I'd argue that a person obsessed with cost really isn't focused on what it represents.

For those obsessed with materialism, real satisfaction is out of reach. There is always bigger, better and more expensive.

Personally, I would tend to reconsider any long term relationship with such a person.

▲

atmavatar 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

The cost is exactly what it represents.

The entire point of using diamonds in wedding rings is for the male to signal how committed he is to the marriage by expending a large amount of money on both the ring and the wedding itself. It then acts as a way for the wife to signal her status to other women by showing off how much her husband was willing and able to spend on the ring.

It is a hold-out from the tradition that the male is a provider and the female is a caregiver. If you reject traditional gender roles, you should also reject expensive diamond rings regardless whether they are mined or grown. Otherwise, embrace the shiny, but make no mistake: the cost is entirely the point.

▲

Muromec 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

>The entire point of using diamonds in wedding rings is for the male to signal how committed he is to the marriage by expending a large amount of money on both the ring and the wedding itself. It then acts as a way for the wife to signal her status to other women by showing off how much her husband was willing and able to spend on the ring.

That's some nice historical background (which could be post-hoc contextualization that fits certain agenda), but traditions have this weird habit of outliving their actual purpose and still having the form without the role.

So no, you don't have to commit to traditional gender roles to have diamond rings and don't have to make them expensive as otherwise it's not doing the thing it's supposed to do. The could just not do the thing at all and you can still have them.

▲

AnimalMuppet 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One nit: In the US at least, the man pays for the diamond ring, but traditionally it is the woman's family that pays for the wedding.

▲

jqpabc123 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

the cost is entirely the point.

Assume you have 2 diamonds that cost the same.

One is natural, the other is larger and man made.

Which one is more likely to convey your point to the average person?

▲

grues-dinner 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

The more rational decision, IMO, assuming you still want to signal wealth, is to buy neither, collude with your supposed life partner, buy a gigantic, flawless moissanite that you both agree to say is a natural diamond that cost 50k. Then secretly put the money you didn't spend on sparkling carbon into some appreciating asset. Rivals are still sick with envy, you have a fun joint venture bamboozle to laugh about, and the mortgage gets paid off a few years early.

▲

WorkerBee28474 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The larger one, because people will think it costs more.

▲

cwmoore 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

"would tend to reconsider any long term relationship with such a person"

Are you arguing that anyone who would accept and display a precious gem is ineligible for marriage? More so if it is larger, but not if more expensive? The post you are replying to presents a plausible social economy of the tradition. What is your point?

	▲	jqpabc123 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Are you arguing that anyone who would accept and display a precious gem is ineligible for marriage? No. My point is that anyone who conditions marriage on the size or cost of a diamond is ineligible to marry me. My wife accepted my marriage proposal without a ring. One was added later --- after other more urgent finances were covered and reassuring her that it would be modest and not overly wasteful. In other words, this was done strictly because I wanted to --- not as a pre-condition for her acceptance. She says doing it this way was more meaningful.

▲

close04 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

For anyone appreciating expensive things, giving diamonds represent the willingness to fulfill that desire. It’s easy to conflate that with love, at least for a while, even when you aren’t a materialistic person.

Jewelry is the pinnacle of “just monetary value”. Unlike almost any other possession, a car, a house, clothes, etc. jewelry serves no practical purpose, only shows the willingness or ability to spend for it. The more you spend, the more valuable the gesture, the more you cared to please the recipient.

Materialistic people have the same feelings you have. Those just happened to be triggered by different values than yours.

▲

Muromec 5 days ago | parent [-]

The other purpose of jewerly is looking nice. That's difficult to comprehend, but it's the actual important thing for people who's most expensive piece of everyday wear isn't their phone.

▲

close04 3 days ago | parent [-]

Nothing supports your "looking nice" argument like finishing it with the "most expensive piece of everyday wear".

If you want something nice, you get something nice, not something expensive. That's difficult to comprehend for people who measure niceness in a visibly displayed price tag.

▲

Muromec 3 days ago | parent [-]

It's a shoker, but nice things that are done by people who love making them have a tendency to be expensive.

	▲	close04 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Don't break your back moving those goal posts. If you cared about "nice" you would have said "nice" and let everyone understand what you mean. You said "expensive" because you meant "expensive", the core value slipped out. > nice things that are done by people who love making them have a tendency to be expensive No and no. People love making things as much as anyone loves their job, and the price of your output is not what determines it. Niceness and price are almost completely independent characteristics. You can have beautiful cheap trinkets, and garish expensive jewelry, and everything in between. Look no further than when you need an expert to tell apart real and counterfeit items. Or when your "nice and expensive" luxury items are cheap crap because nothing says "made with love so it's expensive" like luxury companies making a $50 bag with slave labor and selling it for $3000 [0]. In the end what matters to some people is the visible price tag, that's the signal, that's the core value. In the real world you’d flash some bling and people would instinctively give more weight to your opinion. Here it has to stand on merit. So I see why price is such a core value. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2024/06/24/italian-...