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'?

Wamster you should write for the Daily Mail. Are you actually talking about Nazi Germany in a discussion about other people's jewellery choices?

its just hyper realism isnt it?

No, she's not talking about Nazi Germany. She's talking about symbols.

If I put a large swastika up on the front of my house, and when challenged I said that I was honouring my great grandmother who, up until the 1930s wore a small gold swastika as a good luck charm ( which she did- I have it in my jewellery box now. Very odd it is to have it there!) and that for me it meant my great grandmother rather than Nazism, people would rightly say I was bonkers. Our society runs on symbols. You can't just say "Well to me, this means...." And I actually think that's what people really think- if they say different they are playing with ideas and seeing what it feels like.

Godwin's Law

Yes, I saw QI, too! However, I'm not comparing it to anything Nazi Germans did, I am comparing symbols and using the swastika to illustrate how nonsensical the whole idea of symbols meaning what the wearer wants them to mean is.

The whole point of a symbol is that it has a shared meaning that is understood by the rest of the population.

To say that a wedding-type band on the third finger of left hand does not signify marriage is just silly. Course it does. And why borrow something so associated with marriage to signify commitment? Why not buy an entirely different type of ring? Like those made out of wood or something like that?

I know but it's so funny

The whole point of a symbol is that is has a shared meaning, yes, but it is generally accepted that different symbols have different meanings in different contexts and to different people, and that those meanings can and do change over time. Like the swastika everyone is going on about.

A ring on a ring finger suggests but does not confirm marriage, just as a ring finger without a ring suggests but does not confirm that a person is not married.

Would you think someone who is married but chooses not to wear a ring unreasonable? Those who choose not to wear something so associated with marriage and therefore signify to everyone else that they are not in fact married?

Here's another thing: what if the people who buy the wedding bands and wear them decide to get wed later on down the line? People change their minds and that is reasonable. What will they do then? Put another wedding band on their third finger?

You mean like engagement/wedding rings, Wamster? Plenty of people wear both.

Or, how about keep it on and miss out the rings part? Or replace it with something else in a different design?

It's not hard to imagine a few things they might do.

If I got married I wouldn't wear a ring, and I wouldn't want to give up the ring I already wear (though today that's on the third finger of my right hand).

I think the English system where there is no common-law marriage arrangement makes people far more focused on marriage and far more conservative in their views on the subject.
In Aus I would be astounded to hear anyone under 50 spout this old fashioned nonsense about people being silly to adopt symbols that were traditionally associated with marriage just because they hadn't done the paperwork. Lots of the comments here sound like a conversation from a retirement village to me.

What about gay couples? Should they not be allowed to adopt symbols of commitment just because they can't legally get married?

If you don't believe in marriage why should that exclude you from making a commitment to someone and demonstrating it in a way that is both meaningful to the couple and draws on understood symbols of commitment?

The times are changing people.

Wamster - if they were already wearing a symbol of commitment before they got married then nothing need change when they get married.

I find it completely wanky. A friend of mine wears a gold wedding band on the fourth finger of her left hand and is not married and I cannot for the life of me fathom out why.

"The whole point of a symbol is that it has a shared meaning that is understood by the rest of the population."

Dogmatic much?

Societal norms an ideas are fluid as are the use and interpretation of symbols.
Quite obviously, as has been pointed out on this thread, the ring on the ring finger is being used more broadly than just to symbolise marriage and will therefore, over time, broaden it's meaning in society. In many groups on society it already has. Just, no one has told Wamster yet.

Aside from the swastika, I would be interested to hear of other symbols that have broadened their meaning if you have any examples bubba.

We don't have common law arrangements in the UK because of freedom of choice issues. Why on earth should anybody be considered married just because they live together? I cohabited with a few guys before finding my dh-I would hate to be deemed married just because of that. NOTHING to do with morality issues.
And gay people can get married in the UK-it's called civil partnerships.
It's not dogmatic for heaven's sake, I have not met one person who doesn't equate a wedding band on the wedding finger as anything other than marriage.

'It's not dogmatic for heaven's sake'

Er YES it is! Some people on this thread sound increasingly unhinged with every post. Why on earth you all give so much of a fig about other people's supposedly wanky behaviour is beyond me. If you think it's all so naff then leave them to it, they're not doing you any harm

BAUBBLEY - I'll have a think about it and get back to you. Off the top of my head I'm tinkling that for a while there in the 80s I would have assumed that someone wearing a crucifix necklace was a Madonna fan rather than religious. ;-)

Wamster, I'm not advocating a change in law in the UK I'm just pointing out that the very traditional view of marriage there has an effect on the debate on this thread. I find it quite interesting how those sorts of differences influence people's perceptions.

Wamster - you have met a number of people on this thread who don't automatically equate rings on the ring finger with marriage.

Eh? In real life, I would leave them to it! Not that I've ever met any unmarried couple who wears a wedding ring if unmarried, though. They'd be puzzled as hell as to why anybody would wear one, too, by the way. Sure they've got rings but they are NOT of the wedding band variety! They're happily unmarried, they don't want or need the symbolism of marriage in their lives!

It is really irritating when you cannot discuss a topic in a reasonable manner on a thread when people assume that you actually do anything about your gripe in real life. These are just opinions for heaven's sake.

Found this in a sociology site about the basics of sociology. Note the last line...

"To the human mind, symbols are cultural representations of reality. Every culture has its own set of symbols associated with different experiences and perceptions. Thus, as a representation, a symbol's meaning is neither instinctive nor automatic. The culture's members must interpret and over time reinterpret the symbol."

I would suggest that other symbols who's meaning have changed or are changing might include the image of a 1950s housewife with perfect had/makeup/dress and an apron. Would once have symbolised the perfect woman and would now symbolise a bygon era of oppression.

Smoking used to clearly symbolise coolness - not so much anymore.

Having a tattoo used to symbolise a certain roughness/toughness or membership of a specific group. These days it's ubiquitous.

Anklettes (ankle bracelet things) used to symbolise prostitutes but not any more.

Wearing red socks used to be a symbol of your communist affiliations.

These things pop up all the time when I'm talking to my Mum - I wish I could remember some of her doozies.

Erm ... Josie: the op asked for people's opinions on this topic.

No one randomly posted a rant about non-married people wearing wedding rings.

I can't actually see any ranting at all. Just considered opinion.

Wamster - how do you know you haven't met any? My sister isn't married but has a 2 children with her partner and she wears a ring on her ring finger. If you met her you would assume she was married and I doubt she'd be bothered correcting you. You'd never know.

Oooh and flowers! Every flower used to symbolise something and people used to give a bouquet and it would convey a message or emotion.

Hmmm it is interesting about symbols and contexts and swastikas.....

Recently some naff British clothing company started doing a 'retro' t-shirt with an old southern US Confederate flag on it.

I walked into a university library with my friend who is from Arkansas and we saw a student with this on - she completely freaked out and actually spoke to the guy wearing it. Because for her, that would be a symbol of violent racist oppression and support for slavery. Where she is from, that doesn't have another meaning.

It pretty much was like someone putting a swastika up as a Christmas decoration!

Needless to say, the poor clueless student she was accosting had absolutely no idea it could be taken in that way and simply backed sloooooowly away from the crazy American ladies....

The point is, for that kid a Confederate flag is a vaguely Americanish symbol like Route 66 or something; for others, highly politically charged. Symbols aren't stable, dude.

People assume I am married because I've been with DP for years and we have three kids.

Not because they look at my left hand

Wamster you've sort of met me !

"We don't have common law arrangements in the UK because of freedom of choice issues. Why on earth should anybody be considered married just because they live together?'

agree completley