the only thing I would have to agree with is that he's not ready to be a father. my girlfriend had the same thing happen to her. Only difference was he never stopped cheating even after the baby came. Not with one or two women but many more... She needs to ditch him and move on and never take that prick back.

Sorry, but if the husband thinks preggo bellies are gross, he shouldn't have knocked her up. He is repulsed by something he caused. That seems pretty shallow to me.

if he was so grossed out it only 9months she gonna be preggo than he should help her work out an become the women he fell in love with to marry. it's temporary to be big when your preggo not a life time, cheating scars the relationship forever an her trust is gone for good and her faith in the marriage.

Well I didn't say it was a reasonable justification, or that because he had those justifications that he was right. I just said that those were his beliefs, and that she is going to have to find her own means of dealing with them. Divorce isn't right for everyone and is NOT an easy fix.

monikabug is actually correct. the only reason it causes a negative reaction is for 2 reasons: A) in this day and age it is not necessary to the continuation of life to reproduce, ergo causing the act of sex to become nothing more than pleasure and recreation (yes usually between 2 people "joined by the church" or at least in an intimate relationship) thus society has taught us that when in a "relationship" one must remain celebate to all other homosapiens who are not your significant other. This theoretically goes against nature, however since we humans currently almost overpopulate the world, we adapted, but it is in our nature to recognize a womans pregnant belly as a woman no longer containing the potential to reproduce (at least for 9 months) triggering a "turn off". B) marriage has become a symbol of the joining of 2 people "in love" by CHURCH and STATE. although religion plays an extremely key aspect to our past, this was not the original intention of a marriage. marriage was at first a union of families (we have a chicken farm, they have a cow farm, lets combine and double our profits). sex usually wasnt on the agenda, it was work first and then if the "husband and wife" developped an intimate relationship, GREAT. the roman pagans were the first to join two lovers for the appeasal of a god-figure. and since religion had such a hand in the advancement of our race, this became the norm and christianity (calling it a "holy matromony") eventually told us that it would go against god to break the marriage. it wasnt until the establishment of the church od england that divorce became known. so christianity single handedly built up their own ideals and tore them down, creating this ('scuse me) ****** up version of marriage we have today. im sorry that this was long and i appologize if i offended anyone but i merely stated facts.

So, according to your theory, it's nature's way for men to go on serial impregnating sprees? Once one's knocked up, on to the next? Sorry, no. There are animals who mate temporarily with many different partners, and there are animals who mate monogamously. Humans are the latter. The reason marriage exists is because on average, humans are naturally inclined to choose a permanent mate, and as the human species developed, social structures formed around those natural impulses. If you're going to go in the animal/nature direction, technically the man should lose all desire to impregnate women after impregnating his mate. He would regain it after the reproduction cycle is complete (after the birth). That's how it happens in nature. As for your comments on the origins of marriage and divorce, please do your research. Both have been around for a very long time, much longer than the Catholic church.

184 is right, ever heard of handfasting? Archiac marriage rituals looking nothing like the ones we have nowadays but they are still a marriage. It was probably reserved for the chieftens when they laid claim on a woman. @87 marriage was not just a way of sharing assets it was also designed to determine which children were legitimate heirs to fortunes or thrones. This again goes back to the cheating thing you mentioned as "natures way" where lords and kings had loads of (excuse the language) bastards running around that could claim their assets. Marriage meant that only the true children of the married couple could inherit these things. The nature thing is a poor excuse for cheating. Penguins and swans mate for life and some species even die soon after the death of a mate. As 184 mentioned even if we were not meant to be a species that mated for life most animals at least stick together for a pregnancy even if its just to make sure their genes are the ones carried on.

first of all, i am gay and a pagan and thus so bwlieve i probably have the least experience with marriage (along with many others) but i have done my research. first of all, yes although handfasting is very different than marriage, it was still tge first form (btw i never said the catholic church was first) and yes there were annullments before divorce but it wasnt taken lightly like it is today. king henry Viii was refused an annullment and created the chruch of england to divorce his wife. this started a commercializing of divorce. lastly i never exused him for cheating on his wife, it was wrong what he did, all i was doing was backing up 12s statements. and you are correct about the human history with monogomous relationships but pre-**** we still had other animalistic instincts that we no longer show today, but sometimes are relived in the people of today (ie: the need to over-eat in case food may not run by your grounds for a while, the need to repopulate in a polygamisyic fashion, and even more basic fight or flight). what ops husband did was indeed wrong and nature is no excuse for his actions, but wether he claims it as an excuse or not doesnt mean it isnt there.

#184 I dunno what you've been smoking but humans are not naturally monogamous and marriage, historically speaking, was never about love and commitment but were business contracts and political moves. Hell, in many places in the world marriage isn't even monogamous. This judeo-christian desire to re-write history to fit into some philosophical/theological models is bullshit. You can think what you want about marriage, but don't make shit up.

your an idiot marriage is marriage for better or worse it doesn't make cheating okay. even if your not married there should be no cheating.

@184, evidence suggests that different people may in fact have different bonding/mating styles. the important thing is to find people that share them. honestly, my partner and I both sleep with other people regularly (we're open and upfront about this). we were having quite a lot of problems, both of us looking elsewhere. one day we talked. we tried it, we talked continuously. we've actually never been happier, or wanted each other more. different people make up this world, what works for you may not work for anyone else.

couldn't u shorten that?

You didn't have to read it, Jupiter80. Just throwing it out there.

I agree. there is no excuse for him to cheat on you. I can't believe that he would tell you that he us no longer attracted to you because you gained weight to have his baby. he is a complete ass!!!! seriously, move on without him. the stress with breastfeeding, body image after having a baby and lack of energy is going to be overwhelming espically with the ass who will still be seeing other women!!! you don't want to have to worry about your husband when you need to focus about your true love, your baby!!!

What a turkey.

^ What a cat.

quack?

moo

Oink

seven

I'm not sure what you're attempting to do with this comment? Are you implying that the OP was fat before she got pregnant? I gathered from the FML that the husband isn't into bigger chicks, hence being unattracted to her while she's pregnant. If she was overweight before, it doesn't seem it would be his child, since he is so turned off by her gaining a little bit of weight.