You'll have a much better shot at getting it if you explicitly make it part of your negotiation process, since most companies won't think to include it on their own.
>So the world is filled with gold-diggers? No. Not true.
Wanting a mate who is financially secure doesn't make a woman a gold digger. It's no different than the vast majority of men who want a physically attractive mate.
>You'll find it shocking that in some parts of the world people are happily married without any jewelry at all.
Yes, different cultures have different standards (and there are outliers within cultures). In some places a herd of goats functions as a status symbol, in the US a diamond serves this function.
That doesn't mean that every woman here absolutely requires a man who can buy her a diamond, but the majority do.
>That doesn't mean that every woman here absolutely requires a man who can buy her a diamond, but the majority do.
right after talking about the US--meaning I was discussing women here in the US, where it is demonstrably true that the majority of women demand diamonds.
> And why exactly is it the man's responsibility to provide financial security for the woman?
I'm sure for most women it's not that it is the man's responsibility to provide financial security, but that the man is going to work with you to be financially secure rather than against.
If you've spent your twenties working hard and saving, you probably don't want to marry someone who's spent their twenties running up a credit card bill. You very likely will spend your life together arguing.
Not that a diamond ring is necessarily the best way to demonstrate financial responsibility.
The implication, in this context, is that the man and the woman would have very unequal shares of financial responsibility (or expectations). That's why she would be perceived as a gold digger.
No, there isn't. If the girl is even slightly intelligent, she will want proof of that financial security and a diamond ring is adequate proof that she can verify on her own.
If she's even slightly intelligent they will have discussed finances well ahead of the wedding, probably lived together for some time and know the situation very well.
If the girl is even slightly intelligent she'll be able to make an assessment without needing a glittery ring.
Maybe you think that flashing your wealth, not unlike a peacock fanning out their feathers, will get you a mate. It probably will, but it will probably be the kind of mate that is attracted to money.
All mates are attracted to money, some are simply more attracted than others.
> If the girl is even slightly intelligent she'll be able to make an assessment without needing a glittery ring.
Because she's clairvoyant? An expensive car can be rented or borrowed, a house can be inherited, bank statements easily faked. Men do these sorts of things. Frequently.
But a ring she has been pining on and on about? A ring she can easily get appraised? No. You can't fake that. You will need to fork over the cash and when all of your money is going toward regular expenses and all of a sudden you have to fork over 10K in cold hard cash, that's a strain and a fine test of a man's ability to withstand financial shock.
Wait til you have a baby. Now that's a real financial shock.
right before he talked about how hard it is to fake.
You can't fake a diamond that will fool an appraiser just as easily as a bank statement. It's much easier to covertly verify the value of diamond than the validity of a bank statement.
Both can be faked equally easily, given equivalent verification mechanisms.
Without the help of professional services, a layman can be easily fooled in either context.
However, if the layman is going to get the diamond appraised by a professional, then the same standard should be applied to the other task. One can likewise use professional services to accurately determine a person's net worth.
Of course it's possible. Private detectives can procure an insane amount of information on anyone, often using quasi-legal means like social engineering of the target or "favors" from friends on the police force.
Given equivalent conditions, the two tasks are equally easy.
>there is no equivalent easy to use affordable service.
Hiring a PI to investigate someone is no where near as easy and affordable as dropping off a ring at a jeweler.
A jeweler can appraise a ring in less than an hour for less than $100, a PI will want at least a $500 retainer.
In addition a your average PI is going to have a hard time getting bank account information. His buddy in the police can't get that information without a court order.
>quasi-legal means like social engineering
There is no quasi-legal about it. It is explicitly illegal. And it's going to cost you a hell of a lot more than $100 to get a PI to risk jail time for you.
The only way for a PI to get someone's bank account information is by either pretending to be the person, or knowing someone on the inside. Either way is illegal and could be a huge problem for you if you hired someone to do it. (there are ways to do it legally, there could be public record from old civil proceedings, but that wouldn't tell you the current balance)
Appraising a ring without the giver's knowledge:
1. Drop off ring at jeweler
2. Pay $100
3. Pick up ring the next day
Determining the validity of a bank account without the owner's knowledge:
1. Make appointment with PI
2. Discuss specifics of case with PI
3. PI says he can't take the case because what you're asking is illegal
4. Repeat steps 1, and 2 until you find a PI who will accept
5. Pay PI huge retainer.
6. Wait 2 weeks, and hope law enforcement doesn't find out that you hired someone
to break the law for you
It's not sexist or derogatory. Financial security and status are evolutionary concepts that predate the diamond district. Diamonds are just one manifestation of a deeper, hardwired instinct to seek fit and capable mates.
This isn't a cynical concept, it's backed by studies of the entire animal kingdom, not just humans.
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.
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.
If X is the price of the rock then for sufficiently large X it can be guaranteed that he won't have any money left over for what's coming "after it" anyway. In some cases a large value of X simply proves that he doesn't apply common sense when managing his finances.
What a quaint and gross way of looking at the world.