Amy - if her first concern is that she won't have attractive children, she ought to opt out of the mommy game right now. Because at best, she's gonna raise some shallow "oh look at me I'm so cute" princess that everyone around her will want to throat-punch.

Obviously, this guy isn't hideous. After all, she fucks him, right? I see plenty of ugly people out there getting bonked. Some of them even have kids.

You ever see Derek Jeter's parents? No disrespect intended, but they aren't what you would call winners of life's beauty lottery.

And broads swoon for Derek. Gotta admit, he's a good looking man.

This woman has some other deep-seated psychological problem that is manifesting itself in her desire for attractive children. She needs to work that out before she breaks anyone else.

I agree with Brian completely. Genetics are to a large degree the luck of the draw.

PS- The best looking male I have ever seen comes from a father who looks amazingly like a balding Groucho Marx and a mother who is just plain.

PPS- He is now almost 30 and still lives with Mommy and Daddy, and recently told me he is taking two years off from looking for work until the economy turns around.

Amy, I predict a huge debate on this one.

Personally, I don't think enough information was provided in the letter, and it is way open for interpretation. All we know is that the guy is less attractive than the girl. So is he merely average, or the Elephant Man? Prudence seems to assume he is average or slightly less than average, and if that is true than I agree with her reply. Sure, physical attractiveness is good, but being hung up on physical perfection is not. And adoption is no guarantee - most babies are cute.

Now if this guy has some kind of deformation that this woman loves him enough to overlook, that may be a different story.

Honey, I love you , and I want you to raise my babies. I just don't want anything to do with what comes from your genetic pool.

I'm grinding my teeth just thinking about it.

I've got to agree that she's got no business being a mom either. Yeah, people want the best for their kids including looks, but she's placing this at #1 and it doesn't belong there. There's no guarantee an adopted kid would look better. And if you look at the really attractive people in this world, very few have really attractive parents. I am attractive, DH less so by convention. Our 3 girls are little traffic-stoppers. I am approached by talent scouts etc regularly. I would never put my girls into that life, but it's 3rd party confirmation that they're adorable, if that's important. Gene recombination is amazing.

Not all adorable kids grow up well, and some less cute kids really grow into their features. Not to mention beauty standards change. A slender blue eyed blond can be a knock out, as can a voluptuous dark amazon. So really, what is HER definition? Maybe she should just get a career in the kiddie-beauty-contest circuit and fulfill her dreams that way.

Warmly agree with brian.
And with Eric's comments about the gene lottery.

There used to be a seaside attraction in the late Victorian era allowing the betrothed - or young marrieds- to view a composite stereoscopic image of the kid they'd "likely" produce - showing whether their merged features might create a stunner - or a hideous troll.

Even before Mendel, these prediction booths were regarded as a silly novelty!

hmmmm . . .

Definitely recall an ex with whom I didn't want to reproduce due to the proclivity of insanity that ran in her family.

Is this much different?

Not at all.

First, the advantages conferred upon attractive people are not huge, and attractiveness is not easily predicted by the attractiveness of the parents.

Second, the disadvantages of mental illness are many, and parentage is and excellent predictor of mental illness. Of the people that I know that suffer from actual chemical depression (i.e. biological and not because their life sucks) have one or more parents (typically the mother) who are clinically depressed as well.

so makin' babies aside, there is no guarantee that she will be able to find beautiful children to adopt, anyway. As you might imagine there is quite a premium placed on them...

I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that she's not that in to him. Does she think he stinks too? There are some physical attractions that are quite chemical between them, but if they are using barrier protection, that ain't happening either. In short I find her inability to see their children together in her imagination to be quite disturbing. As Prudence says, if she makin' him wear a Leo mask, even if just in her mind, then she ONLY sees him as a meal ticket. Run AWAY man, as fast as you can go.

I know this whole process can be quite mysterious, for who loves who why and when, and what things they see when they look at each other... but it's bad when you aren't biologically attracted to your mate, and it seems to me that IMAGINING your children together is part of that... At least I've always heard it was among my friends, and certainly myself.

I'm gonna agree with Brian, Eric and momof3 here. I got my mom's better looks but also her shorter/rotund body type, dad's early greying hair/acne and early thining hair from mom's side. Oh the humanity of it all.

I remember growing up there was a kid in middle school who was a thin, athletic jock, a great baseball player. His parents were pushing fat albert fat.

Sure, she shouldn't tell him how she really feels (unless she wants to break his heart and help him move on faster) but she should also let him go. Why get married if you don't want his/her kids? How could anyone do that to a person? That doesn't spell love there even if they're being realistic.

She's denying him his own genetic legacy because of her preference for beauty? She's free to make that choice herself but thats not fair when it involves your spouse/lover. All this says is that she doesn't respect him or love him. He's a useful tool to her but not useful enough that she'd reproduce with him, which kinda makes getting married pointless in my mind.

Remember this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/fashion/sundaystyles/02DNA.html

excerpt: Caroline Caskey, chief executive officer of Identigene, a DNA testing company in Houston that has advertised its services nationally in magazines and billboards, said that in about 30 percent of the paternity tests the presumed father turns out to be not the biological father, and that is consistent throughout the industry.

"Why get married if you don't want his/her kids?"

I think the LW loves her boyfriend for his many wonderful qualities. Based on the letter she seems confident in his ability to be a good life partner to her and a superb parent to any children they have. Given how badly behaved a lot of children are, and how poorly many people treat their spouses, I think that her relationship actually seems solid. She is basing it on what is truly important to her and she loves him. If the dude isn't attractive then he isn't attractive. Everyone on the planet can identify an "ugly" person or a "hot" person. It's about symmetry!! Watch TLC.

Just because she isn't eager to propagate his gene pool doesn't mean that raising kids together would be a joke to her, or that she loves him less. I just got engaged a week ago. Fiance is sexy as hell, in my opinion, but I'm scared shitless of our kids (or him!!) getting cancer. Both his parents had it and my grandmother had it. He has everything going for him and so far he is healthy, but still - it's something that crosses my mind. I'm going to marry this man and cancer is rampant in his family. I don't want my husband to die at 40, nor do I want a kid with cancer. Fuck that! But I can't wait to have a family with him someday.

>>"My boyfriend and I are in a healthy and loving relationship, and we are beginning to talk about marriage..."

It's very hard to square the accuracy of her opening self-assessment here with the crucial information the writer admits she is holding back, isn't it?

>> I just got engaged a week ago.

And THIS is how I find out? Just kidding - Congrats.

congrats Gretchen... but you have a reason far beyond looks... Health, especially genetically is very important. I had a girlfriend who's family had cancer history, and she had already had several tumors removed at 20... it was SCARY, but with my family history of adoption [mom was, sisters too...] I wouldn't have a problem going with that route. It's just that it seems too much to do this because of some imagined beauty defecit. You need to worry about healthy kids, sure... if they are going to be beautiful?

As has been mentioned, doesn't this guy get any say in having children? If there are reasons not to because of mental or health, that's one thing, but why doesn't the writer think that maybe the boyfriend wants to see her mother reflected in his daughter's eyes? Oh, I guess his feelings DON'T COUNT.

Amy, isn't that what you are saying, in saying that you would just lie to him forever?

>>Amy, isn't that what you are saying, in saying that you would just lie to him forever?

I don't get that last possibility either.
It's one thing to lie about your own past, if you must. But not about your future together.

Before she marries him she has to say "I don't want your children." Anything less would be fraudulent, because that's what marriage between heteros involves. However, the law being what it is, he wouldn't have any comeback if she said nothing and de/contra/ceived him.

Good News / Bad News About Parenting

Good parents make their children happier, but they turn out about the same.

Twin and adoption studies have produced credible answers to the nature-nurture controversy. Nature wins. Heredity alone can account for almost all shared traits among siblings.

Amy: "I would tell her NEVER to tell the guy the truth, and to instead say she can't bear to have children when there are so many children in need of adoption in this world. Period. And never, ever digress from this storyline."

Beautiful. Base the family and child raising on a lie.

Too bad the woman's parents didn't decide to adopt to prevent one's 'shallowness' gene from extending into another generation.

It sounds as if the guy referred to is a wonderful fellow. Personally, I'd like a world filled with more good people than cute, shallow ones.

Amy, isn't that what you are saying, in saying that you would just lie to him forever?

People act like total honesty is a good thing. There's a brain disorder that disinhibits people, and they say whatever's on their mind. Trust me, all of you who love people sometimes think thoughts about them that they should never hear.

I agree with what Gretchen wrote above. I find this woman realistic, not horrible.

Swiss, it isn't that the guy doesn't get any say -- if he says no to adopting kids, well, that's part two of this. Some people want their genetic material in their children. Others are okay with adoption. Maybe he's one of those people.

Oh, and congrats, Gretchen, on getting engaged! A book for you -- The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, by John Gottman.

And thanks, everybody, who's buying stuff through my Amazon links. The Tucson Citizen is going out of business on the 21st, and a major daily that paid me very well just called yesterday to say they're getting their pages seriously cut, and fired five columnists, one of whom is me. This is $500 a month in income that's just disappeared.

On the bright side, my book will be out November 1, Gregg shot a super-hot cover photo for it, which the publisher seems to like (although we have to shoot alternates at the end of the month). And my publisher is promoting it as one of their top releases, and selling it not just in the USA, but in English-speaking countries around the world. Will know for sure on the title in the next few weeks or month.

Meanwhile, among other things, I'm working really hard on this web TV show, and it's with a fantastic company, with a visionary CEO, and I have two producers who've done award-winning work on network and cable TV, and in the documentary world. Here's hoping!

But, again, thanks for thinking of me, and buying through my links when you need something at Amazon. It's making a difference, helping me hang on. Just today, I got a $19 kickback for some expensive thing somebody bought.

Beautiful. Base the family and child raising on a lie.

I see even people here have succumbed to the myth of "all honesty, all the time."

I believe in judicious honesty.

She can see the guy isn't attractive on an objective scale but he seems attractive to her. Women care less about looks than men do -- it's an evolutionarily hard-wired thing. Some women care more, but women in general will go for uglier guys who are tall and have potential career-wise over a handsome guy who works at Burger King. There's a Townsend study about this -- rather hilarious, where women went for an ugly guy with a Rolex over the handsome one in the Burger King uniform.

Now what man do you think will choose accordingly? Ugly woman with a Rolex getting priority over the beautiful one in a BK uniform? I mean, if he's a user-gigolo, maybe. But, a regular guy...let's be honest here.

All of you all-honesty all-the-time people -- do you all spill the entire contents of your head to your partner? Or sometimes, do you tell your partner stuff that will make them feel good, and feel appreciated, rather than telling them, for example, they should have done this or that yesterday, and everything that got screwed up was all their fault. Etc.

I made a pact with myself to be honest and ethical -- but there's a point at which honesty is not the best policy. For example, Gregg was in Detroit, and I had a medical issue that wasn't likely to be lethal but Kaiser told me to get my ass to the emergency room pronto. Gregg called from Detroit. Did I tell him I was going to the emergency room? Leave him sitting there in Detroit, worrying, when there was not a thing he could do to help me, and he had an important day of work ahead of him with Elmore? No way.

I had to get out of the house, so to get him off the phone, I told him I had to hurry to get a seat at the coffee house. I called my sister in SF on the way to Kaiser with all the details -- and told her to call Gregg if anything went wrong (gave the hospital her number as first contact).

AFTER I got out of Kaiser, and I could tell Gregg I was fine, I told him I wasn't actually going to Starbucks, but I didn't want him to worry. He was just glad I was okay. And he was able to get his work done instead of worrying all afternoon about something he had no power to do anything about.

I'm just impressed that Amy has the stomach to read Dear Prudence. I can never get through more than one one or two of her columns in a sitting.

The letters she receives, and her responses tend to freak me out too much. They demonstrate that for many cultural liberals, there is no distinction between aesthetics and morality - and that they regard their own self-absorption as evidence of their 'spiritualism' and general psychological and ethical superiority.

Prudence herself doesn't seem to have any rational basis for her advice. It's just the way she'd like things to be in the story that she chooses to tell herself about the world. And she thinks that our biggest priority in life should be self actualization, whatever that actually means.

The correspondences just seem like so much narcissistic mewling by neurotic infantilized lifestyle consumers.

That's my opinion, anyway ;)

>>All of you all-honesty all-the-time people -- do you all spill the entire contents of your head to your partner?

No,
But your own example re: Gregg was a one-off unselfish, compassionate lie, the sort many of us might resort to without blinking.

It has no relation to the ethical issue under discussion.

And as Swiss touched on above, is it realistic to encourage the writer to imagine she can specify a preference for a "cute" baby for adoption?

The "Skinny Bitch" answer you propose seems an unusually lousy start to saying "stuff you 'shouldn't' say, but that's true."

Of course, there's another thing that was not said that occurs to me.

She signs herself "Skinny Bitch". Perhaps the real reason she doesn't want to carry a baby is because she's afraid to harm her delicate figure. But since she feels bad about caring about her own looks, she deflects that onto her mate, and concern for how the baby will look.

Of course this assumes the whole female narcissism, but I think in this case it's not a bad starting point.

I think it's odd that she'd go for looks over the intelligence and great personality that she mentions. She really would prefer a stupid but good looking kid? It's not a given that her adopted kid would be less intelligent, but then again, it's not a given that her boyfriend's spawn would be ugly.

Amy, I disagree with you on this one. If he was the last man in the world, then you would be right. But he's not, and launching a marriage on such a huge lie will be disastrous. Every time she looks at him she will be reminded of her secret, and eventually he will guess it for himself. Their marriage is doomed, and it is one where they intend to have children by adoption or sperm donation or whatever. Innocents will be hurt.

Fortunately he is not the last man in the world. She should let him go to find someone who will love him for all of what he is, not just for selected parts.

The real issue isn't his physical appearance at all. It's this: she finds his genes good enough to marry but not good enough to pass on. That is some serious cognitive dissonance.

Amy is off the mark. White lies are one thing. The deception Any recommends is something else, entirely too fundamental to the relationship.

I agree wholeheartedly with Prudence: the real problem here lies with the woman.

Amy: "I made a pact with myself to be honest and ethical -"

Can you explain to us what is the least bit ethical about supporting this woman's attempt to deny the guy his progeny by the flat-out lie that "she can't bear to have children when there are so many children in need of adoption in this world", when she doesn't give a DAMN about anything but pretty children, and the lie must be continued forever? Ethical? Are you serious?

Jody is correct: to compare your one-time, short time deceit to Gregg to prevent him from worry, to a lifetime deception on something as important as children is, in a word, absurd.

'Judicious honesty' as you call it may have a (limited) place, but to use it as a foundation for children and parenting is pathetic.

C'mon, Amy. You're better than this.

n,n,no, not all truth all the time, although I would have had all sorts of bad things to say to you Amy, if you went to the emrgency room without telling me. Even if I was a world away. Worry is also an expression of Love. How would Gregg have felt if things hadn't gone the way you thought and your sister was calling him to say that they couldn't save you?

As with many-a-thing... this is a continuum. You don't tell Gregg that kaiser doesn't want you in the ER for a hangnail. OK. Your left arm has gone numb, and you have shortness of breath. IS TOTALLY different. Even IF he can do nothing but worry, and feel useless, it would be better than the guilt felt in not being able to even worry.

Same with truthyness. It's a big deal if she doesn't want to bear his children... a discussion you have. Same as the "I don't wanna have kids" talk that couples sometimes have. But it's a discussion.

How would it be if they never had that discussion, but instead she just had an abortion every time she got preggers. Would that be OK? Would it be healthy? It's very different than lying about wanting to have children, but the impulse is similar.

How about this different. She neglects to mention that she has AIDS? Now he may or may not have it. Would the truth hurt then?
Lying to him about not wanting to have kids is NOT life threatening, but it IS major. Is she afraid of saying it because it sounds so bad?

It is a major decision that they need to make as a couple...

She neglects to mention that she has AIDS?

Of course not. You owe it somebody to tell them you have a disease that could affect them.

But, if he's okay adopting, what's the problem?

I'm judicious about birth control and don't get pregnant. She can be, too.

"But, if he's okay adopting, what's the problem?"
You have to have the conversation in the first place to find that out, and if she is lying about her interest in adopting, what else will she lie over? Hypothetically as your suggestion. She thinks he is too ugly to have kids with, what is she going to think in 10 years? People generally don't become better looking as they age... I think there are some more deep seated issues about looks going on here.

Have you seen Chris Elliot's daughter on SNL? Luck of the draw, man. Case closed.

"But, if he's okay adopting, what's the problem?"

Aids would not affect him either if she was careful. She could say that she really gets off on the smell of bleach, to explain why she gargles with it.

Amy, your position seems to be that so long as he never finds out her true feelings, no harm is done. To some extent this is true. But it's a straw man, because she can't hide her feelings over a lifetime. Perhaps he's OK adopting because he loves her and is willing to make that sacrifice for her. When he discovers her real reason, what then? He will never trust her again, and trust is *the* essential component of marriage.

Say, why should SB think that the un-handsome boyfriend will be the source of all ugliness? Maybe it's her. She'll have an influence.

Julianne Hough, the amazing blonde dancer millions of men would leave rich families for, has endometriosis. Sometimes, good, even great looks don't indicate reproductive fitness.

Radwaste - good point. Not only is the SB living a lie, it's not even a lie based on fact.

Good Lord - Anyone who calls herself a skinny bitch has no business being anyone's wife or mother!

Something to consider is that he may not be all that ugly. A person may find certain features repellent that others find attractive.

For instance, I often find women with Aquiline noses (aka Roman Nose) attractive. But a lot of people don't. A woman I'd dated who had one was convinced that she was horribly ugly because of it. She'd gotten some very cruel comments from people, concerning her appearance, due to her nose. But to me she was genuinely beautiful.

So maybe SB is hung-up on some feature of her boyfriend's that she can't get past.

Amy: "But, if he's okay adopting, what's the problem?".

If, in this particular case, that's what you actually believe, I truly feel sorry for your BF. By supporting this woman's plan of deception, you've shown absolute disdain for husbands and fathers everywhere, and that you're capable of doing anything to get what you want, with zero consideration for anyone else. There's no other way to spin it.

Gregg should have used his Detroit trip to grab some strange. Hell, as long as he never lets you know, it's fine. He should make it a regular thing. Or is it different because it's YOU that would be deceived, even if you didn't know it? What the hell - it's only sex. It's not like raising children is as important as a piece of ass. The fact that he didn't shows that HE can be trusted. That is the best gift you could ever receive.

Norman: "When he discovers her real reason, what then? He will never trust her again, and trust is *the* essential component of marriage".

Exactly. But that's lost on people that aren't and don't believe in marriage, no matter how vigorously they deny it. They, as the recently popular phrase goes, have no skin in the game. Now take the next jump: what if the children somehow, someday learned it too? To serious parents, it's almost too painful to contemplate. To non-parents? Probably just something the kids will need to 'work through'. Sure.

Norman, what makes this even sadder is that he CAN'T trust her, and doesn't even know it.

Amy, I'm sure you hear this all the time, but this post makes me actually have to say it myself: if someone's never been married, they have no business 'advising' on it. It isn't a school subject that can learned, or some theory to be discussed. It's the ultimate real-life relationship. BF/GF stuff is the easy step, and any married folk will say the same. Hell - junior high kids can do it. Co-habitating is harder than basic BF/GF, but it's still amateur hour when it comes to true committment.So how do we know all this? Because we've done it. We've lived it. We know.

Triple that thought for children. You can study them, teach them, read to them, or babysit them, but as any parent reading this will tell you - none of that means a thing compared to living it, breathing it, experiencing it. A parent's child is an amazing and astonishing thing, but it isn't anything YOU can know much about. I know I sound harsh, but the parents reading this know what I'm saying is true. Most are just too polite to say it.

I'm sorry, but this post is a disgrace. With your cavalier attitude, you've effectively (even if inadvertantly) pissed all over every parent and spouse that takes their responsibilities to each other and their children seriously.

I feel the comment ban coming, but so be it. This post was insulting.

Let's hope that SB doesn't pass on her common sense genes, because she's operating off some seriously flawed logic. Personal observation should be enough to realize ugly people can make cute babies, attractive people can have hideous offspring, and even siblings can have radically different levels of attractiveness. Moreover, even directly inherited traits can manifest themselves differently in your kids: tall, buff, and rugged isn't so hot when it's your daughter.

Not to mention that the way a person looks at age, oh, six months isn't exactly indicative of what they'll look like at age 25, 15, or even 6. And since most babies are pretty cute, unless the SB is adopting teenagers then it's pretty much a crapshoot. And to a certain point, attractiveness isn't about your genetic blueprint so much as what you choose to do with it: working out, eating healthily, clothing, hair, makeup, skincare, even plastic surgery. All of which are values that parents have the opportunity to influence.

But this is all beside the point, which is that anyone this shallow has no business having or adopting children. At best, she'll be raising kids that are shallow, vain, and self-obsessed; at worst, insecure with low self-confidence (because mommy doesn't love me unless I'm pretty) and, judging by her signature, probably an eating disorder to boot. I feel sorry for her husband.

As per my mum-in-law- when my hubby was born he looked like a skinny plucked rubber chicken. Not a cute baby at all. Rather goofy and awkward looking kid later on (I've seen the pictures to confirm this).

He looks damn good now.

Mayhap Skinny Bitch deserves another nickname. Like Silly Bitch.

I dated a blond haired blue eyed leanly-buff calvin klein model through college. Guy was a dream (and smart and very competent at outdoor sports. That REALLY gets me!). I saw his baby and kid pics. I'd have to say I found him an unattractive child. Boy did he grow up.

"parents bond with their children, even the ugly ones, in my experience -- it's not wrong to prefer a really cute child."

That's pretty up there on the "stupid things said here" list. If I had to choose between an attractive popular child and a plain, but smart and interesting geeky one, I wouldn't have to think a second which I'd prefer. What I would not choose is a shallow, stupid, looks-obsessed cheerleader type kid.

You are getting called out accurately here. I understand that you think as long as the guy is OK with adoption for her stated reason, you think it's fine. But it's not. It's a base deception that ruins the entire relationship foundation. It is absolutely as bad as the woman that oooops's the BC because she wants a kid and BF/hubby does not. It's as bad as people who stay with someone they don't really love because they think that person would be alone without them. It's the worst kind of hubris-a pity marriage. Someone out there would be thrilled to bear this man's kids, and he deserves to find her. This woman needs to find a man as shallowly attracted to her as she seems to be.

And on the dif between marriage and anything else-it's there and it's big. Not to say you can't and don't give good advice on both marriage and parenting, you do. But me needing an ER trip and not telling my husband is unacceptable and vice versa. I wouldn't feel that way about a BF. Your spouse has the right, as your spouse, to make the decisions of where and when they need to be, and they have the legal power to make decisions for you if needed for a reason. Just like it would not be ok to conceal a cancer diagnosis or other medical issue. Or a desire for kids or not, or physical desire or not, or planning to work or not. Someone else has legally and emotionally tied their life to yours, and they deserve all the facts so they can make the best decisions for themselves in that relationship. This is obviously different than "Gee honey, that haircut sucks!", which I agree is not necessary.

I don't know that she needs to tell him straight up, but she needs to work this out and cut him loose if necessary, with something akin to the "you just don't do it for me" truth so that he can move on.

or be so annoying for about a year that other commenters beg and beg me to 86 you (Jeff and Chuckles)

Is that the Chuckles who always posts an epigram following his posts and likes to drop the claim that he's in Mensa?

If so, I'm pretty sure that he's using the internet from a public library somewhere, and otherwise lives beneath an overpass.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amy I think that you're overestimating the benefit of good looks, especially in the case where the ugly gene contributor is highly intelligent.

Frankly I'm skeptical that a highly intelligent man would be into the LW, but let's just take her assessment at face value.

Personally I'd rather be more intelligent than better looking. And I suspect that marginal enhancements in intelligence pay-off better than enhancements in beauty. Though the research that I'm familiar w/ suggests that unusually high intelligence (e.g. 4+ SD above average) doesn't correlate well with financial success or achievements.

And let's be clear, the LW isn't concerned with the utility value of good looks. She's concerned that she'll be the mother of unattractive children. If this is the case, then she probably should be candid with her boyfriend. I think that he's entitled to know that her interest in having children is conditioned on them being physically attractive.

Amy, you say really nutty things sometimes.

Pete the Streak: your assertion that you must be married and must have children to understand them is a simple plea to be left alone when you screw up.

It is in no way necessary to do either of those things to recognize how to produce a lasting relationship or a good citizen, as well as the pitfalls.

Meanwhile, you're going to be called for any mistakes. For both our sakes, I hope those calls don't include some from residents at the ER or police homicide detectives. There's too much of that already, some of which is a result of "parenting" having been attempted by an idiot with far less education than Amy, a need to have sex and no regard for consequences.

Here's a good way to illustrate how ridiculous your premise is: when you got engaged, you weren't married and therefore knew nothing according to your premise. Likewise, when you decided to start a family you knew nothing about raising kids.

Now - what about either of those situations suggests that learning as you go, making mistakes that actually hurt other people, is a good idea?

Your assertion is fallacious for another reason: knowledge isn't a binary switch. You aren't magically enlightened for having been to the Ob-Gyn ward.

Wake up.

None of which changes the fact that LW's man probably said he was OK with the idea of adopting based on the premise that one or the other of them turns out to be infertile.

Lying about being infertile because you don't want to bear unattractive offspring is probably the most disgusting show of narcissism I have ever seen.

This woman should not ever be allowed to make decisions affecting the lives of other people, especially children.

She's clearly too immature to be doing anything more emotionally involved than playing dress-up with Barbie dolls.

Really. "I don't want to bear his children because he's just not hot enough and I can't handle the possibility of having ugly children"

It's all about HER. Having children is supposed to be about the children. Even I know that. But for her, the children are an accessory like Prada shoes and a Gucci handbag. Oh, does Princess' nose go with that dress? Junior's eyes aren't quite the right shade of blue, and they clash with his tie.

Sorry, Amy. You read this one wrong. This isn't someone who has noble intent behind her desire to adopt. She's just as batshit fucking loco as octomom.

I'd rather have an ugly smart kid than a dumb cute one. You can buy pretty.

And adopted? Talk about buying a pig in a poke.

Neither my husband nor I are gorgeous, but our kids are.

>>[Gregg]shares the important stuff with me, the stuff I need to know, and vice versa.

So why isn't telling the guy you love the real reason you want to adopt "important stuff"?

I know you're "Barren!" Amy, but adoption isn't something you do just because you're afraid the bio-kid will be ugly. It's a noble thing to do, but it does require determination and a pocket book. It's not nearly as cheap and simple (and quick) as getting knocked up.

Not to mention there's no guarantee that the adopted kid's gene pool will be any better looking.

A good percentage of domestic adoptions are fraught with expensive, years long court cases. Oversees adoptions are tremendously expensive and fraught with their own unique problems (kids with unknown health problems, kids with psych problems due to emotional neglect). Is it worth it if your only reason for doing so is because the bio-kid's dad is homely?

And how homely can he be if she's with him. Or is their relationship one long pity-fuck?

But you are right Amy. She should never, EVER tell this guy why she doesn't want his kids. Telling a man you don't want to father his children because you're "Barren!" or believe in the nobility of adoption is hard enough. But to tell him that's it's because he's ugly is just a vile, soul-crushing thing to do.

And just because attractive people are more successful it's not like being plain or even butt ugly will condemn you to a life of a hobo.

[Gregg]shares the important stuff with me, the stuff I need to know, and vice versa.

How do you know? You don't. You can't. Instead, you have to trust Gregg, no doubt based on experience and evidence ... but how would you feel if it turned out that he was lying to you about something you feel important? Not just an impersonal fact like he never did buy into Albert Ellis, but something deeply personal like you were not really good enough for him long term, but you'd do until something better, with better eye colour, came along?

You'd feel like a truck had hit you. Now add children into that situation.

Perhaps you will reply that if Gregg really felt that way, you'd know. I agree. That's the whole point - lies on this scale are hard to conceal. That's why the ugly BF will also know.

>> Assholes Welcome!

Thank you. Nice to be here.

>> Jeff and Chuckles

Who was Jeff? and I sorta miss Chuck[les].

PS- I am dying to know what this ugly boyfriend looks like. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts he's just a normal looking guy, kinda Ed Asner like.

Emotions aside, she's not any more likely to get a pretty baby out of an adoption than she is to pop one out herself. Clean, white babies are in demand and hard to come by, and even in an open adoption, you can't predict exactly what you're getting. Some people who are capable of bearing their own children adopt because they feel it's the right thing to do... SB does not appear to be one of those people.

Amy, I like your comments much of the time.
But, when you put your foot in your mouth, you cram it in all the way up to the knee!
(the 'kneepit')

This is one of those times.
You have no real clue what you are talking about. This is one of those rare times when Prudence is correct.
Neither my wife nor I are stunners.
You should see our son, however.
At 13 he is already getting more attention than he'd like from the girls at school.
In this case you are talking through your hat.

Stick to skewering B of A, and pointing out rude people with cell phones.

I'm with the majority here. This isn't something you can or should attempt to hide.

If the relationship is doomed, well relationships built on lies usually don't fare well, do they?

What concerns me is that this woman isn't willing to play the looks lottery with her husband, but is willing to do so with an adopted kid. Cute babies don't always make cute kids or cute adults. What happens if she picks out a cute kid and it grows up to be funky looking? Or has an accident that affects its looks? Grows up to be chubby? Is she going to tell it its worthless or try to give it back?
Deciding that you want a kid isn't something you should do with preconditions-I'll love it *if* it's cute, *if* it's good at sports, *if* it's smart, etc. That's setting you and the kid up for failure.
I would have advised her to be honest with him, then let him decide if he wants to shackle himself to her. After all, having kids is a mutual decision, and this guy has every right to not want to adopt.
Saying that attractive people do better in this world is a huge generalization. Yes, they do in some fields (like, duh, modeling) but I think most employers would prefer someone intelligent and hardworking over someone who's cute and stupid. And anyway, we all lose our looks eventually, and I feel sorry for people who don't have anything else to fall back on. Like a personality.

Intelligent people are awesome. The best quality anyone with half a brain should want for their children is intelligence. I'd much rather my children go on to cure cancer than be able to win a modeling competition. This seems objectively sensible, and intelligence will become more and more crucial to success and independence as technology steadily replaces the jobs of the stupid. This poor guy has saddled himself with a horrible loser of a woman, who does not appreciate or respect him and his qualities, is dishonest with him, and is willing to try build a family on fraudulent, insulting and demeaning grounds - that won't work. I can only guess he's blinded by her looks, because her personality is obviously rubbish, but this relationship has no future - if he's basing it on the physical, well, 98% of women (especially the gorgeous 'players' as they don't look after themselves) age very quickly and their beautiful looks in their youth usually fade very fast.

Also, I think it's morally wrong (not to mention sickeningly vile) to lure a man under false pretenses into a committed relationship situation in which you plan to surprise him, once it's too late, with the revelation that you're going to presumptuously and selfishly disallow him from continuing his own genetic line. It's so vile it makes me nauseous that anyone can be so sick as to even consider that. A man must be told the truth up front, so that he can have the facts he needs to make such a major decision (e.g. dump her and find someone who actually likes him if he wants to have his own kids). Personally I would *never* want to adopt as long as I was fertile, it's important to me to pass on my genes (and if he has any self-esteem - I doubt it - he should *want* to have his awesome quality of intelligence passed down). This man should be given the chance to make up his own mind, and she *must* tell the truth. What a b-tch.

Karen: "Now if this guy has some kind of deformation that this woman loves him enough to overlook, that may be a different story."

More likely "... that this woman loves his money enough to overlook". This letter is a fantastic affirmation of my theory that many women want to f-ck the alpha male to get his genes but deceive the nice-guy-with-money into raising the offspring.

She calls it a "healthy relationship" but no relationship built on such massive deceit is healthy.

"Definitely recall an ex with whom I didn't want to reproduce due to the proclivity of insanity that ran in her family.

Is this much different?"

Of course: Insanity is objectively bad, ugliness is not. 'Intelligent but ugly' is usually still successful, functional and self-sufficient. (Actual) insanity is usually dysfunctional and a financial burden on someone else.

I don't think this woman is evil for not wanting an ugly child. All this woman meant was that she wanted her children to not be ugly, NOT that she wanted them to be models; there's a difference. And she doesn't say that it's her top priority over everything, just that it's important to her.

"Personally, I'd like a world filled with more good people than cute, shallow ones."

Are you saying that she will inevitably raise a "cute, shallow" child? She just wants to make sure that her child isn't ugly, and maybe she realizes that beauty, as opposed to personality, is far more genetically based. If she wasn't concerned with the character of the child, she wouldn't have mentioned that her preferred outcome is a "well-behaved" child. I would also guess that if she really didn't care, it wouldn't matter to her what the personality of the father is, which she makes positive references to.

And why is intelligence, another highly inheritable trait, somehow any less shallow to want than looks? On top of which, even though people say they would prefer an intelligent child over a beautiful yet stupid one, beautiful children get treated better by parents. And if I asked them what they would prefer, they would probably tell me "the intelligent child."

As is so often the case, Amy, thanks for the opportunity to have such an interesting conversation with so many points of view. This one hasn't left my brain for more than 20 minutes since you posted it.

Reading this really set the mood for this blog comment, because we know Amy likes 'em tall! Abe Lincoln was 6'4", which was freaky in those days of lesser nourishment and hygiene. When asked how long a man’s legs should be, he said “Long enough to reach the ground.”

> The fact is, attractive people
> do better in this world.

Not all that much better... More importantly, doing better isn't the same as being better, which is what parents should concentrate on.

> I know two ugly people
> with a gorgeous daughter

No you don't.

> And she sounds like she
> loves him, but realistically.

Not realistically, half-heartedly.

> women don't seem to care
> anywhere near as much as
> men do about looks.

The "caring" you're talking about is mostly erotic fascination. And that feeling, like every other feeling in a person's heart, is something that wiggles and migrates with the passage of time. As my old friend Dale put it, "Show me the most beautiful woman in the world, and I'll show you the guy who's tired of fucking her." (See the showbiz anecdote below.) And anyone who's ever heard women speaking cattily about an absent sister will laugh at your word "seem".

> I would tell her NEVER to
> tell the guy the truth

Doesn't matter. Unless he's as confused about human nature as she is, we can hope the he reads her poor judgment for what it is... Maybe not a crippling fault, but a terribly sad one. People marry partners who have character faults all the time, and it often works out well.

> It isn't wrong to try to
> have attractive children

No, but it's pretty fuckin' stupid. Flowers grow in dirt:

| There is no exquisite beauty
| that hath not some strangeness
| in the proportion. ––Francis Bacon

I remember when Billy Joel married Christie Brinkley, who was smokin' in the old days. Their daughter's grown now, and pretty but not extraordinary. Who cares? We can hope that (despite the divorce) she's well-loved. And her father will always be able to say 'Angel, I did what I could do, but that's just not how beauty works...'

> This woman isn't saying
> she'd reject an ugly child

Is that our standard? The problem isn't that she'd "reject" the child in some animal way. It's that she doesn't seem equipped to love a child –any child– with a rich appreciation for another human being.

> she isn't shallow or horrible
> for wanting to have an
> attractive kid.

She's close enough to shallow and horrible that I look forward to seeing her mocked in these comments. Let's begin!:

> I see plenty of ugly people
> out there getting bonked.

This is an important retort! Let's label it Retort #1, and get back to it later.

> Genetics are to a large degree
> the luck of the draw.

Retort #2! Keep this in mind as well.

> There's no guarantee an adopted
> kid would look better.

Right, and more to the point, what's the magical thing that's going to happen in a parent's heart just because the kid is cute? Especially if the kid is adopted, is the beauty-obsessed parent going to expect some sort of reflected admiration?

> she should just get a career
> in the kiddie-beauty-contest
> circuit

Yeah. Maybe she wouldn't even regret spending her time that way years later, when the kids grew up ugly and their lives turned to shit as so many lives do, whether we're pretty or not. I like this comment because...

| Beauty is worse than wine;
| it intoxicates both the
| holder and the beholder
| –– Aldous Huxley

...it's possible that this woman just can't hold her liquor, so to speak. Not everyone who gets tipsy after a single drink is a drunk driver.

> I'm going to go way out on
> a limb and say that she's
> not that in to him.

Sturdy branch. I'd bet she's not that into anybody.

> She is basing it on what
> is truly important to her

How do you know? As mentioned above, people can be inebriated by this. Drunks think alcohol is essential to their lives, right up to the day they stop drinking.

> doesn't mean that raising kids
> together would be a joke
> to her

My alarms are ringing anyway. If this woman chooses to avoid propagation, it's OK with me!

> People act like total honesty
> is a good thing.

No, the troubling dishonesty is her obsession. I'm starting to like the metaphor more and more: This is like an alcoholic who assures his mate 'This will never be a problem for you, I promise... But I'm gonna need weekends and two weeknights to myself.'

> the guy isn't attractive
> on an objective scale

Where is that scale kept? Can I borrow it in middle April? There's an industry conference coming up, and I wanna try some things out.

> anyone this shallow has no
> business having or adopting
> children. At best, she'll be
> raising kids that are shallow,
> vain, and self-obsessed

We wonder how the adoptees will feel when they bring home a particularly good-looking classmate for milk & cookies after school, and Mom starts fawning.

> I'm disappointed in many
> of you here.

Oh for shit's sake, woman, get over yourself.

> He looks damn good now.

A lot of the characteristics that make people attractive in youth fade quickly. The whole point of beauty is that it's only for a season. Is there anything more pathetic than a woman who pretends to be younger or more attractive than she actually is?

| Every one desires to live long,
| but no one would be old.
| –– Abe Lincoln

I'm o-fucking-ficially middle-aged now, and can attest that one of the great pleasures in life is watching sensationally attractive youngsters hit the wall... Not just here in Hollywood, but in every field. A similar pleasure is seeing how the company of plain women is so drastically improved as they reach these years... Certainly as compared to a faded beauty. They're less manipulative, more independent, more patient, and just plain useful... Women who approach life as an endless prom night aren't like that.

> That's pretty up there on the
> "stupid things said here" list.

Word. I'm the bitterest bachelor west of the 405 freeway, but even I hear evidence of diminished emotional capacity in this argument.

> I am dying to know what this
> ugly boyfriend looks like.

Yeah, I bet we couldn't pick either her or the boyfriend out of a small assortment of photos.

| Common looking people are the
| best in the world: that is the
| reason the Lord makes so many of
| them. –– Abe Lincoln

If that smells too Christian or folksy for you, consider the thoughts of Darwin, born on the same day as Lincoln. An S.J. Gould essay was what made this clearest to me, but the insight was straight from Charles: The miracle of life isn't the refinement of any particular individual or branch. The miracle of life, the thing that makes so much pain forgivable, is that magic comes from the expansive, often random, often dangerous bushiness of a species. Nature will —and does— try anything. We don't know what the good outcomes will be. (Neither does God... Right, Amy?) Each of us has our purpose.

Consider again Retorts #1 & #2.

Imagining a child ––perhaps especially an adopted one–– condemned to a lesser grade of bonding with a parent because of the outlook of this letter writer is painful.

That women is ignorant. She's not considering the rest of the genes in the child she would be adopting. Mental health can be a much larger barrier to happiness than looks.

Beauty is part genetics and part skill. If they are low on the genetics part, work on the skill... maintaining ideal body weight and musculature, getting the right haircut, proper grooming, etc.

Usually people who are ugly are uglier than they would be because they are schlumpy.

What are the chances the ugly man with a great personality also just happens to have a much higher income level than said woman?

I hope the man in question figures out that this woman isn't attracted to him and finds someone who actually loves him. Maybe she can find someone she is attracted to. Why would you have sex with someone you don't find attractive at some level unless it's purely for money or power?
It doesn't sound like he has any physical or mental disabilities or diseases which is a different situation entirely.
This is a fundamental lie in the relationship, not a little white lie about liking his bad haircut or "no that outfit doesn't make you look fat".

I know this is over, but I have to partially agree with the comments and also with Amy.

I don't think there is anything particularly shallow about not wanting to have ugly kids. Who wants ugly kids? Who? NOBODY!! And the ridiculous idea that not wanting ugly kids means one wants an airheaded cheerleader type..well that's just patently silly. By comparison, who wants stupid kids? Anyone?

Contrast and compare if the post were..."I really love my boyfriend. He's sweet, he's kind, he's caring, but he's dumb as a box of rocks. Should we adopt?"

And no, most babies are not cute. They're babies, but I simply disagree that baby equals cute. It just doesn't. I've had 5. I had exactly one cute baby.

I'm also mystified by those who push the idea that genetics doesn't primarily determine the kids looks. My mother has 4 siblings. My dad has 5 siblings. We don't have children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, not a single kid who doesn't look like someone in the family. Period. End of discussion.

All that said, here is where Amy misses the boat and where I agree with some of the comments. This lady has no business with this guy. If she doesn't love him enough to be thrilled to have his kids, she doesn't love him enough. She will never be happy and it will eventually out and make him miserable. He may never know why, but it will happen. She should know that and cut him loose to find someone who really wants to have his babies. He deserves that and she is being selfish in not being honest. Perhaps not with him if she loves him, but with herself in order to end the relationship.

She wants to keep him and her question makes it clear she's "settling for him". Again, he doesn't deserve it.

I'm very late but:

I agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with hoping for an attractive child. But really, how ugly is this guy that she's sure his biological kid would turn out unattractive? Unless he has a highly hereditary disfigurement, it's not quite that simple. That's lazy thinking on her part. Maybe there is another reason she prefers adoption and she's rationalizing it this way? Could she not want to experience pregnancy and giving birth, or just be really into adopting a child that already exists in the world and needs parents? I don't think there's anything wrong with adopting for those reasons, but if it's only to get a child prettier than her husband might make then she should really rethink her motives, because:

1) It's impossible to go through babies up for adoption to choose an attractive one.

2) Most newborns are ugly anyway, and many ugly duckings turn out beautiful, duh. On the other hand, even the cutest babies can go through butt-ugly stages at some point in their lives. There are no guarantees.

3) So, she has about as much chance of getting an unattractive child through adoption, unless she's planning on picking from older children. Sadly, they often come with preexisting issues more serious than physical looks. Has she given that a thought?

I wouldn't say her love isn't real or their relationship unhealthy or whatever. I see no evidence for that. I do think she hasn't thought this through intelligently, and I would advise her to do that before deciding in what way she wants to become a parent.