Vogue calls diamond engagement rings 'uncool'
If you're dreaming of the day he'll finally "put a ring on it", never mind all that -- at least, according to Vogue. The magazine's website recently published an op-ed by contributor Lizzie Garrett Mettler denouncing the diamond engagement ring as an unnecessary expense. Um, wait. What?
To be fair, the writer does make a solid point. Diamonds are expensive, and there are other things she and her fiancee could have spent their money on. She also touches on the cultural implications of big, fancy diamond engagement rings. When a girl sports one for the first time (or any time, really), she's immediately deluged with quandaries as to where the ring was purchased, how big it is, and how many carats it's made of. The author felt uncomfortable wearing her "supposed economic status" on her finger.
Additionally, her diamond engagement ring was a point of guilt.
"Ostensibly, my ring was a sparkly reminder to my husband of the day he asked me to spend the rest of my life with him, but to me it was a reminder of the debt he went into to pay for it-as a graduate student, no less," Mettler writes.
Mettler thinks she may have identified a shift in thinking towards diamond engagement rings -- a trend steering away from the classic, age-old tradition. "For many of the women whose style I most admire, it seems, diamond rings are just no longer cool," Mettler writes.
We're not sure we're totally buying it. After all, Mary-Kate Olsen got engaged this past January, to the tune of an $80,000 vintage Cartier ring. And of course, we can't forget Kim Kardashian's massive rock. Many women still dream of diamonds, but only time will tell if the diamond ring is truly "uncool".
Click through the gallery below to see a history of celebrity diamond engagement rings.