4 ms·

> The far greater purpose is for the man to signal commitment to his bride [..] > You can’t bypass that sort of thing. Q: Any actual evidence that cash is any

> The far greater purpose is for the man to signal commitment to his bride [..] > You can’t bypass that sort of thing. Q: Any actual evidence that cash is any kind of reliable signal for commitment to a relationship? There would appear to be plenty of celebrity divorce counter-examples. [In the spirit of full disclosure: my wife didn't want - or get - an engagement ring]

Normal_gaussian 7y ago
It should be considered relative to the individuals earning capacity.
Nasrudith 7y ago
Really it was more "able to provide for" as opposed to "would wind up worse off if married". The commitment was far more financial in the past than relationship sense. In some cases jewelery was divorce/unexpected widowing reserves that she could be sure were there and hers. The social context mutated yet the artifact remained - mostly out of the resistance to thinking known as tradition and the desire to sell overpriced baubles.
papln 7y ago
A diamond is primarily an engagement stone, not a wedding stone. The wedding nets you community property, worth even more than a diamond. Think of it as earnest money, or buying an option. It's too expensive to buy a diamond and promise marriage just to string your girlfriend along if you aren't intending to follow through in the next year.
- logifail 7y ago
  > It's too expensive to buy a diamond and promise marriage just to string your girlfriend along [...] Q: Is it just me, or does that statement sound like it fell out of the 1950s through some kind of wormhole? In no particular order: * If the girl asks the guy to marry her, are we to understand that he should expect to receive a diamond ring from her, to somehow seal the deal? * Why should it be the guy "promising marriage" to the girl? * Why should it be based on "guys" marrying "girls" at all?

4 ms·

> The far greater purpose is for the man to signal commitment to his bride [..] > You can’t bypass that sort of thing. Q: Any actual evidence that cash is any

by logifail 7y ago

Normal_gaussian 7y ago
It should be considered relative to the individuals earning capacity.
Nasrudith 7y ago
Really it was more "able to provide for" as opposed to "would wind up worse off if married". The commitment was far more financial in the past than relationship sense. In some cases jewelery was divorce/unexpected widowing reserves that she could be sure were there and hers. The social context mutated yet the artifact remained - mostly out of the resistance to thinking known as tradition and the desire to sell overpriced baubles.
papln 7y ago
A diamond is primarily an engagement stone, not a wedding stone. The wedding nets you community property, worth even more than a diamond. Think of it as earnest money, or buying an option. It's too expensive to buy a diamond and promise marriage just to string your girlfriend along if you aren't intending to follow through in the next year.
- logifail 7y ago
  > It's too expensive to buy a diamond and promise marriage just to string your girlfriend along [...] Q: Is it just me, or does that statement sound like it fell out of the 1950s through some kind of wormhole? In no particular order: * If the girl asks the guy to marry her, are we to understand that he should expect to receive a diamond ring from her, to somehow seal the deal? * Why should it be the guy "promising marriage" to the girl? * Why should it be based on "guys" marrying "girls" at all?