Does He HAVE to Put a Ring on it?

I read an article on ClutchMag.com entitled Should You Just Date Until He Puts a Ring On It? the main idea (from MY understanding) was simply women should date multiple people until one of them pops the question. I hear this a lot. 

Now I am a young woman and a bit “doe-eyed” when it comes to the world and matters of the heart. Despite that fact, coupled with my admission that I have no desire to be married just yet, if at all. I DO know you can not treat marriage like a game of tag or duck-duck-goose.  

In no way do I want anyone to think the article was saying “Girl, you better take it however you can get it”. But I do want us to contemplate this logic. I suspect women get so enthralled with this notion of getting what we affectionately refer to as “the ring”. Allowing that moment to define their life they are eager to accept one from anybody who is willing to give it to them. 

Let us consider the movie He’s Just Not That Into You. Beth (Jennifer Aniston) and Neil (Ben Affleck) are an unmarried couple amongst married couples. Beth wanted marriage and Neil did not. So she left him. This was not a situation where she was mistreated and disrespected on countless occasions. Beth had Neil’s love and his loyalty. But she was willing to relinquish that in absence of an object.  

Marriage is about commitment and a ring is a symbol of that … I get it, believe me I do. However, at what point do we recognize what is really important. What does commitment really mean anyway? Having someone that wont cheat on you? Being Facebook official? Having a companion? Devotion? This word can mean different things to different people. What’s good for Sue and Larry may not be for Angela and Sam (Eric and Fred or Brittany and Amanda for my same sex couples :) ). But is having a loving relationship not the premise of getting married? Does not receiving a ring mean that a person is no longer “committed” to you?

A ring is just a representation of what a union of two people should be about. Love, Respect, Honor, and Loyalty. It does not tell the truth of a relationship. There are married couples who are unhappy, unfaithful, unfulfilled, and a whole host of other “UNs”. So that ring women vie for does not promise “happily ever after”…. the two parties involved do.

At the end of the movie Beth comes to that realization. She tells Neil “You’re what I want. Our life together is what I want. I miss it. I miss you. You see those guys my sisters are married to? You’re more of a husband to me, not being married…than those real husbands are ever gonna be, and it’s enough. It’s really enough for me.”

Of course, I have to take into account that two people should also be on the same page. So if one really and truly wants to be married, the other is not, and that is something you can not compromise on then by all means you have to be honest with yourself. That may not be an arrangement that will not work for you. I want to address those who let the societal pressure of friends and all the old folks asking “When that boy gone marry you?” force their hand. Is a ring worth losing someone you care about?

It doesn’t mean they don’t love you. Again I am not talking about an undesirable, someone who blatantly does not care about you. On the contrary, this is someone who uplifts you. Someone who brings positive energy into your life. Someone who respects you and your opinions. Someone who wants the best for you even if that means they have to suffer. Someone who loves you in spite of your flaws. Someone who is there for you. And vice versa. Real, true, and unconditional love. Love that needs no explanation you know its there, you can feel it. Others can see it. 

So I ask should ONE inanimate object determine the progression of a relationship? Is love not enough?

Then again, what do I know? I’m sort of like Alice (a young girl) trying to find my way through Wonderland (life).