Roxy Jacenko should be allowed to take off her wedding rings without persecution.

In the near 12 months since Oliver Curtis was jailed, rumours about the state of his marriage with PR mogul Roxy Jacenko have been rife.

Every week there’s a new headline about if they’re still together, whether or not she’s dating someone new, and my favourite, whether or not her engagement and wedding rings are on her finger.

If the state of a marriage and the happiness of two children weren’t at stake it would almost be comical. But those things are at stake.

On Thursday morning, an Australian media outlet published a photo of Jacenko in her workout gear alongside a headline that, in part, read, ‘Roxy ditches her wedding ring again as she flaunts her ripped abs’. Underneath was the question, ‘What will Oliver say?’

Source: Instagram.

Well, for starters, not much, because he's currently in prison and unable to provide comment to the media. Secondly, though, Curtis probably knows as well as anyone, wearing a ring on one of your 10 fingers means little in the game of making a marriage work.

Sure, what engagement and wedding rings symbolise is important. What they remind you of every time you look down at your hand and see them is significant. And when said rings happen to be off at the same time as compromising photos are released, it doesn't look good.

But at the end of the day, no one has ever come forward and said a piece of jewellery saved or ended their marriage.

Listen: Roxy Jacenko talks to Mia Freedman about life in the spotlight. Post continues... 

If someone decides to leave a marriage, no amount of silver or gold will change that.

What the article also doesn't consider is the role exercise has played in Jacenko's life following Curtis' sentencing and her diagnosis with breast cancer.


In recent months, the mum-of-two's social media feed has been filled with gym session and workout gear selfies. Exercise clearly plays a major role in Jacenko's work and sadly, gym equipment and jewellery - wedding rings or otherwise - don't mix.

Ask any personal trainer or gym junkie and they're likely to agree. So with that in mind, this could be the reason Jacenko wasn't wearing her rings, right? It could also explain why in images where Jacenko is seen dressed for the day the rings are back on.

On Wednesday, the same media outlet reported on another image from Jacenko's Instagram account. In this photo, the 36-year-old was working out, looking focused and strong. The accompanying headline took none of this into account, instead reading, "Trying to get someone's attention? Roxy Jacenko shows off EXTREME cleavage in revealing active wear at the gym".

Roxy Jacenko with husband Oliver Curtis in 2016. Source: Instagram.

Not be a party pooper, but since when have leggings and a sports bra been 'revealing active wear'? Since when has having your cleavage present in an image meant that women are presenting themselves for the attention of men?

And since when has going to the gym sans jewellery mean that you've checked out of your marriage?

If Roxy Jacenko - or any woman for that matter - wants to spend her time exercising to alleviate the stress that comes along with being a sole parent while their partner is serving time in prison and as a means to reconnect with her body after going through breast cancer, she should bloody well be allowed to. With or without rings on her fingers.