Wednesday, February 06, 2008

The Ugly Truth about V.D.

For those of you pleading shamelessly for your significant other to buy you any variety of expensive jewelry for Valentine's Day — or you boys who are seriously considering such a purchase — I would just like to take this moment to remind you first that if love could be purchased, Hugh Grant would've committed no crime.

And second: "Blood Diamond" isn't just a movie title. In fact, those shiny things you poke through your ears and slip over your finger don't just cost a lot of money. Rather, there's a decent chance any number of people died as a result of your gross mis-estimation of beauty. No offense.

Have a nice day!


Woodrow said...

A woman who has taken a moral stand against the diamond?

Will you marry me?

=) said...

My engagement abd wedding rings are primarily aquamarines. Makes me think of my blue eyed sailor. But now I suppose you'll tell me how many mermaids had to die for me to get my little bauble.

And I notice you didn't include Eddie Murphy, cause he was just giving that tranny a ride home!

Franki said...

The only practical use for a diamond, in my opinion, is for a drill bit. I never understood the allure.

Unacademic Advisor said...

First, let me say I think the whole VD thing is a bit ridiculous, not just the rocks, which are a more recent attempt by jewelry merchants to get in on the action (Christmas has fallen under this pressure now as well), but the whole flowers/cards/chocolates thing. I mean, I already go all out for DW on Christmas, trying to find gifts that mean something to her, regardless of their monetary value. And I think our anniversary is a big day for expressing my love in special ways because it is a special day for US, not for capitalism. And her birthday is a nice day to celebrate her as an individual, again in some, usually small, but personally significant way. Plus I try to show my love and affection every day in little ways. So, why should I accept the idea that I don't REALLY love her if I don't also buy her diamonds and chocolate and flowers AND a card on Feb. 14th? I don't think I should, and I don't think she should believe that either.

However, that said, I also know that not all diamonds are "blood diamonds." A person just needs to be a conscientious shopper. And... not to offend... but there might just be a little self-defensiveness or self-protection in the self righteousness displayed here. Just a teeeny bit... maybe?

How would you actually feel if someone offered you one of the little stones? Seriously.

thirdworstpoetinthegalaxy said...

Woodrow - Sure! But where's my ring?

[Just kidding.]

=) - Shame on you. Those poor mermaids!

Franki - So glad to hear I'm not the only female who feels that way.

Un Ad - OK, so that is a wee bit offensive. I've been offered one before, and I turned it down. As for conscientious diamonds: I know they exist; the link I posted mentions them. And if a boy did offer me one I'd probably assume he hadn't been paying attention; I do believe in wedding bands, but I don't think there's a need to unload a great deal of cash on those, either. But to each his/her own, and I do think the most important thing here is to ascertain that if both parties think a diamond is the way to go, then they exercise smart shopping and make sure it's free of blood and slave labor.

Unacademic Advisor said...

I have to agree with the "both parties" thing. But I do hate that both parties can't help but be influenced by societal and capitalist pressures. I am glad that there are voices crying a different tune... even if my response to them is a tad offensive. Sorry.

Keep up the good work. :)

thirdworstpoetinthegalaxy said...

Un Ad - I'm with you on the societal pressures thing. I'm sure there are some perfectly good men out there who — despite not agreeing with what the ring "symbolizes" — would otherwise be embarrassed to not buy an intended fiancee a diamond engagement ring. It's a status thing, oftentimes even for the man. In those cases, maybe a pearl would suffice? Or, again, a diamond that's certifiably safe? Though I'm under the impression those are the most expensive.

Anonymous said...

Fiancee 1: Tourmaline.
Fiancee 2: London Blue Topaz
(Almost) Fiancee 3: Diamond

Yes, I'm an idiot.

I read somewhere that the engagement ring was, ahem, a lease with an option to buy, as it were. The reason for the price was if you took the car for a ride, you had to compensate the owner for the depreciation involved. No joke.

DON'T get me started on VD. I think has it right:

One hopes that the last one being GIA certified it wasn't a blood diamond.

BTW, G is with you on this one. She doesn't want a rock. I don't think she really even wants an engagement ring.

thirdworstpoetinthegalaxy said...

I should probably clarify on a previous point: I didn't turn down a ring that was placed in front of me. I turned down the offer to go shopping for one.

Eli said...

I was always against diamonds because they seemed fiscally irresponsible, or at least unnecessary, then later I learned of the blood diamond thing, I'm hoping eventually the silly ritual will end. Maybe it'll be as unacceptable as smoking has become, someday.

M@ said...

I dated a woman once who requested an "engagement car." I should have been more suspicious.

Supafly Turbo Cyborg said...

I would leave a comment, but normally all I can manage when I think about the diamonds is a nearly continual stream of vocabulary only a sailor could truly appreciate.

thirdworstpoetinthegalaxy said...

Eli - It's certainly fiscally irresponsible for most; unless, of course, you take baths in gold, a la Scrooge McDuck.

M@ - A boy once tried to get me one of those, too. But I ended things when he bought the wrong color.

[Though I kept the car of course.]


STC - I know how you feel about this topic. It's one we actually agree on.

Pamela said...

you make me feel better about my lack of zeal for shiny stuff.

I don't have the genes.

Stacy said...

I am with you. I am fond of the tattoo wedding ring, now thats forever!