I hope you forwarded this back to her for maximum effect.

Diamonds don't tell the world that a woman is loved.

They tell the world that a woman is loved by a man with money, as opposed to, say, some unemployed, 20-something hipster boy.

Please make a note of it.

That should go on FailBlog. Also, I must agree RE: the uselessness and stupidity of diamonds. I mean, wouldn't you rather have a really cool honeymoon, add to your house down payment or put the money toward some other useful and fun thing?

Paul reads 24/7. Blogs, Books, Bumper Stickers - it doesn't matter. Paul reads.

besides proof that your loved a fat rock is handy when you want to make someone jealous and watch them twist and squirm thinking up bullshit excuses not to admit how bad they want one. ha HA

If you don't like diamonds then don't get one or two or a half dozen.

That said, I'd much rather have a new Mac than a diamond.

I used to frequent a Mountain Biking forums politics section, and whenever gay marriage, etc... came up, advertisements for gay vacations came up as well. Really annoyed the Right Wing mountain bikers.

There's this thing called the Kimberley Process that excludes conflict diamonds from the market. But hey, if you dislike diamonds that much, that's fine. If someday you want to get married you can do what you want about engagement jewelry. Diamonds are just the latest fad.

From the link:

And as it happens there was another factor in the surge of engagement ring sales—one that makes the ring's role as collateral in the premarital economy more evident. Until the 1930s, a woman jilted by her fiance could sue for financial compensation for "damage" to her reputation under what was known as the "Breach of Promise to Marry" action. As courts began to abolish such actions, diamond ring sales rose in response to a need for a symbol of financial commitment from the groom, argues the legal scholar Margaret Brinig—noting, crucially, that ring sales began to rise a few years before the De Beers campaign. To be marriageable at the time you needed to be a virgin, but, Brinig points out, a large percentage of women lost their virginity while engaged. So some structure of commitment was necessary to assure betrothed women that men weren't just trying to get them into bed. The "Breach of Promise" action had helped prevent what society feared would be rampant seduce-and-abandon scenarios; in its lieu, the pricey engagement ring would do the same.

In my opinion, even though virginity has become much less important, diamond engagement rings have remained popular because they're a form of costly signaling - i.e. a man who can afford a big diamond is financially sound and therefore a high-quality mate.

Huh. I split the cost of our rings equally with my husband. I thought that was the norm for pretty much all adults getting married; if the two of you want rings, you split the cost.

My wife and I were poor with huge student loan debt when we got married. We felt instead of a diamond that the money would best be spent on something useful. We picked out wedding bands and felt that that was plenty. I think my wedding band cost all of $50. I will admit that we did get more expensive bands for our 15th anniversary. But still didn't bother with diamonds though. (not for any so called "moral" reason though.)

You can't understate the elements of social conditioning that contribute to the continued popularity of diamond engagement rings. Yeah, some people really like them, but plenty get them because that's what you're "supposed" to get, and they either don't have another preference or don't care.

My old lady wanted a claddagh ring, so that's what I got her. I have lots of friends who have non-diamond wedding rings. In the end, it's all about being secure enough to pick out what you like, regardless of what's typical or popular.

I almost ended up interviewing with bluenile the last time I was looking for a job. It would have been hilarious, considering the engagement ring I got my wife was a sterling silver ring with The Flash's logo on it which cost all of sixty bucks.

I love Google Ad Fails, too. Agreed about the need for a blog.

That said, for every Google ad fail there is probably a hundred solid Google ad WINS.

Also, this is why stuff like AdSense exists, so whoever created this seemingly moronic ad campaign can see that their $5 paid/click on "diamond" is only yielding one $500 diamond for every 200 clickthroughs.

I used a diamond from a grandparent's ring in my engagement ring... It's nice that I was able to do that, but, even though it was a family diamond, I ended up feeling like I was just playing into the whole "what you're 'supposed' to have" thing. Which now sort of drives me batty as I see more and more how much bullshit there is in the desire for bigger and better diamonds. It's like I entered the playing field by even getting a diamond ring, and it's not a game I have any desire to play.

P.S. You should submit this to failblog for sure.

@2 for the win, true since we first formed societies.

That said, I find necklaces made of gold and rubies a lot more fun.

Hey! My boyfriend loves me and he got me the biggest rock he could afford to show it!!!1 AND ITS BIG LOL LOL LOL!!!1

Your all just jelous that you dont have a big diamond to prove how much your boyfriend loves you!!!11 LOL LOL LOl!!1

my favorite google ad fail:
the advertisement for a interracial gay dating website on the homepage of a english white-supremacist neo-nazi terrorist group. :-) lol

http://www.antifa.org.uk/nucleus3.32/nuc…