A full page magazine ad by DeBeers has a picture of a diamond bracelet over the following copy: “Hey, what do you know. She thinks you’re funny again.”
The motto of Kay Jewelers is “Every kiss begins with Kay.”
I’m sure you can find or remember similar ads. Clearly the message is, “Buy your woman some jewelry and she’ll sleep with you.”
Should we gather from this that the marketers believe women are prostitutes, or merely that they understand that men believe this? Do men believe this? Is it true?
I’m a 52-year-old man who’s never been married (or even close). Maybe I should have bought someone some diamonds?
Should it be as Ron White suggests, “That’ll shut 'er up”?
I don’t think the commercials suggest what you think at all. I think they’re suggesting that by the time you’re old enough to afford their diamonds, you’ve probably been married for a long time, and maybe the flame has dimmed just a bit. But with the purchase of one of their sparkly sparklies, she will be in love with you all over again. I see it as being way more about romance than sex.
If you show your woman that you love, care about, and appreciate her, this will make her happy, will make her think more highly of you, and will make her love, care about, and appreciate you more.
One really good way to show your woman that you love, care about, and appreciate her is by buying her jewelry. (The more you spend on the jewelry, the more you love her.)
Edited to add: If it were a strictly financial deal, as with a prostitute, there’d be no point in buying the jewelry; just directly give her the money you would have spent on the jewelry. The purpose of the jewelry is to reach the woman’s emotions.
Because I don’t see it as being about sex. I see it as being about romance and symbols of love between a long-time married couple. I’m not saying I buy into it and they’ve convinced me to run out and bling somebody up. Just saying that’s my interpretation of it.
Of course, whether we like to admit it or not, financial stability and/or affluence often play a big part in “romance.” Hence a symbol of wealth also becomes a symbol of love.
Gift-giving is part of courtship, a long-established part of the relationship between the sexes, and found in a large number of species? Just a wild guess. Mind you, a woman who expected diamonds regularly could be filed under “high maintenance”.
Or: [Mr Grumpy Pants]No. Whores put out when they’re paid.[/Mr. GP]
(Sweetie, if you’re reading this, nix on the diamonds. Their value is manipulated by keeping them off the market. Diamonds are actually abundant. What’s more, the long ago fantasy of man made diamonds has been realized. The main difference between man made diamonds and natural diamonds is that the man made diamonds are perfect.
Worst of all many of the diamonds are minded by slaves, literally. There is nothing that can restore its value or beauty.
So let’s just keep it simple again this year. More stocks in that little fruit company would be just fine…you know, the one that makes that cute little telephone with the pictures on it.
But there’s one thing I can promise you, Sugar. When I shop for Christmas presents for all fifteen members of the family – including those damned stocking stuffers for our daughter-in-law’s parents because it’s their tradition, and when I’m still up at 1:00 in the morning finishing the trifle for Christmas dinner, and when Kirby once again manages to forego any kind of kitchen duty before or after the meal, I will not even once allow myself to entertain the thought that the women in our family need to stop being servants at Christmas. )
I just figure that for some men, this introduces the possibility of a subtle way of telling your woman that you don’t want to sleep with her: Never buy her jewelry.
Here’s a clue from someone who’s been married 30 years - when you’re married, you don’t have to give diamonds to get your wife to sleep with you. She might want to, for one thing, without bribes.
Doing something special for someone leads to romance, which is different from sex.
As for me, I don’t have to give diamonds. I do the dishes.
“A diamonds is forever” was coined in 1947, which I believe counts as “the good old days.” How can you argue against spending several months of your personal income to demonstrate your love? Are you against eternal monogamous relationships backed by the bones of dead African children? What else would you spend it on? A house? Healthcare? Save it for the unknown future? What are you, some sort of commie?
As for your slanderous perception of the diamond industry’s view of women…well, in the 40s and 50s they managed to convince the American woman that they are entitled to a diamond ring from their man and any prospect who can’t or won’t provide a shiny, sparkly trinket is unfit to partake of her womanhood. That’s not whorish, really. I find it more offensive to the feminine intellectual capacity. As if women are some crazed horde who lust after scintillating stones. I would think the feminist movement should be protesting in the De Beers parking lot. I’m sure they would be quite concerned, after they’re done tracking the latest two billion dollar quarter.
I have an acquaintance who wanted to be more. I admired a sparkley on her wrist (just costume jewelry, no actual child slaves involved). She said “we could go shopping.” I said “no thanks, I like it on you, I wouldn’t wear something like that.” She said “what do you shop for - we could shop for that.” Not being a shopper (at all) I thought for a second. And responded with “mutual funds.”
But a lot of women are not me or Zoe. A lot of women believe their husbands should present them with appropriate jewelry each year. Perhaps not diamonds, but something. There are historical reasons for this - for most of history and in most of the world women have only rarely owned wealth. A women who was widowed or abandoned by her husband would frequently be left with - her jewelry. Jewelry became her pension plan. Husband gives you pretty gold chain every year for Christmas, when he drops dead at 50 you can support yourself selling your jewelry. Now, however, it has more to do with tradition and romance.
Plus, most men find their wives really difficult to buy for, a place like Kay makes it really easy to get something I’m betting most women would be delighted with. And delighting her with diamonds is way better than pissing her off Christmas morning by not having anything for her - or buying her a new toaster. For most men the reality is that they are simply NOT getting laid for weeks if their wife finds a new spatula set under the tree.
All seriousness aside, I think the deBeers ads have it wrong. Expensive gifts are a consequence of romance, not a cause of it. At least, if you are doing it right.
I bought the Lovely and Talented Mrs. Shodan her three-stone ring because she has loved and cared for (and slept with) me for the last twenty-five years, not in order to bring it about. And because she did it when we were dirt poor.
But now we’re not poor any more, and I can afford to spend what I did on the ring. And she cried when I gave it to her, and I caught her practicing casual gestures in the mirror to show it off.
I gave her the ring because it matches the sparkle in her blue eyes. But the sparkle was there before the ring.
