I would agree that the least expensive way to buy a diamond ring is in the second hand market. However, if that's not your way yo might try the following website:
http://www.diamondmarketwatch.com
--JG
12/07 |
I totally agree with most everything stated in this article, but I do think that there are some somewhat reasonable underpinnings of the broader culture around men making a commitment to women in marriage, symbolized by an expenditure of $$, as much as I find all of it annoying and an impingement on my liberty and wealth, meager as it is.
Our generation clearly wants to wish differences between the sexes away -- for good reason -- but the reality is that women have less reproductive mobility than men (fewer eggs than men have sperm, and a shorter period of time during which to procreate). As a consequence, a man leaving a woman after impregnating her does a woman a much larger disservice than a woman leaving a man. Therefore it's necessary to basically get the guy to do a whole series of things (spend money, make a legal commitment with severe consequences if he breaks it, etc) to decrease the likelihood that he is going to screw the woman over, because she is more vulnerable post conception. It ain't PC, but this is the bottom line.
The diamond industry has exploited this dynamic quite effectively. But if it were not diamonds, we would be encouraged to buy something else. In our case we bought an antique diamond ring (from turn of the century) which is more beautiful in my opinion, holds it's value better, and does nothing for the current debeers clan. But it's still a diamond.
--ted
07/16 |
Anti-feminist? The idea of a man using three months of his salary to buy a diamond ring for his fiancée in order to prove his "worthiness" is blatantly anti-masculinist. Let alone the entire concept and diamond industry being ant-human.
--BW
06/27 |
I believe that before the diamond became the big engagement stone, it was the sapphire. My close friend has a sapphire engagement ring (her husband researched cruelty free rings) and it's beautiful.
--SS
06/24 |
Well researched, but does it say anything new?
--MH
06/23 |
Unfortunately the diamond shuts everyone up. Living in the south, hubby and I are often suspected of some form of "marriage lite" for not displaying all the traditional signs of subjugation--wedding rings, same last names, mortgage, and so on. Sometimes I'd rather try to blend in than field all these questions about how committed I am.
--AM
06/23 |
I was adamant about not having a diamond for many of these reasons. Not to mention talk about wasteful... I still got some bling in the form of faux aquamarine though.
--sd
06/23 |
I got a swanky diamond engagement ring from my mother, who'd gotten it from her second husband, and gave it to the fiance who swore up and down that she wasn't materialistic. She was, she went beserk when the ring when missing, the marriage sucked and was quickly over.
In future? Fuck diamond rings, and the girls who want 'em. I see it as a most-excellent early warning system for The Wrong Girl.
Anyone who hasn't read that Atlantic article (available free online) should do so.
--SC
06/23 |
I have to say, these dispatches are the best writing on nerve. Interesting, informative, yet always funny and sexy.
Give Ken M. a raise!
--MME
06/23 |
Aw, harsh. I plan to have a secondhand stone in my hypothetical future ring; that's always seemed like a humane way to balance my social conscience and my love of shiny things. To the people who can forgo the diamond altogether: More power to you. But compromise, I think, is also good.
--LMR
06/23 |
Never wanted a diamond ring. I don't see the point, unless what others think really matters to a couple. If it does, then by all means, go for it!
--CB
06/23 |
send feedback on "History of Single Life"
back to "History of Single Life" |
