[zeroer]

Thanks for writing this. I'm glad people are pushing back against the insanity of the diamond marketing.

But you're still buying into the concept of the gifting of rings, when this is a recent phenomenon created by De Beer's. Unless they were European royalty, your great-great-grandparents did not exchange rings. Commoners did not have this custom until the twentieth century. When you suggest getting non-diamond rings, you perpetuate the expectation that people should exchange rings, continuing De Beer's advertising campaign.

My wife and I got married without exchanging any rings for this reason. I thought that I might need to explain my position on rings to friends and family, but we've never gotten so much as a comment about it.

(BTW, your link to the Atlantic article 404s.)

[bzbarsky]

> Commoners did not have this custom until the twentieth century

It really depends on the culture. Having the groom give the bride something of value is a quite old tradition for Jewish weddings, including "commoners" (read: all Jews, pretty much). A ring was in fact a quite common such gift going back a long way.

That said, if a ring is used in this case it must traditionally be a plain band with no stones; we're not talking diamond rings here.

[spbaar]

This site isn't trying to upend the artificial customs that we've come to cherish, just to substitute one costly part of it with a cheaper indistinguishable alternative for all the reasons he described

[zeroer]

Sure. That's why I opened by thanking OP.