|
|
|
|
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 6:29:06 AM | So....that would mean that most women would have no problem with a premarital agreement (even if just verbal) where both partners commit to maintaining fitness, right? Everyone should be in agreement on that point, then
I am health conscious. It started when I was like 4 doing gymnastics and yoga. At 5 I went to kindergarten where there was a little girl that was placed on weight watchers because she was chubby. Because she counted calories, we are talking cucumber 2 calories for every lunch, I even became aware of eating healthy.
To this day I do everything in moderation and don't deprive myself. I feel I have maintained fairly well and used to assist my exhusband in the same goal. See and that is why I have so many problems with what the OP has said. When someone has mental illness, they don't think the way they should or think rationally per se. They can and do put on weight and can let themselves go. Putting on weight is a symptom of a more serious problem. When you love someone, you see these signs and symptoms and do what you can to help the other person, but a clause is ridiculous! It is hard enough to get the courts to recognize prenups when it comes to physical property let alone an ambiguous prenup about someone's physique. It is not only ridiculous but it is inhuman for anyone to make such a clause. And as I have read the OP's other threads and all clarifications on here, the OP really has a problem with women and himself. I guess I take this too seriously because I have seen what happens when someone has a car accident and when someone has mental illness. Neither are expected, but either can happen and it is just ridiculous if you love someone to give up on them and not help them to the best of your ability.
If someone sees someone putting on weight, you don't love that person if you just want to kick them to the curb. You are a shallow jerk that doesn't want to find out what is the matter with that person for them to become that way!
And to make sure this is clear, even going through 3 years of divorce, I didn't put on weight, I lost it. I say a divorce is the best diet in the world (I did put my weight back on thankfully). I also did all I could to get my ex-husband the help he needed. I didn't give up on him, he gave up on himself. Having a prenup about him gaining weight would have been futile it was hard enough keeping my property listed in the prenup.
Ok...continue with your thread that is just a guise to dis women that supposedly just put on weight for no reason and tricked the men into marrying them with just their looks...gahhhh...shallow hal... | |
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 6:45:24 AM |
When someone has mental illness, they don't think the way they should or think rationally per se. They can and do put on weight and can let themselves go. Putting on weight is a symptom of a more serious problem. When you love someone, you see these signs and symptoms and do what you can to help the other person, but a clause is ridiculous
Yes, a pre-nup isn't practical. Yes, some people are overweight or disfigured, through illness or injury. The pre-nup was being absurd to illustrate a point, and in the OP, it specifically referred to "letting yourself go".
If someone has a "mental illness", it's an illness. If someone has an "emotional issue", the individual must first own her (or his) own experience. It's no different from substance abuse. A spouse can be supportive of someone who seeks to change, but there's nothing he ( or she) can do to "fix" someone else's feelings. In fact, as with substance abuse, "hitting bottom" may be necessarry, before the person is motivated to change.
If someone sees someone putting on weight, you don't love that person if you just want to kick them to the curb. You are a shallow jerk that doesn't want to find out what is the matter with that person for them to become that way!
Loving someone, sure, but if someone chooses "comfort food" over her spouse's needs, it shouldn't be surprising that the consequence can sometimes be, that he is no longer "in love" with her as a romantic partner. Call it "shallow" all you like, but physical attraction is part of sexual desire, and sexual desire is an important component of romantic love.
So, are you consigning a spouse, who is attentive to his marriage initially, and who's spouse choose comfort food over her spouse, to a lifetime of celibacy? Are you suggesting that a man should "desire" a woman, no matter how unattractive she becomes, through her own selfish choices? How do you tell a man he "should" get an erection for a woman, who is completely unattractive to him? I'm 6 ft tall, and weight 175#, the same weight as when I graduated from college, and 3# heavier, than when I was discharged from the USMC in my early 20s. I really can't "get it up" for a 5'4" woman, who weighs 60# more than me. Life would have been simpler if I could, but sexual desire doesn't care a whit about "political correctness".
In any case, as with most discussions in the fora, women will not allow men to have any normal, natural responses to off putting things women do. Men are "supposed" to accept the "blame" for anything a woman does, and in the fora, are only "supposed" to express politically correct points of view. A lot of men see that dynamic, and just stop posting, allowing women to think that they're "right" to rally around in a spirit of sisterhood.
In the real world, though, there is a point at which men just give up on a relationship. You can convince yourselves that your'e right in the fora, but people will keep getting divorces or having affairs, if their spouses choose to "let themselves go". If a woman, or man, values his/her marriage, he/she will do what's in his/her power to not just "let himself/herself go. " If one does, then he/she shouldn't be surprised if his/her spouse "goes" in response, whether the women in the fora approve or not. | |
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 7:14:08 AM | | Lol... this is really funny... and especially at the over 45 group... I think you need to figure out before you marry what type of person you're with. I think within a few months time you'll have your answer on the personality type your with... and as far as health who can predict that? No I would never sign a prenup ... but if I did I would make it a two way street... he can't either... no illnesses, no beer gut, no going bald... and if he is worried about me will he provide me with a personal trainer along with the club membership? and shop with me at whole Foods? and eat properly? It's a whole lifestyle.. and oh of course we can never die either... | |
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 7:30:40 AM | I may have to start asking this question to prospective mates. Just to see their reaction to the topic. One of those "I read somewhere... What do you think of that?" type questions. Some of the comments from the ladies are very telling toward their attitudes and intelligence. I could weed out certain types very quickly with this one. And I'm not talking about prospective weight gainers either.
A prenup should be required before anyone can get married. It would take the stigma off of the topic. I think a fat clause would be too much though. | |
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 8:36:17 AM | The women I've known who have put on weight have carried huge feelings of loss over the changes in their partners post-wedding vows and many, have been grieving and attempting to comfort themselves with food.
Ah, the ol' chicken-egg argument, most often used as a way to blame the guy for the demise of all relationships or anything negative that women experience.
But really, which DOES come first? His neglect or her weight gain?
 | |
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 8:44:55 AM |
I really can't "get it up" for a 5'4" woman, who weighs 60# more than me. Life would have been simpler if I could, but sexual desire doesn't care a whit about "political correctness".
With all due respect....I promise that this "woman of the fora" will not spew any "political correctness" if her ONE question is answered (hopefully respectfully) and/or at least properly addressed. Fair enough?
I understand not being attracted AND not being able to "fake" an erection. There is no need to rehash this point over and over and over again IMO. I get it and I'm sure others do too. And contrary to what some people seem to want to believe, some of us are actually capable of critical independent thought and couldn't care less about what the sisterhood or the brotherhood or Oprah or Dr. Phil has to say or about any political correctness. Seriously.
And again I feel I must make it clear that I'm not asking this question to be facetious or to stir the pot or anything...I simply want to know since I'm obviously not a man and I don't have a penis.
Okay...a man is not able to have/maintain an erection and/or feel any sexual desire/attraction for someone who is overweight or carrying a lot of "fat".
I understand that completely (and on all levels) AND I can respect that.
But what has NOT been addressed and was asked repeatedly by a few posters, including myself, is this...whether that extra fat was acquired through laziness and/or overeating, OR illness/injury, how would the penis react any differently at the sight of one type of fat over the other....I mean if the penis is repulsed by the sight of fat ( fat is fat no?)...what difference does it make (to the penis) HOW that fat got there in the first place???
And I also completely GET the point where someone might say... "well it's the thought that my partner didn't care enough to maintain her looks for me that makes it different"....which of course would mean that we're now entering a whole new ballgame since this wouldn't be solely about a physical response anymore.
Which to me and in MY opinion invalidates the fact that this is solely an automatic or involuntary physical response issue and more of an emotional response.
But on the other hand, if one was to say that they could no longer sexually respond to their partners because they no longer felt their partners loved or appreciated or cared enough about them to look good or sexy for them, then that's an entirely different story.
Now we're entering the feeling/emotional/bonding aspect of a relationship where in my opinion, everything ultimately takes place - including continued sexual attraction/desire for your partner.
Or else we could all safely assume that "old and wrinkly" long time married people would no longer desire each other since most of us don't exactly start out fantasizing about making it with an "old and wrinkly" person when we first become sexually aware.
And since for me this isn't even a man/woman issue, I would really appreciate any mention of the sisterhood/brotherhood be kept out of this discussion if at all possible (and IMO). I mean...if anytime a woman OR a man genuinely and WITHOUT malice expresses their opinions and/or asks questions only to be accused of being part of the "hood" and/or being brainwashed by the media or Oprah or whatever, then what's the point of even having these types of discussions in the first place I wonder?
Anyway...I think that having a prenuptial in place to insist/assure that your partner maintains their physical appearance for you is both redundant and silly in my honest opinion.
Redundant because I have to assume that on the day we marry, my partner loves me and cares enough about me (and about themselves) to WANT to continue to look/feel desirable, both for me and for themselves, but more importantly, for the coupleship they are about to enter together.
And silly because....well... because it's just plain silly in my opinion. But to each their own opinions.
JMHO
| |
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 8:51:21 AM | Yeah .. right
then make me a promise
You remain at your sexual peak forever and ever
You won't get saggy and baggy
You won't lose your hair or go gray
Get hair where hair should never grow
Lose your pearly white grin
Bruise or break any bones ,have a heart attack, a stroke,or get arthritis
Develop a drinking problem
Yeah I can nip/tuck all day long as long as your money says right
Now will someone tell the troll who started this thread that the bridge tolls just went up in Pa/Nj to 4.00 and he needs to get back to his job | |
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 8:56:15 AM | Yeah .. right
then make me a promise
You remain at your sexual peak forever and ever
You won't get saggy and baggy
You won't lose your hair or go gray
Get hair where hair should never grow
Lose your pearly white grin
Bruise or break any bones ,have a heart attack, a stroke,or get arthritis
Develop a drinking problem
And no pot belly, please...  | |
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 9:12:57 AM |
what has NOT been addressed and was asked repeatedly by a few posters, including myself, is this...whether that extra fat was acquired through laziness and/or overeating, OR illness/injury, how would the penis react any differently at the sight of one type of fat over the other....I mean if the penis is repulsed by the sight of fat ( fat is fat no?)...what difference does it make (to the penis) HOW that fat got there in the first place???
Interesting question. The answer to which is I can't be sure, but, there can be a physical response based on strong emotions of emotional closeness. For example, during my ex wife's first pregnancy, there was the emotional bond of having our child in our womb, and we did make love. It wasn't as often as prior to pregnancy, but there was still an active sex life.
on the other hand, if one was to say that they could no longer sexually respond to their partners because they no longer felt their partners loved or appreciated or cared enough about them to look good or sexy for them, then that's an entirely different story.
That's a big part of it. I wouldn't date a heavy woman, in the first place, no matter how much I liked her in other ways. I think ther are some complex feelings involved, when you marry someone who is ht/wt proportionate, and then she "chooses" to put on weight, knowing it will interfere with sexual attraction. It's the "opposite" of feeling those strong emotions of closeness. It's really a message that the spouse and marriage aren't important enough for her (him) to make an effort. It's a message that "you're stuck now, and what I feel like doing is what matters most to me".
To use the examples that others have used of injury or illness, there is a "tender" supportive emotional response that comes to the fore, when someone close is facing that kind of difficulty. Would that evoke the "emotion based" erection? I just don't know. There wouldn't be a sense of "dismissal", or being told you're not important in that case. I think the focus would be on being emotionally supportive in that circumstance, and sex would not be "top of mind" during a crisis, but would it be possible? I think so, but I don't know for sure.
Yes, I agree about the pre-nup. I took that metaphorically, as indicative that volitionally becoming unattractive is likely to undermine the marriage eventually. An actual pre-nup wouldn't be enforceable, nor practical. | |
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 9:15:32 AM |
whether that extra fat was acquired through laziness and/or overeating, OR illness/injury, how would the penis react any differently at the sight of one type of fat over the other....I mean if the penis is repulsed by the sight of fat ( fat is fat no?)...what difference does it make (to the penis) HOW that fat got there in the first place???
It makes a huge difference. When my ex had to take Prednisone for a few weeks and got bloated, we both knew it wasn't her fault and was temporary. She was still active and would be able to shed the weight when she was no longer on the medication. My ex wasn't a lazy slob who didn't give a damn. She was a beautiful woman who had to take meds for a brief period of time; so knowing that, it was still easy to get excited about her. If a guy knows that his SO is just eating herself to death (rather than enduring a medical condition), it's easy to understand why he wouldn't be excited anymore because of her permanent sloth. | |
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 9:22:33 AM |
But really, which DOES come first? His neglect or her weight gain?
My guess Capitano... ennui comes first.
No finger pointing or blame... people get discontented and unwilling to put the same efforts into each other. Whether that is one of them or both it doesn't much matter in my observation. They each attribute their boredom or discontent or neglect to the other... begin to feed on that rather than creating feel-goods... and the cycle builds.
When people break up, one of the very first things they often do is to "take back their life" and get in shape. There is nothing that says they cannot do this from within a relationship.
pfft... half the time much of ones complaints about the other is really an internal discontent that doesn't go away once you've ditched the rotten ex. Things would work out better in my view if we were quicker to work on our own discontent rather than looking for things or people outside ourselves to blame it on. | |
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 9:32:51 AM | What are you going to do if she's in a car accident and paralyzed from the waist down. What if she has a massive heart attack..........early alzheimers, brain tumor, cancer, becomes an alcoholic, anorexia, bulemia, attempts murdering your ass..............better include more than just the weight/physical condition pal.
p.s. YOU need help!! | |
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 10:04:11 AM | Thank you to the two males posters above for the responses which have indeed helped me understand this better. And if I read this correctly, it seems to be more of an emotional response than a physical one...which I totally "get" also. I believe that we ( both men AND women) all need to feel loved, appreciated and special to our partners outside the bedroom in order to desire/want them inside the bedroom. And as I have always suspected, most men are no different on that level than most women. Anyway...thanks again for the responses...they are most appreciated:)
JMO | |
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 10:53:28 AM | Oh, gee folks, look what I found in the "Combover" thread from Gapeman:
If my hair falls out, I'm most certainly going to do the comb over. After years of marriage, I'm also going to put on a huge beer belly.
I hope she makes YOU sign the prenup also. | |
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 11:29:43 AM | There are some women who, no matter what the issue, will always blame men for women's bad behavior.
Women's BAD BEHAVIOR??? An unhappy woman gaining weight is BAD BEHAVIOR???? OMG!!!
Okay.. now that I've recovered from that completely asinine remark...
While I could argue the points in this post, it ignores the issue. I'll grant you that women who have a food addiction, often do so in response to depression, loneliness, or whatever. So what?
So what? "So what" is the simple "cause-effect" phenomena... When someone who has been free, enjoying life, excited about falling in love, getting married and having children, suddenly finds out that the roles she is expected to carry as a wife and mother are going to build a stronger prison for her than San Quentin, it is more than an over-simplified "feelings" issue. If a woman on her own, gains weight, more times than enough, it's a feelings issue but marriage takes that dynamic and changes it into a situation where now both people have a say in a woman's lifestyle.
While it is slowly changing now, I remember that 30 years ago, many women were expected to put their own wants, needs and feelings aside. As soon as she became a wife, she was considered a chattel and particularly, if, as was often the case, she was a stay-at-home mom. Even the expectation that she remain sexually attractive regardless of whether or not her husband treated her with any kind of respect, tenderness or love was very common. To say "so what", simply illustrates my point...
People are still responsible for their own feelings, and their own results.
As Old Soul has very adeptly illustrated, if problems with male potency also come from a "feeling", then does it not also follow that women should also say, "so what" when a guy is sitting back sulking because his wife has gained weight? Is it not also HIS problem if he can't become stimulated unless all of the criteria in his head are met by the woman beside him? Seems to me that there is a great deal of "blaming" women for not remaining sexually attractive instead of men taking responsibility for being unable to be virile under anything but ideal conditions... IF we follow that line of reasoning....
I've heard almost everything, but to say that a woman became obese, because she is a stay at home mom, and therefore has to be in the kitchen more than her husband, is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've read in the fora.
Why the myopic vision? That isn't what I said! I said that women who find themselves feeling "trapped" because they don't just run away from their marital commitments will find alternative comforts when they find themselves married to men who, once married, set them into a "role" that they are supposed to live from there on in. These same men also behaved in certain ways to get that woman to marry him and then, when the die was cast, suddenly or even gradually, reverted to "me first" syndrome. 30 years ago, this was VERY common and instead of women leaving such a man, she often hung on to the marriage. Today's woman, being able to provide far better for her children and her self, will often simply walk out on such a man instead of living in that kind of lonely ownership over an extended period of years.
I'm an alcoholic, who will be sober 30 years on the 30th, and sobriety began just over a year prior to meeting my wife. While I was drinking, it was always "somebody else's fault". I drank because it was a sunny day, or a rainy one, or one in between. I drank because my baseball team lost, or because it won. You get the point.
Alcoholism isn't just about the alcohol. It's also about the "isms"... those ways of thought that lead a person to feel entitled and justified in inflicting his addled way of looking at life on others... Many a person has stopped drinking without having their isms repaired.
I daresay that if an alcoholic was say, a musician whose work was primarily in bars and whose payment often took the form of appreciative booze flowing his way, he'd really have his work cut out for him to be able to stop drinking. No different for a woman who is unable to leave the food-oriented environment because hubby wants 3 squares.
Putting on huge amounts of weight, far beyond the natural weight gain that can come with aging or childbirth, but into the extreme of 100#+, developing Type II diabeters as a result, and poor health compared to others, like more colds, flu, blood pressure, etc.. through something that is within one's ability to change, is not "because" of anyone else.
No it isn't "because of anyone else"... But feeling disrespected, devalued or demeaned by a husband who thinks that her world should be all about pleasing him IS about someone else and about the marriage dynamic as it used to be. As I said before, nowadays, many women would just leave a guy who thinks the way men commonly used to think about the roles women should play in their lives. But 20 to 30 years ago, the women who left their husbands were branded as harlots or loose women. They faced all sorts of consequences.
Overall, there is NOTHING you are going to say that is going to convince me that women just wanna be fat and unattractive... And that same woman who suddenly finds that her extra potato at mealtime has crept up on her, is even sadder! Women trying to stay in their marriages will consciously and subconsciously saddle themselves with extra weight so that they are not tempted to stray and I think for many, it was the only way they had to tell HIM, that he's no more attractive to her than she is to him.
You can crab and b*tch and blame women for your inability to become aroused but to adopt your reasoning, I think many women should just say, "So what? It's YOUR problem so YOU deal with it!" And.. they do. | |
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 12:29:15 PM | ~OT~ Whatever happened to people that remain health/weight conscious for their own self? In all seriousness, I don't need a man in my life or the lack-thereof to realize that I feel better, am happier, and probably am a much more likable person when I feel good about me. If someone lets themself go because they aren't getting kudos at home from their spouse ~ that's some serious lack of self-worth and it's not a diet they need, it's a therapist or a divorce. Likewise, if a spouse (regardless of gender) doesn't incorporate/instigate making their partner feel loved, wanted, desired, attractive, etc., they don't deserve the time it takes to pain/ache/cry over. Common sense ~ remain healthy/happy because you choose to. We react to actions ~ HOW one chooses to react is individual choice. I'm only miserable if I allow it. If "he" isn't assisting in my happiness/well-being ~ he'll find himself wondering where the hell his dinner is and why his laundry isn't done because maid service stops when I sense I'm no longer being treated properly. (OH, and that includes me taking the cat when I leaving.)  | |
|
| |
| |
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 12:48:04 PM | I"m SO putting that in a pre-nup!! Forget it if my husband goes bald and gets a spare tire - he's gone!!! ESPECIALLY if he loses his hair from chemo from all the cancer and whatnot -- get that outta here!!
OMG that's the most hilarious thing I've ever read -- what's allowed? 3 wrinkles? 4? after having YOUR children, can she gain 5 pounds maybe? what about a stretch mark?? nope, trade her in for something fresh and new!
WOW you are so not ready to marry ANYONE | |
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 1:01:49 PM |
~OT~ Whatever happened to people that remain health/weight conscious for their own self?
DING, DING, DING we have a winner. VGEs has it right again.
I am all for a pre-nup, for me it would be mostly about financially protecting ourselves, but hey, if two people want to have a pre-nup that includes a line item that states "Each party can only eat Twinkies once a year" and each person agrees with said line-item well then good for the annual Twinkie negotiation term.
Having said that, I stay in shape, I work out and I like the way I feel and the way I look and the only person I do it for is me. Barring illness, I can't imagine that I would enter into a relationship and my fitness goals would change and hopefully my partner would care enough about himself to take care of his health as well.
But I do have to say, knowing myself the way that I do, when I get remarried it will be because I love him, truly love him and it will be a deep and meaningful love, something that I am sure 20lbs on either side could never change. Additionally, if he got sick, I would take care of him fat or thin and you know, if Twinkies were the only thing that would save his life, I would put one on a beautiful plate and hand feed it to him myself. | |
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 1:08:13 PM |
If a guy knows that his SO is just eating herself to death (rather than enduring a medical condition), it's easy to understand why he wouldn't be excited anymore because of her permanent sloth.
Nothing sexier than fingers with gnawed off nails, all orange with the pixie-dust of the 2lb bag of Cheetoh's... I love the word, "sloth". "Glutton" is another one.
Fantastic difference between addictions and illnesses, and some mind-boggling parallels there, as well.
One can begin as one of the two, and end up as the other- I've seen it, and not because someone "picked" on another, and sent them down the road to the demise of everything that was supposed to matter.
I have seen physically beautiful women who were emotionally ugly, become physically unattractive, as if all the poison that was inside them leaked through. Not just weight, but other self-destructive behaviors, as well. Some of these people seem to want to sabotage themselves- men as well- and then blame it on everything and everyone but themselves.
Rennaisance, congrats on the birthday. Again, you offer the bang-for-the-buck value in no-frills advice.
-damoN- | |
|
| |
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 1:17:07 PM | You can crab and b*tch and blame women for your inability to become aroused but to adopt your reasoning, I think many women should just say, "So what? It's YOUR problem so YOU deal with it!" And.. they do.
And, ultimately, they do just that, and leave the relationship. Women can moan and complain, but it was a predictable consequence.
The problem with the POV in Silken's post is that it makes a lot of assumptions, all of them centered on the man being extremely inattentive and selfish. While that may fit some situations, it doesn't fit most or all. There's no point "arguing" when someone makes ridiculous leaps in logic to make assumptions based on nothing. In many, if not most cases, the one who let herself go had struggled with weight issues all along, but it was important enough to her to make the effort to control it, while on the dating market. Then, once a spouse has been hooked the path of least resistance, the self indulgent one, is to stop making an effort, and to say "it shouldn't matter, if you love someone" as "the answer".
It's an observable fact, that some people "let themselves go", once they're married. It's an observable fact, that is a turn off for many of their spouses. It's an observable fact, that attraction is part of desire, and desire part of having a sex life, and that a high percentage of divorces follow a period of time with little or no sex life.
It's also a fact, that those who manage to stay in shape have a far easier time finding new relationships, and in many ways experiencing a quality of life that is better following divorce, if they had been in a marriage with a spouse who had "let herself go".
In any case, silke, saying that in all, or most, cases where an individual chooses to let himself/hrself go, is the other spouse's fault, is simply dysfunctional. | |
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 3:17:04 PM | Sooooo okay lets get rediculous....lets also put in a prenup that you can never get cancer.... you must never have grey hair.... you must never sweat....and heaven forbid if you ever get a wrinkle youre outta here!!!!.....if a person wants some one perfect that never changes get a blowup doll....then if she gets a bit thick just let out some f*cking air.....viola | |
|
| Prenuptial - maintaining physique - is it reasonable?
Posted: 9/14/2008 3:44:06 PM | The problem with the POV in Silken's post is that it makes a lot of assumptions, all of them centered on the man being extremely inattentive and selfish. While that may fit some situations, it doesn't fit most or all. There's no point "arguing" when someone makes ridiculous leaps in logic to make assumptions based on nothing. In many, if not most cases, the one who let herself go had struggled with weight issues all along, but it was important enough to her to make the effort to control it, while on the dating market. Then, once a spouse has been hooked the path of least resistance, the self indulgent one, is to stop making an effort, and to say "it shouldn't matter, if you love someone" as "the answer".
I don't know where anyone here gets off saying that someone else makes ridiculous leaps in logic when the past decade's surge of divorces has been, in many surveys, directly contributed to women leaving their marriages due NOT to finances but to "lack of intimacy". You can call it ridiculous if you want to but that is only one more way of getting around taking any kind of responsibility for the fact that once able to be less than oppressed on the job markets, women are dumping their "cold" marriages in mass numbers.
If we want to talk about people "making efforts", we can't simply say that it is incumbent on one side to make an effort while the other side simply gets to stop making any efforts at truly being a caring, attentive partner.
Does one accomplish credibility by having one heavy partner, followed by several slim partners? Or does one accomplish credibility by being a woman, having many women friends and hearing what is going on that so many women become distressed at finding themselves suddenly way down on a man's list of priorities post-marriage?
The only "ridiculous" leap in logic is to ignore the surveys, the numbers and the given reasons why women are now in the much higher numbers as being the ones to leave their marriages and the reasons they are giving for having done so...
Since you have no time for "fat" people RM, I sincerely doubt you've spent any time with them listening to how they got that way.
It's an observable fact, that some people "let themselves go", once they're married. It's an observable fact, that is a turn off for many of their spouses. It's an observable fact, that attraction is part of desire, and desire part of having a sex life, and that a high percentage of divorces follow a period of time with little or no sex life.
I note that there has been no comment on why women should accept responsibility for the lessened attraction that causes marriages to break down. That lessened attraction is NOT an observable fact but generally derived from many sources on BOTH sides of the equation... While physical attraction is most certainly part of desire, so is emotional closeness, true commitment, respect, tenderness and actual caring about how a partner feels. It's even more "observable" when those elements are missing by virtue of someone's utter lack of culpability for any of the things that caused his marriage to go wrong.
A high percentage of divorces follow a period of time with no intimacy. Lack of sex is just one symptom of a rather wide intimacy spectrum. Not being able to talk to someone... Knowing that your partner could care less about what is going on for you... Having a partner who has problems with his own virility if the conditions are less than ideal... All of these things also contribute strongly to marital breakdown.
How anyone can be so singularly focussed on looks is beyond me!!
It's also a fact, that those who manage to stay in shape have a far easier time finding new relationships, and in many ways experiencing a quality of life that is better following divorce, if they had been in a marriage with a spouse who had "let herself go".
If that were true, Cher, Elizabeth Taylor, Zsa Zsa Gabor and all of these other women who have been married so many times, would have been able to not only attract but also KEEP their partners interested.
Those who manage to stay in shape, also need to be in shape mentally, spiritually and emotionally in order to be able to relate to their partner on ALL levels rather than just the ones that serve his own needs or provide answers to his own rather stymied sexual abilities.
In any case, silke, saying that in all, or most, cases where an individual chooses to let himself/hrself go, is the other spouse's fault, is simply dysfunctional.
I didn't say it's the other spouse's fault and I'm beginning to seriously doubt your ability to absorb anything deeper than pi$$ on a mirror... Particularly because you post voluminously with a rather obvious sense of entitlement without EVER answering why women should take on the responsibility for a man's problems with feeling sexual under anything less than stellar conditions? As you said yourself... it's YOUR problem... so what???
Edit: And btw, I do think that while many of us in the older generation are rather "stuck" in this "blaming" thing and I also think that both women and men owe it to themselves to be the best they can be, the piece of this that I thoroughly reject is the idea that a man who obviously has issues with his own sexuality, can feel justified in blaming his partner for not being sexually attractive to him.
It pleases me that the world has changed enough that women are finally feeling they have the right to nurture themselves and that they can NOW, simply walk away from someone imperfect who thinks he has the right to demand perfection from others.
| |
|
|
| Page 11 of 16
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 |
|
Home
login 
