Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt the point is to demonstrate financial security: Spending three months' salary on a single ring would seem to indicate financial irresponsibility more than financial security (unless it's like a rebate and you sell the ring once you're married? /s). I'm inclined to agree that you're right about the price being the point. I think it has more to do with "You're worth it to me". I still think it's utter bollocks.
Diamonds aren't popular because they have any real value. No one actually believes they do. They cost a lot and are an easily worn, thus making them perfect for their favorite hobby: making other women feel inadequate. Even women who are positively liberal on such matters are drawn to the idea of forcing their husbands to show such monetary devotion. The issue here isn't the scarcity of diamonds. It's the scarcity if…
Diamonds Are Bullshit
301–310 of 774 posts
Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit
#302Diamonds are 100% marketing in it's purest form - take a meaningless rock and make it more valuable than anything else.
With enough money you could create a counter-marketing campaign over a decade to stop their attraction but I suspect they will find a way for horrible things to happen to you with that kind of profit involved.
Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit
#303Actually I consider diamonds to be a very valuable anti-indicator. If I meet a woman that insists on a diamond worth three months of my salary as a token of my commitment I eliminate her as a marriage prospect.
Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit
#304(person I know) worked for GE (General Electric) on their industrial diamond production process back in the 90's, and I got to hear lots of fun stories from this. Diamonds that are man-made[1] are stronger (fewer imperfections) than those that are mined from the earth. Because of this, industrial diamonds tend to be man-made. (for reference, industrial diamonds when cutting hard materials, such as metals). While work…
> so they just leave De Beers to run around gouging consumers That's kind of missing the point. If diamonds were 5 bucks a piece, women would no longer be interested in receiving rings bejeweled by them. A woman wants a man who is financially secure. If you can't afford a shiny rock, you can't afford what's coming after it either, so there's no point.
It doesn't have anything to do with financial security. Look, if your man is spending three months worth of salary on a piece of shiny rock, he is exercising poor financial judgment and that is a signal against future financial security.
Women want diamonds not because of any symbolic reasons ("Diamonds are forever!") but because of reasons that are much more practical: they want to be able to show off the diamonds to their group of (female) and boost their social status among them. At the end of the day it is nothing more than a way of saying "I am better than you!"
This is why many women will accept, at the rational level, that diamonds are horrible and stupid and even evil (since they fuel all kinds of violence in Africa, where they are mined). But most of them will not be able to bring themselves to accept substitutes such as sapphires, rubies, or emeralds. Because that would make their female friends think that the guy does not value them as much (or that they weren't able to find a guy who finds them worthy enough for a diamond).
Social status. That's what it is all about.
Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, I find the notion of "man as provider" to be perverse, but if I buy into your worldview for a moment... 1) Your wife can measure how much you can provide just as well by having you actually provide valuable things. Like a house. 2) Your wife can measure your unselfishness by having you buy something that is actually valuable to her but useless to you. Like daycations with her friends. There's no sense in bu…
> Honestly, I find the notion of "man as provider" to be perverse, but if I buy into your worldview for a moment... Why? It is, to this day, even in the U.S., the dominant arrangement between men and women, especially in the context of relationships that result in children. > The need to demonstrate your social standing to other people is the result of low self-esteem. That are very pragmatic reasons to invest in sig…
> That are very pragmatic reasons to invest in signals of social standing. It minimizes the cultural friction between yourself and the people who can help you get ahead, who are overwhelmingly people of high social standing themselves.
Translation: I have shitty friends and assume everyone else does too.
Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit
#306Why are diamonds bullshit but bitcoins not bullshit?
Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit
#307Sure, and we all know it. But from her perspective, you probably waste all kinds of time and money on other inane bullshit for yourself. So if you actually cared, you wouldn't mind spending a bit so she gets a shiny rock to wear around. Why shouldn't she get this one thing? Also, how is this any different from fashion? Both are nearly useless raw materials that have been transformed and shaped into something people w…
If she wants it so badly, why doesn't she buy herself one? If she doesn't have enough money, then she should work until she does. Or she should provide something of equivalent value, at which point this becomes a business negotiation.
[deleted]
Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) I can guarantee you oil extraction from places like Nigeria isn't free of child exploitation, but I bet you continue to make the lifestyle choice of driving. 2) I didn't say adoption is bad for smart parents I said its not equivalent to having children of your own for smart parents. There aren't exactly a ton of children of high IQ couples in the adoption market. My bother in law is adopted and he is a doll and ad…
1) That is very obviously and intentionally not a response to what I asked. I barely, barely drive as it is. I commute to work, I'm within biking distance of my grocery store. Besides, transportation is sort of essential in the United States to commute and buy food. A diamond has none of that utility. None at all. The fact that you compare them, use it to justify any sort of exploitation is incredible. 2) I should've…
I'm not really trying to single "you" out, FWIW. I'm using a generic "you" at a website full of people who likely choose to drive around in the suburban wasteland that is Silicon Valley, who likely work in an industry that repopularized the sprawling suburban office park, and the hypocrisy of their complaining about how other peoples' lifestyle choices are hurting people in Africa.
Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, I find the notion of "man as provider" to be perverse, but if I buy into your worldview for a moment... 1) Your wife can measure how much you can provide just as well by having you actually provide valuable things. Like a house. 2) Your wife can measure your unselfishness by having you buy something that is actually valuable to her but useless to you. Like daycations with her friends. There's no sense in bu…
A diamond ring is a signal that is _always_ showing, unlike something like a house. It's a signal to the world that displays someone's wealth, commitment, etc. This doesn't make it right, but there are numerous human psychology reasons why this tradition endures and so many people take part in it. Writing off people who want or provide a diamond ring as mentally ill (as many people in this thread seem to be doing) is…
Commitment, really? How does it signal commitment? Are men that give big diamond rings less likely to cheat or get divorced?
Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
The psychology of diamonds only works if you pay a lot for the stone. I would posit that synthetic diamonds fail for the same reasons that knock-offs like cubic zirconiums fail. They don't deliver on the promise of the advertising. The advertising promises that your love can only be shown by spending a lot of money on this specific thing with these specific set of arbitrary selected attributes. E.g., it must come fro…
Sure, but part of the point of the article was that the "created" diamonds could be made that are literally indistinguishable from those found in the ground. Seems like that has the potential to disrupt the diamond cartel's stranglehold on supply.
In a practical sense, cubic zirconium stones are indistinguishable from diamonds as well. Unless someone breaks out a diamond tester, no one will be able to see the difference. Yet consumers continue to purchase real diamonds.
If a much less expensive synthetic diamond were to enter the marketplace, it would have the same problem as a CZ. Anyone who purchases one would either have to be honest about their purchase, and therein lose the social status benefit, or lie about their purchase, in which case they might as well have bought a CZ.