You Will You Will Rock Me
Well, if you can buy a 3/4 solitaire blue diamond engagement ring for 405.00, and you go give plasma twice a week making 60 or more a week on that, you can do the math on how long it would take to save up for that ring. Not long. And most people above the age of 18 can give plasma. Where there is a will, there is a way. And it shows some serious commitment to do something like that, plus imbues the ring with a WHOLE lot more meaning.
— A commenter at Slate
In a recent Dear Prudence, the advice column published at Slate, the question at issue concerns diamond rings:
I am very much in love with my girlfriend of four years and want to spend my life with her. There is one thing preventing me from popping the question: the diamond ring. My girlfriend is not overly superficial but has made it clear that she needs a “moderately good-sized ring.” I am young, in graduate school, and have no money. I would have to take out a loan to buy her what she desires. In the long term, money won’t be the issue, so my objections to buying an engagement ring are mostly philosophical: 1) Buying a diamond ring seems like buying a woman. 2) If we are equal partners, what is she buying me? 3) Diamonds fuel conflict around the world. 4) They are expensive yet inherently worthless. I have told her how I feel, and she sees my point but has indicated a ring is necessary. I can’t imagine proposing to her without one. Should I wait to propose and in the meantime try to change her mind, just buy her a stupid ring already, or take this impasse as an indicator of future conflict and move on with my life? (I don’t know if I could do the last one.)
Lots of married couples, including my grandparents, my parents, and many of the least superficial, most admirable people in my life, needlessly squandered hard earned money on diamond engagement rings. So I am not saying that there is anything wrong with folks who buy diamonds, except that they’re mistaken in that one instance.
Admittedly, diamonds are every bit as sparkly as one could wish. “Ooh, pretty,” people occasionally say upon looking at them.
On the other hand, most diamond buyers engage in minor financial irresponsibility when they make their purchase; help enrich some of the most exploitative, emotionally manipulative corporations in the world; are at least mildly complicit in the ongoing female status game that is “oh, let’s see/let me show you the rock;” and make themselves party to a violent, destabilizing, completely unnecessary commodities market.
Somehow that calculus makes diamonds a subject that reasonable people disagree about. Not that diamond engagement ring sycophants offer persuasive counterarguments — they tend to “see your point,” and insist that a diamond ring is necessary.
To be fair, there is the small matter of tradition. For tens of years, it has been a time honored practice to imagine that diamond rings are as old as marriage itself, fall for the same De Beers propaganda as your grandparents, and glory in “diamonds are forever” faux traditionalism (even as you arrange far more significant aspects of your marriage in ways that folks 50 years ago would find totally foreign).
Were I re-writing Dante, I’d put the terrible men responsible for De Beers in a circle of hell several levels below the big tobacco executives of yore for bringing this culture about.
But I am a pragmatist and an empiricist who recognizes the radical, counter-intuitive, decidedly minority nature of my position. Lots of intelligent, wonderful people whose moral instincts I generally admire buy diamonds. I am therefore forced to agree with Prudence when she tells the advice seeker that so long as it isn’t a conflict diamond, there isn’t an insurmountable moral case against bling. Put another way, guys sympathetic to my position shouldn’t lose the love of their life standing on principle.
In fact, so long as the guy in the question is cool marrying someone with moderate status anxiety — that’s probably the best case scenario for a woman who demands a certain size diamond — I’d say that Prudie is probably being excessively anti-diamond:
I hope your graduate studies are in something more remunerative than philosophy, not only so you can eventually buy your girl a ring, but because philosophy doesn’t seem to be your strength. Let me take your objections one by one: 1) Oh, come on. 2) Oh, come on. 3) There are “conflict-free” diamonds. 4) Many valuable things are inherently worthless. But despite my objections to your objections, in general I agree with you. (As I would, since I don’t have, and didn’t want, an engagement ring.) I find it ludicrous to consider going into debt to buy a piece of jewelry. If you can’t painlessly write a check for a ring, you can’t afford it. And I find it distasteful to think that a woman who wants to marry her boyfriend wouldn’t consider herself engaged unless he shows up with a substantial rock. If you’ve been together for four years, and are ready to be married, then you both should be ecstatic to take that step, even if it means she has to have a naked ring finger for a while. Propose to her and tell her that you’re hoping the two of you will build a happy, even prosperous, life together and that when you’re more financially secure, you will happily get her a ring she will enjoy. I agree with you that it seems nutty to break up over your “philosophic” objections to a ring. And I hope she’s not so “overly superficial” that she would refuse your proposal because it lacks sufficient carats.
Perhaps rejecting a ringless proposal would signify superficiality, but maybe not, since superficial women tend to choose guys who are already rich, rather than talking poor grad students into lavish purchases. It could be that this woman foolishly chose the kind of friends who’ll mock and denigrate her if she’s ringless; perhaps her co-workers will unintentionally make her feel very uncomfortable if they find out she is engaged and doesn’t have a ring; there are sundry explanations other than superficiality, many of them grounded in the awful culture of diamonds in America.
Disagree about diamonds? Read this, and tell me if you still do. How I hope that one day matters are reversed, a la fur coats, and it is folks who do wear diamonds who are looked down upon by their girlfriends. This despite the fact that some of my best friends are diamond owners! Hey, if I win you’ll still have a way to cut glass.
UPDATE: Okay, I assume and hope that this isn’t a common sentiment, but I can’t resist posting one more Slate commenter’s take:
I hope you can read this message on time. It seems to me you really do not get the REAL issue with the ring, and why just a band wouldn’t do. It is true, as some other have mentioned before me, any women would think sweet things of you for the next 60 years if you give them a nice ring. The reason for this sweet thoughs are not thoughs of pure white romantic love, nor hot passionate fire fuled love. It is not that your bought her as a woman, as some women indeed like the feeling of being possesed a sign of their feminity (gosh, protect me from that thoughts), nor the fact that you prooved your love by doing a great sacrifice you can almost not afford, or even if you prooved you are worthy of getting married to due to your wealth, or at least promise of future wealth.
The real reason, and I mean the REAL reason why we all want largest available ROCK is to because we want it as a weapon. A social weapon. We want to able to scratch with ethernal jelousy and envy the heart of our current future female friends and enemies, so, even when we will turn into a fat, ordinary, ugly and old woman in the next 60 years, we could always, always make an subtle movement with the hand, reach something, wave good bye, just anything, so the light catches an edge, deflects on one or two faces of the stone, just make a sparkle or bling, just for a instant. But that instant, brief as a blink, is enough for us to remember our capacity to be at the same level of most females of our class. May be even dismiss all smaller stone ringers. That subtle moment will last a tenth of a second. But in our hearts the power will remain constant as well as our sweet thoughts of you giving, for giving us that power or illusion of power. Diamonds are forever. As for a suggestion, if you decide not to buy the ring, you run a high risk of getting a no for an answer, specially if your girlfriend is very close to female friends with potentially large stones. If she even says yes, then she might stay with you forever, but you would need to buy the ring eventually, and THEN forget about buying a new car before the ring. Alternatively, it would be easier to not buy the ring if you move to another city, where the acknowledgement of the stone by her friends would be diminished.
As someone who bought a ring… well said.
Although I wonder how tobacco even operates in the same category. I am a non-smoker, but the tradition of tobacco use is ancient, it is real, and it is understandable. It might be annoying to some people, but so are the church bells that ring across the street from my house at 6 am. I hardly think there needs to be a spot in hell for the lady who operates the carillion.
Other than that, spot on. And the second commentor is exactly right. My complaint, apart from the ring, was the wedding presents, which are almost exclusivley for the wife. Crystal candleholders? My wife is still furious that my friends got “us” a Russian assault rifle to balance the ledger a little.
— Sam M · Mar 23, 12:04 PM · #
When I bought my wife’s ring, I was a broke-ass freelance designer. Conspicuously so: the clerk at the store asked both “how old are you?” and “is she pregnant?” But I had the good sense to buy a used (“estate”) piece, which was cheaper than the smallest new piece and cooler-looking than all the new rings I saw at ten times the price.
Everybody getting engaged should at least look at estate rings. You can save massively while still getting a classy design, and — if you have delicate sensibilities on this point — you stay off the margin of new diamond demand.
— Matt Frost · Mar 23, 12:50 PM · #
It’s the handicap principle, plus status signaling, plus tradition. Mammalian through and through, twang twang.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Mar 23, 01:10 PM · #
Like the dude said, it’s a symbol. If you have all the objections to dimond rings but still do it becasue it will make your irrational bride-to-be happy it’s even a bigger symbol: sacrifice of principal. Very few couples are going tohave exactly the same principals. The ones I know that do are kind of creepy. So these moments are going to come up over and over. The thing to worry about is if you share almost none of the same principlas. That is a recipe for divorce.
I don’t give a crap for tradition for tradition sake and not too much for social signaling or materialism, but I got my wife a ring (tanzinite, not diamond becasue she didn’t like diamonds, safire would have been better but who can afford that) becasue she wanted one. It wasn’t a deal breaker if I didn’t get it and I spent what I could afford, but it was a small symbol. I know other people that just got gold bands.
— cw · Mar 23, 03:03 PM · #
I asked for a cedar chest instead, and am happy with it. :-)
— Julana · Mar 23, 03:29 PM · #
First thought on seeing this post: Is Conor trying to suck up to Roissy?
— Chris Hallquist · Mar 23, 04:43 PM · #
Conor, now that it’s been announced that ACORN is closing, I think you have somewhat of an obligation to address how you, personally, did a great deal to flog a story that has emerged as completely fabricated. I won’t hold my breath that anybody on the right will take responsibility for trampling on the Constitution and the principles of journalism just to take out a perceived political enemy, though.
— Chet · Mar 23, 04:48 PM · #
“I asked for a cedar chest instead, and am happy with it.”
Very hot.
“Everybody getting engaged should at least look at estate rings. You can save massively while still getting a classy design, and — if you have delicate sensibilities on this point — you stay off the margin of new diamond demand.”
If the USA is anything like the UK in this regard (and I’m pretty sure it will be), auction is also a fairly good forum for acquiring “estate” jewellery. If you’re going to buy that way it makes sense to educate yourself a bit before going into it, but if it’s a catalogue sale at a reputable medium-to-large auction house, the items are likely to be catalogued pretty accurately. Obviously, the issue is that you get something that’s been used and the style may well not be current. Some of us like antiques, some don’t. But you can potentially get a lot for your money compared to retail and, as noted, you bypass some of the ethical issues.
It’s also worth noting that retail mark-up in the jewellery trade – including for second-hand pieces – is often very high. This is largely because a jeweller with a shop has to buy in large amount of stock, much of which is likely to have a relatively low turn-over rate.
— Anthony · Mar 23, 04:53 PM · #
I buy most of my rings from this guy that works at a funeral parlor.
— cw · Mar 23, 05:23 PM · #
I always wondered what it meant that the woman DOESN’T buy the man a gift of equal value? Seems pretty telling…
— m00se · Mar 23, 05:48 PM · #
My wife got me a nickel S&W Model 19 for an engagement present, so I can’t speak to the reciprocity question.
— Matt Frost · Mar 23, 06:32 PM · #
If you decide to spend the money in an attempt to buy the “correctly” sized diamond for her, the best bet to save some money is to buy it with her there. Studies have shown that men spend more money on an engagement ring when they purchase it by themselves as opposed to with their partners. In fact, that was the main reason that De Beers started the marketing campaign to tie the ring into the actual asking of “the question.” Actually, since De Beers was the company that came up with the entire concept of the engagement ring, your best bet might be to argue that her entire desire for a ring is simply the result of manipulation by a corporate entity and that you don’t see the need for your love to be defined by an arbitrary symbol created by a profit-seeking company with no larger interest in the love between the two of you. If you argue this angle well, she might be willing to settle for a less expensive ring if you’ve convinced her that you’re not just trying to be cheap (even if you are).
— jonathan · Mar 23, 06:40 PM · #
One of the most romantic engagement-ring-related stories I have heard is from a couple that had been married 50 years… they had struggled financially when they were first starting out, and the wife had a tiny little diamond on her engagement ring. As he had gotten more successful in business, the husband had gotten her much nicer jewelry, a bigger diamond ring, etc., but she still wore her original ring because it was so symbolic of all they had been through together.
Such a nicer story than the one where the bride-to-be’s mother said the ring wasn’t big enough, so the groom went back to the store and bought a bigger ring, on credit (this couple didn’t even make it to the altar).
— Sunny · Mar 23, 07:25 PM · #
People should just ditch the diamonds – how boring and conventional. A lot of people like to go with using precious gems for an engagement ring instead; hey if a sapphire was good enough for Princess Di it’s good enough for me. ;)
Also: etsy.com There are tons of options there for any price range, where you can get a ring that is handmade, artistic and uniquely beautiful. Estate sales were a good suggestion above. Generally, I’d rather support an artist trying to make it as a small business owner as opposed to supporting unethical diamond-mining corporations.
— silentbeep · Mar 23, 07:47 PM · #
“Okay, I assume and hope that this isn’t a common sentiment…”
If this isn’t true, then why do most people buy the largest rock they can afford? The primary function of a diamond ring is as a status marker. There are those who don’t care about that, but they are in the definite minority.
— Steven Donegal · Mar 23, 09:18 PM · #
It’s not clear from the letter whether the woman wants a particular size of diamond because she demanded $XXXX of monetary commitment or because she likes the appearance of larger stones more. There are some very pretty rings with small stones, and some that look cheap or tacky. The philosopher needs to identify his girlfriend’s preferences with specificity. If she just has an aesthetic preference for a large solitaire instead of a three-stone design, for example, perhaps she would be content with a large stone of another kind (topaz, moissanite, white sapphire). And she ought to get him something too, in accordance with his preferences, so they can exchange tokens of affection.
Honestly, though, this post comes off as sort of obtuse, coming from a conservative blog. Why don’t girls just get married in prom dresses? Why does it have to be white and poofy? You could get something at Macy’s for $100 bucks and put the rest toward a down payment. White gowns only started with Queen Victoria! What’s wrong with a business suit at city hall? Etc. Culture’s a bitch.
And if every girl who prefers a certain design of ring has “status anxiety,” I hate to think about the awful mental problems men who, say, drive sporty cars have. Isn’t a used Honda good enough? After all, one could argue that if they buy a zippy little car that uses more gas than strictly necessary, they also “engage in minor financial irresponsibility when they make their purchase; help enrich some of the most exploitative, emotionally manipulative corporations in the world; are at least mildly complicit in the ongoing [male] status game that is “oh, let’s see/let me show you [my new wheels];” and make themselves party to a violent, destabilizing, completely unnecessary commodities market.” Etc. Women and men both are socialized to purchase stupid conspicuous-consumption goods, news at 11.
— Amber · Mar 23, 09:20 PM · #
My wife refused to have a ring, and I’m proud of her for that. (Comparatively, a friend of hers once confided to her that if she was proposed to with a ring “under 10 thousand euros” she’d say no.)
I do think you’re a bit harsh though. In terms of conflict diamonds, I’m told the industry has pretty much cleaned up its act. And as Prudence points out, we all spend our time showing our appreciation to each other by buying stuff that’s useless. (I’m also against gifts, but that’s a debate for another time.)
I definitely agree with the spirit in which the post was written, though. Good on you! The intermingling of materialism and marriage (worse, weddings) is very, very annoying.
— PEG · Mar 23, 10:27 PM · #
Why marry a woman who isn’t in some kind of minority, though?
— Chet · Mar 23, 11:03 PM · #
thank you
— sesli sohbet · Mar 24, 02:12 AM · #
Frost: I have happily settled in one of the Bluest corners of the nation – it’s a three-minute walk to artisanal ravioli! – but you’re making the Red alternative sound mighty nice. I can see you and your wife out back, shootin’ cans off of a rotted tree trunk, or maybe the rusted hull of an old Ford Torino, talking about Flaubert.
— Matt Feeney · Mar 24, 03:57 AM · #
My husband grumbled about the ring tradition—“Can’t you just get me a belt or something?” In the first 10 years of our marriage, he lost his original wedding band and three successive replacements, which became ever less expensive, returning home from each loss with a vow never to wear the ring while swimming or fishing again. He certainly got his way in the end because I got tired of spending money on replacement wedding bands. When we were engaged in 1988 I was happy with a simple, affordable sapphire ring which I’ve always enjoyed.
— Joules · Mar 24, 05:05 AM · #
Damn. Awesome.
— PEG · Mar 24, 06:09 AM · #
The De Beers cartel’s near-monopoly has allowed it to combat conflict diamonds more effectively than it otherwise might have. Stigmatizing conflict diamonds hurts small, shady producers much more than big, spotlighted ones, and gives De Beers a pr boost and an increase in market share. I spoke to a De Beers rep in South Africa, and to this day the company hates Edward Jay Epstein, author of the celebrated Atlantic article linked above, because it pointed out the fundamental facts about the diamond market: that diamonds are about as rare as air molecules, and that De Beers creates scarcity by controlling both the supply (by owning mines) and the demand (with brilliant, Bernays-style management of the way people think about their diamonds).
Anyway, as many have suggested, on balance the diamond mania is a good thing, since it allows materialistic women to find the men who will give them what they want, and since it allows men who don’t want materialistic women to screen them out with relative ease. Everyone’s a winner.
— GCAW · Mar 24, 07:48 AM · #
Matt,
A house full of toddlers means we don’t get out to shoot as often as we’d like any more, but that was pretty much how it was for a while.
— Matt Frost · Mar 24, 10:27 AM · #
he best bet to save some money is to buy it with her there. Studies have shown that men spend more money on an engagement ring when they purchase it by themselves as opposed to with their partners.
I’d imagine this avoids (most) of Conor’s social objections. If the purpose of the ring is to announce the couple’s engagement, then it seems reasonable that the couple should choose a ring — and bear the financial burden — together.
— Tom_Meyer · Mar 24, 08:42 PM · #
I think the point is not that they share the cost when they buy together, but that men if they’re buying alone choose to err on the side of spending more than is “necessary” rather than less.
I suppose that women in such a situation are (like everyone is in similar situations, anyway) more frugal in their choice because they don’t want to seem to be taking advantage of their prospective fiancees.
— Marko · Mar 24, 09:00 PM · #
Every time I read one of these diamond rants, I can’t help but think, “so what?” I mean, yes, the ring is needlessly expensive (although you certainly don’t have to spend two months salary), and so are weddings. whatever. Lots of life is silly pageantry. Why should I wear a $500 suit to a job interview when a $15 sweatsuit from Walmart would be far more functional and comfortable?
— MC · Mar 25, 05:08 PM · #
“Women and men both are socialized to purchase stupid conspicuous-consumption goods, news at 11.”
And here’s the news!
— Ethan C. · Mar 25, 11:03 PM · #