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.