Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    
    
    	Known as a "Friendship" ring sometimes.. Kinda says (to moi)
    that "We're seeing only each other and we have as yet un-announced
    nor firm plans for the future.."  I gave an old SO one of those
    one time. Our plans changed. :-) (Thank God!!) I wished I asked
    for the ring back. It was a fabulous piece of jewelery.
    
    						mike

    Yeah, kind of a "I'm not ready to get married yet, but I want you
    to know I'm getting there" ring.  I almost got one once.  It's also
    a big thing among the younger set. (I *love* using that phrase,
    seeing as I'm old and sophisticated now - 19)
    
    Stacie

    
    	back in the olde days (not a misprint) it was a little more
    	serious than a friendship but less than a formal engagement.
    	is *steady* still used??? i suppose that could be it. 
    	it came after the days of exchanging high school rings.
    	i didn't think it was still done these days.....
  
    	d  	

    Depends how far back you want to go...
    
    When studying history some years ago (I was a teenager at the time so
    it was literally more than half a life time ago...) I was forced to
    do a social history dissertation.
    
    The chosen (for me, by the teacher) topic was "Affiancation through the
    ages"
    
    It appears that in med�val Britain it became popular to consider 
    "engagement" as equivalent to marriage. Once the arrangements and vows 
    were made in relation to the intent to marry, it became a ticking
    time-bomb, that slowly counted down until the actual marriage vows were
    exchanged (remember that it was only about this time that marriage became
    a major church ceremony - prior to this marriages took place in the
    church porch rather than in the church proper, and the service was not
    considered a sacrament). Since becoming affianced was a totally 
    irrevocable step, an earlier non-binding agreement existed, and was
    marked by a similar token - a ring - to that of the actual engagement.
    
    Similarly the 7th wedding anniversary was celebrated by yet another
    ring - the "eternity ring" worn in front of the wedding band and engagement
    band (if jeweled an eternity ring is a full circlet of stones).
    
    /. Ian .\

    
    Also called a "Promise Ring"....seems to be mostly the 
    "younger set" (read:  high school) who are so enthralled
    with these rings.  (I wouldn't want one were I too get married
    again...)  Promise??  A promise of *what*!??  :^) 
    
    	My

    It's a promise ring, alright, but the promise is supposed to come
    from the recipient!  :-)
    
    Such a ring says, "OK, OK, you're special!  NOW can we go to bed?"
                                              
    Girls, (cause women don't), in their never-ending quest for the
    true-romance they've been bred to need, take such a ring as
    "meaningful" and are more likely to fork over the goodies after
    getting one.  When I was in high school it was a pearl.  Wasn't
    a student there who didn't know what getting "a pearl" meant.
    

    re: .8
    Right !  ;^) Once a guy gives a gal the 'promise' ring, she is expected
    to start 'forking over' the goodies. I've seen that work the other
    way around, but it was a rare experience. 
    
    Hmm bakc in school days (mid -medievel times 1950-1957) when
    the big bopper was still trying to sell records,the "ring given
    was THE 'class ring', and in pre-historic times (my sisters) it
    was a varsity sweater). But they all seemed to add up to the same
    thing: "Some Lucky person(s)" got "IT" regularly.
    
    Today, I hear the phrase "getting serious" , in it seems to  imply
    a steadiness of sorts (close enough to hop into bed together, anyway).
    
    I guess the origianl question for the topic is: Does "Pre-engagement"
    mean the same as "going steady","getting serious","committed without
    a promise of marriage","We're SO's now", or "<fill in your own blank>".
    
    Did the original question ask whetehr or not the donor of the ring
    was a man or a woman ? Would it make difference if the "pre-Engaged"
    people were of the same sex or not ?
    
    Of course, another question might be asked (fooey on you mike, I
    got it first): 
    
    		" P R E - E N G A G E D  " in what ?
    
    
    Bob et trois (ja ja ja )
   

    
    

RE: -.2,-.1

Come on... 'getting serious' doesn't necessarily mean 'hopping into bed'!

At least, it doesn't have to be so...

Jim.

    "getting serious" has little to do with this obvious, outward symbol
    of something.  Plenty of couples "get serious" and plenty of jewelry
    is exchanged in life.  This particular type of jewelry, with this
    particular type of symbolism, (it's given a special name for instance),
    is an entirely different matter.  Sheesh.

    What about: "I think you're the neatest thing to come down the pike
    in many a moon, but the thought of marriage makes mah toes curl up
    in mah shoes..." 
    

    Now what does a piece of jewelry that is intended to be worn every
    single day from now on got to do with it?  Wouldn't she believe
    you?

    I remember my preengagement gift....he didn't have a class ring
    or much money for that matter, so he gave me his watch! Since
    that was his high school graduation present I figured he had to
    be serious! (and I guess I was right, we've been married 20 years now
    and are still 'courting' :-) )
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .8
    
    	Sigh.. I'm getting tired of your men bashing... You constantly
    	make us out to be the biggest assholes on two human feet.
    	Personally, it gets on my nerves. Thankfully, I'm a nice enough
    	guy to let you wallow in your own hate.

    	Thanks from all the "nice guys".  Remember us when you tell
    	your "nice girl"friends that all men are pigs and only want
    	to get laid.
    
    							mike

    re:15
    
    When I first started reading this conference and started seeing
    Sandy's responses I felt the same way. But if you carefully read
    her responses, what she says usually makes alot of sense. Her
    responses are well thought out and specific.....and she goes for
    the jugular{sp} right from the go. You have got to respect her for
    saying what is on her mind and what she thinks without wavering.
    You don't have to agree with her...just respect her opinion. I don't
    think she hates men. I think she hates the second rate position
    women have held in society for so long and she's got both guns out
    fighting for her side. Never met the woman, but I personally like
    her attitude and don't take offense with her Rambolina style of
    prose.
    
    Bob

    Not all men are as .8 makes us out to be. I felt a little chapped
    by the remarks myself. I gave my girlfriend a promise ring(nothing
    expected in return) and never got close to getting in bed with her.
    I wont lie and say sex with her never crossed my mind but I wanted
    it to happen at a time we both wanted and were ready for.
    As it turned out I never "got any" and she kept the ring.
    I wonder how many good relationships have been prevented by
    that line of paranoia, only because she couldent relax her fears
    long enough to enjoy the relationship?
    BTW-I have met a fair share of women that only wanted to bed me
    and I havent gone overboard with distrust in women.
    What ever happened to the concept of an open mind? Geeeeeez!
    
    
    -j
    

    RE: .17
    
    	I've been around notes for a long LONG time and I've been in
    	this conference since BEFORE it started (long story) so I
    	don't sweat what others say but I too have the "right" to voice
    	how I feel about what others say. Yes, I respect how she sticks
    	up for herself and maybe even womankind but the bashing of guys
    	that is so bloody evident in here and other conferences finally
    	demanded an opinion from me.
    
    	I tend to let people live their own lives.. I don't bug you
    	if you don't bug me. BUT. If every woman listened to Sandy
    	the way she was "talking" in .8 then every guy who walked
    	down the halls of LKG would get dirty looks from the single
    	women. Thankfully, many have more sense and are more secure
    	than that.  Maybe if Sandy would holster her guns and open her
    	mind....but I'll get back to letting her live her own life
    	as she sees fit. I just wanted to vent my frustrations.
    
    							mik

RE: .13

"Now what does a piece of jewelry that is intended to be worn every single day
from now on got to do with it?"

*Most* people would feel that it is a visible sign, or symbol of their love, or
commitment.  *Most* people would be reminded by seeing/feeling/sensing that ring
on their finger X00 times a day, and be reminded of what it signifies, and get a
warm feeling from being reminded.

If a ring does not signify anything to you, then a ring is worthless to you, but
that does not stop a ring from having great sentimental worth to someone else
who was given a ring. 

You can get into long psychological/philosophical details of theories of how
symbols and signs work, and what the differences between a sign and a symbol
are, but why bother?  Just remember that a sign/symbol signifies ***more***
then what you are seeing; *you* give it the meaning that *you* value. 

I picked out, and wore my wedding ring with great pride and relish, and even
after we had seperated, I still wore it on the other hand, and wore it because
it reminded me of what had been, of a major part of my life.  It reminded me of
the partnership that had produced two wonderfull children, it reminded me that I
was a father.  

It was not untill the fighting of divorce started that I started getting
blisters around that ring, and I had to stop wearing it.  I hope that someday I
will be able to wear the ring again in some fashion, but not as a wedding ring.

Jim. 

    RE:.15 and .17

    Michael Foley, I feel that your public outburst about your
    unfounded critique of Sandy C, is uncalled for.  I suspect
    that you ahve never met her in person and, therefore, should
    not be passing value judgements.   Personally, I don't see
    what your getting all steamed up about.  Sure, Sandy lays
    it on the line [no pun intended], but I feel the world would
    be alot better if more people were as honest as she.  Your 
    claim that "women in LKG would be passing with dirty looks"
    leads me to believe that you feel that most women don't have
    a mind of their own and can, and would most certainly, decide
    for themselves if they believe and respect Sandy's thoughts and
    IF THEY DIDN'T then you're better off with out that type of 
    person in your life, right?  Turn the other cheek.

    "Men bashing" is common with women, as is vice versa, as i'm
    sure you know.  It's the basis for which this happens that can
    qualify a generalized statement such as you have made and in 
    this instance, I don't feel it does.

    Didn't anyone see the smiley face in Sandy's note?!?
    
    I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong, Sandy) that the note was written
    somewhat tongue in check.  And even if it wasn't, it touches on
    an experience that many women (including me) can relate to.  When
    I was in high school, it WAS assumed that a girl wearing a guy's
    class ring was sleeping with him.

    
    
    	RE: .22
    
    	Michael Mahler, you have not read my notes.
    
    	I am NOT passing judgements, just venting my frustrations with
    	the way someone expresses themselves in Notes. It's NOTHING
    	personal against Sandy at all. FWIW, I HAVE met her in person
    	and find her to be a likeable, interesting person. It's the
    	expression of her dislike of men seen in .8 that irks me. Not
    	her personally.  If you re-read my bloody notes you'd see that
    	yourself.  This forum is a discussion. In a discussion, one
    	has the right to disagree with what someone says. Doesn't mean
    	that they can't still be friendly. Christ, you make it sound
    	like I'm out for blood! I just disagree!
    
    	Sheesh!
    							mike

    Mike Foley - we've met?
    
    Gee, do I defend my notes or myself?  ;-)

    Man-hater?  Man-basher?  The honest truth is that it's women I had
    to learn to like.  I have always identified with and liked men.  I 
    was raised with two of them and all their friends and to be one of 
    the guys, I too called girls silly and weak.  It wasn't until college
    that I began to realize that it wasn't women's fault, they were raised 
    to be helpless, dependent, starry-eyed, man-catchers.  I was lucky in that 
    our house was always full of guys and I never had to engage in the
    preening and flirting I saw my friends do when we reached "that" age.
    I never put guys on a pedestal or feared them or worried about my 
    attractiveness to them because we were all pals and "women", (silly,
    desperate, panicky women), were on the outside.

    I think what men hear in my words as "man-hating" is really "lack of 
    adoration".  Simple insubordination compared with the deference and auto-
    matic respect and eye-lowering that every female is expected to engage in 
    in every encounter with a male.  Discussing their "approaches" is especial-
    ly fragile ground and that makes my "insubordination" seem particularly 
    blatant.  I'm not a man-hater, but you don't really have to be one to upset
    men.  You only have to NOT be a man-worshipper to seem "different".

    C'mon, I've always wondered why men and women can't just admit every-
    thing and get on with it!!!  Are all these games and secrets really that
    much fun?  There's much more fun and love to be found my mutual agreement 
    than by the coercion required in sexist societies.  But then, who'd keep 
    the pearl ring manufacturers in business?  ;-)

    I never tell my friends that all men are pigs who just want to get
    laid because they already know that I think pigs are adorable little 
    creatures, and all HUMANS just want to get laid, be loved, be attractive 
    to the opposite sex, finacially successful and have good friends.  The
    ridiculous upbringing of our traditional sexist society is just a "layered
    product" on what i believe is basic human code.  It's not easy to separate 
    the wheat from the chaff, the socialization from the humanity but once you 
    do it's a far more simple and enjoyable world and the possibilities far 
    more vast because you can respond to what's basic in all of us, rather than 
    dealing in local custom, individual experience, cultural norm and all the 
    other muddiness that presents a fertile ground for misunderstanding
    and pain.

    My female friends are MUCH more down on men than I am.  I'm the one who
    always laughs, defends the guy and tries to give a little lesson in self-
    protection for the real world.  Men have the right to offer tokens!  We ALL
    have the right to try and turn situations to our benefit!  Every job
    interview finds us doing the same thing!  Women in general have just been 
    slow to both understand and accept the right of "getting for ourselves"
    and therefore we tend to begrudge an "opportunistic" male who DOES SO and
    we whine, "but how COULD he?"

    I say "EASY"!  Beyond obvious deception, (and being silent while knowing a 
    woman "thinks" a ring means something is borderline deception), our 
    first loyalties are to ourselves.  Men live like this everyday and count 
    on women NOT living like this.

    Because I appraise men and their words at face value and have never 
    trusted one beyond the level he deserved, I have always had successful 
    relationships with men.  My female friends are forever whining and crying 
    that this one did this and this one didn't do that and the reasons are 
    often that the woman heard what she wanted to hear and/or believed what
    she wanted to believe and acted on dangerous assumptions.  Since I don't
    have an "all-men-deserve-the-benefit-of-the-doubt" or an "any-man-is-
    better-than-no-man" attitude, I CAN take men at face value as I believe it 
    should be.  I don't believe a man loves me until he says so.  I don't 
    believe I'm in an exclusive relationship until we discuss it and agree to 
    it.  And I DON'T think of ANY possibility of marriage AT ALL unless that 
    too has been discussed and agreed upon.  What I find among my female 
    friends and sometimes in notes is women who DO believe things at slight
    provocation.  And the piece of jewelry known as the "pre-engagement"
    ring is a traditional and accepted form of provocation.  I would tell 
    these women that such a ring says nothing more than, "I am a gift.
    Enjoy me".  
    
    But tokens as pre-engagement rings can be an irresistable opportunity for 
    a woman to hear the things her male never actually says and takes res-
    ponsibility for.   If you are lucky the man will turn out to be honorable 
    and sincere but you have no control over whether or not he wants to be.  
    It's always his choice.  If he is not sincere and she is duped, where
    does our society lay the blame?  If it lies with the woman, (and it
    always does), then the responsibility for the interpretation of the
    "gift" also lies with her. 

    I demand that right to interpret any token my way since I alone bear the 
    responsibility for the consequences of that interpretation.  Is this man-
    hating?  I think it would save the guy a few wasted bucks!  Either he gives
    a woman a piece of jewelry and she says thank you and that's that or he 
    lays his cards on the table and gives her a REAL piece of jewelry, (and we
    know what REAL ones are, don't we?), and he takes responsibility for his 
    feelings.  

    Now I wouldn't sit here and tell a guy what to do.  But I will sit here and
    tell him what I will think about what he chooses to do.  If it's sex he 
    wants, skip the jewelry and ask for it and accept the consequences.  If 
    it's love he wants, say so and take what happens.  If he can't bring him-
    self to discuss his feelings with me he might as well keep the jewelry
    if he's going to give it assuming that I'm going to interpret it as
    undying love.

    I don't believe there is anything necessarily wrong with oopportunism.  
    Rather, I think women need to learn a little opportunism of their own 
    in love and on the job to both protect themselves from the inevitable
    opportunism of others and to understand and not begrudge those attempts
    at opportunism.
    
    I have never begrudged men's attempts to get what they want from 
    women.  This is what you're missing if you think I'm a man-hater.  I love
    the arena of "amore".  All's fair in love.  "You pays your money in this
    life and you takes your chances".  No one is going to hand us undying love
    on a silver platter.  We have to find it for ouraelves and to do so we,
    male and female, must be prepared for the hunt required or be left behind.
    

    Re: .25
    
    Bravo, Sandy!  I hope I get a chance to meet you at the next WOMANNOTES
    party, as I seem to have missed you the last time.
    
    			Steve

    RE: .25
    
    	Yup, we met. Last after-IDECUS party. You were at the head
    	of the table and I was on the other end.
    
    	If you wrote more notes like .25 then I wouldn't be at odds
    	with your notes. :-)
    	
    							mike

RE: .22

"Your claim that "women in LKG would be passing with dirty looks"..." 

I believe he said '*if* all women believed as you did ...'.  Quite a bit more
reasonable statement that what you quoted...

""Men bashing" is common with women, as is vice versa, as i'm sure you know."

Actually, Women Bashing is a lot less common then Men Bashing...  A quite
a few men feel that women are not worth bashing... :-{

RE: .25

Quite an interesting note Sandy, and I mean that respectfully...

I think you've got something a bit more then 'insubordination', Sandy...

"Since I don't have an "all-men-deserve-the-benefit-of-the-doubt" or an
"any-man-is- better-than-no-man" attitude, I CAN take men at face value as I
believe it should be."

All well and good, but your 'face value' is usually quite slimy.  It's all
very well not to make assumptions, as other women do, but your 'face value'
is just another assumption.  Truthfully, why don't you wait untill you find
out before you say anything, and make *no* assumptions?


"What I find among my female friends and sometimes in notes is women who DO
believe things at slight provocation."

True... but then so do I sometimes... :-}

"I demand that right to interpret any token my way since I alone bear the
responsibility for the consequences of that interpretation.  Is this man-
hating?"

Yes it *is*, when the token is someone elses, and you don't know thw whole
story, and you make blanket statements about how such tokens don't mean anything
to anybody, and should not mean anything to whoever you are talking to.

Sure, when someone hands *you* a token, interpret it any way that you want.
Sure, point out that there are *possible* misunderstandings that *some* people
might take advantage of.

Hmmm...  Sometimes I wonder...   I think that the misunderstanding are the
woman's as much as the man's responsibility, even if it is intentional on one
part, because the other person often ***wants*** to believe, ***wants*** to be
decieved, wants to live a fantasy.  I won't go so far as to say wants to but the
responsibility on the other, and be able to say later what a dirty rat they
were, but I'm definitely leaning in that direction.

"But I will sit here and tell him what I will think about what he chooses to do.
If it's sex he wants, skip the jewelry and ask for it and accept the
consequences.  If it's love he wants, say so and take what happens.  If he can't
bring him- self to discuss his feelings with me he might as well keep the
jewelry if he's going to give it assuming that I'm going to interpret it as
undying love."

Hear Here...

"I have never begrudged men's attempts to get what they want from women.  This
is what you're missing if you think I'm a man-hater.  I love the arena of
"amore".  All's fair in love.  "You pays your money in this life and you takes
your chances"."

I'd hate to be that cynical...  I wouldn't play that mindgame...  But I suppose
I often do end up playing it from the short end... but I don't mind...  I'd
rather be on the short end, then putting someone else on the short end! 

Jim.

    Aside:  Saying that someone is not worth bashing, IS bashing.

    

    can I get back to the topic, just for a minute?
    
    FWIW, he gave me an amethyst set in gold when we got "committed"
    (or pre-engaged)...and I gave him my signet ring with my initial
    on it and an emerald set in it.  
    
    I'm not sure where the imaginary line between "pre-engaged" and
    "engaged" lies, whether we've passed it, whether we'll even realize
    we have...but it'll be several years yet til we're married.
    
    BTW, what ever happened to "getting pinned"?
    
    -Jody
    
    

       re .30:
       
       > BTW, what ever happened to "getting pinned"?
       
       I believe that's a wrestling term.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    when it happened to me my friends said that I "got watched"

    FWIW, after asking someone at work [she was pre-engaged
    at one point] what this meant, she said:

    "It means he doesn't have the balls to propose."

    Makes sense to me.

RE: .30

You asked between the fine line of committed, and engagement...

You used the term "pre-engaged" for the term "committed", and I see those 
terms as separated, as I can be committed to dating just one person while we 
discover whether we are right for each other, and so forth...  pre-engaged 
was in high-school or college when one was more than just going "steady" but 
not yet engaged, I only have that concept to fall back on when you say 
pre-engaged... ( I kinda look on an engagement as like being pregnant, you 
are or you aren't, you can't be only a little pregnant - the same as an 
engagement - you are or you're not!)..

But to answer your question.. you'll know when you pass over the line from 
being just committed to engaged.  Its when he says...  "I want to marry you,
lets get married....." -- and you accept his proposal... then you are 
engaged!

And yes, to all you out there ready to jump on my back, I know a woman can 
ask a man... I just don't think its a proper thing to do, that is why I 
said when "he" asks, instead of when "she" asks.... but I'm sure someone is 
seeing red about now :-)....

Gale

    re .32:
    
    I believe voyeurism was discussed in a previous version of this file.
    
    - M

    Thanks Mike, I was wondering if someone would pick up on that :-)
    
    that was the sort of remark my friends all made after Don gave
    me his watch :-)
    
    Bonnie

    re. 28
    
    BRAVO!!!!! JIM!!!!!!
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    You basher you 8')

RE: -.1

Actually, I value women most highly, especially the competent ones.  :-{ is my
sarcastic, 'wish it weren't true' face... 

Jim.