Hacker News Reader

Comment by ejcx | Hacker News Reader

I sent this to my SO and she now wants one instead of a diamond. Until now, it's been non-negotiable.

Thanks for writing. I did not want to buy a diamond :)

I gave my wife a moissanite and seeded are to-be joint saving account with the 10k we saved. You just have to remember that the burden of wearing the moissanite is on the woman. The choice is obvious but the social pressure is huge. Women love to look at other women's rings and chat about it. If she is open to the idea, just remember that she's the one being brave and breaking out of the mold more so than you :)

> Women love to look at other women's rings and chat about it. If she is open to the idea, just remember that she's the one being brave and breaking out of the mold more so than you.

This is a great description that captures the social pressure aspect quite well. Guys aren't the ones wearing the ring everywhere!

Also most guys wouldn't care in the least about rings (unless you know it has bluetooth or zigbee or something).

Agree grandparent comment truly made me understand the woman's side of thing. It's easy for men to dismiss them as being irrational.

I am glad that diamond engagements aren't a thing in India. (Although in place of it we have a ton of other retarded customs). Gold is pretty much the standard here - which is actually quite practical. It makes a good liquid asset, holds its value, stays as an insurance and safety during hard times.

> Guys aren't the ones wearing the ring everywhere!

I believe that the bride-only thing is US-only, or (maybe) limited maybe limited to ex-british regions, but it's definitely not universal, and definitely not a thing in latinamerica (diamonds aren't a thing here either) or a great deal of europe.

In Hong Kong, both the husband and the wife wear a ring. My mother lost hers, my dad is still wearing his. My wife lost hers, I'm still wearing mine. XD

It's pretty much the same in France, although social pressure has eased on that as of late.

Usually the only jewel men wear is their wedding band.

I'm probably odd, but I personally wouldn't be marrying anyone who "caved" to social pressures about a non-functional fashion accessory barely noticeable from anything other than up close. Thankfully, I already found someone like that.

Yes, I feel like there is a growing social pressure to resist social pressure ;)

it's about strength of the personality - are you a conformist which tries hard to not stick out of the crowd, behaves as all the others, listens to the same stuff, thinks the same or do you forge your own way, whatever it means for you specifically?

I prefer this strength in women - as it is not an isolated feature of personality. Life is too short to spend it with someone that shallow, unless that is exactly what you want/need.

And yes, if it's not clear, women requesting diamond rings as statement of true love (that's just not true and won't make the relationship any better), or blabbing about 3-salary-worth of diamonds... meh, I say you can do better.

Don't give in to peer pressure, none of the cool kids do

Are you peer pressuring them to not give into peer pressure?

It sounds a lot like my marriage advise which is "Don't listen to any marriage advise - except mine".

> Until now, it's been non-negotiable.

I really hate to be a random person on the internet giving personal advice but... diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign. Don't be surprised to find out a bunch of other things are non-negotiable if you divorce.

Wow. It's very difficult to respond to you civically. We've been together for a long long time. It is amazing what people you don't know on the internet will assume about you.

There was no alternative before this article. Cubic is cheap and tacky. Diamonds are overpriced and awful. Lab diamonds not much better. This article has a real alternative. That's a huge contribution to all diamond haters everywhere.

Right, I read that as your SO dictating to you that you must give her a diamond. My apologies.

I think you were in the right and didn't really assume as much as suggested. I got the same impression particularly because of the language chosen. "non-negotiable" implies that there was a second party to necessitate negotiation. Saying "no alternative" would come closer to describing a personal taste threshold.

Non-negotiable was a bad choice of words. It's been very negotiable. She just really didn't want cubic because of the perception, like someone else had noted.

It's just a little ridiculous to read 3 sentences a stranger types and tells them they are going to get a divorce. Bad form as far as unsolicited advice goes.

I think he was trying to help (even if misguided) and besides he apologized. You could be gracious about it.

Hey mythrwy are you pregnant, you're looking a lot bigger? And also you should dump your partner because they conform to mainstream social standards, total red flag. Oh and you're raising your kids wrong.

Hey why are you offended? I was trying to help! You could be gracious about it.

Are you teaching me a lesson? Or trolling? Real question. Because your approach isn't very constructive.

The guy apologized and maybe he thought his advice was good. I admit though it was blunt and the part about divorce was rude.

Ok, at this point I have to comment.

For one thing, I never said he would get divorced. I said "if you get divorced".

For another thing, if you are going to divulge details of your personal relationship online, you should not be surprised or get upset if someone comments about it. If it's a sensitive issue for you - keep it to yourself. This isn't your journal.

I take my apology back. I did absolutely nothing wrong, and people seriously need to develop thicker skin.

> people seriously need to develop thicker skin.

You should heed your own words...

I still read it that way. It seemed odd to me, too. I don't think you did anything wrong.

I think it would be helpful if people who are giving their thoughts on a diamond can state if they've been married/engaged before.

I don't think this is about expecting a diamond. More likely that it's about the abrupt mention of divorce.

> Cubic [zirconia?] is cheap and tacky.

What does this mean to you? Why isn't it true of silicon carbide?

I find it odd to see the simultaneous complaint that one clear cubic crystal is "cheap", but another is "overpriced". What do you want the price to be? Why?

"Cheap" as a criticism is not usually about price, but about perceived value.

The value of a courtship gift is its price.

So a self-written poem is worth less than a purchased fortune cookie?

I agree with your sentiment, but the retort would be that even a few minutes of your time has more monetary value than that cookie.

The diamond cartels love this kind of thinking. It should be about value, not price.

With a diamond, you are not getting value (except in some rare circumstances involving unusual stones).

It is not a good thing for courtship gifts to have value; if they have too much value they are likely to be dishonestly accepted by someone who isn't interested in the giver but does want the object.

If you're buying people because you're in a sexist world, agreed. Should probably stop doing that though.

> Cubic is cheap and tacky

Why the fact it's cheap makes it tacky? There's plenty of good CZ jewelry and 99% of people won't know the difference with diamonds or moissanite if you don't tell them. Moassanite is good, but still way too much expensive than it should be. It would be fun if we chose homes same way - "Oh, that big house with large lot, fireplace, etc is perfect in every way for us, but it's 30 times cheaper than that another almost-the-same house that was built by the company which enslaves people and makes them die while building those houses. We will only have to be in mortgage for it for 1 year, so we won't buy it." Why don't use left over money to buy some trip or something like that? I don't understand why regular working people want to wear half a car on a finger...

The house analogy isn't really working for me.. An almost same house gives 99% of all the important value, but a non-diamond ring isn't the same since it's still a pretty big mental and societal shift one has to deal with.

That does sound better, spending the saved money on 4x$2000 amazing trips together, or 2x$4000 SUPER trips. Priceless memories that would easily be higher value than a nice rock.

The problem with CZ is that it absorbs oil and dirt from the surroundings, so that within a couple years of regular use it's noticeably cloudy. Though I would say for the first year, it's a perfectly good substitute for diamond.

The house analogy doesn't quite work for me. Housing prices vary wildly by their location. Some of it is due to practical reasons(urban centre, close to work), but some of it is clearly just social posturing(buying a house in a posh neighbourhood).

We put cubic in my wife's ring when we got engaged nearly a decade ago. No one has ever noticed and most people talk about how gorgeous her stone is and how much it must have cost :)

> There was no alternative before this article.

You know, you don't need an engagement ring to get married. Much less one with a shiny stone of any kind.

> You know, you don't need an engagement ring to get married

You also need a partner who wants to get married to you. Where does HN get it's perfectly compatible partners from? A difference in opinion is not unexpected - not everyone is equally pragmatic. Also,things that are considered "deal-breakers" are far from universal.

So why does only one partner get a ring? Why, typically, the female one? In same-sex marriages, how do partners determine who gets the ring? Flip a coin? Damn.

The answer to all your questions is: it depends on the partners and what they agree to. But on the most part, it is driven by cultural momentum - the same reason men's formal clothing includes a tie. One could equally argue "One does not need to wear a tie to go to work", but there are people who love ties and how they look wearing them.

Ties = strangulation devices ;)

"Where does HN get it's perfectly compatible partners from?"

Truth is women in our culture are still somewhat of a status symbol. My wife is essentially perfectly compatible with me that was achieved by not simply selecting the most physically attractive person who would marry me but instead finding someone who actually is a decent human being. Her ring cost under 50 dollars. She wants me to spend the short time we all have on earth with her, not working to buy her shiny rocks, a overvalued house or an expensive car so she can impress her friends. I wouldn't have it any other way.

If people want to spend their money on a ring then I have no issue with that. Personally my wife is quite frugal about signs of material wealth (raised in a family with money that drove old Honda's etc) and had very strong opinions about not wanting an expensive ring. Instead we spent our money on a honeymoon exploring Asia and Europe - I wouldn't trade that time for any ring. Travel may be a privilege but teaches you a lot more about the world and the person you want to spend the rest of your life with.

Stoneless rings are common in other countries. Tattoos are up and coming. A bit more painful, but still cheaper than a diamond (and much more permanent).

>> A bit more painful, but still cheaper than a diamond (and much more permanent).

My best friend is a tattoo artist. He said the top two coverups he does are for:

a. band names

b. significant other initials or names

He joked that its practically a harbinger of a failed relationship since most are back in his chair within 12-18 months to get them covered up.

Name or initial is not quite the same thing, I think. I don't know anyone who has names or initials as a wedding/engagement tattoo. It's usually a simple symbol, like a rune, or in my case, a Moebius ring (two sides that are one, what better wedding symbolism is there?). Although I do know one person with both a wedding and an engagement tattoo who is about to get a divorce after more than 10 years of marriage.

>There was no alternative before this article.

There was always the alternative: I don't care about rings and diamonds and such BS, I care about us being together.

Which is not that uncommon (even in the US) as people here make it out to be. Not everybody goes for a big wedding either -- or even a wedding at all.

Also, as another commenter pointed out, "non negotiable" (as in: I want my diamond ring or we're not getting married") and "no alternative" (as in: we both want to buy the ring, and don't care for it being expensive, but there's no good replacement for a real diamond) is a different thing.

CZ is a very satisfactory diamond simulant. A $10 CZ is almost impossible to distinguish visually from a $10,000 diamond - unless you're a very skilled grader, you really can't tell the difference without a thermal tester or a refractometer. The visual giveaway is that it's too good - the stones are perfectly clear, perfectly colourless and have exceptional fire. CZ grades better than the very best diamonds. When it was introduced in the 1970s, it sent shockwaves through the gem trade.

CZ is a bit less durable than diamond (8 vs 10 mohs hardness, some porosity), but it's so cheap that you can have the stone replaced if it starts to show signs of wear.

Moissanite is a very fine simulant, but to my mind, the main advantage over CZ is that it's more expensive. CZ is implausibly cheap for a high-quality diamond simulant.

Maybe I'm the exception to the rule, but I've been able to consistently spot a CZ, even from a distance. I thought maybe it was just the average cut of a CZ, but doing a blind comparison between similar quality cuts of CZ and diamonds with a jeweler friend, I was able to pick out the CZ first try every time.

> diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign

It's deeply ingrained in Western culture. Think about it like eating dogs. There's no rational reason not to use dogs for meat, but most Westerners would throw a hissy fit rather than eat dog meat.

So don't assume the prospective bride is unreasonable. In fact, assume the opposite, as she was able to read a rational explanation of the issues with diamonds, and change her mind.

Horse may be a better example. Meat from carnivores tends to concentrate more toxins, which actually is a rational reason to avoid it.

Horse meat is quite normal in western culture, unless if by western culture you mean anglophone countries.

And not eating it is for non-taste/texture/allergy reasons is just as absurd as wanting to have a "real" diamond.

It's all nonsense. None of it makes sense.

Culture just tends to be arbitrary, in the details. If you don't care about potential social consequences, then feel free to ignore the parts that you find absurd.

OT aside: I sometimes like to play automatic reading (ala dada) with google. So at this moment a google search for "It's all nonsense. None of it makes sense." brings up your comment at the top of the page and a few items below this link [1] which has a section entitled "Making sense of nonsense. Conant and Diamond read Wittgenstein's Tractacus".

Now I wonder if that Diamond is a chance event ("nonsense") or correlation artifact from the search algorithm ("sense").

[1]: http://philosophy.uchicago.edu/faculty/files/conant/costello...

Does horse meat not raise the risk of digestive system cancer, as other red meats do? (and notably unlike fish and vegetables)

I can't reply to stouset for some stupid reason, but why is it "absurd" to not want to eat horse for texture reasons? My understanding is that horse meat generally does not taste that good and is very tough, because those animals get a lot of exercise; it's like deer meat. Some people like venison, and there's no stigma attached to eating it, but it's hard to buy because demand is low (and they're not raised as livestock), and the meat is generally considered "gamey" and difficult to cook properly so it's tender instead of tough and nasty. Cow and especially chicken is popular meat because it's both relatively cheap and rather easy (and fast) to cook. It's really hard to screw up cooking chicken in fact.

> I can't reply to stouset for some stupid reason

On deeply nested comments, if it hasn't been long since the post was made you have to click the "permalink" ("XX minutes ago" or "XX hours ago") link to reply. I think the extra step is to help slow down flamewars ("do I really need to reply to this comment, right now?".

Hmmm... I didn't know that thanks for the heads up.

Thanks for the info, that's very useful.

If this is the intention, it seems like it'd make more sense to throw up roadblocks to only someone else who's in the comment chain, rather than to someone who hasn't been involved at all and is just chiming in. Usually, those flamewars are long chains of comments between two people.

It's also useful to slowdown people dog-piling the 'obvious' response to new comments.

Many people wouldn't be able to distinguish from beef. I had it once in Quebec, much to the amusement of a jerk waiter.

It's not tough, just very lean and thus prone to overcooking. Honestly it tasted pretty good, I thought it was grass fed beef.

Venison is a lot gamier. I only like it in stews.

I think hes saying that it's absurd to not eat horse for reasons other than taste or texture, which would agree with what you're saying

horse, at least the horse I've had, was very tender. It did however have slightly odd aftertaste I wasn't too fond of.

Deer meet is hard to buy, at least in the US, partly because the US has ridiculous laws prohibiting transportation of venison from US deer across state lines in various ways.

> and they're not raised as livestock

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_farm#Deer_Farming_in_New_... -- not quite as many of them as sheep there, but you definitely see a bunch of deer farms just driving around.

In fact, in my experience you're more likely to see New Zealand venison in a US store than US venison, because of the above laws prohibiting transportation.

> There's no rational reason not to use dogs for meat...

Yes there is, unless you would make the same argument for having sex with relatives - which philosophers have rationalized against for thousands of years (way before the genetic consequences were understood). Morality is a rationalization. Dogs are genetically predisposed to be man's best friend - friends don't get eaten.

Diamonds don't even come close, there is no positive moral argument - just a fairly recent PR campaign.

"Dogs are genetically predisposed to be man's best friend - friends don't get eaten."

I take it you've never met a cow, horse, pig, chicken or tame deer. Most animals will befriend humans if you are patient enough.

All those animals were domesticated for very different reasons. I've spent a lot of time with horses, my family had three, and they're great animals - but they don't come anywhere close to dogs when it comes to trust and the ability to read people. I've seen dogs trained with nothing more than praise - the desire to please is that strong for them. That doesn't work for horses.

I've owned horses too. It depends on what you want them to do. If you want to jump on their back and ride them around, sure. I don't do that personally, and while they don't read you like a dog can I've taken unsocialized "mean" horses and turned them into friendly companion horses with nothing but patience and the occasional cookie or carrot.

Unless your children keep having sex with their siblings as well, just pair of incest marriage doesn't actually have significant risk of genetic consequences.

Good to know. Although it does raise the question of how a line is drawn. I'm imagining a "I smoked pot when I was your age but..." sort of conversation - just infinitely more uncomfortable for everyone involved.

>It's deeply ingrained in Western culture.

It's only "deeply ingrained" in the US. In most of the Western Europe etc it's negligible.

And from what I've read it wasn't some deep rooted tradition in the US either -- it took a lot of advertising from diamond companies to instill it...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/how...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you... has some details on the ad campaigns.

Eh, my wife got some flack in Ireland when she didn't have a diamond engagement ring. Yet somehow we're still together.

I have to agree that it's not a great sign if she insists on this. What other trendy stuff is she going to demand just because "everyone else does it"?

I'm somewhat recently divorced now, but one good thing about my ex is that she was never superficial like this. She was perfectly happy to get a $70 Titanium wedding band, and loved how lightweight it was, and never wanted a silly gemstone on her hand. We did get her a couple other rings with gemstones (much cheaper ones, and prettier too; I think one was Tanzanite?), for wearing at special occasions, but wearing a gemstone ring every day is impractical and dumb really; it's just going to get in your way, and worse it's easy to take it off and then lose it. I knew a guy once whose wife dropped her $10k diamond ring down the drain while doing dishes! (No, they didn't recover it.)

So even without that "red neon warning sign" you marriage still didn't work.

Or may be, just may be, wanting diamond is just normal for some women, and it doesn't indicate whether she is a good couple or not.

it ain't normal to want to see the man you are supposed to love unconditionally, to financially bleed on impractical trinket that some people pay with almost proper enslavement, so you can brag about it with your friends (you = anybody, nothing personal here).

if that's an US norm, so what, it's still wrong on many levels. it ain't like that here in europe. the last ex-gf that mentioned 3-salary rule for it was exactly the type you should never, ever marry, no matter what person you are. my fiancee on the other hand is happy with 70 euro ring since relationship is about everything else, but this.

if woman sets this as non-negotiable standard to get married, there is no love from her in relationship, just pure calculation and she treats her counterpart like an idiot. simple as that.

If she wants a diamond so badly, she can spend her own money on it.

If I really want a sports car, I don't expect my fiance to buy it for me. If I want a cellphone, I don't expect my girlfriend to buy it for me and pay for the service.

Just to be clear, your benchmark for 'trendy' includes diamonds? That's like calling printed books a fad.

> diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign

uh... well, apparently it was negotiable, since all he had to do was find a suitable alternative and send her a link to a convincing article on the internet.

> diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign

This is dependent on the relationship between the two people. If one party is strongly against the concept of diamonds and DeBeers, then yes, it'll be an issue. However, your parent commenter might be more moderate, or just doesn't care that much that their partner agrees with this particular societal pressure.

We can only read so much into that statement.

Did she say "I must have a diamond that costs a minimum of $15k, or else I'm leaving you"?

Or does she get kind of sad & blue & disengaged when he pitches alternatives, because she dreamed of a diamond ring as a kid?

The later is quite understandable. Even if you think diamonds are silly, it's a matter of fact women in the USA grow up surrounded by diamond culture.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com