Damn, this was brought to my attention about 2 days and $6,361 too early.
Diamonds Suck (2006)
391–400 of 618 posts
Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)
#392Earlier 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…
My (now ex) wife wanted a titanium ring. She loved it because it was so light and felt like it wasn't even there.
That's one thing out of that marriage that didn't cost me much... (Actually, it was a very amicable divorce; marrying someone who isn't a selfish person fixated on superficial stuff like diamond rings is, I think, a good way to make sure that if the marriage does have to end, that it'll be as painless a transition as possible.)
Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)
#393I'm the OP - surprised to see this at the top of HN today, but happy to post a quick update: My wife and I have been happily married for ten years now. She loves her ring, and it has held up extremely well. (She just had the band resized, absolutely no issues with the stones.) No one has ever thought it was anything other than a diamond ring, which includes several years of daily scrutiny from crazy New York City bri…
This 10 year follow up is invaluable.
Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
$500 is still an insane price for a glorified lump of coal.
Compared to the wedding, 500 dollars is nothing.
Not if you get married in Vegas at a chapel with a small handful of family members. It's still a fraction of that cost, but a reasonably-large fraction (maybe 1/10 at most, instead of 1/100).
Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)
#395Earlier 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…
There's also another argument: what exactly is the woman's role in this relationship? Is she merely a possession? If she insists on a diamond, then I think she should also be expected to be treated as a possession, and an inferior person. Because she's not acting like an equal partner by insisting the husband spend a ton of money on a worthless rock to "prove" his dedication and love for her.
A woman who's really an equal partner would rather see her husband do something useful with that money, such as make a down payment on a house.
The whole concept of spending 2 months' salary on a diamond ring is the product of the most successful marketing campaign in history, by the deBeers company back in the first half of the 20th century. It is not something steeped in tradition (or at least nothing that goes back that far, or is the product of anything besides corporate marketing). So someone who insists on a real diamond ring is merely a dumb stooge who's easily swayed by advertising if you think about it.
Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)
#396A diamond purchase is a type of proof-of-burn. It's a way to display how much you value the person by being willing to sacrifice a large part of your savings for them. It's not really about the stone itself, it's about the cost.
In old times they were throwing virgins down the cliff to please some god. Now we burn cash to please some virgin. Humanity clearly progressed.
Uh, maybe her husband knew her before she was a virgin? (after Oscar Levant)
Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)
#397Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)
#398Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)
#399Anybody else have a SO who doesn't care about any of this? We talked about rings for 10 minutes before she and I got married. We wear white gold bands. No one has ever asked us about our rings. I'm feeling like I'm missing something here. Do rings appreciate in value?
[deleted]
Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)
#400I'm the OP - surprised to see this at the top of HN today, but happy to post a quick update: My wife and I have been happily married for ten years now. She loves her ring, and it has held up extremely well. (She just had the band resized, absolutely no issues with the stones.) No one has ever thought it was anything other than a diamond ring, which includes several years of daily scrutiny from crazy New York City bri…
[deleted]