Home › Forums › Open Discussion › size matters?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 22, 2011 at 5:46 pm #718096
JoBParticipantWSB..
i couldn’t agree more…
I so could have done without a ring…
it has literally been a pain to me every day i have worn it…
the things we do for love…
February 22, 2011 at 6:10 pm #718097
DPMemberPresent company excepted, ok? Just want to get that straight first . . . So ladies, don’t hate on me for what I’m about to say.
Any woman who brags excessively about the size of her diamond is one of two things:
1. From Texas
2. Making an even bigger statement about her other assets
–if you know what I mean by “assets.”
Engagement ring bragging is the female equivalent of male locker-room swagger. By displaying her stone in an obtrusive fashion, a woman is saying, in effect, “Look at me, girls! What a trophy I must be to get a ring like this, huh!”
Notice that women only do this around other women, the same way that guys brag about their “conquests” only around other guys.
And it’s not just because of decorum, either.
If a guy started talking conquests around a woman, he’d be taking a huge risk of her calling bullshit on him (“Sorry, Pee-wee, but you ain’t all that!“) Likewise, if a woman starts flashing her new stone around a guy who’s of the right age to be interested in her, she’s taking a risk of him looking her over in front of everyone and making an expression like: “What? You? Two carats? Nah.”
February 22, 2011 at 7:26 pm #718098
JoBParticipantDP…
i particularly like this quote..
“”a circular instrument placed upon the noses of hogs and the fingers of women to restrain them and bring them into subjection.”
“The bigger and heavier the circlet, the bigger and better the standing of the wedded pair.”
from wiki we learn that wedding rings weren’t typically worn by men until the 20th century and that diamonds weren’t typically part of an engagement (betrothal) ring until the 1930s
the engagement ring belongs to the man until the marriage is legal.. they are the one exception in the laws covering the giving of gifts..
“In some states of the United States, engagement rings are considered “conditional gifts” under the legal rules of property. This is an exception to the general rule that gifts cannot be revoked once properly given”
a man identifies a woman as promised to him by placing his property on her finger…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_ring
i could go on and on..
the history of weddings, betrothals, gifts, dowry’s and property laws is endlessly fascinating to me.. and a real revelation to most young women who consider themselves beyond all of that ancient history…
so… who is shallow here?
the man who purchases the ring ..
which belongs to him even though he gave it to her
or the woman who appreciates it?
personally.. i’m with charla.
i would have preferred a car.
with clear title..
February 22, 2011 at 7:58 pm #718099
JiggersMemberCar or ring? Why expect anything? So men are shallow for buying a wedding ring? Men over the last century have been groomed into thinking that buying a wedding ring is must or no deal. I find it very hard to believe that a woman would turn down a diamond ring in hand of marriage. The poor guy would be lucky to not have to foot the bill that would set him back awhile.
February 23, 2011 at 1:29 am #718100
JoBParticipantjiggers…
it’s called a betrothal gift….
a thank you from the guy
since her parents are expected to pay for the wedding in lieu of a dowry…
and the wedding is where the engaged couple rake in all the loot that sets them up for married life
i should feel sorry for the poor guy..
who makes his own decision whether or not to buy a ring
gets to decide how much he will pay for it
and owns it until the woman fulfills her contract to marry him
????
why?
does he have to pay back her parents if he leaves her standing at the alter? well… no..
it’s pretty funny watching you guys try to come up with ways that you are the poor downtrodden minority…
having to give up for even partial equality sucks..
doesn’t it.
February 23, 2011 at 3:32 am #718101
tanyar23ParticipantFirst, I have been with my husband for 16.5 years. However, married since 2000. No engagement rings. Yeah, we did get wedding rings, and they’re nothing fancy. I love him.
And here’s where I’m gonna hijack this thread. Legalize gay marriage.
February 23, 2011 at 3:42 am #718102
ZenguyParticipantThanks tanyar23 for the jack!
February 23, 2011 at 6:03 am #718103
maudeParticipanttanyar23: funny you should mention gay marriage. My partner and I have been together for over 14 years and never really had to worry about an engagement ring since we can’t yet get married. We do wear simple bands to indicate that we are in a committed relationship. If she ever did present me with an engagement ring I’d give her a look that I’ve given her many, many times in the last 14 years, basically amounting to WTF? And she would do the same to me if I presented her with an engagement ring.
Most of our friends are heterosexual so I can’t really say if same sex couples go through the same pressures to get a huge engagement ring.
February 23, 2011 at 11:54 am #718104
ZenguyParticipantLove is love…
February 23, 2011 at 3:37 pm #718105
tanyar23ParticipantWise words zen.
February 23, 2011 at 5:44 pm #718106
JoBParticipantMaude…
There is something different about same sex relationships… equality.
personally i think it’s an advantage.
it’s not enough to make me give up on the fella i married…
but it’s enough to make me envious.
oh… i know… in time … when all the controversy wears off… your relationships will have all those built in expectations that muck up communication too …
but for now.. from this side of the fence… it looks like a should free zone :)
February 23, 2011 at 5:48 pm #718107
DPMemberI have been with my husband for 16.5 years.
Well, tanya, the first 16.5 are always the hardest . . . so it looks like you’re in the clear. (I tease; you’re never really in the clear.)
Meanwhile, JoB said:
it’s pretty funny watching you guys try to come up with ways that you are the poor downtrodden minority…
Really, JoB? I would say you’ve picked a pretty odd context in which to accuse us guys of playing the martyr. We were talking about how much guys are expected to shell out for a wedding ring . . . remember?
If you’re talking about the martyrdom of marriage, I have this to say: for each female friend of yours who has been oppressed by marriage, I can name you a male friend of mine who has been equally oppressed.*
-DP
*I’m talking only about people we know personally here, not people from a village in Guatemala or something.
February 23, 2011 at 5:57 pm #718108
JoBParticipantDP…
so the poor guy is “expected” to shell out for an engagement ring?
but why does he do so?
because an engagement ring marks his intended as someone who has made a promise to another.
the size and sparkle of the ring denote the affluence and “power” of the contender.
Women aren’t the only ones who notice that ring on the finger …
As for oppression…
how the heck did you make the leap from property rights to oppression?
i will admit that an unsubstantiated belief in property rights often leads to oppression…
but that’s another tale for another time.
please please bring it up again…
i just love hauling out the stats on that one :->
February 23, 2011 at 9:41 pm #718109
DPMemberJo, you’re the one who brought up the word “downtrodden” (i.e., oppressed). And I think you’re the one reading “property rights” into this thing, too. I’m not the one who used that term, you are. (I said “assets” — but I meant it in a different sense altogether.)
But now that you mention it, property rights are one aspect of the inequality that always has, and always will, plague the relations between the sexes. The other is something that maude alludes to in another post: namely, division of labor.
Until about 30 years ago, married women in this country generally got the short end of the stick on both counts: property and division of labor. During the marriage, women had to do most of the work, while receiving little recognition from men of the real value of that work. If the marriage ended, women were rarely granted a share of the “proceeds” equal to what they had contributed.
But now that’s changing, and women are starting to even the score. Some women are getting more than even, in fact, and I can tell you stories from personal experience.
Go ahead and cite all the statistics you want. I won’t contest them. Just remember that statistics only tell part of the story. And I repeat my earlier challenge to you: for every tale of some poor woman you know who’s been abused by a cad, I can give you a similar story of some poor schmuck who got taken to the cleaners.
You said you were fascinated by discussions of marriage, so let’s rumble . . .
(Maybe we should sell tickets.)
February 23, 2011 at 9:56 pm #718110
datamuseParticipantY’all may be interested to know that Stephanie Coontz, who is the author of Marriage, A History and The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap and is a professor at Evergreen, will be on Colbert Report tonight…
February 23, 2011 at 10:04 pm #718111
JoBParticipantDP…
LOL…
while i am certain your wife is requiring you to do more housework than you anticipated when you married.. poor hubby is similarly burdened… i am still willing to bet that the overall burden of “housework” is hers.
Hubby’s comment last fall said it all.
I was too ill to dismantle our watering system and take in the hoses last fall so i asked him to do that for me.
When he had finished.. he commented that i should remind him how much work that was next spring because he never realized what a big job it was.
Home making is a huge job..
and although men do take on more tasks than they once did…
at the end of the day there is still plenty left to do.
Hubby works every day and gets weekends off.
I don’t :(
February 23, 2011 at 10:10 pm #718112
DPMemberCOL…
Housework / homemaking is one thing. Who gets to keep the house afterward is another.
I’m a marvellous housekeeper. Every time I leave a man, I keep his house.
—Zsa Zsa Gabor
COL = Crying Out Loud
February 23, 2011 at 10:25 pm #718113
JoBParticipantDP…
again.. nasty truth intrudes.
while Zsa Zsa may have been able to keep the house every time she left a man
the statistics prove that a woman’s standard of living is far more likely to decline following divorce …both short and long term … than a man’s. Ditto for their kids.
yup.. it’s true. look it up for yourself.
February 23, 2011 at 10:42 pm #718114
JanSParticipantwho keeps? Hah!. Divorced in Nov. ’95. 4 month hospitalized illness in spring ’96. Ex hubby who wanted his share….wouldn’t even come mow the frikkin’ lawn for me while I recovered from a very major surgery and lived off of all my savings because I couldn’t work. Upkeep on the house suffered….sold in Dec. 97 so I could pay off ex-hubby. Bad taste in my mouth for men in general for about 4 years after that. Now used to the independence and a simpler way of life. Yes, it’s only one story, DP…don’t act like men are so put upon…I’d argue with you on every turn. :-
February 23, 2011 at 10:46 pm #718115
JanSParticipantoh, and DP? 15 yo daughter was my responsibility. She lived with me the entire time…when I was hospitalized he moved back in with her RENT FREE. She never ever once visited him for a weekend, ever. She grew up with me. Still lives next door to me, and she’s 30 now – lol. Sort of like moving home again, but not quite. I used to think that no one won financially in a divorce, but…speaking from experience, I can say that, at least for me, the woman suffered just a tad more. (and never an engagement ring…never a diamond of any kind, not even a chip in a watch!)
We all have a story..this tit for tat stuff gets old.
February 23, 2011 at 10:49 pm #718116
SmittyParticipantJanS, not to get too personal(and not sure of your age, so not trying to offend!), but if your ex is retired and collecting SS you are entitled to an amount equal to 50% of his SS check – whether you work or not.
If the amount you receive is higher, then of course you should just take that.
Just always like to make sure people know that.
February 24, 2011 at 12:20 am #718117
JanSParticipantoh, I’m well aware of that, Smitty. I listened to my mom, who always said, get ’em young and raise ’em right – lol…he’s 5 years younger than me…and I haven’t reached retirement age just yet.I will start collecting in a couple of years. We’ll see what he’s doing then.There were a lot of years that I was a SAHM, and didn’t put money into the SS pool….much to my detriment.He has contributed much more than me.
February 24, 2011 at 6:39 am #718118
HarmonicParticipantI have a decent sized ring. my hubby said to the jeweler, I want it to sparkle and i want it to be klutz proof. is that so bad? I never expected any of that, would have been happy with a diamond chip, a cracker box ring, a tattoo. My husband is sweet enough to make sure that it could endure Harmonic. Does that make me a jerk? This thread seems to indicate that. there is and was nothing but sweetness behind his intent. and my ring is beautiful. he wanted to do it, and i love it!
February 24, 2011 at 9:34 pm #718119
JoBParticipantHarmonic…
i love what my ring represents…
the love of my husband.
it’s pretty wonderful to look down when his hand is holding mine and see my ring sparkling.
i would love it better if i only wore it on special occasions.
but that’s my personal problem
February 24, 2011 at 10:27 pm #718120
DPMemberDP…don’t act like men are so put upon……I’d argue with you on every turn.
—This I believe. This I believe!
OK, I won’t tell you my stories then.
I was going to tell you one about Zsa Zsa and me . . . but newwwwwwp! Not now. No way.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.