>>I find it shocking that there are people that think that a woman wanting financial security makes that woman a 'gold-digger'.

Is it?

And why exactly is it the man's responsibility to provide financial security for the woman?

And I always thought women wanted equal rights. Its seems they only want a life long vacation at some body else's expense.

> And why exactly is it the man's responsibility to provide financial security for the woman?

I'm sure for most women it's not that it is the man's responsibility to provide financial security, but that the man is going to work with you to be financially secure rather than against.

If you've spent your twenties working hard and saving, you probably don't want to marry someone who's spent their twenties running up a credit card bill. You very likely will spend your life together arguing.

Not that a diamond ring is necessarily the best way to demonstrate financial responsibility.

The implication, in this context, is that the man and the woman would have very unequal shares of financial responsibility (or expectations). That's why she would be perceived as a gold digger.

There is an enormous difference between wanting financial security and wanting someone to buy them a giant diamond ring as a token of it.

No, there isn't. If the girl is even slightly intelligent, she will want proof of that financial security and a diamond ring is adequate proof that she can verify on her own.

If she's even slightly intelligent they will have discussed finances well ahead of the wedding, probably lived together for some time and know the situation very well.

A shiny rock is not a proxy for communication.

If the girl is even slightly intelligent she'll be able to make an assessment without needing a glittery ring.

Maybe you think that flashing your wealth, not unlike a peacock fanning out their feathers, will get you a mate. It probably will, but it will probably be the kind of mate that is attracted to money.

All mates are attracted to money, some are simply more attracted than others.

> If the girl is even slightly intelligent she'll be able to make an assessment without needing a glittery ring.

Because she's clairvoyant? An expensive car can be rented or borrowed, a house can be inherited, bank statements easily faked. Men do these sorts of things. Frequently.

But a ring she has been pining on and on about? A ring she can easily get appraised? No. You can't fake that. You will need to fork over the cash and when all of your money is going toward regular expenses and all of a sudden you have to fork over 10K in cold hard cash, that's a strain and a fine test of a man's ability to withstand financial shock.

Wait til you have a baby. Now that's a real financial shock.

A diamond is just as easily faked as a bank statement.

The OP said,

>A ring she can easily get appraised?

right before he talked about how hard it is to fake.

You can't fake a diamond that will fool an appraiser just as easily as a bank statement. It's much easier to covertly verify the value of diamond than the validity of a bank statement.

Both can be faked equally easily, given equivalent verification mechanisms.

Without the help of professional services, a layman can be easily fooled in either context.

However, if the layman is going to get the diamond appraised by a professional, then the same standard should be applied to the other task. One can likewise use professional services to accurately determine a person's net worth.

My point remains.

To get a ring appraised you can walk into a jewelry store and pay $100 without the person who bought the diamond knowing about it.

That is simply not possible to do with a bank statement, there is no equivalent easy to use affordable service.

Of course it's possible. Private detectives can procure an insane amount of information on anyone, often using quasi-legal means like social engineering of the target or "favors" from friends on the police force.

Given equivalent conditions, the two tasks are equally easy.

>there is no equivalent easy to use affordable service.

Hiring a PI to investigate someone is no where near as easy and affordable as dropping off a ring at a jeweler.

A jeweler can appraise a ring in less than an hour for less than $100, a PI will want at least a $500 retainer.

In addition a your average PI is going to have a hard time getting bank account information. His buddy in the police can't get that information without a court order.

>quasi-legal means like social engineering

There is no quasi-legal about it. It is explicitly illegal. And it's going to cost you a hell of a lot more than $100 to get a PI to risk jail time for you.

The only way for a PI to get someone's bank account information is by either pretending to be the person, or knowing someone on the inside. Either way is illegal and could be a huge problem for you if you hired someone to do it. (there are ways to do it legally, there could be public record from old civil proceedings, but that wouldn't tell you the current balance)

Appraising a ring without the giver's knowledge:

1. Drop off ring at jeweler

2. Pay $100

3. Pick up ring the next day

Determining the validity of a bank account without the owner's knowledge:

1. Make appointment with PI

2. Discuss specifics of case with PI

3. PI says he can't take the case because what you're asking is illegal

4. Repeat steps 1, and 2 until you find a PI who will accept

5. Pay PI huge retainer.

6. Wait 2 weeks, and hope law enforcement doesn't find out that you hired someone to break the law for you