The Diamond is the hardest substance known to Man...to get back from a woman

Life Gems

A diamond is the hardest substance known to men…to get back from a woman.

A friend of mine recently got engaged. It’s the sweetest thing; it started as a jest on her part that I took seriously and introduced her to an Asian guy friend of mine. They hit it off from the start and now the wedding is going to be in Brazil next year.

In any case, due to scheduling issues, it was awhile before I actually got to see the ring. Now, one of my friend’s initial criteria (whether said in jest or not) was that she wanted someone financially comfortable, so you can imagine my great surprise, upon seeing the ring, and realizing that the 10-carat dazzler on her finger was not a sea-blue diamond (the lighting was bad) but an aquamarine. I am guessing that watching “Blood Diamond” had a very profound effect on her.

Now, for the longest time, women have put great emphasis on the rock. I’m sorry to say that a significant proportion of the fairer sex are shallow to that extent, that the rock on your finger can sometimes seem to be of greater importance than the actual marriage proposal. But hey, we’re a competitive, jealous lot by nature and sometimes, there is nothing greater than the secret thrill of “one-upping” your peers in the highly stressful arena of the marriage stakes. In a world of passive-aggressive warfare, there is, unfortunately, no greater glory than preening and basking in the glory of the envy of those whose guts you hate but do not (ironically) have the guts to admit. But the ways of women is another story for another day.

Anyway, the lucky groom-to-be had his best friend in attendance that day and the guy was sharing his own impending engagement woes in the form that his fiancée was requesting a ring that would easily cost $80,000, something he could not really afford without taking out a second mortgage or selling an organ. In the midst of all this, I, an innocent bystander, was dragged into the fray when both men commented that they did not understand why Singaporean girls were so materialistic, specifically, Singaporean girls from a certain economic background.

In my family, we take our jewelry inspection seriously. Family functions often have a time set aside for “show-and-tell” as the adornments on each female (and one male) family member is ooh-and-ahhed over by everyone. A standing family tradition (not taken seriously) is that unless the ring is at least one carat and of reasonable quality, there will be no engagement. Now, we’re not an overtly-materialistic family. The standard has an underlying implication that marriage should not be entered into unless the groom is financially stable and able to provide for his future family.

So, you can imagine my great anger at being stereotyped in such a manner. I admit that given my parents’ great passion for jewelry, I have been accustomed to receiving jewelry on a grander scale but it does not mean that I expect the same from the man I marry. My mother married my father when he was just starting out and she did not have a giant dazzler of an engagement ring. But she married him anyway because she felt that despite his lack of wealth and looks, my dad was a man who had strong family values and had the qualifications and ambition to make something of himself. She didn’t regret it. It took 10 years but my dad reset her little “nose snot” of a ring into a more expensive and showy setting. He did not do it because my mother demanded it but because he wanted to give my mother the best he could and that was what he did.

Similarly, while like any girl (and mynah bird), I am attracted to shiny things and a big ring would definitely be appreciated but it’s not expected. Marriage is a big deal and the engagement ring is a sign of commitment and I suppose, to me, a sign from the guy to the girl of what she means to him, and hence, the ring should be of a caliber that indicates the best a guy can offer the girl within reasonable means. A man who cannot afford a ring that meets my family tradition’s “minimum standard” is probably a man who may not be able to afford the lifestyle I wish to have and if the expected lifestyles of both are not aligned, then, marriage may be a problem. This is not about being materialistic but the fact that love alone cannot sustain a marriage. Financial stability, as ugly as it sounds, is an important factor as well. In any case, I stand by my claim that I will be happy with the best my future proposer can give me within reasonable means.

A diamond is nothing more than a glorified lump of carbon – compressed over time to produce a sparkling gem – and yet it means so much more. Through time, we have been told that a diamond is precious and that it is a “girl’s best friend”. Men were told to buy it for their special someone and later, when the men didn’t seem to be buying as much, ladies were told to spoil themselves.

Then, the other day in class, we were shown a video about a company that has found a way to put new meaning to this glorified lump of carbon. The company Lifegems basically takes carbon from the cremated remains of a loved one and uses technology to create a diamond. Each stone can be made to a maximum size of slightly over a carat and varies in color according to the individual carbon content of the ashes. We’ve all heard that “a diamond lasts forever” so is this a new sparkly way for us to commemorate our loved ones? Personally, I’m a little leery of treating the remains of a loved one in such a manner, as I find it a little disrespectful.

Although it would be an “eyebrow-raiser” if the following situation occurred:

Person A: OMG. I love your ring. It’s so beautiful!

You: Thanks. It was my mother-in-law.

Person A: Your mother-in-law’s? That’s nice of her to give it to you.

You: No, No. It was my MOTHER-IN-LAW. She didn’t have a particularly sparkly
Personality but she sure shines as a diamond!

*To find out more about Lifegems, you can watch the video at this link:
http://www.knbc.com/video/9529313/index.html