Email Snippets, Part II

Here's a few more snippets of two emails exchanged with the same person. Her words are in purple and are italicized, my responses in normal black text.

Email one:

What's your opinion of a wedding ring ? Granted, I understand that with some jobs, it's a safety issue to not wear one.

I don't have anything against jewelry, per se, as I tend to enjoy wearing a bit of it myself.

That being said, I'm not particularly impressed with the symbolism of people wearing them like brands to show others that they're "taken" and to back off. No one owns me and I'll not be "marked" in any way that indicates "ownership".

Ever notice, when women get an engagement ring they are showing it to everyone ? When they're newly married they are showing off the wedding ring. Seldom see a newly engaged/married man walking up to a group and thrusting his hand out to show off his ring !

I've always thought that was a lopsided thing. Why shouldn't men have a nice piece of jewelry to seal the deal?

Actually, during my brief misadventure into marriage, I had what passed for an engagement ring. She gave me a nugget ring with a single diamond, which I did wear with a wedding ring during the short marriage. After it broke up, I pawned the band, and kept the diamond ring and wore it on my other hand....which I ended up hocking years later during a time when I was strapped for cash.

But getting back to your question, the general practice of only women having engagement rings goes back to an older practice of only women wearing wedding rings as well. Up until around WWII or so, usually only the woman wore a wedding ring. When men started wearing them too, they were referred to as "double ring" ceremonies, as this was something new.

And THAT is related to the reasons why women are more heavily looked down upon and sanctioned for committing adultery, where traditionally, men had/have more leeway -- the "boys will be boys" defense. Traditionally, women are expected to be monogamous both socially and biologically, but men have been largely expected only to be socially monogamous. (as long as he's "discreet"). Women traditionally wore a ring to identify themselves as the "property" of one man, where wearing a ring would have been irrelevant and superfluous for a man.

Monogamy was, at the core, more beneficial to men and was instituted to protect the interests of men by controlling the sexuality of women. It was not the predominant system from the beginning to time, as many people assume, and it came into being for strictly practical reasons, with religion only later endorsing it to give it the "force of law".

When ancient people settled down into towns and agriculture began, private property and inheritance came into being. A woman always knows which children are hers, so monogamy isn't a big a deal for her in regards to these concerns. But a man doesn't know for sure which children are his unless he controls the sexuality of women. Hence, the prime base motive for monogamy.

It was all about MONEY, not anything intrinsically sacred. Of course, to bolster a system that goes against people's basic biological natures, lots of myths and rationales grew up around monogamy over the centuries, until it became a bedrock part of our society, a sacred cow.

One guy I work with wore a band on his left hand as an engagement ring. Thought it was rather nice, that he was showing the same level of commitment - wearing a ring since she was wearing a ring.

Yes, you're right. As the idea of the double wedding ring ceremony reached critical mass in the Domestic 50s, the engagement ring for men idea might similarly take hold.
____________________

Email two, where she comments on things I said here and I expand upon my original comments. This segment starts off with one of my comments from the last email, her response, and my second response

And THAT is related to the reasons why women are more heavily looked down upon and sanctioned for committing adultery, where traditionally, men had/have more leeway -- the "boys will be boys" defense. Traditionally, women are expected to be monogamous both socially and biologically, but men have been largely expected only to be socially monogamous. (as long as he's "discreet").

If she's expected to remain monogamous, then the same should apply to him. I don't think that one sex should be held to a higher standard of behavior than the other.

Oh, I don't think so, either, but I was describing how certain things came to be and the rationale, however invalid.

But I go the other way and say that neither sex is naturally monogamous....and I've read some anthropological works that back me up. So, that begs the question...now that the original reasons for monogamy are moot and that it's been proven that humans aren't naturally monogamous, then why continue to legislate monogamous marriage as the only valid form for EVERYONE?

"That's the way we've always done it" just doesn't cut it for me.

And with the upsurge of divorce, it's easy to blame people for not taking their commitments seriously. But marriage is for the benefit of people, not the other way around.

Monogamous marriage was designed for the needs of a society that no longer exists and does not address the needs of people today. Marriage has failed people, not the other way around.

For marriage in some form to survive, it must be a living and growing thing, adapting to people's needs as society changes, instead of being a static thing set in stone.

Rules than cannot bend will break.

What does social monogamy get us ? People living behind a facade ? Sanctimonious hypocrites who preach monogamy but then don't practice it, and look down at others who are openly non monogamous ? It seems to me that just spreads the idea of saying one thing and doing another, "as long as you aren't caught".

Oh, I don't disagree. But I guess another way to express social monogamy would be those in open marriages and "swingers". They are legally monogamous and only refer to their spouse as husband/wife, but in the realm of the bedroom, things are different.

And "social" also refers to what the community recognizes. It also recognizes that monogamy is a multi faceted thing that doesn't always refer solely to one's sex life, whereas, biological monogamy is limited strictly to the sexual aspect.

To be technical, "monogamy" merely refers to the practice of being married to one person at a time. In the strictest sense, it doesn't really refer how many people one has sex with, though that assumption is generally made in our society.

"mono" - one
"gamy" - marriage

In other words, "married to one".

Damn, I sure got cranked up on that one, didn't I?