6 ms·

Wow. It's very difficult to respond to you civically. We've been together for a long long time. It is amazing what people you don't know on the internet will as

• lacampbell 10y ago
  Right, I read that as your SO dictating to you that you must give her a diamond. My apologies.
  • tukelully 10y ago
    I think you were in the right and didn't really assume as much as suggested. I got the same impression particularly because of the language chosen. "non-negotiable" implies that there was a second party to necessitate negotiation. Saying "no alternative" would come closer to describing a personal taste threshold.
    • ejcx 10y ago
      Non-negotiable was a bad choice of words. It's been very negotiable. She just really didn't want cubic because of the perception, like someone else had noted. It's just a little ridiculous to read 3 sentences a stranger types and tells them they are going to get a divorce. Bad form as far as unsolicited advice goes.
      • mythrwy 10y ago
        I think he was trying to help (even if misguided) and besides he apologized. You could be gracious about it.
        • nikatwork 10y ago
          Hey mythrwy are you pregnant, you're looking a lot bigger? And also you should dump your partner because they conform to mainstream social standards, total red flag. Oh and you're raising your kids wrong. Hey why are you offended? I was trying to help! You could be gracious about it.
          • mythrwy 10y ago
            Are you teaching me a lesson? Or trolling? Real question. Because your approach isn't very constructive. The guy apologized and maybe he thought his advice was good. I admit though it was blunt and the part about divorce was rude.
            • lacampbell 10y ago
              Ok, at this point I have to comment. For one thing, I never said he would get divorced. I said "if you get divorced". For another thing, if you are going to divulge details of your personal relationship online, you should not be surprised or get upset if someone comments about it. If it's a sensitive issue for you - keep it to yourself. This isn't your journal. I take my apology back. I did absolutely nothing wrong, and people seriously need to develop thicker skin.
              • throwaway-hn123 10y ago
                > people seriously need to develop thicker skin. You should heed your own words...
  • PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    I still read it that way. It seemed odd to me, too. I don't think you did anything wrong.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  • j45 10y ago
    I think it would be helpful if people who are giving their thoughts on a diamond can state if they've been married/engaged before.
  • uremog 10y ago
    I don't think this is about expecting a diamond. More likely that it's about the abrupt mention of divorce.
• thaumasiotes 10y ago
  > Cubic [zirconia?] is cheap and tacky. What does this mean to you? Why isn't it true of silicon carbide? I find it odd to see the simultaneous complaint that one clear cubic crystal is "cheap", but another is "overpriced". What do you want the price to be? Why?
  • chc 10y ago
    "Cheap" as a criticism is not usually about price, but about perceived value.
    • thaumasiotes 10y ago
      The value of a courtship gift is its price.
      • vacri 10y ago
        So a self-written poem is worth less than a purchased fortune cookie?
        • sjwright 10y ago
          I agree with your sentiment, but the retort would be that even a few minutes of your time has more monetary value than that cookie.
      • SeanDav 10y ago
        The diamond cartels love this kind of thinking. It should be about value, not price. With a diamond, you are not getting value (except in some rare circumstances involving unusual stones).
        • thaumasiotes 10y ago
          It is not a good thing for courtship gifts to have value; if they have too much value they are likely to be dishonestly accepted by someone who isn't interested in the giver but does want the object.
• aquadrop 10y ago
  > Cubic is cheap and tacky Why the fact it's cheap makes it tacky? There's plenty of good CZ jewelry and 99% of people won't know the difference with diamonds or moissanite if you don't tell them. Moassanite is good, but still way too much expensive than it should be. It would be fun if we chose homes same way - "Oh, that big house with large lot, fireplace, etc is perfect in every way for us, but it's 30 times cheaper than that another almost-the-same house that was built by the company which enslaves people and makes them die while building those houses. We will only have to be in mortgage for it for 1 year, so we won't buy it." Why don't use left over money to buy some trip or something like that? I don't understand why regular working people want to wear half a car on a finger...
  • kkoomi 10y ago
    The house analogy isn't really working for me.. An almost same house gives 99% of all the important value, but a non-diamond ring isn't the same since it's still a pretty big mental and societal shift one has to deal with. That does sound better, spending the saved money on 4x$2000 amazing trips together, or 2x$4000 SUPER trips. Priceless memories that would easily be higher value than a nice rock.
  • zeroer 10y ago
    The problem with CZ is that it absorbs oil and dirt from the surroundings, so that within a couple years of regular use it's noticeably cloudy. Though I would say for the first year, it's a perfectly good substitute for diamond.
  • Sacho 10y ago
    The house analogy doesn't quite work for me. Housing prices vary wildly by their location. Some of it is due to practical reasons(urban centre, close to work), but some of it is clearly just social posturing(buying a house in a posh neighbourhood).
• xahrepap 10y ago
  We put cubic in my wife's ring when we got engaged nearly a decade ago. No one has ever noticed and most people talk about how gorgeous her stone is and how much it must have cost :)
• aianus 10y ago
  > There was no alternative before this article. You know, you don't need an engagement ring to get married. Much less one with a shiny stone of any kind.
  • sangnoir 10y ago
    > You know, you don't need an engagement ring to get married You also need a partner who wants to get married to you. Where does HN get it's perfectly compatible partners from? A difference in opinion is not unexpected - not everyone is equally pragmatic. Also,things that are considered "deal-breakers" are far from universal.
    • mirimir 10y ago
      So why does only one partner get a ring? Why, typically, the female one? In same-sex marriages, how do partners determine who gets the ring? Flip a coin? Damn.
      • sangnoir 10y ago
        The answer to all your questions is: it depends on the partners and what they agree to. But on the most part, it is driven by cultural momentum - the same reason men's formal clothing includes a tie. One could equally argue "One does not need to wear a tie to go to work", but there are people who love ties and how they look wearing them.
        • mirimir 10y ago
          Ties = strangulation devices ;)
    • cmdrfred 10y ago
      "Where does HN get it's perfectly compatible partners from?" Truth is women in our culture are still somewhat of a status symbol. My wife is essentially perfectly compatible with me that was achieved by not simply selecting the most physically attractive person who would marry me but instead finding someone who actually is a decent human being. Her ring cost under 50 dollars. She wants me to spend the short time we all have on earth with her, not working to buy her shiny rocks, a overvalued house or an expensive car so she can impress her friends. I wouldn't have it any other way.
• coldtea 10y ago
  >There was no alternative before this article. There was always the alternative: I don't care about rings and diamonds and such BS, I care about us being together. Which is not that uncommon (even in the US) as people here make it out to be. Not everybody goes for a big wedding either -- or even a wedding at all. Also, as another commenter pointed out, "non negotiable" (as in: I want my diamond ring or we're not getting married") and "no alternative" (as in: we both want to buy the ring, and don't care for it being expensive, but there's no good replacement for a real diamond) is a different thing.
• jdietrich 10y ago
  CZ is a very satisfactory diamond simulant. A $10 CZ is almost impossible to distinguish visually from a $10,000 diamond - unless you're a very skilled grader, you really can't tell the difference without a thermal tester or a refractometer. The visual giveaway is that it's too good - the stones are perfectly clear, perfectly colourless and have exceptional fire. CZ grades better than the very best diamonds. When it was introduced in the 1970s, it sent shockwaves through the gem trade. CZ is a bit less durable than diamond (8 vs 10 mohs hardness, some porosity), but it's so cheap that you can have the stone replaced if it starts to show signs of wear. Moissanite is a very fine simulant, but to my mind, the main advantage over CZ is that it's more expensive. CZ is implausibly cheap for a high-quality diamond simulant.
  • jsjohnst 10y ago
    Maybe I'm the exception to the rule, but I've been able to consistently spot a CZ, even from a distance. I thought maybe it was just the average cut of a CZ, but doing a blind comparison between similar quality cuts of CZ and diamonds with a jeweler friend, I was able to pick out the CZ first try every time.