I did not get a dianmond, but a Moissanite ring. A couple of things I learned along the way:
- I bought the ring and the Moissenite seperately. I bought the ring at a regular jewelry store (my spouse found one she liked). It is a very HARD sell when you buy the ring to also get the diamond. I ended up buying the ring online to pick it up, and I have wondered since then if they would have refused to sell me the ring if I tried to buy it in store without a diamond.
- I bought the moissanite online. It was nice seeing a linear increase in price on size versus an exponential price difference (I got it from here: https://www.charlesandcolvard.com/ )
- When I took the moissanite to a jewelry store to get it mounted, the "fake" diamond detector actually said the moissanite was a diamond! I was actually very surprised to see that, and I was candid in the fact that I brought them a moissanite.
- As soon as the jewelry store found out I bought them a moissanite, they said they cannot do anything with it. I ended up bringing the ring and moissanite to a store that deals in moissanites.
My spouse likes her ring, and absolutely no one has been able to tell the difference. I have seen is commenting on how "flawless" the "diamond" looks, and the "diamond" must have cost a lot due to it looking flawless.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/ho...
So arguably buying a diamond ring has always been a symbol of wage oppression and terrible mining conditions in Africa, and any right thinking person should boycott it.
Fortunately my SO isn't that struck by sparkly rocks. She prefers antique jewellery with character and history. Her wedding ring is 150 years old.
The growth in diamond mine production in the late 1800s tremendously increased diamond supply. DeBeers took advantage of historical perception of rarity and actual lower cost of materials to create a new market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_jewelry
Although to be fair, this was in part because diamonds are hard to cut and they don't look good without faceted cuts. Diamonds only started becoming popular in the late 1800s when South African mines started producing them in bulk and modern cuts were developed, and they went mainstream once the De Beers marketing engine kicked in after WW2.
(Added twist: the jeweller couldn't have it ready in time for the ceremony, so we made do with a dime-store trinket, and swapped it later.)
It's also nice to think that the ring has had a life of its own already and you get to be another chapter in it.
If you are not on the same page as your partner, you have more important concerns than a stupid ring of metal.
I love it.
My ring was a spinner, which people find far more interesting than some pretty stones in it. It cost about $10.
Hers was one with a fingernail-sized stone the colour of her eyes, that cost a few hundred.
The metals matched on eyesight, which was good enough for us.
The rings represented what we expected from our marriage - to join us, the way we were, rather than some showy way of expressing our love. We're no longer in the age of selling a ring to get by if a marriage falls apart or something else happens.
Now, I do have to keep a stock of ring pops around to surprise her with on occasion.
They allege their mined diamonds are "conflict free" https://www.jamesallen.com/education/diamonds/grading-confli....
However, my feeling is I don't trust this 100%, and for my SO having a "real diamond" meant a lot. For me, in this case, the need to get a "real diamond" for my SO trumped my ethical stance on where the diamond was sourced.
I think if you are going for 100% ethical purity, then you should either get no diamond (many other beautiful, precious gemstones if you still want one) or just go for it to make your SO happy.
This might well be the most successful marketing campaign in history.
We did discuss the ethical concerns of earth vs lab diamonds beforehand, and the decision to go with an earth diamond was intentional.
The diamond was a yellow, cushion cut diamond. I agree, there are other gemstones that are often overlooked and have beautiful qualities.
It will be interesting to see if companies will try to market "real diamonds" and how the market will respond.
Separately, the work that goes into cutting/finishing diamonds is incredible and there is a huge amount of variety between individual diamonds. They are very fascinating things.
I do not know who the “you” is here, but I would bet most people that want to consume diamonds (especially mined) as an end user for display purposes want to do so to signal their (potential) purchasing power, especially amongst their network.
Although, in this day and age, diamond and jewelry in general are pretty poor status signals. In general, material objects are a poorer show of status than simply having vacation pictures from all over the world constantly showing leisure time (the more finite and expensive commodity).
However, people always turn a blind eye to the part of the story that involves cruelty, which is largely down to De Beers excellent marketing and creation of artificial scarcity.
I think it's quite common knowledge that diamonds were traditionally mined before we were able to make them in a lab, and because of this it's seen as the default to which any other methods of making a diamond are compared.
I guess I'm splitting hairs, yes there is definitely a cultural hangup about mined diamonds being "real" and made diamonds being imitations, fake, whatever. I just don't think many people care that much about the actual backstory, they just want a 'real' one. As such I think the synthetic diamond industry has a bit of an uphill struggle on its hands, but not an unwinnable one if they can convince people that theirs are 'real' too.
And to my (very literalist in many respects) mind, they are.
(edit - I will add that I have gone out of my way to source lab-created stones and silver settings to make jewellery for my partner in the past, so far mostly using star-sapphires, and she seems to have loved them. I find the idea of lab-recreated gems pretty fascinating, and I think that enthusiasm helped.)
They've been doing this to try and undercut lab diamond growing company's in an attempt to retain control of the diamond market in an era where lab diamonds are becoming more and more popular as people consider their ethical choices.
Lab grown diamonds are real diamonds. There is a simple, easy, and cost-effective solution to the problem you seem to have skipped over here.
Although through an objective lens they are the same, for a lot of people there is an emotional difference between buying (or receiving) a lab grown vs earth grown diamond which means they can't be treated like-for-like in every situation.
Fortunately, almost no diamond-wearer has the ability to tell the difference, which alludes to the easy solution.
Your SO probably doesn't want a logical gift, she wants something sentimental that makes her feel that you care about her. For some people, that's an expensive rock with no utility, for others it might be something different. But applying logic to what's ultimately an emotional, illogical affair isn't always productive.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-rituals-work/
Big example of real rituals which have purpose, Key Signing Ceremonies. Small example, when I leave somewhere I always pat both pockets twice, everything I absolutely need is always in those pockets, keys, wallet, phone. And so I won't leave them behind.
The weird thing about the diamond engagement ring is that it isn't a powerful symbol of anything. The wedding ring is the powerful symbol, and that would conventionally just be a metal band. You see those everywhere which is of course made more practical by their being a simple metal band.
After my wallet fell out of my pants pocket into my office chair and I thought I'd lost it for 2 days, I updated this ritual to do it every time I walk through a doorway. That way if I lose something I know exactly which room it's in.
Was just about to post this. I didn't start doing this on purpose, but at some point I noticed I was.
The ring is basically a sacrifice, which goes with the "blood diamond" thing pretty neatly.
On the other hand, a loving relationship and marriage is worth much more than a diamond ring ever could be. When you have a caring wife and you both love and help each other you’ll get an immeasurable improvement in your life.
To conclude, yes it’s overpriced, yes there are problems with diamond mining, yes DeBeers artificially controls the supply, and yes you can find a rarer stone for less, or something more exotic, but your wife wants a diamond, so you buy a diamond and hopefully live a happy life.
Life is expensive, and between cars, house, the actual wedding, kids, etc. The money I spent on my wives engagement ring seems like child's play.
Also I feel like most women want it, because it's what everyone asks of them. 100% it's societal pressure. If you tell someone you got engaged, question #1 will be "Ohh let me see the ring!"
To me it feels more like a classic case of mimetism: all beautiful / successful / happy / rich people have a diamond ring, so most women naturally want one too. It's not really about fear, but more about a strong desire to have the same object as your role models.
I think there is an unofficial "pecking order" of society. People treat you differently if you roll up in a new Mercedes vs a new Honda. If your purse is a Louis Vuitton or a Walmart brand. They all functionally do the same thing, but society uses these things to lump people into camps.
In that same regard, I've seen women who are not materialistic seem embarrassed to show off their modest ring which is wrong. I think a lot of people treat engagement rings in the same way as designer bags, and nice cars.
We can say it doesn't matter, but if society ranks you differently I think it does matter on some level.
I wonder if your literal children would feel like that if you'd taken the same money for a ring that will (presuming you proceed with marriage) pretty much never get worn, and invested it in an index fund until their 21st birthday.
"child's play" indeed is what I would call this level of financial misplanning.
I don't know what culture you're from. But in North America engagement rings are worn as every day jewellery. So it gets used daily.
>I wonder if your literal children would feel like that if you'd taken the same money for a ring that will (presuming you proceed with marriage) pretty much never get worn, and invested it in an index fund until their 21st birthday.
I guess you're presuming that because I spent money on one thing... I'm unable to spend money on another thing? Do you apply the same logic to everything in your life? "I really should have gone with the cheapest clothing available as then I could have saved $x towards my children's future!"
Regardless my children do in fact have investment accounts opened in their names and invested in index funds, and I don't regret buying my wife a nice engagement ring, our our Audi, or our house, etc etc. I hope if you get married you don't put every expense through the view point of "If I invested this for 21 years!" as you'd never take a day of vacation, or enjoy yourself. :)
(He's giving it all to charity, though.)
"How dare you spend what at the end of the day is a trivial amount of money on something that your significant other appreciates and enjoys. You should be eating soylent green and living in a 400 square foot home!"
If I were struggling to get by, it would be a fair discussion. However the audience on HN I presume to be middle class, if not upper middle class it seems like an odd argument to make.
After the wedding?
Edit: As a random google you can get items like this which combine the wedding band with the engagement ring: https://www.kay.com/diamond-bridal-set-18-ct-tw-roundcut-10k...
It seems the US-focused De Beers marketing campaign from half a century ago is still holding strong.
I've almost never heard of anyone buying engagement rings, diamonds or no diamonds.
I do know a nouveau riche (or aspirational nouveau riche) couple whose wedding bands have tiny diamonds on them.
In my direct environment many people broke with that tradition.
Not long after I got married, I read about Moissanite.
But a ring is still needed for the ceremony.
I bought some small amounts of rose gold and white gold, gave it to a custom jeweler and told them to do whatever they always wanted to do (but no client ever accepted) using only the gold I bought.
They gave me back a rose gold ring, with a gigantic "gemstone" made of the white gold I bought.
From far away, the ring made everyone think it had a huge diamond on it. It was really funny.
Total cost $1000 including labor, not cheap but at least the ring was special. Formally proposed with it and my wife liked it.
My wife, as promised, never wore it after the wedding. She likes to be not robbed.
It was around what you would expect an engagement ring to cost you in this region of the world, the lens cover is made out of sapphire crystal so the jewelry aspect is there, and should I perish in an accident the resale value should give her 2-3 months of runway assuming she moves in with my family, considering we have an infant daughter.
On top of that she very much enjoys the practical aspect of this gift.
Why practice a personal relationship in a way others have designed?
Isn't it somewhat contrary to the theme of Hacker News? To me, the term "hacking" describes the habit of doing things in a more interesting/efficient/fun way than how they are usually done.
Beyond the social convention that "it's the thing to do" at a certain point in a relationship, some reasons are:
- Marriage provides financial assurance for a spouse who will defer their career to raise children.
- Some friends and family (particularly those of the spouse) will absolutely treat you differently when you're married to someone versus in a long-term unmarried relationship.
- Depending on the jurisdiction, spouses have certain rights that unmarried partners do not, e.g. with regards to the legal system and hospital visitation. I know a couple that got married because one of them was an activist/journalist and frequently attended protests in which he was at risk of arrest.
- In some circumstances, it makes it easier to purchase a home together and make other large joint financial investments.
- Under some tax regimes, you pay lower taxes when married.
- U.S. citizens living abroad in a low-tax country with a foreign spouse can engage in advantageous tax planning.
- I believe in the UK (where I live) one has all of the legal and financial implications automatically when a relationship reaches a certain age (3 years I believe). Legally you would be treated the same way as if you were married.
- Friends and family; My family certainly feel this way, my wife's I'm not sure. I'm "mixed"-culture/race/etc so some of my family have different cultural views. My wife and I don't feel strongly either way about how our children deal with this when they grow up, so perhaps our (millenial) generation is changing the "social" side of it already?
- Legally I believe you have all of the rights you describe, however, it may be more difficult to prove the relationship without a piece of paper. We've had to present our marriage certificate for various things relating to our child(ren) for example.
- It _should_ have no effect on your ability to purchase a home in the UK
- There is a tax benefit for low income couples in the UK, but I believe our law doesn't specify "married".
- I don't know how any of this affects UK citizens abroad as I've never looked into it.
That's not true
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/how-to-sor...
The sibling comment mentions family visas, and indeed those are not restricted to your married partner, but separation is completely different matter
There's a myth about such a thing as a "common law marriage" existing, but that's just that: a myth
https://theconversation.com/common-law-marriage-a-myth-neari...
property on dissolving: https://www.ontario.ca/page/dividing-property-when-marriage-...
employment benefits must extend to common law partners: https://www.ontario.ca/document/your-guide-employment-standa...
The myth aside, I don't think you have "no" rights, the first link says "fewer". It's really hard to prove something without an "official" document though so I understand how it could be more complicated.
I think that in many (most?) countries nowadays, marriage is already no more than just a legal status that offers those practical points, so I am not sure if anything needs to change.
You don't have to get a ceremony/ring/party, go at the church or whatever your culture/religion associates with the act of getting married.
You can just sign the contract privately, which makes you legally married.
Same for divorce, I believe it only gets complicated when you fight about children, money and assets, otherwise you can both just decide to stop the contract.
For friends and family, the older relatives on both sides I believe just assume we're married.
There is one difference, and that is in default treatment. If I died/was rendered otherwise incapable of communicating my desires, there is now an onus on my partner to prove that we are in the relationship she claims we are. That exists with marriage too except it's "solved" by a marriage certificate.
They also apply the same treatment to foreigners coming to the UK.
So if you've been living with your boyfriend for long enough, the UK will extend him a spousal visa without you having to get married.
Can you please, please elaborate on this?
U.S. citizens must pay taxes on worldwide income, regardless of what country they live in. Citizens of almost all other countries are not required to do this (they pay income taxes to the country where they live and/or earn income). It's a remarkably raw deal for U.S. citizens abroad, considering that we don't get any services to go along with our tax obligations. You'd think we could at least pop into the consulate for one of those COVID vaccines that are now so plentiful stateside that they can hardly give 'em away, but no.
Now, if you're a U.S. citizen and you live abroad in a country with no income tax (e.g. Monaco) or low income tax (e.g. Bulgaria), and you earn more than the ~$100k limit of the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (FEIE), then you're going to be paying U.S. tax, because you won't have paid enough foreign tax to deduct it all under the Foreign Tax Credit. Also all of your non-"earned" income is going to be subject to U.S. tax - dividends, capital gains, etc.
But let's say you live in Monaco (0%), Bulgaria (10% flat), Dubai (0%), Panama (25% top bracket), or the Cayman Islands (0%) and your spouse is not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident (not a "U.S. person" for IRS purposes). If your excess (> $100k) family income is credited to your spouse (or a company owned by your spouse), and that income is not generated in the USA (e.g. not from a U.S.-based business, rental properties in the U.S., U.S. stocks, or business trips to the U.S.), and you file with status "Married Filing Separately" on your U.S. tax return, then your spouse's income is not included on your tax return.
Say you do consulting out there on your little island in the Bahamas, and your foreign spouse sets up a consulting company and hires you as an employee. You get paid a salary by the company that is conveniently under the FEIE limit and thus pay no U.S. tax. Your spouse gets the dividends and pays no tax on them. So long as this isn't entirely a paper fiction arrangement wherein you do 100% of the work but your spouse gets basically all of the money, for U.S. tax purposes it ought to be kosher. (Again disclaimer: not a tax lawyer, this could be wildly incorrect, consult your own advisor about your specific situation)
Your family company's profits get invested into real estate (again in low-tax / no-tax jurisdictions) in your spouse's name. The passive income from that again flows to your spouse for tax purposes, and as long as you keep filing "Married Filing Separately", your spouse is invisible for U.S. tax purposes and no U.S. tax is due.
This is the only way that I know of, short of renouncing citizenship, for a high-earning U.S. citizen expat to avoid taxation of their worldwide income. You still have to file a bunch of paperwork, though. Also, due to a stupid quirk of IRS policy, because your spouse doesn't have a SSN/ITIN, you can't complete a 1040 in the e-file system and you have to file a paper return. Hope you FedEx'd it to the right address, because only a few IRS offices will accept courier deliveries.
You must also be careful about how you set things up for estate planning purposes. If you both live in the U.S. then there is in general no estate tax due when one spouse dies and bequeaths their assets to the other spouse. If you live in a different country, then it can get very complicated! Depending on who owns the assets, what country they're located in, who owned them before marriage, whether they were "gifted" to the other spouse over time or not, etc., the surviving spouse may owe substantial taxes in one country or the other.
I know it took you a while to type that out but it will make a big difference in my life.
Some good reasons I've heard.
1. Legally it's a lot simpler if you're married, if one partner dies for the other partner to get control over assets/legacy.
2. For many couples it's a ceremonious way of making a commitment that is recognised and understood between cultures.
3. In some cases, it allows for certain benefits/perks to be shared (tax, healthcare).
4. It's fun to have a party and get family together.
I personally don't see Hacker News as one homogenous culture with a distinct opinion on what "hacking" is. Being curious, rational and experimental, I still think getting married can fit into that.
If you were truly trying to optimise every aspect of life to be some sort of objective best option, I think getting married may or may not be the right option. I do think generally we give too much power to "the culture" over how we live our lives though and so I do think being sceptical of the rituals/ceremonies we're born into is a positive thing.
I was with computers and sometime electronics for like 40 years already. That alone supplies me with enough "interesting ways". I do not have to have every other aspect of my life to be "interesting". I do not sleep on a stool either.
There are also many convenient practical aspects of registering marriage that are mentioned in other replies.
So, I didn't marry out of infosec concerns.
While I personally would find this very weird, from an infosec perspective, having a relatable backstory should make it easier for you in regards of infosec.
With married status you can conceal things probably better than not.
If your threat model includes crazy people stalking you, my decision is justified.
At least in germany you can go to the Einwohnermeldeamt (citizen Report office) and can request a blockage into your data. This should be enough for a stalker.
Are you allowed to decide what happens to your partner in case of an emergency? Or to decide for her if she is unable to decide anymore?
Also would you save taxes? Here our income is combined and divided 50/50. When I earn 100k and she 20k, we both pay taxes for 60k which comes to something like 100-200$ per month or 2-4% in savings.
If it is similar your stalker already hurts you on a daily basis.
Look up 'marriage tax penalty', if you want to know more.
From a practical point of view, once kids where involved and we started looking at things like inheritance, it turns out that many things would be much quicker and easier, legally, if we where married if one of us got very sick or died (in our particular jurisdiction).
For me it was a great way to reproduce an image I liked very much, an old image of my baptism/christianing (I'm no longer part of that Organisation) where all my family was together.
We invited them all and we're planning things to make sure it is a great experience for our guests and based on the feedback it worked out.
It should be possible to do this without a crazy event but it is easier with something people know.
Also I was sick to my stomach for a while week and very nervous on the wedding day. I do assume that this experience is unique in itself but I'm not sure how significant this is in a relationship.
For example, if you haven't lived together for over 3 years and aren't married, then unless there's a will the partner won't inherit anything. If you have a kid, the kid will get most of the inheritance but can't manage the money until they're 18.
Been a few cases in the media here where the kid inherits lots of money on a locked account while the partner that's left struggles to make ends meet.
Currently my wife is humming the first 4 bars of The Star Spangled Banner over and over and over.
The best answer I can come up with is that marriage is a constant battle of wills. A never ending struggle for absolute supremacy over the will of another person. To take an independent human and bend them to your desire or at least drive them crazy.
What's more thrilling than that? Also how can you be more crushed when that's done to you.
In short marriage is 100% pure adrenaline. Now that bloodsports have been abolished it's the purest most glorious release for any sadist out there ... also any masochist because one way or the other you're gonna get a big swig from both cups.
I think also if you decide to bow to those constraints, grit your teeth and buy a diamond, you can get ones certified to as less likely to have murder and slavery involved in their extraction. Albeit you'd still be supporting that ridiculous market indirectly. Smashing the stigma against lab diamonds seems like a great idea.
Like srsly how often even does someone look longer than a few seconds on your ring?
I would bet people can't really determine a difference between glass and a diamond
It's so close, even the jeweler has to break out some equipment.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_zirconia#Cubic_zirconia_...
Diamonds are carbon atoms arranged in the most boring fashion, they are almost meteorite poop, and real ones are covered in blood.
There's beauty in imperfection and quirky rocks, they are sort of like a metaphore for life.
As far as friends and family goes, they can get over it. I actually have a lot of fun telling people about the current scam that are diamonds, if they make any sideways remarks about my wife and my preferences. There really is no defending the diamond industry, so if they are pushy or too nosy, it's an easy argument to 'win'.
Although you should bear in mind there is a correlation between the amount spent on getting married and the likelihood of divorce.
Feeling sorry for the people that go in a marriage with those kind of sentiments about their partner, or about relationships/marriage in general.
( I also managed to accidentally end two relationships that were already going in the wrong direction by casually mentioning my concerns about diamonds. At least I noticed how it was being interpreted the second time. 8-/ No complaints with how that accidentally played out. )
I always found the stories that middle-class people are expected to pay 20+K for the wedding ring quite hard to believe, but it may be it's true in some parts of the world.
As in not having a ring is 'unacceptable' somehow then?
What's "acceptable" depends on the people in the relationship, and what will make each of them happy.
I didn't have a ring when I proposed to my partner as it was a fairly spontaneous decision when we were in a foreign country, and I knew the location of the proposal would matter much more to her than a ring.
But then after we got back we worked together with a jeweller to design a ring, which made sense as she has better design judgment than me, and we weren't doing anything very lavish/expensive, just something tasteful that she would love (for the record it didn't have diamonds, but rather a morganite stone with white gold).
Of course you can ignore tradition but then why marry in the first place?
Taxation, adoption, power of attorney, inheritance taxes, etc.
> There is no reason why laws should give special privileges to marriages over other forms of relationships.
I tend to agree, but that's a normative question and doesn't change the legal facts we have to deal with.
(At least not directly. Laws are made by people, and if enough people or the right people care for laws to be different, laws can be changed.)
I find it strange how many people seem to be able to separate a tradition from physical items traditionally involved in that tradition.
They're just symbols - I don't think it's strange that many people are able to separate them.
If someone told me they thought it was unacceptable that I didn't have a ring I'd laugh at them.
These faux-intellectual "I'm a robot, beep boop I don't understand context and I parse conversations like a compiler would, semantic error on line 5" conversations are probably the least productive on this website, and they're unfortunately very common. It's not smart, it's just obtuse.
But you can't force things and insist that the whole thing is a useless charade. Objectively, sure, but not everything in life has to be.
Or, buy a ring with a cubic zirconia in it, and don't tell anyone. They are almost indistinguishable from diamonds.
She works as a physical therapist now and wears a silicon ring because she bent the wedding ring giving CPR to a patient in a hospital a few years ago (patient lived).
I really wish I could find them or similar discussion because I’d really like to make a push for a non-diamond ring.
But as other replies here mention - if she wants a diamond, it’s a diamond that she wants.
Observationally, younger couples who have been dating longer tend to care less about rings. Older couples who have been dating less seem to care more.
Why do you care what anyone else thinks?
Largely based on articles I read after watching the film Blood Diamond, actually.
We bought the cheapest gold rings we could fined. 757 gold due to the internet saying that below that, your ring will loose material.
We wanted wolfram but it's bridle, ring size can't be changed and gold was just the easiest at the end.
I think we paid 700$ for both.
That said, when I was deciding whether or not I, as a male, wanted a wedding ring, this was exactly the reason that convinced me. I got married much younger than average and liked the idea of being visible "'off the market' and belongs to someone else."
What if both people want to do it? You are demonstrating a vast amount of ignorance.
No need for insults.
I'm allowed my own opinion on this. I am also allowed to express it, this is, after all, a discussion forum.
But back to the actual topic, what about the point they raise: What if both people want to do it?
They countered your opinion with their own, stating your opinion was ignorant and offered an example as to why.
This is a discussion forum, but you sure seem to have a problem with sometime attempting to respond to you. Do you not see the irony?