The Conditional Engagement

The Conditional Engagement Ring

Give it back if it doesn't work

Came across an interesting moral question the other day when a friend of mine who is engaged, said that she would NOT give back an engagement ring if her engagement was broken. This kind of surprised me because I figured that a woman would give back an engagement ring because she would not want a symbolic reminder of a failed relationship. Perhaps maybe it was for the monetary value of the ring, but when I asked if that was the case, she was not concerned about the ring's value; in hopes to pawn it off for some cheddar -- her only reason for aspiring to retain such a ring is because it 'looks nice', aesthetically speaking.

However, my understanding of this whole marriage ish is that an engagement ring is a conditional offering; a man's desire to wed his woman in the near future. I don't think the ring can be labelled as a 'gift'; flowers, candy, expensive jewellery are gifts, not an engagement ring -- it has more significance than a 'gift', historically speaking (shot to those that want to label an engagement ring as a 'gift').

Historical Sense

From what I can find, the engagement ring was presided (created as a a formality) by Pope Innocent III in 1215 by the Fourth Lateran Council; their initial purpose were to preserve a 'a visible division of social rank, ensuring only the privileged wore florid jewels' (bastards) and to declare a longer waiting period between betrothal and marriage. Traditionally, it is a norm for the woman to return the ring if the engagements is called off, but in some cases (i.e. the man cheats) the woman is not obliged to return the ring -- however in some U.S. states, the view is that the engagement ring is a conditional gift and that the ring SHOULD be returned under any circumstances.

Furthermore, if you want to get symbolic about the whole 'marriage' situation, the engagement ring is a symbol of the man's property (i.e. the woman); the engagement ring is only worn by the woman as a symbol to other men that she is 'taken' (the man does not wear any symbol/ring until actual marriage); the ring shows that she is already tied to a man. Think of the engagement ring as a sign of 'marked territory'; sort of like what a Lion or Tiger does, for the purposes of protecting their possession.

Thus you can fill out the strong symbolism and even emotional pulses one send's out when you still desire to keep an engagement ring after the engagement is called off.

But if the ring is nice ... I guess its cool, right? (feelings, emotions, sanity being absent of
course)

.:: Food for thought ::.

--
sources: wikipedia.com

Limited Dosage

LIMITED DOSAGE
Tolerating the intolerable, but you still like her ...

Ever encountered this ....

I have this lady friend; an attraction exists between both of us. Known each other for several months now, went out a couple of times, talk on the phone regularly (at times). Now, everything is cool about her, except that at times I can't stand her; not in the aspect that we argue and/or bicker towards each other, but its just that at times her behavior and interests seem to be so distant from mines. Talking only about the latest fashions, desiring to only role in the flyest cars, aspiring to hang around celebrities, seem to be the depth of her intelligence at times (coincidentally, especially in public). And on a one-on-one, its like a completely different chick emerges; one who is knowledgeable, educated, introspective.

So I guess the problem exists in a public setting - once that is removed, I guess I should have no issues right? However, she always wants to go out here and there; especially because she inhabits the urban downtown core where she is accessible to everything. And I at times, like to go out and would like a fly chick by my side.

To move closer, would mean spending more time with her doing the things that 'couples do', but I don't think I can tolerate her in a high dosage (talking everyday, seeing each other frequently, etc.). And I feel that she wants to move closer, however, I can only stomach her in limited dosages; dosages that satisfy my needs ...

Is this wrong?

Reasonable Christmas

Its that time of the year. Where everything is merry and such, and such. Saint Nick, Reindeer, Candy Canes and with Christmas approaching fast, I reflect on how much difference (if there is any) of Christmas changing over the years. I would say Christmas is more 'commercialized', but I am not too sure about that - nor do I see a problem if there was a change (more commerce is always good in our Western society). People act a bit nicer around this time, and become more depressed in January.

So probably the only significant difference between now and when I was an 80's baby (though I can only recall the 90's) is that December is significantly warmer and has an absence of snow (yes, even from the Great White North), which would indicate global warming.

Overall, the message of Christmas still resonates, Hanukkah is still strong, and Kwanza still grows.

My fondest memory of Christmas is the Dinner; which I never really appreciated until recently, and I felt kind of awkward when I really had my first Christmas dinner. However now, I've grown accustomed to it and have realised that no matter how busy we are, or how crazy we have gotten in the past couple of weeks in our attempt to try to find gifts, parking spaces, exchanges and returns, etc., all that crap does not matter and is irrelevant ... what is important that you and your loved ones can congregate and break bread with each other.

So I ask, what is your fondest memory of Christmas?

.:: peace