let's just say it was a LOT of time.
but then i hit the wrong button and deleted -- completely -- my entire post. which i will attribute to my possibly calling her a skinny bitch. what with karma and all.
so i will simply highlight my points and sigh.
anyway, i wanted to announce to the world (or, sure, the 12 of you who are actually reading this) that the reason i believe her post caused such a SHITSTORM was because of the insidious nature of her weight-related prejudices.
don't get me wrong -- the concept of "false advertising" i think is a good one, and raises lots of interesting issues that i think most couples would benefit from discussing.
and also don't get me wrong -- my response isn't a knee-jerk one. i do NOT think that a spouse is "required" to accept you or find you attractive at any size under any circumstance.
my main concerns with this woman are:
- she raises a very sensitive issue with seeming callousness and is then surprised when her commenters get angry. the problem is that she doesn't seem to KNOW she is being callous, so she seems surprised by her readers' responses.
- she assumes that everyone puts the same value on appearance / has the same set of expectations re: appearance that she and her husband do.
- she makes no mention of (nor does she seem to allow for) the fact that people change all the time, regardless of marital status.
- she ignores the inherent issue of how wrong flat-out LYING to one's partner pre-marriage is.
mostly i don't think she makes a very good argument at all, because she makes some giant leaps in logic.
the real argument should be/actually is around the question:
what constitutes "false advertising" pre-marriage?
and i'm pretty sure the answers will vary significantly from couple to couple. also, i suspect that the only real issue arises when one member of a couple sees it differently than the other member of the couple.
so, given that that seems to be the crux of the argument, what pisses me off is the MIM chick saying crap like this, in theory to support the argument above:
"Of course he wouldn’t have the right to divorce me for such a thing. But he would have the right to tell me he noticed I had gained quite a bit of weight, and I didn’t appear to be doing anything about it, and then ask me if I was depressed.”see what i mean about leaps in logic? and about the insidious prejudice?
subtext of the above:
weight gain + no visible attempts at weight loss = depression.
am i sensitive about this? you betcha. too? perhaps. but whatever. this post strikes at the heart of all weight-related prejudices, so i'm using it.
because she states, both outright and implicitly (read the whole of her post, please):
- people who are overweight are unhappy
- the reason people gain weight is unhappiness/depression
- the reason people stay overweight is linked to unhappiness/depression
- people who gain weight (and don't lose it) lack self-respect
- her main concern with her spouse -- hypothetically -- becoming overweight (and remaining so) is because it would signify depression, and both weight-gain AND depression are physically unattractive
she could have left well enough alone, you know? she could have made her real point another way. for example, by asking something like:
q. if you are one weight before marriage and another weight -- another, considerably higher weight -- after marriage, is that fair to your spouse? or was that false advertising?
and then we could have debated the answer. something like:
a: well, that probably depends on a lot of things. how does your spouse feel about this? why did you gain the weight? are you okay with your appearance or are you uncomfortable? how do you feel? is your weight posing any significant health risks?
but she didn't. she went right ahead and assigned all sorts of values to weight gain -- lack of self-respect, lack of self-esteem, depression, lack of physical attractiveness -- without blinking an eye. (i won't even elaborate on her "depression isn't attractive" viewpoint.).
and then everyone and their sister got their knickers in a twist (myself included) because of it.
at least, that's my take.
what do you think?