<div dir="ltr"><br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Yitzhak Grossman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:celejar@gmail.com" target="_blank">celejar@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><span></span>It became the custom for US soldiers going to war to publicise their<br>marital status by the wearing of a man's wedding ring. They were happy<br>
to make public their commitment to their wife by the wearing of a<br>public symbol that declared that commitment to all. Given that this<br>habit of wearing men's wedding bands was reasonably new it was all the<br>more creditable that these men were willing to forego the marital<br>
obscurity available to them from not wearing a ring and actively chose<br>to make a public statement about their choice.<br><br>Men's wedding rings have become increasingly more common since that<br>time."<br></blockquote>
<div> </div></div>
<div>Perhaps this alone is a reason for men NOT to wear the ring. The need to anounce to others your marital status is far more significant in a culture where the norn is to flirt with members of the oposite sex. The ring declares that this one is not available. For a man who anyway would not flirt or wish to be flirted with, the ring does not declare his loyalty.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Micha wrote:</div>
<div>>>And a man who goes to work with a flirtatious woman is better off with her not even trying.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>True, but that might not justify a widespread acceptance of a new minhag. In his particular case, if he's attractive, and she is unaware and etc. perhaps.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Akiva</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div></div></div></div><br></div>