Wedding Ring Theory

fuckingkike · 2014-02-12T00:17:58+00:00

It's a security deposit on her virginity back from the era of dowries. You pump and dump a cherry and she'd have a far far harder time convincing the next guy that the baby's his, so the ring adds to the dowry pile that compensates for her being a drain on the man's resources. Women who demand a big ticket ring these days typically want the perks and status of that tradition without the concomitant sacrifices on their part.

RedSunBlue · 2014-02-12T01:59:17+00:00

Diamonds in wedding bands is a "tradition" that is the result of a brilliant marketing campaign by De Beers.

In 1938, De Beers’ execs were in a bit of a tight spot. Diamond demand and prices had been on a slow decline since 1919, and the tanking economy had led consumers to favor more modest rings that included intricate metalwork rather than gems. The cartel needed to tap into a new market to jumpstart its revenues. De Beers approached New York ad agency N.W. Ayer for help convincing Americans that they desperately needed diamonds.

The agency’s campaign was undoubtedly one of the most effective of all time. N.W. Ayer embarked on a multi-pronged attack that completely overhauled Americans’ view of diamonds. The agency got Hollywood’s biggest stars to wear diamonds and encouraged leading fashion designers to talk up diamond rings as an emerging trend. The plan worked beautifully; in the first three years of the campaign American diamond sales shot up by over 50 percent.

Those results were certainly encouraging for the diamond industry, but the De Beers-N.W. Ayer partnership hadn’t even played its masterstroke yet. In 1947, Ayer copywriter Frances Gerety penned the slogan “A Diamond is Forever,” a line so elegant and effective De Beers is still using it over six decades later. The slogan helped underscore the diamond’s significance as an enduring, unbreakable symbol of love, and the sales of diamond engagement rings shot through the roof. Within 20 years, 80 percent of American brides were sporting rocks.

The momentum off that initial campaign is so strong that now hardly anyone really questions why diamonds have to be in wedding rings any more they question what relation Christmas trees have to Jesus Christ.

I do agree that bitches love to show off, but I think the lesson to be learned here is that culture, specifically consumer culture, can be manipulated through women's susceptibility to marketing.

In Japan, KFC managed to associate fried chicken with Christmas with a marketing blitz ("Kentucky for Christmas!") back in the 1970s. Other money hungry entities followed suit, and now Japanese Christmas is one of 3 valentine-esque holidays based primarily around consumption. A lot of Japanese dudes I talk to are aware of this, but they participate anyway because "or else my girlfriend will get mad."

introspeck · 2014-02-12T04:57:01+00:00

I believe it's based on "the handicap principle". From Wikipedia article on sexual dimorphism:

the handicap principle states that a male who survives despite possessing some sort of handicap thus proves that the rest of his genes are "good alleles". If males with "bad alleles" could not survive the handicap, females may evolve to choose males with this sort of handicap; the trait is acting as a hard-to-fake signal of fitness.

So basically by buying her a big expensive ring, you're saying "I have so many resources, so much survival value, that I can afford to waste money on something as useless as a diamond ring."

If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading the whole article on sexual dimorphism, it's a very important concept.

Evers89 · 2014-02-12T03:19:06+00:00

[permanently deleted]

2014-02-12T06:15:30+00:00

This is something that has been studied - a lot.

http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2006-04/uoa-aow041106.html

Harrell found that an average of 14 per cent of the caretakers, with or without wedding rings, lost sight of their charges at least once. However, young attractive female caretakers without rings lost sight of children 19 per cent of the time, and young attractive males lost sight 25 per cent of the time, a "statistically significant" jump, Harrell said.

http://www.stuffmomnevertoldyou.com//blog/the-wedding-ring-phenomenon/

In 1994, University of Texas psychology professor David Buss coined the term mate poaching to refer to people’s attraction to — and pursuit of — others who are in committed, presumably monogamous relationships. Buss and others have found cross-cultural, cross-gender evidence for mate poaching

. . .

But when Burkley and Parker told the variable group of single ladies they also had found Mr. Rights, though they were currently in relationships, a whopping 90 percent of women were interested anyway.

. . .

And in that case (going out on a major theoretical limb here), the meanings of flashy engagement rings and wedding bands take on an interesting twist: in a way, both ultimately reflect back to the status of the man, both financial and sexual.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CHAQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anthro.rutgers.edu%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_docman%26task%3Ddoc_download%26gid%3D344%26Itemid%3D173&ei=oxD7Ur39FqXf0gH55oGgCA&usg=AFQjCNE5FkdzQZio7pMoI1WGczRQPkSARQ&sig2=QKu0Vzd92cFqohTSJgwnMQ&bvm=bv.61190604,d.dmQ&cad=rja

Men marrying younger women spent more on rings, as did men who earned more money and whose fiancées earned more money. These findings suggest that the amounts spent on engagement rings, like bridewealth and dowry payments in other societies, reflect aspects of both male and female mate quality.

TL;DR - There is a veritable wealth of knowledge on this subject. No need for conjecture.

introspeck · 2014-02-13T04:56:30+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Abbrevi8 · 2014-02-12T05:16:57+00:00

You, a man, spend a very large amount of money on a useless shiny piece of carbon and give that to the woman you are marrying.

Alernativly,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_zirconia

She'll be over the moon with the massive rock and if she takes it to a jewler and discovers your ruse you can say "it's the thought that counts isn't it baby?"

Either way, you'll save heaps and weed out gold diggers.

2014-02-12T14:54:13+00:00

The big diamond purchase is a holdover from the days when there was very little sex before marriage. You bought the girl the diamond to show your commitment, as it was unfeasible for most men to have the resources to go around buying huge diamonds for every pump and dump.

These days it is just another way for a woman to extract resources from a man. And not even a good one since the diamond is highly overvalued and loses all its resale value immediately after purchase.

Your_Maroon_Hat · 2014-02-13T01:05:18+00:00

They want the biggest flashiest ring possible to advertise to anyone who cares to look that they are with a high status male.

vaker · 2014-02-11T23:55:49+00:00

At least mine has the good sense to ask for gems that are actually worth real value like a sapphire.

Doctor_Mayhem · 2014-02-19T22:11:02+00:00

This reminds me of a post by Heartiste in regards to what kind of diamond a woman is worth according to her N count.

Basically, you divide 1 karat by the amount of men she's been with.

If she's a virgin, you have to buy an even better ring, like a 1 karat flawless with absolute clarity on a platinum band. If she's only been with 1 guy before you, 1 karat premium with a little cloudiness on a gold band. This goes all the way down to if a woman has been with 20 partners before you. She gets a fucking quartz and be glad she got it on a gold band.

2014-03-01T08:13:51+00:00

when women are allowed to do as well in the workplace as men, men should not be the one to buy the wedding ring in the marriage

JP_Whoregan · 2014-02-13T01:34:49+00:00

Diamonds are a status symbol for newly-married women to show off to her soccer-mom friends at Tupperware parties and baby showers. Their sole purpose is to engender jealousy amongst her female peers. It is the ultimate display in "keeping up with the Jones's," and nothing more. If females were sensible, they'd insist that instead of blowing thousands on a "chunk of carbon", as you say, that their husband/fiancé put that money on a down payment on a house, or in a Roth IRA, or some other valuable commodity that will appreciate in value over time. But that's the nature of women; they rarely think in terms of the abstract, and are often only interested in the "here and now".

2014-02-13T04:26:15+00:00

I think we all know why bitches want expensive rings. For showing off and for when she's ready to cash out of the marriage.

Only thing to do is call them out on it. Before or after you fuck is a matter of personal preference.

I was married. She got a fake stone and she was aware of it. Life is tough sometimes ain't it.

Title	Wedding Ring Theory
Author	SE17
Upvotes	18
Comments	36
Date	February 11, 2014 10:40 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/AlreadyRed
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/AlreadyRed/comments/1xnjuf/wedding_ring_theory/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/AlreadyRed/wedding-ring-theory.1217987 https://theredarchive.com/post/1217987

Comments