What the diamond industry is really selling

Re:What the diamond industry is really selling by facepalm on Monday February 15, 2016 @09:15AM (#11103476)

I am not advocating diamonds, just pointing out that they serve a need.

Generations before us had a very different way of getting into relationships. Maybe our modern lifestyle made diamonds more important.

I am also not saying that diamonds are unavoidable.

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 lotsofpulp on Monday February 15, 2016 @09:35AM (#11103563)

Compensation actually makes sense and is useful after receiving it. As diamonds are an extremely poor store of value, the only purpose it provides is a show of status, as far as I can deduce.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What the diamond industry is really selling by nostrebored on Monday February 15, 2016 @01:32PM (#11105044)

Because investing in something that's only useful to the two of you doesn't create a store of value in your relationship? Think of it as a sunk cost if you're a cynic, or literally a monetary non refundable deposit into your relationship otherwise.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What the diamond industry is really selling by hueving on Monday February 15, 2016 @10:19AM (#11103767)

Are you advocating that women cannot care for themselves and we need to consider sexist traditions of men being forced to provide for them in the case of a failed engagement?

[ Parent | on HN ]