Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Yes.

    Yep.
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

    Success object - Not that I'm aware of.  Sex object - yes.  :^)
    
    			- Vick

    Sure have.
    
    -j
    

Anyone care to elaborate?  Do those who answer 'Yes' see this as a problem?

    No problem here as long as they don't mind my wrath when I find out I
    have been used. I never get mad but I always even the score.
    
    I hope to avoid at nearly any cost being a SO in the context of this
    note.
    
    -j

    RE: .6
    
    No. Yes.

    all three ;^)
    fred();

    
    I have been used as a success object (breadwinner, supporter, bankroll,
    etc.) by 3 significant others at various points in time.
    
    -Jody
    

I believe this topic was also discussed in note 571.

			Steve

    Never been used as a success object - though in my last relationship
    he clearly *could* have taken advantage of our difference in income.
    
    Have also been "used" as a sex object - but that doesn't really 
    count if you don't mind, does it?  :-)
    
    /Greg

    How do you feel when you see those ads implying that you (the man)
    should plunk down two months of your salary on an engagement ring?
    If that custom isn't using men as success objects, what is?

How is that different from ads which suggest you should plunk down two years
salary on a fancy sports car?

				Steve

	re  .2  Z

		you little stud muffin you.

    RE -1 
    The sports car ad is gender-neutral, Steve. The other one is very
    focused on males.

    
    truth be told, I couldn't see plunking down 2 months salary on a piece
    of jewelry.  But the two engagement rings I had I bought myself (we
    chose them together, though.)
    
    I think it's unfortunate the marketing snakes are placing pressure on a
    man to SHOW HER HOW MUCH HE LOVES HER by giving her a material thing
    (as if such proof is needed).  And it's also unfortunate the marketing
    snakes are encouraging women to require this as a token of his
    affection.
    
    Bleah.
    
    -Jody
    
    p.s.  "marketing snakes" are people who are so invested in sales that
    their scruples get lost or misplaced.  This in no way infers that
    people in marketing are all snakes, nor are snakes solely confined to
    marketing.  And this in no way infers that people who own snakes should
    feel I have maligned their pets.
    

              <<< Note 726.18 by LEZAH::BOBBITT "megamorphosis" >>>
    
    p.s.  "marketing snakes" are people who are so invested in sales that
    their scruples get lost or misplaced.  This in no way infers that
    people in marketing are all snakes, nor are snakes solely confined to
    marketing.  And this in no way infers that people who own snakes should
    feel I have maligned their pets.
    

Jody,

	Have you ever considered a carreer as a disclaimer writer?   ;')

Ron

    re: engagement rings..
    
    I have a "Bloom County" strip on my wall that goes like this:
    
     Opus: "Um..I'm recently engaged.  Apparently I need some diamonds."
    
    Clerk: "Certainly!  We'll make it simple... What's your life savings?"
    
     Opus: "Actually, I was saving so we could go on an African safari..."
    
    Clerk: "Come, sir!  Why spend money on a life-enriching experience when
    	    you could blow a wad on a chip of glass-like material? 
    	    Remember, a diamond is forever?"
    
     Opus: "FOREVER WHAT?"
    
    Clerk: "We're not sure, but the woman who dies with the most wins!"
    
     Opus: "WHO STARTED THIS *COCKAMAMY* IDEA?!?!?"
    
    Clerk: "Guilty!"
    
     Opus: "Well heck, I can't afford much..."
    
    Clerk: "Sir! Maybe there's a minor upcoming purchase you could put off?"
    
     Opus: (walking down street with diamond the size of a cantaloupe)
           "Shoot...who needs a house anyway?"
    
    as a side note, the sign on the counter in the jewelry store changes
    from pannel to pannel:
    
    1st "Remember!  A woman without diamonds is a tree sloth." 
    2nd "Remember!  A woman without diamonds is like a day without tomatoes."  
    3rd "Remember!  A woman without diamonds is a parsnip."
    
    	

Re: The 2 months guideline

I was somewhat enlightened to see a competition recently
in something like Vanity Fair where (I think) the people
who proposed this marketing gem (pun intended) basically
were offering 2 months salary or something like $3,600
for the winner to buy their loved one a stone.

I always had a problem with the 2 months cause for anyone
making over $30,000, that's a LOT of money.  Seems like
those marketers have it in their minds that many people 
make less than $21,600, which I know is true stats-wise.

Just an FYI.

Bernard

.18>    I think it's unfortunate the marketing snakes are placing pressure on a
    man to SHOW HER HOW MUCH HE LOVES HER by giving her a material thing
    (as if such proof is needed).  And it's also unfortunate the marketing
    snakes are encouraging women to require this as a token of his
    affection.
    
    Couldn't agree more - although the para. quoted above had me ready to
    reply in reptillain indignation until I saw the disclaimer.
    
    It's ironic - the lower your salary, the more 2 months of it must seem
    to pay for a ring...
    
    	Andrew.

    Well, I dunno, but I think it would be pretty obvious to anyone with
    the perception of a rock if the loved one was using you as a "success
    object" (the implication being that this is they main reason this
    person is interested in you).  Hence, the one being "used" must get
    some satisfaction from this status.
    
    As for diamond engagement rings -- they are far from universal, even
    among those who could well afford them.  Wanting one (like wanting an
    expensive sports car) says a lot about you. I don't quite see how a
    couple could contemplate a life together if they disagree over
    something as fundamental as the need for an expensive engagement ring.
    
    (Incidentally, the story of how the deBeers mining company marketed
    diamond engagement rings into something other than trinkets among the
    rich is quite fascinating)
    
    Kit

	On a slightly different note...what about the man who insists
	on being a success object, i.e. who insists that his chief
	contribution to the relationship lies in how much money he
	makes and how expensive the gifts are that he buys for his
	significant other?

	I'm hearing that many men have experience of and/or dislike
	being placed in this position...any insight about the man who
	insists on keeping himself there, regardless of what the
	significant other desires?

	Lynn

>    How do you feel when you see those ads implying that you (the man)
>    should plunk down two months of your salary on an engagement ring?
    
    I feel glad that I have no intention of buying one.
    
    Ray, who's borrowed from SOs at least as often as he's loaned to 'em

>	I'm hearing that many men have experience of and/or dislike
>	being placed in this position...any insight about the man who
>	insists on keeping himself there, regardless of what the
>	significant other desires?

 To many a financially successful man, forking over some cash and or material
things is alot easier than intimacy and introspection. I think it basically
amounts to the fact that humans seek their comfort zones more readily than
they will attempt to inspect the whys and wherefores of discomfort.

    Well, I am one of those women who did want a nice engagement/wedding
    set so I did the fair thing and paid for half of it myself :^).  I have
    a real passion for jewelry.
    
    

    
    IT appears that the economy affects who we date ...
    
    In times of national prosperity a woman looks for a SugarDaddy,
    a man looks for a SugarMamma.
    
    (SugarDaddy/Mamma: Affluent)
    
    
    Now in times of economic recession and depression a woman/man
    looks for a SuccessObject.
    
    (SuccessObject: Working class, but not laid-off)
    

    re:  .23
    
    OK, I'll bite.  what is the story behind the deBeers marketing strategy
    ?

re .29

The short story behind deBeers is that they cornered the diamond distribution 
market, and combined with their own massive mining operations deliberately 
restricted the world's supply.  By doing this they convinced the world that 
diamonds were rare, and hence precious, when the fact is that if they ever 
flooded the world with their mountainous warehouses of stored diamonds we'd 
all wake up and realise that diamonds are a semi-precious stone, worth no 
more than something like an opal.

    No more than 75 years ago a diamond was considered a semi-precious
    stone simply because there were so many around and the cutting
    technique used back then rarely produced the glitter refractive effect
    carefully cut into todays diamonds.  Rubies and emeralds and saphires
    were more highly prized.
    
    The "Diamonds are a girls best friend" and "Diamonds are forever"
    campaign got the general population believing that they were following
    a centuries old tradition when they were engaged with diamond rings
    when in fact it would have been slightly better than presenting a
    quartz ring for engagement 100 years ago.
    
    Jewellers love it, though.

    re .18, I don't think engagement rings should be required proof of
    love, and I don't think that men should feel pressured into buying
    them. On the other hand, it is true that most people wouldn't spend two
    months salary on someone they didn't love, so if someone is willing to
    that is a pretty good indication that they are in love, and presenting
    someone with a beautiful object that is worth several thousand dollars
    is body language that can't be easily misinterpreted.
    
    Personally, I think diamonds are beautiful, but I only like them in
    antique settings and find contemporary engagement rings plain and
    boring.   I love jewelry but I'm not into status.  I just like what I
    like.  (And, nobody, including myself, has ever spent 2 months salary
    on any of my rings.)
    
    I've never used anybody as a success object, and nobody has ever used
    me as one since I have no money.  
    
    Lorna
     

    Re: .32
    
    I beg to differ.  My take on it is that if a person (in the context of
    this discussion, a man) wants to go out and blow several months' salary
    on an object that is pretty but completely nonfunctional (an engagement
    ring) when there is a need to be conservative, there is reason to
    question whether that individual will make a financially responsible
    spouse.  Obviously, some men/couples have less need to be conservative;
    a person with a well-paying job who is marrying another similar person,
    for example, has more room to splurge.  But I can think of many things
    that would show love as well as, or better than, a ring - such as a car
    to replace an ill one or a commitment to unburden her parents for half
    of the price of an expensive wedding (which latter is also a foolish
    waste IMHO, but your mileage may vary.)
    
    -dick

    When we got married, we had the money either for a honeymoon, or an
    engagement ring. (Sold New York Central at a profit in 1967)
    We chose the honeymoon. My in-laws insisted on buying Barbara an
    engagement ring. I still don't feel good about it.
    

    re .34, well, when *I* got married we didn't have the money for either a
    honeymoon OR an engagement ring, but I didn't care because I was so
    much in love.  (course, it didn't last forever but 7 or 8 great years
    are 7 or 8 great years, and that's better than nothing)
    
    Seriously, though, even though I love jewelry, and especially rings,
    the idea of an engagement ring, in itself, doesn't mean that much to
    me really.  I know enough about jewelry to know that there are a lot of
    absolutely beautiful rings to be had for $500. or under, anyway.
    (not diamonds, of course -- but nice diamonds can be had for under
    a $1K, too.)
    
    re .33, I'd rather have a new car than an engagement ring, too.
    Although, I saw this fabulous ring at Tiffany's a couple of weeks ago
    that was out of this world - a diamond, with a ruby on either side -
    spectacular - for $15K.  It made my mouth water.  But, it wasn't the
    price tag.  It was truly lovely.  
    
    Lorna
    
    

My fiancee and I went ring shopping two months ago.  I am basically of the
opinion that engagement rings are an idea foisted upon us by vested 
interests, but she wanted something more than a plain wedding band.  We
compromised and bought a wedding band with diamonds in it, that I was able
to purchase without mortgaging my firstborn, so it has worked out OK.


Ben

    Well, my wife wears both the rings I've given her (the engagement ring
    I bought her using ALL our savings when we were in graduate school
    and the beautiful diamond ring I gave her for her 40th birthday) 24
    hours a day.  She wears them gardening (this drives me crazy) and
    to bed (I've had many scratches from this practice).  She'd set on
    fire the car I got her for a Memorial Day surprise last year before
    she'd part with either ring.  
    
    						- Vick
    

    Re .37: Argh - reading too fast, I thought I saw "as a Memorial Day
    surprise, she set the car on fire"... Now, there's a woman who knows
    how to celebrate!
    
    Re engagement rings: I've always figured that solitaire rings were
    designed along the theory of the long fingernails of Mandarin gentlemen
    - since you clearly couldn't do useful work with them, having them
    meant you were rich enough not to _have_ to do useful work. (But then,
    I'm a klutz; anything I wear on my hands had better not have sharp
    edges, or stick out, or be able to cut glass (or flesh), else some
    serious mayhem could result. I suppose people who can type with long
    fingernails can manage to wear sticky-outie diamond things without
    lacerating their faces.)
    
    -b

    re: practicality of rings.
    	When I was married my wife offered to buy me a ring. At the time I
    was working with someone who had a badly damaged hand. 5 volts is safe
    to touch, right? Not with a wedding ring!  It instantly welded itself
    across the 5 volt terminals, and he got his hand free when the gold
    melted.

    What I have seen of SO's in one senerio with a tenant in my apartment
    was that he went out to do the usual bread winning game, typical blue
    colar job. She hung out, veggied, could have gone out to do a part time
    job in town. But gave some lame excuse to do so. Then they took in his
    mother who had suffered a crippling stroke. And the motheroutlaw filed 
    an abuse rap on her for not living up to the contract of caring for the
    outlaw. Hence....... If your outlaw wants to move in. Move out.:)
    
    Yes, I have definatly felt like a walking wallet. Yes, I had some great
    times with my marriage. And I helped out the outlaws when ever I could.
    $100 here $200 there. And with my truck moved them all at a drop of
    the hat. And when it was my turn to ask for a favor, even during our
    marriage........... No help. Not even from the wife(ex). Nothing like
    painting an apartment unit till the weeee hours of the morning. Or 
    working 7 days a week as so that the wife(ex) can stay home for
    a couple of months to nurture/bond/raise our daughter. But that was
    for three months. And twenty months later she decided to go back to
    work..... But for a charity org. Not for money. What of charity in the
    home and getting me out from under that second job other than the
    apartments??? I feel that men must not only be computer scientist, we
    must know how to fly a jet, drive a Cadi, and have money coming out our
    butt sides. And if you can get a deal on a red cape and blue suit your
    in luck.