Man divorces & sues wife for being ugly, wins

Bells I herd a while ago about deaf parents shunning babies who could hear, wanting to screen for hearing in IVF.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/09/genetics.medicalresearch

Then there are designer babies
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...a-moral-obligation-says-Oxford-professor.html

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational...7s-nothing-wrong-with-designer-babies/4307966

Then there is the thread about a women in the UK aborting male fetuses because they are male

What is perfect to one person isn't perfect to another.

Edit to add: (sorry just found this)

So according to that article its completely normal to want to control what your baby looks like, nothing possession like at all apparently and this is not in a third world backwater but "the pinnacle of ethics" *sarcasm* since people seem to judge if a decision is right by what a US court would do

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure, but going by this principle turns the principle of justice on its head, as the measure for judgment isn't some objective, predefined morality anymore, but the relative effect that an action or omission had on a person.

Like saying "Because I feel hurt, it must be that you intended to hurt me" and then concluding that a person's hurt automatically means that a wrongful action or omission was committed, and with the intent to do hurt.

Just because a person feels deceived, this is not enough to conclude that the other person intended to deceive them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If a one person kills another, completely by accident, there is no malicious intent to take a life. But a life is still taken, is it not? If an amusement park operator does not test all his rides daily, several times even. Assuming since they were fine yesterday there is no reason to assume they aren't fine today. And someone gets hurt because a ride malfunctioned. Something that could have been prevented if he had just tested his rides everyday. Now the park owner didn't intend for anyone to get hurt but they did because he failed to do something he should have. So he did something wrong and someone was hurt. No malicious intent involved. Just a poor judgement call. This is how you can do something wrong, without malicious intent. but still be liable. And I think that is the case here with this woman. Maybe she didn't perceive any potential harm in not disclosing, maybe she was embarrassed. Not necessarily being malicious at all. She simply didn't take things into consideration and disclose everything about herself. What if he had been married several times before. Never had kids by any of them but still had a track record of divorce, and he failed to disclose that? That is something that would bother me because it shows something about who he is as a person. And a person willing to go through so much to change the way they look says something about them. I don't like the way I look, but I would never go under the knife to fix my imperfections (the dental work was medical not cosmetic). This shows that I face life as it comes to me, I deal with it. I don't demand perfection. A person with multiple divorces may have poor judgement or bad relationship skills, just lack the will to try and make things work. These are things a person should know about their potential spouse and it isn't something that should be suspected of anyone you date necessarily. In our culture, anyway, its rude to ask questions that can be seen as prying into one's personal issues. It's more proper to allow someone to disclose as they feel comfortable doing so. I wish we could come out and be direct and ask all the weird questions but our social rules of etiquette don't allow for it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He wasn't talking in terms of justice, merely in terms of preference. The decision by the court was made on the basis that the woman deceived the man, not what the child looked like. The child was a catalyst for the man's suspicions, but did not play a role in the court case.

Her intent to hurt isn't relevant. What is relevant is that she deceived him. The court's ruling is essentially that a person has a right to know if you've changed your appearance via cosmetic surgery drastically prior to your meeting, and that if you don't share this information, you're guilty of deception. Perhaps the ruling would have been different if the surgeries had been as a result of a disfiguring accident or something, but these were elective procedures.

True. But in this case, he was deceived.

 

So... the wife in question spent 100k USD for plastic surgery & the lawsuit ended with an 120k USD award for „the victim.” And all this is happening in China where the GDP per capita is 8.5k USD. Well, if I were to guess what happened here is that the woman belongs to a filthy rich family (as some Chinese indeed are) while the man simply took advantage of her wealth from start to finish. But I may be wrong, of course.

 

Yes, well that's all very nice Wynn, but it isn't very much in touch with reality.

Attraction is a natural rule, not a philosophical one.

Feminists all over the world have been trying for decades to try to convince us otherwise, but a fact is a fact and 1 + 1 still won't equal three.
The most you'll ever achieve is to convince others that it does. Women are doing very well in that regard.

Until women are actually equal to men, as opposed to simply claiming they are, nothing will change.

Now, I have two questions for you.
The first being, what exactly do I mean by "equal"?
Second - am I merely trolling here?

 

It certainly isn't "much in touch" with the reality of those who seek to gratify their senses and therefore deliberately enter relationships.

And I'm not a feminist.

I can't read minds, but I suppose you are referring to the tendency that men are generally not expected to be good-looking in order to be considered "romantic relationship material," while women are - an ugly man is still considered worthy of romantic love, while an ugly woman isn't.


Question for you:

What is a person's true face?

The one when they were born?
When they are 15, 30, 50, 70 years old?
When they are in a good mood?
When they are in a bad mood?

If a person loses a lot of weight, which is their true look?

Do you have to ask?

 

if you don't know what you mean by equal, how are we supposed to know? lol

It would appear so, but only you know that for sure, the fact that you even asks suggests to me that the idea has crossed your mind.

also, it was established earlier that wynn was being sarcastic in the comments you quoted wynn on. I doubted it initially but as the thread carried on it became more obvious to me that wynn was indeed being sarcastic.

 

I have heard plenty of men state the same observation in our society. None defending it but still unable to deny it.

rhetorical questions I assume intended to make us question our own motives. Since, I can not imagine there is any definitive correct answer to any of those questions.

 

I'm sorry, what? Where is this tendency manifesting itself? In other words, where is it that you draw this from? I'm trying to figure out what would make you think that ugly is different for men than it is for women. Or is it just your own bitterness here?

Ridiculous question. There is a difference between weight change and plastic surgery. Do I really need to explain it to you?

 

Of course it isn't. Reaching much?
Your own feigned outrage aside, what you obviously don't want to acknowledge is that the level of acceptance of physical ugliness is different.

That which you would prefer to believe isn't what is, Balerion.

 

I have observed men making the same statement. Actually, assuming wynn is female, she would be the only female I have ever witnessed making that remark. And while on the surface I can see why someone would believe that, I don't think it is quite that simple.

The reason I can see why they would think that is because many women claim looks don't matter. And in my own experience it is somewhat true. But only when you limit what physical attributes you judge. For me, morbid obesity is a deal breaker. Also excessive hair. But I don't have an overall particular look that is so easily identified that I look for in a guy. More often than not his personality will override his looks. For instance, celebrities or "fictional characters" that I find attractive:

Ryan Reynolds
Jack Black
"Legolas" but not Orlando Bloom
Johnny Depp
"Jake Sully" both as a human and as a Navi, but not the guy who played him.
Stewart Townsend but only when he was playing "Lestat"- and I can't stand tom cruise in any role.
"Data" but not Brent Spiner
"Sheldon Cooper" but not the guy who plays him.

You may notice that there is no pattern of physical appearance among those who I find attractive. It is more the personality that is displayed.

I don't often hear men say they think Betty White is someone they could see them selves dating even if they adore her personality.

So that is why I can understand why people would think men care about looks and women don't. However, some men do, indeed, put more emphasis on personality but this is only an assumption I can make considering sometimes I see guys who qualify to the general population as hot with ugly fat nasty smelly women. I can only assume he likes her personality, or she has a huge inheritance coming her way.

Also as I stated before, as lenient as I am in the looks department so long as the personality makes up for it, I still have my limitations. There have been men that I met that I adored their personalities but their appearance was so vile to me that I could never imagine being with them. Does this make me shallow? No more shallow than the average human being that isn't blind.

Considering weight is something that can't easily be hidden and can often be a mild indicator of health, while plastic surgery, if done well, can be virtually impossible to detect and is usually elective (not including reconstructive surgery after an injury such as car accident or zombie attack). Reconstructive surgery is usually intended to recover the original look if at all possible rather than changing it.

 

Attractiveness is, in general, different for men and women. We have different evolutionary drives (which we can't change) and society overlays those drives with images of what's attractive and what isn't (these are, of course, factors we can change.) The evolutionary drives are very different for men and women, since men in general are 'programmed' if you will to seek out a woman who can have a lot of children, which means specific secondary sexual characteristics (breasts, wider hips, overall health.) Women in general are programmed to be attracted to men who will be good providers/protectors of both them when they are pregnant, and their children when those children are helpless.

Thus even at a basic level we consider certain things ugly and certain things attractive.

 

I'm sorry, that's BS. Physical viability is as much a factor in what a woman finds attractive as it is for men. What those traits are obviously differ between men and women, but things like facial symmetry and other physical cues are universal. It may mean wide hips in women, it may mean height or broad shoulders in men, but the principles are the same.

For the record, the point I was addressing was this notion that somehow "ugly" women are considered less attractive than ugly men. It simply isn't true. There are some social mores that differ between men and women in the west, such as how May-December romances tend to be more socially acceptable when the man is December and the woman is May, but this isn't the same thing as attractiveness.

Let's be fair here, SG. You don't exactly have Yogi Berra on your list, either. So comparing Betty White to Ryan Reynolds isn't fair.

Men are just as interested in personality as women are. And women are just as capable of being slutty horndogs as men. Everything else is a myth.

 

When one is horny, a strange veil seems to appear in which one sees through it: therein lies the favoring subtleties of enticement. And upon the dazzle of this enticement, everything else is transformed.

 

No but I do have Jack Black lol.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You may want to re-read my entire post. I was supporting you. even though I understand why people who claim that have hte perception that they have, I don't necessarily agree with their assessment.

ETA: I wasn't aware that Yogi Berra was considered ugly. I didn't know what he looked like so I just looked him up. I don't see ugly there. Just old. Maybe I am missing the point.

 

A few points:


For one, the before-and-after photos tend to be biased, especially if they were taken by the beauty clinic that performed the procedure.
In the after photo, the person is wearing make-up and is in a good mood. In the photo before, the person is without make-up and in a low mood. The contrast is, of course, striking.
If you've ever watched any of the numerous Youtube tutorials for make-up for Asian women, you know what astonishing effects a little color and styling can produce. Add to this a good mood, and the person before would look pretty much as good as afterwards.


For two, some people have a negative bias for a person's past problems, extrapolating that the person will have those problems forever, or that that person is forever defined by those problems.
A typical example is alcoholism: if a person had an two-year episode of alcoholism twenty years ago, and since then hasn't had a drop of alcohol and has been a good and productive citizen, still, there are people who will stigmatize and dismiss that person as an alcoholic. Being overweight/obese for some years, but then losing that weight and keeping it off for many years, is another example - some people will insist that that a person is a fattie and always will be, even if for the last twenty years they have been of normal weight or below.
And now, apparently being "ugly" in the past is a reason to forever be suspicious of a person.

 

I suppose ultimately, it comes down to what one values more: social etiquette, or good, honest relationships.
The two are not always mutually exclusive, and etiquette has its purposes. But there are times where one must go against the etiquette in order to protect one's wellbeing.
If one person isn't willing to have a straightforward Q&A session, while the other one is, then the two are probably a poor match anyway.

 

The point that Marquis implied, I spelled out, and he seemed to agreed with, was that ugly women are considered less worthy of romantic love. In that sense, men and women are not equal. At least for some people.

That it is possible to please a narcissist - that is a myth too.