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

371–380 of 618 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#371

Post by vxNsr »

burfog wrote: post #291
jakewins wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wife and I had read the Atlantic article before it was too late, went with plain wedding bands for both of us. However, living in America, this is causing issues for her, continuously having to explain to friends and acquaintances why she does not have a diamond. We'd been looking for used rings as an alternative - hence, thank you very much for writing this, you just saved me and my wife several thousand dollars.

That tradition is news to me. As far as I knew, the tradition is to give a ring with a stone (commonly diamond) for engagement, and then a plain band for the wedding. Once married, only the plain band is worn. The reason: stones can snag on clothing, rip an eyeball, snap off, attract violence, or scratch something you care about. I went with my birthstone (Arizona Peridot, cheap and pretty) from my grandma for the en…

I've never heard of your tradition before, where are you from?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#372

Post by trprog »

>If I can prevent a single reader from needlessly dropping $6,000-10,000+ on a diamond engagement ring, this site will be a success. Financial worries are the #1 cause of stress in a married relationship - there is absolutely NO excuse to start your married life by taking on that level of debt.

This is probably very naive of me but it honestly never occurred to me that anyone would actually go into debt for a ring. I naively assumed everyone did it the old fashioned way. Save up and don't pop the question until you either have bought the ring or at least have the cash on hand to go get one together.

Personally if I was being proposed to and discovered that my partner had gone into debt to get a ring I would seriously question the wisdom of picking them as a life partner.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#373

Post by rohan_ »

strictfp wrote: post #6

Similar arguments can be made about almost any fashion item. People don't buy fashion due to it's great quality, and most of the time not even due to good design, but mostly just to show off.

Maybe you just surround yourself with superficial people? I have a hard time believing people passionate about fashion don't have a nuanced appreciation for the aesthetic aspect of it.

Edit: Also wouldn't calling a fashion item ostentatious or low quality be a critique of bad fashion?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#374

Post by et-al »

jakebellacera wrote: post #185
TeMPOraL wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you get to the point of explaining why you're against diamonds? Was she able to tell you why she wants a diamond in particular? To resolve this issue it would be good to exchange the exact, real reasons why one side wants the diamond and the other doesn't. But even then, it may end up your GF will insist on the diamond - while all the rational-in-the-vacuum reasons are against diamonds, there's this whole thing c…

> So if she insist, don't be angry at her - be angry at De Beers. I completely agree. My fiancé and I are currently two engaged Americans, and we had a couple conversations about how we envision our wedding ceremony to happen. For the most part, we had very casual viewpoints on marriage (we don't need to make a big deal out of it), but she wanted a ring and I wasn't too hot on giving De Beers more money. She agreed w…

> It's good to see that Americans are starting to wake up about wedding culture, but I'm anticipating that it will take a few generations for most people to rid themselves of it.

Don't worry, there's always another advertising campaign to push us something we won't need. Trust me. "If you can't afford to take a year off and travel with your future partner, then your relationship won't be able to sustain the trials of everyday life."

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#375

Post by coldtea »

Ironchefpython wrote: post #258
lacampbell wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Until now, it's been non-negotiable. I really hate to be a random person on the internet giving personal advice but... diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign. Don't be surprised to find out a bunch of other things are non-negotiable if you divorce.

> diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign It's deeply ingrained in Western culture. Think about it like eating dogs. There's no rational reason not to use dogs for meat, but most Westerners would throw a hissy fit rather than eat dog meat. So don't assume the prospective bride is unreasonable. In fact, assume the opposite, as she was able to read a rational explanation of the iss…

>It's deeply ingrained in Western culture.

It's only "deeply ingrained" in the US. In most of the Western Europe etc it's negligible.

And from what I've read it wasn't some deep rooted tradition in the US either -- it took a lot of advertising from diamond companies to instill it...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/how...

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#376

Post by Zombieball »

matthewaveryusa wrote: post #269
ejcx wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sent this to my SO and she now wants one instead of a diamond. Until now, it's been non-negotiable. Thanks for writing. I did not want to buy a diamond :)

I gave my wife a moissanite and seeded are to-be joint saving account with the 10k we saved. You just have to remember that the burden of wearing the moissanite is on the woman. The choice is obvious but the social pressure is huge. Women love to look at other women's rings and chat about it. If she is open to the idea, just remember that she's the one being brave and breaking out of the mold more so than you :)

> Women love to look at other women's rings and chat about it. If she is open to the idea, just remember that she's the one being brave and breaking out of the mold more so than you.

This is a great description that captures the social pressure aspect quite well. Guys aren't the ones wearing the ring everywhere!

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#377

Post by coldtea »

ejcx wrote: post #208
lacampbell wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Until now, it's been non-negotiable. I really hate to be a random person on the internet giving personal advice but... diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign. Don't be surprised to find out a bunch of other things are non-negotiable if you divorce.

Wow. It's very difficult to respond to you civically. We've been together for a long long time. It is amazing what people you don't know on the internet will assume about you. There was no alternative before this article. Cubic is cheap and tacky. Diamonds are overpriced and awful. Lab diamonds not much better. This article has a real alternative. That's a huge contribution to all diamond haters everywhere.

>There was no alternative before this article.

There was always the alternative: I don't care about rings and diamonds and such BS, I care about us being together.

Which is not that uncommon (even in the US) as people here make it out to be. Not everybody goes for a big wedding either -- or even a wedding at all.

Also, as another commenter pointed out, "non negotiable" (as in: I want my diamond ring or we're not getting married") and "no alternative" (as in: we both want to buy the ring, and don't care for it being expensive, but there's no good replacement for a real diamond) is a different thing.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#378

Post by eeZah7Ux »

somestag wrote: post #219
joecool1029 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah well, societal pressures only go so far in influencing a relationship. If the other party can't respect your values, an argument over a diamond is the least of your worries.

I dunno, I don't think it's that simple. For one, the "respect your values" arguments goes both ways: she values a diamond, he doesn't. If she insists on a diamond, she's not respecting his values. If he insists on no diamond, he's not respecting hers. It's very easy to justify going the no-diamond route, sure. From a financial point of view, it's just a bad idea. Some say the finances aren't the point, so you can tu…

> she values a diamond, he doesn't

You are conflating moral values with financial value.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#379

Post by shard »

hueving wrote: post #216
gist wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Who is one person to judge what someone else finds important or gets pleasure from even if invented by a marketing person? What is the value of a football or soccer game or a host of other things people spend money on. Ripoff is in the eyes of the beholder.

It doesn't cost 3 months salary and support death in Africa to watch a football or soccer game.

Although it does support permanent brain injury in football players.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#380

Post by lacampbell »

EpicEng wrote: post #346
lacampbell wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Until now, it's been non-negotiable. I really hate to be a random person on the internet giving personal advice but... diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign. Don't be surprised to find out a bunch of other things are non-negotiable if you divorce.

I'm going to bet you have a hard time maintaining relationships with women.

How much do you want to bet? $100? $1000? Let's exchange PayPal account info.
Post reply on HN