I MUST COME CLEAN. I AM A BUMBLING fool... a jolly, clueless bumpkin. Contentedly, I’ve been going about my life lacking even the slightest understanding of the motivation, desire and emotional make-up of every woman on planet Earth. Surely, I’m not alone in my ignorance, but that doesn’t make up for the fact that every assumption I’ve collected about womankind over the years has turned out to be a steaming pile of poppycock.
Whoops. Oh, there were red flags along the way indicating that something was off-kilter. For instance, I remember getting back a high school essay that had received a generally favorable overview from Ms. Douglas, a demanding political science instructor. However, on page six, I made a typographical error of enormous dimensions, mistakenly using the singular “woman” when the plural “women” was required. Ms. Douglas savagely attacked the error, shouting in bleeding red ink that,“You know, Seth, there are more than one of us.”
Over the holidays, I received a jolting piece of news from my fiancée and mother concerning the way women see the world. Of course, popular culture and armchair psychologists have already laid out the awe-striking behavioral and emotional differences between men and “woman.” But this didn’t prepare me for a dumbfounding fact: The very first thing women look for when they meet somebody is an engagement ring and/or wedding band.
Ignoramus that I am, I had assumed when meeting complete strangers, women took measure of character and ethical make-up. OK, and I suppose I could also conceive of a situation where an enterprising lady might make absolute judgments about somebody based on their physical appearance alone.
But in truth, the Engagement Ring Assessment is the ultimate benchmark. This visual cue separates the masses into two distinct camps — “available” or “unavailable.” And it doesn’t matter if you’re young, old, male, female or transsexual, you fall into one of the two divisions. You see, women aren’t judging whether an individual is dating or relationship eligible (although that can be one motivation), rather they are assessing a person’s standing in the world. Every other personality trait flows from your status of Available or Unavailable.
Of course, the reason for this instantaneous investigative work is that it would be transparently rude and nosy to ask probing personal questions seconds after meeting somebody. So it’s much better to make unsubstantiated assumptions about them based on the presence (or lack thereof) of a shiny stone they’ve clasped around their finger.
Let’s say we have an Unavailable Woman wearing an unremarkable engagement ring with a tiny diamond. Clearly, her husband is a cheapskate and/or she didn’t have the moxie to hook up with a guy who treats her like a 21st Century Suburban Princess. How about a young lass wearing an ostentatious stone that glitters like the North Star on steroids? Looks like we have a 5-Point Trophy Wife on our hands. That stocky fellow you caught covertly removing his wedding band as he stepped into the bar? He’s a Wannabe Available until his wife leaves him when she finds out he’s been spending all his free hours talking to girls half his age in the sports bar next to his office.
I think a lot of time could be saved by skipping this whole engagement ring cat-and-mouse game altogether. What if we all wore nametags that neatly summed up our place in the world? Wouldn’t this make things easier?
Just think about the possibilities. “I’m a scumbag who just put my wedding ring in my back pocket so I can chat up this college-age waitress.” Or, “I’m a dimwitted socialite who committed to eternal matrimony in exchange for unlimited use of a luxury automobile.”
Wouldn’t that be a lot more exciting and honest all the way around?
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 15, 2007. Read the original PDF.