Fedup&givingup Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Originally posted by HokeyReligions "With this ring, I thee wed" It doesn't say "with this piece of paper I thee wed" A ring has been part of the culture for a long time. When I'm out people see my ring and may think "she's loved" (or if I'm lucky they may think "dang - she's taken") When I look at my ring, I am reminded that a man loved me enough to claim me publicly. In a way it is proprietorship, but he wears a ring too so we "own" each other. Hokey, I agree whole heartedly with your entire post. This part is what I've been trying to enforce on the other thread. The simple fact of the matter is that when you see an impressive ring on a woman's finger, you ARE impressed. It doesn't have to be a diamond...my favorite stone is a sapphire . My ring is a wrap with sapphires and diamond baguettes, and a solitaire in the center. It's beautiful, and it's not a giant rock, but I've been complimented on it several times throughout the years. It's just a classy looking set. Link to post Share on other sites
Papillon Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Question, FedUp: What happens if the ring was stolen or lost? Eh? Would you then be "unpossessed". Poor you, you're going to look at your empty finger and not feel loved and cherished. Link to post Share on other sites
Fedup&givingup Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Originally posted by Papillon Question, FedUp: What happens if the ring was stolen or lost? Eh? Would you then be "unpossessed". Poor you, you're going to look at your empty finger and not feel loved and cherished. If my ring were stolen or lost, I would have my insurance recoup my loss. I'm not dumb. Link to post Share on other sites
Papillon Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 You're missing the point of the question entirely (or perhaps, you're not, but that would be utterly revolting). Link to post Share on other sites
CurlyIam Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 So Fed is for a saphire ring, you're not. What's the point I'm missing? Link to post Share on other sites
Papillon Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 The point is that the ring is supposedly an icon of "ownership", an icon of someone loving you and being committed you. What happens when the ring is no longer? Are those fuzzy feelings supposed to disappear? Or that the more expensive the ring, the greater the love? No, and that is the point, that the ring in itself is unimportant, it's an affectation, a trinket with an artificially imposed value. The presence or non-presence of a ring should make no difference to two people who truely love each other. Link to post Share on other sites
CurlyIam Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Originally posted by Papillon The presence or non-presence of a ring should make no difference to two people who truely love each other. Should, but in fact does, as each individual has an unique set of values. I do not understand why exactly do you find it so hard to respect that. Why does this bother you so much? Link to post Share on other sites
Papillon Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 It bothers me when people don't have the wisdom to put something like that in perspective. It's a goddamn piece of metal with carbon and/or or aluminium oxide crystal imbedded in it, for chrissakes. It's all so indicative of a broken society, and broken values. Link to post Share on other sites
CurlyIam Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 You forgot the ozone lair... and dyer's favorite subject, consumerism Link to post Share on other sites
Papillon Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Of course it's consumerism. Nothing but. At least, it's a symptom of it. It's all economics, and it's disgusting, when the price of love is measured in carats. Have you taken a moment to think what constitutes love in the joining of two people in marriage, that do not live in a consumerist society, like rain forest tribes, for example? I'll bet if they could hear the pathetic hoopla women are making about a stupid ring of metal here, they'd sadly shake their heads, and dissappear into the undergrowth to go and love each other like the true innocents they are. Link to post Share on other sites
sumdude Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Originally posted by Papillon Of course it's consumerism. Nothing but. At least, it's a symptom of it. It's all economics, and it's disgusting, when the price of love is measured in carats. Have you taken a moment to think what constitutes love in the joining of two people in marriage, that do not live in a consumerist society, like rain forest tribes, for example? I'll bet if they could hear the pathetic hoopla women are making about a stupid ring of metal here, they'd sadly shake their heads, and dissappear into the undergrowth to go and love each other like the true innocents they are. DeBeers started it all anyway. Diamond engagement rings are relatively new in society. In the old days it was the bride's family that paid the groom and family the dowry! Check out the section on the 20th. century. Around WWII diamond demand and prices were dropping and deBeers was getting nervouse. So the maketing blitz began. An just like the fact that women feel 'fat' if they don't look a certain way Men are made to feel 'cheap' and 'unloving' if they don't buy the proper diamond. http://www.engagement-ring-advice.com/history-of-the-engagement-ring.html Link to post Share on other sites
CaterpillarGirl Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 I hate diamonds. I'm all for sapphires, too. But the man I marry could give me a plastic ring and I wouldn't care! In fact, that might be the wisest course of action given my propensity to misplace small items. One of the cutest traditions I've heard of is that in renaissance times the stones were aligned to spell out a message like, "Love" or "George",etc. "Sara" might have been Sapphire, Agate, Ruby, Amethyst. Link to post Share on other sites
Thinkalot Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Originally posted by Papillon It bothers me when people don't have the wisdom to put something like that in perspective. It's a goddamn piece of metal with carbon and/or or aluminium oxide crystal imbedded in it, for chrissakes. It's all so indicative of a broken society, and broken values. That's your opinion Papillon, to which you are of course entitled. But different cultures place value on different symbols. I disagree with your viewpoint on this subject But I do not consider myself materialistic in the least. I in fact don't have many fancy possessions at all, as I tend to poor my money into travel and life experiences, which carry more weight for me. I just value the symbolism of the rings and the exchange of them, and think that if you can afford to wear something of your choice, which makes you feel good, and makes your guy feel good in the giving...well, good for you! When married, I will certainly see my ring as more that a piece of metal. And if something happens to it, well, I guess we'd replace it with something else which would still have the same meaning and symbolism. Link to post Share on other sites
spencer Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 the ring was meant to hold resale value, to be sold, incase the family provider died, so the family wouldn't starve or become homeless. the bigger the diamond ring the longer the family could have neccessities. not much has changed. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by Papillon Have you taken a moment to think what constitutes love in the joining of two people in marriage, that do not live in a consumerist society, like rain forest tribes, for example? I'll bet if they could hear the pathetic hoopla women are making about a stupid ring of metal here, they'd sadly shake their heads, and dissappear into the undergrowth to go and love each other like the true innocents they are. More then likely, they'd sadly shake their heads, and dissapear back into the depths of one of DeBeers' bloody South African diamond mines, which they're forced to work in to afford an arbitrary extracurrency tax system set in place by political mercenaries of the diamond cartel. Link to post Share on other sites
Thinkalot Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 So dyermaker, the inequalities of the world aside, what is your view on the ring debate? Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Social Justice is sexy, you know it. Regarding the ring 'debate', I think it's totally superficial to appraise the economic value of a ring and equate it to 'amount of love'. The sentimental value of a ring, and more importantly, the intangible commitment it symbolizes, is nothing an insurance company could ever replace. The desire for a diamond engagement ring is PURELY as a result of recent (last 100 years, generously) marketing ploys. Diamonds would have been completely worthless as jewelry, because of their commonness, if it wasn't for international terrorism coupled with effective marketing ploys. The "A Diamond Is Forever" campaign sought to eliminate people selling their diamonds, and Marilyn's classic, "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend" contributed to the recent desire to have these things. I would never feel comfortable getting on one knee, and placing a product of pure violence on the finger of anyone I remotely cared about. I don't hold it against anyone if they desire a diamond ring, but I do get pretty dissapointed when I see women bitching about the size or the cost, their materialism overshadows the ring's purpose. Link to post Share on other sites
Fedup&givingup Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by Papillon The point is that the ring is supposedly an icon of "ownership", an icon of someone loving you and being committed you. What happens when the ring is no longer? Are those fuzzy feelings supposed to disappear? Or that the more expensive the ring, the greater the love? No, and that is the point, that the ring in itself is unimportant, it's an affectation, a trinket with an artificially imposed value. The presence or non-presence of a ring should make no difference to two people who truely love each other. The ring IS an icon of ownership displaying your devotion to someone. If the ring becomes *no longer* it must not have been worth a damn to start with. The more expensive the ring, the better the ring. The better the ring, the greater the amorous display of his affections. I think it was Hokey made the statement that a nice ring can be passed down to your children, and their children can give it to their children. Heritage. There is pride in something like that. Just because you don't care about the kind of ring a man gives you, doesn't mean that the rest of the world feels the same way, or that we are all inferior because we won't adapt to your standards. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by Fedup&givingup The ring IS an icon of ownership displaying your devotion to someone. What do you mean by ownership? If the ring becomes *no longer* it must not have been worth a damn to start with. What if it's lost? --I think that's what they were saying. The price/worth of a diamond has little to do with it's ability to avoid loss The more expensive the ring, the better the ring. Actually, diamond prices are only loosely related to quality, and more related to international affairs. I understand valuing a quality jewel, but when you're actually quantifying it by price, it's shaky ground-diamonds are unlike most commodities. The better the ring, the greater the amorous display of his affections. Totally agreed--though I think we disagree on what constitutes "better". Disclaimer: There were absolutely no personal attacks in this post. If you feel that I've attacked you, contact a moderator. All questions were legitimate. Link to post Share on other sites
Fedup&givingup Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by dyermaker What do you mean by ownership? What if it's lost? --I think that's what they were saying. The price/worth of a diamond has little to do with it's ability to avoid loss Actually, diamond prices are only loosely related to quality, and more related to international affairs. I understand valuing a quality jewel, but when you're actually quantifying it by price, it's shaky ground-diamonds are unlike most commodities. Totally agreed--though I think we disagree on what constitutes "better". Disclaimer: There were absolutely no personal attacks in this post. If you feel that I've attacked you, contact a moderator. All questions were legitimate. I said ownership in the same context Papillon did previously. Ask her what she meant by it. If it gets lost, you replace it with your INSURANCE. Home owner's insurance, or whatever insurance you have for your personal property...it's covered. Link to post Share on other sites
Thinkalot Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 I think we are all entitled to view this matter differently. And that's what it boils down to...differences of opinion, differences in ideas on symbolism of love, differences in priorities and so on. Just because I think marriage and a ring are important things, does not mean others have to, neither does it mean either person is better or worse on a morality or ethics scale. I do find it annoying when that is sometimes implied in some of the posts on here. My guy and I love the idea of me wearing a beautiful ring one day, symbolic of our love, and also beautiful in it's own right. If we did not have money for it, well I'm sure we'd wait to upgrade it when we could afford it. But we have decided it will be a priority and something we budget for. It's our value system and belief, and personal tastes that have influenced how we act. And it certainly does not have to be diamonds! I have a beautiful ring which has been handed down to me, which was my great grandmas engagement ring. It will need reworking before I can wear it as a dress ring or whatever, because it is so worn. But I love that I can wear such a precious family gift...and I love thinking of the love it has represented too. Attempts to reduce the ring to money and trinkets and consumerism, in my view, seem to miss some of the deeper points and the deeper meaning it can have to SOME people. Of course, I'm sure, sadly, some people are materialistic. But not all of us who like the idea of a lovely ring, are that way at all. Link to post Share on other sites
Papillon Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by Fedup&givingup I said ownership in the same context Papillon did previously. Ask her what she meant by it. If it gets lost, you replace it with your INSURANCE. Home owner's insurance, or whatever insurance you have for your personal property...it's covered. No, FedUp. You missed the point entirely, and Dyer didn't. WHAT IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE INSURANCE? What if for some reason the insurance company does not decide to reimburse? As for you statement about "the more expensive the ring, the better the ring, the better the ring, the greater the amorous display of his affections" - that viewpoint is so revolting and narrowminded it makes me want to throw up. So real love and affection is the preserve of the wealthy only? Link to post Share on other sites
Papillon Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by dyermaker More then likely, they'd sadly shake their heads, and dissapear back into the depths of one of DeBeers' bloody South African diamond mines, which they're forced to work in to afford an arbitrary extracurrency tax system set in place by political mercenaries of the diamond cartel. Dyer, you've just tweaked a chauvinist nerve of mine. Do you have any linkage? If you said "Ivory Coast", yes, maybe. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by Papillon Dyer, you've just tweaked a chauvinist nerve of mine. Do you have any linkage? If you said "Ivory Coast", yes, maybe. I'm sorry if I've offended you, although I'm not sure how. Here's one off the top of my list: http://www.sparkle.plus.com/dbmines.html Link to post Share on other sites
Fedup&givingup Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by Papillon No, FedUp. You missed the point entirely, and Dyer didn't. WHAT IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE INSURANCE? What if for some reason the insurance company does not decide to reimburse? As for you statement about "the more expensive the ring, the better the ring, the better the ring, the greater the amorous display of his affections" - that viewpoint is so revolting and narrowminded it makes me want to throw up. So real love and affection is the preserve of the wealthy only? If you don't have insurance and you lose your ring, it's tough luck, isn't it? So, don't buy anything nice in fear that you might lose it? Now you've misconstrued my meaning all the way..twisted it, bantered with me, driven this thing into the ground because my view is simply not the same as yours. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts