3 ms·
That's a great original idea, but it's still predicated on the assumption that more money = more love, that the purpose of the ring is to impress others, and th
by SerisCo 11y ago
That's a great original idea, but it's still predicated on the assumption that more money = more love, that the purpose of the ring is to impress others, and that there's reason to be ashamed of a $500 ring.
It's sad that American culture assumes that the man who spends $10K on a ring loves his fiancée more than the man who spends $500.
Several companies that produce diamond alternatives, such as lab-grown diamonds and silicon carbide stones, are growing and rapidly expanding their product lines. I think the reason for this is that people are questioning the wisdom of spending a ton of money because marketing campaign have told them they must if they love their partners.
- rayiner 11y ago> It's sad that American culture assumes that the man who spends $10K on a ring loves his fiancée more than the man who spends $500. That presupposes that marriage is solely about love, which is itself an odd and mostly western concept. Marriage is, just as much, an economic arrangement in which people make often very significant sacrifices in order to create a household and potentially raise and support children. It necessarily entails a significant commitment on both sides, including the commitment to stick with each other in the case of hardship or sickness. When you account for that aspect of marriage, it makes total sense to require some showing of financial wherewithal.
- SerisCo 11y agoAbsolutely, there are considerations other than simply love. And to that point, I would argue that if a person values "financial wherewithal" in a partner, they wouldn't require the partner to drop tens of thousands of dollars on a fun but non-essential trinket.