4 ms·
The author focuses on the "object of beauty" role of the engagement stone, but I think that the more important role in marital tradition is as a "store of value
by hirundo 6y ago
The author focuses on the "object of beauty" role of the engagement stone, but I think that the more important role in marital tradition is as a "store of value". It publicly indicates the groom's value for the wife, while also handing her a measure of independence, to assist in exiting a bad marriage. That is, it helps to mark the union as consensual.
While a deed to real estate might serve these purposes better than a gemstone, the gemstone is easier to flaunt. But the details of its luster, etc., are still less important to the longevity of the tradition than its economic value.
- mcgingras 6y agoThe author actually included a section on diamond being a poor store of value. The idea that a man is spending wads of cash on an engagement ring for his wife as "insurance" that she is able to leave and sell the ring seems wrong to me.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- smolder 6y agoIf you believe that engagement stones should be a store of value then you are supporting the authors point that we shouldn't buy diamonds.