Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
I think it's true that a woman who has risen to the top of a testosterone-laden field probably has high testosterone levels herself, and may enjoy sneaking off for illicit sex.
But it seems to me that a cheap ring would actually hurt the predatory guy's chances: it shows she's a romantic at heart, because the alpha women wouldn't hesitate to make sure they got a ring exactly as flashy as they wanted.
The big paycheck men are sought after for their big paychecks, not their prowess in the bedroom...so if she's looking for a hot night in the sack, it's unlikely to come from the colleague after a seminar.
If she's got her own cash, there isn't much appeal to the big paycheck men -- they're just like any other dude hitting on a chick in a bar. Not that special.
AMEN.
You are right on every point.
@Tim Horton
It is a saaad sad world you live in.
I couldn't make it to that but just wanted to add...
After reading about it for a few years, I finally made it to one of your V-Day events, at Neumos about five years ago, after I just had my heart broken. And it was the perfect antidote; I loved it. My favorite was the panty smoothie you made from the woman's ex-girlfriend's panties...hilarious.
As for people who want a diamond but don't want one that's morally dubious, they do make synthetic diamonds nowadays, and they'll only get easier to buy in years to come. They are exactly the same as mined diamonds, just made in the lab instead of coming from the ground.
The reunion can't be moved, the wedding still can. Easily. The engagement is, gee, a whole 48 hours old. Nothing is set in stone at this point. NOTHING. So move the damned wedding already, rather than making Letter Writer (and probably a good deal of the rest of the family) drop things that have been in the works for god knows how long. If she insists on running her wedding this way, she deserves every single "regrets" RSVP she gets, starting with Letter Writer's.
EricaP - you are right - an inexpensive ring could signify a romantic at heart. Or, it could mean the woman is married to a man who couldn't afford a 15k ring. I am not aware of the widespread phenomenon where an alpha woman buys her own engagement ring.
Since I have already dug myself a deep hole: in my experience, the Alpha Woman married to the Beta male more often than not express a lack of desire for their husbands. It's usually coined as "my husband lacks ambition." Women, unhappy in their marriage are much more likely to cheat.
@104 - I agree with you. My obnoxious post was merely the belief that the ring may signify an Alpha Women-Beta Man relationship, i.e. one that is vulnerable.
I will now direct your ire away from me to New York Magazine.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n…
You know, I have to agree. If you are a "predatory" male looking for a hotel fling, your odds are probably better with women wearing big rocks.
I don't know dude, it's your world.
Certainly doesn't jive with any of the doctors I know but *shrug*.
...of course I'm also fuming about what a selfish bitch that sister is. Really honey? You got engaged two freaking days ago and you're expecting your MOH to disregard a pre-planned event? Either the various voices of reason on the comments are correct and she wants her sis to bail or she's a total Bridezilla. Either way I'd like to slap her....and steal her ring! Ha!
I suspect people actually try for income differences in favor of the man on purpose, just like height differences. Seems idiotic to me. Money's money, and it's rather nice to have.
My ideal woman is a stoner babe who likes to loll around the house all day in her underwear. Kind of like Bridget Fonda's character in Jackie Brown.
I agree with you that the money almost certainly could go towards something else that you would actually appreciate. I'd go further and say that the modern version of the cult of the ring is bullshit, that the "three month's salary" standard is evil and was probably created by a DeBeers marketing troll, that people who actually subscribe to it are utter fools and the ones who would feel cheated by a fiance who spent less arguably deserve the label gold-digger.
Huh. Almost makes me want to suggest that you go ahead and get the cheap ring, because it will show you who your friends are (and aren't).
seandr@125 I do that, but I suspect you'd be disappointed in my underwear.
So... what kind of advice would you give to a "predatory" woman looking for a hotel fling ? I mean, beside the obvious "go for the guy with no ring on".
Speaking the truth
@125
Yeah but ambition doesn't hold the same selling-point status in women as it does in men. Women may prize ambition in themselves but men typically aren't as concerned in the ambition of their female SO's as vice versa.
And just to be clear, lolling around in your underwear is not incompatible with ambition. I spent the last three summers sprawled on my couch in my underwear with a cherry coke in one hand... and a massive textbook in the other. Physics, anatomy, molecular biology...
Look, the point is, not having air conditioning can kind of suck sometimes, but liking your body makes it way more tolerable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLsn4oI4…
It's even funnier if you realize that he had already proposed to her but she made him do it over...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGxQPKlC…
If you prefer to do the choosing, locate an attractive guy sitting at the bar and plop yourself in the empty seat beside him. Infinite conversation starters include "where are you visiting from." When in doubt, remember the first rule in business marketing: the number one thing people like to talk about is themselves.
Caveat - most of these types are married, especially those in the 35-45 range. That probably doesn't matter for a good chunk of them. If you are insistent that your room service beau is unattached, and want to thwart advances from married men, ask them about their kids within the first 5 minutes.
I may have to expand Homocentric August.
One can understand that occasionally a letter will gender the writer specifically, but in a manner with sufficient subtlety that some people will overlook this. And yes, this is more likely to happen in the heterocentric direction than the other way around. But there really must be some limits.
If a letter [from elsewhere, not here] makes it explicitly clear in the opening sentence that it concerns an M/M relationship, surely even solidly heterocentric readers ought to take notice. If anything, one might speculate that anti-gay people would be much less likely to post comments about the WOMAN in the relationship or telling the LW what SHE ought to do.
How explicitly clear is it? One would think it unnecessary to be smarter than a fifth grader to decipher that a letter opening with the three words, "I'm a man," was not written by a woman. And yet, before the end of the first hour, there were several comments mis-gendering the LW as female. And it wasn't down to malice, which is what irks. All this progress and still, here we are.
What are you talking about?
Nothing we couldn't sort out in a couple of fun shopping trips, however.
The times, they are achangin'.
@NARG: One other thought on the ring, since so many people have commented on the DeBeers racket: buy a used diamond. Diamonds are eternal right? So a "used" diamond, with a good cleaning, should be as good as new, right?
I bought a ring off of Craigslist for about 40% of the cost of what a "new" comparable diamond would have cost me, pried the diamond out of the setting and sent it off to a very nice family custom jewelry maker in Seattle who set it in a beautiful platinum setting for me, and then had it appraised for insurance purposes. It matched up to what the retail would have been.
This route is not for everyone, but just ask anyone who has tried to sell an engagement ring (post divorce or post broken engagement) how much that off-the-lot depreciation hit is.
I'm one of those guys who is less "financially successful" than my bride to be, and I'm not sure it's a matter purely of ambition.
Oh that's perfect. My ideal stoner babe would be perpetually enrolled in some class or another, preferably at a community college. She would switch majors every semester, fail any class that meets before noon, and never get close to obtaining a degree.
Let's see, what else. She has no driver's license. Good with animals, but always forgets to water the plants. Frequently changes the color and style of her hair. Not into bras.
not gonna lie, I wanna date that girl.
(Thanks to my Seattle friend Ken for that joke.)
$1000 is not a crazy amount for an engagement/wedding set. Hell, my wife and I were poor but we had heirloom diamonds from my mother and it still cost about that much to have a nice setting made. Get an inexpensive plain gold band for the times when you can't wear a rock on your hand, like when wearing nitrile gloves. My wife did that when pregnancy made her hands swell. You'll still look plenty married.
She's an organizer of a reunion. She can't miss it. This should be a lesson to her sister why you don't make big plans involving other people by fiat.
Yes, brother, mind your own business, just like you knew Dan would say.
never read the comments on Prudie. They are always offensive, even to me, and I'm as heteronormative as they come.
And that's how anyone should deal with those that question love via stone size or ring quality (or car, profession, gender, etc). You're not prey, you're a human being who has made a choice regarding who you want to be with. Anybody that tries to use what they perceive as a weakness in your relationship to drive a wedge towards achieving personal gain is a rotting scumbag.
Um, did you read the letter? Or just the response.
"Given his income, this is far from an outrageous expense, but I'd still rather have my $50 cubic zirconia."
There is no universal way to talk about money in a world (or a country, such as America) with such massive income disparity, you have to talk in the context of the LW.
So in that context, the response wasn't tone deaf at all.
Nobody, not straight or gay people, have to participate in the vulgar competitive wedding crap, even if they do choose to get married.
Some gay people have been having outrageous Commitment Ceremonies for decades now. And many people, gay and straight, opt for simpler, and far less expensive weddings.
That some people go overboard with the ceremony is no reason to disparage the idea of getting married. Although some folks may forget it in the moment, marriage is about far more than the ceremony, and most of us who have opted for it understand that.
As for rings, mine and my spouses are sterling silver Irish Claddagh rings. Total cost for the two - $90. We have worn then long before legal marriage was an option, and opted to keep using the same ones for our wedding when we were able to get married.
We like the symbolism and the simplicity. But despite their inexpensive nature I would still be very upset if I lost mine. It has great sentimental value that far exceeds its monetary value.
LW1's sister probably picked that date on purpose; and
LW2 doesn't have to have a diamond for an engagement ring. That's deBeers brainwashing. (Don't even get me started on the "two months' salary" bullshit, which I hear has inflated to three months now.)You don't even have to have a ring. I know couples who used necklaces instead of rings as the engagement jewel. As for the expensive stone, I always said I'd rather have my beloved's birthstone, whoever that may be, as the engagement jewel. Assuming he's not an April baby, how about compromising and getting a nice mid-range ring in his birthstone? (Bonus: Victorian engagement rings were often colored. Rubies and sapphires were used often. So you'd be honoring a much older tradition than Dutch enslavement of African nationals.)
I don't get why anyone even needs an "engagement jewel".
Just agree to get married and get married. An engagement is just a promise to get married, no need to involve the whole world in that promise.
The engagement ring is, indeed, a promise. If the woman broke off the engagement she was expected to give this very expensive piece of jewelry back. But if the man broke it off she kept it and he was out the cost of the ring.
It was a financial investment that was meant to inspire the two to behave during the engagement.
Very antiquated and out of date, but it is what it is.
One of the advantages of getting married long after you have been together, living together, having sex etc... is that you don't such silly things to convince you to stick with it. These days you can figure out long before you get married if you actually want to marry this person, and so bribes or monetary coercion isn't relevant.
Wow, I'd never heard that. I'd always heard if the woman kept the ring after the engagement was broken off, period, she was considered kind of an asshole.
He and his daughter, Nell, make great cookies and salad dressings, too.
He's got to be grinning up there in heaven. At least I hope he is.
Someone else above wondered - in an era of increasing same-sex weddings - why would people emulate some of the more stupid wedding customs. So I'd add: Are gay men giving each other engagement rings? I don't think so. The only thing I could think would be to wear their wedding rings on the right hand until they get married. But, seriously, nobody really needs to have a visible status symbol defining their future mate's wealth (or foolishness with money). I wish that were one custom that would die out with all its sexist baggage.
That's the modern attitude, yes. But when it comes down to it the ring is a gift symbolizing a promise. Once he gives it to her it is her's unless she breaks the promise.
Legally of course it's simply hers. Once he gives her the ring it's not legally his anymore and she can do with it what she wants.
[Although some folks may forget it in the moment, marriage is about far more than the ceremony, and most of us who have opted for it understand that.]
Citation needed, you old optimist, you.
My own observations:
Courtship - I Love You Period
Wedding (Day) - You're Perfect Period
Marriage - Now Change Period
If Ms Cute wishes to infer the Tilney Present Company Excepted, she is free so to do.
No, that's just some romantic crap the industry made up. The reason we give engagement rings to women is because they are innately enraptured by jewels. Duh.
Watch her reschedule the wedding to Veteran's day, and then watch her squirm when you offer to show up in whatever pantsuit she picks out.
Then no-show the wedding. Because that is exactly what bigoted douchehounds deserve.
'But, seriously, nobody really needs to have a visible status symbol defining their future mate's wealth (or foolishness with money). I wish that were one custom that would die out with all its sexist baggage.'
The Wedding Industrial Complex and 'Bridezilla' need to go the way of the dodo. Unless your father is one of the Koch Brothers, the big splashing wedding and it's accoutrements seem like an incredible waste of money. Put it toward a house! Or a friend told his daughter: I have X number of dollars. You can slice the pie anyway you like. You can have a big wedding. You can have a great honeymoon.
They had a small home-grown wedding. She wore a vintage gown. Then the husband and wife travelled for 9 months around the world. Sounds like my kind of celebration.
'No, that's just some romantic crap the industry made up. The reason we give engagement rings to women is because they are innately enraptured by jewels. '
Not all women. I would prefer a great piece of art or an incredible trip over a worthless stone. Again I have to emphasize 'average'. Only average women who bought in to the whole 'Sex and the City' and 'Mr Big' BS will actually buy into the Big Rock/Big Wedding/ My Personal Red Carpet shenanigans.
But hey, feminism is about Choice. Choose your Choice.
But-but-but ::sputters:: there will be all those people who wanted to attend a splashy wedding (and don't skimp on the open bar, naturally) who will be glaring at the happy couple upon their return from that utterly dreamy honeymoon-vacation. I applaud a couple who chose what THEY wanted.
I used to be a big fan of weddings when I was a very young teen. Why? Because my daddy would buy me a new dress for each one. At the same time, I was observant enough (and close enough to the wedding party's moms) to hear how important it was for so-and-so's parents to be invited. The splashy weddings weren't for the happy couple and their closest friends, they were to satisfy the quid pro quo requirements of their families. That realization was a rude wake-up call. Mind you, I believe in the intervening decades that the evolving role of women as well as older ages of the bride/groom may have made a dent in needing to satisfy only one's relatives. But, sadly, so much unremarkable tradition remains etched into people's consciousnesses that they can't imagine doing away with something ... like an obtrusive engagement ring.
"Even these days, how many women propose to a man? It's still considered romantic for a man to get down on one knee to follow tradition."
Form my perspective, it is not a real tradition, it is a pseudo-tradition. In my childhood in Germany , I only heard about engagements a) in fairy tales, b) in books about the upper class and aristocracy of the middle ages through 19th century, c) in Hollywood movies.
Non of the grown-ups around me had been "engaged" in the sense that the guy got down on a knee and asked the woman to marry him. Non of the women had an engagement ring. People just got jointly to the decision to get married.
This was the same for older friends and my sisters' friends when I was in my 20s. It changed around the time when Sex & the City was aired in Germany.
Since the early 2000s, more and more of my acquaintances seem to find it important that the guy asks and that there'd be an engagement ring "because it is traditional". And what really riles me is that they don't even get that it is an imported tradition, that their own parents and grandparents didn't do it that way.
9 months of travelling??
Talk about luxury. Who has the zero responsibilities to take that long off. What kind of job did those people have?
Anyway, even if I could do it, I'd pick the party over that. I grew up in the hospitality industry so I love throwing a good party. Spending time with all my loved ones eating delicious food, listening to fun music and wearing a cute dress sounds a lot more fun than schlepping around the globe for ages.
"@mydriasis, it seems to be a lot of money to the LW, if not to his boyfriend. "
Her boyfriend.
I'm still not seeing your point though.
I completely agree with you. Sometimes the big weddings are less about the bride and groom than reinforcing the bride's parents social status (since they are paying). Which is fine. Who doesn't love a great party?
I'm opposed to going into debt for the big wedding (trying to replicate something you saw in a movie/ TV show / bridal mag). If you have money to burn, go for it.
The bride and groom had both just completed their Masters so they had the opportunity to travel for 9 months.
I bet you would throw a rocking party with great food. Cool DJ? Lots of dancing. Again, it's about choice. Pick and choose what works for you.
I'll grant you that many people foolishly see marriage as an opportunity to work on making their spouse into their ideal spouse.
But I think for most people, marriage is much the way it's described in Company:
Good things get better, bad get worse.
Wait, I think I meant that in reverse.
I apologize if I sound crabby, but I think the lesson in gender norms sparked by the ring letter is emulating Mary Bennet's performance on the pianoforte by having delighted us long enough.
As for opulent weddings or connected parties, at least it's a fairly innocuous way of disposing of that amount of capital. Having recently learned how much money my father has donated to Mrs McMahon's campaigns, I'm sure it would have been much better spent even on two and half weddings.
I think you and I just have different taste in literature, that's all.
Assuming we're talking about literature. If we're talking about theatre I have no taste at all, I've never been a huge fan of any of it.
Sitting on my bedside table:
Slow Learner - Thomas Pynchon
Swann's Way (Part Two) - Marcel Proust (A girl can try)
And a book on mindfulness which is, of course, nonfiction.
And, if you think about, Ms D has defended her positions and tastes in rather a similar way to the young Clarissa defending Sally against the complaints of her relations, Richard against Peter and Sally, and even Hugh.
And after all, while the standards of placement have changed, Ms D is by her own admission in a similar position of social advantage; the assets that determine such things have just altered.
Well done on the Proust, by the way. I actually speed-read Proust years ago to test how well I'd learned the method.
165 & 170 lbs. and went to Old Navy for some new spandex. I'm
thinking of checking out their spring & summer tankinis.
I guess the Paleo diet switch is working. A friend told me about a local
gluten-free bakery downtown, and a gluten-free bakery / deli section at our co-op, but.....until my incredible ND emerges from the hospital, I'm staying off sugar. I haven't had chocolate for well over a month now.
I wonder if my chocolate deprivation is the cause of my increased Brad Pitt cravings at 1 :30AM......?
Brad Pitt was fantastic, and then Angie moulded him into her kind of repulsive man.
Anyway if you find current Brad Pitt attractive then you bewilder me
If you like Brad Pitt circa when-he-was-attractive then we may have the same taste, in which case - I have a treat for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl…
So which movie marks the pinnacle of Brad Pitt's hotness? I'd say Kalifornia, but I skipped the string of crappy movies that came after that and before Fight Club.
His stoner character in True Romance deserves an honorable mention in light of our previous discussion, although there was a tragic lack of shirtless scenes in that movie.
My first engagement ring is a twisted pipe cleaner, because we spontaneously became engaged on my undergrad's Pipe Cleaner Day (a.k.a. self-sooth with fun). My next engagement ring, sized more appropriately, is an $8 silver band from the Portland Saturday Market. 100% increase in value, and I still wear it every day. My wedding ring is an $800 palladium-gold (like white gold but more durable) band which was custom-designed and hand-made, sculpted to look like a fluttering silk ribbon, with no jewels. It's beautiful but it is so sturdy that it reminds me of the scene in The Abyss (with Bruce Willis) where his solid wedding band saves his life by resisting the closure of a pressurized door.
I totally agree with the values of NARG about the ring not being worth the fuss. However, I was sold on the palladium-gold ring because it is simply more durable. There is a chance that my sterling silver ring can be literally torn-like-paper off my finger because silver is so malleable, and I was warned against quartz or cubic zirconium because they can shatter and against amber (my true favorite) because it can melt.
By working with a local artist for our rings, we were able to get exactly what we wanted to match our values. As for potentially losing it, you can get a cast of it or a copy of the design and can have it remade should anything untoward befall it.
If NARG's paying partner wants to splurge, may I recommend splurging on local-supporting, custom-made and durable glory that you truly love, rather than just a price tag and sparkle? It worked wonderfully for my partner and I.
A wonderful post, and I agree on everything but the last word.
It's "for my partner and me"!
Shit, son. We always have been and always will be animals.
Fascinating!
New things learned every day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_…
It looks like the law varies quite a bit between different states and countries.
Marina's guys are cute, and I love the song, but they're in their 20s. I'm 48.
I don't wanna be a Mrs. Robinson.
@199 seandr: My vote's on "Thelma & Louise" for Brad Pitt's hotness.
To be fair, I never saw Kalifornia.
Is there hope for this globally warmed animal planet?
1. And how old was Brad Pitt in 1991? :p
2. Any hope in terms of climate change? I think no. People as a whole are mildly selfish and short sighted, but the people with all the power are EXTREMELY selfish and short sighted so... yup.
When we got married and set the date, there was no consultation with friends and family to see if they had a conflict; we would have driven ourselves insane - "Bobby can't make it the first weekend of October, Susy the second, Jamie the third, Ophelia the 4th...." And then you have to pick a date that WILL count someone out, and you knew it would count someone out. The better way is to pick the date; the people that want to be there for you will be there.
To the contrary, it sounds like LW has some problem with the Sis. You're getting your panties in a wad because they DARED to pick the one day "you can't be there," and insinuate it's because of your genderqueer status. It's not about you, it's about them. Grow up, realize that your priorities should be with your sister on her day and not your college reunion, stick to your guns on the pantsuit thing but be flexible to wear the damned dress if that's what she wants, and hope to hell everything is booked ... but go when they figure out a way around it. It's your sister, prick, and her wedding? How did it become about you you you?