I “wish you well,” too.

I’ve read a lot of the feminist blogs you’ve mentioned where you say you felt ripped apart. Perhaps I see this differently from you, and you are entitled to your own feelings, of course, but it seems to me people are not ripping you apart so much as your husband, whom I personally think is a first class asshole who doesn’t deserve ANY woman. He’s ashamed of you because you aren’t anorexic anymore? He’s a jerk, end of story.
I wish you well.

I’m a firm believer that we change more people’s minds by telling our stories than by yelling at them. Jen, your story is incredibly powerful. Thank you for sharing it.

I wrote about the political power of personal blogs last year at:
http://www.halfchangedworld.com/2005/03/all_choir_no_co.html

Marriage is a two-way street….

This entire discussion circles around ideas of autonomy within marriage.

I share Robert’s view that people should generally be able to define their relationships for themselves, and other people’s preferences should not enter into it. So if a couple wants to base their marriage on the premise that the husband won’t lose hair, let them. Seems crazy to me, but hey - it’s not my marriage.

But this seems like a strawman argument. I sense people’s discomfort stems not from the idea that people might enter into a marriage based on such narrow contractual terms, but rather that people might try to impute such terms into an existing marriage.

My own marriage is a very ill-defined affair based on mutual admiration and lust. (And, for what it’s worth, neither of us weigh in under 200 lbs.) The extent of our claims on each other is vague but far-reaching. Outside of work hours, I make no appointments without consulting my wife. My time is not my own; it is a community asset. (Ok, and she serves as the family social coordinator, but that’s not the point.)

Notwithstanding my unbounded commitment to her, I still maintain a high degree of freedom of conscience - for better or worse. When my wife comes home bitching about her boss, I still encourage her to consider other perspectives. I know she is not receptive to that message at that moment. I know she just wants to blow off steam in a supportive environment after a stressful day. And I do what I can to accommodate. But when she asks my opinion, I don’t lie to her. I retain that part of my soul. She has learned to avoid asking my opinion on such occasions and now calls other friends for that kind of support.

The neighbor is aghast that I would stumble on so fundamental an aspect of married life. He freely acknowledges that he tells his wife what she wants to hear when she’s stressed. But while providing that kind of support does not offend his sense of autonomy, a joint checking account does. My neighbors keep their finances separate and have ridged rules for how much contribution each one makes to joint expenses. They jealously guard their discretion over their money. Perhaps coincidentally, they generally take separate vacations with their kids. Each to his own, I guess.

(For what it’s worth, the neighbors are skinny. Just as well; we regularly exchange dinner invitations, but I suspect my family is getting the better end of the bargain!)

Given patriarchal tradition, it may be conventional for feminists to defend autonomy within marriage. And as a legal, push-comes-to-shove matter, I share this view. But as a practical matter, neither my wife nor I exercise sole discretion over much. While I recognize and support the idea that people might agree to reduce their marriage commitments to a finite set of strict obligations, this idea bears very little relationship to my marriage.

Relationships are a two-way street, as I’m sure you know. If one chooses to be “persnickety” about anything, that one is certainly not acting in good faith about his/her relationship. But it can’t be fixed in a blog, and I’m not Ann Landers; they’ll have to deal with it themselves.

OK. What if the other chooses to be persnickety about things like hair, weight, or money?

Why must the accomodation be for the other spouse to go against his/her desires? The woman can learn to accept facial hair, the man can learn to accept short hair. It becomes a battle between “If you loved me, you’d do xxx” versus “If you loved me, you wouldn’t ask me to do xxx when you know I don’t want to.” How about we accept the other as he/she chooses to be? Mind-blowing concept, isn’t it?

For the love of sodomized squirrels.

I have nothing to add. What more is there to say, really?

Then that would fall under the “unintentional” part.

It is not false advertising to fail to keep to non-existent promises!!!

For the love of sodomized squirrels.

I quite agree.

I’m really not sure where the discomfort and incomprehension is flowing from. Is personal accountability so threatening that it must be attacked even when it’s being applied to or by complete strangers?

If you didn’t make a promise, then the promise wasn’t made.

Arguing “but it’s not reasonable to expect people to keep promises they never made!” is true, and irrelevant. If the promise wasn’t made, then there’s no violation of the promise.

I am only talking about people who did promise things, and who only promised things which they could reasonably promise to do, and who then intentionally didn’t do those things, OK?

Christ on a crutch.

Guy/gal says they’re fit and active and intends to stay that way, and starts couch camping - false advertising.

How can that possibly be false advertising? Anyone who promises something like that is promising stuff they can’t guarantee keeping. Suppose the fit-active fan develops a chronic disease which has a side-effect of lethargy, thus turning them into a “couch camper”, as you put it?

The point is that people have no business ASSUMING that implicit promises were made at the time of marriage concerning always going to stay like they were at the time of marriage. Those assumptions shouldn’t be made because it is almost certain that people will change. People who think their spouse is always going to be the same as when they married aren’t mature enough to get married in the first place.

The nature of the promise is immaterial.

It isn’t shallow or evil to expect people to live up to the promises they’ve made.

Yes, shall we look at the promises that they made? If they married and used one of those fairly standard vows that include the phrase “in sickness and in health” then that means they DO have an obligation. Not a right to complain when a fit-active spouse gets a lethargic disease, note, but an OBLIGATION to stick by the ailing spouse. THAT was the promise they made.

The point is that certain promises were NOT made at the altar. Nobody promised to keep a full head of hair. Nobody promised to not gain weight with pregnancy. It is not false advertising to fail to keep to non-existent promises!!!

I went much the same route, full disclosure or nothing! If he were going to leave me for slovenliness, depression, laziness, or any of a dozen other things, he’d have taken off years before we ever got married.

Also, if one partner has specific expectations of “promised value,” he’s got to make those pretty darned explicit before the fact. Most wedding vows don’t include riders about hair length or pay check, but rather speak only in terms of lifetime commitment through the good and the bad. If I took a regular old wedding vow, I would certainly claim “false advertising” if my spouse were to take a powder as soon as I changed my appearance or my career ambitions.

If you believe that marriage “should be about having someone you can count on to be there for you regardless of the changes you may undergo in your appearance, your lifestyle, or your role in the relationship”, then I by and large agree with you, and suggest that we each find partners with similar values.

But that isn’t the dominant paradigm, and it does not describe the realistic beliefs of many people going into marriage today.

Does it describe some people? Certainly - and mazel tov for them. If the spouse they thought was there to be a partner-in-growth starts bitching about take-home pay or hair length, they’ve got a beef.

But there are a lot of people for whom this is not true, and it’s invalid to dismiss a legitimate claim under one system of transactional relations on the grounds that it doesn’t hold water under a system of TR to which the complainants are not a party. It amounts to “my values are the right ones and you should use them, instead of yours.”

The notion of bringing “promised value” into a relationship is all wrong. A lifelong partnership such as marriage should never be treated as a business transaction in which the parties bargain for specific duties and compensation. Such a transaction would be not only impractical but inhumane. Marriage (or any other type of committed partnership) should be about having someone you can count on to be there for you regardless of the changes you may undergo in your appearance, your lifestyle, or your role in the relationship. It obviously needs to be a two-way street involving mutual respect and efforts to please each other, but I think it’s utterly cold and wrong headed to yell false advertising when your partner’s personal evolution does not match your expectations. Part of your job is to go with the flow as your partner grows and changes.

I would advise you to seek out people and partners who hold those values, then. The fact that you’re under pressure to be visually acceptable changes nothing; if you make part of your promised value in a relationship your visual acceptability, and then intentionally punt that acceptability, you’re a bad actor. Period. Everyone is under “pressure” to do something.

That doesn’t change the general question. If you “formed a relationship on the basis of character, spirit, and intellect”, and then deliberately didn’t deliver on the promises in those areas you had made, you would be acting dishonestly - false advertising, as it were.

Guy/gal says they’re going to get/stay rich, and turns into a bum - false advertising.

Guy/gal says they’re fit and active and intends to stay that way, and starts couch camping - false advertising.

Guy/gal says they’re a spiritual person who loves kittens, and turns out to be a “Jerry Springer” addict who uses homeless cats for garnish - false advertising.

The nature of the promise is immaterial.

It isn’t shallow or evil to expect people to live up to the promises they’ve made. The counterarguments to date have been underwhelming.