5 ms·

> Part of the significance of the gesture is the level of painful expense involved. So making the item much cheaper also cheapens the gesture. Call it what it

> Part of the significance of the gesture is the level of painful expense involved. So making the item much cheaper also cheapens the gesture. Call it what it is: diamonds are a down payment from a man to a woman for access to sex. The higher the price, the higher the value he assigns to it.

Kalium 5y ago
Nope. Nope nope nope nope.
- notyourday 5y ago
  In the alternative universe women who can't afford diamonds, buy diamonds for men. In the same alternative universe, the families of men look at the Cs of the ring and judge if "she is good enough for him". In the same alternative universe, men get together, pull out their diamond rings and discuss if those rings are worth the sacrifice. And in the same alternative universe the commercials on TV are "She went to Jared!" and "Give him the gift of Pandora" Alas, in our universe it does not happen.
  - Loughla 5y ago
    >In the same alternative universe, the families of men look at the Cs of the ring and judge if "she is good enough for him". In the same alternative universe, men get together, pull out their diamond rings and discuss if those rings are worth the sacrifice. You might need to take a break and take a walk away from media. Do you honestly think this is a thing for all women? Do you honestly believe life is like a television sitcom or romantic comedy?
    - notyourday 5y ago
      > Do you honestly think this is a thing for all women? Do those women care about diamonds? > Do you honestly believe life is like a television sitcom or romantic comedy? Pandora would not have been a company with a 75B market capitalization if it was selling niche luxury goods. LVMH is only 4x its size.
- globular-toast 5y ago
  Stunning argument.
  - Kalium 5y ago
    There's no need to flatter blatant sexism with the dignity of honest argument. Indeed, there is nothing to be gained by doing so.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      > There's no need to flatter blatant sexism with the dignity of honest argument. Indeed, there is nothing to be gained by doing so. If you think it's so out of line then why engage on that same level by replying with a bunch of "nope"? I fail to see how his comment is blatantly sexist. If anything it's insulting both sexes equally and craps on the institution of marriage more than anything else. Yes, his comment was unnecessarily cynical and we all know how well that goes over here when not directed at an approved boogeyman (BigCo, Congress, etc) but you can easily walk that cynicism back by replacing "down payment" with "signalling commitment" and "sex" with one of the other upsides to a stable marriage and the meaning is unchanged.
      - bena 5y ago
        Yes, if you change everything about the statement, it's a different statement. No one is going to argue that.
    - globular-toast 5y ago
      What's sexist about it? 85% of engagement rings are bought by men, for women [0]. Are statistics sexist? [0] https://www.jewellermagazine.com/Article/8591/Women-spend-more-on-diamond-rings-than-men-De-Beers https://www.jewellermagazine.com/Article/8591/Women-spend-mo...
      - dijit 5y ago
        Jarring worldview to hold. Buying rings isn't the problem- you stated "the value of a ring is how much a man is willing to pay for access to sex". Without a further breakdown of why you think that's a reasonable statement to make it just sounds weirdly myopic. People pay more because of status "I am a good provider and I can prove it", or because the woman wants to feel valued. It doesn't go back to sex, not for a long time, in fact sex is very far removed from the idea of modern day marriage in the majority of western countries.
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN. You violated the guidelines, which ask: "Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead." If people would follow that simple rule, hellfires would die before they spread. Please don't contribute to spreading them by feeding them. The replies do more damage than the originals, because they open the floodgates. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 5y ago
If you post egregious flamebait to HN again we will ban you. You did it repeatedly today (not cool), and we've had to warn you about this before. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- notyourday 5y ago
  Apologies.

Kalium 5y ago

Nope. Nope nope nope nope.

notyourday 5y ago
In the alternative universe women who can't afford diamonds, buy diamonds for men. In the same alternative universe, the families of men look at the Cs of the ring and judge if "she is good enough for him". In the same alternative universe, men get together, pull out their diamond rings and discuss if those rings are worth the sacrifice. And in the same alternative universe the commercials on TV are "She went to Jared!" and "Give him the gift of Pandora" Alas, in our universe it does not happen.
- Loughla 5y ago
  >In the same alternative universe, the families of men look at the Cs of the ring and judge if "she is good enough for him". In the same alternative universe, men get together, pull out their diamond rings and discuss if those rings are worth the sacrifice. You might need to take a break and take a walk away from media. Do you honestly think this is a thing for all women? Do you honestly believe life is like a television sitcom or romantic comedy?
  - notyourday 5y ago
    > Do you honestly think this is a thing for all women? Do those women care about diamonds? > Do you honestly believe life is like a television sitcom or romantic comedy? Pandora would not have been a company with a 75B market capitalization if it was selling niche luxury goods. LVMH is only 4x its size.
globular-toast 5y ago
Stunning argument.
- Kalium 5y ago
  There's no need to flatter blatant sexism with the dignity of honest argument. Indeed, there is nothing to be gained by doing so.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    > There's no need to flatter blatant sexism with the dignity of honest argument. Indeed, there is nothing to be gained by doing so. If you think it's so out of line then why engage on that same level by replying with a bunch of "nope"? I fail to see how his comment is blatantly sexist. If anything it's insulting both sexes equally and craps on the institution of marriage more than anything else. Yes, his comment was unnecessarily cynical and we all know how well that goes over here when not directed at an approved boogeyman (BigCo, Congress, etc) but you can easily walk that cynicism back by replacing "down payment" with "signalling commitment" and "sex" with one of the other upsides to a stable marriage and the meaning is unchanged.
    - bena 5y ago
      Yes, if you change everything about the statement, it's a different statement. No one is going to argue that.
  - globular-toast 5y ago
    What's sexist about it? 85% of engagement rings are bought by men, for women [0]. Are statistics sexist? [0] https://www.jewellermagazine.com/Article/8591/Women-spend-more-on-diamond-rings-than-men-De-Beers https://www.jewellermagazine.com/Article/8591/Women-spend-mo...
    - dijit 5y ago
      Jarring worldview to hold. Buying rings isn't the problem- you stated "the value of a ring is how much a man is willing to pay for access to sex". Without a further breakdown of why you think that's a reasonable statement to make it just sounds weirdly myopic. People pay more because of status "I am a good provider and I can prove it", or because the woman wants to feel valued. It doesn't go back to sex, not for a long time, in fact sex is very far removed from the idea of modern day marriage in the majority of western countries.
dang 5y ago
Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN. You violated the guidelines, which ask: "Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead." If people would follow that simple rule, hellfires would die before they spread. Please don't contribute to spreading them by feeding them. The replies do more damage than the originals, because they open the floodgates. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dang 5y ago

If you post egregious flamebait to HN again we will ban you. You did it repeatedly today (not cool), and we've had to warn you about this before. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

notyourday 5y ago
Apologies.