Ownership of engagement and wedding rings

[Roland Perry]

Let's say a couple have been married two or three years and are
contemplating divorce as a result of an irretrievable break-up.

Many of the assets are potentially split 50:50, but what about the
woman's rings?

At one extreme they are 100% hers and excluded from the settlement, at
the other extreme the husband wants them back because he paid for them
originally (and doesn't regard them as even a 50:50 asset).

What does UK divorce law have to say about this?

[For a friend - I'm still happily married after almost 30yrs].
--
Roland Perry

[Peter Crosland]

They are hers. They were gifts to her. Simples!

--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cxeoGD5+...@perry.co.uk...

Surely they must be considered to be a gift from him to her if he bought
them for her?

[Paul Rudin]

August West <aug...@kororaa.com> writes:

> The entity calling itself Adia wrote:

>> I would like to predict it says wedding rings are given as a gift, and
>> the person who gave the ring as a gift is not entitled to reclaim it
>> back. I have complete faith in UK justice.
>
> Indeed. Jewellery, and other items, recieved as a gift (and items
> brought into the marriage), are personal posessions, and does not form
> part of the matrimonial possessions.
>

Is is that simple? I don't know about divorce law, but suppose
hypothetically that some expensive jewellery was the only stuff of any
real value at the time of the divorce. Is it necessarily the case that
the wife would get all of this and the husband nothing?

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Peter Crosland" wrote in message
> news:sZidnbgt8pwvvijI...@brightview.co.uk...

Ownership is not the issue, however. As I understand it the starting point
is that all the couple's assets are taken into account in splitting 50/50,
irrespective of which partner owns them, unless there is a good reason for
excluding any assets.
--
Chris R

========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:23:52 +0100, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:

>
>>
>>
>> "Peter Crosland" wrote in message
>> news:sZidnbgt8pwvvijI...@brightview.co.uk...
>> On 26/07/2015 18:30, Roland Perry wrote:
>> > Let's say a couple have been married two or three years and are
>> > contemplating divorce as a result of an irretrievable break-up.
>> >
>> > Many of the assets are potentially split 50:50, but what about the
>> > woman's rings?
>> >
>> > At one extreme they are 100% hers and excluded from the settlement, at
>> > the other extreme the husband wants them back because he paid for them
>> > originally (and doesn't regard them as even a 50:50 asset).
>> >
>> > What does UK divorce law have to say about this?
>> >
>> > [For a friend - I'm still happily married after almost 30yrs].
>>
>> They are hers. They were gifts to her. Simples!
>>
> Ownership is not the issue, however. As I understand it the starting point
> is that all the couple's assets are taken into account in splitting 50/50,
> irrespective of which partner owns them, unless there is a good reason for
> excluding any assets.

Indeed. Say the husband bought a car and had it registered in his name, would that not be split 50/50?

However, there are some couples who do not marry, and keep seperate bank accounts. How does that work? Is this where the Scottish "bidey in" law comes into effect?

[Yellow]

In article <87fv4ab...@rudin.co.uk>, paul....@rudin.co.uk says...

Gifts aren't joint property.

[Roland Perry]

In message <mp394o$l42$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:34:27 on Sun, 26 Jul
2015, Mr Pounder Esquire <MrPo...@RationalThought.com> remarked:

>>what about the woman's rings?

>Surely they must be considered to be a gift from him to her if he bought
>them for her?

Thanks all, that's what I thought would be the case. And it occurs to me
that being a gift before the marriage they can't be part of the communal
property acquired afterwards.
--
Roland Perry

[Paul Rudin]

Cite?

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.x2ebs...@red.lan...

> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:23:52 +0100, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Peter Crosland" wrote in message
>>> news:sZidnbgt8pwvvijI...@brightview.co.uk...
>>> On 26/07/2015 18:30, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> > Let's say a couple have been married two or three years and are
>>> > contemplating divorce as a result of an irretrievable break-up.
>>> >
>>> > Many of the assets are potentially split 50:50, but what about the
>>> > woman's rings?
>>> >
>>> > At one extreme they are 100% hers and excluded from the settlement, at
>>> > the other extreme the husband wants them back because he paid for them
>>> > originally (and doesn't regard them as even a 50:50 asset).
>>> >
>>> > What does UK divorce law have to say about this?
>>> >
>>> > [For a friend - I'm still happily married after almost 30yrs].
>>>
>>> They are hers. They were gifts to her. Simples!
>>>
>> Ownership is not the issue, however. As I understand it the starting
>> point
>> is that all the couple's assets are taken into account in splitting
>> 50/50,
>> irrespective of which partner owns them, unless there is a good reason
>> for
>> excluding any assets.
>
> Indeed. Say the husband bought a car and had it registered in his name,
> would that not be split 50/50?

Probably, as would the television and the hair drier that he just happened
to have paid for.

>
> However, there are some couples who do not marry, and keep seperate bank
> accounts. How does that work? Is this where the Scottish "bidey in" law
> comes into effect?

Can't see the Scottish connection mentioned in this posting.
But I'm sure that you will work under your bridge on this issue.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

A man owns a big house, and a woman goes to live with him then they get married. They divorce ten years later. Does the woman not get half the house? How is the house different to the ring?

[Roland Perry]

In message <8MGdnXs2StRXrijI...@brightview.co.uk>, at
20:23:52 on Sun, 26 Jul 2015, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:

>> > Let's say a couple have been married two or three years and are
>> > contemplating divorce as a result of an irretrievable break-up.

...

>> They are hers. They were gifts to her. Simples!
>>
>Ownership is not the issue, however. As I understand it the starting point
>is that all the couple's assets are taken into account in splitting 50/50,
>irrespective of which partner owns them, unless there is a good reason for
>excluding any assets.

In some jurisdictions (and I don't know if the UK is the same) perhaps
only property acquired, or money earned, after the marriage is split.

Although that flies in the face of "prenuptial agreements" unless those
are for funds arising from contracts made before the marriage, rather
than monies in the bank on the wedding day.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.x2ec4...@red.lan>, at 21:13:28 on Sun, 26 Jul 2015,
Tough Guy no. 1265 <n...@spam.com> remarked:

>A man owns a big house, and a woman goes to live with him then they get
>married. They divorce ten years later. Does the woman not get half the house?

It may depend on the local law. Some jurisdictions would look at the
length of the marriage and decide that while ten years was enough for
that, ten weeks or ten days might not be.
--
Roland Perry

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 21:15:52 +0100, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:

>
> The entity calling itself Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>
>> However, there are some couples who do not marry, and keep seperate
>> bank accounts. How does that work? Is this where the Scottish "bidey
>> in" law comes into effect?
>

> There is no Scottish "bidey in" law. Although cohabitants sometimes make
> such claims - but it is entirely up to the court to decide the worth of
> any such claim; there is no right to division.

So two people who have lived together without marriage for 10 years, could have a 50/50 split if the court decided to do so? But normally they are treated as two flatmates? On what basis does the court decide? If children are involved?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 21:14:18 +0100, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:

>
> The entity calling itself Chris R wrote:
>
>> Ownership is not the issue, however. As I understand it the starting point
>> is that all the couple's assets are taken into account in splitting 50/50,
>> irrespective of which partner owns them, unless there is a good reason for
>> excluding any assets.
>

> And those good reason include: brought into marriage, recived as legacy
> (and not converted), and recieved as a gift. But who bought something,
> or paid for it, is not a consideration.

By "brought into marriage", do you mean anything owned by one of the spouses before the wedding? If so why do rich folk who marry poor folk get special agreements drawn up to protect their assets?

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.x2edt...@red.lan>, at 21:28:40 on Sun, 26 Jul 2015,

Tough Guy no. 1265 <n...@spam.com> remarked:

>>> Ownership is not the issue, however. As I understand it the starting point
>>> is that all the couple's assets are taken into account in splitting 50/50,
>>> irrespective of which partner owns them, unless there is a good reason for
>>> excluding any assets.
>>
>> And those good reason include: brought into marriage, recived as legacy
>> (and not converted), and recieved as a gift. But who bought something,
>> or paid for it, is not a consideration.
>
>By "brought into marriage", do you mean anything owned by one of the spouses
>before the wedding? If so why do rich folk who marry poor folk get special
>agreements drawn up to protect their assets?

There are two possibilities here (and I'm trying to discover to what
extent UK law agrees with them):

1) A quite short marriage might make a difference. Often we read about
the woman's settlement perhaps being based on her contribution to the
marriage as a "housewife" while the husband goes out earning money.

2) If (eg) you were a rock star and your income is from royalties, you
will have substantial sums arriving both before and after the marriage.
Is there any difference between the income from that record you made
years before the marriage that arrived then, versus the money which
continues to arrive after?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <87wpxm4...@news2.kororaa.com>, at 21:14:18 on Sun, 26
Jul 2015, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> remarked:

>> Ownership is not the issue, however. As I understand it the starting point
>> is that all the couple's assets are taken into account in splitting 50/50,
>> irrespective of which partner owns them, unless there is a good reason for
>> excluding any assets.
>

>And those good reason include: brought into marriage, recived as legacy
>(and not converted), and recieved as a gift.

And an engagement ring will have been brought into the marriage, having
been bought and gifted some time before [1] the wedding ring perhaps a
gift during the marriage? But is normally placed on the woman's finger
before they are "pronounced man and wife".

>But who bought something, or paid for it, is not a consideration.

[1] Modulo overnight weddings in Las Vegas.
--
Roland Perry

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

My Uncle's advice to "never get married" is a good one :-)
He broke his own rule. Twice.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

In response to 2, I would say that the work was done by the rock star before the marriage, so that income should count the same as what he already had in his bank account.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 21:46:54 +0100, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:

>
> The entity calling itself Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>> Is there any difference between the income from that record you made
>> years before the marriage that arrived then, versus the money which
>> continues to arrive after?
>

> No more than there is for any other earnings.

Surely if someone with £1 million of assets gets married, then earns a further million while married over a period of 10 years, then the two millions are treated differently?

[Nogood Boyo]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cxeoGD5+...@perry.co.uk...
[...]

>
> [For a friend - I'm still happily married after almost 30yrs].

> --
> Roland Perry

I know someone who's happily married after 35 years, as long as he doesn't
have to see her or speak to her...

--
Nogood Boyo

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Roland Perry" wrote in message news:z6tT07Ay...@perry.co.uk...

> There are two possibilities here (and I'm trying to discover to what
> extent UK law agrees with them):

What is this "UK law" of which you speak?
--
Chris R

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Yellow" wrote in message
> news:MPG.301f4c98c...@News.Individual.NET...

Why does that matter?

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Roland Perry" wrote in message news:yz2DG16e...@perry.co.uk...

Communal property? What jurisdiction are we talking about?

[Fredxxx]

On 26/07/2015 19:59, August West wrote:
>
> The entity calling itself Adia wrote:
>>
>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>> Let's say a couple have been married two or three years and are
>>> contemplating divorce as a result of an irretrievable break-up.
>>>

>>> Many of the assets are potentially split 50:50, but what about the
>>> woman's rings?
>>>

>>> At one extreme they are 100% hers and excluded from the settlement, at
>>> the other extreme the husband wants them back because he paid for them
>>> originally (and doesn't regard them as even a 50:50 asset).
>>>
>>> What does UK divorce law have to say about this?
>>>
>>> [For a friend - I'm still happily married after almost 30yrs].
>>
>> I would like to predict it says wedding rings are given as a gift, and
>> the person who gave the ring as a gift is not entitled to reclaim it
>> back. I have complete faith in UK justice.
>
> Indeed. Jewellery, and other items, recieved as a gift (and items
> brought into the marriage), are personal posessions, and does not form
> part of the matrimonial possessions.

Is that still the case after 10 years of marriage.

I can understand the asset being "hers", but I had always thought the
value would be taken into consideration when diving values of "other"
assets.

There is also then the wheeze of say a parent providing a substantial
asset, like a property, just before marriage knowing the spouse could
never get their hands on 1/2.

[Fredxxx]

On 27/07/2015 00:10, August West wrote:

>
> The entity calling itself Fredxxx wrote:
>
>>> Indeed. Jewellery, and other items, recieved as a gift (and items
>>> brought into the marriage), are personal posessions, and does not form
>>> part of the matrimonial possessions.
>>
>> Is that still the case after 10 years of marriage.
>

> Yes.

Wow

>> There is also then the wheeze of say a parent providing a substantial
>> asset, like a property, just before marriage knowing the spouse could
>> never get their hands on 1/2.
>

> Property, if it is the matrimonial home, does not escape being
> matrimonial property, however acquired. So, not a very good wheeze.

I recall you saying that about the marital home. I was thinking of
assets like buy-to-let and the like.

[Roland Perry]

In message <Z--dnU1qIKnqxSjI...@brightview.co.uk>, at
23:00:22 on Sun, 26 Jul 2015, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:

>> There are two possibilities here (and I'm trying to discover to what
>> extent UK law agrees with them):
>
>What is this "UK law" of which you speak?

Laws in the UK rather than, for example, France or Spain.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <87bney4...@news2.kororaa.com>, at 21:46:54 on Sun, 26
Jul 2015, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> remarked:

>> Is there any difference between the income from that record you made
>> years before the marriage that arrived then, versus the money which
>> continues to arrive after?
>

>No more than there is for any other earnings.

Although some or all of the former may have been spent before the
marriage. So it's more about the savings the two people brought into the
marriage I suppose.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <VfKdnTiLkJdtyijI...@brightview.co.uk>, at
22:58:07 on Sun, 26 Jul 2015, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:

>Communal property? What jurisdiction are we talking about?

England.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <87r3nt3...@news2.kororaa.com>, at 11:40:27 on Mon, 27

Jul 2015, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> remarked:
>>>> Is there any difference between the income from that record you made
>>>> years before the marriage that arrived then, versus the money which
>>>> continues to arrive after?
>>
>>>No more than there is for any other earnings.
>>
>> Although some or all of the former may have been spent before the
>> marriage. So it's more about the savings the two people brought into
>> the marriage I suppose.
>

>Ah, I was regarding it as an income stream, and it is like any other
>income stream. But, yes, it is also like any other savings: fungible,
>and hard to point at as "brought in" after a number of years.

Just to make sure I understand, you are saying that money (or debts[1])
which are brought into the marriage cease to be relevant when it comes
to the divorce settlement after 'a number of years'? Is there a rule of
thumb, or some kind of tapering, involved.

[1] My wife arrived with substantial student loans to repay, whereas I
had no loans at all, unless you count the mortgage. We moved soon
after into a jointly owned/mortgaged house, in order to be closer to
the centre of gravity of our two employments; so the latter ceased
to be just my loan - and perhaps the equity I had is treated
specially on account of being a home.
--
Roland Perry

[zaax If you message is not archive it does not cou]

His as they were brought because of the marriage, which is no longer.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:18:21 +0100, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:

> "Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:23:52 +0100, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Peter Crosland" wrote in message
>>>> news:sZidnbgt8pwvvijI...@brightview.co.uk...

>>>> On 26/07/2015 18:30, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> Let's say a couple have been married two or three years and are
>>>>> contemplating divorce as a result of an irretrievable break-up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many of the assets are potentially split 50:50, but what about the
>>>>> woman's rings?
>>>>>
>>>>> At one extreme they are 100% hers and excluded from the settlement, at
>>>>> the other extreme the husband wants them back because he paid for them
>>>>> originally (and doesn't regard them as even a 50:50 asset).
>>>>>
>>>>> What does UK divorce law have to say about this?
>>>>>
>>>>> [For a friend - I'm still happily married after almost 30yrs].
>>>>

>>>> They are hers. They were gifts to her. Simples!
>>>>

>>> Ownership is not the issue, however. As I understand it the starting point
>>> is that all the couple's assets are taken into account in splitting 50/50,
>>> irrespective of which partner owns them, unless there is a good reason for
>>> excluding any assets.
>>

>> Indeed. Say the husband bought a car and had it registered in his name,
>> would that not be split 50/50?
>>
>
> Register Keeper does not mean legal owner.

ARGH! Well whichever document means it's his then.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.x2fna...@red.lan...

I think the document could be called a receipt from the motor dealer?
But, this could be water under your Bridge as far as the law is concerned?

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Sunday, 26 July 2015 18:41:58 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
> Let's say a couple have been married two or three years and are
> contemplating divorce as a result of an irretrievable break-up.
>
> Many of the assets are potentially split 50:50, but what about the
> woman's rings?
>
> At one extreme they are 100% hers and excluded from the settlement, at
> the other extreme the husband wants them back because he paid for them
> originally (and doesn't regard them as even a 50:50 asset).
>
> What does UK divorce law have to say about this?
>
> [For a friend - I'm still happily married after almost 30yrs].

> --
> Roland Perry

An engagement ring is a gift plain and simple and is the receiver's property. If the engagement is called off (by the receiver - almost always the woman) then there would be a moral, but not legal obligation to return it.

Wedding rings are exchanged. so both parties will have one.

[the Omrud]

On 29/07/2015 13:41, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Sunday, 26 July 2015 18:41:58 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
>> Let's say a couple have been married two or three years and are
>> contemplating divorce as a result of an irretrievable break-up.
>>
>> Many of the assets are potentially split 50:50, but what about the
>> woman's rings?
>>
>> At one extreme they are 100% hers and excluded from the settlement, at
>> the other extreme the husband wants them back because he paid for them
>> originally (and doesn't regard them as even a 50:50 asset).
>>
>> What does UK divorce law have to say about this?
>>
>> [For a friend - I'm still happily married after almost 30yrs].
>

> An engagement ring is a gift plain and simple and is the receiver's property. If the engagement is called off (by the receiver - almost always the woman) then there would be a moral, but not legal obligation to return it.
>
> Wedding rings are exchanged. so both parties will have one.

Oops. I've never worn a ring of any sort. Am I not legally married?

--
David

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

One might be a lot more expensive than the other.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Yes, it just means your wife doesn't love you so much ;-)

[Martin Bonner]

On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 14:00:11 UTC+1, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Sunday, 26 July 2015 18:41:58 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
> > Let's say a couple have been married two or three years and are
> > contemplating divorce as a result of an irretrievable break-up.
> >
> > Many of the assets are potentially split 50:50, but what about the
> > woman's rings?
> >
> > At one extreme they are 100% hers and excluded from the settlement, at
> > the other extreme the husband wants them back because he paid for them
> > originally (and doesn't regard them as even a 50:50 asset).
> >
> > What does UK divorce law have to say about this?
> >
> > [For a friend - I'm still happily married after almost 30yrs].
> > --
> > Roland Perry
>
> An engagement ring is a gift plain and simple and is the receiver's property.
> If the engagement is called off (by the receiver - almost always the woman)

Do you have any evidence that it is usually the woman that calls off the
engagement?

> then there would be a moral, but not legal obligation to return it.
>
> Wedding rings are exchanged. so both parties will have one.

What? They may be exchanged, or only the woman may have one, or only the
man may have one (although I don't know of anyone like that).

[the Omrud]

So much as what?

--
David

[the Omrud]

On 29/07/2015 15:13, Martin Bonner wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 14:00:11 UTC+1, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> On Sunday, 26 July 2015 18:41:58 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> Let's say a couple have been married two or three years and are
>>> contemplating divorce as a result of an irretrievable break-up.
>>>
>>> Many of the assets are potentially split 50:50, but what about the
>>> woman's rings?
>>>
>>> At one extreme they are 100% hers and excluded from the settlement, at
>>> the other extreme the husband wants them back because he paid for them
>>> originally (and doesn't regard them as even a 50:50 asset).
>>>
>>> What does UK divorce law have to say about this?
>>>
>>> [For a friend - I'm still happily married after almost 30yrs].
>>> --
>>> Roland Perry
>>
>> An engagement ring is a gift plain and simple and is the receiver's property.
>> If the engagement is called off (by the receiver - almost always the woman)
>
> Do you have any evidence that it is usually the woman that calls off the
> engagement?

You have parsed that diferently from me. I read it to mean that the
woman is almost always the receiver of an engagement ring.

--
David

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:13:38 +0100, Martin Bonner <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 14:00:11 UTC+1, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> On Sunday, 26 July 2015 18:41:58 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
>> > Let's say a couple have been married two or three years and are
>> > contemplating divorce as a result of an irretrievable break-up.
>> >
>> > Many of the assets are potentially split 50:50, but what about the
>> > woman's rings?
>> >
>> > At one extreme they are 100% hers and excluded from the settlement, at
>> > the other extreme the husband wants them back because he paid for them
>> > originally (and doesn't regard them as even a 50:50 asset).
>> >
>> > What does UK divorce law have to say about this?
>> >
>> > [For a friend - I'm still happily married after almost 30yrs].
>> > --
>> > Roland Perry
>>
>> An engagement ring is a gift plain and simple and is the receiver's property.
>> If the engagement is called off (by the receiver - almost always the woman)
>
> Do you have any evidence that it is usually the woman that calls off the
> engagement?

He didn't say that, he said the woman is usually the receiver.

[Paul Rudin]

The question is not about property rights per se, but about the court's
power to redistribute property held by either spouse or by both in the
event of a divorce.

My understanding is that the courts have rather wide powers to
redistribute property between the spouses, so I'm not convinced that
saying that, according to the usual rules of property, a ring belongs to
one spouse or the other really settles anything.

[Roland Perry]

In message <877fpia...@rudin.co.uk>, at 19:22:16 on Wed, 29 Jul
2015, Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk> remarked:

>My understanding is that the courts have rather wide powers to
>redistribute property between the spouses, so I'm not convinced that
>saying that, according to the usual rules of property, a ring belongs to
>one spouse or the other really settles anything.

I'm relieved to be able to report that the husband has now dropped this
part of the claim.
--
Roland Perry

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

As if she'd given you a ring of course.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

That is the only way to parse it, as that part is in brackets.

[The Todal]

I think an engagement ring is a ridiculous anachronism. They are
generally worn only by women and their function is to boast that the
woman has found a husband (moreover, if the ring is a nice one, a rich
husband which must prove that the woman is especially attractive) and to
signal to other men that this vagina is now under offer.

Maybe I'm just an old cynic. But I think intelligent liberated women
aren't likely to wear engagement rings.

I choose not to wear a wedding ring because I dislike the feeling of a
metal ring on my finger. Fortunately my wife doesn't mind. She once said
that a man with a wedding ring was a signal to all women to try their luck.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

It seems sensible to me to signal which women are married, so you know who to ask out.

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 15:14:31 UTC+1, Martin Bonner wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 14:00:11 UTC+1, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> > On Sunday, 26 July 2015 18:41:58 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
> > > Let's say a couple have been married two or three years and are
> > > contemplating divorce as a result of an irretrievable break-up.
> > >
> > > Many of the assets are potentially split 50:50, but what about the
> > > woman's rings?
> > >
> > > At one extreme they are 100% hers and excluded from the settlement, at
> > > the other extreme the husband wants them back because he paid for them
> > > originally (and doesn't regard them as even a 50:50 asset).
> > >
> > > What does UK divorce law have to say about this?
> > >
> > > [For a friend - I'm still happily married after almost 30yrs].
> > > --
> > > Roland Perry
> >
> > An engagement ring is a gift plain and simple and is the receiver's property.
> > If the engagement is called off (by the receiver - almost always the woman)
>
> Do you have any evidence that it is usually the woman that calls off the
> engagement?

No, only anecdotal evidence that it is almost always women who receive engagement rings.

Obviously either party may call off an engagement, and may do so on a whim or with cause (e.g. the other party has started a relationship with someone else, violence etc.)

>
> > then there would be a moral, but not legal obligation to return it.
> >
> > Wedding rings are exchanged. so both parties will have one.
>
> What? They may be exchanged, or only the woman may have one, or only the
> man may have one (although I don't know of anyone like that).

Maybe the UK should adopt the German convention - during engagement a simple band is worn on the ring finger of the right hand and transferred to the left on marriage. Or Ireland - a woman (or a man?) often wears a Galway or Claddagh ring see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claddagh_ring#Usage_and_symbolism

[the Omrud]

On 29/07/2015 20:35, The Todal wrote:
> On 29/07/2015 20:00, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:42:29 +0100, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/07/2015 14:33, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 14:25:19 +0100, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29/07/2015 13:41, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> An engagement ring is a gift plain and simple and is the receiver's
>>>>>> property. If the engagement is called off (by the receiver - almost
>>>>>> always the woman) then there would be a moral, but not legal
>>>>>> obligation to return it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wedding rings are exchanged. so both parties will have one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oops. I've never worn a ring of any sort. Am I not legally married?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it just means your wife doesn't love you so much ;-)
>>>
>>> So much as what?
>>
>> As if she'd given you a ring of course.

She might have offered - I don't remember. But I don't wear rings.
Then again, I didn't give her a ring - we bought one togehter.

> I think an engagement ring is a ridiculous anachronism. They are
> generally worn only by women and their function is to boast that the
> woman has found a husband (moreover, if the ring is a nice one, a rich
> husband which must prove that the woman is especially attractive) and to
> signal to other men that this vagina is now under offer.
>
> Maybe I'm just an old cynic. But I think intelligent liberated women
> aren't likely to wear engagement rings.

Quite right. We never wasted any money on an engagement ring, and that
was more than 30 years ago. Would have been fairly pointless - we'd
already got a joint bank account, a join morgtage and a joint cat so a
ring would have seemed somewhat superfluous.

It seems to me to have something of the chattle-marking about it - the
man is labelling the woman to show that she's owned.

Do gay men wear engagement rings?

--
David

[Sara Merriman]

In article <mpd97j$54m$1...@news.albasani.net>, the Omrud

<usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems to me to have something of the chattle-marking about it - the
> man is labelling the woman to show that she's owned.

In our society it's a thing that people choose to do - or not - as they
see fit.

When Rog asked me to marry him I was gloriously happy to show to the
world that we were entering into a commitment by wearing an engagement
ring. I wasn't obliged to, and it didn't make me feel 'owned' any more
than I do by wearing the wedding ring that I now also have, or that Rog
does by wearing his wedding ring.

I've always been happy and proud to wear both rings as a demonstration
of love and commitment, not obligation or ownership. I also know that
had I not wanted to have either, Rog would not have minded. It was a
societal norm that we were both happy to go along with, but it would
not have broken the relationship had either one of us not wanted to.

[Martin Bonner]

> You have parsed that differently from me.
I think you have mistyped "wrongly"!

> I read it to mean that the
> woman is almost always the receiver of an engagement ring.

Yes, you are quite correct. Sorry for the confusion.

[Roland Perry]

In message <300720151451507111%sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk>, at
14:51:50 on Thu, 30 Jul 2015, Sara Merriman
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> remarked:

>When Rog asked me to marry him I was gloriously happy to show to the
>world that we were entering into a commitment by wearing an engagement
>ring.

And many women are flattered (not quite the right word but I can't think
of another at the moment) that a man would go to the trouble of
selecting and buying an engagement ring which he knew they would like.

It's just one of many small steps along the way to a successful
marriage.
--
Roland Perry

[the Omrud]

Bums. I'm not married because I didn't receive a ring, and now it's
been an unsuccessful 35 years becuase I didn't earlier force her to
accept and wear a ring she didn't want.

--
David

[Chris R]

>
>
> "the Omrud" wrote in message news:mpd97j$54m$1...@news.albasani.net...

I'd not want to even imagine my (now) wife's reaction if I had not bought
her an engagement ring! And it was only the beginning of a lifelong lust for
diamonds.

I was surprised to hear recently that engagement rings were invented in the
20's or 30's by de Beers in their US advertising.
--
Chris R

[Paul Rudin]

the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> writes:

> Quite right. We never wasted any money on an engagement ring...

There seems to be an underlying assumption running through this thread
that an engagement ring has to be expensive. Surely the symbolism is the
thing, not the expenditure?

[Sara Merriman]

In article <mpdk8r$ogf$3...@news.albasani.net>, the Omrud

Who are you arguing with? No one is saying you have to buy or wear a
ring if you don't want to.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Ah well if you have a joint cat, then that's you together forever.

> It seems to me to have something of the chattle-marking about it - the
> man is labelling the woman to show that she's owned.
>
> Do gay men wear engagement rings?

I thought they wore more jewellery than women :-)

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

"R. Mark Clayton" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> An engagement ring is a gift plain and simple and is the
> receiver's property. If the engagement is called off (by the
> receiver - almost always the woman) then there would be a moral,
> but not legal obligation to return it.

In the US the gift of an engagement ring is considered contingent on
going through with the marriage. So if the engagement is broken off
before the wedding, the ring has to be given back.

Of course, if the recipient of the ring leaves and files for divorce
immediately after the wedding, the ring does not have to be returned
unless going through with the wedding can be proven to have been a
sham.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote:

> There seems to be an underlying assumption running through this
> thread that an engagement ring has to be expensive. Surely the
> symbolism is the thing, not the expenditure?

Exactly. My now-ex once explained that she would prefer a $10,000
ring from Tiffany than a $25,000 ring from Costco.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[The Todal]

What's the symbolism, though?

The woman wears a ring, often brandished for other women to admire, to
show that she intends to get married. There is no binding contract and
either party can call off the wedding at any time. So does it mean
"please don't try to seduce me, I'm spoken for"?

I suppose someone will tell me that it means no more than "I'm
gloriously happy and I want others to know how lucky I am".

Yes, come to think of it I did buy my wife an engagement ring. I can see
I ought to have had this debate with her years ago. Still, it could have
been worse - she might have been one of those dozy cows who say that
every little girl dreams of her wedding day, and you're forced to hold
one of those big church do's with all the trimmings even if you're an
atheist.

[Mark Goodge]

On 30 Jul 2015 23:24:36 GMT, Stuart A. Bronstein put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>"R. Mark Clayton" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> An engagement ring is a gift plain and simple and is the
>> receiver's property. If the engagement is called off (by the
>> receiver - almost always the woman) then there would be a moral,
>> but not legal obligation to return it.
>
>In the US the gift of an engagement ring is considered contingent on
>going through with the marriage. So if the engagement is broken off
>before the wedding, the ring has to be given back.

That's traditional etiquette in the UK as well, although whether it could
be enforced by law is a different matter.

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on security and privacy on the Internet: http://meyu.eu/ao
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk

[Sara Merriman]

In article <t34mrahiumjo35rmt...@news.markshouse.net>,

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> On 30 Jul 2015 23:24:36 GMT, Stuart A. Bronstein put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
> >"R. Mark Clayton" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> An engagement ring is a gift plain and simple and is the
> >> receiver's property. If the engagement is called off (by the
> >> receiver - almost always the woman) then there would be a moral,
> >> but not legal obligation to return it.
> >
> >In the US the gift of an engagement ring is considered contingent on
> >going through with the marriage. So if the engagement is broken off
> >before the wedding, the ring has to be given back.
>
> That's traditional etiquette in the UK as well, although whether it could
> be enforced by law is a different matter.
>

One reason for the marriage not to take place is if one of the parties
dies beforehand. If the giver of the ring dies before the wedding,
would it be expected to be returned to form part of the giver's estate?

[Chris R]

>
>
> "The Todal" wrote in message news:d1vqhf...@mid.individual.net...

> On 30/07/2015 18:14, Paul Rudin wrote:
> > the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> What's the symbolism, though?
>
> The woman wears a ring, often brandished for other women to admire, to
> show that she intends to get married. There is no binding contract and
> either party can call off the wedding at any time. So does it mean "please
> don't try to seduce me, I'm spoken for"?
>
> I suppose someone will tell me that it means no more than "I'm gloriously
> happy and I want others to know how lucky I am".

Yep. And probably some one-upwomanship.

>
> Yes, come to think of it I did buy my wife an engagement ring. I can see I
> ought to have had this debate with her years ago. Still, it could have
> been worse - she might have been one of those dozy cows who say that every
> little girl dreams of her wedding day, and you're forced to hold one of
> those big church do's with all the trimmings even if you're an atheist.

"Dozy cows" is a bit strong. There are also very many people (including
intelligent modern women) who respect and value cultural traditions, are
proud to advertise their relationships, and still expect men to show their
admiration by lavishing gifts upon a woman.
--
Chris R

[Robin]

Sara Merriman wrote:
> In article <t34mrahiumjo35rmt...@news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 30 Jul 2015 23:24:36 GMT, Stuart A. Bronstein put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>>> "R. Mark Clayton" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> An engagement ring is a gift plain and simple and is the
>>>> receiver's property. If the engagement is called off (by the
>>>> receiver - almost always the woman) then there would be a moral,
>>>> but not legal obligation to return it.

Subject to any express or implied condition - see below.

>>> In the US the gift of an engagement ring is considered contingent on
>>> going through with the marriage. So if the engagement is broken off
>>> before the wedding, the ring has to be given back.
>>
>> That's traditional etiquette in the UK as well, although whether it
>> could be enforced by law is a different matter.
>>
> One reason for the marriage not to take place is if one of the parties
> dies beforehand. If the giver of the ring dies before the wedding,
> would it be expected to be returned to form part of the giver's
> estate?

I'd suggest the the holder of the ring in those and other circs should,
if in E&W, look to s.3 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
1970. That provides:

"3 Gifts between engaged couples.

(1)A party to an agreement to marry who makes a gift of property to the
other party to the agreement on the condition (express or implied) that
it shall be returned if the agreement is terminated shall not be
prevented from recovering the property by reason only of his having
terminated the agreement.

(2)The gift of an engagement ring shall be presumed to be an absolute
gift; this presumption may be rebutted by proving that the ring was
given on the condition, express or implied, that it should be returned
if the marriage did not take place for any reason."

You will see from ss.(2) that, absent other evidence, the ring is not
part of the estate.

OTOH I think there may be laws in Hollywood which govern when the ring
must dropped into the grave by the grief stricken (but immaculately
made-up) survivor :)

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

[Robin]

The Todal wrote:

> She once
> said that a man with a wedding ring was a signal to all women to try
> their luck.

Now you tell me!

[Sara Merriman]

In article <mpf8jk$eqs$1...@dont-email.me>, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> OTOH I think there may be laws in Hollywood which govern when the ring
> must dropped into the grave by the grief stricken (but immaculately
> made-up) survivor :)

... to be later dug up by her perfectly trained (and also beautifully
coiffed) pet burrowing animal.

--
Armagedon is tiny

[Norman Wells]

"Adia" <anti.spa...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:o28mrat9mg7502l5c...@4ax.com...

> Say you have a daughter, who also happens to be an atheist, but it is
> still her dream to have a big wedding with all the trimmings (not in a
> church but instead her ideal would be some old castle type of venue).
> What then?

You say 'Where are you going to get that sort of money then?'

[Norman Wells]

"Adia" <anti.spa...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message

news:o25nrap0rk0i947rt...@4ax.com...

> :) Yes, that's a good one but, even so, they might not necessarily
> see that as all bad news. The daughter would probably have a good idea
> on where she really stood. After all, they do know their fathers
> pretty well.

These days, many don't know their fathers at all.

[Norman Wells]

"Adia" <anti.spa...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message

news:9gvorat2a2rifql84...@4ax.com...

> What a shame that is. A daughter's relationship with her father can
> have a massive impact on so many aspects of her life, including her
> confidence and happiness.

... whether she gets an education, what she believes, whom she is forced to marry
etc

> A father can usually play both, as
> appropriate, 'good cop' or 'bad cop' (in a good way, of course) far
> more effectively than can your mother.

Only in a patriarchal and rather feudal society.

[Janet]

In article <d21rm0...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am says...

The other day a fond father with an ethically economical lifestyle told
me that a year or so ago when his daughter announced she was getting
married, he replied straight faced "Darling, I'll pay for everything,
even if it costs £300".

It was a simple oldfashioned wedding in the village church, with garden
flowers and a reception in the village hall catered by family and
friends.

Janet

[The Todal]

On 31/07/2015 08:34, Chris R wrote:
>>
>>
>> "The Todal" wrote in message news:d1vqhf...@mid.individual.net...

>>

>> Yes, come to think of it I did buy my wife an engagement ring. I can see I
>> ought to have had this debate with her years ago. Still, it could have
>> been worse - she might have been one of those dozy cows who say that every
>> little girl dreams of her wedding day, and you're forced to hold one of
>> those big church do's with all the trimmings even if you're an atheist.
>
> "Dozy cows" is a bit strong. There are also very many people (including
> intelligent modern women) who respect and value cultural traditions, are
> proud to advertise their relationships, and still expect men to show their
> admiration by lavishing gifts upon a woman.
>

Well, just two more points, then.

I find it extraordinary that in the opinion of many people most little
girls waste precious hours of their time dreaming of what their wedding
day will be like and imagining big floaty dresses and admiring glances
from lots of people. If I had a little girl like that, I'd know that I
had failed as a parent, or else that she had mental health issues. You
won't find any little boys, or young men, who dream of their wedding day
(well, apart from dreaming about what it will feel like to have sex).

Oh, and my observation of life, and I'm getting quite old now, is that
the more splendid the wedding, the shorter the marriage. Those who have
splendid weddings generally get divorced. Real life doesn't meet with
their romantic expectations.

[the Omrud]

I'm arguing with semantics, including an attempt at Mild Humour. The
post to which I replied implies that successful marriages need to
include an engagement ring. Perhaps I should have included a smiley.

--
David

[Serena Blanchflower]

On 01/08/2015 12:59, The Todal wrote:
> On 31/07/2015 08:34, Chris R wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "The Todal" wrote in message news:d1vqhf...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>>
>>> Yes, come to think of it I did buy my wife an engagement ring. I can
>>> see I
>>> ought to have had this debate with her years ago. Still, it could have
>>> been worse - she might have been one of those dozy cows who say that
>>> every
>>> little girl dreams of her wedding day, and you're forced to hold one of
>>> those big church do's with all the trimmings even if you're an atheist.
>>
>> "Dozy cows" is a bit strong. There are also very many people (including
>> intelligent modern women) who respect and value cultural traditions, are
>> proud to advertise their relationships, and still expect men to show
>> their
>> admiration by lavishing gifts upon a woman.
>>
>
> Well, just two more points, then.
>
> I find it extraordinary that in the opinion of many people most little
> girls waste precious hours of their time dreaming of what their wedding
> day will be like and imagining big floaty dresses and admiring glances
> from lots of people. If I had a little girl like that, I'd know that I
> had failed as a parent, or else that she had mental health issues. You
> won't find any little boys, or young men, who dream of their wedding day
> (well, apart from dreaming about what it will feel like to have sex).

It's not invariably that way around. When I got married, a few decades
ago, I had no wish to have a big wedding and was adamant that I didn't
want a church wedding. My then fiancé (now late-ex husband) was much
more in favour of both - despite being rather more atheist that I was.
He definitely liked the idea of all the froth and fuss that surrounds a
traditional wedding and, at that time, register office weddings had to
be very plain and simple (which suited me fine).

My parents were the ones who had wasted precious hours dreaming of what
their little girl's wedding would be like and were very keen on the idea
of the big floaty dresses (and, as it was the early eighties, it would
have been a full meringue) and were adamant that it had to be a church
wedding. They only came around to my not having a church wedding when,
to their amazement, the local vicar completely agreed with me and was
delighted to find someone who *didn't* want a church wedding!

> Oh, and my observation of life, and I'm getting quite old now, is that
> the more splendid the wedding, the shorter the marriage. Those who have
> splendid weddings generally get divorced. Real life doesn't meet with
> their romantic expectations.

On that, I have the same feeling that you do, although I don't have any
figures to back it up.


--
Best wishes, Serena
Maturity is a high price to pay for growing up (Tom Stoppard)

[Sara Merriman]

In article <d23ql7...@mid.individual.net>, The Todal

<thet...@beeb.net> wrote:

> On 31/07/2015 08:34, Chris R wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> "The Todal" wrote in message news:d1vqhf...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >>
> >> Yes, come to think of it I did buy my wife an engagement ring. I can see I
> >> ought to have had this debate with her years ago. Still, it could have
> >> been worse - she might have been one of those dozy cows who say that every
> >> little girl dreams of her wedding day, and you're forced to hold one of
> >> those big church do's with all the trimmings even if you're an atheist.
> >
> > "Dozy cows" is a bit strong. There are also very many people (including
> > intelligent modern women) who respect and value cultural traditions, are
> > proud to advertise their relationships, and still expect men to show their
> > admiration by lavishing gifts upon a woman.
> >
>
> Well, just two more points, then.
>
> I find it extraordinary that in the opinion of many people most little
> girls waste precious hours of their time dreaming of what their wedding
> day will be like and imagining big floaty dresses and admiring glances
> from lots of people. If I had a little girl like that, I'd know that I
> had failed as a parent, or else that she had mental health issues. You
> won't find any little boys, or young men, who dream of their wedding day
> (well, apart from dreaming about what it will feel like to have sex).
>

You won't have failed as a parent, because it's pretty much hard-wired
into little girls. Being the centre of attention and getting to dress
up is what little girls like.

Most little girls grow up though and do realise that life isn't the
same as fantasy.

> Oh, and my observation of life, and I'm getting quite old now, is that
> the more splendid the wedding, the shorter the marriage. Those who have
> splendid weddings generally get divorced. Real life doesn't meet with
> their romantic expectations.
>

We had a stonking wedding (that we paid for ourselves) and thoroughly
enjoyed it. We're still going strong, so there is hope for the rest.

[Sara Merriman]

In article <mpif63$v3v$1...@news.albasani.net>, the Omrud

Ah.

[Roland Perry]

In message <mpif63$v3v$1...@news.albasani.net>, at 13:48:05 on Sat, 1 Aug
2015, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>> And many women are flattered (not quite the right word but I can't think
>>>> of another at the moment) that a man would go to the trouble of
>>>> selecting and buying an engagement ring which he knew they would like.
>>>>
>>>> It's just one of many small steps along the way to a successful marriage.
>>>
>>> Bums. I'm not married because I didn't receive a ring, and now it's
>>> been an unsuccessful 35 years becuase I didn't earlier force her to
>>> accept and wear a ring she didn't want.
>>
>> Who are you arguing with? No one is saying you have to buy or wear a
>> ring if you don't want to.
>
>I'm arguing with semantics, including an attempt at Mild Humour. The
>post to which I replied implies that successful marriages need to
>include an engagement ring.

You don't need to take every step - some can be avoided. But most people
do include the step under discussion.
--
Roland Perry

[R. Mark Clayton]

1. This is a UK group.
2. It is a gift - see above.
3. A wedding that is a sham can be annulled (as opposed to getting divorced)


PS marriages can be annulled if they are not consummated, the bride is pregnant by another man or IIRC either party has VD.

Marriages of people already married to someone else or that are incestuous are null an void from the start.

>
> --
> Stu
> http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Norman Wells]

"Adia" <anti.spa...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message

news:eo8pral2bq56tsq4b...@4ax.com...

> Norman Wells wrote:
>>"Adia" <anti.spa...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message

>>news:9gvorat2a2rifql84...@4ax.com...

>>> A father can usually play both, as
>>> appropriate, 'good cop' or 'bad cop' (in a good way, of course) far
>>> more effectively than can your mother.
>>
>>Only in a patriarchal and rather feudal society.
>

> Well, in our social system I think it is generally the male who holds
> the primary power. I mean they do tend to predominate in many aspects
> of everyday life. There are plenty of exceptions and variations but
> our gender roles usually dictate what types of behaviour are
> considered appropriate and desirable. And woe betide anyone who steps
> outside their designated gender role. This, of course, does not deter
> various groups, such as the feminist movement, from leading efforts to
> change aspects of prevailing gender roles that they believe are
> oppressive or otherwise unfair.

It seems the last 50 years may have been totally wasted.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Sara Merriman <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> Most little girls grow up though and do realise that life isn't the
> same as fantasy.

Most, but (based on personal experience) certainly not all.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Roger Hayter]

100% agree! Just one tiny aspect of the question, why can't mum decide
what to spend on the daughter's wedding? But the whole para is
depressing.


Personal note: our nth grandchild is about 3 months and already being
socialised as a boy[1] - there is very little of the different
aspirations and interests of boys and girls that is innate - we
unremitiingly socialise them into gender roles from day one.

[1] He *is* a boy, but that's not the point.




--
Roger Hayter