Connect with us

Lifestyle

L.A. Affairs: My ex gave me a diamond ring. Was he serious?

Published

on

L.A. Affairs: My ex gave me a diamond ring. Was he serious?

As we walked back to our cars after the party, my ex-boyfriend said, “I have something for you,” and dropped an object into the center of my palm.

I unfurled my fingers and was delighted to find a large diamanté cocktail ring. “What’s this?”

He grinned. “Isn’t this what you always wanted? For me to give you a big ring?”

I laughed. His sense of humor was like kryptonite. We hadn’t been together in five years, but once you’ve had it, funny is hard to forget.

Advertisement

“What’s the catch?” I knew there had to be one. I studied the tiny pavé diamonds covering the elaborate flower design. It was lovely, if not exactly my style. But I couldn’t get too lost in the moment. I knew he hadn’t purchased this trinket for me.

“Where did you get it?”

“I found it in the co-ed bathroom,” he said. “Sitting on the sink.”

Suddenly things made a lot more sense. “So do you mean we’ve just run off with someone’s ring?”

“Pretty much,” he said.

Advertisement

The party we’d just left was held after-hours at a high-end retail store on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. A fashionista had inadvertently left it behind.

“Don’t you think we should return it?”

He shrugged. The store had closed. The ring was my problem now. Maybe he was right about the ring. I didn’t want to give it back — even if it wasn’t rightfully mine. It was thrilling.

I could have trekked back to the store and banged on the window, as a reasonable person would have done. Instead, I slipped it onto my finger and admired it. The thing is, I was raised to want a ring from a man. When I was a kid, my single mother played the song “Diamonds Are Forever” by Shirley Bassey, and we danced around the living room to it. It was basically our theme song.

Diamonds are forever, they are all I need to please me
They can stimulate and tease me
They won’t leave in the night
I’ve no fear that they might desert me …

Advertisement

I never thought much of it, but in retrospect, what was helpful about that messaging? Get the diamond because the man might not stick around? My mother kept an ad from Harry Winston featuring an engagement ring taped to her fridge. For a woman who didn’t care for marriage, she certainly savored the symbolism.

As much as I enjoyed the fantasy of a ring from a man — that is, one purchased with me in mind and not procured from a toilet — experience told me that getting one was often the beginning of a new set of problems instead of the end of them.

Sometimes the ring is the simplest part of a weighty emotional equation. It could become a glamorous placeholder: I like you enough to consider marrying you and I don’t want you going anywhere while I continue to think about it. Or even: This is what society tells us we should do next.

I’d adopted this cynical view because I was used to things not working out. I’d had one divorce in my 30s. Then my four-year betrothal to a handsome, wonderful man had been called off, and I was left considering that I might have deliberately blown it up. Commitment after a certain age was messy and complicated. Perhaps I inherited that ambivalence from my mother.

I still had his beautiful engagement ring, sitting in a box at home. My former fiancé had not asked for it back yet, which gave me hope that we might still find a way to work it out. But then again, I’d heard he was dating.

Advertisement

“Good,” my mother said. “Let him see what else is out there.”

So when my kryptonite ex emailed and invited me last-minute to the party, it sounded better than watching reality TV while my daughter was at her dad’s. “Maybe I’ll stop by,” I casually replied.

An acting teacher of mine once said, “Whenever you’re doing a scene with a former partner, no matter what, you still want them to find you hot.” I thought of that statement as dresses accumulated in a pile at my feet. Why did he want to see me now? There was a lingering connection, some fun history and a flutter in my stomach whenever I saw his name flicker on the screen during a movie’s credits.

It was enough to compel me to drive over to meet him for a quick drink. He was easy to find in a crowd. I typically searched for the most famous person in the room, and he’d be talking to them.

He scooped me into a hug when I found him, and we fell into an easy rapport. I talked about my broken engagement, and he showed me vacation pictures of his lovely (young) girlfriend.

Advertisement

Later as we left, there was a brief moment when we almost kissed in the elevator, and we could have ended the evening the way we’d spent plenty of others. But we didn’t. It was a test. He had a girlfriend, and I was still in love with someone else. Perhaps we needed one last look before moving on.

We hugged goodbye. I had no use for a man whose heart didn’t belong to me, and I certainly didn’t need someone else’s ring. What I longed for was a true connection, to be all-in; the ring was incidental.

In the morning, I called the store and told them I had the ring. They didn’t ask questions, but one of their patrons had been looking for it. I dropped it off and wondered about its owner.

Months later my former fiancé, Rob, came to me and said, “I can’t imagine my life without you in it.” I felt the same. We’ve been married for 12 years now. A surprise I didn’t see coming was that Rob admitted he’d seen the jewelry ad on my mother’s fridge and assumed it was my dream ring. He had that sapphire cut in mind when he designed mine. So in the end, I manifested my mother’s ring — or maybe she manifested it for me.

The author is a freelance writer and screenwriter living in Los Angeles. You can read more of her work at taraellison.com.

Advertisement

L.A. Affairs chronicles the search for romantic love in all its glorious expressions in the L.A. area, and we want to hear your true story. We pay $400 for a published essay. Email LAAffairs@latimes.com. You can find submission guidelines here. You can find past columns here.

Lifestyle

How does the Kennedy Center board make decisions? This legal filing sheds some light

Published

on

How does the Kennedy Center board make decisions? This legal filing sheds some light

The Kennedy Center, the facade of which remains covered with a tarp, is seen in Washington, DC, on June 28, 2026. A US federal judge asked on June 24 for an explanation for why a tarpaulin continues to cover the facade of the Kennedy Center where President Donald Trump’s name was recently removed. District Judge Christopher Cooper gave the board of trustees of the performing arts venue until the end of July to explain “the purpose for and status of the tarp and scaffolding that Defendants have erected on the front portico of the Center.”

ALEX WROBLEWSKI/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

ALEX WROBLEWSKI/AFP via Getty Images

More than two weeks ago, President Trump’s name was removed from the Kennedy Center facade though it is still covered by a tarp and the legal battle continues.

On Monday, a U.S. Department of Justice filing on behalf of the Kennedy Center included some surprises. The document was submitted in response to issues raised by lawyers for ex-officio board member Rep. Joyce Beatty of Ohio who is suing to remove President Trump’s name from the center and stop its closure for renovations.

Among the revelations, the Kennedy Center admitted that, during a board meeting on December 18, 2025, Beatty had been “muted and prevented from speaking.” It was at that meeting that the board voted to add President Trump’s name to the center. The filing later acknowledges the congresswoman was “prevented from voicing her opposition.”

Advertisement

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is a living memorial to its namesake. The guidelines for how the theatre complex spends federal dollars are very specific. Among other rules, it states that “no additional memorials or plaques shall be designated or installed.” Beatty argues adding Trump’s name runs afoul of those rules and that any change requires approval from Congress.

According to one of Beatty’s filings, “There was no advance notice in the agenda that the Board would be considering a name change,” a statement the Kennedy Center now does not deny. The center admits that, prior to voting, there was “no discussion about potential risks or downsides of the vote to adopt a secondary name for the Center.” Nor was there a board discussion “about any potential conflict of interest that might result from the vote.”

The center’s lawyers previously contended that if Trump’s name were to be removed, it would “lose money from donors who support” him and “impede the Center’s fundraising efforts.”

Closing for renovations

Earlier this year, Trump announced on social media that the Kennedy Center would close for two years for renovations. He wrote that he made the decision after “a one year review” with “Contractors, Musical Experts, Art Institutions, and other Advisors and Consultants.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

ICICLE: Capturing Interest in Chinese Brands

Published

on

ICICLE: Capturing Interest in Chinese Brands
Executive president, Louise Xu, explains in our latest report ‘Face to Face With Luxury Clients’ how the Shanghai-based quiet luxury label is tapping rising interest in Chinese brands, the differences between Chinese and Western consumers and the logic behind a novel retail concept that includes a garden, art gallery and restaurant.
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

‘Dead but Dreaming of Electric Sheep’ is full of beautifully written grotesqueries

Published

on

‘Dead but Dreaming of Electric Sheep’ is full of beautifully written grotesqueries

Paul Tremblay has made a career of pushing the horror genre – and the novel format – in strange and exciting new directions.

In his latest, Dead but Dreaming of Electric Sheep, the author offers an amalgamation of genre elements that can be best described as psychological-dystopian-science-fiction horror. It’s a mouthful, but the narrative does all of that and more in a way that defies categorization.

Julia Flang is a former semiprofessional gamer working two mediocre jobs she dislikes and living in a modest ranch house in a San Fernando Valley suburb with her retired uncle, whom she calls Uncle Fun. Julia likes movies and gaming but there’s little else going on in her life, so when her estranged mother, the CFO of a large tech company, contacts her with a possible job offer – a “once-in-a-lifetime thing” that pays handsomely just for doing the interview – she hesitantly agrees.

The job is relatively simple and perfect for someone with gaming skills: using a controller built into a phone to get a man, who is stuck in a vegetative state, from California to the East Coast. It will require her to learn how to control his body – walking, moving, sitting, standing, using his arms – so she can maneuver him out of the facility where he is located and into cars and planes and through crowded airports. A fan of movies, Julia decides to call the man Bernie – after the movie Weekend at Bernie’s. When the ethics of the job start to bother her, Julia realizes it’s too late and she must go through with it. However, she’s soon contacted by people interested in sabotaging the whole thing, people who, like her, don’t align with the shady interests of conglomerates and those set to make “gobs of money” from this new, somewhat inhuman technology.

Advertisement

As with every Tremblay novel, any synopsis barely scratches the surface. The novel’s chapters alternate between Julia and you (yes, you). Julia’s chapters are “normal” in the sense that they obey a chronological order and have action, basic descriptions of movement and places, and dialogue. The chapters in second person are like fever dreams from a shadow world; the desperate experiences of a man trapped inside his own body with no control of it, no clue what’s happening to him, and only a few fragmented memories of his life. Also, Tremblay uses a similarly fragmented style of storytelling (including words and sentences trapped in boxes and/or “moving” on the page) to keep things interesting but also confusing and creepy.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending