? Or should his fiancée buy one for him? If she does, does that not simply duplicate the same intention? In a society where engagement traditionally signifies ownership, who, then, “owns” the groom? If a man claims his bride, how does she claim him?

But in the end, it has never really been about the ring — it should not be. Engagement is about commitment, continued intentionality and loyalty.

So, in the spirit of Valentine’s Day, if you’re planning to propose this Friday, go ahead and get down on one knee — but don’t forget to have your own ring ready too.

Happy Valentine’s 2025, lovebirds!