It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Neurotic ramblings of a feminist...

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
It didn't surprise me to read that the writer is brooklyn based.
I imagine a too-cool-for myself hipster with nothing better to write about over a cup of disgusting coffee.

Why not let her guy know, I'm not into the norm, before letting him throw money away?




posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


In a strange way I do agree with her....spend all that money on a diamond ring that could have gone to a house..I'm looking at it from a fiscal perspective...I am married and I did get my wife a ring...would I be disappointed if she never wore it again, yes but that's only because I spent a lot of money on it..after the kids she lost a boat load of weight and the ring had become too loose..I told her to just keep it in the draw and not to worry..I'm secure enough in our marriage..I seldom where my wedding band..



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   

UltraverseMaximus
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


A ring is round and never ending like my love yadayada

Its really the symbol of the crown to be worn on the head not the 'finger', people point with fingers. See a gold band on the head filled with gems acts as like a power booster for consciousness. On the finger, doesn't really do much except symbolise personal enslavement. No offence intended but that is what it is.


Umm, the earliest use of an actual ring on a finger before marriage was Roman in origin. Two rings were given to the woman--one gold and one iron. The gold was for public use as a sign of faith in her ability to manage the assets of the home and the iron for household use to represent the same. Both basically said that she was the boss of the household affairs and assets.

Women in Roman times were considered citizens though ones unable to vote or be a political official. Aside from that, they were given a great deal of autonomy and were allowed to influence politics through other means. A Roman woman had the right to divorce a husband and would receive her dowry back. All she had to do was leave the house with it. Doing so had little, if any, social penalty. Either divorced party could remarry without stigma. Domestic abuse was forbidden by Roman law.

So no, the earliest actual use of a wedding ring closest to the traditions we have to day did not have any real misogyny attached to the culture outside of that inability to vote or holding political office. It was basically a symbol that said "I trust you with our wealth" and most definitely not an eternal binding of one's consciousness. If that were the actual case, then divorces wouldn't have been common and casual affairs.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


Keep telling yourself that Alice. I mean everyone knows the romans are the oldest civilisation right....right lol
Whatever floats your boat as long as your happy with your ring to externalise and symbolise some sort of trust and love.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   

UltraverseMaximus
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


Keep telling yourself that Alice. I mean everyone knows the romans are the oldest civilisation right....right lol
Whatever floats your boat as long as your happy with your ring to externalise and symbolise some sort of trust and love.


It's the only early verified reference to a ring on the finger being associated with marriage. What you might thinking of would be a much, much older custom during the Paleolithic that involved binding the woman's extremities to bind their spirit to them. That, however, is way different from a ring on a finger.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


Over time symbols get distorted and meaning lost in translation. It doesn't matter anyway today that's why the statistic of divorce rates are so high.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   

UltraverseMaximus
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


Over time symbols get distorted and meaning lost in translation. It doesn't matter anyway today that's why the statistic of divorce rates are so high.


Uh huh....

The reason why divorce rates are so high is because divorce, much like in the Roman era where divorce was both socially acceptable and high, is socially acceptable. Go back about 50 years ago when it was distinctly frowned upon and you don't see a high divorce rate. Societal perception of divorce influences that rate.

P.S. I'm not going to continue down this line because this is boncho's thread on the whole wedding/engagement ring thing in light of his own upcoming events. I just think in it's bad taste to be bickering about divorce rates on such an occasion.
edit on 12/3/14 by WhiteAlice because: added ps



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


I am not bickering I just laid out some facts. Anyone can put their head in the sand, it has no baring on Boncho as its not his life we are discussing. But yeah I wont take up thread space on here anymore.

Also I find it interesting how you tried to draw parallels about facts and the op's situation. Not that sly, but you probably have no idea what your doing, clearly or you wouldn't reference Romans as a source of wisdom.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join