Hacker News Reader

Comment by forgetfreeman | Hacker News Reader

Better advice: upgrade to a fiance that isn't distracted by pointless bling.

oh yes preference for a diamond ring is definitely a dealbreaker

It's not about a diamond ring but what is behind that preference. Could be different things but some of them are a huge red flags. It's a lot better to marry someone that do not have that preference.

god forbid you should ever decide you want a sports car as a husband

Happy wife, happy life. And honey do.

Happy spouse, happy house

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but it definitely is a deal breaker for me. It speaks to someone's priorities. If they're more concerned about outdoing their girlfriends over cosmopolitans or worthless trinkets than the fiscal health of their family I don't want to start a family with them. And that's what this is all about right, family. I'd like to leave my kids with something significant and more than I was left with, so a partner that sees blowing thousands of dollars on frivolity and vanity as a positive is probably not a good match for me.

In reality even having a several "deal breakers" means you would need infinite options to find a match that doesn't have any of the so called deal breakers. Most guys don't get to pick from infinite, or even 10s of options. So you need to settle or stay single.

Because "settling" is certainly a well documented path to successful long-term relationships...

I get that, but I'm just pretty all or nothing. I wandered through the desert for a decade until I found mine. I was 100% willing to stay single the rest of my life rather than start a family with someone who wasn't good to start a family with. Luckily I didn't have to, I understand that that's not an option for many, but honestly I think most men could do better than they think they can, and I don't think enough men have a clear set of behavioral standards, enough foresight or self respect.

because I definitely want to spend the rest of my life with someone who's hypnotized by multi-generational marketing campaigns into wearing industrial abrasives as a status symbol. who wouldn't?

Diamonds were desirable jewelery way before anyone had the idea of using them in industry. It's true that the association with engagement rings is a new "tradition" invented by advertisers, but wearing diamond jewelery is not.

Not this level of worship, they were worn because they were shiny, and so were all the other precious stones, so was silver and gold. Diamonds had no real elevated value globally as jewelry before debeers marketing came along.

Absolutely.

I'm just saying it's not fair to say they were industrial abrasives before debeers marketing came along.

How confident are you in your position? https://trishjax.tripod.com/id23.htm

They were still being used as jewelry at that time, so even if their industrial use is older than I thought, the jewelery use is still much, much older than deBeers.

That's like saying you wouldn't want to spend the rest of your life with someone who plays video games.

Or eats dessert.

Or likes flashy cars.

There's some level that is perfectly healthy, as long as it doesn't interfere with the important stuff.

---

If she says "diamond ring or else I don't want you"...that's bad.

If she says "I prefer a diamond ring, but either way I want you"...nothing wrong with that.

Your assumption that all the things in your list are roughly equivalent and indicate a healthy, well-adjusted human is questionable.

Which things on that list are unhealthy/incompatible with a well-adjusted human?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com