AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

The lopping thing? :?: :-D

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

I would venture to say that that could be an added inducement for never removing it.

RetNavyCWO Loc: VA suburb of DC

Interesting. I wonder why the rate of men wearing wedding rings jumped from 15% to 60% and 70% after WWII and the Korean War?

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Perhaps it was instituted by Navy wives to thwart off some of those women in every port. Wat'ch ya think?

RetNavyCWO Loc: VA suburb of DC

Could be!

But I think women back then were smart enough to know that their sailor husbands could just take them off. Heck, I knew a guy who had an extra ring that he would replace his wedding ring with to cover up the tan line.

How about this as a possibility: Maybe it was because there were so many widows after the war who were looking for husbands that married women wanted their husbands to be more cearly marked "TAKEN!"

Watchya think?

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Could be. That's as good an explanation as we are liable to get. Let's see what the fairer sex has to contribute.

RetNavyCWO Loc: VA suburb of DC

Speaking of the fairer sex, I wonder if the jump in men wearing wedding rings was the idea of the fairer sex or the men? Seems to me that it was more likely the ladies wanted their husbands to wear them than the husbands themselves deciding to wear them.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

I had my choice of this post or your most recent. I decided on this one, although I do, somewhat, agree with the thought about marking the husband as "taken".

The thought that wandered through my brain was during WWII women became the prime source of labor in many industries. At the end of the war, the soldiers came home and women were sent back to, so to speak, the "kitchen". It was not societally acceptable for them to continue in "industrial" work. As they then became dependent on their spouse, they determined to claim "ownership" (boy I h**e that term).

RetNavyCWO Loc: VA suburb of DC

Shoulda figured: looks like it was the jewelry industry that did it.

From Wikipedia:

In older times, the wedding rings were not only a sign of love, but were also linked to the bestowal of 'earnest money'. According to the prayer book of Edward VI: after the words 'with this ring I thee wed' follow the words 'This gold and silver I give thee', at which point the g***m was supposed to hand a leather purse filled with gold and silver coins to the bride.[3]

Historically, the wedding ring was connected to the exchange of valuables at the moment of the wedding rather than a symbol of eternal love and devotion. It is a relic of the times when marriage was a contract between families, not individual lovers. Both families were then eager to ensure the economic safety of the young couple. Sometimes it went as far as being a conditional exchange as this old (and today outdated) German formula shows: 'I give you this ring as a sign of the marriage which has been promised between us, provided your father gives with you a marriage portion of 1000 Reichsthalers'.[3]

The double-ring ceremony, or use of wedding rings for both partners, is a relatively recent innovation in the United States. The American jewelry industry started a marketing campaign aimed at encouraging this practice in the late 19th century.[1] In the 1920s, ad campaigns tried introducing a male engagement ring, but it failed due to the necessity that its advertising campaigns make secret appeals to women.[1] Marketing lessons of the 1920s, changing economic times, and the impact of World War II led to a more successful marketing campaign for male and female wedding bands, and by the late 1940s, double-ring ceremonies made up for 80% of all weddings, as opposed to 15% before the Great Depression. In 21st century 80% of the ceremonies still consist of double-ring ceremonies within the United States. However this trend may have lesser prevalence outside continental United States where it is still common to find weddings with just the bride wearing the wedding ring. Global marketing efforts by jewelry industry are increasingly encouraging the trend for double-ring weddings worldwide. [1]

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Did you not see my post relative to this very matter?

I continue to hold back my full views on this top. I am going to let this percolate a bit longer.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

"The fairer sex" who started this forum has some opinions on this matter; however, is letting it percolate along for a bit before putting them out there. :-o

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Yep, percolation generally results in a better brew.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Here is another source.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/09/the-origin-of-wedding-rings-and-why-theyre-worn-on-the-4th-finger-of-the-left-hand/

RetNavyCWO Loc: VA suburb of DC

I think that was probably a factor, too. Combine that with the prosperity the U.S. experienced after the war, and the jewelry industry's renewed marketing efforts, and I think we have created a reasonable explanation!

Interesting topic, AuntiE!

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

That should not be ruled out. :lol: