Diamond Is Forever... Why I am against diamonds.

[Kim 0]

That's actually not true. A diamond is made of carbon, but it's not the most stable form of carbon. Diamonds eventually turn into graphite, which is the most stable form of carbon. This process takes about hundreds of thousands of years, so women won't see their diamond rings turn to useless junk before their eyes.

 

So a diamond is really not forever. They lied.

 

But that is not why I am against diamonds. Thousands of years is long enough for me. It's the idea of using love, one of the highest, purest ideals, and turning it into something that costs at least two months of work that is wrong. Love is priceless. There is no degree of purity and no price tag on love. The diamond company is using diamonds to turn love into something that must be proven, that can be shown off to friends, that glitters like a promise. The bigger and brighter it is, the bigger the promise. The more expensive it is, the more it seems to mean that her husband or fiancee loves her more.

 

How stupid is that? Since when is the diamond a classic symbol of love? Since when does having a diamond on your finger a guarantee that your marriage will last forever? Since when does it mean that he will never cheat on you, that he will worship that ground you walk on? Only love is love. Men who give their women expensive diamonds as an elaborate mark of their territory are only fooling themselves.

 

Sadly, diamonds are only too badly overpriced. Why? Because De Beers only releases a certain amount every year to keep the price artificially high. Then every winter they put on a commercial urging men to buy diamonds to prove their love.

 

There are plenty of couples who are happily married even though the husband spent two months' worth of his paychecks on a diamond ring. I don't believe the diamond has anything to do with it. A diamond ring cannot make your love work. So why spend a fortune on it? Because the TV tells you to? Why does love have to be so materialistic?

Edited February 19, 2006 by Kim (see edit history)

[Albus Dumbledore 0]

when i get married, personally im not about to buy a hecka pricy ring for her..ill buy her dress for her and i will get ger a ring, but its not about to be a 3-4 week paycheck on it..and i mean if we wanted to we could make our own diamonds all we need is the right tools to do it (although they are tools that cost tons of money) it probably takes a few minutes to make a single diamond..and its just sad that people have based love on how big of a ring someone can get..or a ring at all in that case..its kind of like a marrage lisence, why in the hell do we need a marrage liscence to show our love for eachother..its pretty sad i think, you have a good poiint here!and i am pretty sure this should go in the vent..but oo well

[Kim 0]

Yeah, you're right. It should probably go in the vent. When I wrote it I wasn't in the venting frame of mind though. I simply wanted to inform others...about how stupid diamonds are. So maybe it should go in the vent!But we can make our own diamonds? From what??I think marriage licenses are mostly for tax and other legal purposes. At least a marriage license is binding in a court of law. But two people don't really need a marriage license to have a wedding, live together, have kids, etc...Only love is forever. No piece of paper or shiny stone will do.

[Albus Dumbledore 0]

maybe we can, maybe we cant, but maybe it was just a show or somthing i saw, but i believe that if you take coal and compress it with a ton of pressure under extreme heat it can be made a diamond after all the crust is chizzled off...im going to look that up..im not to sure though..but yes only love is forver..i just think the marrage liscence thing is stupid*edit* ive looked it up and i guess it is carbon that you can compress under extrempley high temperatures

Edited February 19, 2006 by Albus Dumbledore (see edit history)

[Earths Daughter 0]

Coal is a form of carbon. So the old Superman trick with the lump od coal would work, if you were Superman, lol.You are right about diamonds being promoted as a sign of love. And about love not being about diamonds. My Fiance and I knew each other and were friends for about four years before we got romantic. Then we had over 16 wonderful years together, but never got "officially" married. We always felt that the paper was irrelevant to the way we felt about each other. People need a license to fish legally, you don't need one to have a loving relationship. Nor does having a license make it more of a commitment, or more permanent, love does that. We were together longer than so many people that actually got a marriage license and made it "official". We kept saying we would get around to it someday, but we just never considered it a priority. If he hadn't died last November, we would still be together, and would have stayed together the rest of our lives. Although, I guess we did, since it was the rest of his life.As for what kind of ring he would have gotten me, it would not have been a diamond. My birthday is in March. There are two birthstones for March, the old one and the modern one. The old one is bloodstone, which I like very much. I have a couple of bloodstones. The new one is aquamarine, which I always thought looked like a piece of coke bottle glass that had been cut and polished. I never cared for aquamarines, so I don't have any, and don't want any. My dislike for aquamarines kind of spilled over to diamonds. They're clear, like glass. They have a rainbow effect under light, but so does cubic zirconia and some rhinestones, lol. I have a couple of cubic zirconia rings, but I never wear them. I prefer my sterling and bloodstone ring much more. He asked me what kind of ring I wanted, and I said a custom made band from a silversmith. And if it had a stone, something with some color to it. Like jade, maybe. I'm one of the few women I've ever known of that doesn't like diamonds. Maybe it's my miserly instincts, lol. Although some of it does have to do with all the hype about diamonds. They're too expensive for the way they look. I do know I have always considered flowers romantic, though. Not the fancy florist roses usually, but something with some fragrance to them. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, I don't know. Just go with your heart, not the advertising when it comes to love, and you'll be better off.

[serenity 0]

ooO.. good point; i believe you 100%There is the saying that 'Diamonds are girLs best friends' well maybe guys are just trying to compensate there wives because marrying them takes them away from there friends.. yes maybe these days diamonds are shown and symbolised as their love to them but back in the days (well when my dad was about to marry my mum) diamonds were to prove yourself to your wife that you love them and you wouldn't care to get into debt for them.. a way to show your love for them.. but like you said why do you have to prove your love.. is the fact that people poke into your business and say 'oh.. he hasn't bought you a ring.. you guys wont last'.. rings are the way to show people that you are together and it is way of showing his commitment to her..I do believe that these days diamonds are shown as a sign of love but love is not about diamonds

[Ao)K-General 0]

Yeah, that is kind of stupid. People think that,"Oh this diamon ring will make her love me forever. I should get it for her." That kinda stuff. Though it doesn't make her love you forever. Though it makes her happy. And a Marriage License is used to show that you are officially and legally married. It doesn't say that you and your spouse will love each other forever but states that your married. Its a dumb example but lets say some one doesn't believe your married. You tell them you are. Well, a marriage license could be used to prove that you are married. If you didn't have one than they just wouldn't believe you. Told ya it was a dumb example but its one thing the marriage license could be used for. It probably also states that the wife is in charge and the boss. WHY THE WOMEN?!?!?!?!?! And why ARE the women always in control and in charge and all that. Why are us men usually only in charge when the wife isn't there? And possibly not even than? Is it because they feel they need to rule some place to make up for not being in control in the past? It probably is. No offense girls. Oh and by the way, I'm not married. SO DON'T THINK I AM!!!

[selim 0]

Love is just another way for companies to make money by convincing people they have to buy things. A bit like Valentines Day or Christmas. I'm sure most of you know that true love isn't something that can be bought or displayed with an object but for some reason a lot of humans out there think that getting their loved ones a really expensive present will show that they love them. Maybe the person recieving the present only feels loved after they have gotten something. It's sad our world is so materialistic these days. I still think it's great to give and recieve presents but when these presents are being used to try and prove feelings to each other because an advert said it will then it's really sad.Although some could say that not getting married, even if it's just getting the license is a sign that you don't want to commit. If something goes wrong then you want the easy way out with no strings attached.

[terminal2k 0]

i bought my lady a nice diamond engagement ring that cost me too much money (well still is, i got it on a payment plan) not because I wanted to (because I didn't) but because it was what she expected me to do. I hate society and traditions. I refuse to buy valentines presents, and hate christmas and easter (although i do enjoy the days off work).what I would like to see is our technology advancing to the stage where we can create diamonds so they end up being worth twenty cents each.

[selim 0]

what I would like to see is our technology advancing to the stage where we can create diamonds so they end up being worth twenty cents each.

But if that happened then something else that is more expensive and rare will take it's place and the cycle would just start again. The only reason diamonds are on rings is because they are a rare gem. If they became as common as sand then I doubt your missus would enjoy carrying a lump of cheap rock around on her finger so you'd have to splash on a pure gold ring or some other priceless stone.

[brainless 0]

actually, it's already possible to make "artificial" diamonds (they look just like "real" diamonds, except for some inpurities which only experts can recognize) ... they're used on those drills made for cutting through stone etc and usually don't get past a certain (small) size since it takes ages to manufacture them but they're still way cheaper than "real" diamonds...anyways, if my girlfriend came and asked me for a diamond ring, I'd ask for her credit card ... I can buy it for her but I'm not the one who's going to pay since I can't afford it (full stop). Even if I could afford it, I suppose I'd rather spend the money on something useful (ok, something beautiful might do it too ... but diamond rings are neither use- nor beautiful...)

[Zen 0]

The diamond is suppose to have value and have meaning to someone this is why we put it on rings so it shines and has some purpose to the one recieving!

[Kim 0]

WHY THE WOMEN?!?!?!?!?! And why ARE the women always in control and in charge and all that. Why are us men usually only in charge when the wife isn't there? And possibly not even than? Is it because they feel they need to rule some place to make up for not being in control in the past? It probably is. No offense girls. Oh and by the way, I'm not married. SO DON'T THINK I AM!!!

I'd like to think women are in charge, but I don't think they are, even now. It's still a sexist world, with glass ceilings, spousal abuse, genital mutilation, young girls sold as sex slaves. But those are extreme examples though. I think that the fact that men can spend so much on an engagement ring gives him some kind of control. Think about it, a guy who brings home an expensive gift for his wife will probably get something. The act of giving something so expensive is like expressing power.
Anyway, wouldn't the world be better off if women were really in control? We'd have discussion instead of wars.

[Kim 0]

If he hadn't died last November, we would still be together, and would have stayed together the rest of our lives. Although, I guess we did, since it was the rest of his life.

Earths Daughter, your story is so sad and beautiful I almost cried when I read it. I'm sorry about your fiance.

I think I feel the same way about colored stones though. Diamonds are just not very exciting, and I like to be different too.

[terminal2k 0]

I'd like to think women are in charge, but I don't think they are, even now. It's still a sexist world, with glass ceilings, spousal abuse, genital mutilation, young girls sold as sex slaves. But those are extreme examples though.

in the civilized world things like genital muntilation and sex slaves aren't things that happen often, but when you look at men and what makes them do what they do, the answer always comes back to women. A man will dress nice to impress women, will buy the latest fashion to attract women, once a man sees some female flesh he loses most of his brain anyway, and we're pretty stupid to begin with. damn women......