Is weight gain a reason to leave your SO/spouse?

[Rhea]

I have VERY mixed feelings on this topic, ducklings. On the one hand, I'd liked to be loved for my inner beauty. On the other, I don't know if it's reasonable to become very overweight for no physical reason and expect your partner - who can't get their sex and romance needs met by anyone else but you - to be attracted to you the same.

I can tell you that as someone who's 5' 3.5 and currently weighing 225 lbs (down from 235), no one is loving me for my inner beauty! It's a great pity, because I have so much to offer.

ETA: I guess it depends on how much an individual places on the romance and sex and desire aspects of a relationship as opposed to being family together, having common interests, being friends, having history, etc.

I feel that this is going to vary HUGELY between individuals. I'm more of the latter, but I can see it the other way, too. Being so fat myself, I've read a lot of opinions about this online. It seems that for some people, being cut off from feeling sexually attracted to their partner but staying in the relationship feels very depressing. I think everyone needs different things, and although I'm not a big one for putting sex above other things, I don't think it's unreasonable for others to feel that it's a hugely important part of a relationship.

I read a relationship advice book written by a divorce lawyer, and in it he said that marriage is basically about sex!!! I was REALLY surprised. To me, sex is a small part of longterm relationships. But people vary. I don't think it necessarily makes them wanting to control the other's body; I think it means that the physical aspect of an exclusive sexual relationship is very important to them, and that they want to be attracted to their partner and have that sex and romance with them.

Edited.

No, it's not like this, not as you're describing it, for me at least.

It's not about sex and romance, or beauty, inner or outer. For me, one of ones who'd consider leaving my partner due to weight gain, it's about what that weight gain means.

DH sustained a serious injury last year and was unable to walk for 12 weeks, no weight at all on his leg, and right before covid (late Feb I think, I try to not count). It's been over a year and he's not completely better and may never be though doctors say he's ahead of the curve for recovery. So it's not even about the physical activities that we can do together that I mentioned in my first post on this thread. It's about the not giving up.

I grew up with a father who seemed to think, and then acted like, 40 was over the hill. I see what that did to my parent's relationship. I will not be with someone who gives up. Gaining a significant amount of weight is one of the things that can symbolise giving up to me.

We're still dealing with his injury, him physically and emotionally and me emotionally, his injury affects us both greatly. If he sits on his ass all day, I know, I just know, I'd eventually be done with this relationship. If he does his rehab, takes his time and refocuses on what he can do then I'm here, totally here. We support each other but that support needs to not be in vain. If he never rock climbs again, whatever, that's fine. If his new hobby is sitting around letting it affect his mental and physical health, that directly impacts me similarly to having a spouse with another addiction. I can't deal with that long-term and I'm honest in saying that I won't. I don't care that if that makes me shallow to anyone else.

A lot of us who have said that we'd potentially leave a spouse have said, the weight gain isn't just about the weight gain, it's about what it symbolises.

 

[TooPatient]

No, it's not like this, not as you're describing it, for me at least.

It's not about sex and romance, or beauty, inner or outer. For me, one of ones who'd consider leaving my partner due to weight gain, it's about what that weight gain means.

DH sustained a serious injury last year and was unable to walk for 12 weeks, no weight at all on his leg, and right before covid (late Feb I think, I try to not count). It's been over a year and he's not completely better and may never be though doctors say he's ahead of the curve for recovery. So it's not even about the physical activities that we can do together that I mentioned in my first post on this thread. It's about the not giving up.

I grew up with a father who seemed to think, and then acted like, 40 was over the hill. I see what that did to my parent's relationship. I will not be with someone who gives up. Gaining a significant amount of weight is one of the things that can symbolise giving up to me.

We're still dealing with his injury, him physically and emotionally and me emotionally, his injury affects us both greatly. If he sits on his ass all day, I know, I just know, I'd eventually be done with this relationship. If he does his rehab, takes his time and refocuses on what he can do then I'm here, totally here. We support each other but that support needs to not be in vain. If he never rock climbs again, whatever, that's fine. If his new hobby is sitting around letting it affect his mental and physical health, that directly impacts me similarly to having a spouse with another addiction. I can't deal with that long-term and I'm honest in saying that I won't. I don't care that if that makes me shallow to anyone else.

A lot of us who have said that we'd potentially leave a spouse have said, the weight gain isn't just about the weight gain, it's about what it symbolises.

A family member divorced her husband because of what you describe here. He was diagnosed with diabetes and had a family member (parent maybe?) die of it so just gave up. Saw amputations, blindness, and death as inevitable so he may as well enjoy everything now. He ate everything that was bad for him despite her trying to cook healthy meals that he would enjoy. She was by his side trying to be supportive of all the things that could have helped him live a life without all that. After losing a toe then part of his foot then most of one leg, he was still doing that. Didn't cooperate with PT. Didn't keep unhealthy foods to moderate levels. Just saw it as confirmation that the end was inevitable. He started ordering delivery or paying friends to bring him bags of candy when he couldn't get around on his own. She had talked with him through years of his having given up. He didn't see any alternative end so wouldn't change. She divorced him, but they remained friends until he died -- after further amputations and going blind.

 

[jaysonsmom]

I didn’t marry my dh based on looks, I have never dated anyone based on looks alone. I’m all about their brains, wit and humor….so unless drastic weight gain changes their personality and outlook on life, I would not leave my spouse. I am also all about nutrition and fitness personally, so I would stick around to help them on their weight journey ….when you get married it is for better or for worse right?

 

[LemonMoonLex]

No, it's not like this, not as you're describing it, for me at least.

It's not about sex and romance, or beauty, inner or outer. For me, one of ones who'd consider leaving my partner due to weight gain, it's about what that weight gain means.

DH sustained a serious injury last year and was unable to walk for 12 weeks, no weight at all on his leg, and right before covid (late Feb I think, I try to not count). It's been over a year and he's not completely better and may never be though doctors say he's ahead of the curve for recovery. So it's not even about the physical activities that we can do together that I mentioned in my first post on this thread. It's about the not giving up.

I grew up with a father who seemed to think, and then acted like, 40 was over the hill. I see what that did to my parent's relationship. I will not be with someone who gives up. Gaining a significant amount of weight is one of the things that can symbolise giving up to me.

We're still dealing with his injury, him physically and emotionally and me emotionally, his injury affects us both greatly. If he sits on his ass all day, I know, I just know, I'd eventually be done with this relationship. If he does his rehab, takes his time and refocuses on what he can do then I'm here, totally here. We support each other but that support needs to not be in vain. If he never rock climbs again, whatever, that's fine. If his new hobby is sitting around letting it affect his mental and physical health, that directly impacts me similarly to having a spouse with another addiction. I can't deal with that long-term and I'm honest in saying that I won't. I don't care that if that makes me shallow to anyone else.

A lot of us who have said that we'd potentially leave a spouse have said, the weight gain isn't just about the weight gain, it's about what it symbolises.

You put it so eloquently, thank you.
I think it's rude for others to shame those of us who would, or to then imply that our love therefore is less than in some way or not whole.

At some point staying becomes unhealthy when we look at all extreme situations & we all have our own lines drawn in the sand. Nobody is better for staying with their SO who refuses to get healthy, has passively gained a substantial amount of weight to where it affects their mobility & health, & let's themselves just give up.

Especially when the other is willing to try for years to help them get healthy & get their life back to no avail. My reasoning truly could not be farther from merely activities or looks, but is just as @Rhea so eloquently put it, is about giving up & not caring. It's definitely difficult to put into words, but she did so wonderfully.

 

[HollyJane]

It really isn't about "an activity."

When choosing a mate, it's compatibility. It's being able to share a life. They don't have to like everything I like or do everything I do. But, I'm not going to choose a partner who doesn't have an interest in land and animals, and that is a physical and outdoorsy lifestyle.

 

[Rhea]

I think it's rude for others to shame those of us who would, or to then imply that our love therefore is less than in some way or not whole.

At some point staying becomes unhealthy when we look at all extreme situations & we all have our own lines drawn in the sand. Nobody is better for staying with their SO who refuses to get healthy, has passively gained a substantial amount of weight to where it affects their mobility & health, & let's themselves just give up.

This!

It's very rude.

I understand why some people wouldn't like it, but I don't understand why the judgement. How is it any different than potentially leaving your spouse for any other reason? Sure, some people may have said in sickness and health, for better or worse, until death due us part (we didn't, for the record), but that doesn't include a lot of things for me. Maybe there are people out there who'd stay married no matter what, but I'm not one of them.

For the record, I'd also potentially leave if: he were absent in the lives of our family and children, if he abused drugs or alcohol, failed to assist in supporting our family financially especially wracking up secret debt or gambling. Tons of reasons! I need a partner who is on the same page. I would try to fix any issues, naturally, but it's a long life and I don't get brownie points for suffering through something to my own detriment.

Guess I'm just a quitter for lots of flimsy reasons. I'll own that though. lol

 

[voce]

I have VERY mixed feelings on this topic, ducklings. On the one hand, I'd liked to be loved for my inner beauty. On the other, I don't know if it's reasonable to become very overweight for no physical reason and expect your partner - who can't get their sex and romance needs met by anyone else but you - to be attracted to you the same.

I can tell you that as someone who's 5' 3.5 and currently weighing 225 lbs (down from 235), no one is loving me for my inner beauty! It's a great pity, because I have so much to offer.

ETA: I guess it depends on how much an individual places on the romance and sex and desire aspects of a relationship as opposed to being family together, having common interests, being friends, having history, etc.

I feel that this is going to vary HUGELY between individuals. I'm more of the latter, but I can see it the other way, too. Being so fat myself, I've read a lot of opinions about this online. It seems that for some people, being cut off from feeling sexually attracted to their partner but staying in the relationship feels very depressing. I think everyone needs different things, and although I'm not a big one for putting sex above other things, I don't think it's unreasonable for others to feel that it's a hugely important part of a relationship.

I read a relationship advice book written by a divorce lawyer, and in it he said that marriage is basically about sex!!! I was REALLY surprised. To me, sex is a small part of longterm relationships. But people vary. I don't think it necessarily makes them wanting to control the other's body; I think it means that the physical aspect of an exclusive sexual relationship is very important to them, and that they want to be attracted to their partner and have that sex and romance with them.

Edited.

I think men and women vary, too. Most men think about and want sex a lot more than most women. Unfortunately for the dating scene, men approach you for your looks. They stay because of the inner beauty and connection. But, you have to get them to come over before they can stay, so you don't get a chance since they don't try to get to know you before trying to find someone physically attractive.

When I was younger, I was very picky because I'd get tired of men (boring personalities to me) before I let them get into my pants. I despaired of finding someone not shallow who shared my life goals (the main reason I had to let go of some quality men in my life was due to having different expectations and goals in life). I ended up meeting the love of my life through World of Warcraft, and I think the whole anonymity and getting to talk to people without knowing or caring what they look like was helpful to me personally because we got to know each other first and friendship came before we found out we were physically attracted to one another as well. So I consider myself lucky.

I personally think if there's weight gain, there's always a reason, whether or not a partner accepts that there is a legitimate reason. With my personal weight struggles, I would say often there's more than one reason.

It seems a little unfair to me to say, these reasons for weight gain, I can accept and won't leave, whereas any other reason I will. In a relationship, weight gain is (barring accident) seldom an individual thing. Individual metabolism is just different, and the foods healthiest for each individual is also different due to both differences in human genetics and differences in gut flora (for details, read Gut by Giulia Enders). Couples often eat there same things together, which can definitely in itself be unhealthy for one or both of the partners. My brother has a metabolism that doesn't allow him to gain weight no matter what he eats, while his girlfriend has to be a lot more careful. Moreover, as we age and metabolism changes (what happened to me personally), you don't just need to expand the same amount of effort, you will need to expend more and more to keep the same weight. Therefore, I have "let myself go" to a new equilibrium weight that is not my ideal weight because my energy and time are just not as abundant as in my younger years.

When a partner gains weight because of a problem, let's say an undiagnosed metabolism health issue, or constant stress affecting when that person feels full, I think it's a bit much to expect that person to drop down to the weight before the problem occurred. I think as long as the weight is sustainable and not leading to morbidity, it's not a deal breaker to me. God forbid me from mistaking an undiagnosed health condition (be it physical or mental health in nature) for laziness, apathy, lack of effort. Not everyone is on the same playing field, and some people just have an uphill battle.

 

[OboeGal]

*sigh*

If weight gain is a deal-breaker because of change in sexual attractiveness, then no one's marriage is going to last, because anyone who's married long enough will become old and technically physically unattractive. It's 100% assured.

When my DH and I met and were first dating, I found him all kinds of handsome and attractive. 17 years later, and I don't even see the physical features that I found so attractive, unless I work really hard to. When I look at him, I see.........him. I see his personality and skills and character and humor and values and faults and all the fun times we've had and all the arguments we've had and all the struggles we've been through and yes, all the sexy times we've shared. I can't imagine seeing his weight and suddenly not being attracted to him with everything else there.

Now, if his lifestyle and/or values were to change to such an extent that we were no longer compatible, that would merit consideration of whether the relationship should continue at the same level. All kinds of factors would matter, like if it were a matter of illness or injury, or if he needed my help. (I did say "for better or worse, in sickness and in health," after all.) Or if there was dishonesty. Or if the situation had become toxic or abusive for me. But it wouldn't matter if weight gain was a part of that - it would be other aspects that would matter.

 

[Jambalaya]

What about the old chestnut that men are much more visual than women? It does seem that physical attraction means more to men that to women. I'm the same as you - physical appearances don't mean much to me.

ETA: I know, from the things I've read and from my friend's experience of being dumped for her weight, that from the perspective of someone who would end a relationship over this, getting old and becoming really obese for no medical reason are not the same thing. Nor is gaining weight for reasons that can't be helped.

I would not end a relationship over extra weight, but I can see the other point of view, too.

 

[OboeGal]

Honestly, I think that "old chestnut" is a bigger deal when men are young and testosterone levels are very high, and I also think that it's a very individual thing, for all genders, how sexually driven someone is and how much visuals play a part. We're finding out that a lot more women are more sexually driven than has always been believed and "touted" as part of the whole picture of centuries of male-dominated society, where it was too challenging to the hierarchy and to men's "ownership" of women for women's sexuality to even be acknowledged, let alone accepted. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if that "old chestnut" was to some extent a part of the narrative used to justify maintaining the double standard around the sexual behavior of men vs. women, and reflecting the much-greater power men have had to behave however they wish without facing societal or relationship consequences for it.

 

[Jambalaya]

There's a book by an author named Wednesday Martin, Untrue, all about how women are no more faithful than men and that, contrary to popular belief, it's women who get sexually bored in marriage far sooner than men. I haven't read it, but I read an excerpt and a review, and it sounds intriguing.

From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that women want to sleep around, so they can get the best genes for their offspring. (May the best swimmer win! ) According to the extract from Untrue, the reason that men have a spade-shaped edge/ridge on the tip of their member (not sure we're allowed the p word here) is to scoop out the semen of the last man who had ejaculated in her. Maybe in primitive times, they were just copulating willy-nilly, excuse the expression!

It also makes sense that, back then, men would find this sexual freedom deeply threatening because it means they have no reliable way of knowing that their offspring are really theirs. It was very costly, resources-wise, to raise another man's child.

This line of thought is making me wonder if marriage originated as men's best chance of knowing that their offspring were really theirs. Get women tied down, slap a load of slut-shaming and restrictions on her, intimidate her with your physical strength, and boom! Now you can be pretty sure your kids are yours.

Now I'm

 

[OboeGal]

There's a book by an author named Wednesday Martin, Untrue, all about how women are no more faithful than men and that, contrary to popular belief, it's women who get sexually bored in marriage far sooner than men. I haven't read it, but I read an excerpt and a review, and it sounds intriguing.

From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that women want to sleep around, so they can get the best genes for their offspring. (May the best swimmer win! ) According to the extract from Untrue, the reason that men have a spade-shaped edge/ridge on the tip of their member (not sure we're allowed the p word here) is to scoop out the semen of the last man who had ejaculated in her. Maybe in primitive times, they were just copulating willy-nilly, excuse the expression!

It also makes sense that, back then, men would find this sexual freedom deeply threatening because it means they have no reliable way of knowing that their offspring are really theirs. It was very costly, resources-wise, to raise another man's child.

This line of thought is making me wonder if marriage originated as men's best chance of knowing that their offspring were really theirs. Get women tied down, slap a load of slut-shaming and restrictions on her, intimidate her with your physical strength, and boom! Now you can be pretty sure your kids are yours.

Now I'm

From what I've read, for the overwhelming majority of human history, humans lived in bands of hunter-gatherers, and coupling was all over the spectrum. There were a whole lot of people sleeping with others fairly indiscriminately, while others paired off and were monogamous for short periods, then changed partners, and yet others paired off for longer stretches of monogamy (or "throupled" or whatever). Basically, there were no rules, and people just did what suited them personally as long as no one behaved in a way that was egregiously unacceptable or harmful to the group as a whole. All the babies that resulted were raised by all the tribe - "paternity" wasn't an issue because the women of the tribe wouldn't let it be. There probably was a certain instinct among the males to assure their own bloodline, like we see in so many other species (where at the extreme, males will kill off the prior offspring of females that they mate with to try to eliminate other males' genetics), but the women just wouldn't tolerate much of that kind of behavior, as they usually outnumbered the males and held more cultural power. If a nursing baby was hungry, there was always a number of lactating women around and one of them would feed it, whether or not she was it's birth mother. The reason no one really cared who was the father, or often even knew, was that there were very, very few "possessions" or "property" - just a small bit of personal items that could be easily carried as they roved, and often even those various items that an individual carried would still be considered to be the property of, and for the use of, the whole tribe. Leadership was less formal and had to be earned, rather than just be an automatic outgrowth of birth. Life was too dangerous and precarious for leadership to be handed to someone just because of who their birth parents were, rather than proven capability. Gathered and hunted food and shelter, and protection from threats, was shared by all.

The advent of "paternalism" came with the development of agrarianism and longer-term settlements, which came very, very late in human history, because then people had "property" that was durable and of greater scope and monetary value, and that property (resources) equaled power and survival, so they became concerned with growing a family "dynasty" that could do more work and therefore reap more and gain more assets for the family, as well as assuring a bloodline to pass on their property and assets. Rather than the women gathering and preparing plant food while caring for children and men hunting and defending against threats, with everyone sharing the food and the safety rather than some "claiming" it, once they were in settlements, they increasingly moved away from sharing the crops and the fruits of the livestock herds as communal property to claiming pieces of land and some animals and whatever food it provided and shelters built, so survival depended on how much of that they had and the quality of it, rather than the efforts of the whole group together. I don't know the full story of exactly how and why it came about, but that was when women really began to lose power as a group and be seen increasingly as property in order to ensure that men would have dynasties and intact bloodlines. The women might have initially gone along with the loss of some power to ensure that they would be "hitched" long-term to someone who had the power and resources they and their children needed, and once they started down that slippery slope and lost some, they lost the ability to retain what power they still had. We've been fighting that ever since.

 

[Cerulean]

This is an interesting topic, @Jambalaya - thanks for posting it.

I agree with @LemonMoonLex (and others) but for different reasons.

I actually come from the flip side scenario. I was dating someone when I was obese. We were generally sedentary, didn't eat well, and it suited him as he was very anti-social and unmotivated. I was not, deep down. But because of underlying issues + my obesity, it prevented me from doing all of the things that I would have enjoyed.

I lost all of the excess weight while I was dating him, and realized very quickly that we essentially had nothing in common anymore. He wanted to stay inside, watch TV, etc...while I wanted to go to parties, eat at nice restaurants, go on walks, to museums, etc.

I broke up with him. He wasn't overweight at all, but his behavior was well-suited to me when I was obese and not taking care of myself.

I am now happily married to someone VERY different (thankfully!). I have regained a little bit of weight, but am nowhere near what I used to be. I was 35+ BMI, and now hover around 26 BMI.

I can't wait for all of the adventures we have ahead of us, although we enjoy a number of lazy nights too, but it's because we both want to.

 

[Jambalaya]

OboeGal - your post is so interesting. Great history lesson!