Jury Gives Priority to Sex Over Love in Marriage That Unraveled

In the Ronald Askew case, in which the jury penalized his wife $242,000, plus $2,000 in damages and possibly an additional $84,000 from property proceeds because she never told him she was not physically attracted to him, I cannot help wondering what the verdict would have been if the situation was reversed.

What if Mrs. Askew sued her husband because, after their 13-year relationship ended in divorce and a finalized property settlement, he told her he had never been physically attracted to a liar?

What if he clearly stated for the court record: “I always loved her! I just was not sexually attracted to her. She has her priorities all mixed up. Love is more important to most wives than sex, isn’t it? Besides, as time went by, she got more and more withdrawn and frigid.”

Question: “But your wife told you that honesty within the relationship was important to her, and you lied to her--through your silence--for over a decade.”

“Yes, she is a hard-working, successful businesswoman, and she supports me and the children well, but her ego is frail. She is so vulnerable. She is so preoccupied with her looks. I just could not bear to hurt her feelings with the truth.”

What jury would reverse a judge’s decision and penalize this kind-hearted, loving husband by requiring him to pay $328,000 to a vain woman whose priorities are in the wrong places?

I, for one, am grateful to the jury for finally bringing into the light what all married women have secretly known but rarely acknowledge. All future brides will now know that a marital contract is actually a one-way sexual agreement--wives must find their husbands physically attractive.

LUCINDA MCDERMOTT

Newport Beach