Well, I don't want this thread to veer too much off topic. All I'm saying is that marriages shouldn't have to be that way. A couple shouldn't even have to consider a pre-nup when they get married. In a way it says to each other, "Our marriage very well may end, and I don't want you to screw me over when it does." Lovely.
And how will the jury decide whether she is attractive? If her husband leaves, she's not attractive i assume. But then it's late for her.. i would also guess her husband likes her because of her appearance and not what she is. \
She's not the only one with weird assicurations. Naomi Campbell has her butt assicurated, but I don't know if it's just against normal aging or also cellulite.
"In order to claim on the policy Mrs Jones will have to be declared unattractive by a panel of 10 builders - a test she said her husband appreciated, being a builder himself.
Mrs Jones, 26, said: "When I met him I knew he was the sort of person who likes good looking ladies, but I've had a baby now and my figure isn't what it was before.
"He hated it when I was pregnant and my figure was changing and it was out of our control."
The jury thing is weird. The older her husband will be, the more likely he will like younger women. So instead of analyzing only _her_ attractiveness, the comparison should be made with her and any _current_ mistress.
She had never seen a woman that had had kids so she obviously had no idea what reproduction was going to her figure either..?
... maybe they could have chosen a marriage for a predetermined period instead. like most jobs become more instable, being contracts from a few weeks to a year, maybe the marriages should be the same way. be married for 3 month to 2 years, and then need to do another contract (even with the same person). that way she and he'd be forced to not let themselves go ...
Comments
She added that she had never thought of herself as being particularly stunning, and was anxious to hold on to what she had.
My sentiments exactly.
I don't know which idea is worse: This or a pre-nuptual agreement.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
My sentiments exactly.
I don't know which idea is worse: This or a pre-nuptual agreement.
When 50% of all marriages end in divorce and men are second class citizens in the family court system, why the hell is a pre-nup such a horrible idea?
She's not the only one with weird assicurations. Naomi Campbell has her butt assicurated, but I don't know if it's just against normal aging or also cellulite.
"In order to claim on the policy Mrs Jones will have to be declared unattractive by a panel of 10 builders - a test she said her husband appreciated, being a builder himself.
Mrs Jones, 26, said: "When I met him I knew he was the sort of person who likes good looking ladies, but I've had a baby now and my figure isn't what it was before.
"He hated it when I was pregnant and my figure was changing and it was out of our control."
The jury thing is weird. The older her husband will be, the more likely he will like younger women. So instead of analyzing only _her_ attractiveness, the comparison should be made with her and any _current_ mistress.
She had never seen a woman that had had kids so she obviously had no idea what reproduction was going to her figure either..?