Speaking of V-day...
We've visited this question before but, I would like to return. How important is a ring? Not many men have a 2-karats worth of money sitting around in their bank account, right? (Or do they?) So if you've already decided that you want to get married and all there is left to do is wait for the funds to reach a 2-karat level, is it worth it to wait? It's obvious that the answer depends on the woman you aske. My mother got engaged and married without a ring. Just recently, after 25 years of marriage, did my mother get her diamond(s). But in today's age, who gets engaged or married without a ring? Even my little sister had a ring when she got engaged. As a college student, her boyfriend gathered whatever funds he had and bought her at least something to wrap around her left ring finger. But why is it so important? When did engagement rings become the end all to be all? Well, let's look it up!
Origin of the Engagement Ring
Engagement, or betrothal, rings date back to the ancient days of marriage by purchase when gold rings were circulated as currency. The groom-to-be would offer his bride-to-be a gold ring both as his partial payment and as a symbol of his intentions.
Brides-to-be in these earlier times wore woven bands made of rush (a flexible marsh plant with hollow stems), and replaced them each year. Roman brides-to-be wore rings made of iron to symbolize the permanent, unending nature of marriage. During Medieval times, grooms-to-be placed the ring on three of the bride's fingers in turn to represent the Holy Trinity -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Engagement Ring - The inception of the engagement ring itself can be tied to the Fourth Lateran Council presided over by Pope Innocent III in 1215 [3]. Innocent declared a longer waiting period between betrothal and marriage; plain rings of gold, silver or iron were used earliest. Gems were important and reassuring status symbols to the aristocracy. Laws were passed to preserve a visible division of social rank, ensuring only the privileged wore florid jewels. As time passed and laws relaxed, diamonds and other gems became available to the middle class.
The origin of our custom to use diamonds in rings, and more recently, in engagement rings, can be traced back to the Middle Ages and even the Romans. The Romans valued the diamond entirely on account of its supernatural powers. Pliny wrote that a diamond baffles poison, keeps off insanity and dispels vain fears.
The diamond engagement ring did not become the standard it is considered today until after an extensive marketing campaign by De Beers in the middle of the 20th century, which came to include one of the most famous advertising slogans of the 20th century: “A Diamond is Forever”.
Now, I'm in no way against diamond engagement rings. I'ma state that now, because I definitely want one. BUT my research further stamps my hypothesis. Engagement rings are nothing but tools. Tools of superficiality, status, and even superstition. "a visible division of social rank"... "valued the diamond entirely on account of its supernatural powers"..."extensive marketing campaign by De Beers"... All this emphasis on rings being a symbol of love is a large bowl of crap. Men propose with diamond engagement rings because society tells them to. Bottom line. And if you're engaged and don't have a ring on your finger, you're dumb, crazy and dumb. (Yes I know I said dumb twice.) So tell me, how important is a ring?
Lol. Not to dampen anyone's heart day... =)
5 comments:
I really hope this doesn't sound shallow... but if I got engaged again it'd be the second time around, and since the first time was done all wrong, this time, I'd want all the fuss. I want the ring, the proposal, the whole nine. this time around I know what I'm worth, and I'd expect him to love me enough to be willing to do whatever it took to make the proposal special. Would I get engaged without the ring? The first time, I did. The second time? No way.
I think the ring should be significant to both parties, but I don't think size (in this case *lol*) matters. I think it should be whatever is affordable and it's the gesture and the love behind it that should count. Personally, I don't know what all the fuss for the biggest and best ring is. I once heard, the larger the ring, the worse the marriage. Not sure if there's truth to that, but one never knows.
I doubt I'll marry again, but if per chance I did, whatever ring he gives me is fine; it's the him and the marriage that'll mean the most.
in spanish cultures a man gives the woman a watch, to signify spending the rest of this time (life) with her...
anywho...everything comes from some tradition, we in the African-American culture jump over the broom because we couldn't afford rings and it was a tradition that was brought over from Africa to symbolize our marriage...
another African tradition is that the man gives the wife a blanket to symbolize that he will be her protector and cover her with love and affection...
its all tradition...some are more sentimental then others...
i just want him, whoever he may be, to give me what he knows i deserve and to do it from his heart...that being said i may deserve the world but he might not be able to give it to me...but as long as his heart is in it to try that's all that matters!
well, it has been awhile since i read your blog, but i must say that i am glad i dropped by. i enjoyed the post ... sending you peace and light. enjoy february. peace, ananda
I feel a ring is significant but not because of the size but because of the meaning it holds. The thought that love is forever and never ending. Like the circle of the ring! I also feel that the proposel is very important. If a guy is willing to put time and effort into the perfect, romantic proposel then that shows that he is willing to put effort in making the relationship last a lifetime!!! Also size doesn't matter when it comes to the ring it's the size of the HERAT in the man you are going to marry!!
Post a Comment