Symbolism & Feminism

Symbolism & Feminism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Satyr6406 -> Symbolism & Feminism (4/23/2007 12:49:16 PM)
There was a question posed, on another thread that - with the help of a couple of "left turns" by some of the contributors - got me thinking about certain things inside the lifestyle. The question had to do with the (possible) differences between being "collared" and "owned". I have to say that I agreed with what seemed like the majority "tone" but, for completely different reasons. A good portion of the people believed that a collar was tantamount to a wedding ring, in that it is an outward sign of "possession" or "ownership". I have always felt that way about a wedding ring and I have to say that I never really saw much need for one of those. I knew I was married. She knew I was married (Too bad she didn't know SHE was married) and we didn't need to convince anyone else of that. The only stickler, for me, there, is that wedding rings are, often, exchanged and that's where the correlation with a "BDSM collar" ends. Only the submissive "gets collared". The submissive makes no "claim" on the dominant. Anyway ... I got to thinking about what an old concept a wedding ring is and as I was reading along, someone likened a "collar of consideration" to an engagement ring. Oiy! Here's where we really get to my point of this post (and why I put it, here): Engagement rings are, in my opinion, without a (edited here to correct spelling) date (should be "doubt") one of the most out-dated and sexist traditions in which (surprise of surprises!) we still participate. Unless I am greatly mistaken, the practice of giving an engagement ring "evolved" because a suitor needed to show a young lady (and her family) that he was best qualified to provide for her, financially. Back, in those days, a lady's job (and an extremely noble one, it is) was to take care of the home and the children. For which, her husband would provide her with all of her needs and as many of her desires as he could, reasonably. For some people, that is still a way of life. For others of us, it is an impossible standard to live up to. Now, with ladies out in the work force, in multitudes and the seeming necessity of a good many men not being able to "bring home the bacon" (because three paychecks are almost mandatory), an engagement ring seems, to me, to be redundant and ridiculous. If we truly have evolved into a modern, women-are-equal-to-men world, isn't the offer of an engagement ring sort of like saying: "I know that you can't support yourself without me and I know that you're so shallow that you only care about the material things that I can provide for you so, if you promise to eventually sleep with me, on a regular basis, I will give you this nice, expensive, sparkly, diamond." My belief was further strengthened when some courts, in this country heard cases where their decisions were: "If the engagement is broken by the lady, it must be returned because, it carries with it an implicite question and her accepting that 'gift' implies that she has consented to the conditions upon which the ring was given." They, basically stated that the ring was offered as an "enticement" to marriage. I don't know how people didn't recognize this as some form of "pimping" but, that's how I took it. I don't even know where to start to tear that apart. I think the implications should be glaringly obvious. I know that there are going to be a few ladies that are going to agree with me and I know there are going to be a majority that take issue with my characterization but, unless my premise for the tradition of engagement rings is very wrong, I'm not too far off the mark (of course, the ladies who are just shallow enough to "want something for their trouble" are going to try and come up with other reasons why they still NEED that rock). I honestly believe that some of the true feminists will absolutely agree with me. I could be wrong but, somehow, I doubt it. I just wanted to put that out there. I know my opinion isn't going to be a popular one. I will say this: honest, polite, differing discourse is always welcomed. Flame posts, etc. please don't bother. (Ooooooh! has anyone but myself ever noticed that the word "gag" is right in the middle of the word: "engaged"?) Peace and comfort, Michael

mistoferin -> RE: Symbolism & Feminism (4/23/2007 1:05:19 PM)
I don't recognize a "collar of consideration" at all....at least not as it applies to my life....you're either collared...or you're not. To me that really is kind of like saying well we're "almost" committed to each other....and "almost" really only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. I kind of view engagement in the same light. I don't, however, see engagement rings in quite the same light you do, at least not with the negative connotations that you attached to their intentions in giving such a thing. I believe that most people give it as a symbol of their love....not as a symbol of their financial stability and dependability in the long term. But then this comes from a woman who has not evolved (and has no desire to) into a modern day woman who believes in such equalities.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Symbolism & Feminism (4/23/2007 1:16:52 PM)
We are loathe to give up our romantic fuzzy notions. Which is why women deal with the choice of changing their names, women still dislike asking the man to marry them, women still get thanked for a dinner even if they are not the hostess. Yes I think it's mostly silly, but then I appreciate when men know to rise when a lady leaves or comes to a table. I look to the intent. In fuzzy cases like these, I think that's where we can find what matters.

Casie -> RE: Symbolism & Feminism (4/23/2007 1:31:15 PM)
Traditions change, I don' t think many people buy an engagment ring to show the brides family he can provide for her. I do think people use them to show their intent of getting married and as a romantic gesture. The same goes for wedding rings tho. If you go by those standards no feminist would where one, since they began as a sign of owner ship or property. What about the wedding ring? Where did that tradition come from? . That is Jewish in origin. The wedding ring has it's origin in the days when women were considered property and a wedding ceremony was the consummation of a business deal. In Jewish law of that day, in order for a business exchange to be legal, both parties had to receive something of value. The groom received the bride, and the bride was given a piece of plain gold the value of which could easily be assessed. The gold became transformed into a ring. Thus was born the gold wedding ring. The symbolism of the circle actually goes all the way back to the ancient Egyptians who considered the circle as a symbol of eternity, because neither has a beginning or an end.

Vendaval -> RE: Symbolism & Feminism (4/23/2007 4:52:55 PM)
The exchanging of the wedding rings during the ceremony is a more equal giving of gifts. I have mixed feelings about engagement rings, for the reasons that you mentioned plus some of my own personal ones. I like the idea of exchanging matching necklaces & pendants much better, because they can be worn under clothing and are less likely to become a problem if someone works with their hands i.e. baker, cook, mechanic, gardener, etc. When collaring a sub/slave the Dom/me can choose a model that requires a key or padlock and key, thus keeping their own symbol of the relationship. Some Dom/mes have the key on a necklace or other piece of jewelry to keep it with them at all times.

Sinergy -> RE: Symbolism & Feminism (4/23/2007 6:33:32 PM)
I have read both sides of the issue. In my first marraige, my ex-wife never acted married, and I never really cared for her. Neither of us wore rings. In my second marraige, my ex-wife was insistent that we both wear wedding rings. In all other respects, marrying her changed our relationship so dramatically that it started to disintegrate within months of exchanging vows. Weird. Same thing happened with the two submissives I collared way back when. I have read that history behind engagement rings. I was under the impression that it was less about proving to the bride's family that one could support her, and more a tradition that harkened back to the dowry in a society where a bride was purchased. As far as my feelings on them are concerned, if it makes the two people happy to do so, I dont see much of an issue with it. Stuff means different things to different people. I dont think the way I view the world is necessarily correct or relevant. I have also read about collars of consideration. I dont understand that custom. Seems like an "engaged" to be engaged kind of thing, although I could be wrong on that. Just me, could be wrong, etc. Sinergy

Lashra -> RE: Symbolism & Feminism (4/23/2007 8:49:27 PM)
I am a feminist and when I was married I wore a wedding ring. To me it does not mean "ownership" or anything of that nature. To me it meant a outward sign of our devotion to each other. When I divorced him I gave him the engagement and wedding rings back as I felt I no longer wanted him nor his rings. ~Lashra

minnetar -> RE: Symbolism & Feminism (4/23/2007 8:53:55 PM)
i have been reading this with interest. i am a female submissive but very much into equality in the work place. i do believe there is a difference between equality and manners. i also am a huge romantic. i have to lean towards the romanticism in regards to the rings. i don't feel it has anything to do with wealth anymore. minnetar

NakedOnMyChain -> RE: Symbolism & Feminism (4/23/2007 8:57:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Satyr6406 I know that there are going to be a few ladies that are going to agree with me and I know there are going to be a majority that take issue with my characterization but, unless my premise for the tradition of engagement rings is very wrong, I'm not too far off the mark (of course, the ladies who are just shallow enough to "want something for their trouble" are going to try and come up with other reasons why they still NEED that rock). For the most part I agree with you. It is outdated to give a female an engagement ring without reciprocation if it is taken as simply a sign of monetary worth. But to many people (I hesitate to say 'most people') the money is beside the point. I also disagree in that I feel there should be some mutual token such as this. It's a fad among the engaged and married in my circle of friends that both the man and woman receive a ring, or tatoos, upon engagement. I also disagree because something given in love should be taken in love. Sure there are gold-diggers, of the male and female variety. There always will be. But an engagement ring is a token of mutual love and respect, both in the giving and taking of it. Should both a man and a woman get one? Probably. Will this change anytime soon? Probably not. Will it lessen the value of a true token of love? Never. What is meant in kindness, honor and love should be taken in that light. Edited to add: Though I disagree with you, you will find yourself incorrect in thinking that I am materialistic and "need that rock". I am married and I wear my engagement ring as my wedding band. It is not diamond. It is much truer to myself. I wear a small gold band with a crescent moon Australian opal (blue) and a tanzanite (purple) star. It is symbolic on many planes for me, including religiously and in relation to my personal growth. It's not overly expensive, but I love it dearly and my husband gave it to me knowing I would treasure it and what it represented more than I ever could some cold diamond that meant nothing to me. That is what an engagement, and wedding, ring should be. It can be done with diamonds, it can be done with words, or it can be done with a simple melding of hearts. In any case, it's priceless.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125