News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on What the diamond industry is really selling. Parent comment

Re:What the diamond industry is really selling by dyeje on Monday February 15, 2016 @08:57AM (#11103382)
But it is all just marketing. Before 1938 no one cared about diamonds, and people were able to show commitment just fine. If I'm not mistaken, the divorce rate was also significantly lower.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What the diamond industry is really selling by facepalm on Monday February 15, 2016 @09:13AM (#11103464)
Hooking up might have worked very differently in 1938, though. I don't think relationships and marriage were the same as today. Maybe because we have more freedom in our relationships now, we need diamonds.

As an extreme case, take a culture were arranged marriages are the norm. Then it seems obvious that you wouldn't need diamonds because you wouldn't have much of a choice to not commit to the relationship anyway.

I don't know enough about 1938 to make a proper comparison, though.

Edit: somebody else posted a more educated comment. Prior to 1935, apparently women were entitled to compensation when an engagement was broken off - http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~siow/332/rings.pdf

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What the diamond industry is really selling by BostonEnginerd on Monday February 15, 2016 @09:18AM (#11103489)
The divorce rate was likely lower for many reasons not involving diamonds.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What the diamond industry is really selling by pbhjpbhj on Monday February 15, 2016 @12:12PM (#11104466)
Marriages may have ended at a faster rate, but due to greater mortality, maybe?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What the diamond industry is really selling by lmm on Monday February 15, 2016 @10:12AM (#11103729)
Isn't the argument the opposite direction? Before 1938 the divorce rate was significantly lower, so no-one needed to show commitment and no-one cared about diamonds.
[ Parent | on HN ]