Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Second part of question: For those of you who have been married what did you do with your wedding band when the marriage was over? I threw mine away it was Titanium while it cost like $1,100 it wasn't worth anything to sell it. So I tossed mine.
Sold the engagement ring (to pay for the lawyer). Still have the wedding ring, which cost about $400, as I recall. Still have his last name, too. The fact that I still have both means NOTHING other than 1) I haven't made the effort to pawn the ring and 2) changing back to my maiden name would have been a PITA I didn't want to deal with.
We don't always keep remnants of the past for sentimental reasons. Sometimes it's just laziness or indifference.
The engagement ring was a family heirloom so that went back to his Mother. The wedding ring was lost somewhere in the sand in Cozumel, just before I met my second husband....fate or what
In that case, she must choose. What's more important to her - her man or her stupid jewelry collection?
"Illogical ones" usually pay for the stupidity. The Darwin Awards roll of honor is full of "illogical ones".
Oh puleeze! Her jewelry collection isn't stupid because you think it is. She paid for it, so she gets to decide if she wants to keep it. Everyone is entitled to collect what they want to. It is America after all.
I still keep and use gifts from ex-boyfriends, such as DSLR cameras, purses, etc, not because they remind me of my ex but because I need and like them. I can only assume the same thing is going on in your girlfriend's mind. It's a ring, it shines and she loves it! Don't be too worried.
Let's think like an economist. An engaged couple aren't all that different from a borrower and a lender. The woman is lending her hand in marriage to the man, who promises to tie the knot at a later date. In the days of Breach of Promise, the woman would do this on an unsecured basis -- that is, the man didn't have to pledge any collateral -- because the law provided her something akin to bankruptcy protection. Put simply, if the man didn't fulfill his obligation to marry, the woman had legal recourse. This calculus changed once the law changed. Suddenly, women wanted an upfront financial assurance from their men. Basically, collateral. That way, if the couple never made it down the aisle, she'd at least be left with something. And that something was almost always small and shiny. The diamond ring was insurance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
