Molly Gunn’s 2023 Times essay, reported under the provocative phrase “my husband used to be hot,” was about a question of changing attraction over a long relationship—not a declaration that she no longer fancied her husband. PerthNow reported that Gunn had been with him for more than 20 years and said she still found him attractive. The online response included criticism of her decision to write publicly about his looks as well as personal abuse directed at Gunn; the available coverage does not establish how representative those reactions were.
What Molly Gunn’s essay was reported to say
PerthNow’s 7 March 2023 account described Gunn’s essay as asking whether she would still be attracted to her husband if they met for the first time now. The question sat alongside reflections on the changes of marriage, children and adult life, and on what she missed about earlier stages of their relationship. PerthNow specifically reported that Gunn did not say she had stopped fancying him. Read PerthNow’s account.
The report said the couple had been together for more than two decades and had three children. It described Gunn’s memory of her husband as a younger DJ with curly hair and ripped jeans. PerthNow also reproduced an exchange in which Gunn says, “Why did you have to change? I loved you how you were!” and he answers, “I’m different now, and so are you.” These lines are quotations reproduced by PerthNow, rather than wording independently checked against the original Times essay.
Why the headline and the reported nuance matter
“My husband used to be hot” invites readers to hear a blunt verdict on a partner’s appearance. The account of the essay is more complicated: it presents a comparison between how Gunn remembers her husband and the people they have become, while reporting that she continued to fancy him. The reported question—“If I met him now, would I still fancy him?”—is not the same as claiming that attraction had disappeared.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →#1 Best Overall
That distinction does not settle whether readers should consider the essay fair or kind. It does mean that criticism of its framing should be based on the reported question and context, not on turning the headline into a more categorical claim than the reporting supports.
What the online response included—and what it cannot show
PerthNow described the piece as divisive. Its report said some responses objected to the essay or questioned why Gunn’s husband took part, while Gunn also received personal abuse. Those are different kinds of reaction: readers can criticize a public account of a partner’s appearance without attacking its author’s own looks.
The available reports do not provide a verified poll, a representative sample of readers, or a reliable measure of the response’s size. “Divided the internet” is therefore best understood as a description of visible disagreement, not proof that opinion was evenly split or that social-media comments represented the broader public.
How commentators interpreted the story
The Independent: appearance standards and filtered images
The Independent placed the headline within a broader discussion of online appearance judgment. It quoted clinical psychologist Dr Sarah Bishop, who works with people with body-image issues, saying: “Over-exposure to filtered photographs means we see more and more pictures of people who seemingly look the same; we’re then desensitised to what are in fact unnatural or even abnormal images and start to expect to see it.” Bishop also said this can reinforce narrow standards, leading people to “either criticise or celebrate what falls outside of these standards.” These are Bishop’s views as quoted by The Independent, not a measurement of Gunn’s readers or an established explanation for every reaction. Read The Independent’s commentary.
Rank #3
Eliot Wilson: a critical opinion response
Eliot Wilson’s response was sharply critical of the essay and what he saw as its implications for marriage and love. Wilson’s account also says the couple lived apart for a few months at the end of 2020. That detail belongs to his commentary; it should not be treated as neutral confirmation of the Times essay’s claims or as a complete account of the relationship. Read Wilson’s opinion piece.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What this episode does—and does not—say about long relationships
Gunn’s reported reflections describe one couple’s experience, not a rule about how attraction changes in marriage. The coverage supports a narrower takeaway: people may look back at who they and their partners were earlier in a relationship while also describing affection and attraction in the present. It does not establish that long-term partners generally lose attraction, nor that a provocative essay captures the private view of every person in a marriage.
The same care applies to the backlash. Objections to making a partner’s appearance public are a debate about disclosure and framing; personal abuse is an attack on the writer. Treating those as interchangeable obscures what readers were actually disagreeing about.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
