Slashdot Mirror
Diamonds - Are They Really Worth the Cost?
hardDiamond asks: "I'm going to get engaged. I know my 4 C's. I know I'm going to get screwed by the jeweller, but that's okay: after all, a diamond engagement ring is a time-honoured tradition... NOT. Having checked out the goods, looked for the flaws, I found the biggest one of all. Diamond engagement rings are the creation of a well orchestrated advertising campaign for most of the last century - according to this article.
Would you buy one for the love of your life? I know my girlfriend would love a diamond, but ethically I have my doubts. Diseased-miners, child slave labour, cartel inflated prices... and as if that wasn't enough, diamonds have no resale value. Naddah. Zilch. They'll sell you the shit, but damn it, they're not taking it back at any price. So what have my fellow slashdotters done with regards to engagement rings? What's a good substitute for diamonds? My girlfriend understands my thoughts regarding diamonds, but deep down, I'm sure she would like a diamond. Even a small one." I've never even thought about questioning such a time honored tradition, but now I'm curious. Have any of you looked at the issues surrounding diamonds and found them wanting? What alternatives have you found and were they acceptable?
After researching this a bit, one of the key facts to surface is that 2-4.5% of diamond sales will go to finance terrorism or forms of violence. Such diamonds, for want of a better term, have been named "conflict diamonds". For those of you interested in following up on this subject, here are a few more links:
Fatal TransactionsFor those of you who have a subscription to Science News, the cover story, this month, deals with this issue as well.
Conflict Diamonds: Sanctions and War
The Campaign to Eliminate Conflict Diamonds
The Kimberly Process, which will attempt to track diamonds to their origin. This is to begin in November.
There are none. The girlfriend will be bombarded w/her friends pissing her off w/the fact that she doesn't have one, and how dare her fiance not buy one for her.
My gf's brother just got engaged. His fiance announced this to my gf by saying, "here's mine, where's yours?"
Whether or not this is obnoxious is not the point. Her friends are going to do much the same.
Time honored is true, but expected is more the reality.
Opals are always a nice stone and do have a decent resale value. Of course they're rather hard to find in the US.
Slashdot readers?
Girlfriends?
Marriage?
This has to be some sort of hoax. Is it April already?
"Moderate drinking can help prevent amputated limbs" -- Abigail Zuger, NYTimes, 12/31/02
one of the key facts to surface is that 2-4.5% of diamond sales will go to finance terrorism or forms of violence
What percentage of gas sales do you think finance terrorism? Money goes from our hands to the gas companies to oil companies in the Mid-East to (possibly) terrorist organizations. Probably true about many other products as well...
Nike. Just jew it.
Build up a geek website with a couple of friends, make it popular and propose on the front page a couple of years later.
Trollem mirabilem hanc subnotationis exigiutas non caperet
I agree with most of your other points about the disgusting practices used to produce diamonds and market them.
Antique Ring.
I gave my wife a pretty cool engagement ring from an antique jewelry outfit. Sure, it's 2nd hand, but it has the personality and it doesn't get crazy as far as prices go either.
It seems to me that the purpose of this article really isn't to ask a question, but instead to be a bully-pulpit to rally against the DeBeers monopoly. I don't know if "Ask Slashdot" is an appropriate place for this.
As for the tagged on question at the end, have you considered your fiance-to-be's birth stone? My grandmother had a beautiful ruby and silver engagement ring. If you're not looking for a ring, then it really depends on how much a traditionalist your girlfriend is. Just whatever you do, if you're going to skip the ring option, don't try to weasel out with something less than the cost of a diamond ring, or it's likely she'll suspect that money was the real motivation.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
They're really expensive, but are guaranteed not to have the ethical overhead of others. Plus, they have a cool little polar bear laser-etched into the side (very tiny, you have to use a loupe to see it).
They're called Polar Bear Diamonds.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
My girlfriend told me not to WASTE our money and instead we spent three crazy weeks in Hawaii AND had money in the bank.
God I love her!
Great, i fully expect the bush administration to put out new commercials linking diamond sales to terrorism and urging all "true" americans to stay clear of them. I mean they did the same thing with pot without one proven link between marijuana sales and terrorist organizations.
--aiee
While diamonds may have a low resale value, that's not a critical point. Are you planning on selling this diamond any time soon? No. If you're fortunate enough you may have a better option, see if your grandmother's (or great grandmother's) engagement ring is in the family and available. That's both sensible and heart-touching.
About manufactured diamonds and their history.
currently Gemesis is America's primary manufacturer. They are building a $25m factory for making better/ different colored diamonds. Currently they can make yellow ones, though the show showed clear, and fanciful colored ones (in testing it seems).
They are "real" diamonds, pretty much seeded carbon crystal. Any gemologist can likely tell you they are real diamond, albeit manufactured. AFAIK the cost is a little higher, if not compriable for now.
My fiancee was totally cool with the idea of another kind of stone, or with a fake. Show your girl some pictures of the kids from the mines, you'd be surprised how receptive she gets.
Get a GIANT phoney and she can still brag/lie to her family/friends and secretly feel morally superior.
Seriously. If you can't talk to each other about this, then you are fools to even consider marriage. If you would rather get /. opinions on this than talk it over with the gf, then you aren't ready.
Infuriate left and right
If it really bothers you that much, maybe she would be happy with an imitation diamond. She still gets the ring to show to her friends and to stand as... a symbol of commitment or what have you. With the money you save, spring for a really great honeymoon, or figure out some other way to spend the money that's memorable and perhaps more genuine then the ring. Then again, women are irrational and none of the above is likely to work. :)
A good account of the state of the art two years ago can be found in the transcript of a NOVA show on diamond synthesis: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2703diamo nd.html
Tradition? Gimme a friggin break. The US is too young to have traditions, kerr-rrrist. Women and diamond rings remind me of that movie, "The Gods Must be Crazy", where the natives find an empty Coke bottle and worship it as some kind of..umm...err...worshipped item. Seriously, women are like little monkeys when they see rings, but y'know, all it is, is a friggin rock attached to some shiny metal. "Oohh, look at shi-nee met-tal...perty, ain't it". Geez. Materialistic women need to get with reality and stop the pretentious b.s. If you love someone, it'll be in yer heart, not on a f@!*ckin finger. Leave the symbols to the symbol-minded (as a Carlinist I couldn't resist that one!). If you can't afford her, she's not worth it.
My wife is Japanese, and we didn't have to go through ANY of this lame b.s. We got married in Japan without a stadium-sized crowd and did a tea ceremony. There were no "trinkets" exchanged, only love expressed through ACTION. Now I'm all for diamond rings as a gift, or to show appreciation, but if a woman requires a ring for engagement - if it takes a manmade little rock and metal craft to make her smile, then her heart is in the wrong place.
http://canadian-diamonds.theshoppe.com/canadian_di amond_mining.htm
to quote: Canadian diamonds treasured by the worlds diamond experts. Sought after for their incredible beauty and brilliance. Mined in accordance to the highest ethical standards.
I believe everything I read on the Internet, of course, but hey, worth a look - especially if you want to REALLY surprise her with the kneeling and the asking and the whatnot.
I am a leaf on the wind
Seeing as how I had no idea how to pick a ring, I bought a $20 engagement ring for my wife. When I proposed I gave it to her and told her it was a symbol and that we could pick the ring of her choice for her. She refused and said she didn't want any other ring. She said that was the ring I gave to her and it was the most beautiful ring in the world.
Better than diamonds or opals are emeralds.
Emeralds are actually more rare than diamonds, and so are worth more.
"All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening."
- Alexandar Woolcot
Premarital sex was not invented in the 1960s, and has in fact been around ever since just before the first marriage. Of course, back in the good old days, a good girl would never have sex before wedlock. However, some were willing to bend the rules once they were engaged. So, men quickly discovered that you could ask a woman to marry you, have sex with her, and then break off the engagement.
Up until 1935, this was considered an actionable tort in 47 of the 48 states. A woman who was deceived in this way could sue for the value of her lost virginity and subsequent difficulty in acquiring a husband. State legislatures passed laws against these suits in the 1930s and 1940s.
So, after this ability was removed, women needed a new way to ensure that a man proposing marriage really meant it. It became social custom that a man asking for marriage would post a performance bond equivalent to about twice his monthly salary. This bond would be forfeitable upon his breaking off of the engagement, but returnable if she broke off the engagement. This 'bond' was implemented as a diamond ring, because it was an easy way to, er, 'crystalize' two months of his salary in an easy-to-handle package.
In essence, the engagement ring is a private reimplementation of a canceled government policy.
Or am I being hopelessly naive somehow? (it wouldn't be the first time
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
When I proposed to my fiancee a couple months ago, I didn't have a ring at all. We joked that she was getting a $300,000 ring, the house we were in the process of contracting to be built. And she was just fine with this. However, a ring is expected by a lot of people. And she did want one to show off. Plus we had the perfect idea. She had her grandmother's ring, which had 3 diamonds in a rather ugly setting (everyone agrees on this, even her mother). We had it reset in a platinum and gold setting for a relatively reasonable cost. And it's better than any ring I could have bought her.
.95 instead of 1.
You can always get another stone as well. There is no rule that says it has to be a diamond. The first engagement ring I bought, several years ago, was a created sapphire. There are many semi-precious stones out there that are quite beautiful. Depending on your girlfriend's preferences, you may have a lot of options.
Having said that, if she wants a diamond, then it's worth it to get it. Just keep in mind that you don't need an internally flawless diamond. A VVS1 or 2 will do just fine, and a VS1 or 2 is going to be OK too. As you have noted, diamonds really don't have a resale value, and how many people are going to be looking at it through a scppe after you purchase it? Same goes for color. Get a G-H, or F. And as for the carats, you'll pay a bit less if you stay just under the round numbers, so
The one thing you really want to make sure is excellent is the cut. This is something you want to be as close to ideal as possible. A friend of mine recently got married, and her well-off husband got her a rather large diamond for her engagement ring. When I looked at it, I was horribly underwhelmed. It was a poor cut, and reflected very little light. It looked flat. And this is not a man that I would have expected to miss the details.
I know you know the 4 Cs, but it's always worth repeating, and elaborating on how to get a better deal using what you know.
-Todd
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
Alright. Let's review. You post on Slashdot. You have a girl you are going to marry.
You are a nerd with a girlfriend.
Most of the people here rarely talk to girls (no, its not flamebait; im one of them), let alone marry them! Buy her a diamond ring you idiot!
My girlfriend understands my thoughts regarding diamonds, but deep down, I'm sure she would like a diamond. Even a small one.
Then BUY HER ONE!!!!!
I'm not married, but I am in a serious relationship and have been for about 4 years. I'm sure I'm not the first to tell you this, but if you love her, right now is not the best time to wage your anti-tradition diamond ban. You don't want to spend a ton? Buy a smaller diamond, you said yourself she will probably still want at least a small one.
And if resale value is a major concern, is this a person you really feel comfortable proposing to / marrying? Be sure before you buy the rock. And good luck!
Mark
You've never had a girlfriend, have you?
Look, women think differently than men on some issues, but you disregard that point of view only at your great peril. So fucking what if sending flowers is stupid? If it makes your girl feel loved, well, mission accomplished.
Don't be a goon.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
>>they have a great texture to them
The texturing isn't that great. Whoever made them should go back and redo the bump mapping. And a little anisotropy wouldn't hurt.
Much like the megahertz myth, the need for a diamond engagement ring has been cultivated through careful marketing and peer pressure.
But.
The cost of NOT getting this diamond ring may be the relationship itself. It may not occur right away (she might still accept your proposal) but this will be a major disappointment to a woman who has had an engagement ring (or a rock as my ex-girlfriend called it), and it just might set the tone for the rest of your time together.
As has been pointed out elsehwhere in this very thread, gasoline, diamonds, honey, opium, and a whole bunch of other products all contribute to terrorism or cruel treatment of our fellow humans or various other badnesses in the world.
In the end, though, it will be infinitely easier to get a fuel-efficient car and switch away from various other products than it will be to alter the mindset of the woman (and ALL of her friends) who considers not where it came from or how it got there, but merely that it is on her finger.
So, if you want to get married and start of on the right foot with her, you should of course shop for the best value you can find in your budget and so on, but yes, the diamond is worth it.
[save your energy... cede her victory on this one, fight the good fight when she wants to know why you are "wasting" so much money on a cable modem/DSL, fast graphics cards, etc.]
But basically, unless you pass the following test, I suspect that deep down you are looking for an excuse to be cheap:
Unless you do all of those things, I would posit that you are already contributing to unethical behavior with your participation in commerce. If you do do all those things, and your g/f isn't open to the no diamond idea although she will jump through those hoops, then she is being hypocritical.
I say buy her the diamond and have a wonderful life together. Coming from a happily engaged man (who both bought and used inheritted diamonds)
_sig_ is away
An engagement is a once-in-a-lifetime event; save your consumer ethics for more trivial occasions (anniversaries, Christmas, etc).
Absolutely. Be proud of those ethics so long as they don't really interfere with anything you care about.
Nope, no sig
It is planted in one of our city parks, is professionally cared for, and has a sign that declares My Love to Her. A ring would have been cheaper. The tree cost $6000.00 which would have bought a very nice rock.
Our wedding was under the tree. We are planning to buy a bench to place under the tree as soon as the city allows.
Get a free ipod.
Now, if DeBeers ever falls apart, diamonds will be worth about as much as it costs to put and polish them.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I know there are some people who go for the alternative side. We certainly like to try to spend our money in ways that have the most benefit.
The principle behind the diamond is to symbolize your commitment. You're telling her that you want to spend the rest of your life with her. Resale value? Are you sure that marriage is the right next step? Perhaps there are some more conversations to have.
I've been proudly and happily married to the love of my life for almost 2 years.
Better quality diamonds are able to be man made for cheaper. But, a good jeweler won't serve them. Volunteer to make up for your conscience. Show your love by finding a good jeweler, being honest, and buying what she deserves. First, find out why you're worrying about resale value and take care of it.
There are other, less oppressive, countries to obtain diamonds from.
Where?
Canada.
What? Canada?
There are only Igloos and Eskimos (Inuit) up there, right?
Not so, there are also Polar Bears.
http://www.siriusdiamonds.com/home.htm
If you're Canadian, buy Canadian.
If you're American, buy North American.
Just a suggestion.
There are diamond mines in Northern Canada (http://www.wholesalecanadiandiamonds.com/ - you can browse and buy online), and you won't be supporting terrorists, slave labour, civil war, etc, etc (though you will be supporting our socialist health-care system).
Of course, that doesn't help if you think we are being force-fed a useless commodity.
For that, go for a small diamond set with other stones (rubies, emeralds, etc). Or go for a small ring and get a pearl necklace.
Or go to your mother and see if she has any jewelry that she would donate and that you could have remade into an engagement ring.
My mother passed away four years before I got engaged. My sister inherited her large jewelry selection, but honoured my mother's request that my brother and I be able to pick out a ring for our future spouses.
Try this: buy some roses for her on any other day of the year. Not only will they be easier and cheaper to get, but I guarantee you she will be ten times happier with a spontaneous sign of affection. All you're really saying on Feb. 14 is "I got you these flowers because my television told me to." Any other day of the year, the message is "I was driving home from work when it hit me how much I love you, so I stopped off at the store and bought you some flowers."
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
I was lucky. I married someone for whom funky stuff like integrity, thought, consideration, selflessness, originality were priorities. To her, the traditional goal of "it must be so big I can't lift my hand" was tacky, ostentatious, gaudy, all the hallmarks of a wannabe who needed validation from outside, rather than someone looking for something that had significance simply for what it was.
The end result for us was a third of a carat rub over setting on a really unique band. For her, it's perfect as it comes across as stylish, vastly more sophisticated and, her highest priority, she doesn't spend the rest of her life being scared of knocking a large rock out of a cheap setting.
I still managed to spend a fair bit of money, but that was on: getting it engraved (without her knowing) on the inside; on getting it rush ordered so I could still suprise her, even though we'd chosen it together; on finding the perfect time and place to do the proposing; on getting matching earings made to go with it. Those are all the subtle things that allowed me to put vastly more value in to it for her without buying in to a deliberate, tacky, hype.
So, like I said, it depends a lot on who you're marrying. If the biggest, gaudiest rock is simply the only way to feel she's valued, that's what you should get her - you chose that type of person. If style and the suble touches are what're important, congratulations, you've found someone who's going to appreciate everything you do for her, regardless of how well off you are at the time. That is the kind of woman I wanted to marry. :)
OK, now lets get back to bitching about Microsoft. This is getting sappy!
How interesting that this subject comes up just a few days shy of my 15th wedding anniversary.
When Richie and I got engaged, it was back in the day when South Africa was ruled by the Apartheid regime and Nelson Mandela had been doing time for longer than I had been alive. I told him "no diamonds." We went to a local lapidary shop where they had many different options for stones and picked out a sterling silver setting for it. I chose a diamond-cut quartz crystal. It was beautiful, the ring didn't cost much at all, and after someone assembled it Richie proposed to me in front of everyone in the store. Got on one knee and everything. Priceless. Everyone applauded.
However, that ring was short lived. I don't remember exactly how I did it, but the ring's setting got bent and I lost the stone. It lasted only a few months.
Next, sometime around Christmas that year, there were several small jewelry carts that set up in the local mall. One had a ring with a great-looking amethyst point mounted on it. Not too expensive, looked cool. We grabbed it. The ring lasted for about a year before the amethyst point worked its way loose. I Krazy-glued it in and it stayed in for a few weeks more before I lost it for good.
Richie was upset, I was bummed. Two rings given, two down. I decided the next replacement for the engagement ring would not have a stone, tradition be damned.
That next summer I found a sterling silver Claddagh ring. Traditional Irish love token. Symbol from pre-Christian times. Very appropriate. Very cool. I've had it ever since.
Anyway, even with Apartheid over, I wouldn't touch diamonds if they were...well, diamonds. For one thing, I'm not crazy about them aesthetically. I'd rather have a blue topaz or a sapphire or a ruby or emerald or even better, a fire opal. For another thing, unless you can make darn sure where you are getting them from, you could get them from terrorists or Russian mafiosos or any number of other unsavory folks.
And most importantly...I would rather spend my money on geeky stuff. Save that money and get something I really want...like a DVD-RW or a Radeon AIW 8500 video card.
If your intended is a geek grrl, get her something she'll really want. If she isn't...well...maybe that diamond is kinda mandatory. Check up on the provenance of that rock...there are Canadian stones from the Yukon Territory strike that have a polar bear etched next to the laser-inscribed ID. There's nothing morally reprehensible about the Canadians, last time I checked.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Not to trivialize this or anything (I'm against buying diamonds too), but this makes me laugh. It seems like whenever Slashdotters don't want to pay for something (e.g. CDs), they find some kind of ethical reason why they shouldn't.
-a
How to rationalize theft.
I completely agree. Who wants to date a girl to whom whether or not you're willing to waste a significant chunk of your net worth to prove it is a deal-breaker? Am I the only one who has noticed that the emperor has no clothes on?
;)
So... Ms. casualgeorge... what are you doing this weekend?
PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
a friend at work just got married, and gosh her diamond is purty. honestly, sometimes i catch myself staring at it. but i'm not her, and someone please shoot me if i ever become so. she prances around like a poodle fresh from the salon now, as if she has suddenly become valuable as a person. don't buy into it. if two people are equally saturated with the propaganda, they should get along just fine. but if she is set on a ring and you are ethically against it (cheap is entirely another story), i'd say you two have bigger issues to deal with than just a diamond. i have as many unnecessary purses as the next girl, but i personally would run the other direction from a guy who presented me with a rock, because i want a partner, not a sheep. why on earth would i want the same ubiquitous, essentially unvaluable thing every other woman has? howabout a secret gift (and an exchange, no less!), just between the two of you? who is she getting married for anyway, her friends?
"Honey, some loveless geek on Slashdot told me not to get you a diamond. So, really, it's not my fault, ok?"
"BTW, I re-partioned your PC, got rid of Windows, and set you up with free BSD and a Tesla coil."
"Honey? Honey?"
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Some personal perspective on the issue:
That isn't very many data points, but I think the lesson is that if the ring selection is more of a personal investment than a shopping effort, it's a good sign. Sure, the ring should have some durable value, but anyone who says only diamonds have value as a symbol of love needs to ponder on the primary practical use of diamonds: an abrasive.
Jon
I think not...(*poof*)
it's a myth. unfortuantely i am on my way out the door and don't have the time to find the proof, but it's true. i think it's something like 12 or 14 percent of our oil comes from that region. granted that's still a lot of oil, but nothing like the 90% that joe 6-pack american seems to think.
out of those countries we get oil from i do not know how many may be considered shady today. the enemy seems to change every few years. whatever your political views are, the only real constant pal the United States seems to have over there is Isreal and they are lacking the oil reserves that would keep the USA stocked happy. it seems like everyone else manages to upset us one time or another (or they were also too friendly with the USSR and therefore no longer our friend) argh.
ride a bike, it solves more problems than you would ever know.
I may blow some /. karma by saying this, but that Atlantic article is one of the best pieces I've seen linked from /. in quite a while. It has nothing to do with tech or software and can't really be called news for nerds, but it's an eye-opener about how businesses manipulate public perception out there in the real world. If you skipped the article and went straight to the comments like I did, it's worth going back to read the article.
If you think diamonds are forever, you're going to love the new One Ring model at Sauron's Jewelers (with 1 convenient locataion in the Barad-dur shopping mall, located right in the shadow of Mount Doom).
This ring is guaranteed to last for all eternity, and will grant countless powers as well as being a pledge of your ever lasting and eternal love. When my grandfather first forged this ring in ages past, he made it to last, and it has certainly stood the test of time. What better way of telling that special someone "This is going to last forever?"
Supplies are EXTREMELY limited, so hurry on in, or email DarkLord@mordor.org for this and other wonderful items.
This wasn't written by me; I copied it off of the somethingawful.com forums.
... because your brother just got engaged, and that ring he gave her was pretty impressive... ... and I'm worried that anything I could give you wouldn't measure up to that. ... and you're 33 now, that's $6000 divided by 47 years of marriage. That's like, $130 a year. You spend more than that on video games.
Actual conversation between me and my girlfriend:
Me: If we get engaged, don't expect much in the way of a ring. I'm pretty broke.
Her: It's OK. I don't need a very expensive ring.
Me [uneasy at the qualifier "very"]:
Her: Yes, it was beautiful! I'd love to have a ring like that!
Me:
Her: Don't be silly. I wouldn't want more than you could afford.
Me: Define "afford."
Her: Two months' salary is normal.
Me [calculating]: Um... wow. That would be, like, $4000. That's a lot.
Her: Gross, dear, not net. It would be more like $6000.
Me: Who makes up these rules?
Her: That's just the custom, honey.
Me: You know that's just a marketing gimmick started by the diamond cartels around the turn of the century, don't you?
Her: Silly. I don't need an expensive ring.
Me: The conversation up to this point notwithstanding?
Her: Two months' salary is normal. It's not expensive.
Me: So if you found, say, $6000 worth of computer hardware on our joint credit card, I could say "Hey, that's not expensive; it's just what computers cost!"
Her: That's different. That would be just for you. The ring is for both of us.
Me: So I get to wear this ring part of the time?
Her: Silly. The ring shows everyone how much you love me.
Me: And what shows everyone how much you love me?
Her: The ring.
Me: Do you see a certain asymmetry in this arrangement?
Her: You should be proud that everyone sees me wearing your ring. It tells the world how much you value me.
Me: Approximately $6000 worth, apparently. Does this mean that rich men value their wives more than poor men?
Her: No. It's two months' salary for everyone.
Me: Ah, so wives are priced on a sliding scale, then, like low-income housing?
Her: I wouldn't put it that way.
Me: How would you put it?
Her: A little money is a small price to pay for something that lasts forever.
Me: You lifted that directly from a jewelery commercial.
Her: That doesn't make it untrue.
Me: Touché.
Her: Look, if you live to be 80...
Me: I don't like that "if."
Her [ignoring me]:
Me: I'm alarmed at how quickly you arrived at that number.
Her [ignoring me]: $130 a year isn't so much for my love, is it?
Me: Well, it's a good deal cheaper than escort services.... OW! OW! Quit hitting; I'm driving here!
Her: You get a lot more from this relationship than sex.
Me: Yeah, the contusions make it all worthwhile.
Her: Baby.
Me: Y'know, this actually works out better for you if I die early. Your yearly value increases inversely to the length of my life. If I only live to 50....
Her: I'm tired of talking about this.
Me: That's because you're losing.
Her: I'm not losing. We're not competing. You told me you couldn't afford an expensive ring, and I said that was OK.
Me: Ah, so it's the "affording" part that's irrelevant.
Her: Stop being so silly. I've bought jewelry on credit before; it's no big deal.
Me: That's the solution!
Her: What is?
Me: You buy the ring.
Her: That's not how it works, honey.
Me: If people look at the ring to see how much I love you, wouldn't it make sense to get the most expensive ring available? You've got better credit than me, so....
Her: But the point is for you to buy it, so people can see how much you value me.
Me: How are people going to know who bought it? Do the salespeople engrave the credit card holder's name on the band?
Her: I'll know.
Me: Well, yes, that's a given.
Her: I'll know you didn't want to pay for my ring.
Me: I thought we'd established that.
Her: I'm tired of talking about this. Forget it.
Me: I'm trying to understand, really. We're supposed to have a token of our love, right?
Her: Whatever. Right.
Me: This token is something you would want anyway, a piece of jewelry.
Her: Honey...
Me: Bear with me. The token is sized for you, presumably styled the way I think you'd like it...
Her: Actually, I get to pick it out.
Me: Even better for my purposes. So the token is styled just for you, sized so only you can wear it. You keep it with you always. Do we both own it?
Her: No, the bride owns the ring always.
Me: OK. So you get a ring that may or may not be expensive, depending on your definition, which is your exclusive property to do with as you please. I get to pay for it. Remember what I said about asymmetry?
Her: So you want a ring?
Me: No. To be symmetrical, it would have to be something I want. A laptop, for instance.
Her: You want an engagement laptop?
Me: That's just an example.
Her: That's not parallel. Computers depreciate; good jewelry doesn't.
Me: Good point. I guess there's no such thing as a ring upgrade.
Her: Actually, they make these things called "sleeves" which you buy for major anniversaries....
Me: Dude, I'm gettin' a Dell!
If they have no resale value, they you could buy a used diamond very cheaply and get a jeweler to put it in a new setting for you, and that would kill the market for new diamonds. They don't wear out, of course. "Diamonds are forever" and all that.
The used diamond market isn't like the used car market, where the resale value drops as soon as you drive your shiny new Mustang off the lot. That is, it's not that market prices are low -- it's that there is no market. Because De Beers has created the impression that diamonds are priceless (if not in monetary value, then in sentimental value), almost no one sells their used diamonds. And because no one sells them, no one expects to buy them either. This has completely eliminated the secondary market for diamonds -- outside of shady outfits like pawn shops, which can hardly be considered bastions of "fair market value".
The total lack of liquidity in the used diamond market means that De Beers can continue to have complete control over prices. Why is stifling liquidity just as important as stifling competition? Look at what happened to hardware companies like Cisco when the Internet bubble burst. As if it weren't bad enough that Cisco lost customers, they found that prospective customers were buying cheap, lightly used hardware off the dot-bombs at fire sale prices instead of from Cisco. This is even more important for De Beers, since a diamond has a considerably longer usable life than a router. The moral of the story: if you want to sell your product to everyone at ridiculous prices, without screwing yourself in the future by saturating the market with resalable goods, then do exactly what De Beers has done.
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
I agree. For a lot of women, they've wanted and dreamed of a nice engagement ring since they were kids. Getting that diamond ring is a sort of validation for some women.
Is this misplaced desire, partly formed by marketing hype and peer pressure? Yes. But so is my lust for say, a new BMW 5-series, or even the latest 2.6 GHz Pentium.
I spent a bunch on my wife's rock, which felt to me like 'wasted' money, but I have to say it's made her happy. Before you say she's all about the money though... she really isn't very materialistic at all, but getting that nice diamond really meant something to her. When the time came to spend money of other things, such as our wedding plans, or even when I ask her what she wants for a birthday gift, she is quite economical.
Beyond that, though, I also guess that over the course of our marriage, I'll probably spend ten times more on computer upgrades and other "toys" for myself (that she could care less about) as I will on jewelry for her (that I could care less about), so I guess I can't really complain! Probably it'd be the same for many other people here...I think that's something most of the techno-geeks here should keep in mind.
I bought my wife a diamond. She was a fiend, what could I do? Then 6 months later when I bough my computer I tried to hide the fact that it cost more than the diamond...
;)
Didn't want to fuel that whole "more time with the computer" thing you know
oh, and taking over Hollywood
No, that's a Good Thing(tm).
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Yes, I'm one of those few mythic creatures, a ./ poster with no Y chromosome. Though I'm not that chick-identified, here's some advice from the girl point of view:
1. Even the most progressive feminist can sometimes be profoundly cliche'd when thinking about marriage. Our society teaches and reinforces strong ideas and imagery around weddings and marriage from a very early age -- heterosexual women are steeped in cultural tradition around marriage. It's hard to fight decades of "this is every girl's dream".
2. If she wants a diamond, get her a diamond. Don't make her spend the next 50 years of her life looking down at her hand and thinking, "Instead of a diamond ring, I got a symbol of his political and social stance."
3. If you don't want to support new diamond sales, consider estate jewelry. For a reasonable price, you can buy a ring that has a sense of history to it, that is a beautiful thing, and is less charged with the modern baggage. For that matter, an estate jewelry specialist can also help you make the choice. Talk to a pro! Explain you want something beautiful and unique, that you want to spend X dollars, etc.
4. If you decide not to go with the diamond, give your bride-to-be *positive* language around your choice. Don't get her a different kind of ring because you don't like the social ramifications of diamond mining -- get her a different kind of ring because you don't feel a run-of-the mill diamond ring accurately reflects the special and unique qualities in her and in your relationship.
5. Don't use not getting a diamond as an excuse to skimp on the cost. Buying a 300.00 ring instead of a 3000.00 ring 'because diamonds are tainted with the blood of workers' says you were looking for an excuse to be cheap. It's not about the money, but it's not just the thought that counts, either.
6. Size *does* matter, but it cuts both ways. Dicks *and* diamonds can both be tooooo big.
According to a friend's chemistry professor, diamonds are a rip-off anyway. The crystaline structure of the carbon atoms in diamonds isn't the most stable form of carbon. Apparently, diamonds aren't really "forever," they're only for a few billion years. Now graphite, on the other hand, now that's forever! (Or at least a lot closer!)
So buy her some pencil lead, and maybe one of those cool, high-dollar mechanical pencils to go with it!
(Disclaimer: I assume no responsibility for any bodily harm that may result from following this advice. I, myself, am happily married, and if you tell my wife I said this, I'll deny it.)
Uh, I hate to burst your bubble, people, but being materialistic, particularly as regards to selection of men, is evolutionarily very advantageous for women.
Think about it. Take two women, one who is materialistic and one who isn't. The materialistic success of a potential partner doesn't matter to the non-materialistic woman, but does to the materialistic one. So the woman who is materialistic is more likely to end up partnering with a guy who is materially successful than the woman who isn't.
End result? The materialistic woman is more likely to end up with offspring who are more capable of being materially successful than non-materialistic woman and, on top of that, the offspring of the materialistic woman will be better provided for.
Material success is strongly tied to the ability to provide for a family. The more materially successful you are, the greater the resources you have at your disposal to provide well for your offspring. The better you can provide for your offspring, the greater their chances of survival. The better their ability to provide for themselves (i.e., to inherit your success traits), the greater their chances of survival and reproduction. And the odds of survival and reproduction are the only things that matter in evolutionary terms.
So if you were to start with those two women and look at their extended family many generations later, you'll probably find that the materialistic woman has more descendants and that those descendants are materially better off, on average, than the descendants of the non-materialistic woman.
Eventually, the materialistic types will dominate the population. Which, I think, is exactly the situation we see today. And it's no coincidence that those greedy types happen to be the most successful, as well. Why else do you think greedy entities like Microsoft, the RIAA, etc., are all so powerful and successful? It's because they're run by people who are also greedy and materialistic -- the very trait which enables them to succeed.
There is more truth than you can imagine in the phrase "nice guys finish last". You can thank evolution for it.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
I agree: a lot more people are made a lot more miserable by the diamond trade than by C++. The latter is a subtle, merciful killer; it eschews violence. Freshmen simply lose the will to live about four weeks into CS101, when they learn the true meaning of inheritance and friendship: "you aren't going to get a lot of money from your parents, but you will probably get the same self-destructive behavior they had, which will probably be triggered by someone covering his ass after someone you thought was your friend tripped you up by playing with your member".
["Only friends can play with your member(s)" heard from Andy Kinley at RHIT, IIRC. Hi, Andy!]
Works well for my parents. And my girlfriend's parents. And the parents of my best friends.
,social and financial terms, when you'll be able to screen the child and transplant foreign, "better" genetic material to the offsprings ?
...
What worked well for them may very probably NOT work well for us:
you're ignoring a major factor here: the pill.
I believe the pill is the major reason for the sexual revolutions and backlashes of the second half of last century. Seperating procreation from sex was a major destabilizer for monogamy (that, and the the women joining the work-force, thus giving them options they didn't have before).
My point is: the human race is still in the after-effects of the seperation of sex from procreation, and in this respect, we ARE different from our parents.
Our descendants may go even further down this road: even today you see lesbian couples using genetic material from sperm-banks, what will the notion of marriage mean, in genetic
I guess they'll live in ingteresting times
Working for necessity's mother.
My wife told me straight out that she didn't want a diamond engagement ring.
She simply didn't care for such a diamond ring. She generally doesn't like jewelry, but occasionally likes a few simple pieces.
Knowing what I do about the artificial market for diamonds, I was more than happy to oblige her wishes. It was simply more money for the wedding and honeymoon, which are not cheap, either.
But do go in together to pick out wedding bands.
The experience of doing that, thinking about what kind of ring you want (Au, Ti, Ag, Pt, wide or narrow, plain or decorated, what to write on the inside - please not the LotR phrase, etc.) helps cement a relationship at least as well as getting a big rock. Or, at least, if the relationship was going to go anywhere, then the mutual ring picking experience will reinforce the same relationship dynamics.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I proposed to my girlfriend when we were both in college, and I had very little money. I was going to go to graduate school, and knew I wouldn't have any money for a long time. The ring was a modestly sized garnet, in a simple gold setting, $50 at Sears. Up to that time, it was probably the most money I'd every spent on jewelry.
/. topic, I know nobody is going to read this. It's like those sand paintings that are created in order to celebrate what *is*, not in the expectation that they will be responded to, or become a permanat exhibit. I just wanted to declare to the world that the quality of your love is so very much more important than the chemical composition of the ring that symbolizes it.
She loved it, because of what it represented. She knew I had more prospects than money, and she was able to see the ring for what it meant, rather than what it was composed of chemically. She told me that she was glad I hadn't blown a ton of dough on a big ring I couldn't really afford, because she didn't want to start our married life in debt for something that wouldn't add to quality of life the way a car, house, blender, etc. would. Our wedding was great, our marriage has been wonderful. I would be a shabby imitation of myself if I didn't have her in my life.
She got a lot of really great reactions to the ring, surprisingly. A red stone for an engagement ring is unusual enough to be eye-catching. It's a dark red garnet, and a lot of people asked if it was a ruby. She's not ashamed of her ring, and always told them that it's a garnet, a semi-precious stone. I suppose there's a certain cache in that, a ring who's value is so purely symbolic, because she often saw women with big diamond rings in platinum settings get jealous.
We've been married 11 years, now. Our third child, a little girl, was born 8 weeks ago, and our two boys are bright, energetic, handsome kids. Our love is flourishing. As for the ring, my wife accidentally dropped it over the railing from the third tier at Wrigley Field a month after we were married, still not used to wearing it. By some miracle, we found it on the pavement outside the park; one of the prongs holding the garnet in place got bent, but the stone was OK. After a few years, the thin gold band was wearing through, and the bent prong would catch on fabric, and she had to be really careful with it. For our 5 year anniversary, I suggested we get her a higher quality ring. OK, but she wouldn't hear of replacing her garnet. We had the stone reset in a better quality band, flanked with a pair of small diamonds. We'd saved up some money, despite both of us being in graduate school at that point, and went with diamonds for an aesthic reason - they set off the garnet and made it appear even more dark and lustrous.
When I finished my PhD, and got a postdoc position, with my first salary that didn't start with a "1", I wanted to adorne my wife, to gild the lily, give her something beatuiful and extravagant and utterly impractical, to make up for the years of more practical and useful gifts. She selected small diamond stud earrings... because our new baby boy kept grabbing at the long, dangling earrings she typically wore. Sensible, even in her extravagances. What a wife.
I got a real job three years ago, and we moved and bought a house. For our 10th anniversary, we were still broke from buying the house. For our 11th anniversary, our 4-week old baby let us sleep for 6 hours straight. It was wonderful. After a few raises and promotions, I've got some money now. I suggested to my wife that we get her some more jewelry, maybe some rubies or emeralds to set off her eyes. With a kiss and a hug, she handed me a stack of brochures about savings plans for college tuition, and said that there were more important things. What a wife.
With 300+ comments already attached to this
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
I also bought my wife a diamond. She does not care much for jewelry, and she would have been happy with a small conservative diamond ring. That is fine, but I wanted to do more, so I got her a really nice ring with a big rock on it. I think that the ring sometimes helps women to "see" how important they are. After all, if you are willing to spend that much money on something as useless as jewelry, just because you love her, then...
Besides I like it when people see her ring and their eyes bug out or they comment on how nice it is. (I am sure she doesn't mind either)
Yes, diamond engagement rings may be a brilliant marketing strategy for the Cartel, but it is a strategy that has worked. Deep down we all judge ourselves based on other people. If we had talked about it, my wife would have been fine with another type of stone, or a ring without a stone, but deep down she would not have been as content as she was "with" the ring.
Conformity is a fact of life.
No matter how you rationalize it, if you buy a diamond, Canadian, from DeBeers, estate sale, or otherwise, you are perpetuating this apparent tradition.
So while you think you got a got deal, and are not supporting the diamond cartels, you in fact are. Every time another women looks at your fiancees ring, the apparent traditional will be reinforced in another persons mind.
I think of it like this, and can't believe I haven't seen it anywhere else yet.
You can run around downloading warezed copies of Windows 2000 and Microsoft Office, and declare that you feel good about not giving a god damned penny to those evil Microsoft people. But every time you download and use a Windows product, every time you accept an emailed Microsoft Word document, every time you tell people you use Windows, every time you don't tell people your believes about why Microsoft is bad but use Windows anyway, during all these situations you are further perpetuating the Microsoft monopoly. And I see diamonds in the exact same way.