Judging by her looks...

No, I did not marry my wife exclusively based on her looks, but for starters her looks were definitely what got me first looking. If she had not looked the way she did then, but instead how she looks now(about 120+ extra lbs) I would not had even looked, let alone gotten to the dating, engagement, and eventually marriage part. Is that shallow? Maybe, but it is also human nature, a nature that has until now has ensured humanity’s survival as a species. Yes, I did ultimately marry her based on who I thought she was as a person. As a person she is great concerning many aspects of personality, but who I thought she was as a whole, is not who she turned out to be: concerning other aspects which I told her before our engagement were very important to me. And I, according to my wife am not who she thought I was-that is someone who said I was someone who valued health and appearance, but really didn't mean it or in her opinion wasn’t supposed to have meant it. In actuality I meant every word I told her before we got married, that is, that I could not stay married to someone who would be so disrespectful as to willfully make their self unattractive to their loved one by engaging in glutinous over-eating as I had witnessed other close family and extended family members do to the detriment and ultimate ruination of their marriage and happiness. Is my attitude selfish?Yes, of course it is. But it is an attitude that ensures best possible chance for the survival of my posterity. But is this type of selfishness regarding selection of a mate evil? I don’t believe so. If man was not endowed with such innate qualities and desires he would have gone the way of the DoDo bird long ago.

These thoughts were posted by Mojo on the My Fat Spouse Forum

Mojo on Marriage

The institution of marriage existed long before the formation of the state or civil authority. From its very founding, the state had to recognize the institution of the marriage tradition in order to cement its legitimacy. The civic establishment's primary purpose should be to recognize and protect Individual Liberty and contract law. Instead, the secular state has encroached upon what was traditionally a sacred institution between God and Man(meaning man and woman). This corruption might be partly responsible for the crackup and disintegration of the Marriage Institution today, as one or both parties entering into a civil marriage may come to view the distorted enforcement of civil contract law(which is another topic altogether) as a means of obtaining advantage over the other spouse, i.e.: a spouse who though once attractive, becomes either fat, lazy and gluttonous, yet wanting to keep their health conscious spouse who remains attractive bonded to them by refusing to grant a divorce thus in essence preventing the fit spouse from legally finding another more suitable mate(FatSpouse therefore has no incentive to modify their behavior), or the obese spouse who uses the threat of the civic Tort Law to seize their spouses' property or future earnings should the other attempt divorce(again there is no incentive for the neglectful spouse to change either). Anciently there were many societies and cultures in existence that recognized the Rights of both men and women to marry or divorce whom ever and whenever they wanted, while protecting the property rights of both. Probably far from ideal by todays standards, Spartian women endured a tough life but also enjoyed many more rights and freedoms unheard of by most Greeks at the time, or even by modern women today. For instance, they could take a new husband if the old husband was gone away too long, and some even practiced polyandry (having more than one husband), they owned their own property and generally had a great deal of influence in the ruling of the then city-state of Sparta.

It was in these cultures, like ancient Sparta, that both men and women competed for mates, and after marriage continued to compete for those same affections. Maybe that's what is lacking today. I'm not saying, physically competing, but being able to have greater freedom to choose a mate, or not choose, and to be able to dissolve the covenant or take another spouse if need be should the former not fulfill their portion of the marriage contract. Perhaps then there would be a greater sense of accountably on account of each spouse, and therefor as a result, much less marital strife, discord and divorce. We claim to have so much more Freedom today, than our ancestors did, but do we really? Obviously this is true for much of the Western world, but I wonder if many of the problems that exist today like obesity and the failure of the Marriage Institution could have existed in ancient Sparta? I doubt it. I'm not advocating a conversion to a Spartan type culture, it was after all very brutal life in many ways, but in some ways the Spartans were way ahead of their time concerning certain aspects of Individual Liberty, especially for women. We could probably learn a thing or two by studying the lessons that history would like to teach us. Maybe we would be a lot happier in our marriages-we would certainly be a lot healthier.

Posted by Mojo on My Fat Spouse

A Fat Spouse like the Blacksmith who left out the 'Nail' that Lost the Kingdom by Mojo

Most agree that the marriage is a form of a contract or agreement of one form or another, either secular, civil, ecclesiastical, individual or a combination of all to varying degrees. Regardless, I could relate this to the binding contract or oath of many, both men and women, who serve in the Military. Most all Armies of the world, without exception, have certain health standards that are based ,among others, mainly on height to weight ratio or BMI. These standards exist for many obvious reasons, namely, the Battlefield is not “normalized” to give weaker enemy soldiers a 'fair shake'. Certain standards are required prior to enlistment or commission, and are expected to be maintained throughout. Failure to maintain these standards usually results in various forms of disciplining, counseling, or outright termination and discharge; usually under 'dishonorable' or 'less than honorable' conditions. The military considers the soldier's body as not his own, but the Army's. However, the soldier has 'stewardship' over what the Army considers 'government property'.
While in the Service, I witnessed a soldier receive a Article 15 (reprimand) for not wearing his uniform top while digging a fighting position in the desert sun. The soldier stated that he was hot and that he felt “more comfortable” not wearing his shirt which he said made him sweat, even though he had been previously counseled to avoid exposing the bare skin to the sun’s intense rays. The over exposure resulted in a severe sunburn, and subsequent issue by medical personnel, a temporary 'profile' that prevented this soldier from performing all of his expected duties. His superiors charged the soldier with "Destruction of Government Property." The reprimand he eventually received was considered by many of his peers to be "too extreme"-at the time, I felt as did the others. However, with experience that usually accompanies age, I now see the wisdom of the commanding officers in meting out the form of punishment ultimately given. No others followed suit. The details here are not as important as the principle. The soldier had taken an oath to the organization to which he joined himself voluntarily. The oath of his allegiance required certain performances and expectations of duty or sacrifice. In exchange the soldier received certain basic necessities, like food, clothing, housing, and pay; and other privileges like funding for future education, along with other benefits. Although the soldier's actions were judged not to be due to 'malingering'(feigning illness to avoid combat or duty), his neglect had the same end result, in that he was unable, for a period of time at least, to fulfill his duty. Therefore he became a liability to his unit rather than an asset, in that he was using organizational resources, but unable to carryout the responsibility untrusted to him. He thus became a "weak link" in the organization chain. His neglect to use 'common sense' in a combat environment greatly compromised not only his own safety and ability to safeguard his position, but the safety of his "fellows" who trusted him to watch their flanks while they watched his, and ultimately the safety of the entire unit and its ability to accomplish the mission. He had not become a casualty while fighting the enemy or in the performance of his required duty, but was a casualty of his own wanton ignorance and neglect. The derelict soldier can be likened to King’s Blacksmith in the fabled story,"For want of a nail the Kingdom was lost.”