19 ms·

> so they just leave De Beers to run around gouging consumers That's kind of missing the point. If diamonds were 5 bucks a piece, women would no longer be inte

• Centigonal 14y ago
  That wasn't the point of the article -- you introduced it right after telling him (s)he's missing the point. It's a valid point, yes -- but kyrra couldn't have missed it, because no one had made it before you did.
• wutbrodo 14y ago
  I doubt the point is to demonstrate financial security: Spending three months' salary on a single ring would seem to indicate financial irresponsibility more than financial security (unless it's like a rebate and you sell the ring once you're married? /s). I'm inclined to agree that you're right about the price being the point. I think it has more to do with "You're worth it to me". I still think it's utter bollocks.
  • dclowd9901 14y ago
    Diamonds aren't popular because they have any real value. No one actually believes they do. They cost a lot and are an easily worn, thus making them perfect for their favorite hobby: making other women feel inadequate. Even women who are positively liberal on such matters are drawn to the idea of forcing their husbands to show such monetary devotion. The issue here isn't the scarcity of diamonds. It's the scarcity if women. I realize how chauvinistic this rant sounds, but truly, I would rather give equivalent money to my fiancee's charity of choice than to these diamond shilling scumbags. Charities, if you're listening, here's an idea: create uniquely identified jewelry (bracelets, necklaces) marketed as devotional donations, charge $5000 for them, and at least give men an option in the matter.
    • Helianthus 14y ago
      >Charities, if you're listening, here's an idea: create uniquely identified jewelry (bracelets, necklaces) marketed as devotional donations This is actually a very interesting idea. It has I guess a few complications--are we comfortable with making generosity a commodity? I'm not at all, actually--but at the very least it would be preferable to diamond rings.
      • manicdee 14y ago
        It's been done: Pink products to support breast cancer research, PRODUCT (RED) for combating AIDS in Africa.
        • Helianthus 14y ago
          Eh, point. And witness discomfort about making generosity a commodity.
          • jlgreco 14y ago
            Just needs the right marketing behind it to nullify that. Sell these pieces of charity jewelry to the public as not only ways to flaunt your wealth, as diamonds are, but also a way to flaunt your moral superiority.
            • Helianthus 14y ago
              Forgive me if I don't trust _marketing_, of all facets of society, to nullify that. As much as I think it'd be a great alternative to diamonds, my feelings on the matter have quickly been drawn to the same cynicism about diamonds. It's a problem that we want to flaunt our wealth, _however_ we do it. It's the root problem. The diamond industry is flawed because it's acting exactly as desired: to fulfill our need for vacuous display. And flaunting your moral superiority? Well, that's not as bad as flaunting your wealth, but only because it's less practical. People notice and _hate_ when you're morally superior. Isn't that a sad commentary? That when bragging about morals is more easily attacked than bragging about wealth? There's something interesting in how when the social drive to appear wealthy approaches appearing moral, it is diluted and weakened. Just mere contact with the idea of morality is enough to lose our respect for the egregious use of wealth.
  • deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  • spindritf 14y ago
    > I doubt the point is to demonstrate financial security: Spending three months' salary on a single ring would seem to indicate financial irresponsibility more than financial security "Wasting" resources is one of the ways to make sure that the signal (of fitness -- financial security for example) is honest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle
    • zecho 14y ago
      The wiki entry you posted mentions this, but it is interesting and related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch
  • blaireaug 14y ago
    It's a peacock's tail. In any environment where resources are abundant and there's no natural predators, species evolve to create lavish displays for sexual selection. Buying a ring, having a fancy sports car, owning a nice house, coming from a prestigious university... these are signals for sexual reproduction. "Look at me, look at what I can afford to do!" It does signal financial irresponsibility. Who can demonstrate such a thing? Those who are actually financially secure. But then it gets to be backwards, as those who can barely afford to live paycheck to paycheck seek out these red herrings, these peacock's tails, before actual wealth and stability. Same thing with ties. Those used to be signals of wealth. They evolved from the cravate, used by nobility to protect their shirts whilst eating. Being wealthy, these embryonic ties, the cravates, would be made of expensive materials. When those who weren't so wealthy got ahold of them and started using them as a display, it became backwards. We now take off our ties, or toss them over our shirts to protect from getting dirty when we eat, because they're often quite expensive! So, yeah. Diamonds signal financial security by being financially irresponsible. We're a species evolved to pay attention to status, to these symbols more so than the real value behind such things.
  • larrys 14y ago
    "Spending three months' salary on a single ring would seem to indicate financial irresponsibility more than financial security" Not if you have assets that are considerably greater (have accumulated) than whatever your "salary" is.
    • illuminate 14y ago
      I don't think anyone's discussing the independently wealthy.
  • prawn 14y ago
    Someone thinking it's utter bollocks but doing it anyway somewhat demonstrates that a partner is worth even more to them. ;)
• stephengillie 14y ago
  Women can't use another proxy to signal financial security, like the dollar amount in a bank account, or a house down-payment, or a secure job? Women can't talk for themselves? Do women still want a man who is financially secure? What about independent women? How many women have posted in this thread (compared to HN's overall male-female posting ratio)?
  • Helianthus 14y ago
    On that subject, perhaps it's noteworthy re: diamonds that the loudest--as far as attention goes--feminine point of view (in the heteronormative sense) in this topic has been expressed only by proxy. Or, as you indicate, perhaps that's just a symptom of the general male-female ratio.
  • eli 14y ago
    How do you signal the value of your bank account besides using it to buy expensive things? (And this is certainly not a gender-specific problem: consider sports cars, gold chains, or bottle service at clubs)
    • stephengillie 14y ago
      You could signal directly, such as an ATM receipt. I understand the point you're making -- the value of expensive things in signaling to someone you don't know. I can't see the point in marrying someone if I couldn't trust them with my bank account. Edit: I'm realizing that this is entirely from my perspective. How does a woman without earning potential display her husband's wealth to her family and friends? She asks him to buy her an ornament to prove how much he values her. This puts the man above the woman, inequalizing them. Is there any custom where a bride and groom exchange gifts of equal value?
      • eli 14y ago
        Yes, it's for signaling peers, not partners. I assume most people who buy a Porche do so for the same reason: they want their community to know they have a lot of disposable income.
• enraged_camel 14y ago
  It doesn't have anything to do with financial security. Look, if your man is spending three months worth of salary on a piece of shiny rock, he is exercising poor financial judgment and that is a signal against future financial security. Women want diamonds not because of any symbolic reasons ("Diamonds are forever!") but because of reasons that are much more practical: they want to be able to show off the diamonds to their group of (female) and boost their social status among them. At the end of the day it is nothing more than a way of saying "I am better than you!" This is why many women will accept, at the rational level, that diamonds are horrible and stupid and even evil (since they fuel all kinds of violence in Africa, where they are mined). But most of them will not be able to bring themselves to accept substitutes such as sapphires, rubies, or emeralds. Because that would make their female friends think that the guy does not value them as much (or that they weren't able to find a guy who finds them worthy enough for a diamond). Social status. That's what it is all about.
  • boyter 14y ago
    The social status is changing I think. I commented on this in some other Diamond discussion thread but I have noticed an increase in people my age group (Gen Y) having engagement/wedding rings with other stones. Purely anecdotal but it seems to be a trend in my group of friends at least. For example my wife has a Sapphire ring (yes I know Sapphires can be made at any size artificially) and so does my brothers. A close friends wife has a Ruby and I have seen Emerald ones.
    • sharkweek 14y ago
      Several people (including myself) in my social circle ended up going the antique route the past few years -- There's a few shops in the area that specialize in antique (read: used) jewelry. My wife really wanted something with a unique/classic flair; was able to find the perfect ring that was made in the 1920s. The fact that we were sort of able to fantasize about the back story added to the allure.
      • eric_bullington 14y ago
• mistercow 14y ago
  >A woman wants a man who is financially secure. If you can't afford a shiny rock, you can't afford what's coming after it either, so there's no point. What a quaint and gross way of looking at the world.
  • dkural 14y ago
    Except it happens to be factually, empirically true. Read the behavioral & social psychology literature; double blind experiments.
    • mistercow 14y ago
      [citation needed]
      • hackinthebochs 14y ago
        I've had this discussion on reddit far too many times with too many incredulous responses to what is plainly obvious if you're willing to see it: http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~rakison/bussandschmitt.pdf http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~rakison/bussandschmitt.pdf Yes, women seek men with status and financial security. I'd give you a pointer to a specific line or paragraph, but its all relevant.
        • astrodust 14y ago
          Men seek out highly attractive women using different criteria, but that doesn't mean they're successful. There's a difference between wanting something and demanding it.
          • hackinthebochs 14y ago
            I'm not sure what your point is.
            • astrodust 14y ago
• brc 14y ago
  If you devalued the diamond, something else would just step into the void, whether it was another gem, something synthetic, whatever. It would just have to be shiny, small, expensive, and easily seen. The need for displays of status are common to many animals, humans included. There is a fundamental need there that will be filled if you devalue the predecessor. Why pick on diamonds anyway? The fashion industry is just as bad - thousands of dollars for garments that cost a fraction of that to produce - and all because people wish to show social status by the clothes they are wearing. A diamond is no worse than an expensive holiday, a new car, a new suit - whatever. At least a diamond is very durable and can be with the wearer for a lifetime if they so choose.
  • brazzy 14y ago
    Actually, an expensive holiday is much better than any of the others: http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2009/08/27/money-and-happiness-1/ http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2009/08/27/money-and-happines...
  • the_gipsy 14y ago
    I agree, except that I believe that an expensive holiday can be a very fullfilling way of spending your money that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with showing off.
  • justincormack 14y ago
    Some of us dislike monopolies.
• pknight 14y ago
  This depiction is camouflaging itself as if it is a brutally truthful account of the way things are, but I don't see how it even remotely stacks up to reality from any angle you look at it. * A minority of men are truly financially secure, doesn't seem to stop couples from marrying * Lots of people marry when young, a time when financial situations tend to be weak/modest. * With this kind of reasoning you might as well extend the 'what's the point to marriage' to include those who are financially secure, it's ridiculous * A woman, calculating enough to decide the decision on whether to marry on the current finances of a man, is just as likely to assess a broad range of factors, such as health and future earning potential. If you're going to take a sober point of view, a more convincing case is this: The social norms are that diamond rings are part of the marrying process, people, on the whole, tend to stick to the social norms. It's what is expected, it's cultural and doing feels 'wrong' and maybe even shameful. There's potential pain involved in not following the expected course of action. This is why people who go into extra debt to purchase an expensive ring, it's what it means if you don't get it. If you have a couple that clouds their better judgment to meet expectations set by culture and by conforming to norms like a sheep, what's the point. In my experience women (and men) want to feel special. If you are able to make your partner feel special on an ongoing basis, you have pretty good odds to create a meaningful partnership. A diamond ring purchase is not a reliable indicator of said ability (it may be indicative of the opposite, but that's another matter).
  • JackMorgan 14y ago
    This is absolutely true. My wife was entirely happy with any sort of token of our marriage and engagement, being entirely confident of how special she is to me. There are women out there who do not care, just want to feel special. Some people react against a trend like buying diamonds and see NOT receiving one as a sign of how profoundly different and special they are. Oddly too, we both come from very low income families, so the over-compensating effect did not manifest. Everyone is different, all reasons for explaining something like a desire for diamonds never apply to everyone.
• UweSchmidt 14y ago
  Works the other way round as well: If your spouse can't be talked out of a vain purchase with a rational argument, you won't be able to do that after it either, so there's no point.
• tomp 14y ago
  Wouldn't it make more sense (and be easier - more supply) if a woman "bought" a man for future earning potential, i.e. connections, skills, ambitions, ...? It's a great test for gold-diggers, though.
  • n09n 14y ago
    Potential is incredibly hard to judge. The cost of the ring he buys you is easy.
• tragomaskhalos 14y ago
  Basically, the diamond ring is the peacock's tail (as explained by Dawkins).
• ttcbj 14y ago
  From my perspective, this comment has some truth, but is a little off also. When I was single, I found the Epstein article compelling. Then, I met the right woman, and I realized the article missed the point. If a woman you love feels good because you got her a diamond ring, then the diamond has served its purpose (to communicate that you listened to what she wanted, and got it, and that she is important). I listened to my wife, I got her a diamond ring she liked, and she has fond memories of our engagement. My sister wanted a ring that didn't have diamonds. My brother-in-law wisely listened, got her one without diamonds, and she was happy. If you got a great marriage out of it, and your wife has fond memories of getting engaged, then nothing about the ring really matters. If you can overpay a few thousand dollars for a ring, and get a great marriage in return, you just made the best trade of your life. What matters is that you listen to what your fiance wants, and got her something that communicates your attentiveness to her. Whether the ring has real financial value, or diamonds are a marketing invention, is entirely irrelevant.
  • deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  • keecham 14y ago
    Exactly. No matter the cause of WHY diamonds seem to be valued so highly in societal worth, the fact is, well, they are. You COULD not get your wife a diamond ring, you COULD not take her out for Valentine's day because it's a made-up holiday, you COULD not get her a Christmas present because you think it's a commercial holiday, etc. But... well good luck with that.
    • Nursie 14y ago
      I know lots of people that don't do anything couple-ish for valentines day, it's becoming more and more common to ignore it.
  • transitionality 14y ago
    Women deserve better than to be coddled like children. They deserve to be given a reality check like adults.