Because houses and cars are useful, the GP pointed out that being uselessness is the entire point
>the high cost and useless-ness of the gift are a feature not a bug
The other thing is the marketing says diamonds are "forever," presumably like your love, but houses and cars require expensive maintenance and are easily damaged. Not good if you're buying something symbolic.
Not that I personally agree, far from it, we didn't make any jewelery purchases when we got married.
> The other thing is the marketing says diamonds are "forever," presumably like your love, but houses and cars require expensive maintenance and are easily damaged. Not good if you're buying something symbolic.
Definitely some symbolism there. Relationships (romantic and otherwise) are indeed more like houses and cars - innately valuable, easily damaged, and requiring regular maintenance - than diamonds.
Right, I agree (and that's why I'm not "into" diamonds/useless trinkets) - but that's a realistic take, not the sort of thing people who are buying/receiving diamonds want.
For houses it's completely plausible that the motivation is for the asset to appreciate in value and even if the marriage ends in divorce, both parties end up being able to extract some value from it. For a retail diamond the purchaser is likely to see zero value recovered from it whether divorce happens or not.
For cars, I suppose my hypothesis would say cars likely to depreciate very quickly (such as high-end SUV) are more suitable as engagement gifts than practical (prius or such), which fits roughly with my observations in real world
Reminds me of these outrageously expensive dishes some places are selling, where they put gold on the food, and other expensive ingredients that don't fit, all for the sake of creating the most expensive burger/steak/pizza whatever.
So why not buy something practical and expensive? Like a house or a car?