Many modern couples are refusing to accept a one-size-fits-all wedding - and for some, that includes the band. On this side of the pond, rings are slipping off fingers with frequency - a decision that has become an accepted throwback in some circles, even as critics lament the loss of a symbol and the cultural about-face.
"It's a social convention that's more than a convention," argues Hugo Schwyzer, a lecturer on history and gender studies at Pasadena City College, who recently advocated for the battered band in a blog post for the Good Men Project Magazine. He got his share of flak. "It's not about tradition. It's about having an outer and visible sign of a private, romantic reality. . . . This is sending a signal of commitment."
One blog reader retorted: "If it was socially required to have your salary tattooed on your forehead, would you? That way, you could 'mark out' to new acquaintances your class status and job security without them having to ask. Why stop there? Why not make it mandatory to carry a sign displaying your favourite flavor of ice cream?"
When it comes to wedding bands, we have strong opinions, on both sides. At the Straight Dope website, nearly 70 percent of 108 votes didn't care whether their husband wore a wedding ring. At the same time, an About.com poll asked, "Is it important for you to have your spouse wear a wedding ring?" About 80 percent of 1,736 votes said yes.
Even ring romantics can find themselves facing circumstances that can interfere. Although Martha Hunter, now 62, had worn her gold ring with a raised circle of platinum with much affection when she worked with older children, her move to preschool classes left her dealing with lots of messes. "I'm changing diapers, cleaning up throw-up, playing with clay," she explains. "I would be foolish to wear a ring in that setting."
