G.L.Piggy [at] gmail.com
Recent Comments
- Woodshed_rabbit on This is not The Jungle
- peterike on The guns that killed Tamerlan Tsarnaev weren’t illegal
- JP on This is not The Jungle
- The Querl Xoralundra on This is not The Jungle
- This is not The Jungle | Viva La Manosphere! on This is not The Jungle
- Hank on This is not The Jungle
GLP Approved
- Captain Capitalism
- Dalrock
- Dennis Mangan
- Econ Log
- Elusive Wapiti
- Foseti
- Hawaiian Libertarian
- HBD Bibliography
- Heartiste
- Lion of the Blogosphere
- Marginal Revolution
- Matt Forney
- Randall Parker
- Razib Khan
- Reihan Salam
- Roosh V
- Simon Grey
- SOBL
- Steve Sailer
- The Last Psychiatrist
- The Spearhead
- Thrasymachus
- Ulysses
- Vox Day
Tweet Tweet
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
It’s not the ring, it’s the status the ring proves to others.
Women want control over men’s wealth.
To ask is to answer.
Shows good character on the part of mrs. Zuckerberg. Though she likely wouldn’t have been in a position to become mrs. Zuckerberg if she had been the unpleasant demanding type that makes a big deal about the wedding ring.
Yeah, repulsive.
I will note though that Zuckerberg probably not unintentionally waited to marry until it could be safely argued that the IPO valuation of his net worth was already baked into his prior to marital property net worth under California law. Good for him. In his case that functions as a damn good prenup, but better since unbreakable. However bad California is on alimony in “long” marriage and child support=also stealth alimony assessed on a formula basis on very high earners and too much assessed on the truly rich, it’s bright line about non marital versus marital property.
His wife will have no claim to half of his last week net worth in the event of a divorce. Which I’d guess is pretty unlikely with those two anyway.
Call the ADL!! They called him “cheap”!
He made her feel special with a unique ring, rather than a (relatively, or him) pricey one.
Girl can’t complain.
The ruby shows good taste, which is priceless.
As long as this couple lives, they will be hounded by envious busybodies.
Yeah I think diamonds are not that attractive and a sucker’s game. The markups from the de Beers cartel, and their orthodox Jew wholesale diamond cutters and middlemen, are extreme.
Rubies are much more inherently attractive stones, as are sapphires. I bought my ex wife one or the other, can’t honestly remember. It was a while ago. It was a black one, with a small diamonds encircling it. Not hugely expensive, not cheap either, but very grand looking, and very individual looking. Basically it was more impressive than it’s price, which her acquaintances and girlfriends found very hard to guesstimate.
Diamonds really are boring gemstones. I’d take a quality opal any day.
It´s good that someone in the extended manosphere is covering Zucks matrimony. Almost everything from other sources has Zuckerberg as Mr. Priscilla Chan. Maybe Heartiste will have some thoughts about all this; I personally have been scratching my damn head over it all. I am too imprinted upon by realities such as this:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/threatpoint/
Good luck Mark.
My understanding is that the presence of any stones in wedding rings, as opposed to engagement rings, is considered vulgar.
I wonder if anyone asked Mrs. Zuckerberg’s opinion about the ring. I could have easily spent 10X what I did for an engagement ring but my wife doesn’t like any jewelery apart from the “taken” rings and she wanted something small that doesn’t interfere with her working. Zuck’s wife is a computer nerd like him isn’t she? Maybe she asked for something small and tasteful and weirdo celebrity ‘reporters’ are assuming something they have no idea about.
My mistake, I just looked it up and she’s a doctor. Gigantic ring and putting on rubber gloves / handwashing don’t mix.