真愛無需鑽戒 結婚不必有房大綱

Most of us are adult enough to know magic doesn't exist. And yet we're the same species that thinks fat rings are fairy-tale items which somehow "secure" another person's love, one step away from a "happily ever after".

我們中的大多數都已經足夠成熟，知道這個世界上並不存在什麼魔法。我們同樣也都知道用一顆大鑽戒去“套住”一個人的心，然後“永遠幸福地生活在一起”是隻是童話中才會出現的故事。

They're expensive, useless and, worse, are insulting to notions of actual love. As anyone who's been in a serious long-term relationship knows, you don't need geology to proclaim (let alone justify) said love.

戒指又貴又沒用，更糟糕的是，它們還侮辱了愛情的真諦。任何一個認真處在長久戀愛關係的人都知道，你並不需要通過地裏埋藏的東西來宣告（甚至刻意證明）你的愛。

Before you take me for a cheapskate who just doesn't want to spend the money on a ring, let me explain a bit more. Many of us, especially men, have strapped our feet to the commercialised notions of what constitutesrelationships. We've turned into zombies, hungry for all things red and supposedly lovey dovey. We buy into the baffling displays of romance like the nauseating crimson heart-shaped horror show we call Valentine's Day. Or the flowers and boxed chocolates we're supposed to deliver on anniversaries to celebrate monogamous tolerance and the disbelief you haven't murdered each other.

在我被你們視爲不願花錢買戒指的吝嗇鬼之前，請允許我多做一些解釋。我們很多人，尤其是男人，已經被束縛在商業化概念構成的情感之中。我們變得像殭屍一樣，渴望一切紅色的東西和所謂的情愛纏綿。我們相信那些莫名其妙的浪漫表達方式，比如滿眼紅到令人作嘔的恐怖心形物（我們稱之爲情人節），或者是我們應該在週年紀念日那天送上鮮花和盒裝巧克力，以慶祝我們竟能在一夫一妻制下相互容忍而沒有相互殘殺。

We speed through our finances and morals, enjoying the exhilaration of fitting in to societal expectation, as opposed to reflecting on whether our actions are warranted or justified. And our partners seem all too ready to go along with it.

我們忽視了自身的經濟能力和個人信念，享受着因爲符合社會期望而帶來的喜悅，卻沒有反思我們的行爲是否必要或者合理。我們的伴侶對此似乎也都是贊同的。

Engagement rings – specifically expensive diamond ones – are often prime examples of this unthinking mindset. The problem isn't the rings themselves, but the justifications – or the lack of justifications – behind their acquisition.

訂婚戒指——尤其是昂貴的鑽石戒指——往往是這種盲目心態的典型例子。問題並不在於戒指本身，而是在於買戒指這件事的合理性。

We mustn't confuse engagement rings – given, usually to a woman, when a proposal is accepted – and wedding rings – given on wedding day. (Already, we should recognise how strange it is to need two different kinds of rings.)

我們千萬不能把訂婚戒指和結婚戒指弄混了，前者是在女人同意了男人的求婚之後，男人送給她的戒指，而後者是在結婚當天送給她的戒指。（好吧，其實我們已經意識到需要兩種不同的戒指是件很奇怪的事情了。）

Whatever the long history of engagement items – I've heard claims of it dating from ancient Egypt or Rome, for example – the focus on engagement rings should really start with De Beers, in the 20th century.

有傳言稱訂婚習俗起源於古埃及或古羅馬，但不管訂婚習俗的歷史有多麼悠久，我真正聽說訂婚戒指這件事應該是從20世紀的戴比爾斯公司（De Beers）開始的。

After large diamond mines were discovered here in South Africa around 1870, the mines' major investors amalgamated their interests to form De Beers Consolidates Mines. They recognised that due to diamonds having little intrinsic value, they would need to create demand via (the illusion of) scarcity and pretend worth. So began one of the most successful marketing and public manipulation campaigns of the 20th century, originating from four words: "A diamond is forever".

1870年左右，在南非發現一些大鑽礦之後，這些礦的主要投資者們便達成了利益聯合，成立了戴比爾斯聯合礦業。他們知道鑽石本身並沒有什麼價值，但他們需要利用鑽石稀缺的假象來創造需求，假裝它們很有價值。所以“鑽石恆久遠，一顆永流傳”這句廣告語便成爲了20世紀最成功的營銷和公關案例之一。

By convincing men their love for their future wife is directly proportional to the expense of the diamond ring, and convincing women to expect love in the form of shiny stone, De Beers and their marketers, NW Ayer, began a Tradition so embedded we forget it's a marketing ploy. Genius marketing, to be sure, but marketing nonetheless.

通過讓男人們相信他們對未來妻子的愛與鑽戒的價格成正比，同時也蠱惑女人們去期待閃亮石頭所表達的愛，戴爾比斯和他們的營銷夥伴愛爾廣告公司開啓了一段深入人心的經典之旅，甚至讓我們都忘了這是一種營銷策略。它的確是一種天才營銷，但不管怎樣，也只是營銷而已。

And guess what? The prices keep going up, as if we are really loving more and deeper these days. According to the XO Group Inc 2011 Engagement Engagement & Jewelry survey, the average engagement ring cost $5,200. If you think that's bad, consider that nearly 12% of US couples spend more than $8,000 for an engagement ring. Of course, we should take such stats with some measure of scepticism, as Will Oremus highlights. Nonetheless, these are the prices at a time when the average American family earns less than it did in 1989.

猜猜接下來怎樣了？鑽石的價格持續增長，時至今日，我們對它們的愛更是有增無減。根據XO集團有限公司（XO Group Inc）的2011年度訂婚首飾調查，人們在訂婚戒指上的平均花費約爲5200美金。如果你覺得這已經是非常可怕的數字了，那麼再想想，其實還有近12%的美國夫妻會花8000美金以上去買訂婚戒指。當然，正如作家歐蕾慕斯（Will Oremus）所強調的，我們應該帶着懷疑的態度去看這些數據。這些價格都是1989年的調查結果，而在那個年代，美國家庭平均賺到的美金其實都達不到這些數字。

The American bias of these stats shouldn't negate the overall point: diamonds – and therefore diamond rings – are expensive and the demand was created artificially for an item that's only property here is shininess (it decreases in value as soon as you walk out the store).

儘管鑽戒花費的可信度有待商榷，但這不能掩蓋這個事實：鑽石以及鑽戒的天價都是人爲創造出來的，它們唯一的特性就是閃亮（但一旦走出商場，閃亮的它們就會黯淡下來）。

Any remotely logical person can see that spending several thousand on actually important items for a new couple like a place to live or putting money in an investment account will serve them far better in the future (and likely help with romantic and/or wedded bliss).

任何一個有長遠思維的人都會發現，對新婚夫婦來說，花數千塊錢在一些住房或是投資理財之類真正重要的事情上對他們的將來可能會更有意義（也可能有助於營造浪漫和提高婚姻幸福感）。

That engagement ring purchases tend to be for women – not by women – is also insulting to the cause of not viewing women as objects to be acquired. Consider that this is worthy of a headline in a respected US magazine at the beginning of this month: "Women Now Paying for Their Own Engagement Rings".

訂婚戒指是買給女人的，而不是被女人買的，這種不將女人視爲購買戒指的對象也是對女性的一種侮辱。想像一下，如果本月初在一個權威的美國雜誌上看到這樣一條新聞：“女人爲自己購買訂婚戒指”，那麼它一定可以成爲新聞頭條。

Many people will say that engagement rings are symbolic of love and devotion. Ignoring that this idea is itself manufactured by the profiting businesses, it also gives an arbitrary definition of "symbol": why can't a beautiful home be a symbol? Why can't long-term investments be a symbol? Indeed, would it not be more impressive to show off a house than a finger rock?

很多人會說，訂婚戒指是愛情和忠誠的象徵。但卻忽視了這個想法本身就是被盈利的商家們創造出來的，同樣也對“象徵”下了一個專斷的定義：爲什麼一個漂亮的家不能成爲愛情和忠誠的象徵？爲什麼長期投資不能成爲愛情和忠誠的象徵？說實話，難道一棟房子不比一個手指上的石頭更印象深刻嗎？

Tradition is another assertion when discussing almost anything to do withmonogamy and marriage. But, like nature, tradition is a description not moral justification. Just because we've always done a particular action, doesn't mean it's always (or ever was) justified. Pointing to tradition means pointing to the mistreatment of different races and sexes, human sacrifices, and so on. Longevity, too, doesn't give moral immunity, or automatic goodness, to anything.

每當討論起任何關於一夫一妻和婚姻的話題時，傳統就成了我們要堅守的另一種東西。然而，傳統在本質上只是一種描述，不代表其具有道德合理性。並不會因爲我們已經做了什麼，就代表着這種行爲總是（或曾經是）合理的。當你向着傳統時，也就意味着可能會默許對不同種族、性別的虐待，還有活人祭祀等等。即使是存在已久的古老傳統，也不會給予任何事物道德豁免，或是理所應當的仁慈。

Engagement rings aren't even used to show one is married: they're used before the wedding even occurs. Indeed, even helping avoid awkward social encounters isn't aided, since there are other (and cheaper) ways of showing you're "in a relatinship" (not to mention just telling people trying to hit on you).

戴了訂婚戒指並不代表已經結婚，訂婚是發生在結婚之前的。實際上，訂婚戒指也無力幫助你避免一些尷尬的社交場合，但其實有其他低花費的方式能向所有人表明你已經“有主了”，更不用說那些試圖搭訕你的人。

If you need a ring to prove your love, it's not your lack of a ring that's the problem.

如果需要一枚戒指才能證明你的愛，那麼問題就不僅是缺少一枚戒指那麼簡單了。