Jump to content

Valentine's Day


CheekY

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This kitty dumped me on Valentine's one time. She said that I didn't put enough thought into her gift.

 

 

 

I don't get it. The frog was in the box before she opened it.

These women just don't get it right Anon jan :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fellowship of the Ring

 

By Lakshmi Chaudhry, AlterNet

February 12, 2004

 

Ah, Valentine's Day. A time for heart-shaped candy, romantic dinners, and most importantly, serious bling bling. It is the most popular day in the year to whip out the little velvet box that your woman has always dreamed about – y'know, the mega-carat ring that will make her single gal pals green to the gills.

 

 

Every Christmas needs its Scrooge, and V-Day would hardly be complete without unhappy singles mumbling 'Bah, humbug!' on the sidelines. But not this year, not when there is a Right-Hand Ring to ease their pain. This time around, Bridget Jones won't be bawling her eyes out in front the television, but wandering around Tiffany's picking out a sparkler of her very own – a ring that "signifies the strength, success and independence of women of the twenty-first century," to quote the website of the Diamond Trading Company, aka DeBeers.

 

 

In these emancipated times, even the age-old symbol of sexual superiority is no longer the exclusive preserve of the smugly hitched – if the savvy marketers have their way. The diamond ring is instead a badge of freedom – but only when you wear it on your right hand. "Your left hand declares your commitment. Your right hand is a declaration of independence," declares the DeBeers print ad. "Women of the world, raise your right hand."

 

 

The truth is that a right hand ring is sadly more retro than revolutionary. Women down here on planet earth are way ahead of the DeBeers curve. A single friend of mine wears her mother's engagement solitaire on her left hand, just because she likes it and that's the finger it fits best on. I did the same ten years ago while in the throes of a bad relationship, except it was a silver filigree number with a black stone that summed up my view of love at the time.

 

 

As usual the images in the pages of People and Us Weekly don't reflect the reality on the sidewalk. Right-hand rings are all the rage these days, be it the catwalk or the red carpet. And it's not just Halle Berry, Janet Jackson, and Sharon Stone flashing their self-bought bling, but also married gals like Julia Roberts, Debra Messing, and Victoria "Posh Spice" Beckham.

 

 

The message is clear: Just because she has a husband, a woman doesn't have to sit around waiting for him to buy her some sorry piece of ice. The diamond industry has been careful not to exclude its most reliable supporters, married women whose "left hand rocks the cradle" while their "right hand rules the world."

 

 

Of course, quite contrary to the 'I am woman, hear me roar' message of the ad campaign, the real goal of this hot new trend is to boost slipping sales figures. As Rob Walker reports in the New York Times:

 

 

 

"(T)here are more career women with money to spend, says Kenneth Gassman, a diamond-jewelry analyst, but 'they just haven't been spending it on diamonds.' Focus groups, Morrison says, revealed 'a sort of superstition' that a diamond ring should only be a romantic gift from a man. Thus the positioning of the right-hand ring as a 'signature style piece' that 'liberated' women from a taboo. ... 'The idea,' Morrison says, 'is that beyond a trend, this could become a sort of cultural imperative.'"

 

 

First cigarettes and now diamonds: we've come a long way, baby!

 

 

Working women, especially the unmarried ones, have become the latest cultural icon of liberation. Be it Hollywood or Madison Avenue, corporate America is frantically wooing the career girls with money to spare. Forget those boring images of the dutiful, angst-ridden Mary Tyler Moores of yore. The independent woman of the new millennium likes to spend, spend, spend. As Harry Winston public-relations director Carol Brodie-Gelles puts it, "The right-hand ring is the ultimate liberator. It allows a woman to completely self-indulge. In an era of (the Atkins diet), who wouldn't want to treat themselves to a big dessert such as a decadent ring?" Indeed, nothing screams revolution like gluttony.

 

 

The faux equation of greedy consumption with liberation is hardly new. And perhaps the popularization of feminist concepts – a woman has the right to control her money – even in a degraded form is a heartening sign of a changing zeitgeist. The bigger problem lies in the very concept of a right-hand ring.

 

 

To begin with, it simply renames an existing practice as a new "trend," as though women never conceived of wearing rings on their right hand before the diamond industry gave them permission to do so. But that's just a minor quibble. What's more insidious is the delineation between this must-have accoutrement from its matrimonial counterpart.

 

 

Not only is the ring placed on a different hand, it is also carefully designed to avoid any confusion – just in case onlookers are a little dyslexic in these matters. The diamonds are never positioned across the finger, include a solitaire, or include any setting typical of an engagement ring.

 

 

The right-hand ring, in fact, is not about the right hand at all. It instead speaks volumes about society's obsession with the left ring finger, which we are expected to offer up to the gods of matrimony. It is they who will decide what a man or woman should wear on that finger and when. Heaven forbid, if any of us should choose to do with this digit as we please.

 

 

I wore my faux left-hand ring constantly for couple of years until I met and married my husband. My wedding and engagement rings didn't last that long. I put them away in my sock drawer two months after the wedding. And there they've stayed ever since.

 

 

Over the years, I have been repeatedly questioned – always by men – about my indecently bare finger. "Why don't you wear a ring," they ask me querulously. Am I lying about being married? Or do I want to pretend to be available? Maybe the damn rings are just a pain in the ass and don't go with anything in my wardrobe. For some reason, the last answer seems to offend them more than any of the alternatives.

 

 

The social imperative to wear a wedding ring once you're married is merely the flip side of the taboo that forbids a single woman from sporting a solitaire on the "wrong" hand. Each demands we perform our marital status for the benefit of the world. So if we must seek liberation through jewelry, then bring on the left-hand ring. Now that would be a true declaration of independence from the obligation to advertise our personal choices in the sexual marketplace.

 

 

Lakshmi Chaudhry is a Senior Editor at AlterNet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice thought Bruin but it seems to me that you are more describing national physical fitness day or some such...for Valentines Day i would think that at least a little kissing must be involved eh? :wink_kiss:

 

HAPPY VALENTINES DAY SWEETS! :heart: :wink_kiss: :heart: :wink_kiss: :heart: :wink_kiss: :heart: :wink_kiss:

Edited by THOTH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nah! that's what i meant thoth! :) what is love? the alignment of your body personality and soul... connecting with other lives...love is when your body seeks to heal itself after an illness or an injury, trying to put your system back in control, in harmony...love is when your're down and a gleam of hope sparks a corner of your brain and you get a release of endorphins that soothe and calm your mind...love is when you know you are alive and cared for everyday by the force that brought you here in the first place...kissing? awwwww that's just the added bonus, one of the many charms of life :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dare any boy to beat this gift of mine. :)

 

 

"Astronomers Find a Huge Diamond in Space

Feb 13, 2004

 

 

When choosing a Valentine's Day gift for a wife or girlfriend, you can't go wrong with diamonds. If you really want to impress your favorite lady this Valentine's Day, get her the galaxy's largest diamond. But you'd better carry a deep wallet, because this 10 billion trillion trillion carat monster has a cost that's literally astronomical!

 

"You would need a jeweler's loupe the size of the Sun to grade this diamond!" says astronomer Travis Metcalfe (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), who leads a team of researchers that discovered the giant gem. "Bill Gates and Donald Trump together couldn't begin to afford it."

 

When asked to estimate the value of the cosmic jewel, Ronald Winston, CEO of Harry Winston Inc., indicated that such a large diamond probably would depress the value of the market, stating, "Who knows? It may be a self-deflating prophecy because there is so much of it." He added, "It is definitely too big to wear!"

 

The newly discovered cosmic diamond is a chunk of crystallized carbon 50 light-years from the Earth in the constellation Centaurus. (A light-year is the distance light travels in a year, or about 6 trillion miles.) It is 2,500 miles across and weighs 5 million trillion trillion pounds, which translates to approximately 10 billion trillion trillion carats, or a one followed by 34 zeros.

 

"It's the mother of all diamonds!" says Metcalfe. "Some people refer to it as 'Lucy' in a tribute to the Beatles song 'Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds.'"

 

The diamond star completely outclasses the largest diamond on Earth, the 530-carat Star of Africa which resides in the Crown Jewels of England. The Star of Africa was cut from the largest diamond ever found on Earth, a 3,100-carat gem.

 

The huge cosmic gem (technically known as BPM 37093) is actually a crystallized white dwarf. A white dwarf is the hot core of a star, left over after the star uses up its nuclear fuel and dies. It is made mostly of carbon and is coated by a thin layer of hydrogen and helium gases.

 

For more than four decades, astronomers have thought that the interiors of white dwarfs crystallized, but obtaining direct evidence became possible only recently.

 

"The hunt for the crystal core of this white dwarf has been like the search for the Lost Dutchman's Mine. It was thought to exist for decades, but only now has it been located," says co-author Michael Montgomery (University of Cambridge).

 

The white dwarf studied by Metcalfe, Montgomery, and Antonio Kanaan (UFSC Brazil), is not only radiant but also harmonious. It rings like a gigantic gong, undergoing constant pulsations.

 

"By measuring those pulsations, we were able to study the hidden interior of the white dwarf, just like seismograph measurements of earthquakes allow geologists to study the interior of the Earth. We figured out that the carbon interior of this white dwarf has solidified to form the galaxy's largest diamond," says Metcalfe.

 

Our Sun will become a white dwarf when it dies 5 billion years from now. Some two billion years after that, the Sun's ember core will crystallize as well, leaving a giant diamond in the center of our solar system.

 

"Our Sun will become a diamond that truly is forever," says Metcalfe.

 

A paper announcing this discovery has been submitted to The Astrophysical Journal Letters for publication. "

 

Original Source: CfA News Release

 

 

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/hu...ce.html?1322004

 

 

 

Now, who will be the happy girl? :D

Edited by Fadix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Domino jan...the guys gotta have a heart of a diamond to please me...lol not a diamond bigger than God knows what...and im sure most of the chikas here think the same...who needs diamonds when u can have someone thats worth more diamonds and gold than ever?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...