Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Diamonds Suck (2006)

diamondssuck.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 618 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#491

Post by Nursie »

morgante wrote: post #488
Nursie wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a cultural thing you've bought into, that a man must give a woman a tool to signal with. In other cultures this is not important or works the other way around. I'm anti diamond and your pleas to come up with another useless signal fall on deaf ears - this manufactured need for the signal itself is something we should be fighting as we progress. For a start it's pretty damned sexist and regressive

Why do you assume I've "bought into" it? I have no intention to marry any time soon, I just think it's unhelpful to completely ignore the reason diamonds are used for engagement rings.

Bought into idealogically speaking.

I think the 'reason' is a rationalisation and not hard and fast, it's also culture-specific so hardly transcendent. That's why I take issue with the idea of replacing one signal with the other - the worth of tge signal is entirely subjective and the signal itself is rather out of place in the modern world.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#492

Post by mk3 »

vaveh wrote: post #117
diamond1 wrote: post #48

"The big difference between moissanite and diamond is that moissanite can be manufactured reliably and efficiently in a laboratory." Thats not true, diamonds can be manufactured reliably and efficiently in a laboratory as well. And its nearly impossible to tell the difference between natural and artificial ones. Only a very complicated lab test with a machine can tell the difference.

I thought fabricated diamonds were yellow-ish and easy to tell apart from real ones?

At the moment I believe labs can make anything you want diamond wise... And somewhere around 2012 diamond grading labs started issuing certificates for man-made/synthetic stones. http://www.gia.edu/gem-lab-service/synthetic-diamond

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#494

Post by pif »

sametmax wrote: post #31

Seems like an american things really. In France, nobody would expect anyone to buy a certain kind of ring. As long as it's pretty, you can go for anything. Or no engagement ring. Some friends of mine don't even get wedding rings. And I just met a not married couple wearing rings just because they liked it. Our wedding ceremonies are also usually way cheaper and less show off that the ones your pop culture is selling…

> Seems like an american things really.

Just for info, diamonds and expensive marriage parties are the rule in Southern Italy as well. Northern Italy is similar to France, when you actually go to a marriage to enjoy yourself and not just to show your dress.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#495

Post by bb101 »

75j wrote: post #464
brandur wrote: post #67

I like to believe that there's a lot of savvy and affluent couples out there who are buying either moissanites instead of diamonds and choosing not to tell their friends or family about it to avoid the social stigma. They then take the $5k to $20k they just saved (what's the rule of thumb, one month's gross salary?) and put it towards bootstrapping their new life. You can even post close-up pictures of the stone on F…

> I like to believe that there's a lot of savvy and affluent couples out there who are buying either moissanites instead of diamonds and choosing not to tell their friends or family about it to avoid the social stigma. This is so foreign to me. Why do people care? It's just a way to signal wealth and really not much different than a bride price (a cultural practice that American expats are quick to criticize in an As…

My impression is that it's due to the same reason Americans leave large tips if they can. Without an established class system, money is the signal used to demonstrate your standing in relation to others.

Incidentally, money and class are, in my experience, the most misunderstood aspect of the English class system by Americans. There is a loose correlation, but it's only very loose. It's quite common in the UK to have upper class families with hardly any money beyond inheritance, and conversely rich lower class families who might run their own businesses.

Interestingly, the upper class man wouldn't feel the slightest bit inferior for neglecting to buy a diamond ring for his fiancé unless doing so was the "done thing" by previous generations of his or her family, whereas the rich lower class man would be clamouring for the biggest one he could afford.

Generalizations, but so termed due to being generally true.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#496

Post by saiya-jin »

joesb wrote: post #409
Grishnakh wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to agree that it's not a great sign if she insists on this. What other trendy stuff is she going to demand just because "everyone else does it"? I'm somewhat recently divorced now, but one good thing about my ex is that she was never superficial like this. She was perfectly happy to get a $70 Titanium wedding band, and loved how lightweight it was, and never wanted a silly gemstone on her hand. We did get her…

So even without that "red neon warning sign" you marriage still didn't work. Or may be, just may be, wanting diamond is just normal for some women, and it doesn't indicate whether she is a good couple or not.

it ain't normal to want to see the man you are supposed to love unconditionally, to financially bleed on impractical trinket that some people pay with almost proper enslavement, so you can brag about it with your friends (you = anybody, nothing personal here).

if that's an US norm, so what, it's still wrong on many levels. it ain't like that here in europe. the last ex-gf that mentioned 3-salary rule for it was exactly the type you should never, ever marry, no matter what person you are. my fiancee on the other hand is happy with 70 euro ring since relationship is about everything else, but this.

if woman sets this as non-negotiable standard to get married, there is no love from her in relationship, just pure calculation and she treats her counterpart like an idiot. simple as that.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#497

Post by [deleted] »

k_sze wrote: post #489
hobarrera wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Guys aren't the ones wearing the ring everywhere! I believe that the bride-only thing is US-only, or (maybe) limited maybe limited to ex-british regions, but it's definitely not universal, and definitely not a thing in latinamerica (diamonds aren't a thing here either) or a great deal of europe.

In Hong Kong, both the husband and the wife wear a ring. My mother lost hers, my dad is still wearing his. My wife lost hers, I'm still wearing mine. XD

[deleted]

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#498

Post by mcv »

beevai142 wrote: post #111
sametmax wrote: post #31

Seems like an american things really. In France, nobody would expect anyone to buy a certain kind of ring. As long as it's pretty, you can go for anything. Or no engagement ring. Some friends of mine don't even get wedding rings. And I just met a not married couple wearing rings just because they liked it. Our wedding ceremonies are also usually way cheaper and less show off that the ones your pop culture is selling…

Given that the diamond ring fad apparently originated from a marketing campaign, it would be interesting to see how well the belief that wedding rings should have a diamond correlates with where the ads were run. At least in the nordics, I don't think there's a specific type of wedding (EDIT: or engagement) ring that you're expected to have, and I think many people have no stone of any kind embedded in theirs.

In Netherland, stones are rare. A plain gold band is the traditional wedding ring. If engagement rings are a thing at all, they're generally the wedding ring worn on the other hand, I think.

Tattoos are up and coming. My wife and I (both from good Christian homes) have a Moebius strip tattooed on the inside of our wrist, as wedding tattoo. My sister and her husband have a self-designed rune on their ring finger, and a heart-shaped celtic knot on their lower arm as engagement tattoo (and I think these are their only tattoos; they certainly are for my wife and I).

My wife and I did have engagement rings: titatium with gold. I lost mine before the wedding, though. I can't lose my tattoo.

De Beers clearly never had much influence here.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#499

Post by sametmax »

copenja wrote: post #332
sametmax wrote: post #31

Seems like an american things really. In France, nobody would expect anyone to buy a certain kind of ring. As long as it's pretty, you can go for anything. Or no engagement ring. Some friends of mine don't even get wedding rings. And I just met a not married couple wearing rings just because they liked it. Our wedding ceremonies are also usually way cheaper and less show off that the ones your pop culture is selling…

To each his own, but personally, I find large wedding celebrations to be an absolute blast. I went to a 500+ person wedding in Beersheba Israel last year and it was incredible. It was one of the most fun, warm, and endearing events I have ever been too. I kinda have a weird idea that everyone should just be able to do their own thing without being judged. I certainly don't think they should be demonized as "show off"…

You can have a big party that doesn't cost a lot. I went to an Algerian and a Malian wedding, with 200+ and days of partying for very cheap (even for the local standard).

What I'm talking about are incredible expense like putting fresh flowers everywhere, renting a some fashionable place, spending thousands on rings, dress, make up artists, haircuts, etc.

You can absolutely have a great venue, look stunning and have fun with 100 people without getting in debt for 5 years. This is not what TV is selling you though.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#500

Post by mcv »

"dropping $6,000-10,000+ on a diamond engagement ring"

How much?! Do people really spend that much on an engagement ring? Here they're a few hundred euro at most. Unless you're a millionaire or like to pretend to be, perhaps.

I would say that if you need to have a big stone in your engagement ring at all, you're still a slave of the old De Beers advertising campaign. You may outsmart them on the product, but you're still obeying the message of having a big sparkly stone.

Post reply on HN