I disagree from the perspective that the importance of collaring is very much an internet invention. Not necessarily that it wasn't done before, but to equate it to marriage, whether more or less important, depends solely on the people doing it.

Just as there are friendship rings, class rings, decorative rings, and marriage rings, there are a whole range of collars of varying importance. From play collars to those that denote total ownership. And what of the couple who collars first and marries later? If the collar is more important, why bother? (Not saying it is or isn't, just that each couple defines their relationship differently.)

And let's face it, many who claim it more important that a marriage vow, dissolve it at the slightest hint of displeasure, or worse, at the first sign of a potential new acquisition. How could something so temporal be that important? Nor is there any civil law behind it, so it can be taken as easily as it is given. Seems to me to be wholly symbolic and therefore, my word has more weight than any symbol.

One other thought... Certainly a tattoo or brand would be a bigger commitment... (not that I'm suggesting that either.) But certainly a bigger commitment on the part of the wearer. And that's something the dominant could also do (or at least the tatt.) Not that I'd ever risk hexing a relationship by putting names onto skin, that seems like a sure way to bring things to an early end karmically. LOL

Maybe for some that is the biggest attraction of collars... they aren't a real commitment. Not even a legal commitment.