subject: Health and Beauty , Fitness, Marital Bliss, and Public Policy [print this page] Health and Beauty , Fitness, Marital Bliss, and Public Policy
Health and Beauty , Fitness, Marital Bliss, and Public Policy
Thank you for this question: When a spouse does not take care of themselves, have they violated the marriage? I suppose my answer to this one, will, once again, mark me as a structuralist. By that I mean - from my perspective - that this is one of those issues which appear to be of personal, individual concern and responsibility (after all, this is the land, America that is, with the ethos of the "rugged individual"), but in reality, can only be properly understood and meaningfully addressed on a societal level.
health and beauty
You ask: "What in Sam Hill does "society" have to do with people keeping themselves fit, healthy, and physically fit and sexually alluring for their partners? But before we address this concern, let's take a step back and look at this issue of "violation" of a marriage. How did it come to be that merely "letting oneself go," is considered a violation of a marriage in some quarters?
Traditional marriage vows, I understand, have something about a promise to be true to one another "in sickness and in health." In the popular mind we do not think of obesity as health, certainly, but not sickness either. This is associated with "laziness." Some people make an interpretation that allows them to take offense at a partner who "lets himself go."
health and beauty
His wife may take this as a sign of contempt. She may think that her husband is showing contempt for her, saying with his actions that he does not have to spend time making himself attractive for her. She may feel that he is taking her for granted. Sure, he "dressed to the nines," had washboard abs, and had a beautiful sports car, when they were first dating, but now that he feels that he's "got her," she's just another accumulated object to him now: like a lamp, or coffee table, or washing machine -- something that one gets enthusiastic over when its new, but, well.... after a while the novelty factor wears off, doesn't it?
health and beauty
I am not going to give my moral point of view about the assumption the original question rests on: When a spouse does not take care of themselves, have they violated the marriage? The assumption is what I just described. Frankly, I think this opens the door for a real violation of the marriage, on the part of the partner who has become so disgusted with her husband. I'm talking about adultery.
Something that cannot be said enough is this: in committing adultery, one runs the risk of picking up something very nasty from someone else (even if he doesn't "look sick" -- perhaps he even has washboard abs) and passing it along to her spouse. If its the AIDS virus, I would consider her guilty of criminally negligent homicide. Yes, there's much more effective treatments these days, and so forth; but by passing AIDS on to her husband (no matter how rich they are, and the high level of availability of treatment), she has set him on a path that will see him die much sooner than he would otherwise have done, barring accidents.
Suppose it turned out that she was only a "carrier" of the disease and not made sick herself?
I also don't want to get into arguing about whether "letting himself go," is or is not a sign that he doesn't love his wife anymore. I suspect people have their own fixed views on this, which are generally immovable. For me, though, strangely enough, the issue we're discussing is one of individual responsibility versus collective responsibility.
health and beauty
I just want to point out that there are certain structural features of our society -- thinking only about America -- that make it harder than it might otherwise be, to keep fit and healthy over a long period of a marriage. Some of these factors are economic. Some of these factors have to do with trade policy. Yes, trade policy. Some of these factors have to do with urban planning.
First of all, we drive a whole lot in America, more than we should, more than is good for the ozone layer and our cardiovascular system. When I go to the mall (the times I go), I'll see acres of spaces at the back. And yet mortorists will drive around and around trying to get the spot closest to the front door, instead of walking a few extra yards, which would be good for them.
People will ride the elevator one or two floors instead of taking the stairs, again, which would be good for them once in a while. People use the escalator more than they should, instead of using the stairs -- which would be good for them once in a while.
But as to the matter of cars, we must also say that public policy doesn't do well in making other forms of transportation welcome on the streets. Bicycling is a wonderful way to get around, and get to and from work and school, but sufficient accomodation simply is not made for this. The highway system replaced the system of trolleys and railroads, and this made driving more essential. This combined with the massive suburbanization that occurred in the post war years of the fifties and sixties reinforced the paradigm of an economy hardwired for oil and driving (the more driving you have, the less alternative modes of transport available, including cycling wich keeps you fit and healthy).
What does trade policy have to do with spouses "letting themselves go" in a marriage? In a word, corn. In two words, corn syrup.
Corn is the most heavily subsidized agricultural product. So much of it is made that it can't all go for direct consumption, apparently, and government is no longer in the business of paying farmers not to grow things, I guess, so it has to be put to different uses. The number one sweetener is not sugar, but corn syrup.
Corn syrup is everywhere. Its in fast food, of course. Its in cereals and so on. Its presence in cereals is what should be of most concern to us because of the children. Corn syrup is in those utlra sweet cereals with no redemptive nutritional value whatsoever, that Madison Avenue programs our children to nag us to death for. Bad eating habits are ingrained early -- maybe the particular cereal is based on a new toy, developed by child focus groups, which is soon to be made into a movie, which will then increase sales of the toy and other spin off products and media venues for the original toy. And so on and so forth, yada, yada, yada.
Corn syrup is, of course, in soda. Don't get me started on vending machines in schools!
Corn is used as feed for animals, which are no doubt also shot up with various chemicals enabling them the grow bigger, faster, which can't be harmless to us in the long-term. Generations of eating artificially bloated chicken, pork, and beef, has to have the effect of easy obesity for those who lack a "fast metabolism."
What about economic factors? As you know, since the late 1970s real wages for workers have stagnated. But productivity continues to rise and has never stopped rising. This means that our working hours have risen (in fact average working hours for American workers have risen by twenty percent, as compared to the French, German, Italian, and Swedish workers, whose average working hours dropped by twenty percent over the same period) as our pay has not.
Also, more members of the household have to be in the workplace than in times of old. The economist Rick Wolff points out that the struggle of women to join men in every area of the workplace, launched in the sixties and seventies, - while it was important for various reasons, was a movement for social justice; women wanted to be valued in other ways and so forth - was founded on the practical necessity of women to be in the workplace to help make ends meet for the family.
