salary to engagement ring spending

we all get your point, but why be such a jerk?

she didn't say she wanted a $20,000 honeymoon. here's what she said:

"I don't want an engagement ring. I'd rather go on a great honeymoon ..."

she wants a great honeymoon instead of any engagement ring. that's a tradeoff that leads to less consumption on her part. you think the OP is going to forego a honeymoon because the ring is pricey? and now you bash someone who wants to forego some material luxury that she thinks is a waste?

also, there is a meaningful difference between spending money on material, tangible things that one soon realizes have little real value, and spending money on experiences, such as travel, that provide a lifetime of memories. not to mention that this woman sounds as if she is socially aware, so maybe her honeymoon will take her to a location that allows her to spend money in a way that directly benefits those starving orphans. what is going to trickle down to a poor child in a less developed country to a greater extent? (a) the purchase of a diamond mined by a multinational at slave wages or (b) the purchase of food, lodging and transportation from local businesses as part of a vacation to a less developed country.

you can make your point without being a jerk.

please explain this comment. I'm currently dating a foxy asian, should I know somehting?

I put you in the ranks with her. Her objection was spending a lot of money on a luxury when people were suffering, yet a great honeymoon is acceptable. What if its to Hawaii or France? That's not Africa. Even if it was to Africa, a vacation does not help as much as a donation of food.

If you can't live with yourself for spending $20k on one luxury because kids are dying, its mindlessly hypocritical to say you'll spend it on another one.

Yeah, well I'd rather marry a girl that has no interest in an engagement ring and some sort of social conscious rather than someone dumb enough to ask the Letsrun forum community if 25,000 is too much to spend on an engagement ring.

For the record, I think the original poster, if even a female, is making all this stuff up. Especially the part about her fiance the dermatologist who loves his profession and wants to keep working well into his 70's.

Med students chose dermatology for 2 reasons:

1. It relatively easy.

2. The hours are good.

Pimple Popper MDs are one step above a dentist.

He should dig into a Cracker Jack box or use QVC & HSN for a Diamondique.

Moron Patrol wrote:

I put you in the ranks with her. Her objection was spending a lot of money on a luxury when people were suffering, yet a great honeymoon is acceptable. What if its to Hawaii or France? That's not Africa. Even if it was to Africa, a vacation does not help as much as a donation of food.

If you can't live with yourself for spending $20k on one luxury because kids are dying, its mindlessly hypocritical to say you'll spend it on another one.

(1) why i am in the ranks with her? maybe i'm the type who buys 4 plasma TVs, has a 12-car garage full of luxury vehicles and a 7,000 sq ft home, or maybe i live in a shack without electricity and grow my own food. what about my defense of her statement puts me in the ranks with her?

(2) "great honeymoon" and "$20,000 luxury honeymoon" are not synonyms.

(3) i'm not sure that a non-luxury vacation to africa helps less than a donation of food. i'd actually argue that the vacation helps more. the old give a man a fish saying. the vacation helps the local economy in a way that a one-time donation of food does not.

eff a ring at all...i love my boyfriend more than anything in the world but i know wayyy too many girls that have lost their diamonds from their rings. unless you do NOTHING during the day, a big ol' ring is just a nuisance. if a ring is necessary (and yes, sometimes it is, just to ward off weirdos at the bar), just go for a simple band-- sure plant that thing with as many stones at you can get if they are set in (i will admit enough that i like diamond baguettes <--or however you spell them) but anything big and gaudy...chicks i wear a 3.5 myself and DAMN, i've put on 1 carats before but those suckers swallow my finger, what the hell?? seriously, if you care that much what other people think (and clearly you must if you are asking on a messageboard), then whatever, i'm just glad i'm not you-- and don't talk shit about you being rich because that, in my case, is a non-issue.

Because you are defending her for thinking spending on one luxury is morally superior to another because thats her preference. You can't condemn people for spending cash on a diamond then condone spending it on a vacation when your sole objection is that the money could be better spent on a social good.

Now if its a political objection to "blood diamonds" that's different, but not what she said.

This person scares me.

why is that?

obts wrote:

why is that?

Ahhh!!! she's talking to me!!!

obts...you realy wear size 3.5 ring?

yeah last time i got sized it was...which was a few years ago, so maybe it has changed--tho my weight hasn't much.

i'm still a bit confused why my post is scary, i was simply saying i agreed with many of the posts that said that the OP was being too crazy with her (if it was a her of course) ring options.

[quote]obts wrote:

yeah last time i got sized it was...which was a few years ago, so maybe it has changed--tho my weight hasn't much.

[quote]

How big are you (if you don't mind)? Height? Weight?

dont consider his salary--> just because your man makes good $$ doesnt mean you should get greedy, but if you honestly like the ring thats 30g's then... whatev[quote]xc girl wrote:

This thread has been very interesting, and the Atlantic Monthly linked earlier was fascinating (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/198202/diamond).

I'd love to read some more recent business/economic analysis if anyone knows of good articles (the AM article was written in 1982 and predicted the inevitable downfall of De Beers...).

It's also difficult not to think about women differently after reading this thread.

-----

Here are two highlights particularly pertinent to the thread:

Women are in unanimous agreement that they want to be surprised with gifts.... They want, of course, to be surprised for the thrill of it. However, a deeper, more important reason lies behind this desire.... "freedom from guilt." Some of the women pointed out that if their husbands enlisted their help in purchasing a gift (like diamond jewelry), their practical nature would come to the fore and they would be compelled to object to the purchase...

Through a series of "projective" psychological questions, meant "to draw out a respondent's innermost feelings about diamond jewelry," the study attempted to examine further the semi-passive role played by women in receiving diamonds. The male-female roles seemed to resemble closely the sex relations in a Victorian novel. "Man plays the dominant, active role in the gift process. Woman's role is more subtle, more oblique, more enigmatic...." The woman seemed to believe there was something improper about receiving a diamond gift. Women spoke in interviews about large diamonds as "flashy, gaudy, overdone" and otherwise inappropriate. Yet the study found that "Buried in the negative attitudes ... lies what is probably the primary driving force for acquiring them. Diamonds are a traditional and conspicuous signal of achievement, status and success." It noted, for example, "A woman can easily feel that diamonds are 'vulgar' and still be highly enthusiastic about receiving diamond jewelry." The element of surprise, even if it is feigned, plays the same role of accommodating dissonance in accepting a diamond gift as it does in prime sexual seductions: it permits the woman to pretend that she has not actively participated in the decision. She thus retains both her innocence—and the diamond.

Me: XC girl, will you give me a b**wjob for $20?

XC girl: What kind of girl do you think I am?

Me: Madam, we've already established that. Now we are just haggling over the price.

This thread only strengthens my conviction that, for all the flowery, romantic crappery women soak up in books, on television, or at the movies about "true love," it is actually the MEN who truly value personality, character, morals, values, and soul in their mate. When men find these qualities lacking in women, they get jaded and bitter.

In general, women pretend to value these things until they think "I can do better" -translation: I can be with someone richer who will provide me a better lifestyle. Men generally think "I can do better" in terms of sexuality/hotness. Men care more about the quality of the relationship and the sex, women care more about being provided for.

Personally, after dating a series of attractive, southern california white bitches whose vacuity and materialism was both astounding and severely disappointing, I have since dated several foxy asians to see if their was a cultural difference, and I think there is. (I realize I am a ridiculous person making broad generalizations based on race).

The foxy asians I have been around seem more grounded, practical, and family-oriented.

But in any case, no matter the race or class, there are always a few diamonds in the rough (pun intended)of womanhood who simply want to be treated well and given a regular, healthy dose of spam for their clam. I salute these women, and I wish you all success in finding one of your own.

asian-lover wrote:

and given a regular, healthy dose of spam for their clam.

My name says it all.....

And, are you related to a Mr. J. Mayeroff?