4 ms·

> It seems some posters here are missing an important point about engagement rings: they are a gesture of financial commitment. And all this time I thought it

> It seems some posters here are missing an important point about engagement rings: they are a gesture of financial commitment. And all this time I thought it was to indicate a commitment to marriage. > The expensive price tag is a feature, not a bug... Feature? For who? The diamond industry?

NickBusey 7y ago
Yea, not sure how this is a feature. I want to prove my loyalty so I'll waste a bunch of what will soon be your money buying you a temporary ring? I made an engagement ring from a coconut husk in about ten seconds and it did the trick just fine. No need to spend any money really, let alone the "three month's pay" rule of thumb that gets tossed around.
- usuallymatt 7y ago
  Agreed and anyway the 3 months pay thing was part of DeBeers advertising campaign way back when.
- seventhtiger 7y ago
  In many cultures the purpose of jewelry is to give the woman wealth independent of the husband. When she is a housewife with much less earning potential she will be completely dependent, and so the gifts of gold mitigate that. Diamond though are a terrible way to store wealth. As soon as you walk out of the store they lose significant value, and they will only depreciate.
Balgair 7y ago
>> The expensive price tag is a feature, not a bug... >Feature? For who? The diamond industry? Each couple is a world unto themselves, as such each is very different and equally unique. However, when it comes to large engagement stones like diamonds, the rings can generally serve three functions: 1) as a flaunting of the wealth of the suitor and the bride-to-be. Generally, you see this with people that are more about 'image' than 'substance'. People like the current US President who is notorious for his use of gold leaf, people that are in 'society' and need to be seen, people in the jewelry industry itself that can use the ring as an advertisement, etc. 2) as a psuedo-dowery for the marriage and the bride-to-be. Essentially, the suitor is 'pot committed', to borrow a poker term, and has a higher likelyhood of actually making it to the wedding as he has put a 'down-payment' on the bride-to-be. This is an extremely regressive stance on marriage, but it persists all the same. The bride-to-be also now has a lump-sum of money that that ring can be pawned off for in case the marriage is not preformed. Traditionally, if the ring was expensive enough, the couple could then start having intercourse and risk pregnancy as the bride-to-be could be assured that the suitor was now serious about marriage and would not run off after intercourse. 3) as a sign to others in society that they share the same values system and can be relied upon to perpeuate the culture too. This is something of a deal in religious communities and in family groups. By putting a lot of money up for such a ring, the couple shows that they are financially committed to the value system of others. This is also known as 'tradition'.
- triangleman 7y ago
  That's all well and good but why do the men have to pay the dowry? Used to be the woman's family was responsible for that, now they just have to pay for the wedding!

NickBusey 7y ago

Yea, not sure how this is a feature. I want to prove my loyalty so I'll waste a bunch of what will soon be your money buying you a temporary ring? I made an engagement ring from a coconut husk in about ten seconds and it did the trick just fine. No need to spend any money really, let alone the "three month's pay" rule of thumb that gets tossed around.

usuallymatt 7y ago
Agreed and anyway the 3 months pay thing was part of DeBeers advertising campaign way back when.
seventhtiger 7y ago
In many cultures the purpose of jewelry is to give the woman wealth independent of the husband. When she is a housewife with much less earning potential she will be completely dependent, and so the gifts of gold mitigate that. Diamond though are a terrible way to store wealth. As soon as you walk out of the store they lose significant value, and they will only depreciate.

Balgair 7y ago

>> The expensive price tag is a feature, not a bug... >Feature? For who? The diamond industry? Each couple is a world unto themselves, as such each is very different and equally unique. However, when it comes to large engagement stones like diamonds, the rings can generally serve three functions: 1) as a flaunting of the wealth of the suitor and the bride-to-be. Generally, you see this with people that are more about 'image' than 'substance'. People like the current US President who is notorious for his use of gold leaf, people that are in 'society' and need to be seen, people in the jewelry industry itself that can use the ring as an advertisement, etc. 2) as a psuedo-dowery for the marriage and the bride-to-be. Essentially, the suitor is 'pot committed', to borrow a poker term, and has a higher likelyhood of actually making it to the wedding as he has put a 'down-payment' on the bride-to-be. This is an extremely regressive stance on marriage, but it persists all the same. The bride-to-be also now has a lump-sum of money that that ring can be pawned off for in case the marriage is not preformed. Traditionally, if the ring was expensive enough, the couple could then start having intercourse and risk pregnancy as the bride-to-be could be assured that the suitor was now serious about marriage and would not run off after intercourse. 3) as a sign to others in society that they share the same values system and can be relied upon to perpeuate the culture too. This is something of a deal in religious communities and in family groups. By putting a lot of money up for such a ring, the couple shows that they are financially committed to the value system of others. This is also known as 'tradition'.

triangleman 7y ago
That's all well and good but why do the men have to pay the dowry? Used to be the woman's family was responsible for that, now they just have to pay for the wedding!