Is weight gain grounds for divorce/ultimatum?

[Kharadin]

Chances are if you're considering breaking up with your significant other based solely on their weight then either the relationship was already pretty trash or you're a bit of an ass.

[pathora44]

So can you leave your spouse over them gaining weight/not looking the same as when you dated or married? The answer is an easy yes. The issue is when you go through the divorce proceedings prepared to get raked over the coals for alimony because unless you have an an airtight prenuptial agreement, an extremely biased judge in your favor, the literal greatest divorce attorney in the world, or your spouse went from a healthy weight to 600 lbs+ then you are going to get destroyed.

When people ask these kinds of questions if they can do something. You can do anything you want that is physically possible. The issue comes with the consequences from those actions is where the problems arise. It is not going to end pretty if you want to leave your spouse over some weight gain. So go ahead and leave your spouse because they put on some weight or don't look exactly like they did when you married just don't be surprised when you are paying giant alimony checks every month for that.

- - - Updated - - -

Jesus the men in this thread are so fucking pathetic.

"My girl got fat but at the same time I became a totally ripped stud who gets all the ladies, maybe that fat bitch I'm suck with will change her ways if I start cheating on her!"

Fucking Christ.

Reminds me of this aggravating commercial I hear on XM radio in my car from this Big Lou Insurance guy. It basically goes on how he is on his third trophy wife who is nagging him to buy an extremely expensive life insurance policy. Their commercials always end that he is just like you and all I can think is this guy is one of those piece of shit assholes no one can stand to be around for more then 5 mins.

[Mistame]

If I am misinterpreting you, that is actually on you.

No, it's not. A statement inherently means exactly what it says and nothing more. It is the onus of the reader to interpret it correctly. Claiming something "implies" something other than what it actually says is the fault, and responsibility, of the person making that claim. I never said they were synonyms, you implied that.

And you literally just proved my point.

What "point" is that? You've yet to actually make one. And it certainly doesn't counter what I posted. You claimed I "literally" didn't say that love is caring. I proved otherwise.

It's not.

It is. Literally.

Feelings don't determine reality. There are numerous cases I can list where a person can claim they love someone but in reality do not. Just because you think, feel or believe you love someone doesn't mean you do.

You can't really be this stupid. You're effectively saying that feelings don't determine... wait for it... feelings. Because, you know, caring and by proxy, "love", are feelings. That is the reality.

You claim I have a Disney Princess definition ... dude, this literally you arguing for how love is defined in at least one Disney movie. Did you say that a 13 year old girl's romanticized definition of love was bullshit ... you are literally arguing for that here now.

No, I'm not. "Disney Princess" refers to exaggerated notions of what "love" actually is, eg, "true love", "meant to be", etc. By claiming that someone who leaves their partner over something that you perceive to be petty doesn't really "love" them, you're placing your interpretation of "love" on a pedestal, as some sacred thing that can't exist in a scenario that you disagree with. It's nonsense.

Says the person arguing caring and love are the same thing, and then arguing it's not when it suits them.

I never argued otherwise. Read better.

All evidence to the contrary.

What "evidence"? Your entire "argument" is based on conjecture.

Accuses me of straw man ... straw mans argument. I am not arguing for unconditional love. You are correct there is no such thing. I never claimed there was, given you claimed you know my argument and then immediately straw mans after that is kind of funny. You literally cut out a portion of where I can understand someone falling out of love with someone ...

That was a tangent, not a straw man. Learn how words work.

I am arguing if it is specifically just looks, that you never actually loved them.

And you're wrong.

Don't use words you don't understand. We are arguing for a hypothetical case where appearance is the only factor, therefor my opinion here is on a hypothetical where we know all the information involved.

And yet you're missing the most important piece of information: How that person feels. You don't know how they feel, so you don't get to say whether they "love" them. Your interpretation of "love" what you believe is required for it be "love" is utterly irrelevant.

Well, it had been meme'd. It's from a Star Wars game ... it is hard to find something from Star Wars that hasn't been meme'd. Also, memes are a part of culture, if you view them as garbage, I honestly pity you.

Most "culture" is garbage. As far as your pity goes, I thought we'd already established that I don't give a shit what you think.

[ASecretOne]

Going from 120 lbs -> 300 lbs not only would make someone unattracted to the other person, but also shows the other person has no regard for their own personal health and well-being and therefore can't be trusted to care for the personal health or well-being of their partner. Most people would be lying if they said they wouldn't leave or at least heavily consider leaving their SO if they underwent a massive weight change like this.

[Darththeo]

No, it's not. A statement inherently means exactly what it says and nothing more. It is the onus of the reader to interpret it correctly. Claiming something "implies" something other than what it actually says is the fault, and responsibility, of the person making that claim. I never said they were synonyms, you implied that.

So not only do you understand your own argument, you don't know how to make arguments .. got it.

What "point" is that? You've yet to actually make one. And it certainly doesn't counter what I posted. You claimed I "literally" didn't say that love is caring. I proved otherwise.

I made several and all you have done is assert it is false.

It is. Literally.

It's literally not ... and given you can't even admit to straw manning later shows either you that you 1) don't know what an actual straw man is, 2) don't care what it is, 3) just are attempting to look rational or 4) just copying someone else.

You can't really be this stupid. You're effectively saying that feelings don't determine... wait for it... feelings. Because, you know, caring and by proxy, "love", are feelings. That is the reality.

Yeah, I don't think you understand how dangerous your stance is here. This means abusers actually love their victims ... they don't. They can feel the love the person, doesn't mean they do.

No, I'm not. "Disney Princess" refers to exaggerated notions of what "love" actually is, eg, "true love", "meant to be", etc. By claiming that someone who leaves their partner over something that you perceive to be petty doesn't really "love" them, you're placing your interpretation of "love" on a pedestal, as some sacred thing that can't exist in a scenario that you disagree with. It's nonsense.

Yeah, you are still straw manning. I never put my definition of love on a pedestal and it isn't just mine ... it is actually, get this, a general consensus on love. I have even outline cases where I can see someone leaving. The fact you think otherwise doesn't leave you with any good options. So are you not reading or straw manning ... it has to be one or the other.

I never argued otherwise. Read better.

Or maybe you should read your own arguments before posting ... just saying.

What "evidence"? Your entire "argument" is based on conjecture.

*points to everyone of your posts*
Seriously, if you can't even bother to read what you type, that ain't on me. I am convinced you don't even know what the hell you are arguing for.

That was a tangent, not a straw man. Learn how words work.

Given your track record ... yeah, I think I understand the words just fine.
You certainly couldn't teach me.
Also, if it is not needed, a tangent can be used to straw man. Just because it is a "tangent" doesn't make it not a straw man.

And you're wrong.

Only in your mind.

And yet you're missing the most important piece of information: How that person feels. You don't know how they feel, so you don't get to say whether they "love" them. Your interpretation of "love" what you believe is required for it be "love" is utterly irrelevant.

Just because a person claims they love someone doesn't mean they do. Feelings do not dictate reality, nor do they actually dictate what is the truth. There were women I felt I loved, I was wrong and I didn't love them. You only need to talk to people to understand that just the mere claim or feeling you are in love doesn't mean you are. This is a fact, not opinion. Seriously, I don't care what you claim it doesn't mean you are right ... even about your own feelings.

Seriously, you are arguing a person who abuses their partner in reality "loves them" ... dude, what the hell is wrong with you?

Most "culture" is garbage. As far as your pity goes, I thought we'd already established that I don't give a shit what you think.

I'll add culture to words you don't understand.

[Ghostpanther]

Right, but my objection here is that people are treating weight gain as though it doesn't relate to anything other than appearance. Everyone expects appearance to generally degrade with age, but weight gain also indicates a suite of bad habits and a disregard for even attempting to be attractive to your partner.

I do see your point, esp if the one has become obese. But I still would not divorce someone because of it. I know I am in the minority on this subject, but I take my marriage vows very seriously. I only see one justified reason to get a divorce and very few others for separating. Fearing for your life because the other has threaten you would be one.

[Easo]

OP, this is not black or white only.
Getting 5 more kilos will not matter to 99% of population.
Getting 15 more, well... Yeah, no one really wants their other half to start becoming a slob. If they do not do anything about it and do not listen, I would say it is.

[Mistame]

So not only do you understand your own argument, you don't know how to make arguments .. got it.

I understand what I said just fine. Your misrepresentation of it doesn't change what it means.

I made several and all you have done is assert it is false.

Did you? Also, the second half of that doesn't make any sense. Try again, in English, please.

It's literally not

Stop using "literally" wrong. You set up a false analogy as an argument to a misrepresentation of my point as a means to counter my actual point. That is literally a straw man argument.

Yeah, I don't think you understand how dangerous your stance is here. This means abusers actually love their victims ... they don't. They can feel the love the person, doesn't mean they do.

You're regressing to your nonsensical notion of what "love" is again. "Love" is just a description of how someone feels. It's not an actual thing. No matter the circumstances, if a person feels like they "love" someone, they do. That's how that works.

I never put my definition of love on a pedestal

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...%20of%20speech

and it isn't just mine ... it is actually, get this, a general consensus on love.

Now you're just being ridiculous. There is no "consensus" on what love is or how it works, outside of how it's defined. Again, the no one else gets to decide if someone "loves" someone else, only they do.

I have even outline cases where I can see someone leaving.

You're missing the point: Your opinions are irrelevant.

Just because it is a "tangent" doesn't make it not a straw man.

No, what makes it not a straw man is the fact that it's not an argument made to counter a misrepresentation of your stance, it's simply a deviation from the context of the conversation.

Just because a person claims they love someone doesn't mean they do.

People can lie, but if they feel like they "love" someone, they do.

Feelings do not dictate reality, nor do they actually dictate what is the truth.

You keep saying this while not realizing that not only does it sound stupid, it doesn't actually mean anything. "Love" is not something that's tangible or measurable, it's a feeling.

You only need to talk to people to understand that just the mere claim or feeling you are in love doesn't mean you are.

"In love" is just doubling down on the nonsensical romanticism of "love". While it's certainly reasonable to claim that someone might believe they care for someone more than they actually do, if a person feels like they "love" someone, they do.

This is a fact, not opinion.

[Citation needed]

Seriously, you are arguing a person who abuses their partner in reality "loves them" ... dude, what the hell is wrong with you?

Are you arguing that you're stupid?

[Darththeo]

Did you? Also, the second half of that doesn't make any sense. Try again, in English, please.

It is plain English. Your entire counter point is an assertion that I am wrong ... seriously, it wasn't that hard.

Stop using "literally" wrong. You set up a false analogy as an argument to a misrepresentation of my point as a means to counter my actual point. That is literally a straw man argument.

It is less of a straw man than half the crap you have pulled. And it is literally (not used wrong) not a straw man. You state "If you feel you love the person, it's love" ... I bring up how people declare love on first date. "STRAW MAN!!!!" No, that's reductio ad absurdum. You're stance that all that is required is to feel you love someone is nonsensical.

You're regressing to your nonsensical notion of what "love" is again. "Love" is just a description of how someone feels. It's not an actual thing. No matter the circumstances, if a person feels like they "love" someone, they do. That's how that works.

Translation: You live in a box. No matter how many times you assert "That's how it works" ... you are wrong, plain and simple. Just your assertion well "Love is a feeling therefor if you feel love you love them" is factually false. I gave a personal example, I gave other examples ... your only counter is to call me stupid.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...%20of%20speech

/facepalm I am responding to the figure of speech by using the word in it to address it. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

Now you're just being ridiculous. There is no "consensus" on what love is or how it works, outside of how it's defined. Again, the no one else gets to decide if someone "loves" someone else, only they do.

And you are wrong ... do you even talk to people off the internet?

You're missing the point: Your opinions are irrelevant.

You are missing the point of why I bring it up ... it's pointing out how you are choosing to straw man my argument.

No, what makes it not a straw man is the fact that it's not an argument made to counter a misrepresentation of your stance, it's simply a deviation from the context of the conversation.

Then it is irrelevant and did not require to be brought up. As it added nothing to the discussion worth discussing, even as an aside.

People can lie, but if they feel like they "love" someone, they do.

No, they feel they love them. It doesn't mean they do. You can be mistaken about your own feelings. This isn't lying. Again, I myself have been with women that I had thought I loved, but looking back I realized that I was wrong and in reality EVEN during that time didn't love them. I was just unaware I was mistaken at the time it happened. I am not unique in this regard as it is extremely unlikely for that to be the case.

You keep saying this while not realizing that not only does it sound stupid, it doesn't actually mean anything. "Love" is not something that's tangible or measurable, it's a feeling.

How stupid an idea sounds has little to do with whether or not it is true. Just calling an idea stupid doesn't make it false. All you are doing is telling me that to you it sounds stupid, that means nothing. I give examples ... you just go "NUH UH! STUPID!"

"In love" is just doubling down on the nonsensical romanticism of "love". While it's certainly reasonable to claim that someone might believe they care for someone more than they actually do, if a person feels like they "love" someone, they do.

In love is literally a synonym for saying you love someone. X loves Y is the same as X is in love with Y. You can't just keep redefining how you use terms. So this basically boils down to you think love is bullshit. Meaning why are you even wasting your time?

[Citation needed]

If you didn't cut out parts of the argument, you wouldn't have needed this meme.

Are you arguing that you're stupid?

You haven't really addressed my points, you do know that right? You deny reality, redefine terms and constantly shift what you are arguing about despite stating you aren't. You haven't read anything and shift that on to me.

[insert random number]

I do see your point, esp if the one has become obese. But I still would not divorce someone because of it. I know I am in the minority on this subject, but I take my marriage vows very seriously. I only see one justified reason to get a divorce and very few others for separating. Fearing for your life because the other has threaten you would be one.

Like I mentioned a while back in the thread. It is beyond me how someone could watch their loved one partake in structural self harm. I just couldn't sit there and watch. Part of me respects the fact that you would be willing to compromise you own happiness to uphold your vows, part of thinks it's insanity and unhealthy.

To fair I've never aspired to get married and there's a good chance that I never will.

[Kharadin]

Well said (but in all fairness...if the significant other gained 100 pounds, that is a bit of a different thing. Though...it doesn't happen overnight and you could still talk it out, discuss,confront, stop, reverse it)

For sure, but obviously if you're either so callous or so uninvested in the relationship that your immediate response is "GET SLIM OR I'MMA GO FUCK SOMEONE ELSE" then there are other problems too, significant ones.

[Ghostpanther]

Like I mentioned a while back in the thread. It is beyond me how someone could watch their loved one partake in structural self harm. I just couldn't sit there and watch. Part of me respects the fact that you would be willing to compromise you own happiness to uphold your vows, part of thinks it's insanity and unhealthy.

To fair I've never aspired to get married and there's a good chance that I never will.

Yeah. I would not sit there and watch my loved one self destruct ether. I would try to help them of course. But I do not have this issue personally in my marriage. And it makes no difference whatsoever what others think of my devotion. I hold fast to my convictions and strive to keep any vows I make.

[insert random number]

Yeah. I would not sit there and watch my loved one self destruct ether. I would try to help them of course. But I do not have this issue personally in my marriage. And it makes no difference whatsoever what others think of my devotion. I hold fast to my convictions and strive to keep any vows I make.

I understand and that makes perfect sense, after all they're your convictions and vows. The rest of the world doesn't really come into play. Just to be clear I wouldn't sit still either, I would also try and help them and I would only consider leaving after i'm out of options and ideas and desperate. Maybe I should have been clearer about that. In my head that kind of goes without saying.

[Sezh]

It's not about the weight gain per se. If the person you're married to cares so little about staying in relative shape for the person they supposedly care about most in the world, they don't actually care about that person. And that is reason to leave.

Both my wife and I have gained some weight since when we were teenagers and we're both cool with it, although we help each other out to stay healthy because we love each other.

[Mistame]

It is plain English.

It's piss poor English, at best.

And it is literally (not used wrong) not a straw man.

It is:

You state "If you feel you love the person, it's love"

I never stated that, nor was it my argument:

Their desire to be together, or not, does not dictate the status of their "love". How they feel does.

You literally attacked an argument I never made.

You're stance that all that is required is to feel you love someone is nonsensical.

Except that's not what I said.

Just your assertion well "Love is a feeling therefor if you feel love you love them" is factually false.

You cannot say that a person doesn't feel what they think they feel. Only they can. Neither you, nor anyone else, gets to dictate whether what someone feels is "love". If they deem their feelings of affection deep enough to warrant them thinking they love them, they do.

Also, "factually" requires that you actually present, you know, facts.

I gave a personal example, I gave other examples

Anecdotes and hypotheticals aren't facts.

And you are wrong

Opinion.

Then it is irrelevant and did not require to be brought up. As it added nothing to the discussion worth discussing, even as an aside.

So?

No, they feel they love them. It doesn't mean they do. You can be mistaken about your own feelings.

This again. Sure, people can misjudge how they feel. But that's the exception, not the rule. "Love" is defined as, "an intense feeling of affection". If someone feels an "intense feeling of affection" toward someone and they consider it love (because only the individual dictates what is or isn't "love" to them), then it is. Period.

How stupid an idea sounds has little to do with whether or not it is true.

A degree of absurdity to the point of stupidity inherently implies an invalid position. In the context of "love", how a person feels is the only thing that dictates their truth and "reality". Neither you, nor anyone else, get a say in the matter.

In love is literally a synonym for saying you love someone. X loves Y is the same as X is in love with Y.

Your naivety is showing. https://www.google.com/search?q=love+vs+in+love

So this basically boils down to you think love is bullshit.

No, it just means that my (decades of) experience shows that overly-romanticized and absolutist versions (like yours) of "love" are bullshit.

If you didn't cut out parts of the argument, you wouldn't have needed this meme.

If you're going to claim something is a fact, provide evidence.

You haven't really addressed my points, you do know that right?

You haven't had any, other than stating what you think "love" is. If you want pose a valid rational argument, I'll consider it. Otherwise, I've adult things to do.

[Darththeo]

-snip-

I am done. You sheer level of being a hypocrite has broke any actual desire I have to continue any argument/debate with you. Good day.

[Elkfingers]

If you dumped someone because they gained weight and that reason alone ... you never actually loved them. You could think you loved them, you could have felt you loved them ... but the reality is you didn't.

I get what you're saying, but let's get back to reality for a second. Relationships are complicated things, and break-ups after a long time together don't happen because of one thing. There can be significant events, but there will always be other problems alongside them too.

Like sure if somebody was like 'my long-term partner gained weight so I dumped them' and that was literally their only justification, then that would be pretty awful. The likelihood though is that there would probably be stresses that caused somebody to gain weight, and most non-sociopathic people would probably try to help their partner manage the problem and get back on track. That could put strain on things too, especially if their expectations are different.

It's all hypothetical obviously, but my point is that even if problems stem from one thing, it's rarely just that simple fact that causes the break-up itself, and there are plenty of scenarios where somebody can break up with someone they love even while they are still in love - not least because if you love somebody and staying together is only going to makes you both fucked and unhappy, it's the only thing you realistically can do if you love them.

The idea that if you really love somebody you'll stay with them no matter what is noble, but ultimately pretty naeve. Who actually knows how they'll react when faced with unexpected changes?

[Darththeo]

I get what you're saying, but let's get back to reality for a second. Relationships are complicated things, and break-ups after a long time together don't happen because of one thing. There can be significant events, but there will always be other problems alongside them too.

Like sure if somebody was like 'my long-term partner gained weight so I dumped them' and that was literally their only justification, then that would be pretty awful. The likelihood though is that there would probably be stresses that caused somebody to gain weight, and most non-sociopathic people would probably try to help their partner manage the problem and get back on track. That could put strain on things too, especially if their expectations are different.

It's all hypothetical obviously, but my point is that even if problems stem from one thing, it's rarely just that simple fact that causes the break-up itself, and there are plenty of scenarios where somebody can break up with someone they love even while they are still in love - not least because if you love somebody and staying together is only going to makes you both fucked and unhappy, it's the only thing you realistically can do if you love them.

The idea that if you really love somebody you'll stay with them no matter what is noble, but ultimately pretty naeve. Who actually knows how they'll react when faced with unexpected changes?

Yeah, I never claimed you have to stay with your partner or you never loved them.

[Elkfingers]

Yeah, I never claimed you have to stay with your partner or you never loved them.

Sure, but then that means your argument is literally 'if you leave your partner for one reason and one reason alone, that's bad'. I guess that's true, but it's kind of facile and empty.

[Darththeo]

Sure, but then that means your argument is literally 'if you leave your partner for one reason and one reason alone, that's bad'. I guess that's true, but it's kind of facile and empty.

And that is also no true of my argument. I think it is perfectly okay to leave your partner if they are a baby murderer for example.
I am speaking about trivial reasons. If you married something, there needed to be something more than just something that trivial that led you to want to be with them.