4 ms·

What articles like this miss is that useless products like diamonds actually serve a real need: they enable signalling of commitment. Especially if it costs sev

What articles like this miss is that useless products like diamonds actually serve a real need: they enable signalling of commitment. Especially if it costs several months of income of a potential partner, it might be a reasonable indicator for a serious investment in the relationship. You can not achieve the same effect by buying something useful instead, because then the money would be spent on something useful, not on proving commitment. Not saying it is the only way to prove commitment, but "it's all just marketing" doesn't catch the whole story imo.

lotsofpulp 11y ago
Generations before me, including my parents, didn't need to buy something worth a considerable portion of one's disposable income to display commitment. It's all about egos, and the feeling a woman gets about the ability of her partner to provide an expensive trinket, especially to show off to friends and display status. It's a terrible misuse of funds at the beginning of a couple's journey, one that could prove far more productive as an investment somewhere.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- facepalm 11y ago
  I am not advocating diamonds, just pointing out that they serve a need. Generations before us had a very different way of getting into relationships. Maybe our modern lifestyle made diamonds more important. I am also not saying that diamonds are unavoidable. Edit: somebody else posted a more educated comment. Prior to 1935, apparently women were entitled to compensation when an engagement was broken off - http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~siow/332/rings.pdf http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~siow/332/rings.pdf
  - lotsofpulp 11y ago
    Compensation actually makes sense and is useful after receiving it. As diamonds are an extremely poor store of value, the only purpose it provides is a show of status, as far as I can deduce.
    - nostrebored 11y ago
      Because investing in something that's only useful to the two of you doesn't create a store of value in your relationship? Think of it as a sunk cost if you're a cynic, or literally a monetary non refundable deposit into your relationship otherwise.
  - hueving 11y ago
    Are you advocating that women cannot care for themselves and we need to consider sexist traditions of men being forced to provide for them in the case of a failed engagement?
tomp 11y ago
> diamonds actually serve a real need: they enable signalling of commitment This statement is logically inconsistent with reality. If "signalling of commitment" was a real need, why would only one party need to provide this signal? And not just one party (random), but a specific party (predetermined) - the man. You're right, however, that in the broader context, diamonds are an honest signal of affluence - by buying expensive, but useless stuff (conspicuous consumption) we send a strong signal about how much we can afford and how rich(-er) we are.
- hammock 11y ago
  Why does the male peacock have a colorful tail and the female doesn't?
  - tomp 11y ago
    I mean, if we're reducing people to animals, we might as well ask, why does a new alpha male kill offspring of previous alpha males? In the past, women had to have a dowry to get married. There was probably a reason for that (economic or market reason, I guess). It probably wasn't a very good reason, and likely isn't very relevant today.
    - infinite8s 11y ago
      Dowries are still required in many cultures today, particularly rural ones.
    - facepalm 11y ago
      What makes you think it wasn't a very good reason? I think most problems of that kind boil down to economic issues. In some cases traditions might live longer than necessary (original reason has ceased to exist), which is another problem.
      - tomp 11y ago
        > I think most problems of that kind boil down to economic issues. Probably, yes. But whatever "economic" reasons there are, the cultural reasons were probably much more powerful. Maybe men were more scarce in the past than women. Wars might have accounted for that, but on the other hand, men have longer "expiration date" (when it comes to mating). Also, if men were so much rarer, why didn't polygamy develop? You could claim that women are weaker, so they were less "useful" in the past (when most labor was manual) and hence less valuable. On the other hand, without a woman, there would be no next generation, so each man needed a woman to ensure his survival in old age. These are the most obvious justifications I could come up with, and they don't sound very convincing. Let me know if you can think of any more.
teekert 11y ago
You could invest it in a house together? Or a savings account for your children?
NEDM64 11y ago
While I 100% agree with your pragmatic view. It's bad that these commitment indicators are used to finance conflicts.
rpgmaker 11y ago
The diamond obsession in the US doesn't seem very healthy though.
dyeje 11y ago
But it is all just marketing. Before 1938 no one cared about diamonds, and people were able to show commitment just fine. If I'm not mistaken, the divorce rate was also significantly lower.
- facepalm 11y ago
  Hooking up might have worked very differently in 1938, though. I don't think relationships and marriage were the same as today. Maybe because we have more freedom in our relationships now, we need diamonds. As an extreme case, take a culture were arranged marriages are the norm. Then it seems obvious that you wouldn't need diamonds because you wouldn't have much of a choice to not commit to the relationship anyway. I don't know enough about 1938 to make a proper comparison, though. Edit: somebody else posted a more educated comment. Prior to 1935, apparently women were entitled to compensation when an engagement was broken off - http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~siow/332/rings.pdf http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~siow/332/rings.pdf
- BostonEnginerd 11y ago
  The divorce rate was likely lower for many reasons not involving diamonds.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    Marriages may have ended at a faster rate, but due to greater mortality, maybe?
- lmm 11y ago
  Isn't the argument the opposite direction? Before 1938 the divorce rate was significantly lower, so no-one needed to show commitment and no-one cared about diamonds.
msvan 11y ago
(Meta: This comment is not inflammatory, poorly written or gratuitously negative. Disagreement ≠ downvote)
enlightenedfool 11y ago
You seem to be the dream consumer for their marketers :-)
mcv 11y ago
I've got a wedding tattoo. That's more permanent than any ring, and a better proof of commitment, at much less cost. Though the best proof of commitment would be to invest in and provide for a common future. Buy a house, take care of kids, etc. That's real commitment, not just some hollow symbol at extravagant cost. But if you do want extravagant expense as proof of your commitment, you could also spend it on the wedding itself. Why not go for a $10K wedding instead of a $10K ring?

lotsofpulp 11y ago

Generations before me, including my parents, didn't need to buy something worth a considerable portion of one's disposable income to display commitment. It's all about egos, and the feeling a woman gets about the ability of her partner to provide an expensive trinket, especially to show off to friends and display status. It's a terrible misuse of funds at the beginning of a couple's journey, one that could prove far more productive as an investment somewhere.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
facepalm 11y ago
I am not advocating diamonds, just pointing out that they serve a need. Generations before us had a very different way of getting into relationships. Maybe our modern lifestyle made diamonds more important. I am also not saying that diamonds are unavoidable. Edit: somebody else posted a more educated comment. Prior to 1935, apparently women were entitled to compensation when an engagement was broken off - http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~siow/332/rings.pdf http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~siow/332/rings.pdf
- lotsofpulp 11y ago
  Compensation actually makes sense and is useful after receiving it. As diamonds are an extremely poor store of value, the only purpose it provides is a show of status, as far as I can deduce.
  - nostrebored 11y ago
    Because investing in something that's only useful to the two of you doesn't create a store of value in your relationship? Think of it as a sunk cost if you're a cynic, or literally a monetary non refundable deposit into your relationship otherwise.
- hueving 11y ago
  Are you advocating that women cannot care for themselves and we need to consider sexist traditions of men being forced to provide for them in the case of a failed engagement?

tomp 11y ago

> diamonds actually serve a real need: they enable signalling of commitment This statement is logically inconsistent with reality. If "signalling of commitment" was a real need, why would only one party need to provide this signal? And not just one party (random), but a specific party (predetermined) - the man. You're right, however, that in the broader context, diamonds are an honest signal of affluence - by buying expensive, but useless stuff (conspicuous consumption) we send a strong signal about how much we can afford and how rich(-er) we are.

hammock 11y ago
Why does the male peacock have a colorful tail and the female doesn't?
- tomp 11y ago
  I mean, if we're reducing people to animals, we might as well ask, why does a new alpha male kill offspring of previous alpha males? In the past, women had to have a dowry to get married. There was probably a reason for that (economic or market reason, I guess). It probably wasn't a very good reason, and likely isn't very relevant today.
  - infinite8s 11y ago
    Dowries are still required in many cultures today, particularly rural ones.
  - facepalm 11y ago
    What makes you think it wasn't a very good reason? I think most problems of that kind boil down to economic issues. In some cases traditions might live longer than necessary (original reason has ceased to exist), which is another problem.
    - tomp 11y ago
      > I think most problems of that kind boil down to economic issues. Probably, yes. But whatever "economic" reasons there are, the cultural reasons were probably much more powerful. Maybe men were more scarce in the past than women. Wars might have accounted for that, but on the other hand, men have longer "expiration date" (when it comes to mating). Also, if men were so much rarer, why didn't polygamy develop? You could claim that women are weaker, so they were less "useful" in the past (when most labor was manual) and hence less valuable. On the other hand, without a woman, there would be no next generation, so each man needed a woman to ensure his survival in old age. These are the most obvious justifications I could come up with, and they don't sound very convincing. Let me know if you can think of any more.

teekert 11y ago

You could invest it in a house together? Or a savings account for your children?

NEDM64 11y ago

While I 100% agree with your pragmatic view. It's bad that these commitment indicators are used to finance conflicts.

rpgmaker 11y ago

The diamond obsession in the US doesn't seem very healthy though.

dyeje 11y ago

But it is all just marketing. Before 1938 no one cared about diamonds, and people were able to show commitment just fine. If I'm not mistaken, the divorce rate was also significantly lower.

facepalm 11y ago
Hooking up might have worked very differently in 1938, though. I don't think relationships and marriage were the same as today. Maybe because we have more freedom in our relationships now, we need diamonds. As an extreme case, take a culture were arranged marriages are the norm. Then it seems obvious that you wouldn't need diamonds because you wouldn't have much of a choice to not commit to the relationship anyway. I don't know enough about 1938 to make a proper comparison, though. Edit: somebody else posted a more educated comment. Prior to 1935, apparently women were entitled to compensation when an engagement was broken off - http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~siow/332/rings.pdf http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~siow/332/rings.pdf
BostonEnginerd 11y ago
The divorce rate was likely lower for many reasons not involving diamonds.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  Marriages may have ended at a faster rate, but due to greater mortality, maybe?
lmm 11y ago
Isn't the argument the opposite direction? Before 1938 the divorce rate was significantly lower, so no-one needed to show commitment and no-one cared about diamonds.

msvan 11y ago

(Meta: This comment is not inflammatory, poorly written or gratuitously negative. Disagreement ≠ downvote)

enlightenedfool 11y ago

You seem to be the dream consumer for their marketers :-)

mcv 11y ago

I've got a wedding tattoo. That's more permanent than any ring, and a better proof of commitment, at much less cost. Though the best proof of commitment would be to invest in and provide for a common future. Buy a house, take care of kids, etc. That's real commitment, not just some hollow symbol at extravagant cost. But if you do want extravagant expense as proof of your commitment, you could also spend it on the wedding itself. Why not go for a $10K wedding instead of a $10K ring?