Monogamy100

This ad makes me throw up in my mouth a little. Seriously, monogamy to the 100th degree? What does that even mean? Well, according to Hearts on Fire:

The difference being a dedication to intensity. There is simply no better word to describe our diamonds or the unique relationships they have come to symbolize over the years. It’s this belief in intensity that drives us to cut and polish our diamonds at 100 times magnification, 10 times the industry standard.

So you don’t just commit to being with one person, you really really commit. And you buy her expensive bling. So she won’t go into the negative monogamy exponentials.

From their ads it’s fairly obvious who is buying the diamond for who- and therefore who is buying “monogamy” from who. Call me crazy, but I don’t actually find the idea of my trust being bought all that romantic. I would rather, I dunno, be with someone who I trust period, bling or no bling.

Sarcasm aside, the implication that you own exclusive use of a woman’s body because you bought her a shiny rock is despicable, and you can tell them so: customerservice@heartsonfire.com. My letter is after the jump, feel free to cut and paste if you’re short for time.

 

PS- I do intend to find something to write about that makes me happy eventually. I promise!

Dear Hearts on Fire customer service:

I am not a diamond buyer, however I see your Monogamy100 ads on public transit, and I feel compelled to tell you I find them horribly offensive. While I see nothing wrong with advertising diamonds as symbols of love and commitment, suggesting that giving a diamond to someone somehow buys exclusive rights to their bodies is despicable. Judging from your ads, that someone is clearly a woman. Are you aware that for many years all women were considered property men could buy, and that some women are still treated this way? Is this an ideology your ad campaign intends to support?Thank you for your time and I hope to hear back from you.