Wearing rings - but not married

[YonderRevoltingPeasantWhoIsHe]

Gah, it's too late to type out a proper question. Recently, an unmarried couple, friends of ours, bought 'wedding rings' to wear. They have no intention of marrying.

What do you think of this - is it like 'playing married' or just a nice sign that they are both 'taken'?

Why are people so judgemental and fixed in their views? Someone said earlier that they wouldn't have a Catholic symbol like the virgin Mary in their house as they weren't catholic. I have a buddha in my living room, my husband just likes it as he's very interested in the far east. I have a some shabat candlesticks and wine chalice given to me as a present from a Jewish friend, I love them but I'm not Jewish. I'm married but don't wear any rings. Didn't realise so many folk would raising their eyebrows at my choices.

People are funny! Lot of married people don't wear rings. No one pays the slightest attention anyway. I took mine off as a widow and no one noticed.

dollymixtures I hope you feel suitably contrite for causing all this distress to so many

I didn't realise how symbolic and spiritual the blessing of the rings would be until the marriage service. It was incredibly special and is the reason why I have never removed my wedding ring except when it had to be made a little larger

I have been with DP for 9 years and yet that isn't as valid as some wanky church ritual

josierosie t'wasnt me, it was the boy child. He made me eat all the cake so blame him all you haters.

gay40 just like my 14 years isn't as valid as my FILs three (count 'em!) marriages... but then he never wore a ring and that as we now know explains everything

I've come to the conclusion that I don't give a toss who wears what on what digit. But just because you are legally allowed to sashay up and down an aisle as many times as you like, it says nowt about your relationship or commitment.
Saying that, our friends keep asking when we are getting married. I always say "When the government stops treating us like a sub-species". That quickly moves the conversation on to the weather.

I don't understand any of this gay marriage business.
Gay people are -RIGHTLY- allowed to form civil partnerships which are identical legally to marriage, so, as far as I am concerned, they can get married already.
There's nothing wanky about a couple in a civil partnership wearing rings-because they are married.

Besides which, all the reports I have read on the issue (in the broadsheets) clearly say that gay people will not be allowed to marry as such, however, the proposals will allow them to have civil partnerships within a religious setting.
Incidentally, this is precisely why heterosexuals won't be allowed to have civil partnerships (fecking ridiculous idea that, anway-just get married in a register office ffs) because heterosexuals already have option of a civil partnership i.e. getting married in a non-religious setting.

Anyway, this thread has nothing to do with the superiority of marriage to cohabitation- it's just bewilderment as to why anybody would want to wear a wedding ring on their wedding finger if not actually married.

One of the member of the couple in the opening post desperately wants to get married and the other is (literally) producing a token gesture of marriage i.e. a ring without getting married.

If neither cared about marriage, no judgements upon the state of their relationship could be made. Both neutral towards it and no reflection on the state of their relationship at all.

'Saying that, our friends keep asking when we are getting married. I always say "When the government stops treating us like a sub-species". '

Quite right Gay40. Civil partnership is not a marriage, if it were if would be called a 'marriage'! We have a 2-tier system at the moment which is totally unfair. Marriage should be open to hetero and gay couples, civil partnerships should be open to hetero and gay couples so everyone can choose to have one or the other or neither. That sounds like equality to me.

But that is not going to happen. The proposals put forward are to give religious institutions the option of conducting civil partnerships within their buildings.
I see nothing wrong with this at all -each to their own. No problem with this at all, however, gay people will still be 'civilly-partnered' but can do so within a religious setting.

The argument that heterosexuals should have civil partnerships is ridiculous as they already have the option of getting married with or without religion.

There is no difference between civil partnerships and marriage at the moment apart from the fact that cp's can't be conducted within a religious setting. The proposals put forward will not allow gay people to marry but will allow them to be civilly partnered within a religious building. What more could anybody ask for? THAT is marriage!

I don't understand the juxtaposition of breaking convention (by not marrying) and blindly following tradition (by wearing rings). It's ovs up to them but it doesn't male sense to me.

This is one of this odd mumsnet threads where people, for whatever reason, wilfully miss the point.

It is obviously absurd - well, it would be anywhere but mumsnet- to suggest that a ring worn on the 4th finger of the left hand is anything but a wedding ring. You can't just say "it's just a ring- it can mean anything I want it to mean" without denying hundreds of years of tradition. In the same way that it would b foolish to decide that cats are actually called rabbits.

If you're not happy with being unmarried and want to pretend you are, that's fine. But be honest about it. Being honest with ourselves is very important.

What vincettenoir and seeker said.
I just can't see the point in announcing that you are getting wedding rings without actually planning on getting married.
If people are against marriage on principle why follow the tradition of buying rings and put them on what is known as your wedding finger.
Commitment rings sound a good idea.

seeker I don't really regard myself as a 'Mumsnetter' in that I disagree with /and or dislike 99% of what is written on these forums, and only heard of it a year or so ago. So I have spent 50 years 'outside of Mumsnet'.
I have always regarded a 'wedding ring' as just another piece of jewellry. I don't care what other people think about it, I don't even notice if anyone wears a ring on any finger and couldn't care less if someone is married, single or in a civil sex partnership, or is 'pretending to be married', whatever that actually means.
We don't actually have to blindly follow tradition nowadays, we can do whatever we like really.

I'm not married to dp yet we both wear these rings on our wedding fingers. For us it shows our commitment and it does seem to stop a lot of assumptions in public about who our dc's belong to.

seeker I wear a ring my mum gave me on my wedding finger. It's the finger it fits best. I'm not married to DP. If I split up with DP I'll keep wearing it.

Am I denying hundreds of years of tradition?
Am I being wanky?
Or just wearing a nice ring given by someone I love on the finger it fits best?

"We don't actually have to blindly follow tradition nowadays, we can do whatever we like really."

So are you saying that if you see someone with a ring on their wedding finger you make absolutely no assumptions about what that means? And neither does anyone else?

How does that tie in with the people upthread who say they have worn such rings to fendoff unwanted attention?

Just goes to show that making assumptions is a bad move

Jasper - agree - unsurprisingly!

seeker I know at least one man (unmarried) who wears a gold 'family' signet ring on his 'ring finger' because that is where it fits. He wears it on the left because he's right handed and it annoys him on the right.

I guess some people do see it and reckon he's married, but, you know, he knows he's not and that's the point.

I don't really get the cat/ rabbit point: I mean, clearly a cat isn't a rabbit and calling it by a different name would serve no purpose. But a ring on a certain finger is a symbol which most people interpret one way but which for a small minority of people might have a different meaning. But since that meaning is private to them, why does it matter? Too tired to explain properly but I'm sure you see what I mean........

Also not really sure about the whole 'hundreds of years' thing, I thought wedding rings were like white dresses, essentially a Victorian invention, so actually about 150-60 years old. Might be wrong though!!

No one takes the slightest notice. I took mine off as a widow because I was fed up with people assuming I had a DH-it didn't make the slightest difference with anyone at all.

I remember wearing a ring, a 21 st gift from friends on the wedding finger. TBH I never thought anything of it, it fitted and just felt right. People who insist on thinking it's wanky and just people pretending etc - have you ever thought that maybe you just have little imagination, are quite judgemental and have a very narrow view of the world?

Actually, although I agree that nobody else really cares, I think it is perceptive of people to deduce that a woman wearing a wedding band on her wedding band finger given to her by her dp is desperate to be married to her dp and her dp has fobbed her off with a token gesture.
It would be highly unusual for both members of the couple to have this bright idea.

One half of the couple would be bound to say: 'what for? We'll wear rings when /if we marry?!'. Unless it is an appeasement gesture to get out of actually getting wed.

"it's just a ring- it can mean anything I want it to mean" without denying hundreds of years of tradition"

"We don't actually have to blindly follow tradition nowadays, we can do whatever we like really."

A good few posters need to look up the wearing of a circle on the body, it goes back further than Christianity or what we now call a wedding ceremony. I get a bit pissed off at Christians/British claiming all of these "traditions", some of them started before Christ was born.

I have carried out actions etc which stem from my background (Native American) to be asked by some as to why i am doing them when i am not Christian, they refuse then to be educated when i try to explain the real origin, because to them anything other than Christiananity/Western beliefs don't count.