There are better ways to demonstrate your capability as a provider and evidence of financial security than buying diamond rings.

For example, demonstrate you can care for a dog goes a long way. Owning and maintaining a house even further.

A friend of mine got married. He could've bought his wife an extravagant engagement ring, but he put it to her in different terms, along the lines of: "Would you like an expensive ring, or what about something symbolic and we'll put the rest into a down-payment on a better house?"

They didn't squander tens of thousands on a wedding, nor went on a lavish honeymoon. They started out with money in the bank and a hefty down-payment made on a new house, not credit-card debt.

Why do people insist on citing outliers as if that somehow negates the trend? It really derails and otherwise productive discussion. Yes, for every general rule there are always outliers. It's so obvious that it serves no useful purpose to state it explicitly.

The perception that an expensive diamond is required is flawed. I'm trying to illustrate that it's an institution that's crumbling.

I really doubt that a significant percentage of those under ten will even bother with a diamond ring when at the age where they'll be getting engaged. By then they'll either be so saddled with student debt as to make the purchase impractical, or they'll be working two minimum wage jobs just to get by.

He wasn't negating the trend. He was saying there are better ways to satisfy the evolutionary pressure than buying diamonds.

Please, keep your "friend of mine" anecdotes out of generally intelligent discussion.

I don't know that anything "financial" qualifies as an evolutionary concept.

Financial no, because that's one derivation of a greater desire - to find a fit mate.

Fitness indicators change and trend between civilizations. Right now, with the predominance of capitalism, having a lot of "stuff" or access and ability to acquire "stuff" means you're a worthy sexual partner.