engagement rings are Tacky

topic posted Thu, February 1, 2007 - 9:18 AM by  Roxy
and I"m not just saying that because some "hot" actor in a movie made me aware of how politically horrible diamonds are. I've been aware diamonds are bloody for years now. What I'm talking about is the tacky factor. Engagement rings are tacky in the same way brand new houses are. Your pre-fabricated life doesn't fool me. If you're a woman who demands a big rock because you're a princess then you have no business getting married-you are a spoiled child. And if you're a man who wants his fiancee to have a big rock, then I bet you are the type of dude who gets her fake boobs. She is your status symbol just like your bmw that isn't paid off. gross.
Your princess cut is low rent along with your trollop looking french manicure.
posted by:
  • Re: engagement rings are Tacky

    Thu, February 1, 2007 - 9:55 AM
    Hell yeah. I've been saying it for years, and it's more than just the fact that DeBeers is one of the most evil corporations on the planet. (Get a clue, they're ALL blood diamonds, because they're ALL sold by a corporation that finances wars, engages in slavery, murder, and genocide, and has kept the African people artificially poor for generations.)

    Did you know that a century ago, diamonds were considered no more romantic than a common drill bit? In fact, that was their primary use -- drill bits and cutting bits.

    It was only when the newly-formed film industry began glamorizing diamonds in movies (Hollywood's very first use of product placement to make money,) that diamonds began to be perceived by the public as glamorous and romantic.

    Here's another factoid: Diamonds are NOT rare. Their supposed scarcity is an illusion created by the fact that they're marketed by a single, monopolistic corporation which goes out of its way to keep them artificially scarce. In reality, there are places in Africa and elsewhere where you can pick them up off the ground like gravel.

    But I think you really hit the nail on the head here, Roxy. It's more than the fact that the diamond industry has blood on its hands, and it's more than the fact that DeBeers is an evil monopolistic corporation, and it's more, even, than the fact that we've been sold a bill of goods by an industry which seems to believe that it has a right to pass what amounts to a "romance tax" to the tune of 2 months' worth of a guy's salary. Beyond all of this, diamonds are tacky, ostentatious, and crass -- they're like the humongous Cadillac logo on the back of the later-model Escalades. I'd as soon be seen wearing one as to wear a clown wig to a funeral, and there's no way I'd give one as a gift.

    --- Gos
    • Re: engagement rings are Tacky

      Thu, February 1, 2007 - 10:02 AM
      Y'know something else? I really have to wonder about the people who refuse to wear fur, but have nothing against wearing diamonds. Apparently murdering animals is wrong, but murdering and enslaving people is perfectly kosher.

      F#$%ing hypocrites!

      --- Gos
    • Unsu...

      Re: engagement rings are Tacky

      Thu, February 1, 2007 - 10:30 AM
      Any woman who would demand a diamond from me would be out the door in a second. It not only indicates a seedy kind of greed, but a certain ignorant susceptibility to marketing.

      Forget engagement rings..the whole concept of legal marriage is stupid. There is no need to justify love before the State or some superstitious belief in God.

      If you love someone, truly, you can be with them and NEVER need to get married.

      • Re: engagement rings are Tacky

        Thu, February 1, 2007 - 11:12 AM
        "Forget engagement rings..the whole concept of legal marriage is stupid."

        The concept of marriage dates back to a time when fathers sold their pubescent daughters into slavery and called it a "wedding", and all of the traditions we associate with marriage, (including sexual jealousy and the "moral virtue" of a woman retaining her virginity until her wedding,) are rooted in this custom that we no longer observe.

        --- Gos
        • Re: engagement rings are Tacky

          Thu, February 1, 2007 - 11:37 AM
          weddings are annoying and trite. no one cares about your big, true love. (because that is what you said the last time you got married!) they are there for the open bar plain and simple. the only reason i will get married is because married people get better breaks. also if there was a medical decision to be made i would want my spouse to make it, not my parents. i'm an atheist so marriage is just a contract with a person, like a business agreement.
          it is so irresponsible for couples to run themselves into debt with engagement rings and a 25k wedding. this woman i work with comes into work everyday with her Giant wedding magazines and all I can think is, 'sweetie, did someone not take you to your prom back in high school?'
          I can be girly but when it comes to all this ring-wedding-princess crap I did not get that characteristic. thank god.
          • Unsu...

            Re: engagement rings are Tacky

            Thu, February 1, 2007 - 12:21 PM
            I don' tknow about *no one* caring about the big true love:-) I certainly would be excited for someone who was in love and getting married and happy about it...but it is kind of depressing to think if most people are acting phony and are really just there for the alcohol and don't give a crap about your wedding or love or happiness related to that....hmmmm....i wonder how phony people actually are at weddings? the way i can even fake interest in the ring is cuz I am genuinely happy that they've found a good match relationship wise.
            • Re: engagement rings are Tacky

              Thu, February 1, 2007 - 1:19 PM
              okay, i thought about it and i am happy for my friends who coupled up. truly happy. i just don't want to hear about it in a poem or have to talk about what their song is. but i love my friends and i would even sit through all that at the wedding. ...not just for the booze. but i won't ohhhhh and ahhhhh over her ring.
              • Re: engagement rings are Tacky

                Sat, February 3, 2007 - 6:48 PM
                I'm happy for them and all, I just don't want to be bored and have to sit through some boring ass wedding to support them. "We are family" and all that. Ugh.

                Tacky horrible spectacles. I'm embarassed for the wedding party. I feel bad for the guys that have to participate in the whole stupid performance.

                My own wedding was pretty terrible. I couldn't believe I spent so much money on something so stupid. I could not get drunk enough.

                That whole "but it's my special day!" thing women get is the worst. I remember dancing in a big stupid silk dress to some horrible Gloria Estephan song at my wedding and thinking "if this is the best day of my entire life, please kill me now".
  • Unsu...

    Re: engagement rings are Tacky

    Thu, February 1, 2007 - 10:55 AM
    I don't think they are tacky in general....but I don't get oggling them. I'm just not very interested by anyone's engagement ring or the size of the rock.

    I guess for me, i'ts not that they are tacky, rather, I just find them unworthy of interest. Get bored of people talking about them. though i've learned to fake interest when I encounter someone who cares very much about theirs:-)
  • Re: engagement rings are Tacky

    Sat, February 3, 2007 - 7:32 PM
    Marriage is tacky.
    • Re: engagement rings are Tacky

      Sun, February 4, 2007 - 3:45 PM
      I'm trying to figure out if I'm scornful of weddings or marriage as well. I'm still on the fence.
      • Re: engagement rings are Tacky

        Mon, February 5, 2007 - 9:01 PM
        My first reaction to the posted topic was quite short. I impulsively wanted to jump in (without reading anything at all) and simply state, "yeh, and so are weddings and marriages." Is this the same thread as back tats????

        ha,ha. Then I read a few replies and SURE ENOUGH....MyBody has already taken the the topic from the ring to the institution and tradition it represents....with a wildly humorous snippet of her own wedding. Marvelous! Touche'!!!

        And thank YOU, Roxy, for a great topic and (increasingly popular) opinion! How refreshing!
  • Re: engagement rings are Tacky

    Mon, February 5, 2007 - 9:19 PM
    I was basically against getting an engagement ring for Sara, but I ultimately did it. Politically, it was necessary for us to demonstrate that we are trying to have a normal premarityal relationship to whatever extent the U.S. State Department will allow. The ring I got her was nothing special by U.S. standards, but was a little pricier than most Colombians of Sara's demography tend to get. Having a ring to show goes a long way toward getting Colombian nay-sayers to STFU about things like whether Josh even actually exists. Honestly, I wouldn't care if I found out the diamond and the metal were both fake. We picked out the ring from thousands based on the fact that we literally both preferred it over any of the others we saw in terms of its design. It is the ring that shows we are engaged and it is a pretty sight, even if it turns out that because Sara and I know nothing about rings, we got one made of old coke bottle glass and metal from an army truck carbeurator.

    People who don't get engagement rings probably have nothing to prove to anyone. Sadly, Sara and I still have a lot to prove to a lot of people before we can proceed with some semblance of a normal married life together. In a way, it's fortunate that a social norm such as the engagement ring exists to which for us to conform.
    • Re: engagement rings are Tacky

      Mon, February 5, 2007 - 9:30 PM
      Ya know, I never really thought of that angle, Josh.

      I suppose it just goes to show what an understatement it is to say that there's "two sides to every story". In reality, there are as many sides to any story as there are people involved or affected by it.

      --- Gos
  • Re: engagement rings are Tacky

    Sat, February 10, 2007 - 12:48 AM
    You know...there are such things as *conflict-free* diamonds. Many companies, like Tiffany, guarantee that their stones come from socially responsible sources.

    That you don't like the idea of jewelry is another thing altogether.

    I recently got a beautiful engagement ring. I did not ask for it, nor do I think my man has anything to prove. It is beautiful, tasteful, and has three *conflict-free* (he is EXTREMELY socially responsible) diamonds - one for me, one for him, one for our son. The thought behind it is touching and I am reminded of my men every time I feel it on my finger.

    Sometimes it's not about living a pre-fabricated life. Sometimes it's nothing more than a simple expression that says *I want you to have something that can be passed down to our children and then their children so they remember where it began*. I have my mom's engagement ring.

    Why does it have to automatically be a tacky and crass thing just because it's material? Sometimes it's just a sentimental gesture that will last forever.
    • Re: engagement rings are Tacky

      Mon, February 12, 2007 - 10:34 PM

      First, a diamond ring will not last forever. NOTHING lasts forever. Second, you're gonna pass something on to your children that they will pass on to their children whether you buy a diamond or not -- it's called DNA, and unlike a diamond ring, it won't fall down the drain and get lost and leave you or your descendants heartbroken over its loss. You'll also pass down anything you teach them, and that will last them forever.

      But if you wish to think of yourself and your man as "socially responsible", then you really should consider that there is virtually no such thing as a "conflict-free" diamond, because there is virtually no such thing as a diamond that you can buy which originates from any corporation other than DeBeers, and DeBeers really should change their advertising slogan to, "This year, give her slavery, war, the artificial imposition of poverty upon millions of Africans, and Apartheid, and ask her to wear it on her finger forever. DeBeers -- The blood diamond people."

      DeBeers has engaged in slavery (including the practice of "hobbling", which involves breaking the leg[s] of a slave who tries to escape, and/or the breaking or amputation of the hand of a slave who attempts to steal,) it has financed wars in Africa, in order to destroy any social or cultural infrastructure that might pop up on the continent, it propped up Apartheid in South Africa, it has sent mercenaries into Africa to burn villages and destroy crops, and it has financed the very conflicts referred to in the term "conflict diamonds", in order to build what is now a global monopoly on diamonds.

      There is, in reality, no such thing as a "conflict-free" diamond, since DeBeers doesn't market any diamond products which were not mined by a corporation which owns diamond mines that it obtained through conflict and bloodshed, and which has worked these mines using slave labor. The movie, "Blood Diamonds" is nothing more than a marketing ploy for DeBeers' new "conflict-free" line, but when your man plunked down two months' worth of his salary, the money still ended up in the hands of the same bloodthirsty bastards.

      This is, in fact, not the first time DeBeers has used placement in Hollywood films as a marketing gimmick -- that's where the idea of diamonds as a romantic gift originates. A century ago, diamonds were considered no more romantic than drill bits, and their primary use was in industrial cutting and drilling. It was only after DeBeers began financing Hollywood movies in exchange for product placement that diamonds began to be perceived by the public as romantic. (You'd think, today, that a gift of diamonds had always been an extremely romantic gesture, but in fact the custom is less than a century old, and is purely the invention of Hollywood marketing.)

      ...Just a few fun facts about diamonds that you might want to consider as you admire your "socially responsible" rock.

      --- Gos
    • Re: engagement rings are Tacky

      Fri, February 16, 2007 - 2:54 PM
      It is beautiful, tasteful, and has three *conflict-free* (he is EXTREMELY socially responsible) diamonds - one for me, one for him, one for our son.

      Tasteful? Having the third diamond for your son makes me think that your son was born before the wedding, and that's not really tasteful.

      If you believe in the whole wedding marketed fantasy, then believe in it enough not to have a kid before the wedding.