# Personality vs Body



## moco82

Ladies, what would be your reaction if you found out that your husband/SO fell in love with you because of your personality, and never found your body attractive (mediocre in best times)? Would you rather not know if this were the case?


----------



## TiggyBlue

I would feel gutted 
I would rather know before we got married lol (honestly don't know if after married).


----------



## moco82

Weren't we all conditioned from a young age that personality is everything, and physique is only for shallow people?


----------



## SunnyT

Maybe, but why would you share that with her? 

On the side of honesty tho.... I guess I'd want to know. So I could decide if that's what I want in a relationship. I'm thinkin that if he doesn't like my body, or I'm not his "type", then it's going to show in some way in the sex department. That sucks. Somehow I don't think you can be a good enough lover if you don't care for her body....you'll never get as "into it" as you could, and should.

I kinda want my H to love ALL of me. So ya, I'd want to know. But don't be surprized if that breaks up the relationship....and for good reason.


----------



## gbrad

SunnyT said:


> Maybe, but why would you share that with her?
> 
> On the side of honesty tho.... I guess I'd want to know. So I could decide if that's what I want in a relationship. I'm thinkin that if he doesn't like my body, or I'm not his "type", then it's going to show in some way in the sex department. That sucks. Somehow I don't think you can be a good enough lover if you don't care for her body....you'll never get as "into it" as you could, and should.
> 
> I kinda want my H to love ALL of me. So ya, I'd want to know. But don't be surprized if that breaks up the relationship....and for good reason.


You are right that it could break up the relationship, because maybe it would be better for both to go their separate ways. But do you fault the husband and think less of him for trying to make a marriage work that didn't have physical attraction. 
And on the bright side it would most likely mean that at least for a while the wife got the opportunity to be with someone who was higher up on the scale, so she physically married up. Not all bad.


----------



## julianne

If you asked your husband to name his favorite qualities about you, and #1 was your looks and #2 was your personality, would that make you feel better or worse? What if he said he fell in love with you for your looks?


----------



## TiggyBlue

gbrad said:


> You are right that it could break up the relationship, because maybe it would be better for both to go their separate ways. * But do you fault the husband and think less of him for trying to make a marriage work that didn't have physical attraction.*


I probably would, because it would rob someone of finding someone who did find them physically attractive.



> And on the bright side it would most likely mean that at least for a while the wife got the opportunity to be with someone who was higher up on the scale, so she physically married up. Not all bad.


Not necessarily, the fact he doesn't find her attractive doesn't automatically mean the husbands more attractive.
He have the view she married up on the attractive scale, she might not.


----------



## moco82

julianne said:


> If you asked your husband to name his favorite qualities about you, and #1 was your looks and #2 was your personality, would that make you feel better or worse? What if he said he fell in love with you for your looks?


Exactly. I should have posed this question together with the original in the original post.


----------



## gbrad

TiggyBlue said:


> I probably would, because it would rob someone of finding someone who did find them physically attractive.
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, the fact he doesn't find her attractive doesn't automatically mean the husbands more attractive.
> He have the view she married up on the attractive scale, she might not.


I was just going off of the idea that often relationships happen with people who we are on similar grounds with. Similar in intelligence, attraction, social status, education, etc. Now this isn't always the case, these are often at least somewhat similar. So when it comes to attraction, if one isn't attracted to the other, you can often assume it is because they are lower than them on the 1-10 scale. We are usually physically attracted to people who are in our range or above, not below.


----------



## moco82

TiggyBlue,

She was and is very self-conscious. She told me outright she was afraid I had better options, physically (which was true). I wasn't the most confident of men back then, though, so I didn't see our union as a stretch by any means. I see it as such now if judged purely on appearance. I catch surprised looks from strangers all the time as well. Especially on playgrounds or in kids' classes; people aren't sure if I'm the father or some friend or relative who tagged along.


----------



## TiggyBlue

gbrad said:


> I was just going off of the idea that often relationships happen with people who we are on similar grounds with. Similar in intelligence, attraction, social status, education, etc. Now this isn't always the case, these are often at least somewhat similar. So when it comes to attraction, if one isn't attracted to the other, you can often assume it is because they are lower than them on the 1-10 scale. *We are usually physically attracted to people who are in our range or above, not below*.


That's what I mean, sometimes people (men and women) see themselves in a higher 'range' than others do. 
That's why it doesn't necessarily mean the other partner got with someone higher on the scale of attraction (plus attraction is very subjective).


----------



## gbrad

moco82 said:


> TiggyBlue,
> 
> She was and is very self-conscious. She told me outright she was afraid I had better options, physically (which was true). I wasn't the most confident of men back then, though, so I didn't see our union as a stretch by any means. I see it as such now if judged purely on appearance. I catch surprised looks from strangers all the time as well. Especially on playgrounds or in kids' classes; people aren't sure if I'm the father or some friend or relative who tagged along.


Know how you feel moco.


----------



## TiggyBlue

moco82 said:


> TiggyBlue,
> 
> She was and is very self-conscious.


If it's not affecting your marriage (e.i getting tempted to stray ect) then I probably wouldn't tell her.


----------



## gbrad

TiggyBlue said:


> That's what I mean, sometimes people (men and women) see themselves in a higher 'range' than others do.
> That's why it doesn't necessarily mean the other partner got with someone higher on the scale of attraction (plus attraction is very subjective).


And then there are times during a marriage where there was a slight difference on the scale, but as the marriage went on a little, one got higher and the other got lower. That doesn't help things.


----------



## TiggyBlue

gbrad said:


> And then there are times during a marriage where there was a slight difference on the scale, but as the marriage went on a little, one got higher and the other got lower. That doesn't help things.


I agree with that.


----------



## moco82

TiggyBlue said:


> If it's not affecting your marriage (e.i getting tempted to stray ect) then I probably wouldn't tell her.


The right time for the truth is when the kid(s) is/are in high school™. Amen.


----------



## moco82

gbrad said:


> Know how you feel moco.


It doesn't help that I look young. I flew to a client's office once, and an intern who was helping me with stuff asked if this was my first job out of college. I laughed and almost said, "I have a son about your age".


----------



## P51Geo1980

julianne said:


> If you asked your husband to name his favorite qualities about you, and #1 was your looks and #2 was your personality, would that make you feel better or worse? What if he said he fell in love with you for your looks?


This is what happened with me and STBXW. She's got a great body but her personality sucks. Next time around looks aren't going to be even close to a priority...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## moco82

P51Geo1980 said:


> This is what happened with me and STBXW. She's got a great body but her personality sucks. Next time around looks aren't going to be even close to a priority...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Oh yeah, great idea for keeping it going 3, 5, 10 years down the road. (Disclaimer: that was sarcasm.)


----------



## ladylaker

There's an old adage: You can change your behavior, but you cannot change some ones nature. This adage is true about looks and personality. Surgery and life style changes can change a persons appearance. Our personalities are molded from birth.
Everyone wants and needs to feel attractive in some manner. I don't know any woman who hasn't cried over her looks at some point in her life. I don't know if men cry over that stuff since they are wired so differently, but I know they get just as depressed. 

This I do know, EVERYONE has at least one attractive feature. The problem is, most of us are wired basically from birth to voice complaints and criticisms frequently instead of complimenting and praising. 

Try this exercise for 3 days. When at a store, shop, school, or where ever, give a compliment to a complete stranger. It must be sincere, and truthful. Like: The color of you're eyes are amazing. I love your hair style. You have the most lush eye lashes I have ever seen. That color is very becoming on you. You have beautiful skin. These are just a few samples of simple compliments. Just give that stranger 1 compliment and see where the conversation goes. You may change some ones life. Plus, you'll feel good. Win-Win.

If you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything. Why bring someone down? If you're a narcissist, and that's the only way to feel good about yourself then good luck with that plan of action. You might get a frying pan to the head.


----------



## heartsbeating

moco82 said:


> Ladies, what would be your reaction if you found out that your husband/SO fell in love with you because of your personality, and never found your body attractive (mediocre in best times)? Would you rather not know if this were the case?


I'd rather know.... so that we could get his eyes tested.

I'm joking! It's important to me that he dig this whole package though.


What I'm more curious about is what's changed for you that you now notice/interpret the looks of others the way you do. Why didn't you feel (appearance wise) a stretch before but you do now?


----------



## RandomDude

When I first met my STBX I wasn't attracted to her in that way. She had a great figure but I personally never found western features attractive compared to asian or dark skinned women.

After a year with her though I developed an emotional affair due to us having become best friends while I was with someone else at the time - we just clicked personality-wise. Eventually I came to appreciate her individual features even if it's never been my preference. Yet this has always bothered her, and any asian/dark-skinned woman she considered threats.

So this topic does ring a note with me, as I married her for her personality. But she as any other woman, wanted to be loved completely for the whole package. I've made alot of bad calls, like making insensitive suggestions in regards to dying her hair and freely admitting that I don't find western women attractive except for her (which wasn't at all comforting). I did try to affirm her by complimenting her beauty as an individual but it just wasn't enough.

So in the end, the whole "personality is more important" thing is meh. As such, I have decided to never drop my physical standards again, I wouldn't want to drive another woman to insecurity based on preferences that I simply can't change even if I appreciated her as an individual.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

moco82 said:


> The right time for the truth is when the kid(s) is/are in high school™. Amen.


Dude... Wtf... NO!

You don't find her sexually attractive. That's fine. (Although pretty lame.) If you don't find her the least bit attractive and want somebody else, what good will keeping this from her do? You will be in a one sided relationship, with you feeling no attraction for her, with you knowing when the relationship is gonna end and her none the wiser. She will be older and have less options than she has now for finding somebody else. This is the same thing that walk-away-wives do.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

I'm more attractive on the inside than the outside and I'm fine with that. I assume that is what attracts people - they see a spark; a twinkle, a smile and know that what is on the inside lights up what is on the outside. 

If they aren't interested in giving me a chance because I'm a bit too fluffy for their tastes, we're both better off.

ETA - the answer to the question is I assume that's the case. My ex met me during my smallest and knew of my weight struggles yet often complained about my weight. When it crept up to 150/160 (or more when pregnant - up to 175 after birth) he would tell me he didn't marry a fat woman. (I'm 5'7", he was/is 6'1", 225lbs) So I am sort of programmed to assume whatever the man is attracted to is the whole package, not my body.


----------



## thunderstruck

moco82 said:


> ...what would be your reaction if you found out that your husband/SO fell in love with you because of your personality, and never found your body attractive (mediocre in best times)?


Sometimes in life it's best to STFU. This is one of those times. If you see an obvious difference in your s*x ranks, she no doubt already sees it as well.

If she is good to you, count your blessings.


----------



## arbitrator

*When I fall in love, it seems to be for the combination of both ~ or the "package deal" so to speak. It's largely a blending of their external(physical attractiveness) and internal(psychological attractiveness) factors.

To just fall in love with someone only for either/or is nothing more than being plain shallow, at least IMHO!*


----------



## RandomDude

Never heard of a man being considered shallow for dating a woman for her personality...


----------



## committed4ever

moco82 said:


> Ladies, what would be your reaction if you found out that your husband/SO fell in love with you because of your personality, and never found your body attractive (mediocre in best times)? Would you rather not know if this were the case?


I haven't read your story but I'm curious why you need to tell her at all? Are you plan on leaving? Even if so why can't you just say you incompatible? 

Is what is unattractive to you changeable? If so why have you not said something before now. If not changeable saying something would only be hurtful.


----------



## moco82

heartsbeating said:


> What I'm more curious about is what's changed for you that you now notice/interpret the looks of others the way you do. Why didn't you feel (appearance wise) a stretch before but you do now?


I lacked confidence all around, and thought that attractive women had no interest in me because they had many better options.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I need the person to be in love with the whole package.I'd want to know if they weren't crazy about my figure.I think I'd be crushed if my husband didn't enjoy my body as much as he enjoyed my personality. 

On my end,I'm so in love with how sexy he is and how he's so handsome but if he ever became disfigured or whatever I'd still adore him for his personality and sweet ways. 

I guess I'm naive bc I assumed a man couldn't get it up for a woman unless he was attracted to her body.


----------



## moco82

committed4ever said:


> I haven't read your story but I'm curious why you need to tell her at all? Are you plan on leaving? Even if so why can't you just say you incompatible?


Perhaps I've read too much TAM, where most people preach that dishonesty of any kind is bad and cannot be maintained even for the greater good.



> Is what is unattractive to you changeable? If so why have you not said something before now. If not changeable saying something would only be hurtful.


75% of it is. Early on, I was afraid to say anything that might push her away, and then I went through bouts of not caring/being too busy with work and child-rearing to care.


----------



## moco82

ScarletBegonias said:


> I guess I'm naive bc I assumed a man couldn't get it up for a woman unless he was attracted to her body.


Most men can do it with anything that moves. I shudder at the memories of how some of my college party nights have ended.


----------



## thunderstruck

ScarletBegonias said:


> I guess I'm naive bc I assumed a man couldn't get it up for a woman unless he was attracted to her body.


Not so. Hands moving around and clothes coming off - it's on.

Not talking about my W here...she's a hottie.


----------



## gbrad

ScarletBegonias said:


> I guess I'm naive bc I assumed a man couldn't get it up for a woman unless he was attracted to her body.


Sure he can, not as easy, but oh yah.


----------



## RandomDude

ScarletBegonias said:


> I guess I'm naive bc I assumed a man couldn't get it up for a woman unless he was attracted to her body.


I'm not attracted to my hand but it sure gets me off


----------



## samyeagar

ScarletBegonias said:


> I need the person to be in love with the whole package.I'd want to know if they weren't crazy about my figure.I think I'd be crushed if my husband didn't enjoy my body as much as he enjoyed my personality.
> 
> On my end,I'm so in love with how sexy he is and how he's so handsome but if he ever became disfigured or whatever I'd still adore him for his personality and sweet ways.
> 
> *I guess I'm naive bc I assumed a man couldn't get it up for a woman unless he was attracted to her body*.


And the flip side of that is true...just because he can't get it up doesn't mean he's not attracted to her.

I have caught a lot of crap for this, but I completely stand by it. There is nothing at all shallow about being physically attracted or not attracted to a woman. It's one of those things that's pretty much hard wired. Sure, you can learn to be attracted to someone, but thats pretty tough to do, and often impossible.

I always find it funny how guys feel the need to apologize for saying something that does not follow the 'personality is everything and looks aren't important, it's what's on the inside that counts' mantra. Sorry, but to me, what's on the outside is just as important. I know I wouldn't want to be with a woman who loved my personality and my paycheck, but didn't want to jump my bones every chance she had.

I always try and balance out expressing my feelings to my STBW between the physical and non physical. She has no doubts at all that I find her totally smokin' hot and that I am beyond physically attracted to her, and would nail her any chance I get. She also knows beyond doubt that I find her intelligence, compassion, humor just as attractive.

Is this one of those things that women like to believe to make themselves feel better, looks aren't as important as personality, and if they are, the guy is shallow. Sort of like the guys who convince themselves that women aren't as visual, and size doesn't matter?


----------



## RandomDude

> Sure, you can learn to be attracted to someone, but thats pretty tough to do, and often impossible.


Not really, STBX just got prettier over time, wasn't really tough.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Gosh moco...now your withholding sex thread makes a lot more sense.

Do the woman a favor and release her....but please don't tell her that her body sucks, since she already knows that and it is going to hurt bad enough that you seem to despise her.


----------



## Married but Happy

By definition, half of all people are below average in their physical appearance (but it's not as bad as it sounds, because the average "zone" is still a majority of people! lol).

I'd rather have someone fall in love with me for my personality, because that's the basis of true compatibility. Appearance will usually fade over time anyway. Still, I would not want to marry someone who didn't find me suficiently attractive to _desire _to have sex with me. Of course, love may make me more attractive to them than I would by any objective measure.


----------



## Kimberley17

I married my husband for his personality. I was never that attracted to him. We are now divorced.


----------



## lifeistooshort

When i first met me hb i wanted to have sex with him, and he'd tell you the same thing about me. It was later that I realized he was a great guy, and he'd probably say the same about me (not the guy part). I had a passionless first marriage so I wouldn't have married again without the package.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marriedand40

We all know that guys think different than women do. It's just a fact. Women will say we are pigs, men will say women are nutty in the head, etc.

The fact of the matter is women (not all but some) don't care about a guys body as much as we do. It's evident when you see young, 20 somethings get involved with older men for money or status or whatever. These women still have to perform their wifely duties and then some in the bedroom. Think of all the young hotties Hugh Hefner bedded. They certainly weren't attracted to him but had to put out nevertheless.

Not everything is looks when it comes to finding a mate but ask any man if he would rather have his wife at say for example, 5'-2", 120 lbs or 150 lbs. He will be more attracted to her being 120 lbs, that is just a fact.

It goes for alot of women as well which is fine. How many women would rather have their man with a 6 pack or a beer belly?

If my wife wasn't a good person, with a good job and a good mother, I admit I wouldnt' be with her. She is 20 lbs overweight and I still love her but I can't lie either and say I am all that happy with the way she looks either. I won't cheat and won't divorce but I would love it if she got in shape.


----------



## Runs like Dog

RandomDude said:


> Never heard of a man being considered shallow for dating a woman for her personality...


I've never heard a woman call a man straight for doing that.


----------



## greenfern

I think most women would prefer to be with someone with a lower sex rank that really was hot for them, than to be with someone with a higher sex rank who was not hot for them. 

Not sure if the same is true for men...?


----------



## samyeagar

greenfern said:


> I think most women would prefer to be with someone with a lower sex rank that really was hot for them, than to be with someone with a higher sex rank who was not hot for them.
> 
> Not sure if the same is true for men...?


Oh absolutely...I'd rather have a woman with a lower sex rank but totally hot for me than the other way around. Fortunately for me, I got the hot, high rank chick who is totally into me


----------



## lifeistooshort

Marriedand40 said:


> We all know that guys think different than women do. It's just a fact. Women will say we are pigs, men will say women are nutty in the head, etc.
> 
> The fact of the matter is women (not all but some) don't care about a guys body as much as we do. It's evident when you see young, 20 somethings get involved with older men for money or status or whatever. These women still have to perform their wifely duties and then some in the bedroom. Think of all the young hotties Hugh Hefner bedded. They certainly weren't attracted to him but had to put out nevertheless.
> 
> Not everything is looks when it comes to finding a mate but ask any man if he would rather have his wife at say for example, 5'-2", 120 lbs or 150 lbs. He will be more attracted to her being 120 lbs, that is just a fact.
> 
> It goes for alot of women as well which is fine. How many women would rather have their man with a 6 pack or a beer belly?
> 
> If my wife wasn't a good person, with a good job and a good mother, I admit I wouldnt' be with her. She is 20 lbs overweight and I still love her but I can't lie either and say I am all that happy with the way she looks either. I won't cheat and won't divorce but I would love it if she got in shape.


Women aren't as different as a lot of men think in this regard. A woman will go with a guy she doesn't find particularly attractive for his money and status, but to assume this means she doesn't care about his body is false. It means she will pretend, and will put out what she has to for the money, but will be secretly conveting men she does find attractive. eventually she will stop putting out once you've been married a while (women stop performing wifely duties all the time), then it will come out that she was never attracted to him and the poor guy has to deal with that. Men are a lot healthier in this regard, because they freely admit they care about looks; women care almost as much but are raised to think they should push that aside and consider other things. If women admitted it like men, then men would know they're getting a woman that is attracted to then. So this begs the question: if your wife married you for money and was never particularly attracted to you would you want to know? I married my hb because he's a great guy, and if he let himself go I'd still love him, but I'm not going to lie and claim it wouldn't matter to me, because it would.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

samyeagar said:


> And the flip side of that is true...just because he can't get it up doesn't mean he's not attracted to her.
> 
> I have caught a lot of crap for this, but I completely stand by it. There is nothing at all shallow about being physically attracted or not attracted to a woman. It's one of those things that's pretty much hard wired. Sure, you can learn to be attracted to someone, but thats pretty tough to do, and often impossible.
> 
> I always find it funny how guys feel the need to apologize for saying something that does not follow the 'personality is everything and looks aren't important, it's what's on the inside that counts' mantra. Sorry, but to me, what's on the outside is just as important. I know I wouldn't want to be with a woman who loved my personality and my paycheck, but didn't want to jump my bones every chance she had.
> 
> I always try and balance out expressing my feelings to my STBW between the physical and non physical. She has no doubts at all that I find her totally smokin' hot and that I am beyond physically attracted to her, and would nail her any chance I get. She also knows beyond doubt that I find her intelligence, compassion, humor just as attractive.
> 
> Is this one of those things that women like to believe to make themselves feel better, looks aren't as important as personality, and if they are, the guy is shallow. *Sort of like the guys who convince themselves that women aren't as visual, and size doesn't matter*?





lifeistooshort said:


> *Women aren't as different as a lot of men think in this regard*. A woman will go with a guy she doesn't find particularly attractive for his money and status, but to assume this means she doesn't care about his body is false. It means she will pretend, and will put out what she has to for the money, but will be secretly conveting men she does find attractive. Then it will come out that she was never attracted to him and the poor guy has to deal with that. Men are a lot healthier in this regard, because they freely admit they care about looks; women care almost as much but are raised to think they should push that aside and consider other things. If women admitted it like men, then men would know they're getting a woman that is attracted to then. So this begs the question: if your wife married you for money and was never particularly attracted to you would you want to know? I married my hb because he's a great guy, but of he let himself go I'd still love him, but I'm not going to lie and claim it wouldn't matter to me, because it would.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Thank you for confirming what I suggested


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Faithful Wife said:


> Gosh moco...now your withholding sex thread makes a lot more sense.
> 
> Do the woman a favor and release her....but please don't tell her that her body sucks, since she already knows that and it is going to hurt bad enough that you seem to despise her.


It makes less sense to me. He is withholding because she did it first but by his own words he said he was never attracted to her. Call me crazy but I'm pretty sure she caught on to that little nugget and that's why she doesn't want sex with him. He seems to foam at the mouth at the thought of hurting her yet he married a woman who didn't turn him on and now loathes her for it? I don't understand it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Bright eyes...yes...it is baffling, completely. And sad. But I just meant the withholding thread made more sense, because I couldn't figure out why/how he'd be so vindictive. Now that I also know this, him being vindictive isn't as baffling...because being vindictive is very immature, but so is marrying someone you aren't attracted to and then expecting that to magically work out is also immature.


----------



## TiggyBlue

moco82 said:


> The right time for the truth is when the kid(s) is/are in high school™. Amen.


Are you planning to leave her?
If you are there's no reason to tell her, why crush her confidence on the way out it would just be cruel (actually don't know if you should say anything while married since you knew BEFORE marriage that you weren't attracted to her, it's not from weight gain ect so there's nothing that can be done about it).


----------



## thunderstruck

Therealbrighteyes said:


> He seems to foam at the mouth at the thought of hurting her yet he married a woman who didn't turn him on and now loathes her for it?


moco - the two of you are on the FN crazytrain. 

Either work it out, or divorce.


----------



## Catherine602

samyeagar said:


> And the flip side of that is true...just because he can't get it up doesn't mean he's not attracted to her.
> 
> I have caught a lot of crap for this, but I completely stand by it. There is nothing at all shallow about being physically attracted or not attracted to a woman. It's one of those things that's pretty much hard wired. Sure, you can learn to be attracted to someone, but thats pretty tough to do, and often impossible.
> 
> I always find it funny guys feel the need to apologize for saying something that does not follow the 'personality is everything and looks aren't important, it's what's on the inside that counts' mantra. Sorry, but to me, what's on the outside is just as important. I know I wouldn't want to be with a woman who loved my personality and my paycheck, but didn't want to jump my bones every chance she had.
> 
> I always try and balance out expressing my feelings to my STBW between the physical and non physical. She has no doubts at all that I find her totally smokin' hot and that I am beyond physically attracted to her, and would nail her any chance I get. She also knows beyond doubt that I find her intelligence, compassion, humor just as attractive.
> 
> Is this one of those things that women like to believe to make themselves feel better, loo ks aren't as important as personality, and if they are, the guy is shallow. Sort of like the guys who convince themselves that women aren't as visual, and size doesn't matter?


Generalize much? 

I find it funny that men think that women find them sexually attractive just because they marry them or have sex with them. Many women settle for men with whom they have mild, little or no sexual attraction. Many women can love and not feel much sexual attraction. They may find a former lover much more attractive but when they are ready to get married and have kids, the man at had will do. 

I don't know why men think that this is shallow. I don't think women have to apologize for marrying the guy who happens to be at hand when they are ready to marry. It's just like men who value the outside more than the inside. 

Unfortunately, a hot woman is just as likely to marry a man who is not the hottest or best lover that she has had sex with. Hot women are as likely to sex-starve her partner as an average woman. The difference is that men will tolerate it just to maintain the ego boost of having a hot woman.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## moco82

Faithful Wife said:


> you seem to despise her.


I love my companion and the mother of my child. No despising here.


----------



## Faithful Wife

You just find her body gross and take pleasure at refusing sex with her, but sure, you love her.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

moco82 said:


> I love my companion and the mother of my child. No despising here.


This doesn't sound like love at all: "Surely it's unfair, unhealthy, and passive-aggressive. But, damn, I totally get why so many women enjoy it so much. For the man it's twice as sweet because it's sweet revenge. Now you get to guess and wonder!"

You married her and weren't attracted to her. She knows it, doesn't want sex with you and now you think it's fun to play cruel mind games. Haven't you done enough? What part of any of that is love?


----------



## moco82

Faithful Wife said:


> You just find her body gross and take pleasure at refusing sex with her, but sure, you love her.


No contradiction. "Love" has many aspects, e.g. brotherly love, love of country, etc.


----------



## moco82

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You married her and weren't attracted to her.


She was OK-looking in the beginning. Now she wants sex, but the years of neglect had desensitized me. Similar story to Tyler[with numbers] here on TAM.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I don't think tyler ever said he isn't attracted to his wife or that her body is gross.


----------



## tracyishere

I think I would be crushed. I like to feel sexy and desirable. This would make me feel like a rotting potato.


----------



## Caribbean Man

EnjoliWoman said:


> I'm more attractive on the inside than the outside .
> .


Nah.
Disagree. Very attractive. 
Both on the outside _and_ the inside!


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> This doesn't sound like love at all: "Surely it's unfair, unhealthy, and passive-aggressive. But, damn, I totally get why so many women enjoy it so much. For the man it's twice as sweet because it's sweet revenge. Now you get to guess and wonder!"
> 
> You married her and weren't attracted to her. She knows it, doesn't want sex with you and now you think it's fun to play cruel mind games. Haven't you done enough? What part of any of that is love?


Everyone has their own interpretation of * love.*
Even men who physically beat and abuse their wives tell them afterwards that they * love * them.


----------



## moco82

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't think tyler ever said he isn't attracted to his wife or that her body is gross.


The gist is the same. We can overlook other people's imperfections if the inspiration is there. Tyler's wife may be a supermodel, but his brain re-wired itself to not react to it, as a measure of self-preservation.


----------



## RandomDude

When a woman is fun, bright, and just a joy to be around, her features illuminate and she will be more attractive as a result. The opposite is also true, hence personality I find is still the most important factor, physical attraction comes second.

But women spend a sh-tload of time making themselves beautiful so it's never a good idea to let a woman think that you don't find them attractive in my opinion. Sometimes one can be too honest and that just ain't good.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Catherine602 said:


> I find it funny that men think that women should find them sexually attracted just because they marry them or have sex with them. *Many women settle for men with whom they have mild, little or no sexual attraction. Many women can love and not feel much attraction.* They may find a former lover much more attractive but they were ready to get married and have kids and the man at had will do.


 Some of us feel strongly we DON'T want to be settled for....whether it be looks and/or the rest of the package... I want to BE the cat's meow - I NEED my husband's "desire"... and he would feel , as TiggyBlue said in her #2 post..."Gutted" without mine... 

Maybe it's just the more Romantic souls that feel *this strongly* on some of these things.. .but I for one...could never marry for $$ / a lifestyle... overlooking attraction in a man... like it doesn't matter to me, I would be LYING through my teeth..... ....This sort of scenario would be dangerous for me.... I know me .... and I'd find myself pining over someone HOT if the man in my bed didn't turn me on...and this would TORMENT me, I'd loose enthusiasm with the one I married, he'd FEEL it, we'd fight... it would be a living disaster....plus I'd be beating temptation off everywhere I went.....it just wouldn't work. This is being honest. 

I'd choose to be on the poor side/ a little struggle, livin' on a prayer...yet Madly in love (with a chemistry attraction)... he doesn't have to be a Playgirl model but look good in a pair of Levi's & a white T-shirt, someone I'd notice across the room)...Oh yeah... 



> I don't know why men think that this is shallow. I don't think women have to apologize for marrying the guy who happens to be at hand when they are ready to marry.


 I can easily see why men have a problem with this... especially if she has an extensive past with all the Playboys... then she *settles* for the Nice Guy, a little money, security.. he'll make a good Father... and she isn't attracted to him!! 

A story similar in the sex section - too often this is the result >> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/sex-marriage/128698-when-do-you-decide-you-arent-right.html



> Now she's 3 years in, and she's starting to question her choice. *She says she's not attracted to him sexually at all. In fact she says she can't stand for him to touch her, and the times they do have sex, she just wants it over with as fast as possible.* They just got done with very expensive therapy that she says hasn't done any good at all. She says its helped her tolerate it, but she just doesn't want it. She said, she thought it was just her, but she's recently come to the conclusion that she has the capability to have those feelings, just not towards him.


Very very sad.


----------



## RandomDude

SimplyAmorous said:


> Some of us feel strongly we DON'T want to be settled for....whether it be looks and/or the rest of the package... I want to BE the cat's meow - I NEED my husband's "desire"... and he would feel , as TiggyBlue said in her #2 post..."Gutted" without mine...


It's a shame really, because I doubt I would find another woman with STBX's pros without her cons - personality wise. 

But simply because I'm not all over her looks and settled for less...
Meh

How high are our standards to be?


----------



## Faithful Wife

My standards are very high. So having said that...I'd never marry someone who didn't meet those standards because it would cruel to them. No one wants to be settled for.


----------



## lifeistooshort

samyeagar said:


> Thank you for confirming what I suggested


You're welcome 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## moco82

Faithful Wife said:


> No one wants to be settled for.


Then what are 75% of the globe's population to do?


----------



## TiggyBlue

SimplyAmorous said:


> Maybe it's just the more Romantic souls that feel *this strongly* on some of these things.. .but I for one...could never marry for $$ / a lifestyle... overlooking attraction in a man... like it doesn't matter to me, I would be LYING through my teeth..... ....This sort of scenario would be dangerous for me.... I know me .... and I'd find myself pining over someone HOT if the man in my bed didn't turn me on...and this would TORMENT me, I'd loose enthusiasm with the one I married, he'd FEEL it, we'd fight... it would be a living disaster....plus I'd be beating temptation off everywhere I went.....it just wouldn't work. This is being honest.
> 
> I'd choose to be on the poor side/ a little struggle, livin' on a prayer...yet Madly in love (with a chemistry attraction)... he doesn't have to be a Playgirl model but look good in a pair of Levi's & a white T-shirt, someone I'd notice across the room)...Oh yeah...


100% :iagree:
Not being honest with your/wants from the start (even with yourself) doesn't only cause problems for you in the future but also with whoever your involved with.

That's why I would be pissed if someone knew they weren't attracted to me before marriage, because I would feel that I was denied mutual desire/lust and for me that is very important (not more important than personality but equally important).


----------



## moco82

Faithful Wife said:


> My standards are very high.


Ha! If I had high standards, I'd be a virgin to this day.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

moco82 said:


> The gist is the same. We can overlook other people's imperfections if the inspiration is there. Tyler's wife may be a supermodel, but his brain re-wired itself to not react to it, as a measure of self-preservation.


Tyler WAS attracted to his wife. You on the other hand stated you never were. So you marry this woman knowing this and then are upset that even though you view her as a sister, she doesn't want to jump your bones? You take pleasure in "punishing" her for YOUR choice even laughing about it and you call this love?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Bright eyes... I think he explained it by comparing love for your dog, your car, etc. That's what he meant. Not love as between husband and wife but love as meaning "fond of for selfish reasons".


----------



## tracyishere

I was never physically attracted to my H. But I still want to jump his bones. The qualities that did attract me are what makes him so sexy and irresistible. I would never tell him I do not find him attractive. I always make him feel like he is top dog. Because in my eyes he is.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Then what are 75% of the globe's population to do?"

What the hell does this even mean?

Do you honestly think everyone views everyone else through the same lens YOU do?

Gimme a break. People find each other attractive at all levels. If you don't, that doesn't mean squat to anyone else.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> My standards are very high. So having said that...I'd never marry someone who didn't meet those standards because it would cruel to them. No one wants to be settled for.


When I was with my STBX I was attracted to her but she's never really been 'my type' as I mentioned in previous pages, I settled for less by being with her because we clicked. Considering how rare she herself as a person already was, I don't see how 'not settling for less' would have been anywhere near realistic.

I did love her after all... once



tracyishere said:


> I was never physically attracted to my H. But I still want to jump his bones. The qualities that did attract me are what makes him so sexy and irresistible. I would never tell him I do not find him attractive. I always make him feel like he is top dog. Because in my eyes he is.


Say what?

Yay! JOIN THE CLUB!


----------



## moco82

Faithful Wife said:


> Bright eyes... I think he explained it by comparing love for your dog, your car, etc. That's what he meant. Not love as between husband and wife but love as meaning "fond of for selfish reasons".


Hmmm... Quotes, links, please?


----------



## gbrad

samyeagar said:


> Oh absolutely...I'd rather have a woman with a lower sex rank but totally hot for me than the other way around. Fortunately for me, I got the hot, high rank chick who is totally into me


Give me someone with a higher rank. I will do what it takes to make up the difference for her.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## moco82

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So you marry this woman knowing this and then are upset that even though you view her as a sister, she doesn't want to jump your bones?


You obviously didn't read my posts. She does want sex. There was a period in the past when it was infrequent.


----------



## moco82

Faithful Wife said:


> "Then what are 75% of the globe's population to do?"
> 
> What the hell does this even mean?


This:



> My standards are very high. So having said that...I'd never marry someone who didn't meet those standards because it would cruel to them. No one wants to be settled for.


Do you mean to say that a majority of men meet your standards?


----------



## Faithful Wife

How is it that the men who wouldn't meet my standards ends up being 75% of the world's population?

My standards only apply to the very slim percentage of the population who are actually in my dating pool...not the ENTIRE FREAKING WORLD.


----------



## RandomDude

moco82 said:


> You obviously didn't read my posts. She does want sex. There was a period in the past when it was infrequent.


:scratchhead:

If it was a period in the past when it was infrequent why did you make this thread:

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/128474-joys-withholding-sex.html

Seems a bit like overkill don't you think mate?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

moco82 said:


> You obviously didn't read my posts. She does want sex. There was a period in the past when it was infrequent.


I read your post. You are angry at her because in the past she didn't want sex even though you view her as your sister. Why she would want it now is beyond me. I really don't know.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

RandomDude said:


> :scratchhead:
> 
> If it was a period in the past when it was infrequent why did you make this thread:
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/128474-joys-withholding-sex.html
> 
> Seems a bit like overkill don't you think mate?


Yeah, it's like burning your house down to kill a spider.


----------



## moco82

RandomDude said:


> Seems a bit like overkill don't you think mate?


Of course, it's overkill. It was just amusing to discover a side of life that was hidden before.


----------



## moco82

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I read your post. You are angry at her because in the past she didn't want sex even though you view her as your sister. Why she would want it now is beyond me. I really don't know.


In the past I did not view her as a sister. That's why the withholding was hurtful. (The evolution of love for a romantic partner towards friendly love must have been sped up as a measure of self-protection.) Capisce?


----------



## RandomDude

=/

I'm out, hate to say it but I can't endorse your behaviour mate. I thought you were a victim but now not so much.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

RandomDude said:


> It's a shame really, because I doubt I would find another woman with STBX's pros without her cons - personality wise.
> 
> But simply because I'm not all over her looks and settled for less...
> Meh
> 
> *How high are our standards to be?*


Well I've had a peek at your Ex.. and most men would salivate, so your visual standards are ...well... just geared towards a certain race of women... but that's YOU...it's HOW you feel.. 

When someone wants it ALL (*Money/ 1st class lifestyle*....*Model Looks*....*Status/ Popularity*.... *Alpha appeal*...and *Honest character *).... I'd say their standards are *very high* (Faithful Wife comes to mind ) & they damn well better have something to match all that... 

My standards sacrificed on $$ (I made more than him when we married even)... sacrificed on Popularity/status....he would call himself a nerd even - back then... but I feel he was good looking (once he took his glasses off)...and the Best of character along with it, a Good Father, Faithful & true and he adores me... This was enough for me!

No, we can't have it all... can we ... We give a little up here for something over there many times...it's a compromise to what means more to us and what takes a back seat, as it would bother us less....*as we are all different in this*.... 

Those who appear to "have it all"....far too often they become EGOcentric ....they find they can't handle the temptation around them with the opposite sex...this has it's own set of problems ...as the ego goes UP... too often their character goes DOWN.


----------



## moco82

Faithful Wife said:


> My standards only apply to the very slim percentage of the population who are actually in my dating pool...


Precisely. Everyone would prefer a partner from a thin sliver of the general population. A few get that preferred type of partner, some compromise because there are redeeming factors, while others have to settle.


----------



## tracyishere

moco82 said:


> Precisely. Everyone would prefer a partner from a thin sliver of the general population. A few get that preferred type of partner, some compromise because there are redeeming factors, while others have to settle.


What a horrible thing to say. I cannot imagine ever feeling like I had to compromise and settle for my H. I had a choice to be with him and still do. I do sometimes fantasize about attractive men( but who doesn't). That does not mean I regret marrying my H.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

moco82 said:


> TiggyBlue,
> 
> She was and is very self-conscious. She told me outright she was afraid I had better options, physically (which was true). I wasn't the most confident of men back then, though, so I didn't see our union as a stretch by any means. I see it as such now if judged purely on appearance. I catch surprised looks from strangers all the time as well. Especially on playgrounds or in kids' classes; people aren't sure if I'm the father or some friend or relative who tagged along.





gbrad said:


> Know how you feel moco.


How often do you look at your wife "in purely a physical way"?

If you step outside of the love you feel for her to judge her physically, you're not being fair to her or you.

I look at attraction as an entire picture. I've dated...I should say I've gone on A DATE...with a few 10's who when they opened their mouths, became a 2. My wife would probably be called a 7-9 by some but she's a 99 for me.

This concept really strikes me as odd.


----------



## moco82

tracyishere said:


> That does not mean I regret marrying my H.


No, regret is a pretty useless emotion. My point is that just as few of us get the perfect score and go to Harvard, few of us get the perfect outcome in any other endeavor in life: there is no point in treating anything less than Harvard as a failure.


----------



## RandomDude

SimplyAmorous said:


> Well I've had a peek at your Ex.. and most men would salivate, so your visual standards are ...well... just geared towards a certain race of women... but that's YOU...it's HOW you feel..
> 
> When someone wants it ALL (*Money/ 1st class lifestyle*....*Model Looks*....*Status/ Popularity*.... *Alpha appeal*...and *Honest character *).... I'd say their standards are *very high* (Faithful Wife comes to mind ) & they damn well better have something to match all that...
> 
> My standards sacrificed on $$ (I made more than him when we married even)... sacrificed on Popularity/status....he would call himself a nerd even - back then... but I feel he was good looking (once he took his glasses off)...and the Best of character along with it, a Good Father, Faithful & true and he adores me... This was enough for me!
> 
> No, we can't have it all... can we ... We give a little up here for something over there many times...it's a compromise to what means more to us and what takes a back seat, as it would bother us less....*as we are all different in this*....
> 
> Those who appear to "have it all"....far too often they become EGOcentric ....they find they can't handle the temptation around them with the opposite sex...this has it's own set of problems ...as the ego goes UP... too often their character goes DOWN.


Aye, and I compromised with her looks as she had other qualities that I fell in love with. But I guess it just wasn't enough. I do wish the best for her really, she does have a good heart and I only wish I could have been the right man for her.

It just makes me wonder though because it is true that in society we are drilled constantly that 'inner beauty is more important' so we do end up making sacrifices when it comes to the physical when the personality traits are genuinely attractive.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

moco82 said:


> In the past I did not view her as a sister. That's why the withholding was hurtful. (The evolution of love for a romantic partner towards friendly love must have been sped up as a measure of self-protection.) Capisce?


Not a sister but you still weren't attracted to her. Honestly, I don't understand your anger. It's like you are upset because she wasn't good enough for you and now you are stuck so she is to blame.


----------



## moco82

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Not a sister but you still weren't attracted to her. Honestly, I don't understand your anger. It's like you are upset because she wasn't good enough for you and now you are stuck so she is to blame.


She's to blame? Please give me a link to a quote where I said that. If I did, I apologize because that is inaccurate.


----------



## Faithful Wife

You wouldn't gain satisfaction by withholding from her if you didn't think she was to blame for something.


----------



## moco82

Dad&Hubby said:


> How often do you look at your wife "in purely a physical way"?


Hmmm... Is it possible to look at someone with whom you've shared ups and downs for years, went through child birth and rearing with, traveled the world with, etc., etc., as if it were a random stranger on the street or on TV?


----------



## moco82

Faithful Wife said:


> You wouldn't gain satisfaction by withholding from her if you didn't think she was to blame for something.


She was to blame for her withholding, but not for my decision to be with her.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

moco82 said:


> Hmmm... Is it possible to look at someone with whom you've shared ups and downs for years, went through child birth and rearing with, traveled the world with, etc., etc., as if it were a random stranger on the street or on TV?


I couldn't but that's EXACTLY what you seem to be doing.


----------



## moco82

*To everyone who gave actual constructive feedback:* Thank you. It is obvious now that too much truth can be unnecessary, especially for a family with young children. If/when we end up splitting, I'd want her self-worth to be elevated. Maybe I'll get/prod her to improve on some things gently, especially start offering to babysit more often than currently so she can work out. And I've been curious to try Brazilian for men...


----------



## samyeagar

tracyishere said:


> *I was never physically attracted to my H*. But I still want to jump his bones. The qualities that did attract me are what makes him so sexy and irresistible. I would never tell him I do not find him attractive. I always make him feel like he is top dog. Because in my eyes he is.





tracyishere said:


> What a horrible thing to say. I cannot imagine ever feeling like I had to compromise and settle for my H. I had a choice to be with him and still do. *I do sometimes fantasize about attractive men*( but who doesn't). That does not mean I regret marrying my H.


That would absolutely crush me. I'd rather be alone than with a partner who felt that way.


----------



## tracyishere

Fantasies are not realities. My H turns me on all the time. Just because he is not physically attractive to me doesn't mean I'm not sexually attracted to him. And I don't visualize myself having sex with someone else when we do the dirty. His touch, his passion, his lust is arousing enough for me. 

I don't look at him and feel disgusted or repulsed either. Perhaps what attracts me to men to begin with is more emotional then physical. 

Maybe I am shallow. Never thought of it that way. Hmmmmm


----------



## samyeagar

Mr tracyishere: Tracy, I don't find you physically attractive, and I fantasize about women that I DO find physically attractive, but I still want to have sex with you because I'm attracted to your personality.

tracyishere: ???


----------



## moco82

^^^ Tracy, I completely understand your point. I wish I could articulate it as well as you had earlier in this thread.


----------



## badcompany

Out of my mind unfiltered, body/looks is a simple yes/no decision at first sight. Personality needs to be un-wrapped a layer at a time for a few years to see if that part will work for you.
I failed to do the latter with my stbxw and now I'm starting over.


----------



## tracyishere

samyeagar said:


> Mr tracyishere: Tracy, I don't find you physically attractive, and I fantasize about women that I DO find physically attractive, but I still want to have sex with you because I'm attracted to your personality.
> 
> tracyishere: ???


And that is why I said earlier on that I would never want to know if my H felt that way about me. I think everyone wants to feel sexy and desired. What I find sexy and desirable about him is not going to make him feel too good about himself.

My thoughts about his appearance do not affect how I feel about him, treat him or f*ck him. 

As far as my fantasies are concerned, they are MY fantasies. I'm sure he has many fantasies of the many women he sees naked on tumblr. Who cares as long as it's my sheets getting dirty?


----------



## samyeagar

tracyishere said:


> And that is why I said earlier on that I would never want to know if my H felt that way about me. I think everyone wants to feel sexy and desired. *What I find sexy and desirable about him is not going to make him feel too good about himself.*


Do you think he deserves to be found sexy and desirable in a way that WOULD make him feel good about himself?



> My thoughts about his appearance do not affect how I feel about him, treat him or f*ck him.
> 
> As far as my fantasies are concerned, they are MY fantasies. I'm sure he has many fantasies of the many women he sees naked on tumblr. *Who cares as long as it's my sheets getting dirty*?


So you would not mind being his masturbation tool as he pretends you are someone else who he actually finds attractive?


----------



## moco82

I can see how some may accuse Tracyishere of Orwellian doublethink, but I get it. Her post is a great concluding paragraph to this thread.


----------



## tracyishere

samyeagar said:


> Do you think he deserves to be found sexy and desirable in a way that WOULD make him feel good about himself?
> 
> 
> 
> So you would not mind being his masturbation tool as he pretends you are someone else who he actually finds attractive?


He is found sexy and desirable. I never said he wasn't. It's just that what attracted me to him was not physical at all. His smile, his gestures, his compassion. That's what made me go "wow". Maybe he would be happier if someone got wowed from his ass. ???

No. I wouldn't feel like a masturbation tool to begin with. Sex Is not just about pleasing one self. We have allot of passion when we have sex. It's not just a wham bam thank you ma'am! We work hard to ensure we each feel loved and fulfilled. 

And as I said earlier. I don't pretend he Is someone else. I am lusting after him, for him.


----------



## inarut

If someone is not your type or even if you don't find them all that physically attractive at first but as you get to know them you fall in love... I don't see this as settling if as you fall in love with them the physical attraction builds and becomes strong as well. In this case you are "in love" and attracted physically. You don't feel you have given anything up in that area, in that case. If you have a love, fondness, affection for someone with very little to no physical attraction and you just "made do" ... Then you Settled...doing a great disservice to yourself and your partner.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Catherine602 said:


> *I don't know why men think that this is shallow. I don't think women have to apologize for marrying the guy who happens to be at hand when they are ready to marry.* It's just like men who value the outside more than the inside.
> 
> Unfortunately, a hot woman is just as likely to marry a man who is not the hottest or best lover that she has had sex with. Hot women are as likely to sex-starve her partner as an average woman. The difference is that men will tolerate it just to maintain the ego boost of having a hot woman.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Here's the deal though. Women who do this ("settling down with a guy who happens to be at hand"- what a disgusting way to describe another human being btw) tend to start resenting their SOs, disrespecting them, cutting off sex after a while or even worse making him have to work for it like it's a prize to be won, start affairs, frivolously divorce etc.

It is a pretty sh!tty, cruel and narcisistic way to treat someone. Although there are women who have insanely high standards but don't actually bring anything to the table except for their entitlement sense, the type of women described is a much more dangerous type.


----------



## Caribbean Man

tracyishere said:


> I was never physically attracted to my H. But I still want to jump his bones. The qualities that did attract me are what makes him so sexy and irresistible. I would never tell him I do not find him attractive. I always make him feel like he is top dog. Because in my eyes he is.


While I understand what everybody else is saying about being sexually attracted to their spouse first before everything else, in my case it was different.

My wife and I were just friends. I was attracted to her on the level of our friendship. She was my confidante , I always told her about my so called " relationships " with other women and she would always be there listening.
She had my back but silly me, I had " friend zoned " her. She is pretty , and was always attractive, but I had a specific taste in women. Full busted , tall ,leggy model type women got my juices flowing almost instantly.
My wife was average size bust , quiet , and the biggest part of her was her hips.
However , being married to her, over time and as our relationship grew, surprisingly the sexual attraction began to grow in me.
I realized that she was a very sensual woman , but the type that doesn't flaunt it.
She absolutely loves to experiment, play sex games, and she's a closet freak,this was a HUGE turn on for me. Sometimes she even likes doing it in public. All the sexy kind of stuff I always wanted in a woman, she has it ,but all of this took time to discover and uncover.

I didn't " settle" for her. We both knowingly chose each other.
She had other options she turned and I had other options I turned down.
Interestingly enough, after all these years I still get wood when I see her naked even if she just came out of the shower , getting ready to step out. Just looking at her towelling herself dry and applying lotion , gets me going. Sometimes during the day when I think about what's going to happen later when I get home, I still get a woody..
However the sexual attraction took time to grow for me. I needed to get my head fixed first.
I am more attracted to her now than when we first started out.
But I married her initially because I knew beyond the shadow of doubt that she was the one for me.Not because I was crazy attracted. She was, and she had lots of doubts about me for obvious reasons. However we worked it out. Love is about compromise, nothing is guaranteed.

I think too that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and attraction is relative to both the target and the person who is attracted . Its prerequisites are not fixed , and it can grow as well as diminish.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

SimplyAmorous said:


> Well I've had a peek at your Ex.. and most men would salivate, so your visual standards are ...well... just geared towards a certain race of women... but that's YOU...it's HOW you feel..


I can't believe I missed the infamous exMrs.RD goddammit.


----------



## tracyishere

Caribbean Man said:


> While I understand what everybody else is saying about being sexually attracted to their spouse first before everything else, in my case it was different.
> 
> My wife and I were just friends. I was attracted to her on the level of our friendship. She was my confidante , I always told her about my so called " relationships " with other women and she would always be there listening.
> She had my back but silly me, I had " friend zoned " her. She is pretty , and was always attractive, but I had a specific taste in women. Full busted , tall ,leggy model type women got my juices flowing almost instantly.
> My wife was average size bust , quiet , and the biggest part of her was her hips.
> However , being married to her, over time and as our relationship grew, surprisingly the sexual attraction began to grow in me.
> I realized that she was a very sensual woman , but the type that doesn't flaunt it.
> She absolutely loves to experiment, play sex games, and she's a closet freak,this was a HUGE turn on for me. Sometimes she even likes doing it in public. All the sexy kind of stuff I always wanted in a woman, she has it ,but all of this took time to discover and uncover.
> 
> I didn't " settle" for her. We both knowingly chose each other.
> She had other options she turned and I had other options I turned down.
> Interestingly enough, after all these years I still get wood when I see her naked even if she just came out of the shower , getting ready to step out. Just looking at her towelling herself dry and applying lotion , gets me going. Sometimes during the day when I think about what's going to happen later when I get home, I still get a woody..
> However the sexual attraction took time to grow for me. I needed to get my head fixed first.
> I am more attracted to her now than when we first started out.
> But I married her initially because I knew beyond the shadow of doubt that she was the one for me.Not because I was crazy attracted. She was, and she had lots of doubts about me for obvious reasons. However we worked it out. Love is about compromise, nothing is guaranteed.
> 
> I think too that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and attraction is relative to both the target and the person who is attracted . Its prerequisites are not fixed , and it can grow as well as diminish.


Thank you.. I concur.


----------



## tracyishere

http://youtu.be/0vs-W4WcDCg


----------



## RandomDude

Caribbean Man said:


> However , being married to her, over time and as our relationship grew, surprisingly the sexual attraction began to grow in me...
> 
> ...I think too that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and attraction is relative to both the target and the person who is attracted . Its prerequisites are not fixed , and it can grow as well as diminish.


Agreed, that's what happened to me as well, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered with sex at all. I lost attraction whenever she p-ssed me off however, and regained it when she was normal.

STBX was never content with just that though, and I wonder if she should have been, or if I should have just shut up and kept it to myself, or if we were simply not compatible. Meh :scratchhead:

But meh, I never loved her for years. I fell in love with her only for 2 years, the years after that including our 5 years of marriage... I was in love with a ghost. So whatever



tracyishere said:


> http://youtu.be/0vs-W4WcDCg


Awww, now that's romantic...


----------



## Cosmos

moco82 said:


> Ladies, what would be your reaction if you found out that your husband/SO fell in love with you because of your personality, and never found your body attractive (mediocre in best times)? Would you rather not know if this were the case?


I would most certainly want to know this, because I wouldn't want to be with someone who wasn't attracted to all of me - and that includes my body.


----------



## RandomDude

^ What if you simply weren't his type but he fell for you anyway because of your personality?

Would that be enough?

NOTE: Question to all ladies on this thread btw


----------



## tracyishere

My h played that for me when we were dating... Apparently I'm not all his type either


----------



## tracyishere

RandomDude said:


> ^ What if you simply weren't his type but he fell for you anyway because of your personality?
> 
> Would that be enough?
> 
> NOTE: Question to all ladies on this thread btw


I'd rather someone fell in love with me for my attitude rather than my ass. Just saying.


----------



## RandomDude

Heh well, I guess maybe if I serenaded STBX with that song, things could have been different...

Oh well


----------



## TiggyBlue

RandomDude said:


> ^ What if you simply weren't his type but he fell for you anyway because of your personality?
> *
> Would that be enough?*
> 
> NOTE: Question to all ladies on this thread btw


I'm not sure it would personally, I guess it depends more if it's a 'you're not usually the type I go for but you're fit' or 'you grew on me'.


----------



## RandomDude

Guess I failed to express myself then, or maybe I just failed to love her after the honeymoon stage prior to marriage. Or both...

Perhaps it wasn't really her problem, but mine.


----------



## Caribbean Man

tracyishere said:


> Andy Griggs - She's More - YouTube


Nice song.
Beautiful lyrics.
Reality bytes at it's best.


----------



## Catherine602

SimplyAmorous said:


> Some of us feel strongly we DON'T want to be settled for....whether it be looks and/or the rest of the package... I want to BE the cat's meow - I NEED my husband's "desire"... and he would feel , as TiggyBlue said in her #2 post..."Gutted" without mine...
> 
> Maybe it's just the more Romantic souls that feel *this strongly* on some of these things.. .but I for one...could never marry for $$ / a lifestyle... overlooking attraction in a man... like it doesn't matter to me, I would be LYING through my teeth..... ....This sort of scenario would be dangerous for me.... I know me .... and I'd find myself pining over someone HOT if the man in my bed didn't turn me on...and this would TORMENT me, I'd loose enthusiasm with the one I married, he'd FEEL it, we'd fight... it would be a living disaster....plus I'd be beating temptation off everywhere I went.....it just wouldn't work. This is being honest.
> 
> I'd choose to be on the poor side/ a little struggle, livin' on a prayer...yet Madly in love (with a chemistry attraction)... he doesn't have to be a Playgirl model but look good in a pair of Levi's & a white T-shirt, someone I'd notice across the room)...Oh yeah...
> 
> I can easily see why men have a problem with this... especially if she has an extensive past with all the Playboys... then she *settles* for the Nice Guy, a little money, security.. he'll make a good Father... and she isn't attracted to him!!
> 
> A story similar in the sex section - too often this is the result >> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/sex-marriage/128698-when-do-you-decide-you-arent-right.html
> 
> 
> 
> Very very sad.


I am sure more than some of us feel as you do. So please don't feel that you are one of a very few. Unfortunately, There are many sad things between men and woman. Settling is not any worse than the rest. 

The reason for my post was to be as forthcoming as some of the men who find it funny that women think that their (the woman's) inner being is far more important than their sex appeal. Some women feel that what a man can offer is far more important than their sex appeal. It must be a human characteristic that is independent of gender. I believe it is not common. 

I have to argue that any women living in this culture has no illusions about the minute scrutiny that their face and body is subjected. It is not a stretch to see a connection between a woman's body issues that plague some of them. It effects the enjoyment of sex for many women. 

The lesson is - marry someone you know well and evaluate thoroughly. They need to hit most of your erotic, emotional and character buttons.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Here's the deal though. Women who do this ("settling down with a guy who happens to be at hand"- what a disgusting way to describe another human being btw) tend to start resenting their SOs, disrespecting them, cutting off sex after a while or even worse making him have to work for it like it's a prize to be won, start affairs, frivolously divorce etc.
> 
> It is a pretty sh!tty, cruel and narcisistic way to treat someone. Although there are women who have insanely high standards but don't actually bring anything to the table except for their entitlement sense, the type of women described is a much more dangerous type.


Doesn't leave much of female population to fill the ranks of worthy human beings. I would imagine there are just as any men who marry with their heads in the clouds. Maybe to the women you described above. What do you think?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Catherine602 said:


> *The lesson is - marry someone you know well and evaluate thoroughly. They need to hit most of your erotic, emotional and character buttons.*


Absolutely...  ...I really think every new Romance needs the Test of Time....a good 20 months + after the dopamine rush wears off ...as a couple comes down from the clouds...

With this...they should still be holding hands, looking to the future, laughing at each others quirkiness, feeling as best friends.... it takes a whole lot more than just appreciating a Personality on one hand...or Passionate Lust filled nights on the other ...to make a marriage work these days.


----------



## Catherine602

SimplyAmorous said:


> Absolutely...  ...I really think every new Romance needs the Test of Time....a good 20 months + after the dopamine rush wears off ...as a couple comes down from the clouds...
> 
> With this...they should still be holding hands, looking to the future, laughing at each others quirkiness, feeling as best friends.... it takes a whole lot more than just appreciating a Personality on one hand...or Passionate Lust filled nights on the other ...to make a marriage work these days.


It is sad that settlers miss out on this. Makes life so bright. Having a man that I find irresistible, makes me dream and have faith in the future.


----------



## Catherine602

Lest I seem holier than thou, I will say that i realize now that I had no idea who I was when my husband and I first got together. I planned nothing it just happened. 

So I lucked out, not through planning or entitlement but dumb luck. I could lose it all at any time, just like anyone else. 

Although I posted the above, I really believe that many good people draw the short end of the stick.


----------



## always_alone

moco82 said:


> Then what are 75% of the globe's population to do?


Come back down to earth.

There seems to be this idea that only about 10% of men or women would qualify as "meeting high standards". But we are all package deals, and we all offer unique combinations of traits and characteristics, some highly desirable, some not so much.

I'd much rather be appreciated for all that is me than to be that hot girl that every man wanted to **** when I was 20.


----------



## gbrad

Dad&Hubby said:


> How often do you look at your wife "in purely a physical way"?
> 
> If you step outside of the love you feel for her to judge her physically, you're not being fair to her or you.
> 
> I look at attraction as an entire picture. I've dated...I should say I've gone on A DATE...with a few 10's who when they opened their mouths, became a 2. My wife would probably be called a 7-9 by some but she's a 99 for me.
> 
> This concept really strikes me as odd.


I look at her in a purely physical way all the time, I can see what she looks like physically. I think that is important, not sure why you say that is unfair to her. I understand what you mean by the whole love impact on attraction, but I think it is important to be able to look at someone across a room and go "damn they are hot" regardless of love, and that be the person you are with.


----------



## moco82

This question may be a good proxy for people's (self-assessed) attractiveness. The attractive ones are like, "What, my hand was a full house, but s/he only went for part of the package? Could I have used it better?" And the mediocre ones are like, "Great, I got the whole pot for a pair".


----------



## Faithful Wife

always...thank you for that post.


----------



## tracyishere

Catherine602 said:


> It is sad that settlers miss out on this. Makes life so bright. Having a man that I find irresistible, makes me dream and have faith in the future.


If you feel like you have to settle for something, your relationship is flawed from the start.


----------



## coffee4me

moco82 said:


> The right time for the truth is when the kid(s) is/are in high school™. Amen.


I disagree. Its more "convenient" for adults, not the kids. The kids that I know who's parents split up when they were younger seem more well adjusted to living in 2 houses and co-parenting. The teenagers take it harder. The kids all suffered in their grades during the split. Is high school really the time you want to cause your kids grades to drop. That's a time when grades can effect their future, getting into college. Additionally, most kids say they hate their parents for splitting during high school because if they waited that long why couldn't they wait till they were in college. 
The X and I split years before our oldest was in high school. I really feel it was better, his grades dropped but he had time to recover before high school. 

I don't judge you at all, you feel the way you feel about your wife. No one can know the ups and downs of your marriage that made you arrive in this place. I just hope that you are not considering "staying for the kids" for years. If you know you will eventually leave, be decent not to take those years from wife. If the shoe was on the other foot, wouldn't you want your wife to tell you that she was planning on leaving the marriage? If she waited 5 years would you feel cheated out of 5 years of your life? Years you could have been looking for a partner better suited to you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

moco82 said:


> This question may be a good proxy for people's (self-assessed) attractiveness. The attractive ones are like, "What, my hand was a full house, but s/he only went for part of the package? Could I have used it better?" And the mediocre ones are like, "Great, I got the whole pot for a pair".


Winning the pot on a pair is every poker players dream. Losing with a full house is every players nightmare. The player with a winning pair is anything but mediocre. The person with a full house who thinks he has the winning hand often loses to the person with a four of a kind, a straight flush or a royal flush. Take from this analogy what you will.


----------



## mace17

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but I know just for me personally I find personality much more attractive than looks. And if I fall in love with someone's personality, I will find them attractive and sexy regardless of how they actually look to other people. I've know very attractive men that I thought were just ugly becasue of their personality, and very unattractive men that I thought were incredibly handsome because of their personality. I guess I would never actually tell my partner that however, I would just say that I love everything about them, the whole package, and that I find them attractive no matter what they think they see in the mirror.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Catherine602 said:


> Doesn't leave much of female population to fill the ranks of worthy human beings. I would imagine there are just as any men who marry with their heads in the clouds. Maybe to the women you described above. What do you think?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Is the only choice between a)having insanely high standards while not providing any value and b)pretending to lower your expectations so you'l marry the nearest guy to check off an item on your mental checklist? I don't think so.

The male equivalent (the men who marries with his head in the clouds) ends up getting hurt in today's sexual marketplace, not hurting someone else.


----------



## Catherine602

moco82 said:


> This question may be a good proxy for people's (self-assessed) attractiveness. The attractive ones are like, "What, my hand was a full house, but s/he only went for part of the package? Could I have used it better?" And the mediocre ones are like, "Great, I got the whole pot for a pair".


Winning on a pair does not a mediocre poker player make. It's the ultimate fakeout. 

I like the poker analogy. 

Sex appeal matters that's the hand you'er dealt. If you're human and breathing, there is someone who thinks you got it .... the winning hand. Take what ya got and work it.... Play your best.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## RandomDude

Still remember the time when a lady folded on pocket Aces
On the flop... Ace... Ace... Queen

... :slap:


----------



## Catherine602

Shadow I have not read about your sit. but it seems to have soured you. I am certain when you recover you will find an abundance of women in the land between your 2 extremes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> .
> 
> The male equivalent (the men who marries with his head in the clouds) ends up getting hurt in today's sexual marketplace, not hurting someone else.


Just to be sure I understand: Woman marries a man for reasons other than love and she is the worst human being imaginable. Man marries a woman for reasons other than love and he doesn't hurt anyone? Seriously, how do you type out these responses with a straight face?


----------



## committed4ever

Catherine602 said:


> Lest I seem holier than thou, I will say that i realize now that I had no idea who I was when my husband and I first got together. I planned nothing it just happened.
> 
> So I lucked out, not through planning or entitlement but dumb luck. I could lose it all at any time, just like anyone else.
> 
> Although I posted the above, I really believe that many good people draw the short end of the stick.


I could have totally written this. I will definitely have to teach my girl don't do what Mommy did. It too risky. 

My initial attraction the second I met my H at the tender age of 14 was his willing to help a damsel in distress. When I finally stood up from the mess I had made and saw how handsome he was it was over. Didn't matter that it took 4 more years for him to give me the time of day after our initial interaction. 

Guess we just a wild card thrown into the stats.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Just to be sure I understand: Woman marries a man for reasons other than love and she is the worst human being imaginable. Man marries a woman for reasons other than love and he doesn't hurt anyone? Seriously, how do you type out these responses with a straight face?


Brennan, in a divorce a man loses custody of his kids, his house, has to give alimony and child support (in a lot of states). Even in the CWI section there are a lot of WWs that try to pass their BH of as violent and get him to be arrested. A woman loses, hmmm... What does a woman lose? 

Oh yeah, pretty much nothing... I was wondering why women initiate %70 of divorces. (%90 in college educated couples.)

Roll your eyes all you want, babe. Marriage in the Western world, especially in the US, is a pretty raw deal for men, that creates a lot of financial risk and doesn't give enough back for it to be considered an OK deal.



Catherine602 said:


> Shadow I have not read about your sit. but it seems to have soured you. I am certain when you recover you will find an abundance of women in the land between your 2 extremes.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ummm, you're the one telling me there aren't a lot of women outside those two extremes. I'm the one telling that of course the only two choices aren't those. Yet, here we are, with you trying to pass me off as sour. Nice try.

But enough threadjacking, ladies.


----------



## samyeagar

A woman who get's custody, child support and maintenance is in a far better position to improve her financial stability than the man. The guys gets a raise as work, the woman get more money. The woman gets a raise, or hell, a job for that matter, nothing changes for the guy. The guy gets stuck with the far bigger tax burden. I do understand that it would be more accurate to frame this as custodial parent vs non custodial parent, gender neutral, but since women get custody far more than men, the gender bias here is reasonable.

ETA: I also know that neither party is better off financially after a divorce. Both are negatively affected.


----------



## samyeagar

I know this is only anecdotal, but I am not delusional enough to think I am special in this regard, so I am sure there are many other men in my exact situation.

Ex wife was a stay at home mom. We got divorced when the youngest was in 5th grade. She did not have a job because she spent her days volunteering in the schools. Incidently, she cheated on me with one of the teachers she volunteered with.

Between child support and alimony, she gets 65% of my income. I pay for her van in addition to that. I was assigned all of the marital debt, about $80k. She gets half my retirement, which I only had during the final year of our marriage. I am required to maintain insurance on the kids. She is the beneficiary of my life insurance.

Between the payments on the debts, and what I owe the IRS, which mind you, most of the money she gets is tax free to her, because I have to pay the taxes, I do not have enough left over to securely maintain my own residence, and have been living between my parents and STBW.

Oh, and she still has not gotten a job, still volunteers in the schools...WTF? So yeah, I GOT FVCKED! She made out like a bandit.


----------



## treyvion

moco82 said:


> She was OK-looking in the beginning. Now she wants sex, but the years of neglect had desensitized me. Similar story to Tyler[with numbers] here on TAM.


Were you also desensitized with other people, or only with the withholding spouse?


----------



## Dad&Hubby

gbrad said:


> I look at her in a purely physical way all the time, I can see what she looks like physically. I think that is important, not sure why you say that is unfair to her. I understand what you mean by the whole love impact on attraction, but I think it is important to be able to look at someone across a room and go "damn they are hot" regardless of love, and that be the person you are with.


Yes, but when you see your wife across the room and her physical beauty hits you, you're still not "looking at them ONLY for their physical characteristics". I guess I should reword this.

When I say "look at them from only a physical perspective" I mean looking at them and passing judgement over all of their good points AND flaws.

I think love has a way to shield our minds from the physical flaws our spouse might have that we, if we didn't know them, we might not like.

Think of aging. I have more gray hair, a bigger belly, deeper wrinkles than I had when I first met my wife. But she finds me more attractive today than on our first date. The same goes for me to her. Yes I look at her "physically", I admire her hips and a$$, her eyes, the glow in her face when she smiles, how beautiful she is when she straightens her hair and puts on just that little bit of makeup. But I'm not removing the impact my love for her has on my attraction for her.

That's what I was getting at with the OP. It sounds like he's sitting there looking at his wife and just going down a checklist of "ehhh, there's some cellulite, not really a fan of those crow's feet, her boobs aren't as perky as I like" etc. Basically imagining his fantasy ideal of a woman strictly in the physical sense and then, with no emotional bias, comparing his wife to it.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

samyeagar said:


> I know this is only anecdotal, but I am not delusional enough to think I am special in this regard, so I am sure there are many other men in my exact situation.
> 
> Ex wife was a stay at home mom. We got divorced when the youngest was in 5th grade. She did not have a job because she spent her days volunteering in the schools. Incidently, she cheated on me with one of the teachers she volunteered with.
> 
> Between child support and alimony, she gets 65% of my income. I pay for her van in addition to that. I was assigned all of the marital debt, about $80k. She gets half my retirement, which I only had during the final year of our marriage. I am required to maintain insurance on the kids. She is the beneficiary of my life insurance.
> 
> Between the payments on the debts, and what I owe the IRS, which mind you, most of the money she gets is tax free to her, because I have to pay the taxes, I do not have enough left over to securely maintain my own residence, and have been living between my parents and STBW.
> 
> Oh, and she still has not gotten a job, still volunteers in the schools...WTF? So yeah, I GOT FVCKED! She made out like a bandit.


Dude, of course you're not alone. There is a reason why this trope exists.

Kanye West made a song about this, man, fvcking Kanye West, the most white-knight black rapper there is. 

Gold Digger


----------



## Dad&Hubby

FrenchFry said:


> If you look at the study I posted, they actually account for child support and alimony. The only way a man becomes "worse off" is if he remarries, has more kids and is paying child support. Even with a woman returning or continuing to work, her financial outlook takes a hit in a divorce, still greater than her male counterpart. This is not taking into account that a good chunk of support isn't paid, two different studies.
> 
> This is in great part to the duties of childrearing still falling far more on women than men according to this study. I'm all for divorce courts giving far more parity to men for custody so this can be rectified along with other societal steps to equalize the divorce burden, but I'm not seeing the evidence that women makeout like bandits (or even really benifit) from getting a divorce.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_





samyeagar said:


> I know this is only anecdotal, but I am not delusional enough to think I am special in this regard, so I am sure there are many other men in my exact situation.
> 
> Ex wife was a stay at home mom. We got divorced when the youngest was in 5th grade. She did not have a job because she spent her days volunteering in the schools. Incidently, she cheated on me with one of the teachers she volunteered with.
> 
> Between child support and alimony, she gets 65% of my income. I pay for her van in addition to that. I was assigned all of the marital debt, about $80k. She gets half my retirement, which I only had during the final year of our marriage. I am required to maintain insurance on the kids. She is the beneficiary of my life insurance.
> 
> Between the payments on the debts, and what I owe the IRS, which mind you, most of the money she gets is tax free to her, because I have to pay the taxes, I do not have enough left over to securely maintain my own residence, and have been living between my parents and STBW.
> 
> Oh, and she still has not gotten a job, still volunteers in the schools...WTF? So yeah, I GOT FVCKED! She made out like a bandit.


FF, I agree with you that usually noone "makes out" from a divorce. The problem is those studies aren't accurate for one big reason. They're too vague and in turn can skew perceptions.

The problem is our divorce courts really try to be a one size fits all, when in reality if you take a SAHM with a Husband who makes 35k-65k (depending on area of the country), the SAHM is going to be in a worse financial position ONLY in that she doesn't have 100% of the husband's income, she'll get 50-75% of it.

My situation was very much like Sam's. I made 65K per year but had my income cut to 50K before the divorce (not by choice). I had child support for two kids figured at $290 per week, she also was to receive $185 per week in spousal support for 3 years (which fortunately was revoked at the end of the divorce proceedings but was still there for a year) I also had to pay for insurance for the kids, 55% childcare (which she enrolled our kids in preschool even though she didn't work for $75 per week and then when she was going to cosmetology school it went up to $252 per week which her parents paid her 45%). She got the house, but I had to pay the mortgage for 3 years with no equity of the house when it was sold. I had to cover 75% of the marital debt.

She walked away with a clean slate and having her life paid for for 3 years. I had $110 per week to live on (to cover rent, food vehicle) etc. It's been over a decade since the divorce and I'm JUST starting to be okay.

Now I've know a lot of women who got a divorce and their situation was the opposite. They were barely making it while their exH was living very well. It seems like the courts need to revisit how monetary distribution is calculated. But whatever.

I don't like how things went, but I also am not bitter because ultimately my children have a better life through my sacrifice. There are times where I feel guilty with my current wife though because I don't have as much to contribute financially to her due to the unfair previous distribution.


----------



## samyeagar

Dad&Hubby said:


> FF, I agree with you that usually noone "makes out" from a divorce. The problem is those studies aren't accurate for one big reason. They're too vague and in turn can skew perceptions.
> 
> The problem is our divorce courts really try to be a one size fits all, when in reality if you take a SAHM with a Husband who makes 35k-65k (depending on area of the country), the SAHM is going to be in a worse financial position ONLY in that she doesn't have 100% of the husband's income, she'll get 50-75% of it.
> 
> My situation was very much like Sam's. I made 65K per year but had my income cut to 50K before the divorce (not by choice). I had child support for two kids figured at $290 per week, she also was to receive $185 per week in spousal support for 3 years (which fortunately was revoked at the end of the divorce proceedings but was still there for a year) I also had to pay for insurance for the kids, 55% childcare (which she enrolled our kids in preschool even though she didn't work for $75 per week and then when she was going to cosmetology school it went up to $252 per week which her parents paid her 45%). She got the house, but I had to pay the mortgage for 3 years with no equity of the house when it was sold. I had to cover 75% of the marital debt.
> 
> She walked away with a clean slate and having her life paid for for 3 years. I had $110 per week to live on (to cover rent, food vehicle) etc. It's been over a decade since the divorce and I'm JUST starting to be okay.
> 
> Now I've know a lot of women who got a divorce and their situation was the opposite. They were barely making it while their exH was living very well. It seems like the courts need to revisit how monetary distribution is calculated. But whatever.
> 
> I don't like how things went, but I also am not bitter because ultimately my children have a better life through my sacrifice. *There are times where I feel guilty with my current wife though because I don't have as much to contribute financially to her due to the unfair previous distribution*.


This^

We are in very similar situations...Big pay hit right before the divorce so that skewed the numbers in her favor. $341 a week in child support and $209 a week in maintenance. After paying for her van payment, and the marital debt payments, which I am legally obligated to stay current on, I have about $500 a month to live on. She still regularly asks me for money to help out with extra curriculars and things for the kids, the youngest of which is almost 12. Did I mention that she still does not have a job, and continues to volunteer in the schools?


----------



## Dad&Hubby

FrenchFry said:


> I agree there are issues, I agree some people (including you guys) get completely hosed and that sucks.
> 
> Why I posted what I did was because there is the trope that men give up everything and women give up nothing during a divorce, like S N posted. Everyone gives up something, and by that study (which was a compilation of several studies) women on the whole give up a little more.
> 
> I feel for you guys that get the short end of the divorce stick, but I'm going to remain adamant that divorce is ****ty period.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



I completely Agree.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Just looking at individual circumstances. Divorce is shooty. 

PS Sam, yeah my ex-w had the affair with the neighbor btw LOL.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Brennan, in a divorce a man loses custody of his kids, his house, has to give alimony and child support (in a lot of states). Even in the CWI section there are a lot of WWs that try to pass their BH of as violent and get him to be arrested. A woman loses, hmmm... What does a woman lose?
> 
> 
> 
> But enough threadjacking, ladies.


1. Men who fight for custody of their children often win. Many chose not to however. 

2. His house? No, the wife buys him out of "his house" so he gets the cash value. Or she refinances the house in her name and takes on all the debt. Biggest lie out there regarding divorce is "he loses the house" like she is sitting pretty with hundreds of thousands of equity while he got nothing. Not in most cases at least.

3. Alimony is for a couple years tops and in cases where there is an income disparity that is large......like a SAHM. 

4. Child support isn't a fat check. Average in this country is $430 a month for two children. That wouldn't even cover my grocery bill for them. I would kill to pay someone $430 a month to pay for every expense my sons incur. Where do I get this sweet deal?

5. What does a woman lose in a divorce? 1/2 her assets, half the time with her children or paying all but $430 of her childrens expenses and oftentimes she is now at the poverty level.

"I was wondering why women initiate %70 of divorces". That's easy to answer. Men are more complacent, fear loneliness more than women and dissolution of relationships often affects men emotionally more than it does women.


----------



## samyeagar

Therealbrighteyes said:


> 1. Men who fight for custody of their children often win. Many chose not to however.
> 
> 2. His house? No, the wife buys him out of "his house" so he gets the cash value. Or she refinances the house in her name and takes on all the debt. Biggest lie out there regarding divorce is "he loses the house" like she is sitting pretty with hundreds of thousands of equity while he got nothing. Not in most cases at least.
> 
> 3. Alimony is for a couple years tops and in cases where there is an income disparity that is large......like a SAHM.
> 
> 4. Child support isn't a fat check. Average in this country is $430 a month for two children. That wouldn't even cover my grocery bill for them. I would kill to pay someone $430 a month to pay for every expense my sons incur. Where do I get this sweet deal?
> 
> 5. What does a woman lose in a divorce? 1/2 her assets, half the time with her children or paying all but $430 of her childrens expenses and oftentimes she is now at the poverty level.
> 
> "I was wondering why women initiate %70 of divorces". That's easy to answer. Men are more complacent, fear loneliness more than women and dissolution of relationships often affects men emotionally more than it does women.


I would be jumping for joy if that's how things worked out for me.

65% of my income goes to her in cash, the equivalent of a $17 an hour after taxes full time job. Another 20% goes to joint marital debt, of which she assumed 0% of, that if I default on, I am in contempt of court and could be jailed. I paid over $7000 in taxes this year, and she got a $5000 tax return...without a job or income of her own...it was because she could claim alimony as earned income!!! 15% of my income is not enough to live on so I am living with my parents and STBW. Because I do not have a permanent residence, because I CAN'T AFFORD one close to my kids, I can't have joint physical custody.

Have I mentioned that she still does not have a job??


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> 1.* Men who fight for custody of their children often win. *Many chose not to however.


Not in our country and not in the cases I have personally seen.

In fact , I have posted here before that this is a big issue in our country / society right now and there are quite a few advocacy groups representing divorced men.
The courts usually award custody to the women , especially if the child is below a certain age and female, like in my cousin's case.

her husband initiated divorce , it was messy and she decided she wanted to migrate to England. The courts awarded her custody of their young daughter , but her now ex husband decided to challenge the courts because he and his daughter was inseparable, and he couldn't bear the thought of never seeing her again.
The daughter was never close to her mother.
He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire a senior counsel to appeal that case ,and he finally won.

There are quite a few other cases I know of , but men usually get shafted with custody while at the same time ,having to pay maintenance money down here.
The facts are that some women use the custody battle as a final dagger in the divorce battle.
But things are slow changing because it has become a national debate .

The system has to be more fair because often times , children suffer tremendously and become a menace to society and a liability to the state , commissioned studies have found. 

One of the steps the state have taken is to appoint neutral , trained mediators to help settle custody battles amicably.

In the end , the child suffers tremendously , if that aspect of a divorce is not handled properly.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

FrenchFry said:


> I don't think TRBE is saying that men don't lose out, nor that you haven't gotten the short end. Just replying to a post which implied that women never do. Again I'm sorry for your own struggles and I hope that there are ways to resolve them.
> 
> What she posted is closer to what my own second-hand anecdotes look like, or worse. My anecdotes are also not data as well however, but in my case they have clearly shown how women get effed over in divorce as well.


Exactly. I am not suggesting whatsoever that there aren't cases that are so lopsided it makes my head spin. I have a friend who was so screwed over by his divorce that I'm shocked he hasn't paid someone to off her. Not only did she screw him over financially, she also claimed his father (the Grandfather) sexually molested the child which was a bald faced lie. Not only could the Grandfather never be around the girl without court supervision, the child couldn't even visit her own father unattended because the Grandfather lived there. That went on for 7 months until the charges were dropped because they were complete [email protected]**** from the get go. 

On the other side, I have a recently divorced friend who was so screwed over financially in her divorce that she asked me for $400 so she could buy her 3 kids shoes/backpacks/supplies for back to school. He ex-husband is a wealthy judge. She went from living in a big house to living in a 2 bedroom apartment after her husband of 16 years decided he would rather be with his mistress.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Not in our country and not in the cases I have personally seen.
> 
> In fact , I have posted here before that this is a big issue in our country / society right now and there are quite a few advocacy groups representing divorced men.
> The courts usually award custody to the women , especially if the child is below a certain age and female, like in my cousin's case.
> 
> her husband initiated divorce , it was messy and she decided she wanted to migrate to England. The courts awarded her custody of their young daughter , but her now ex husband decided to challenge the courts because he and his daughter was inseparable, and he couldn't bear the thought of never seeing her again.
> The daughter was never close to her mother.
> He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire a senior counsel to appeal that case ,and he finally won.
> 
> There are quite a few other cases I know of , but men usually get shafted with custody while at the same time ,having to pay maintenance money down here.
> The facts are that some women use the custody battle as a final dagger in the divorce battle.
> But things are slow changing because it has become a national debate .
> 
> The system has to be more fair because often times , children suffer tremendously and become a menace to society and a liability to the state , commissioned studies have found.
> 
> One of the steps the state have taken is to appoint neutral , trained mediators to help settle custody battles amicably.
> 
> In the end , the child suffers tremendously , if that aspect of a divorce is not handled properly.


I fully agree and yes, some women use children as bargaining chips. Here in the States, there is a shift in assuming women are the caregivers and men are the payers. This has been brought about by both men and womens groups. It hurts both sexes really. The assumption that women are better caregivers puts the onus on them to take care of the children post divorce. In turn, it robs men of being caregivers to their children and reduces them down to wallets. Both sexes lose.

What was the original post about? Oh yeah, body vs. personality. Both would be ideal but if I had to chose, I'd pick personality. As my drivers ed teacher once said about his ex-wife "Million dollar body, ten cent mind. A million dollar body won't be a million dollar body forever but a ten cent mind sure will". Ron White popularized it better by saying "Stupid is forever".


----------



## moco82

treyvion said:


> Were you also desensitized with other people, or only with the withholding spouse?


No, I was quite happy-go-lucky before. There was one relationship that was much worse in that regard, but it didn't last long enough (the woman disappeared and then tried to re-appear once her new arrangement went sour) to desensitize me.


----------



## greenfern

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Dude, of course you're not alone. There is a reason why this trope exists.
> 
> Kanye West made a song about this, man, fvcking Kanye West, the most white-knight black rapper there is.
> 
> Gold Digger


In my circle almost no most woman has got alimony or child support. They almost all have 50/50 custody and lost half their assets .. Having said that, there are not too many SAHM in my circle. The one that was, after divorce with 3 young kids & primary custody had to go back to work, living on edge of poverty while her xhusband is renting a bachelor pad in the city, sleeping with young hot things during the week while seeing his kids every other weekends.

I just point this out because its not like this everywhere. A lot of people on TAM will have totally different realities.


----------



## greenfern

samyeagar said:


> I would be jumping for joy if that's how things worked out for me.
> 
> 65% of my income goes to her in cash, the equivalent of a $17 an hour after taxes full time job. Another 20% goes to joint marital debt, of which she assumed 0% of, that if I default on, I am in contempt of court and could be jailed. I paid over $7000 in taxes this year, and she got a $5000 tax return...without a job or income of her own...it was because she could claim alimony as earned income!!! 15% of my income is not enough to live on so I am living with my parents and STBW. Because I do not have a permanent residence, because I CAN'T AFFORD one close to my kids, I can't have joint physical custody.
> 
> Have I mentioned that she still does not have a job??


I'm really sorry about your situation, it sounds like your xw is a b**ch and/or you had a crappy lawyer. Either way, I'm sorry & it sucks. Individual examples are just that - I guess I just hate hearing this generalization that women come out so great in divorces. I didn't, a lot of other women on TAM perhaps didn't and the generalizations feel very bad.


----------



## greenfern

Oh and in Canada, alimony is taxable to the payee & non-taxable to the payer so you really want to be paying alimony vs child support (which is the reverse - taxable to payer & non-taxable to payee). Verrrry big difference! Child support is by salary table though, no negotiations.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

greenfern said:


> Oh and in Canada, alimony is taxable to the payee & non-taxable to the payer.


It's the same here. I have no idea how that guy doesn't get to deduct it or that his ex-wife doesn't have to pay on it. Something is very off there.


----------



## moco82

greenfern said:


> while her xhusband is renting a bachelor pad in the city, sleeping with young hot things during the week while seeing his kids every other weekends.


So there is an afterlife! 

Sounds like a crappy guy who'd let his kids live on the edge of poverty, though. I would probably live on a friend's couch (until kicked out, then move to the next couch).


----------



## moco82

2galsmom said:


> You need both.
> 
> I recommend you find someone that you are attracted to sexually and intellectually, and if you cannot find that person just say no to commitments.


In other words, stay single forever. That's actually not a bad plan. Too bad society hammers false ideas into our heads about the evils of singlehood.


----------



## samyeagar

Therealbrighteyes said:


> It's the same here. I have no idea how that guy doesn't get to deduct it or that his ex-wife doesn't have to pay on it. Something is very off there.


She has to pay the taxes on the alimony, and I do get to deduct it, but that was her only taxable income for the year, and it allowed her to claim the Earned Income Credit, along with the child tax credit, along wth thier standard personal deduction,...taxed ay the head of household rate as opposed to the single rate. If the alimony was non taxable she would not have gotten to claim EIC.


----------



## gbrad

Dad&Hubby said:


> Yes, but when you see your wife across the room and her physical beauty hits you, you're still not "looking at them ONLY for their physical characteristics". I guess I should reword this.
> 
> *I wish her physical beauty hit me, that would be nice for a change.*
> 
> When I say "look at them from only a physical perspective" I mean looking at them and passing judgement over all of their good points AND flaws.
> 
> *I understand that.*
> 
> I think love has a way to shield our minds from the physical flaws our spouse might have that we, if we didn't know them, we might not like.
> 
> *But there is something to be said for being with someone who even without the love having the ability to shield the physical flaws, you are attracted to them just as they physically are. There those out there that have that hot body, just have to find a way to get them. *
> 
> Think of aging. I have more gray hair, a bigger belly, deeper wrinkles than I had when I first met my wife. But she finds me more attractive today than on our first date. The same goes for me to her. Yes I look at her "physically", I admire her hips and a$$, her eyes, the glow in her face when she smiles, how beautiful she is when she straightens her hair and puts on just that little bit of makeup. But I'm not removing the impact my love for her has on my attraction for her.
> 
> That's what I was getting at with the OP. It sounds like he's sitting there looking at his wife and just going down a checklist of "ehhh, there's some cellulite, not really a fan of those crow's feet, her boobs aren't as perky as I like" etc. Basically imagining his fantasy ideal of a woman strictly in the physical sense and then, with no emotional bias, comparing his wife to it.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Therealbrighteyes said:


> 1. Men who fight for custody of their children often win. Many chose not to however.


I would love to see these statistics because, unless the mom is abusive, a convicted felon or a drug addict, the husband is only going to get 50% AT BEST, and that's assuming he can afford a "healthy environment for the children". 

That's what did me in. I have joint custody, but I only get my kids every other weekend and one night a week for dinner because at the end of the divorce, she was awarded the house because I made the mistake of moving out (sitting there with your cheating wife and her AP who you shared a driveway with wasn't easy) so I got an apartment in the city next to the town We lived in. All I could afford was a 2 bedroom, but my exW's lawyer got the judge to buy into the neighborhood not being safe and a 2 bedroom for a boy and girl (who were 1 and 4) wasn't enough to split custody. Plus the divorce put me in a really tight financial situation which was then USED AGAINST ME, with them saying they're not sure how I'm going to keep said apartment (which was the cheapest near my kids LOL)



> 2. His house? No, the wife buys him out of "his house" so he gets the cash value. Or she refinances the house in her name and takes on all the debt. Biggest lie out there regarding divorce is "he loses the house" like she is sitting pretty with hundreds of thousands of equity while he got nothing. Not in most cases at least.


Again, I don't think you can say most cases. I know MANY guys who were forced to pay the mortgage and move out. Some were given half of the profit off the sale of the house, but had no say in the house at all. I didn't even get half of the profit because again, I "abandoned", which is the biggest BS argument.



> 3. Alimony is for a couple years tops and in cases where there is an income disparity that is large......like a SAHM.


But that disparity is also made up in child support. Because, at least in my state, CS is calculated as a standard formula and the bigger the disparity, the bigger the CS. 



> 4. Child support isn't a fat check. Average in this country is $430 a month for two children. That wouldn't even cover my grocery bill for them. I would kill to pay someone $430 a month to pay for every expense my sons incur. Where do I get this sweet deal?


OH MY GOD. $430 per month for 2??? I pay more than $430 for ONE!! And that's based on me earning $50k per year. Again, because my ex was a SAHM. I pay over $1000 per month for my kids and I'm sorry....you can raise 2 kids on LESS than $1000. PS that's not accounting the day care, insurance, non-reimbursed medical expenses etc, which I'm also responsible for.



> 5. What does a woman lose in a divorce? 1/2 her assets, half the time with her children or paying all but $430 of her childrens expenses and oftentimes she is now at the poverty level.


Your situation is a negative against the woman. Mine is against the man. I think a HUGE part is what state you live in. My state is a HUGE proponent for women and is a BIG TIME fighter of dead beat dads, to the point where they've slanted the laws against men as a whole (even non-dead beat). They are also one of the strongest "protect the children" states. Such as how I'm legally REQUIRED to pay half of my kids college expenses. As in they can literally SUE me if I don't pay. It's unconstitutional in that it establishes laws for one group and not another. Children of married parents can't sue their parents to pay for college, so how can one from a divorced family? Because my states classifies children of divorced families as "disadvantaged individuals".

Now I don't know what's going to happen in a few years when my oldest wants to go to college. I don't have college funds for my kids. Not because I don't want to have them, but I can't afford it. It's scary for me because I can see my exwife convincing my kids to sue me. Even though she doesn't raise them properly about schooling. My oldest should be a straight A student who could EASILY earn scholarships, but my exW has failed in raising him in that way. I could also see him wanted to go to an expensive school which I'd have no say over. So I could be faced with coming up with $30,000 per year for 8 years. Yes I'm scared over that one.

But this is why I'm saying, divorce shouldn't be a cookie cutter approach, because it seems to get it "wrong" too often. You're in a bad situation because the system didn't work for you, and Sam and I are in a bad situation because it didn't work for us. But whatever, it's the pill we have to swallow.


----------



## samyeagar

Dad&Hubby said:


> I would love to see these statistics because, unless the mom is abusive, a convicted felon or a drug addict, the husband is only going to get 50% AT BEST, and that's assuming he can afford a "healthy environment for the children".
> 
> That's what did me in. I have joint custody, but I only get my kids every other weekend and one night a week for dinner because at the end of the divorce, she was awarded the house because I made the mistake of moving out (sitting there with your cheating wife and her AP who you shared a driveway with wasn't easy) so I got an apartment in the city next to the town We lived in. All I could afford was a 2 bedroom, but my exW's lawyer got the judge to buy into the neighborhood not being safe and a 2 bedroom for a boy and girl (who were 1 and 4) wasn't enough to split custody. Plus the divorce put me in a really tight financial situation which was then USED AGAINST ME, with them saying they're not sure how I'm going to keep said apartment (which was the cheapest near my kids LOL)
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't think you can say most cases. I know MANY guys who were forced to pay the mortgage and move out. Some were given half of the profit off the sale of the house, but had no say in the house at all. I didn't even get half of the profit because again, I "abandoned", which is the biggest BS argument.
> 
> 
> 
> But that disparity is also made up in child support. Because, at least in my state, CS is calculated as a standard formula and the bigger the disparity, the bigger the CS.
> 
> 
> 
> OH MY GOD. $430 per month for 2??? I pay more than $430 for ONE!! And that's based on me earning $50k per year. Again, because my ex was a SAHM. I pay over $1000 per month for my kids and I'm sorry....you can raise 2 kids on LESS than $1000. PS that's not accounting the day care, insurance, non-reimbursed medical expenses etc, which I'm also responsible for.
> 
> 
> 
> Your situation is a negative against the woman. Mine is against the man. I think a HUGE part is what state you live in. My state is a HUGE proponent for women and is a BIG TIME fighter of dead beat dads, to the point where they've slanted the laws against men as a whole (even non-dead beat). They are also one of the strongest "protect the children" states. Such as how I'm legally REQUIRED to pay half of my kids college expenses. As in they can literally SUE me if I don't pay. It's unconstitutional in that it establishes laws for one group and not another. Children of married parents can't sue their parents to pay for college, so how can one from a divorced family? Because my states classifies children of divorced families as "disadvantaged individuals".
> 
> Now I don't know what's going to happen in a few years when my oldest wants to go to college. I don't have college funds for my kids. Not because I don't want to have them, but I can't afford it. It's scary for me because I can see my exwife convincing my kids to sue me. Even though she doesn't raise them properly about schooling. My oldest should be a straight A student who could EASILY earn scholarships, but my exW has failed in raising him in that way. I could also see him wanted to go to an expensive school which I'd have no say over. So I could be faced with coming up with $30,000 per year for 8 years. Yes I'm scared over that one.
> 
> But this is why I'm saying, divorce shouldn't be a cookie cutter approach, because it seems to get it "wrong" too often. You're in a bad situation because the system didn't work for you, and Sam and I are in a bad situation because it didn't work for us. But whatever, it's the pill we have to swallow.


Our experiences sound almost identical. The physical custody arrangement, the whole 'abandonment' thing, I pay her over $2600/month while earning right at what you are. Plus I am responsible for all the marital debt on top of that. I finally had a retirement plan offered by my company during the last year before the divorce was final. I literally had a retirement plan for six months of the 17 year marriage, and she gets half of it. If I'd known at the time how it was going to go, I would have never taken the plan...

When it comes to financial support, I would have thought that BOTH parents had a responsibility to provide...Have I mentioned that she still hasn't gotten a job?


----------



## lifeistooshort

samyeagar said:


> Our experiences sound almost identical. The physical custody arrangement, the whole 'abandonment' thing, I pay her over $2600/month while earning right at what you are. Plus I am responsible for all the marital debt on top of that. I finally had a retirement plan offered by my company during the last year before the divorce was final. I literally had a retirement plan for six months of the 17 year marriage, and she gets half of it. If I'd known at the time how it was going to go, I would have never taken the plan...
> 
> When it comes to financial support, I would have thought that BOTH parents had a responsibility to provide...Have I mentioned that she still hasn't gotten a job?



I don't understand why anyone goes along with a sahp these days. First, it's highly unlikely the working spouse will be continuously employed throughout their entire working life; that's just the nature of the current global economy. Second, stay at home parenting is a lifestyle that people get used to, and when you combine that with the fact that they often have no or outdated work skills it can be hard for even the most motivated person to go back to work. Then you factor in age discrimination, and a long term sahp is never going to catch up financially to the working parent, yet nobody seems to ever consider that they're going to be on the hook for this person when they agree to this arrangement. When you look at it objectively what do you expect to happen? Parent stays at home for years and then magically is able to take care of themselves? Maybe everyone thinks they'll beat the divorce odds, but imho anyone that goes along with having a sahp beyond the infant and maybe toddler years is out of their mind. Besides, this idea that someone else is raising your kids is ludicrous; my kids very much enjoyed daycare and while they are now a little older (10 and 12) I can assure everyone that I am in fact raising them and they are both doing very well. It does sound like you got the short end of the deal, but this just goes to show why it's a bad idea to have a sahp. .I intend to counsel my boys to make sure they marry someone that works and wants to continue to work.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

FrenchFry said:


> This is why she said that: New England Law Review.
> 
> I am just C/Ping the conclusions from this website which cited that study:


Exactly. Joint custody is common place these days, not 2 weekends a month Dad.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FF - These are statistics that divorced men just are not very likely to believe. Having worked in a family law office before, my experienced lined up with the stats you are providing. D sucks for everyone...women do NOT end up living luxurious lives...no one does...everyone ends up poorer. 

The emotional component of "who suffers more" or "who done who wrong" is not part of the legal process, which is why many people get upset about it. Clients always (at first) wanted to be "proved right" on marital issues, and they thought that is what the court does. But the majority of D cases settle themselves, not a judge...and no part of that settlement includes getting paid for the pain and suffering you went through in your now-failing marriage.

If a judge does decide your case, the emotional component of it and why the marriage broke down is completely irrelevant (with a very few state exceptions where you can still file under alienation of affection...but even those states don't really push this law).

Separating the legal from the emotional is very hard for people to do. But the court cares nothing about your FEELINGS of being screwed over, nor your feelings about your STBX. This is where many people find themselves frustrated about the law. They want "justice".

Family law is not about justice...it is about dividing assets and debts and about custody. When just the stats are viewed, this is obvious. But due to the crisis situation that D causes, a person who is going through it will not believe that the laws are unbiased. They can only feel beaten down and unfairly handled because it truly is a crisis...like a very complicated death in the family, where everyone is fighting over the silverware.


----------



## samyeagar

FrenchFry said:


> This is why she said that: New England Law Review.
> 
> I am just C/Ping the conclusions from this website which cited that study:


There is a difference between Joint Custody and Joint Physical Custody. Hell, I have joint custody. That was easy to get. Physical custody however, I have the every other weekend thing going on.

All Joint Custody really means is that I have say and veto power in things like religion, schools, medical. Has nothing to do with living arangements or financials.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Dad& Hubby,

I hammered out a lengthy response and when I went to post it my computer said to reload the page. Grrrr. Anyways, the crux was that I have a friend in family court here in Houston and he told me that something like 80+% of men who file for joint physical custody get it but only 50 something percent file for it. Reasons include jobs related travel (understandable). Others were they didn't want the responsibility of taking care of the kids 50% of the time. They'd prefer weekend dad (Disney Dad) where all they have to do is fun stuff. Clearly not your situation but I wanted to offer a view from different courts.


----------



## COGypsy

Another common circumstance I see is that these burdensome support divisions seemed to be based not only on case law, but on the lifestyle choices of the families involved. It seems to me that in all of these cases the wife was a SAHM. The support requirements just don't calculate out the same way when both people work. I'm not sure why it's a surprise that you'll be paying out the nose for your ex to hang out at home with Dr. Phil all day when you spent years paying out the nose for your wife to hang out at home with Dr. Phil all day...


----------



## Dad&Hubby

FF, FW and TRBE, please don't take my response as me trying to make a sweeping judgement against the legal system as a whole. I can and will only speak from my own personal experience.

1. I would refute the study in regards to the custody because I will speak from my own personal experience. My lawyer, who is a very well respected and expensive lawyer (I was only able to get him by bartering my services for his services, I couldn't have afforded him if I paid cash) told me when it comes to physical child custody. "You can go for primary physical custody, but the courts still view (this was in 2002 bear in mind) that a child needs their mother a minimum of 50% of the time. The BEST we can do is go for joint custody with 50% split." Which we did and lost. My living arrangements (again, the BEST I could do with my financial situation) was put on display. My exw's home was deemed as the best situation for the "welfare of the children". 

It still amazes me to this day that the financial situation was so drastically separated from the other issues and then USED AGAINST ME.

So how many times do father's NOT go for physical custody because they are advised not to? I bet that would drastically skew those results. 

2. I also bet that the times the father has sought primary physical custody, it's when the mother is a WAW, drug issues or abuse, which will again drastically influence the results that are stated in that study.

There's no way that, in "normal" circumstances, men are awarded physical custody 70% of the time, if both parents are deemed to be safe and healthy parents.

3. TRBE, I don't think 50% of fathers are looking to be "disney dads". That's really condescending. I think Fathers, equally as Mothers, want to be part of their children and raise their children equally, but get bad advice or have to take on extra work to pay for the increased financial stresses.

All I'm saying is that divorce sucks and isn't fair. There are many situations where it's not fair for the "innocent" wife/mother and it's not fair for the "innocent" husband/father.

The problem with studies is that they are usually conducted by "interest groups" who are interested in one outcome or another and quite often, they get that outcome.

Just look at the Villainous Company website where FF is showing the stats

It states
"The high success rate of fathers does not by itself establish gender bias against women. Additional evidence, however, indicates that women may be less able to afford the lawyers and experts needed in contested custody cases (see “Family Law Overview”) and that, in contested cases, different and stricter standards are applied to mothers."

Which also needs to be reviewed when comparing one divorce case versus another. I filed for joint custody and was given it, but I didn't file for primary physical because the amount of money needed to win that case would've been insane. Now there are a lot of men who make that kind of money and those are the ones represented in this study. And that's the problem. That's what I mean about divorce being too cookie cutter and then these "studies" don't properly reflect reality.

I wasn't "surveyed" to see if I wanted to go for primary physical custody. I would've gone for it had it been an option.

My issue about child support always ends up revolving around a man making "decent" money (under $65k per year) and a SAHM. THAT is the dynamic where the numbers don't add up. When a spouse makes $150K per year with a SAH parent, the child support isn't a big of a burden because you have to look at what percentage of income is going towards CS versus what is the minimum amount to survive. I can survive, on $1500 per month. If I'm making $150K per year, $1500 is nothing. If I'm making $50K per year, $1500 is big.

Anyway. I know I'm coming across as debating and trying to take a stance that divorce is against men...blah blah blah. I'm not. In many situations, the mother gets the short end of the stick, I recognize that and THAT needs to be fixed too. 

But for a man who works hard and makes a modest living trying to provide for his family and having his wife stay home in order to give the best family environment to raise his children, when divorce happens, if the SAHM is angry with a decent lawyer...that man is EFFED!!


----------



## Dad&Hubby

COGypsy said:


> Another common circumstance I see is that these burdensome support divisions seemed to be based not only on case law, but on the lifestyle choices of the families involved. It seems to me that in all of these cases the wife was a SAHM. The support requirements just don't calculate out the same way when both people work. I'm not sure why it's a surprise that you'll be paying out the nose for your ex to hang out at home with Dr. Phil all day when you spent years paying out the nose for your wife to hang out at home with Dr. Phil all day...


Because the first thing that should be required is the SAH parent (because there are SAHD's now more than in the past) should be required to go out and get a job.

The courts focus too much on status quo. They look to keep things as much as they were prior to the divorce and that's not reasonable. Divorce courts should be designed as a transitional system. One that transitions all parties to move into this new structure of life. I'm grabbing a random number but lets say a family where one person works and one doesn't suddenly has a hit of 50% of their income gone....wouldn't the stay at home parent need to look for work, if they were staying together? Well divorce is a 50% (work with me on this) hit financially to the SAH parent and the working parent because now there's 2 houses and 2 separate lives to support from the one income.

But anyway, I'm going to step back from this argument because I've come to terms with my situation, and I don't want to come across as knocking the situations of a lot of the mom's out there who've gotten a raw deal as well.

Bottom line Divorce STINKS!!


----------



## jennyh80

moco82 said:


> Ladies, what would be your reaction if you found out that your husband/SO fell in love with you because of your personality, and never found your body attractive (mediocre in best times)? Would you rather not know if this were the case?


How can you have sex if you're not attracted to her at all?


----------



## moco82

jennyh80 said:


> How can you have sex if you're not attracted to her at all?


Not really repulsed either. Hard to describe to someone who's never been a man , but most men don't need to be struck off their feet by a woman to get it up and have an orgasm.


----------



## TiggyBlue

moco82 said:


> Not really repulsed either. Hard to describe to someone who's never been a man , but most men don't need to be struck off their feet by a woman to get it up and have an orgasm.


There's a difference between having someone not sweeping you off your feet and not being physically attracted. I think that is what's confusing to many, especially when physical attractiveness is someone's primal need to get aroused.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TiggyBlue said:


> There's a difference between having someone not sweeping you off your feet and not being physically attracted, I think that is what's confusing to many.


I think I get what you're saying.
But can you explain it a little more?


----------



## treyvion

jennyh80 said:


> How can you have sex if you're not attracted to her at all?


Many men are attracted to the prospect of sex. So if sex was a priority, being "attracted" to their looks or personality may not have taken presidence.


----------



## jennyh80

treyvion said:


> Many men are attracted to the prospect of sex. So if sex was a priority, being "attracted" to their looks or personality may not have taken presidence.


In theory, you could then also have sex with men because it's about the sex and not about the person for you?


----------



## TiggyBlue

Caribbean Man said:


> I think I get what you're saying.
> But can you explain it a little more?


I think for many physical attractiveness is a fundamental for sexual arousal, then after other elements (i.e being swept of feet) come in and take a lot more effort.
I can understand someone not needing to be swept of their feet to get sexually aroused or have a orgasm, but being able to get sexually aroused without any physical attractiveness is a bit confusing.

I have a hard time understanding (probably because I'm female) how men can attain and sustain a erection without a fundamental in sexual arousal.



> Many men are attracted to the prospect of sex. So if sex was a priority, being "attracted" to their looks or personality may not have taken presidence.


Kind of makes sense.


----------



## TiggyBlue

jennyh80 said:


> In theory, you could then also have sex with men because it's about the sex and not about the person for you?


lol explains prison though.


----------



## treyvion

jennyh80 said:


> In theory, you could then also have sex with men because it's about the sex and not about the person for you?


I couldn't do it with another man, because I am one and not gay...

But sure a lady could be just as nasty and unselective as many men.


----------



## treyvion

TiggyBlue said:


> I think for many physical attractiveness is a fundamental for sexual arousal, then after other elements (i.e being swept of feet) come in and take a lot more effort.
> I can understand someone not needing to be swept of their feet to get sexually aroused or have a orgasm, but being able to get sexually aroused without any physical attractiveness is a bit confusing.
> I don't understand (probably because I'm female) how men can attain and sustain a erection without a fundamental in sexual arousal.


Many men love "vagina". It's a mental thing, and some are not selective of the body it comes in. And in some cases a nice one may not be in a body package that you expect.


----------



## jennyh80

TiggyBlue said:


> lol explains prison though.


Indeed, though prison is a forced environment and not exactly the same as the OP in this thread who is not forced to have sex with women who he's not attracted to.


----------



## treyvion

jennyh80 said:


> Indeed, though prison is a forced environment and not exactly the same as the OP in this thread who is not forced to have sex with women who he's not attracted to.


You put that so eloquently.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Dad&Hubby said:


> TRBE, I don't think 50% of fathers are looking to be "disney dads". That's really condescending. I think Fathers, equally as Mothers, want to be part of their children and raise their children equally, but get bad advice or have to take on extra work to pay for the increased financial stresses.
> 
> All I'm saying is that divorce sucks and isn't fair. There are many situations where it's not fair for the "innocent" wife/mother and it's not fair for the "innocent" husband/father.


Clearly I did not express myself well. I apologize. What I was trying to say (and failed at) was that there are some fathers who want to be Disney dads/part timers on weekends and they don't want joint physical custody. They don't want the responsibility of seeing how the sausage is made sort of speak. I am NOT referring to fathers who want joint physical custody and get hosed by the courts so their only interaction is every other weekend. 

Your situation is heartbreaking and frankly disgusting. I'll never understand a parent who uses their children as leverage. Put aside the hatred and do what is best for the children. Our eldest son's best friend has parents who had what is one of the worst and nastiest divorces I have ever witnessed. I know both the parents well and there was plenty of blame with both. Oddly, while they fought about every single thing you could possibly imagine, they never once fought over custody. They realized that their 6 year old son would be hurt beyond belief if he was dragged in to it, so they both agreed to 50/50 joint physical custody. They sold their former house and each purchased a smaller home within 1 mile of each other, in the same area so their child could continue at his elementary/future middle/high school with his friends. It was one week at Mom's/one week at Dad's. No child support was paid either for obvious reasons but they understood that some expenses are beyond control and shouldn't be the sole responsibility of one if it was their "week". He broke his bones many times because he was a rough soccer player so both parents split the cost of those bills and anything above and beyond normal child expenses. He is now 20 years old and one of the most well adjusted kids I have ever known. Their secret to success was pretty simple: they loved their child more than they hated each other. Above and beyond all else, a child needs the love and support by both parents and maximum time with both. 

You got divorced in 2002 and the good news is that since that time, many courts now recognize the importance of both parents in a childs life. It also benefits both sexes. No longer are women burdened with the role of primary caregiver and men with the burden of check writer. Is it perfect? Far from it but joint physical custody is beneficial to all involved and the courts are progressing in droves towards that.


----------



## moco82

TiggyBlue said:


> I can understand someone not needing to be swept of their feet to get sexually aroused or have a orgasm, but being able to get sexually aroused without any physical attractiveness is a bit confusing[...] I have a hard time understanding (probably because I'm female) how men can attain and sustain a erection without a fundamental in sexual arousal.


The fundamental arousal, as Treyvion alluded, is triggered by the fact that it's going to happen at all. What's true is that the stars that need to align differ: e.g., as Treyvion provided in his example, it has to be with the opposite sex. It may additionally be that the said person is under 300 lbs; or of certain races; or below a certain age. The finer details are just semantics.

Do you always describe the weather in degrees? Or do you use adjectives such as "warm", "cold", or "hot"? Can what you call "warm" after walking through a blizzard be called "cold" by you when leaving a hot building? At the same time, ou surely have a regular, standard measure of what is "warm" under normal circumstances. Similarly, if a guy, ceteris paribus, wouldn't call a woman "attractive", but noticed redeeming features--and especially if he falls in love with those redeeming features--the "attractiveness" scale can slide (even if just for her). I'm no neurochemist, but it must be similar to alcoholic intoxication. (Didn't they prove years ago that love releases the same hormones as LSD or another drug?) So think long-term beer goggles.

Finally, some guys don't have (or think they don't have) much of a shot with supermodels, so they lower the scale and after a while the new normal settles in. Past experiences, the ingrained memories of sensations and emotions, become more powerful than abstract ideas of beauty in summoning arousal--even though the ideal of "attractiveness", if one had to draw a princess in a vacuum, would still conform to the abstract.


----------



## ne9907

> Ladies, what would be your reaction if you found out that your husband/SO fell in love with you because of your personality, and never found your body attractive (mediocre in best times)? Would you rather not know if this were the case?


Hmmmm.....
well, I definitely would have like to know. Even after the marriage, 5 years down the road, 10 years down the road, 14 years down the road.

Yes, 14 years down the road. Going through divorce, ex said he never liked my personality. One of the main reasons we weren't able to make it for the long run.
He probably didn't like my body either because we hardly had sex, I initiated most of the time.
I loved him so much I thought things would get better...
So yes, I would have like to know. 
Now I am recovering from many years of self doubt, self esteem issues because we were not compatible.


----------



## Catherine602

Some of this pisses me off.

I find it so annoying that even a less than average man thinks that he is entitled to flawless beauty in a woman. What is this all about? Men are visual? So many men are very frank letting women know that they just don't measure up. 

Yet, they still expect a sterling sexual performance from their average partner, who matches their looks BTW. If only 0.1% of women meet your high standards then don't marry outside of that category. If you do, accept the trade off. You have a lukewarm response to her looks and she has an equally lukewarm response to all of you. 

We humans seldom play to an unappreciative audience. I cant think of anything less appealing than a partner who betrays by whining and running their chosen one down behind their back. 

If a supermodel is what you want, get out there and get one, if you can. But please, stop torturing your wife.


----------



## moco82

Catherine602 said:


> If a supermodel is what you want, get out there and get one, if you can.


God forbid! What kind of man would actually want a supermodel-looking woman? :rofl:


----------



## Catherine602

moco82 said:


> God forbid! What kind of man would actually want a supermodel-looking woman? :rofl:


What kind of woman would want a super good looking man?


----------



## moco82

Catherine602 said:


> What kind of woman would want a super good looking man?


Or a millionaire? Or both? If that's her ideal, maybe she should go out and get one and stop torturing her average-Joe husband.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Catherine602 said:


> Some of this pisses me off.
> 
> I find it so annoying that even a less than average man thinks that he is entitled to flawless beauty in a woman. What is this all about? Men are visual? So many men are very frank letting women know that they just don't measure up.


Story time: Hubby and I were out at a bar about a year ago. We had the misfortune of sitting at a table next to a group of guys who were (if we were to grade) 3's at best and that's after us having a few drinks. They were short, overweight, basically looked like potatoes with hair, they all made weird sucking noises on the limes in their beverages and thought Highlander quotes were awesome. They would watch the door to see who came in and every woman got an "Ugly, gross, butterface, totally do her but she looks like a skank, only from behind, not in a million years, yes, I don't want AIDS". Sadly some really pretty girl in the bar thought one of these guys was cute. Needed glasses perhaps? We saw her eyeing him for a bit and she worked up the courage to go up to him within this group of jerks. She was a tad overweight with a beautiful face, polished and frankly about a million ranks higher than any of these guys. So she walks up to the dude she wanted and asked him if he would like to sit with her and her friends. The ENTIRE group burst out laughing. She went back to her friends and started to cry. Hubby and I witnessed this and thought what could we do, what could we do? Hubby came up with the idea. We knew the waitress and tipped her very well to charge our account drinks, bring them to the guys and when asked who bought them have her point to the hottest chicks in the room. Feeling like the studs they thought they were, they went up to the women to thank them only to be shot down to oblivion. Evil? Yup. Worth the $150 to teach a bunch of azzholes a lesson? Priceless.

Bottom line: Unless you are a ten, don't expect a ten for a relationship. If you are a three and want a ten, you better have a ton of money or other attributes but then you aren't looking for a relationship.....you're looking to barter.


----------



## moco82

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Story time: Hubby and I were out at a trendy bar having fun. We sat next to a table of guys who were (if we were to grade) 3's at best. They were short, overweight and really obnoxious talking about every woman who walked in as either "do her" or "no way".


I never got that. Same reason I don't discuss the pros and cons of luxury car brands: what's the point if I'm not in the market for one? But most men see nothing wrong with such window shopping.


----------



## jennyh80

Catherine602 said:


> If a supermodel is what you want, get out there and get one, if you can. But please, stop torturing your wife.


I'm sorry this will sound harsh and I know I get probably crucified by stating the obvious truth but, apparently many men on this forum did marry that super model or at least that very attractive woman who was probably way over their own rank and now they are frequenting the CWI section as betrayed spouses...


----------



## TiggyBlue

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Story time: Hubby and I were out at a bar about a year ago. We had the misfortune of sitting at a table next to a new group of guys who were (if we were to grade) 3's at best and that's after my having a few drinks. They were short, overweight, basically looked like potatoes with hair, made weird sucking noises on the limes in their beverages and thought Highlander quotes were awesome. They would watch the door to see who came in and every woman got a "totally" or "not if I drank all the alcohol in this bar" ranking. They spent the better part of the night mocking women in the bar. "Ugly, gross, butterface, totally do her but she looks like a skank, only from behind, not in a million years". Sadly some really pretty girl in the bar thought one of these guys was cute. Needs glasses perhaps? We saw her eyeing him for a bit and she worked up the courage to go up to him within this group of jerks. She was a tad overweight but really cute, polished and frankly about a million ranks higher than any of these guys. So she walks up to the dude she wanted and asked him if he would like to sit with her and her friends. The ENTIRE group burst out laughing. She went back to her friends and started to cry. Hubby and I witnessed this and thought what could we do, what could we do? Hubby came up with the idea. We knew the waitress and tipped her very well to charge our account drinks, bring them to the guys and when asked who bought them have her point to the hottest chicks in the room. They went up to the women to thank them only to be shot down to oblivion. Evil? Yup. Worth the $150 to teach a bunch of scum a lesson? Priceless.


wow what a bunch of b*tches.


----------



## jennyh80

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Story time: Hubby and I were out at a bar about a year ago. We had the misfortune of sitting at a table next to a group of guys who were (if we were to grade) 3's at best and that's after us having a few drinks. *They were short, overweight, basically looked like potatoes with hair, made weird sucking noises on the limes in their beverages and thought Highlander quotes were awesome.* They would watch the door to see who came in and every woman got a "totally" or "not if I drank all the alcohol in this bar" ranking. They spent the better part of the night mocking women in the bar. "Ugly, gross, butterface, totally do her but she looks like a skank, only from behind, not in a million years". Sadly some really pretty girl in the bar thought one of these guys was cute. Needs glasses perhaps? We saw her eyeing him for a bit and she worked up the courage to go up to him within this group of jerks. She was a tad overweight but really cute, polished and frankly about a million ranks higher than any of these guys. So she walks up to the dude she wanted and asked him if he would like to sit with her and her friends. The ENTIRE group burst out laughing. She went back to her friends and started to cry. Hubby and I witnessed this and thought what could we do, what could we do? Hubby came up with the idea. We knew the waitress and tipped her very well to charge our account drinks, bring them to the guys and when asked who bought them have her point to the hottest chicks in the room. They went up to the women to thank them only to be shot down to oblivion. Evil? Yup. Worth the $150 to teach a bunch of scum a lesson? Priceless.
> 
> Bottom line: Unless you are a ten, don't expect a ten for a relationship. If you are a three and want a ten, you better have a ton of money or other attributes but then you aren't looking for a relationship.....you're looking to barter.


Can I put the bolded part as my signature please? :rofl:


----------



## P51Geo1980

jennyh80 said:


> I'm sorry this will sound harsh and I know I get probably crucified by stating the obvious truth but, apparently many men on this forum did marry that super model or at least that very attractive woman who was probably way over their own rank and now they are frequenting the CWI section as betrayed spouses...


We don't all frequent CWI, but I can sure tell you that at this point I wouldn't care if I did. OP mildly ridiculed me when I wrote that, after being married to an attractive (I'm not a 10 but not a 5 either) but *****y woman, I'd now take personality over looks any day of the week. I even told my STBXW that I'd much rather be with and "average" looking woman who is nice to me than an attractive woman who treats me like crap. Plus, the features I find attractive rare all over the place.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## treyvion

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Story time: Hubby and I were out at a bar about a year ago. We had the misfortune of sitting at a table next to a group of guys who were (if we were to grade) 3's at best and that's after us having a few drinks. They were short, overweight, basically looked like potatoes with hair, some had long fingernails (eww), one had hair that had to have been combed with WD-40, they all made weird sucking noises on the limes in their beverages and thought Highlander quotes were awesome and hilarious. They would watch the door to see who came in and every woman got an "Ugly, gross, butterface, totally do her but she looks like a skank, only from behind, not in a million years, yes, I don't want AIDS". Sadly some really pretty girl in the bar thought one of these guys was cute. Needed glasses perhaps? We saw her eyeing him for a bit and she worked up the courage to go up to him within this group of jerks. She was a tad overweight with a beautiful face, polished and frankly about a million ranks higher than any of these guys. So she walks up to the dude she wanted and asked him if he would like to sit with her and her friends. The ENTIRE group burst out laughing. She went back to her friends and started to cry. Hubby and I witnessed this and thought what could we do, what could we do? Hubby came up with the idea. We knew the waitress and tipped her very well to charge our account drinks, bring them to the guys and when asked who bought them have her point to the hottest chicks in the room. Feeling like the studs they thought they were, they went up to the women to thank them only to be shot down to oblivion. Evil? Yup. Worth the $150 to teach a bunch of azzholes a lesson? Priceless.
> 
> Bottom line: Unless you are a ten, don't expect a ten for a relationship. If you are a three and want a ten, you better have a ton of money or other attributes but then you aren't looking for a relationship.....you're looking to barter.


Yeah, but what does a "ten" buy you in most cases? It's usually not a bonus for the other relationship partner.


----------



## moco82

P51Geo1980 said:


> We don't all frequent CWI, but I can sure tell you that at this point I wouldn't care if I did. OP mildly ridiculed me when I wrote that, after being married to an attractive (I'm not a 10 but not a 5 either) but *****y woman, I'd now take personality over looks any day of the week. I even told my STBXW that I'd much rather be with and "average" looking woman who is nice to me than an attractive woman who treats me like crap. Plus, the features I find attractive rare all over the place.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sorry if it came off as ridicule. Part of the reason I became susceptible to personality over body years ago was being misused by a hot girl.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

moco82 said:


> I never got that. Same reason I don't discuss the pros and cons of luxury car brands: what's the point if I'm not in the market for one? But most men see nothing wrong with such window shopping.


Nothing wrong with window shopping. However, if you are a Toyota Camry and think you are in the same class as a Bugatti Veyron then perhaps a tune up is necessary. Car metaphorically speaking of course.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

lifeistooshort said:


> *I don't understand why anyone goes along with a sahp these days.* First, it's highly unlikely the working spouse will be continuously employed throughout their entire working life; that's just the nature of the current global economy. Second, stay at home parenting is a lifestyle that people get used to, and when you combine that with the fact that they often have no or outdated work skills it can be hard for even the most motivated person to go back to work.
> 
> Then you factor in age discrimination, and a long term sahp is never going to catch up financially to the working parent, *yet nobody seems to ever consider that they're going to be on the hook for this person when they agree to this arrangement. When you look at it objectively what do you expect to happen?* Parent stays at home for years and then magically is able to take care of themselves?
> 
> *Maybe everyone thinks they'll beat the divorce odds, but imho anyone that goes along with having a sahp beyond the infant and maybe toddler years is out of their mind.* Besides, this idea that someone else is raising your kids is ludicrous; my kids very much enjoyed daycare and while they are now a little older (10 and 12) I can assure everyone that I am in fact raising them and they are both doing very well. It does sound like you got the short end of the deal, but this just goes to show why it's a bad idea to have a sahp. .I intend to counsel my boys to make sure they marry someone that works and wants to continue to work.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Just saying, your post stomps on marriages like ours...I'm pretty used to this mindset here though, so it's fine. 

My husband prefers me to stay home...I suppose this makes him a complete fool... I feel very blessed that we can afford this ....I do have some small jobs but they are nothing to brag about... nor could I support myself on them....He has never been laid off... we are very frugally minded and even if he was, we could live over a year on no income (though health benefits if we needed them may be an issue)... 

We have always been very happy together, each others best friends -we dated almost 7 yrs before walking down the aisle...I believe part of our happiness is because we have chosen to live a lifestyle that works FOR US....with me in the home -we have 6 children...this has given us more time with each other and a carefree lifestyle..to not be so rushed, hurried and enjoy our blessings...

He is a wonderful man/ excellent father, could not ask for more... and by golly if I ever stooped so low , as to cheat on him....to destroy his life....like that.... I wouldn't take a dime from him, because he wouldn't deserve it... I was very careful to whom I attached myself to... I do have my honor and being able to look myself in the mirror... he knows I can be a stubborn woman in this way... which is likely why he trusts me so damn much... 

Some of us still believe in raising our families with this older fashioned model... it's not insanity....we've been together 31 yrs, 24 married ...there are plenty of things in this life I am not certain of.. but of our commitment to each other...this one I am.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

TiggyBlue said:


> wow what a bunch of b*tches.


Weren't they? It was delicious.


----------



## treyvion

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Weren't they? It was delicious.


What do you mean by this?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

treyvion said:


> What do you mean by this?


A response to TiggyBlue.


----------



## treyvion

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Buy? I guess what you paid for? Not sure what you meant. You seem to think 10's are pains in the ass because of their looks. Oddly, I have found it's those who are less attractive that pay more attention to their looks. Not sure what you meant.


I don't really believe in 10's anymore... But there are people who take good care of their physical appearance.

In any case, many of the "9 and 10" s as they say are "hot", here... They tend to be given an advantage of being able to easily use someone due to their looks. SO they become entitled and spoiled. Also many of these have small things they do to redirect attention their direction. It can be annoying if you care about yourself, and this is why some people choose not to mess with it. It's not all of them. But very many.

In very few cases will you have an extremely physically attractive man or woman who is a great and fair and caring relationship partner. Their usually into themself very deeply.


----------



## TiggyBlue

treyvion said:


> In very few cases will you have an extremely physically attractive man or woman who is a great and fair and caring relationship partner. Their usually into themself very deeply.


Personally disagree with this.


----------



## treyvion

TiggyBlue said:


> Personally disagree with this.


I didn't say ALL but "very many". Much more than 10%.

Also there are people who "look bad", who will certainly do you bad!


----------



## treyvion

Therealbrighteyes said:


> In other words you have never met a 10. I married one. Built, hot, tall, runner, racquetball God, looks like a carbon copy of Tom Brady, Mensa member, finished college at 20 with me being pregnant with his first child and him working 30 hours a week, got his MBA from a top university and worked his ass off to get to where he is now. Tell me again about spoiled and entitled or were you just referring to women. I came from a very wealthy family who disowned me when they found out I got pregnant. I dropped out of the same top tier university my husband went to to take care of our son and yet was able to parlay my skills of finance (learned from my parents) in to stockbroker and bond trader and made more than my husband for 3 years. In fact, it was my bonus that bought us this house.
> 
> I married a ten just as he did. Neither of us used our looks to succeed. We worked our asses off like every other person.


That's you two... There are an entire world of people who majorly leverage their looks to have advantages, and like I said, many of it borders on entitlement and using people who like them.


----------



## TiggyBlue

treyvion said:


> I didn't say ALL but "very many". Much more than 10%.
> 
> Also there are people who "look bad", who will certainly do you bad!


You said 


> *In very few cases* will you have an extremely physically attractive man or woman who is a great and fair and caring relationship partner. Their usually into themself very deeply.


That's what I personally disagreed with, I didn't say you said ALL.


----------



## treyvion

TiggyBlue said:


> You said
> 
> 
> That's what I personally disagreed with, I didn't say you said ALL.


Okay. Guess I'm tired. What are each and every one of you doing to improve your life? And for those of you that are sexless, what are you doing to improve and gain an actual sex life?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

treyvion said:


> That's you two... There are an entire world of people who majorly leverage their looks to have advantages, and like I said, many of it borders on entitlement and using people who like them.


You are a flat out liar if you think you don't leverage anything. Entitlement and using people....do tell?


----------



## lifeistooshort

SimplyAmorous said:


> Just saying, your post stomps on marriages like ours...I'm pretty used to this mindset here though, so it's fine.
> 
> My husband prefers me to stay home...I suppose this makes him a complete fool... I feel very blessed that we can afford this ....I do have some small jobs but they are nothing to brag about... nor could I support myself on them....He has never been laid off... we are very frugally minded and even if he was, we could live over a year on no income (though health benefits if we needed them may be an issue)...
> 
> We have always been very happy together, each others best friends -we dated almost 7 yrs before walking down the aisle...I believe part of our happiness is because we have chosen to live a lifestyle that works FOR US....with me in the home -we have 6 children...this has given us more time with each other and a carefree lifestyle..to not be so rushed, hurried and enjoy our blessings...
> 
> He is a wonderful man/ excellent father, could not ask for more... and by golly if I ever stooped so low , as to cheat on him....to destroy his life....like that.... I wouldn't take a dime from him, because he wouldn't deserve it... I was very careful to whom I attached myself to... I do have my honor and being able to look myself in the mirror... he knows I can be a stubborn woman in this way... which is likely why he trusts me so damn much...
> 
> Some of us still believe in raising our families with this older fashioned model... it's not insanity....we've been together 31 yrs, 24 married ...there are plenty of things in this life I am not certain of.. but of our commitment to each other...this one I am.



The point of my post was not to trash the arrangement itself, just the risk of it. If anything I find that it often goes the other way in that stay at home parents look down on working parents because "sometime else is raising their kids". My point is that it's just very risky to do this; it sounds like you guys beat the divorce odds and that's great (though I would point out how many people here have spouses that lose their minds after 30 years but we'll assume you two are not among them), but if for whatever reason you hadn't you'd have the very situation I was talking about. And while your hb prefers you at home does that mean he accepts that if one of you decides to leave he's on the hook for supporting you? That's the thing, a lot of people just don't realize that, and even if he says he would have no problem with it divorce has a way of shifting peoples opinions about things. As I said, I'm glad this has worked out for you guys but in general it's very risky.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

lifeistooshort said:


> The point of my post was not to trash the arrangement itself, just the risk of it. If anything I find that it often goes the other way in that stay at home parents look down on working parents because "sometime else is raising their kids". My point is that it's just very risky to do this; it sounds like you guys beat the divorce odds and that's great (though I would point out how many people here have spouses that lose their minds after 30 years but we'll assume you two are not among them), but if for whatever reason you hadn't you'd have the very situation I was talking about. And while your hb prefers you at home does that mean he accepts that if one of you decides to leave he's on the hook for supporting you? That's the thing, a lot of people just don't realize that, and even if he says he would have no problem with it divorce has a way of shifting peoples opinions about things. As I said, I'm glad this has worked out for you guys but in general it's very risky.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 Your point may be to not trash, but you feel it is INSANITY...those are your words... if I got on here and started talking like that about working women, I'd be C R U C I F I E D .....to say that marriages with both working parents are 'ideal" and our arrangement is insanity ...like it has 0 value at all or purpose other than stupidity ...all I see is judgement... it's ugly..

And we wonder why those like myself want to get a JAB in these discussions.... 

My husband has never felt any risk with me...I mean that....here is his response laying in bed (I just asked his opinion)...to this potential nightmare many speak of for men...

... "You're just really faithful, honest to a fault, you're not the average woman"... he is fully aware of how men get screwed by women in such situations...he works with a couple of them, he said they don't go on obsessively about it, but they do complain now & then & have made comments to him ...their words >> '*You'd be Fvcked... with all those kids you have"*.. and he says back to them "your Right!" ... but yet...when I worked more hours back in the day he was always complaining I was never home... he'd get home and I was out the door with a kiss...he's told me throughout all these years, he'd prefer me to not work at all... I am not married to the type of man who feels this is insanity...in the least way. 

If he thought I was a risk, sure he might be changing his tune...I dearly love him for feeling as he does, this gives me options, I don't feel pressured but to live our lives for what we feel is best for our family.... if you seen our driveway in the winter, 750 ft long, uphill , bendy ... and a hazard with some snow...it was our choice to move here cause we love it... but we'd need another 4x4...he'd be VERY worried about me on the winter roads, some things are just not worth it... every marriage is different... Now if I had a job at home on the computer, this would be very DOable...

But should I do this just so others don't look upon my husband as a numbskull and me as a potential Leech?? really as this is what it comes down to , for me.

If he ever dies on me (which is my only worry).... I will be Fvcked cause NO men today would ever dare give me a chance - because the women before them took them for all they had....they are all Jaded to the hilts about a Stay at home woman, complete deal breaker ... they think we are all LAZY, entitled ...and stupid...

One blessing is ..I'm not bad looking for a my age..body still kicking.... and I'd say I have personality to go with that... (thread topic)...gotta make up for my lack in other ways -since the kids and no skills would minus the points like hell...if I was on the market...again. I'd have no trouble getting a job, but I'd surely be on the poor side income wise (not in what we own though).


----------



## SimplyAmorous

lifeistooshort said:


> The point of my post was not to trash the arrangement itself,* just the risk of it. *


I could say the same thing about working Moms falling into affairs at the office... it's pretty common... there are risks with many set ups...they are just different risks... they carry different scenarios.


----------



## lifeistooshort

SimplyAmorous said:


> Your point may be to not trash, but you feel it is INSANITY...those are your words... if I got on here and started talking like that about working women, I'd be C R U C I F I E D .....to say that marriages with both working parents are 'ideal" and our arrangement is insanity ...like it has 0 value at all or purpose other than stupidity ...all I see is judgement... it's ugly..
> 
> And we wonder why those like myself want to get a JAB in these discussions....
> 
> My husband has never felt any risk with me...I mean that....here is his response laying in bed (I just asked his opinion)...to this potential nightmare many speak of for men...
> 
> ... "You're just really faithful, honest to a fault, you're not the average woman"... he is fully aware of how men get screwed by women in such situations...he works with a couple of them, he said they don't go on obsessively about it, but they do complain now & then & have made comments to him ...their words >> '*You'd be Fvcked... with all those kids you have"*.. and he says back to them "your Right!" ... but yet...when I worked more hours back in the day he was always complaining I was never home... he'd get home and I was out the door with a kiss...he's told me throughout all these years, he'd prefer me to not work
> at all... I am not married to the type of man who feels this is insanity...in the least way.
> 
> If he thought I was a risk, sure he might be changing his tune...I dearly love him for feeling as he does, this gives me options, I don't feel pressured but to live our lives for what we feel is best for our family.... if you seen our driveway in the winter, 750 ft long, uphill , bendy ... and a hazard with some snow...it was our choice to move here cause we love it... but we'd need another 4x4...he'd be VERY worried about me on the winter roads, some things are just not worth it... every marriage is different... Now if I had a job at home on the computer, this would be very DOable...
> 
> But should I do this just so others don't look upon my husband as a numbskull and me as a potential Leech?? really as this is what it comes down to , for me.
> 
> If he ever dies on me (which is my only worry).... I will be Fvcked cause NO men today would ever dare give me a chance - because the women before them took them for all they had....they are all Jaded to the hilts about a Stay at home woman, complete deal breaker ... they think we are all LAZY, entitled ...and stupid...
> 
> One blessing is ..I'm not bad looking for a my age..body still kicking.... and I'd say I have personality to go with that... (thread topic)...gotta make up for my lack in other ways -since the kids and no skills would minus the points like hell...if I was on the market...again. I'd have no trouble getting a job, but I'd surely be on the poor side income wise (not in what we own though).



I'm sorry you take it that way, though I wonder why you'd care either way if you're comfortable with your decision. It's not like you have to justify it to anyone else. Besides, you haven't said anything to counter my point that it's a risk, all you've done is repeat that you guys are fully committed. Again, I think that's great, but look at the discussion here of guys that are on the hook for supporting ex wives that didn't work outside the home. Do you think they realized this could happen when they agreed to this arrangement? if you're going to do it at least do it with your eyes wide open. My insanity remark stems from the fact that I personally don't think it's worth the risk, but life is all about risks and if you guys felt this one was worth it more power to you. Hopefully you don't think it's impossible for me to feel strongly about this without judging you. And fyi, I was home with my boys for 5 years, lest you think I don't know what stay at home parents do.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## treyvion

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You are a flat out liar if you think you don't leverage anything. Entitlement and using people....do tell?


I'm sure I do leverage things. But the difference between me and one of these flaming narcissist is I know my $hit stinks.

Also, I am willing to help those who help me. Some of the ones I described thought it would be a one way street and you are supposed to be so fulfilled to be using your time, your money and your resources on them.


----------



## lifeistooshort

SimplyAmorous said:


> I could say the same thing about working Moms falling into affairs at the office... it's pretty common... there are risks with many set ups...they are just different risks... they carry different scenarios.



That is true, there is always a risk in everything, we all decide what's worth it and what's not. Though I might point out how many on this site have stay at homes that have had affairs, so clearly working isn't necessarily a bigger risk for cheating than leaving your house. Even if it was, that would mean that since your hb works outside the home he's at risk of cheating. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## RandomDude

I may have been spoiled by STBX in terms of loyalty but quite frankly I don't think working or non-working makes a difference in the infidelity of one's spouse. It all comes down to personal responsibility and strength of their convictions.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

lifeistooshort said:


> My insanity remark stems from the fact that I personally don't think it's worth the risk, but life is all about risks and if you guys felt this one was worth it more power to you. *Hopefully you don't think it's impossible for me to feel strongly about this without judging you.* And fyi, I was home with my boys for 5 years, lest you think I don't know what stay at home parents do.


 I appreciate the honesty in that... none of us like to feel judged for being stupid.. my speaking on this as I did , is no different over some of the women who JUMP up with every "generalization" they feel a man is speaking on this forum... some of those threads get very heated... none of us want to be painted with a broad dis-colorful brush...
I fully realize most in this discussion utterly agree with you.... 

I am happy...the truth is... I just like to play Devils advocate once in a while... I can be contentious in this way.... What I don't care for is the judgement on *older fashioned lifestyles*.. in general... so I stick my head in for an alternative view when I see this.... even if it makes me look bad --that's fine.. JUDGE ME....

Because our experience has been so good...I speak.... Isn't this what we all do....we speak out of our experiences.. just because mine is rarer - should not make it invalid. 

I don't believe people should go into marriage blindly at all..eyes wide open is a must.... I am for knowing the depths......you talk about RISK, I despise RISK....if you had any idea how RISK adverse I am in real life....I bet I am far worse than yourself even...

I count the cost in quite the sorted detail with everything I set my hands too... my husband is the same.. I also feel compatibility, knowing thyself, healthy self awareness, team spirit... and marrying someone with strong values and integrity is UTTERLY essential for any marriage to thrive...in today's world especially.....and this goes for whether the wife works, or her & husband choose for her to stay home.


----------



## treyvion

RandomDude said:


> I may have been spoiled by STBX in terms of loyalty but quite frankly I don't think working or non-working makes a difference in the infidelity of one's spouse. It all comes down to personal responsibility and strength of their convictions.


Your not spoiled, that's the way it should be. You'll find another if that's what you choose


----------



## lifeistooshort

SimplyAmorous said:


> I appreciate the honesty in that... none of us like to feel judged for being stupid.. my speaking on this as I did , is no different over some of the women who JUMP up with every "generalization" they feel a man is speaking on this forum... some of those threads get very heated... none of us want to be painted with a broad dis-colorful brush...
> I fully realize most in this discussion utterly agree with you....
> 
> I am happy...the truth is... I just like to play Devils advocate once in a while... I can be contentious in this way.... What I don't care for is the judgement on *older fashioned lifestyles*.. in general... so I stick my head in for an alternative view when I see this.... even if it makes me look bad --that's fine.. JUDGE ME....
> 
> Because our experience has been so good...I speak.... Isn't this what we all do....we speak out of our experiences.. just because mine is rarer - should not make it invalid.
> 
> I don't believe people should go into marriage blindly at all..eyes wide open is a must.... I am for knowing the depths......you talk about RISK, I despise RISK....if you had any idea how RISK adverse I am in real life....I bet I am far worse than yourself even...
> 
> I count the cost in quite the sorted detail with everything I set my hands too... my husband is the same.. I also feel compatibility, knowing thyself, healthy self awareness, team spirit... and marrying someone with strong values and integrity is UTTERLY essential for any marriage to thrive...in today's world especially.....and this goes for whether the wife works, or her & husband choose for her to stay home.


Hey, I appreciate the devils advocate part and I can do it with the best of 'em. I usually ending up pi$$ing people off though.
I might have to dispute the part about you being more risk adverse though.I'm an actuary, we're notorious for despising risk.....it's our job to minimize it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

lifeistooshort said:


> Hey, I appreciate the devils advocate part and I can do it with the best of 'em. I usually ending up pi$$ing people off though.
> I might have to dispute the part about you being more risk adverse though.I'm an actuary, we're notorious for despising risk.....it's our job to minimize it.


 I may get my feathers ruffled ...but somehow I ENJOY this... now this you can call insanity... If you also enjoy playing 's advocate.....I LIKE people like you LifeIsTooShort!!! ( I use your name many times in my attitude). The ones who get pissed off and run home....those are not too much fun to play with... 

Though my ultimate aim in these things is...finding middle ground /understanding with other people...I like to hear how others live. share differences ...*it helps me learn*...but also present my view -if it has any redeeming value ....so people can find an acceptance and peace with other other, despite our differences... I enjoy this challenge. 

I really don't like cliques and division... when differing lifestyles or even religions have the power to reduce some of us into "black & white" thinkers -boxing those outside of our ways........Nothing wrong with the various shades of Gray...

*Different drums for different drummers*... ya know... It's all good 

Minimizing Risk...(especially in the financial) as we all need peace of mind & a roof over our heads...I feel is one of the wisest things we can do for ourselves. I feel this avoids many detours in our lives.. by having a plan, being prepared for a "worse case scenario" at any time... (not that any of us would be up for our spouses being killed in a car accident tomorrow)... but sh** happens, then we die... 

I used to worry A LOT in my younger years.. fearing "what if _____?"... "what if______?" happens.... this was a lot of wasted energy...but it had it's pluses...this always compelled me to look beyond the smaller picture and save for tomorrow...get my ducks in a row..this has always given me great peace, which makes for happier living..


----------



## heartsbeating

I've lost track of this thread and how it got here, but SA you bring so much to the table as a person. As for being traditional in your marital roles, I'd be surprised how raising a family of 6 could be managed (logistically - let alone the emotional support you give your children) and be anything but a traditional marriage. 

We all come with our own preferences and perspectives. I've maintained that working and feeling a sense of independence is good for me and it's something I need, (along with bills needing to be paid!). I value contributing to our household so that we can realize certain dreams together. Both myself and hubs expect one another to work however we are also encouraging of each other following dreams/goals as well, with a balanced approach to our financial realities. Cost of living where we are (and we enjoy where we live) means the reality is we'd both need to work if we were to raise a family. Still, it's just the two of us and at different times, one of us has financially carried the house-hold and adjusted the budget to make it work. 

SA I see you as being a resilient and resourceful character and you and your husband have made smart choices for the life you wanted to create together.


----------



## jennyh80

I believe that times in the near future will be tough for Western culture and there's probably no option for the most people live with only one person's income. Read: jobs going to Asia. Many struggle living alone in a small apartment already. Add a spouse and six children to that and it's a no no. Only the luckiest ones can do that, basically the highest job positions in a company.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

heartsbeating said:


> SA you bring so much to the table as a person. As for being traditional in your marital roles, I'd be surprised how raising a family of 6 could be managed (logistically - let alone the emotional support you give your children) and be anything but a traditional marriage.
> 
> *We all come with our own preferences and perspectives.*


 Yes ... How very true it is....

HeartsBeating for your words...

We are living our dream as we envisioned it....... Really...it turned out better than we dared imagine ... as we figured we'd never get a house /property as nice as what we have today....with my staying home, on his primary income.... Though we did save like hoarders in our early years (even skipping our Honeymoon crazily).... we worked hard & sacrificed ...just to put down a whopping down payment so we could get things paid off quickly.



> I've maintained that working and feeling a sense of independence is good for me and it's something I need, (along with bills needing to be paid!). I value contributing to our household so that we can realize certain dreams together. Both myself and hubs expect one another to work however we are also encouraging of each other following dreams/goals as well, with a balanced approach to our financial realities. *Cost of living where we are (and we enjoy where we live) means the reality is we'd both need to work if we were to raise a family*. Still, it's just the two of us and at different times, one of us has financially carried the house-hold and adjusted the budget to make it work.


 ...And all of us should go after what makes us HAPPY/ fulfilled...whether that is Big city life, entertainment on every corner... or hanging out in the country, a more simple lifestyle..... .The truth is, we likely live in one of the lowest cost areas in the United States .....where Amish people reside.. 

... ... unemployment is high even...it took my husband a # of years to get a better paying Job.... even though his job would be considered Lower income to MOST people...In our area ...it is GOLDEN... many men asking him "Can you get me in there?!"...we are very thankful for his JOB ..it has allowed us to realize our dreams...

I really can not relate to some of the higher cost Taxes and things spoken on this forum for some people in larger cities, even for the cost for a 1 room apartment!


----------

