Boyfriend bought me a ring but won't let me have it

Pollycat

Mojisola wrote: »

If an engagement ring is a symbol that two people have decided to get married, why is it that only the woman wears one?

I can't answer for anyone else but my OH dislikes any form of jewellery.

He has only recently started wearing a watch after it was bought for him as a gift.

However, my first husband DID have a signet ring set with a diamond when I had my engagement ring. He wore it on the 3rd finger of his left hand.
I don't think he ever felt it was a 'stamp of ownership'.

As I've been married for the 2nd time for over 25 years, my comments about the meaning behind engagement rings is based on the prevailing tradition at the time.
And at no time between when I got engaged for the first time 42 years ago and the 2nd time over 25 years ago did I feel anyone was putting their 'stamp of ownership' on me.

Maybe it's just because I like wearing rings.
Perhaps I don't get the 'stamp of ownership' or being 'taken' because I swap my rings round.

I have the wedding ring from our ceremony plus at least 3 diamond-set wedding bands that my OH has bought for me since.
I wear whichever one I fancy.
Right now, I have neither engagement ring nor wedding ring on.

Any comment on this?

Pollycat wrote: »

I've been thinking about this whilst having lunch (very nice it was, too. Leftover tuna risotto from last night).

Do people really believe that men who may be 'out on the pull' look at a woman's left hand and if she is wearing an engagement ring, think 'Oh. OK. No point in offering to buy her a drink, she's 'taken'?

Is this really the 21st Century view of engagement rings?
A visible notification to men to stay away because some other man has put his 'stamp of ownership' on her?
:shocked:

GoldenShadow

Pollycat wrote: »

I've been thinking about this whilst having lunch (very nice it was, too. Leftover tuna risotto from last night).

Do people really believe that men who may be 'out on the pull' look at a woman's left hand and if she is wearing an engagement ring, think 'Oh. OK. No point in offering to buy her a drink, she's 'taken'?

Is this really the 21st Century view of engagement rings?
A visible notification to men to stay away because some other man has put his 'stamp of ownership' on her?
:shocked:

That's how I view them. Even if its a 'symbol' of love or whatever you want to phrase it as, its still something traditionally worn by a woman emphasising the fact she is to be married, ie. not available. You get sleaze balls who come onto some women regardless at times, but for the most part I think its certainly a stamp of ownership ie. back off this one's taken. As unpleasant as that seems.

That said, a chap I work with has an engagement ring on his right hand and his wedding ring on his left hand. He wanted one because his wife to be was having one. Quite nice, I thought.

I view wedding rings just the same. That person 'belongs' to someone in the same sense someone else 'belongs' to them. If I was out on the pull and someone had a wedding ring/engagement ring I wouldn't be interested. Its a sign they are committed to someone else, regardless of whether that's a happy commitment or not.

GoldenShadow

Pollycat wrote: »

I can't answer for anyone else but my OH dislikes any form of jewellery.

He has only recently started wearing a watch after it was bought for him as a gift.

However, my first husband DID have a signet ring set with a diamond when I had my engagement ring. He wore it on the 3rd finger of his left hand.
I don't think he ever felt it was a 'stamp of ownership'.

As I've been married for the 2nd time for over 25 years, my comments about the meaning behind engagement rings is based on the prevailing tradition at the time.
And at no time between when I got engaged for the first time 42 years ago and the 2nd time over 25 years ago did I feel anyone was putting their 'stamp of ownership' on me.

Maybe it's just because I like wearing rings.
Perhaps I don't get the 'stamp of ownership' or being 'taken' because I swap my rings round.

I have the wedding ring from our ceremony plus at least 3 diamond-set wedding bands that my OH has bought for me since.
I wear whichever one I fancy.
Right now, I have neither engagement ring nor wedding ring on.

Any comment on this?

Funny you say regarding perhaps its because you like wearing rings. I don't own any at all. If I were to get engaged/married I would wear those all the time.

I think stamp of ownership/sign of love/pending commitment all mean the same thing to me. If I saw someone with a wedding or engagement ring, I wouldn't go near. Just like if I knew someone was in a relationship, I wouldn't go near. Its just advertising the fact someone isn't single. They are in a relationship/committed to being with another individual.

Marriage is about uniting together, what's yours is mine, no? The thought of belonging to my OH and he belonging to me isn't a negative one by any means. So people seeing an engagement ring and thinking I belong to my OH wouldn't bother me, either. I use belonging in the same way I say I own my dog. He's not really a possession, but I am his human just like he is my dog. Not in a dictatory you're mine I say this type of fashion. More airy fairy and light than that

duchy

I always thought it was because most women like jewelry but men traditionally it as gone in and out of fashion so it was simply a gift and a symbol of their commitment rather than a branding lol

catkins

I don't have an engagement ring because I didn't want one. I just don't see the point in them.


Both me and OH have wedding rings which we wear every day. In fact neither of us have ever taken our rings off.

Anatidaephobia

Pollycat wrote: »

I've been thinking about this whilst having lunch (very nice it was, too. Leftover tuna risotto from last night).

Do people really believe that men who may be 'out on the pull' look at a woman's left hand and if she is wearing an engagement ring, think 'Oh. OK. No point in offering to buy her a drink, she's 'taken'?

Is this really the 21st Century view of engagement rings?
A visible notification to men to stay away because some other man has put his 'stamp of ownership' on her?
:shocked:

I've witnessed/overheard all sorts of strange things said about women's engagement and wedding rings.

A friend of mine was convinced that a woman he liked was engaged so he didn't do anything about his feelings; turned out she liked him too and just happened to wear a ring on that finger cos it was the only finger the ring fitted and she didn't realise men assumed it was an engagement ring.

I've overheard several conversations in bars where men were discussing engagement/wedding rings on a woman's finger - usually it was assumed that therefore she was "taken" but I did once overhear two men who seemed to take a ring as a challenge and were determined to see how far they could get with her(!).

To be honest, a lot of men probably won't even notice if you're wearing an engagement ring or not but I wouldn't be surprised if noticing one did give them the signal that the woman was "taken".

Pollycat

GoldenShadow wrote: »

I think stamp of ownership/sign of love/pending commitment all mean the same thing to me. If I saw someone with a wedding or engagement ring, I wouldn't go near. Just like if I knew someone was in a relationship, I wouldn't go near. Its just advertising the fact someone isn't single. They are in a relationship/committed to being with another individual.

Personally, I think 'stamp of ownership' and 'sign of love' are diametrically opposite.

Believe me, I've never 'advertised' anything in all my time of wearing an engagement ring and/or wedding ring.

My engagement ring and wedding ring don't tell me or 'advertise' to anyone else that that I'm in a relationship and committed to being with my OH.
My heart tells me that. :rotfl:

Pollycat

Anatidaephobia wrote: »

I've witnessed/overheard all sorts of strange things said about women's engagement and wedding rings.

A friend of mine was convinced that a woman he liked was engaged so he didn't do anything about his feelings; turned out she liked him too and just happened to wear a ring on that finger cos it was the only finger the ring fitted and she didn't realise men assumed it was an engagement ring.

I've overheard several conversations in bars where men were discussing engagement/wedding rings on a woman's finger - usually it was assumed that therefore she was "taken" but I did once overhear two men who seemed to take a ring as a challenge and were determined to see how far they could get with her(!).

To be honest, a lot of men probably won't even notice if you're wearing an engagement ring or not but I wouldn't be surprised if noticing one did give them the signal that the woman was "taken".

I thought I lived out in the sticks but from some of the comments on here, I think some people live in the Dark Ages. :eek:

GoldenShadow

Pollycat wrote: »

Personally, I think 'stamp of ownership' and 'sign of love' are diametrically opposite.

Believe me, I've never 'advertised' anything in all my time of wearing an engagement ring and/or wedding ring.

My engagement ring and wedding ring don't tell me or 'advertise' to anyone else that that I'm in a relationship and committed to being with my OH.
My heart tells me that. :rotfl:

So why do you have them?

I don't think anyone ever owns anything that is living. It is not something that computes in my brain. As I said, I do not 'own' my dog because he is a living thing, not a possession. Despite it being referred to as ownership I do not think he is mine to do as I please with or dispose of like an old TV. That is the same sense of 'ownership' that people in relationships have to one another in my eyes. A degree of responsibility to another living thing, something that is chosen willingly. Engagement and/or wedding rings are evidence of that, people 'belonging' to one another and uniting on that level.

Pollycat

GoldenShadow wrote: »

So why do you have them?

From an earlier post:

Pollycat wrote: »

Maybe it's just because I like wearing rings.

And because I and my OH can afford to indulge my love of jewellery.

Is that answer OK for you?

Maybe you just don't understand where I'm coming from because of the (possible) difference in our ages.