Jezebel: engagement rings

Why Not Just Walk Around With Bank Statement Tattoos?

Dodai — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:20:00 EDT

A reader sent us the link to the art of Lee Gainer, whose "Two Months Salary" series shows what kind of rings an A-list actor can buy, as compared to, say, a fast food cook.

Gainer's statement on this work reads: "The diamond engagement ring has evolved from a luxury item mostly purchased by the wealthy to a must have for any bride-to-be…This campaign has been so successful that we now, as a society in general, equate a man's personal worth and love for his future spouse with the size of a shiny rock." [Lee Gainer]

Dude Says Diamonds Are "Profoundly Anti-Feminist," And Not Just Because He Can't Afford One

Dodai — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:30:00 EDT

What does a diamond engagement ring mean to you? Love? Money? "Forever?" Over on Nerve, Ken Mondschein posits that diamond engagement rings are "profoundly anti-feminist." The idea that "only a diamond will do" is a relatively recent innovation, he explains. See, diamonds used to be so rare that only the very very wealthy could afford them. That is, until the 1870s. Diamond mines were "discovered" in South Africa, where, "poorly-paid, abominably treated native African workers" unearthed the gems by the ton. Cecil Rhodes, noted for having a famous scholarship named after him (and for believing that Anglo-Saxons are superior to others; he wanted the British Empire to rule every country and once wrote: "I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race") founded De Beers in 1880, and the diamond cartel became the most successful in the world. De Beers controls the supply of diamonds to keep them expensive, but, Mondschein asks, "How [did De Beers] convince the world that an isometric-hexoctahedral crystal lattice allotrope of carbon was something they absolutely needed to buy?" You already know the answer: Marketing.

Writes Mondschein:

The slogan "a diamond is forever" debuted in 1947, giving consumers not only the idea that the diamond is a symbol of enduring love, but that it shouldn't be resold. This was because diamonds lose considerable value in resale, and since there's no point in paying De Beers full price when you could get a cheaper one second-hand, De Beers loses a lucrative sale on every diamond resold.

Mondschien also claims that the subtext of a woman hinting that she wants diamonds — and even the right hand ring conceit — is "near-prostitution."The marketing plays on a man's ego ("If you don't buy her a diamond, it implies, you not only don't love her, you can't afford her") as well as a woman's (you're supposed to think to yourself, I'm worth it). But, as with all complicated and deep-rooted traditions, the big question is: How do we break out of our diamond lust? De Beers has been accused of price-fixing and trading in conflict diamonds, but don't we all STILL look at the fingers of newly-engaged women and expect to see sparklers? How come we're all hanging on to the idea that diamonds are a girl's best friend?

History Of Single Life: Diamond Engagement Rings [Nerve]

Earlier: I Thee Dread

When An Engagement Gets Called Off, Who Gets The Ring?

Dodai — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:00:00 EDT

The Tennessee Court Of Appeals has ruled that if the wedding is canceled, the person who gave the engagement ring is entitled to get it back, reports blog Say Anything. In the ruling, Judge Charles D. Susano wrote, "We hold that an engagement ring is given in contemplation of marriage, and as such, is impliedly a conditional gift." This news comes just in time, because over the weekend, we received an e-mail from a reader named "Joshua":

I'll start at the beginning. Me and my fiancée were together for 12 glorious years. We were never in a rush to get married because neither one of us wanted kids, we already lived together, and she already had the ring (2 fucking carats).

Well, things started to sour earlier this year. We went on a break, for about a month, but I eventually came back and we tried to make it work. When I came back she would not wear the ring, saying that she didn't want to fuck it up at work (she bartends and works at a motorcycle dealership). Well a few month back into it, I ask her again why she's not wearing the ring and she said that when I came back "we weren't exactly on that same level"! WTF! She called off the engagement without me knowing! Anywho, it didn't take long after that for it to end, for good.

What I'm asking is, Am I an asshole for taking the ring back? Its not like I took it off her finger, all I had to do was go into her bathroom and grab it. I keep getting shit from her about how everyone thinks I'm a dick for taking it back. Is she right? Am I an asshole? Was I in the wrong? I need the Jezebels help!

The Jezebels weighed in thusly:

Anna: Yes, he was a dick to take it back. He should have asked for it, and she then should have (or shouldn't have) handed it over. But to just TAKE IT from her without her knowing... No.

Moe: My feeling is, she sucks, end of story. I mean, he looks kind of like an idiot, but he actually made it easier on her by taking it back: now when she tells that story she looks less like an asshole.

Me: It is proper etiquette for the ring to be returned, but it is not right to go in the bathroom and take something. But, seeing as how it seemed like she was being shady about the whole situation, he may have done the right thing — he may not have ever seen the ring again otherwise. I call extenuating circumstances. But I would love to hear her side of the story.

Tracie: Judge Judy says that the ring is the property of the person who bought it, once the engagement has ended. So I think it's fair of him to have taken it back, even without asking. Since she cared so much about him taking it back, it seemed like she had other plans for it. But I bet he was annoying in other ways to her, which made her hate him and wanted to keep/hock the ring out of spite. But basically, etiquette doesn't really matter in situations that are so hostile anyways.

Jennifer: I think you shouldn't take things. When you give a gift, it's not yours to take back. But he shouldn't have left the ring with her. He should have said, "Hey, I think I want my ring back," and then taken it. And I think women who keep the rings from a broken engagement are weird anyway.

One thing's for sure: The state of Tennessee is on his side.

In Tennessee If She Doesn't Marry You She Has To Give The Ring Back [Say Anything]