7 ms·

I guess that works for most men. Personally, one of my criteria is that she can't want a diamond, that might sound crazy but I want a partner in life that is fi

I guess that works for most men. Personally, one of my criteria is that she can't want a diamond, that might sound crazy but I want a partner in life that is financially sensible and fiscally responsible, we have to leave our children with more than we were left with or we have failed, that is a core part of my philosophy of family building. Thankfully I found her. I also had a talk with her dad about it after I met him and he called diamonds a scam. So she gets it and I'm happy.

seattle_spring 3y ago
Splurging every once in a while does not inherently make someone “fiscally irresponsible.” For many people, especially on this forum, $3k-$5k for a ring is literally a few days work or less worth of pay. (Please no one get pedantic on ring cost to me, absolutely not the point of this comment)
- Retric 3y ago
  It’s not the cost that’s the issue, it’s the underlying desire. Belief in astrology is seemingly harmless, but it’s a sign of underlying irrationality that I find unacceptable. The ritual around a hunk of carbon is the same category of thinking IMO. Also, ‘a few days salary’ rather defeats the rituals purpose.
  - tired-turtle 3y ago
    Eh, I’m fervently anti-diamond (they’re silly imo), but I can acknowledge that, to some, they represent (I think?) a lasting commitment and are a cultural tradition. If the desire is emotional, then there’s no reasoning with it anyway. (And not everything in life need be logical.)
    - callalex 3y ago
      Does it count as a cultural tradition if it was manufactured within the last 2 generations? It’s kinda like asking a family if they celebrate Toyotathon or Hondadays as a tradition.
      - yayitswei 3y ago
        KFC Christmas dinner in Japan is a fun one. To be fair, all of our major holidays have been co-opted by corporations and they are still warmly celebrated. Going back to wedding rings, giving your new partner something of value is a very old tradition indeed (though what's perceived as valuable has changed greatly).
        Retric 3y ago
        Giving a partner something of actual value is one thing, but diamonds aren’t worth what you’re paying. That purchase needs to support an entire industry and massive marketing campaign around maintaining an artificial tradition.
        benj111 3y ago
        Define value. You might not value it, but I dare say you value things that I don't value. Define artificial tradition. Yes someone can invent it, but it requires people to actually adopt it. All the trappings of Christmas were invented by someone. They aren't 'artificial' though
        Retric 3y ago
        Value is defined in free markets by what you can sell something for. Artificial tradition as in created by a marketing campaign to sell a product. Same things as eating “KFC on Christmas” in Japan or more recently “Happy Honda Days” just slightly older and more widespread.
        benj111 3y ago
        >but diamonds aren’t worth what you’re paying >Value is defined in free markets by what you can sell something for So if someone can sell you a diamond for X, it is worth X. So the diamond is worth what you're paying. Was Christmas created to sell Christianity? I just don't get the distinction. A 'natural' tradition isn't somehow more wholesome, we've just forgotten who invented it. And the meaning still derives from the people partaking in that tradition.
    - pierat 3y ago
      I like diamonds. They are pretty. But we also look at the ethics of most diamonds. And aside custom lab grown, child exploitation and murder are the norm. I ethically refuse to pay any money into that system of child exploitation, child murder, and mass violence.
  - oezi 3y ago
    Finding irrationality unacceptable is also irrational.
    - Retric 3y ago
      This isn’t some random person off the street, this is someone you’re hopefully spending the majority of your life with. It’s ok to be picky.
      - Exoristos 3y ago
        The point is there's no one who is not irrational. It's foundationally human.
        Retric 3y ago
        Ignoring differences in magnitude is a mistake. Buying a lottery ticket when the jackpot hits a billion dollars and blowing 100k in Las Vegas are both gambling, but the first is essentially harmless fun while the second is a sign of deeper issues.
        oezi 3y ago
        Right, but OP didn't focus on magnitudes. He found irrationality unacceptable. So likely he wouldn't marry a lottery player or horoscope reader.
        serf 3y ago
        there is a difference between people who see in themselves that irrationality and express a desire to change or improve, and those that decide that the world needs to bend towards the irrationality, regardless of how uncomfortable that makes others. A line should be drawn when the irrationality of one causes inarguable and debilitating friction in the relationships of that person. In other words : It's okay to be the person who loves pink, dresses in pink, bathes in pink -- until it disallows that person to find meaningful work/friends/mates/whatever; then it's more than just human irrationality, it's the inability to cope with others and the world at large.
  - dllthomas 3y ago
    > The ritual around a hunk of carbon is the same category of thinking IMO. Positional goods have real effects, mediated by other people, in a way that astrology doesn't directly. Reducing the role of such things is often good life advice, and pushing back on mined diamonds in particular is morally motivated as well, but I don't think it's right to consider it the same as astrology.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - mongol 3y ago
    It is no different than all material traditions around Christmas.
  - chewz 3y ago
    > Belief in astrology is seemingly harmless, but it’s a sign of underlying irrationality that I find unacceptable. How about spirituality or religion?
    - oblio 3y ago
      I'm fairly sure that if someone is strongly against astrology and irrationality, they're probably against religion, too :-)
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  Spending money on something expensive but valueless to appease someone is starting what is supposed to be a lifelong partnership on the wrong foot. I'm happy to get my fiancé something expensive, as long as it's valuable. I want her to have something valuable if I fail as a husband, it's more meaningful, it's a real commitment rather than a demonstration of willingness to appease. A woman that can't see that distinction is, to me, a woman that isn't interested in building a future.
- wrp 3y ago
  I am also against buying expensive stones, but for a different reason. If you view diamonds as status symbols, buying them is not irrational. It's just an approach to life that I don't follow.
- saiya-jin 3y ago
  I don't have problem with the cost so much (but serious proposals were supposed to be 3x the salary, no? so you lose quite a bit) but rather overall business and how it manipulates people. From poor people destroying their lives in Congo open pit mines to deBeers laughing in your face when selling you small rock which is not that rare for as much money as you are willing to accept. And if you got any form of certificate from then that your specific diamond is not blood diamond, well that paper has less value than used toilet paper, nobody could ever check or enforce that. So people here mentioning how their wives glow when looking at diamonds, well they are looking at shiny human suffering. And if future wife doesn't care enough about that, well you just learned a very interesting personality trait of her, without the need to go through years of relationship.
manmal 3y ago
> we have to leave our children with more than we were left with or we have failed You’re being pretty harsh on yourself there. Wealth doesn’t only depend on your own efforts and behavior, but a myriad other things. Also, how do you calculate whether they are left with more than you? Is that about inflation adjusted wealth, or other things like education, resilience, number of hours spent with their dad, physical and mental health?
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  For me it is capacity to build the life they want and to do the same for their kids. Financially, yes, I need to leave them better off than me, inflation adjusted of course. Education, good habits, good examples, all of these things matter to me as well.
  - manmal 3y ago
    My priority is giving my kids the tools to build their life themselves. For me, that means being smart about education if they want it (doesn’t need to be an elite uni IMO, but in our country there are none anyway) and the ability to maintain long term relationships. I think the latter is tricky and there’s no guarantee, but we go out of our way to always leave shame out of the equation (big relationship destroyer), and make them socialize (again, if they want to). Eg we have a car with extra seats so we can drive their friends too. We‘re also investing heavily (considering our finances) by putting them in a Montessori school where they can mingle with kids freely, with more teachers available to quell any mobbing.
    - benj111 3y ago
      I concur. For me, raising a child is about raising a functioning future adult. Bunging them £x000 when (hopefully) they're in their 60s seems a bit too late for me to have done my job properly. Further, what does the parent expect from their parents when they die? Are they going to be annoyed if they don't get 'enough'?
ako 3y ago
Having children is not financially nor fiscally sensible. And it's also bad for the environment.
- 4gotunameagain 3y ago
  On the contrary. If you care about the environment, it is your duty to have kids and raise them caring about the environment.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    There are already enough people on Earth, such that our civilization is very unsustainable. Consider adopting existing children if you actually care for the environment.
    - Retric 3y ago
      That might not work if care for the environment in genetic.
      - archagon 3y ago
        It is not.
        Retric 3y ago
        Prove it.
        fsflover 3y ago
        One can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you here.
        Retric 3y ago
        I did not state a definite answer, they did. So they should be able to back it up. Also, it’s possible to prove some negatives. Mostly though the definitions of terms.
coryfklein 3y ago
And she may be looking for someone who can afford to purchase a single luxury good without going broke? Of course these days by the time you get to the jewelry phase, this kind of matchmaking is usually resolved anyway. I suspect the tradition started much longer ago when folks got married very quickly (compared to today’s standards).
- willcipriano 3y ago
  > And she may be looking for someone who can afford to purchase a single luxury good without going broke? That variety of woman is best rented.

seattle_spring 3y ago

Splurging every once in a while does not inherently make someone “fiscally irresponsible.” For many people, especially on this forum, $3k-$5k for a ring is literally a few days work or less worth of pay. (Please no one get pedantic on ring cost to me, absolutely not the point of this comment)

Retric 3y ago
It’s not the cost that’s the issue, it’s the underlying desire. Belief in astrology is seemingly harmless, but it’s a sign of underlying irrationality that I find unacceptable. The ritual around a hunk of carbon is the same category of thinking IMO. Also, ‘a few days salary’ rather defeats the rituals purpose.
- tired-turtle 3y ago
  Eh, I’m fervently anti-diamond (they’re silly imo), but I can acknowledge that, to some, they represent (I think?) a lasting commitment and are a cultural tradition. If the desire is emotional, then there’s no reasoning with it anyway. (And not everything in life need be logical.)
  - callalex 3y ago
    Does it count as a cultural tradition if it was manufactured within the last 2 generations? It’s kinda like asking a family if they celebrate Toyotathon or Hondadays as a tradition.
    - yayitswei 3y ago
      KFC Christmas dinner in Japan is a fun one. To be fair, all of our major holidays have been co-opted by corporations and they are still warmly celebrated. Going back to wedding rings, giving your new partner something of value is a very old tradition indeed (though what's perceived as valuable has changed greatly).
      - Retric 3y ago
        Giving a partner something of actual value is one thing, but diamonds aren’t worth what you’re paying. That purchase needs to support an entire industry and massive marketing campaign around maintaining an artificial tradition.
        benj111 3y ago
        Define value. You might not value it, but I dare say you value things that I don't value. Define artificial tradition. Yes someone can invent it, but it requires people to actually adopt it. All the trappings of Christmas were invented by someone. They aren't 'artificial' though
        Retric 3y ago
        Value is defined in free markets by what you can sell something for. Artificial tradition as in created by a marketing campaign to sell a product. Same things as eating “KFC on Christmas” in Japan or more recently “Happy Honda Days” just slightly older and more widespread.
        benj111 3y ago
        >but diamonds aren’t worth what you’re paying >Value is defined in free markets by what you can sell something for So if someone can sell you a diamond for X, it is worth X. So the diamond is worth what you're paying. Was Christmas created to sell Christianity? I just don't get the distinction. A 'natural' tradition isn't somehow more wholesome, we've just forgotten who invented it. And the meaning still derives from the people partaking in that tradition.
  - pierat 3y ago
    I like diamonds. They are pretty. But we also look at the ethics of most diamonds. And aside custom lab grown, child exploitation and murder are the norm. I ethically refuse to pay any money into that system of child exploitation, child murder, and mass violence.
- oezi 3y ago
  Finding irrationality unacceptable is also irrational.
  - Retric 3y ago
    This isn’t some random person off the street, this is someone you’re hopefully spending the majority of your life with. It’s ok to be picky.
    - Exoristos 3y ago
      The point is there's no one who is not irrational. It's foundationally human.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Ignoring differences in magnitude is a mistake. Buying a lottery ticket when the jackpot hits a billion dollars and blowing 100k in Las Vegas are both gambling, but the first is essentially harmless fun while the second is a sign of deeper issues.
        oezi 3y ago
        Right, but OP didn't focus on magnitudes. He found irrationality unacceptable. So likely he wouldn't marry a lottery player or horoscope reader.
      - serf 3y ago
        there is a difference between people who see in themselves that irrationality and express a desire to change or improve, and those that decide that the world needs to bend towards the irrationality, regardless of how uncomfortable that makes others. A line should be drawn when the irrationality of one causes inarguable and debilitating friction in the relationships of that person. In other words : It's okay to be the person who loves pink, dresses in pink, bathes in pink -- until it disallows that person to find meaningful work/friends/mates/whatever; then it's more than just human irrationality, it's the inability to cope with others and the world at large.
- dllthomas 3y ago
  > The ritual around a hunk of carbon is the same category of thinking IMO. Positional goods have real effects, mediated by other people, in a way that astrology doesn't directly. Reducing the role of such things is often good life advice, and pushing back on mined diamonds in particular is morally motivated as well, but I don't think it's right to consider it the same as astrology.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mongol 3y ago
  It is no different than all material traditions around Christmas.
- chewz 3y ago
  > Belief in astrology is seemingly harmless, but it’s a sign of underlying irrationality that I find unacceptable. How about spirituality or religion?
  - oblio 3y ago
    I'm fairly sure that if someone is strongly against astrology and irrationality, they're probably against religion, too :-)
friend_and_foe 3y ago
Spending money on something expensive but valueless to appease someone is starting what is supposed to be a lifelong partnership on the wrong foot. I'm happy to get my fiancé something expensive, as long as it's valuable. I want her to have something valuable if I fail as a husband, it's more meaningful, it's a real commitment rather than a demonstration of willingness to appease. A woman that can't see that distinction is, to me, a woman that isn't interested in building a future.
wrp 3y ago
I am also against buying expensive stones, but for a different reason. If you view diamonds as status symbols, buying them is not irrational. It's just an approach to life that I don't follow.
saiya-jin 3y ago
I don't have problem with the cost so much (but serious proposals were supposed to be 3x the salary, no? so you lose quite a bit) but rather overall business and how it manipulates people. From poor people destroying their lives in Congo open pit mines to deBeers laughing in your face when selling you small rock which is not that rare for as much money as you are willing to accept. And if you got any form of certificate from then that your specific diamond is not blood diamond, well that paper has less value than used toilet paper, nobody could ever check or enforce that. So people here mentioning how their wives glow when looking at diamonds, well they are looking at shiny human suffering. And if future wife doesn't care enough about that, well you just learned a very interesting personality trait of her, without the need to go through years of relationship.

manmal 3y ago

> we have to leave our children with more than we were left with or we have failed You’re being pretty harsh on yourself there. Wealth doesn’t only depend on your own efforts and behavior, but a myriad other things. Also, how do you calculate whether they are left with more than you? Is that about inflation adjusted wealth, or other things like education, resilience, number of hours spent with their dad, physical and mental health?

friend_and_foe 3y ago
For me it is capacity to build the life they want and to do the same for their kids. Financially, yes, I need to leave them better off than me, inflation adjusted of course. Education, good habits, good examples, all of these things matter to me as well.
- manmal 3y ago
  My priority is giving my kids the tools to build their life themselves. For me, that means being smart about education if they want it (doesn’t need to be an elite uni IMO, but in our country there are none anyway) and the ability to maintain long term relationships. I think the latter is tricky and there’s no guarantee, but we go out of our way to always leave shame out of the equation (big relationship destroyer), and make them socialize (again, if they want to). Eg we have a car with extra seats so we can drive their friends too. We‘re also investing heavily (considering our finances) by putting them in a Montessori school where they can mingle with kids freely, with more teachers available to quell any mobbing.
  - benj111 3y ago
    I concur. For me, raising a child is about raising a functioning future adult. Bunging them £x000 when (hopefully) they're in their 60s seems a bit too late for me to have done my job properly. Further, what does the parent expect from their parents when they die? Are they going to be annoyed if they don't get 'enough'?

ako 3y ago

Having children is not financially nor fiscally sensible. And it's also bad for the environment.

4gotunameagain 3y ago
On the contrary. If you care about the environment, it is your duty to have kids and raise them caring about the environment.
- fsflover 3y ago
  There are already enough people on Earth, such that our civilization is very unsustainable. Consider adopting existing children if you actually care for the environment.
  - Retric 3y ago
    That might not work if care for the environment in genetic.
    - archagon 3y ago
      It is not.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Prove it.
        fsflover 3y ago
        One can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you here.
        Retric 3y ago
        I did not state a definite answer, they did. So they should be able to back it up. Also, it’s possible to prove some negatives. Mostly though the definitions of terms.

coryfklein 3y ago

And she may be looking for someone who can afford to purchase a single luxury good without going broke? Of course these days by the time you get to the jewelry phase, this kind of matchmaking is usually resolved anyway. I suspect the tradition started much longer ago when folks got married very quickly (compared to today’s standards).

willcipriano 3y ago
> And she may be looking for someone who can afford to purchase a single luxury good without going broke? That variety of woman is best rented.