6 ms·

Many women won't directly tell their partner "I want you to spend a couple months' salary on a beautiful diamond" because it's tasteless to request and it remov

by akarma 5y ago

Many women won't directly tell their partner "I want you to spend a couple months' salary on a beautiful diamond" because it's tasteless to request and it removes all the meaning behind the man doing so, but they'd also be disappointed if the man didn't do so unprompted. People and their emotions are complex like that. I don't think there's any glaring issue with either party above, but it's like you expect all women in your life to be like many people on HN — hyper-rational, utilitarian devs who would never want a mined diamond because a cheaper artificial one with better clarity exists. It's not wrong, but it's not right - there is no right answer here. Traditional ideas of romance are a powerful force.

saberdancer 5y ago
It's like typical "I don't need anything for my birthday". Even the most rational people tend to get disappointed if they really get nothing.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  I don't get disappointed. The best gift you can get me for my birthday is remove the obligation for me to get you one on yours. Saves so much mental energy and time.
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    Same, even though I've been bit by it. After rationally agreeing not to get anything (because we were about to move overseas on a couple of luggages and didn't want extra stuff) my SO got me 3 (3!! usually it was one per event) gifts and I was empty handed. And I had to resell / returns some of the items as we were moving anyway and we could just buy better quality stuff later on, without having to pay for the move.
  - 64StarFox64 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_(essay) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_(essay)
    - setr 5y ago
      I always liked the associated page for Gift Economy -- reading it is when I first realized there are multiple credit systems in play at any given moment, beyond raw currency.
- toast0 5y ago
  I try to tell people I don't have a birthday anymore. Because if I tell people not to get me anything, sometimes they hear please get me something. Ugh.
  - Judgmentality 5y ago
    > I try to tell people I don't have a birthday anymore. Never thought of that. I'd imagine the ensuing conversation is even more problematic though? "What do you mean you don't have a birthday? That makes no sense!"
    - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
      No, just respond with "I stopped caring". Maybe could also tack on that you count winters to tell your age.
    - toast0 5y ago
      I mean it usually goes "No really? When's your birthday" "I don't have one, thanks" and usually dies off from there. I mean, if I have to put it on a form, that's one thing, but like office people don't need to know when it is.
  - zingplex 5y ago
    I normally just tell them "it was a few weeks back". This gives a full year for them to forget about it and has a sufficiently vague period of time that they can't nail you next year should they remember.
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  Nope. I dont want or need more shit.
- astura 5y ago
  Um, no, I've never gotten disappointed. I've been married for a decade and the hubby and I don't do material gifts, ever. I'd be much more disappointed in some useless trinket I don't need and would feel obligated to keep.
scottLobster 5y ago
Did you miss the part where she gas-lit him? She agreed with all the points about moissanite/etc and then got bent out of shape when he took her at her word. Clearly all that was a "test" that he was supposed to "pass". I rarely see happy marriages with that kind of behavior as a baseline. God forbid he get her Carnations and a nice dinner for Valentine's day, she'll likely ignore the dinner and focus on why he didn't get her roses instead. It's also a weird interpretation. My response would have been something like "moissanite has better visual properties, is free of all slave/conflict concerns, and saves us money for the honeymoon, so our love shines brighter, is built on a pure foundation, and will give us experiences we'll never forget". More over it's extremely materialistic. Someone who loves you is pledging their life to you. Assuming the ring in question is fundamentally tasteful, is it too much to ask to focus on the life pledge instead of the $$ value of the symbol? But I guess I lucked out. My wife rarely takes off her vintage ring with syntehtic rubies and a couple of tiny real accent diamonds on yellow gold (because that's what it came with). I knew her aesthetic tastes and got her something that matched those tastes, and it's unique enough that it stands out amongst her sisters/friends. And it certainly wasn't two months' salary, which she well knows. We didn't have that amount in savings at the time.
- akarma 5y ago
  I didn't view it as gaslighting, I viewed it in the way I said it: she may have not wanted to demand a 'genuine' diamond, so she left it open-ended. What woman wants to demand that when asked for preference? Demanding it would remove the sincerity and meaningfulness of the man's gesture. On the note of carnations for Valentine's Day, I'd view it in much the same way. Unless she's told you how much she adores and prefers carnations on Valentine's Day, roses are the best bet. My partner and past partners have always fit that type, and I don't think either is lucky or better or right. I personally enjoy the tradition and the unspoken symbolism in the gifts, and striving to make her happy without it being spelled out for me. I'm happy you have someone who makes you feel lucky, and who matches your preferences for communication and a relationship — finding that is possibly the greatest feeling in life. I simply aim to point out that either are valid, normal preferences and dynamics, as opposed to one being gaslighting.
beaconstudios 5y ago
there's nothing rational about HN's brand of rationalism - which is really just materialist reductionism. In this thread alone are dozens of people completely blind to the concept of social signals, thinking instead about price, clarity and the vague notion of distant moral dilemmas. Beyond basic survival requirements, social signals are one of the most important concepts in human society! To exclude them from your considerations is deeply irrational in the unique way that developers often are.
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  Except this particular social signal was entirely made up by a corporation. Social signals that cost significant resources for something worthless are stupid.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    > Except this particular social signal was entirely made up by a corporation. They didn't make it up, they just made a display of wealth (and therefore social status) associated with their product. Brands do that all the time but the signal has always existed. The advertising serves to put the association between the product and wealth into the common knowledge - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge_(logic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge_(logic). Or in other words, everybody knows that everybody knows that rings are expensive. > Social signals that cost significant resources for something worthless are stupid. No, you just don't understand social signals, which was my point. The "costing significant resources" part is the whole idea. Wedding rings and fresh kicks aren't expensive because they're valuable, they're valuable because they're expensive. If you want to understand the idea, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Honest_signals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Honest_signa.... It makes perfect sense (ie, it's rational). It's equivalent to saying, "I am willing to burn all of this valuable money to prove that I value you". If we only bought things that were of purely-material value, we'd stop at food, weather-protective but un-aesthetic clothing, and basic shelter. Everything beyond those is social (or hyperreal).
    - 5y ago

by akarma 5y ago

saberdancer 5y ago

It's like typical "I don't need anything for my birthday". Even the most rational people tend to get disappointed if they really get nothing.

willcipriano 5y ago
I don't get disappointed. The best gift you can get me for my birthday is remove the obligation for me to get you one on yours. Saves so much mental energy and time.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  Same, even though I've been bit by it. After rationally agreeing not to get anything (because we were about to move overseas on a couple of luggages and didn't want extra stuff) my SO got me 3 (3!! usually it was one per event) gifts and I was empty handed. And I had to resell / returns some of the items as we were moving anyway and we could just buy better quality stuff later on, without having to pay for the move.
- 64StarFox64 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_(essay) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_(essay)
  - setr 5y ago
    I always liked the associated page for Gift Economy -- reading it is when I first realized there are multiple credit systems in play at any given moment, beyond raw currency.
toast0 5y ago
I try to tell people I don't have a birthday anymore. Because if I tell people not to get me anything, sometimes they hear please get me something. Ugh.
- Judgmentality 5y ago
  > I try to tell people I don't have a birthday anymore. Never thought of that. I'd imagine the ensuing conversation is even more problematic though? "What do you mean you don't have a birthday? That makes no sense!"
  - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
    No, just respond with "I stopped caring". Maybe could also tack on that you count winters to tell your age.
  - toast0 5y ago
    I mean it usually goes "No really? When's your birthday" "I don't have one, thanks" and usually dies off from there. I mean, if I have to put it on a form, that's one thing, but like office people don't need to know when it is.
- zingplex 5y ago
  I normally just tell them "it was a few weeks back". This gives a full year for them to forget about it and has a sufficiently vague period of time that they can't nail you next year should they remember.
NikolaeVarius 5y ago
Nope. I dont want or need more shit.
astura 5y ago
Um, no, I've never gotten disappointed. I've been married for a decade and the hubby and I don't do material gifts, ever. I'd be much more disappointed in some useless trinket I don't need and would feel obligated to keep.

scottLobster 5y ago

Did you miss the part where she gas-lit him? She agreed with all the points about moissanite/etc and then got bent out of shape when he took her at her word. Clearly all that was a "test" that he was supposed to "pass". I rarely see happy marriages with that kind of behavior as a baseline. God forbid he get her Carnations and a nice dinner for Valentine's day, she'll likely ignore the dinner and focus on why he didn't get her roses instead. It's also a weird interpretation. My response would have been something like "moissanite has better visual properties, is free of all slave/conflict concerns, and saves us money for the honeymoon, so our love shines brighter, is built on a pure foundation, and will give us experiences we'll never forget". More over it's extremely materialistic. Someone who loves you is pledging their life to you. Assuming the ring in question is fundamentally tasteful, is it too much to ask to focus on the life pledge instead of the $$ value of the symbol? But I guess I lucked out. My wife rarely takes off her vintage ring with syntehtic rubies and a couple of tiny real accent diamonds on yellow gold (because that's what it came with). I knew her aesthetic tastes and got her something that matched those tastes, and it's unique enough that it stands out amongst her sisters/friends. And it certainly wasn't two months' salary, which she well knows. We didn't have that amount in savings at the time.

akarma 5y ago
I didn't view it as gaslighting, I viewed it in the way I said it: she may have not wanted to demand a 'genuine' diamond, so she left it open-ended. What woman wants to demand that when asked for preference? Demanding it would remove the sincerity and meaningfulness of the man's gesture. On the note of carnations for Valentine's Day, I'd view it in much the same way. Unless she's told you how much she adores and prefers carnations on Valentine's Day, roses are the best bet. My partner and past partners have always fit that type, and I don't think either is lucky or better or right. I personally enjoy the tradition and the unspoken symbolism in the gifts, and striving to make her happy without it being spelled out for me. I'm happy you have someone who makes you feel lucky, and who matches your preferences for communication and a relationship — finding that is possibly the greatest feeling in life. I simply aim to point out that either are valid, normal preferences and dynamics, as opposed to one being gaslighting.

beaconstudios 5y ago

there's nothing rational about HN's brand of rationalism - which is really just materialist reductionism. In this thread alone are dozens of people completely blind to the concept of social signals, thinking instead about price, clarity and the vague notion of distant moral dilemmas. Beyond basic survival requirements, social signals are one of the most important concepts in human society! To exclude them from your considerations is deeply irrational in the unique way that developers often are.

NikolaeVarius 5y ago
Except this particular social signal was entirely made up by a corporation. Social signals that cost significant resources for something worthless are stupid.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  > Except this particular social signal was entirely made up by a corporation. They didn't make it up, they just made a display of wealth (and therefore social status) associated with their product. Brands do that all the time but the signal has always existed. The advertising serves to put the association between the product and wealth into the common knowledge - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge_(logic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge_(logic). Or in other words, everybody knows that everybody knows that rings are expensive. > Social signals that cost significant resources for something worthless are stupid. No, you just don't understand social signals, which was my point. The "costing significant resources" part is the whole idea. Wedding rings and fresh kicks aren't expensive because they're valuable, they're valuable because they're expensive. If you want to understand the idea, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Honest_signals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Honest_signa.... It makes perfect sense (ie, it's rational). It's equivalent to saying, "I am willing to burn all of this valuable money to prove that I value you". If we only bought things that were of purely-material value, we'd stop at food, weather-protective but un-aesthetic clothing, and basic shelter. Everything beyond those is social (or hyperreal).
  - 5y ago