It seemed like they were having a fairly weird post-feminist discussion about the whole thing, honestly. "How come I have to buy you a present? What do I get??" "My hand in marriage. Anyway, I like jewelry!" "But they say three months' salary! That's crazy!!" "Yes, it is crazy. I don't want that." "But, but... a'lksjdf;aljksdf."
I've had this conversation. In the end, I suggested an 'engagement computer' that we could both use. Seemed practical to me, though having to buy something to solidify a commitment is a strange thing.
we had a similar conversation and decided that we would get me a ring when I saw it and said WANT. I wanted to get him something too... but my finances precluded it for a long time... and then we bought a house... but we had a very fun and mellow engagement process.
The "three months salary" thing has always confused me. Fortunately, I got engaged in college when neither of us had a job, which made it really easy to calculate -- three months of nothing is still nothing. (I still don't know exactly how much he spent on the ring -- I told him I didn't want him to spend too much, but I let him decide how much "too much" was.)
Boxing is when you say "Okay, no elbows, no kicking, no punching below the belt, etc, etc." It's the rules that set it aside from just striking with a closed fist.
When I think of boxing, I think more about the style (how the punches are thrown, the foot work, etc) rather than the rules of the ring. Just like when I think of Tae Kwon Do, I think about the techniques, not the point fighting or the silly "sport" no punching to the head rules. Though I will grant that when most people think of boxing, they think of the sport, whereas with most martial arts, they think about the form itself.
The again, my Medieval Longsword instructors referred to sparring as "fencing" even though it pays little simularity to what the general public thinks of as "fencing." (Lateral movement, 3-second grappling and takes-downs, strikes, kicks, pommel blows, and hooks with the cross guard vs. linear movement to point with right of way and only the sword is in play.) So I guess it depends from person to person.
Seekrit message for msbelle:
where should we start the discussion of how last night's Eureka featured a shirtless and Hawt Colin?
I thought it was two months, or rather, it used to be two months, but even then, I don't know that I know anyone who abided by that. With the price of the products inflated over time, it doesn't seem right the months-salary part ought to get inflated, too.
takes-downs, strikes, kicks, pommel blows, and hooks with the cross guard
Hey, if the ref doesn't see it....
Seekrit message to Lee:
OMG. Okay, so I cheated and I'm not msbelle. I got a bit uncomfortable oogling him last night knowing that he's ita's friend. But, my heavens, that was pretty. Also, his jeans hung just a wee bit in front and that was almost Too Much.
The "three months salary" thing has always confused me.
Once upon a time DeBeers said "one to two". Then they bumped it up. I suspect the whole thing is via DeBeers.
The 'number of months one SHOULD spend' and the notion that love is not real if it does not involve a common, but shiny, rock that is nowhere near worth what it costs...and often involves near-slave labor to produce, at that...really, really bugs me.
Just like the faux-post feminist 'wear a diamond on your right hand to show the world you take care of yourself' campaign.
