3 ms·

It's about showing status and wealth, proof you can afford to dump money into an asset that immediately loses most of its monetary value. It's also something t

It's about showing status and wealth, proof you can afford to dump money into an asset that immediately loses most of its monetary value. It's also something the recipient can show to her/their friends, which amounts to the same thing: "look how expensive an object my fianceé just burned his/their money on!" Proof of high economic status. The ideal proposal object would be a thing that costs a billion dollars and loses 90% of that value as soon as you buy it. That would demonstrate both that your fianceé is a multi-billionaire, and if for some reason he/they dumps you, you're still more than set for life. patio11 has talked about the situation in Japan, where, if I recall correctly, expensive engagement rings are not [as much] a thing, but the ability to plan a long honeymoon (taking extended time away from in-person work, since that is or was the norm) is a much stronger signal of status that everyone's impressed by.

Nursie 6y ago
I think that is an Americanism, to some extent. Clearly diamond rings are a big thing in other countries, but I'm not aware of other places that have such rules around them like numbers of months of salary, or such an obsession with having a huge shiny diamond on your finger. Or maybe it's generational. Either way, none of my friends or family in the UK seem to have gone in for this stuff. That's not to say that there have been no diamond rings, just no stupidly gaudy rocks. Perhaps it's down to changing traditions - the "big day" is no longer the start of life for a couple, they've usually been living together for some time, may even have kids already. And perhaps it's down to changing gender roles, now that most couples have two earners, the 'signal' you talk about may be out of place. It certainly seems old fashioned. Either way, I don't think diamonds are important as once they were. If I marry my current partner in a traditional ceremony, any diamonds involved will be synthetic, because science is amazing and De Beers are manipulative exploiters.
dazzawazza 6y ago
>proof you can afford to dump money into an asset that immediately loses most of its monetary value that is a terrible way to describe your partner ;)
ryandrake 6y ago
> It's about showing status and wealth, proof you can afford to dump money into an asset that immediately loses most of its monetary value. Interesting cultural take on wealth. When I think wealth, I'm not thinking about someone who wastes their money on investments that lose money. I'm thinking about someone whose assets actually make money. This is like drinking poison as a show of good health.

Nursie 6y ago

I think that is an Americanism, to some extent. Clearly diamond rings are a big thing in other countries, but I'm not aware of other places that have such rules around them like numbers of months of salary, or such an obsession with having a huge shiny diamond on your finger. Or maybe it's generational. Either way, none of my friends or family in the UK seem to have gone in for this stuff. That's not to say that there have been no diamond rings, just no stupidly gaudy rocks. Perhaps it's down to changing traditions - the "big day" is no longer the start of life for a couple, they've usually been living together for some time, may even have kids already. And perhaps it's down to changing gender roles, now that most couples have two earners, the 'signal' you talk about may be out of place. It certainly seems old fashioned. Either way, I don't think diamonds are important as once they were. If I marry my current partner in a traditional ceremony, any diamonds involved will be synthetic, because science is amazing and De Beers are manipulative exploiters.

dazzawazza 6y ago

>proof you can afford to dump money into an asset that immediately loses most of its monetary value that is a terrible way to describe your partner ;)

ryandrake 6y ago

> It's about showing status and wealth, proof you can afford to dump money into an asset that immediately loses most of its monetary value. Interesting cultural take on wealth. When I think wealth, I'm not thinking about someone who wastes their money on investments that lose money. I'm thinking about someone whose assets actually make money. This is like drinking poison as a show of good health.