Interesting article about the diamond cartel's manipulation of romance

[MatureDJ]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/4575/

 

[Zarky]

True, though that's a 30 year old article. Diamonds are usually only bought these days for engagement rings. The De Beers monopoly has been in a slow decline since the 80s, as that article correctly predicted.

Recently de Beers had to pay a $300 million antitrust settlement in the US, giving refunds to people who'd bought diamonds since the 1990s.

Funny enough, I was telling a girl about all this a few years back and she said, "I don't care, I love diamonds!" So clearly de Beers has done a good job, I think you'll see diamonds as engagement rings certainly as long as anyone reading this is alive.

 

[Warrior74]

A woman can easily feel that diamonds are 'vulgar' and still be highly enthusiastic about receiving diamond jewelry." The element of surprise, even if it is feigned, plays the same role of accommodating dissonance in accepting a diamond gift as it does in prime sexual seductions: it permits the woman to pretend that she has not actively participated in the decision. She thus retains both her innocence—and the diamond.

This is the most telling sentence in the whole article. Read it a couple of times to let it sink in.

 

[MatureDJ]

This is the most telling sentence in the whole article. Read it a couple of times to let it sink in.

A woman can easily feel that diamonds are 'vulgar' and still be highly enthusiastic about receiving diamond jewelry." The element of surprise, even if it is feigned, plays the same role of accommodating dissonance in accepting a diamond gift as it does in prime sexual seductions: it permits the woman to pretend that she has not actively participated in the decision. She thus retains both her innocence—and the diamond.

Yes, I thought that was the money quote as well.