Smart Couples Getting Married Agree On A "Diamond"
See here. That way, they'll maybe have a downpayment instead of a "downpayment."
Me? All my jewelry's plastic and paste, the bigger the better.
"A girl's best friend," in my mind? Her brain. The part of her she uses to recognize that diamonds are very expensive, heavily marketed, worthless bullshit.
(And, by the way, here's how diamonds became diamonds, in the commercial sense.)
Nothing says I love you like carbon melted and compressed at high temperatures and pressures millions of years ago and dug out of the ground by slave labor and fought to the death over by millions.
Why not just slit a childs throat over a bowl of sugar?
Git you blood and your carbon, few people die in the long run and you wont have to spend a shitlaod of money on glass with the 'right' chemical structure
lujlp at March 30, 2010 12:11 AM
What's wrong with you, Amy? Don't you know how useful diamonds are? You have a ready made glass cutter at hand! What happens if you get stuck in a phone booth with no way out? Or suppose you're driving and your car plunges into the river or the sea and you need to cut your way out of a window!
Shocking that you would miss the value of having a diamond (literally) at hand.
(Or course, even if these unlikely scenarios ever did occur, a cubic zirconia will also cut glass.)
Patrick at March 30, 2010 12:24 AM
I sincerely admire your thinking on this, while recognizing that women experience all sorts of very real feeling from expressive symbols like jewelry and flowers that I just don't comprehend, because I'm male and a ninny besides.
Sometimes one wonders if this stuff ever meant anything to women who really had their shit together. This came to me when walking through the Art Institute of Chicago a few years ago.
(Yes, I posted that video link once before.)
It's one of the sweetest museums in the world. When Chicago (and America) really started to rock as an financial power, there were all these socialite industrialists on Lake Michigan who were travelling the globe to collect fascinating pieces. So a lot of the things you see on the floor, exquisite things, are listed as (for example) "Gift of the Madalyn & Edgar Goobershell Collection, 1927" or "On permanent loan from the Estate of Gretchen and Victor Widgetsmith, 1922."
And so you try to imagine what all these wealthy American couples, people with great taste and expertise in foreign cultural artifacts, were like. Would they have been fun to hang out with, if approached with a 21st century sensibility?
I'm sure that a lot of them were snots, and they probably spent a lot of their money throwing parties on Lakeshore Drive to which their Negro friends were not invited... And worse. I'm sure the women owned lots of nice jewelry.
On the other hand, maybe they didn't worry about that stuff early in the marriages, when the husbands (usually) were getting their businesses into gear. Maybe the women were sensible about their demands for showy expressions of appreciation, delaying them until the fortunes were in place... And then insisting, once the wealth was secure, that time and resources be given to these collections, eventually to be passed to the larger community.
Madalyn and Gretchen have their names on those cards for a reason.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 30, 2010 12:37 AM
A diamond is forever? I think they have it confused with herpes.
Patrick at March 30, 2010 12:57 AM
while recognizing that women experience all sorts of very real feeling from expressive symbols like jewelry and flowers that I just don't comprehend, because I'm male and a ninny besides.
I do think that diamond engagement rings are so ingrained in the culture that a lot of women want one because that's "what you do." I'm a big proponent of knowing the reasons behind desires and actions, so I know that if I get married, I do not want an engagement ring. It makes no difference to me to have one, so why bother with the expense? I tend to go more for funky costume stuff anyway. And while I think flowers are pretty, they're a cop-out gift to me, something that you don't have to put any thought into. Just not a fan of some of the symbolic traditions, I guess. I'd rather have something small that I needed and my guy remembered, like a new pack of Post-Its or something.
That said, I don't feel rancor toward those who want engagement rings, except for the gift-grubbers who set a minimum price, like this woman. I love Prudie's advice there: "If you can't painlessly write a check for a ring, you can't afford it." Those kinds of women are at the extremes, though (I hope), so I don't begrudge other women their traditions, as long as they know why they want them.
Crid, I wouldn't have pegged you for a ninny.
NumberSix at March 30, 2010 12:58 AM
What happens if you get stuck in a phone booth with no way out?
Then she should tell Superman to put his pants back on and take care of it.
NumberSix at March 30, 2010 1:00 AM
I would. And did. Years ago. (I couldn't resist.)
Patrick at March 30, 2010 1:27 AM
Moissanite (sp?) is the way to go. My wedding ring (no engagement ring) is a man's band I had cut down, with a 1/2 carat diamond flush-mounted in a channel on top. I'm going to have anniversary bands made to flank it, at some point, with flat-mounted moissanite. Flat, because I'm too active and clumsy to have something that sticks out, as I reminded myself the other day when I scraped my hand-ring included-down the brick side of my house while attempting to dig up a rose bush.
I adore silver, and big semiprecious stones, when I have occasion to actually wear jewelry.
momof4 at March 30, 2010 4:50 AM
I guess it's not such a big deal. I didn't get married until I was 30. I took my fiancée to pick out her own engagement ring. Not that big of a gamble, really, as she's never been extravagant. I had a figure in my head of how much I was ready to spend, and the diamond ring she picked came well under that, so everybody was happy.
My eldest daughter's engagement ring doesn't have a diamond at all, but she sure was proud, taking a picture of her ringed hand with her camera phone and sending it to everyone she knew. On the other extreme was one of my wife's unmarried female friends, who was not only seeking (rather desperately) a husband, but one who could afford a very expensive diamond she'd already picked out!
old rpm daddy at March 30, 2010 4:55 AM
And the huge rings are ugly-. We became engaged while in grad school in Ann Arbor, so an expensive diamond was out of the question, and supporting apartheid didn't feel right. We went to a little antique shop in Nickels Arcade and found a lovely Art Deco sapphire ring for $100.
People should spend more time and effort on their relationship, and less on a guady ring and huge wedding. Often couples are still paying off the caterers when they hire a divorce layer.
Ruth at March 30, 2010 5:32 AM
That was "lawyer".
Ruth at March 30, 2010 5:49 AM
You have a ready made glass cutter at hand!
I do. His name's Gregg.
Once, his friend Jay asked him if I know how to change a tire (meaning, as opposed to having Gregg do it). Gregg told me. I laughed. My answer: "Sure I do - call AAA."
As for what Crid writes: "I sincerely admire your thinking on this, while recognizing that women experience all sorts of very real feeling from expressive symbols like jewelry and flowers that I just don't comprehend, because I'm male and a ninny besides."
I'll let Satoshi Kanazawa explain:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200805/why-are-diamonds-girl-s-best-friend
Interesting piece - go read the whole thing, as GR would say.
Amy Alkon at March 30, 2010 6:11 AM
About 3 years ago, BF gave me a 1/2 carat tanzanite ring, set in silver, because I told him I didn't want a diamond. Still don't. For Yule this past year, though, he gave me this ring:
http://www.stauer.com/item/Tanzanite-Dinner-Ring/W5052%2005/
(Of course, I love it, but I also told him that it's more than enough; I don't need any other ring from him, or any other piece of jewelery, for that matter, ever.)
Flynne at March 30, 2010 6:14 AM
My engagement ring is a white gold band with an aquamarine (my birthstone) and peridot (his birthstone), with small diamond chips in the middle (the birthstone of April, when we are getting married). The symbolism appeals to me, and it was well under what he was expecting to pay. He actually felt bad about spending so little, I guess because all his friends' wives have big diamonds.
Also, I love cut flowers, but they don't have to cost a lot. The deli down the block has a nice bunch for $8.
MonicaP at March 30, 2010 6:58 AM
I had a beautiful engagement ring, a diamond wedding band, and a wedding that cost close to $100,00 back in 1991. I'm a single mother with 3 kids and would give anything to jump into the way back machine and put that money into some investment for myself for later on! People think that I'm bitter when I tell them that all of that is a waste, but I just realize that to spend that kind of money on one day screws up the priorities and the idea that its a marriage and not just a wedding.
Kristen at March 30, 2010 7:12 AM
> Diamonds make excellent courtship gifts
Oh I get all that theoretically stuff, but it's irrelevant. You never know what parts of this that stuff a woman's going to take seriously.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 30, 2010 8:28 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/30/smart_couples_g.html#comment-1705422">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Heavy cultural and hard-wired push for women to want the diamonds - you have to consciously question this stuff.
Amy Alkon at March 30, 2010 8:43 AM
Cool article (Satoshi Kanazawa), but the last paragraph confused my male brain (the words "for men" in italics):
"The researchers note that such extravagant gifts have the added benefit for men of deterring “gold diggers,” women who promise to mate in exchange for a gift but then desert without mating after receiving it."
How does it serve as a deterrent?
BJR at March 30, 2010 9:02 AM
That's a pretty ring, Flynne.
I wouldn't call diamonds completely useless. As the hardest substance on the planet, they do have uses, although its usefulness is limited and not likely to be encountered by the average person, unless they're in the business of glass cutting or making a stylus of some kind.
Patrick at March 30, 2010 9:42 AM
Guy named Kim du Toit used to have a blog, and once wrote about his uncle who was in the self-described diamond racket; asked him once why he called it that and got the full rundown.
Talk about a racket...
Firehand at March 30, 2010 10:20 AM
Love this article. I'm personally not a fan of diamonds. After many years studying the Africa societies, I think the argument of "conflict-free" diamonds is hilarious. There's no easy way to track freshly produced diamonds. Too much blood shed for something that is not only expensive, but also not rare. I do have a real diamond engagement ring (small within our budget, purchased second-hand) and very large "diamond" earrings. Love them both.
Nicole G at March 30, 2010 12:11 PM
I'm reminded of an epiode of "Yes dear" The wife found out her husband had purchased her engagemnt ring before he met her.
Can rememebr if the guy bought it for a previous girl or if he was the plan ahead type. Anyway she watnted a new one, so he went out and bought her one that look exactly like the one she had, it was "new" and she said she liked the one she had at the time.
Ofcourse the guy caught hell for it, got this huge speech about sentamentality, uniquness, true love, and all sorts of other crap. Cut to the next day and the wife is talking with her sister recaping the speech she gave her husband and the sister says "so it better be huge".
Husband walks in gives her the ring, which he designed himself full of yellow and blue dimoned chips because that was the school colors of the college they met at. Finishs off the presentation that the jewler promised he would never sell aother ring like that gaurenteed
lujlp at March 30, 2010 2:05 PM
>>"The researchers note that such extravagant gifts have the added benefit for men of deterring “gold diggers,” women who promise to mate in exchange for a gift but then desert without mating after receiving it."
>>How does it serve as a deterrent?
Good question. The only thing I can come up with is you get rid of her with a foolishly expensive gift. She grabs it and is gone, letting you begin to regain financial health, instead of staying around and totally and permanently destroying you financially with c/s and alimony so you go to your grave in total poverty.
irlandes at March 30, 2010 2:45 PM
>>People think that I'm bitter when I tell them that all of that is a waste, but I just realize that to spend that kind of money on one day screws up the priorities and the idea that its a marriage and not just a wedding.
Exactly, Kristen. Some years ago, a lawyer kept records on costs of the wedding for those who divorced. He found out the more expensive the wedding, the more likely they would divorce. They (or she?) were so engrossed in the wedding they totally forgot this was a marriage with a live human being, and never did get into the marriage as such.
irlandes at March 30, 2010 2:50 PM
I like my diamond. It's from a store that doesn't use blood diamonds. It's got little emeralds on each side.
I liked my wedding. It was a good time.
None of these were necessities. They were just flowers on the icing on the cake. But it's nice to have flowers on your cake!
NicoleK at March 30, 2010 3:51 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/30/smart_couples_g.html#comment-1705520">comment from NicoleKI like chocolate on my cake and flowers on my scarf.
Amy Alkon at March 30, 2010 3:59 PM
Thanks for highlighting this.
Symbolism is not easily dispelled, however - especially when combined with social pressure similar to that which creates the diamond!
When we got engaged I went to a friend who's family was in the business (47th street in Manhattan).
He set me straight - all the clarity stuff is BS. I got an inexpensive, nice looking stone through him and my wife picked out a setting.
So we satisfied the symbolic impulse with a lotta money left over for more important things.
A few years later it was stolen. So far, no big pressure to replace it - she is more interested in more wearable jewelry, doesn't like rings.
If I had to do it over I'd probably go for a birthstone ring instead of the diamond.
Ben-David at March 30, 2010 5:20 PM
Interesting tidbit: Several years after the De Beers cartel successfully managed to convince Americans that a diamond was absolutely necessary for an engagement ring, it did some follow-up research to try to boost sales further. The research determined that men, on average, spent more on engagement rings when they shopped for them alone than they did when they shopped with their prospective fiancees. And so was born the marketing push for surprise engagement rings (which I am convinced is responsible for this insane idea that you aren't supposed to talk about getting married before the guy totally shocks the woman with a proposal, sigh). Yes, women may like shiny things, but most women are perfectly content to make tradeoffs in regard to their rings -- white gold instead of platinum, smaller stones, lab-created diamonds, whatever -- as long as they're happy with the look. Moral of the story: If you're a guy planning on getting engaged, and there will be an engagement ring, take your girlfriend with you to look around.
I like chocolate on my cake
As do all right-thinking people, which is what groom's cake is for.
I have a "conflict-free" diamond engagement ring that my fiance could well afford to buy and enjoyed buying me (have no idea how much it costs, just that it was within his budget). I really, really, really wonder, though, how women with the giant diamond rings manage to go throughout their daily tasks. The diamond in my ring is about 1 carat, and anything larger would seriously get in my way. This is obviously a First World problem, of course! But yes, those big diamonds are just as silly as you thought they were.
marion at March 30, 2010 9:57 PM
which I am convinced is responsible for this insane idea that you aren't supposed to talk about getting married before the guy totally shocks the woman with a proposal, sigh
I hate that idea, too, marion. It's just so full of pretense that it's ridiculous. Those "surprise" proposals seem to come after many months of not-so-subtle "hints" like leaving bridal magazines laying around and mentioning that your five best friends really look great in fall colors. Feigned shock just pisses me off. I was listening to the radio a while back (can't for the life of me remember which station or if it was a syndicated program, sorry) and a guy called in to tell the DJs he wanted to propose to his girlfriend on the air, so they called her. He asked her to marry him and her response was that they'd only been dating a month or so and he was delusional to think they were ready to get married. That's what happens in a real surprise proposal. Mature people discuss things before committing. The wish for a perfect, romantic, out-of-the-blue proposal seems tied to those princess fantasies that Amy hates.
Getting back to the diamonds, I also seriously dislike when women announce their engagements by showing off the ring. I have no problem with oohing and aahing over pretty things, but for the love of everything holy just say "Steve and I are engaged" before thrusting out your hand to show the ring. Maybe it's not a huge thing for other people, but I think the happy news is the engagement, and it just happens to come with jewelry, not the other way around. A current culprit of this is those "He went to Jared" commercials. A thirteen-letter phrase for marriage proposal? "He went to Jared" is not the correct answer.
NumberSix at March 30, 2010 10:48 PM
I think you should talk about it. I am also a fan of-once the discussion has been made-the man making an effort to find a neat way to actually ask for your hand, with the prepicked ring if desired. So that can be a little bit of a surprise-which is how most couples do it I think. Didn't happen for me though. We were heading to Vegas, we thought hey-why not marry while there!
momof4 at March 31, 2010 5:50 AM
"Sure I do - call AAA."
That works great when you're on Santa Monica at La Brea, but if you happen to be on the Upper Peninsula at night in spotty cell range, you might wish you learned.
One of the first things I will teach my niece when she starts driving is how to change a flat.
If you bet your well-being on a machine, then knowing some basic maintenance and fixes for common problems with that machine seems like the smart thing to do, XX or XY.
Scott at March 31, 2010 7:16 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/30/smart_couples_g.html#comment-1705666">comment from Scott"Sure I do - call AAA." That works great when you're on Santa Monica at La Brea, but if you happen to be on the Upper Peninsula at night in spotty cell range, you might wish you learned
I'm a girl who gets edgy if she's more than 20 feet away from pavement, and who makes a beeline for the Left Bank whenever possible, so that's not likely to happen!
PS I don't mean the left riverbank, either.
It's a waste of time for me to spend even five minutes of my time learning auto mechanics of even the most basic kind. I go to a full-service station from time to time, give them a $5, and they look under my hood at fluids, fill my tires, etc.
Amy Alkon at March 31, 2010 7:53 AM
I must confess that I insisted on splurging for an engagement ring for my wife. We had already agreed to become engaged beforehand. We also agreed that uniqueness and individuality were more important than cost or size; I wasn't going to just run off and get her a store-bought ring that's just like every other one.
A FOAF was a dealer in wholesale, unmounted diamonds. He came over one day and we had a look through some of his inventory. Among his stash were some antique diamonds that were cut in a style called "mine cut". It was popular in the early 20th century. You can't get mine-cut diamonds these days because the jewelers who knew how to do it are all long gone. We agreed on a price and bought the diamond. We then found a jeweler who would make a custom setting for it, and that became her engagement ring. Just for the hell of it, we then went through the whole silly business of going out to dinner and the whole down-on-bended-knee thing. It was a hit with the other diners, who didn't know that we had already agreed to be engaged.
Everyone loves her ring. When you look directly down on the top of a mine-cut diamond, you can see all the way through it to the mounting. It's quite unique.
Cousin Dave at March 31, 2010 8:04 AM
This ads nothing substantive to the conversation, but sounds like fun:
http://post-gazette.com/pg/10091/1047250-100.stm
Michelle at April 1, 2010 7:15 AM
"This adds"
Michelle at April 1, 2010 7:16 AM
I remember one of the old Bloom County strips wrt diamonds...the takeaway was the line 'heck, who needs a life enriching experience when you can have a small chip of glass-like material?'
model_1066 at April 1, 2010 12:35 PM
You know, when my husband and I got married he had the common sense to buy a small ring that would not add to our now common debt. It was impractical to us at the time. Now that we've been married for 20 years, I asked him for a larger ring as a token of the longevity of our marriage. It is totally symbolic to me, although I guess you could also consider it an investment. I think in the old days women needed to have a bit of financial security and having a big diamond was a way to establish that.
And I don't buy diamonds that are mined by poor African children...
Diana at April 1, 2010 2:06 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/30/smart_couples_g.html#comment-1705923">comment from DianaAnd I don't buy diamonds that are mined by poor African children...
I'm the same way about my rhinestones, although I think there's probably a good chance they were installed by Chinese people in rather poor conditions in factories.
Amy Alkon at April 1, 2010 2:13 PM
I think in the old days women needed to have a bit of financial security and having a big diamond was a way to establish that.
In the old days, an engagement ring was collateral. The discovery of South African diamond mines in the late 19th century meant people other than royalty could afford to give diamonds. The ring was traditionally the bride-to-be's to keep should the groom back out on his promise to marry her (and thus take care of her for life). Engagement rings (and bracelets, and other things) had been used long before this, but diamonds made the rings more valuable, so the woman would have the ring to keep if the engagement went south.
NumberSix at April 1, 2010 8:32 PM
Leave a comment