I see a lot of BS's here that state... "I would never stay if I didn't have kids with WS". As a BH without children, I can't seem to get through a sentence like this without saying to myself "copout" (sp). I mean, I don't know what the numbers would be, but if someone were to ask every member in the infidelity forum if they would marry their WS knowing that their spouse would have an affair, I think at least 95% of the BS's would say "NO"...but, at the same time most of those 95% are saying that they would like to "recover". Am I just being a little bitter when I scoff at the "I'm doing it for the kids" statement? I don't know the exact numbers, obviously...but to me BS's who say this would probably fit into the 95% as mentioned above, with or without kids. 50% of marriages end in divorce, and I'm sure a high percentage of those marriages have children...I have plenty of friends and family that have divorced, re-married (or not)...and their children have turned out to be just fine. So, why do people still say "I'm doing it for the kids"? It just seems to me that a lot of the people I know whose parents seperated or divorced say that they are happier now that the divorce is final, and that they hated seeing their parents at eachother's throats, and trying to overcome their problems...it was hell for them to watch first hand.

Anyway, I'm not trying to stir up anything, and I realize this is a Marriage "Builders" website, so that is why we are all here. I just think that in today's day in age, and the fact that there are so many "success" stories for children of divorce, that the "I'm doing it for the kids" should go the way of the dodo bird...imho.

Discuss?

When I say the kids are part of the reason I chose to stay, it wasn't because I thought I was doing them a favor.

I couldn't imagine being without them half of the time...missing out on half of their childhoods.

Call me selfish. "Staying for the kids" was for me.

That's cool Krazy. I'm not trying to question people who did it, just trying to figure out why. You also state that the children were "part" of the reason you stayed, which I can understand. It's the BS's who say "there is no way I'd stay if we didn't have kids" that kind of bothers me (don't know why, but it does).

I can't speak for others, but I do think some BSs with kids simply don't have the nerve/courage to leave, especially after an esteem-shattering d-day, and it makes them feel better when they tell themselves they are staying for the kids.

I'm sure many have financial reasons, too.

I guess part of the problem for me is that I always hear "well, you're young...you don't have kids...D should be easy then". Maybe comments like that from people make me feel like (since I've decided to "try" to recover) if I had kids (which I wish I did) I could have a reason to tell those people "well, have to do it for the kids now" as a reason to justify trying to recovery from this crap she put us through.

edit:

Maybe I'm just bitter that I don't have that reason to justify.

Yeah, I was relieved when my parents split up. Was it hard after? Sure! But it helped me learn to be resourceful and self-reliant. I had my grandpa for a male authority figure, though. My dad pretty much dropped out nearly completely.

As for my grandparents...they SHOULD have divorced. They stayed together for convenience, IMO. They were miserable together. But after a while I guess they felt it was too late to start over so they just left it at that.

Charlotte

Well, except for the self-esteem issue, D really would be easier without kids.

Keep in mind that many who say it should be easier to D without kids have never dealt with infidelity when they didn't have kids, so they don't know what they're talking about.

Perhaps sometimes it's easier to tell people that. So many people don't understand why we BS's would want to try to reconcile with a WS and using the kids is one way to put it so they don't go on and on, making you feel like a dumba*s. I know that my mother thinks I'm silly to even consider recovery with my WH. She says he isn't worth it and like he has said, he doesn't deserve me or our wonderful children. Most of the time I agree with her, but that doesn't mean that I love my H any less...I just like WH a WHOLE lot less!

How about: You want to give your marriage every chance to succeed before you make such a big decision?

Charlotte

I don't think I would have decided to even try to recover my marriage if it wasn't for my daughter. I thought about our future if we did get divorced.

My H and I would each miss half of the holidays with our daughters.

Our daughter would most likely have a stepmother and step brothers if my H would have stayed with OW. The thought of my daughter staying overnight in a house with teenage boys that are not related to her and that I no nothing about (except that they are children of divorced parents and their mom moved a married man into their home very quickly) was scary for me.

If I remarried, my daughter and new H would not love each other the same as her real dad and her love each other, yes I know step parents love their stepkids, but it is not the same. Dr. Laura said one time if both your child and your stepchild were drowing and you could save only one which would it be? This may sound harsh, but I think it is true.

I mean this with no offense, but until you have kids of your own I do not think you can fully understand how it feels to be a parent.

Listening to my 5 year old daughter cry and ask "why does daddy love her (ow) so much" was enough for me to swallow my pride and do anything it would take for my daughter to not have to ever feel like second best to an OW. My daughter asked that question after my H lied to me and took my daughter to spend the night with him at the OW's apartment which he had moved into a couple weeks earlier.

I no longer would say I am staying because of my child, we are in recovery and I love my H. But I can say for sure that if we did not have a child I would never have tried to reconcile. This past year has been very hard and I considered giving up many times, but just didn't like what the future would hold for my family if we divorced.

I often ask myself what my situation would be like if I didn't have kids. I honestly think I would still love my wife and hope and pray that we can somehow work it out, but honestly, the circumstances would be different.

For one, I would not have all the oppurtunities to speak with her because of our common interest in the kids. Second, things don't just simply end with divorce when you have kids. You will most likely always be in contact with your X, where as without kids you can break all contact. Third is that it changes things financially. W/O kids you split the assets and really all you need is to take care of yourself. With kids, both of you have to find a way to take care of yourself and kids, which can be extremely difficult.

I guess I'd say that I would never want to settle for staying together for the kids, but kids give me more motiviation then just love of my spouse to try and reconcile.

I have to echo the sentiments of the others here. The only reason I considered reconciling was for the kids. I'm now divorced and living with the consequences. I see the kids just a fraction of the time that I did when I was married and I was a very involved dad.

It is hard for someone without kids to understand why those with kids tell you that you have lost nothing and count your blessings, move on, and consider yourself lucky to not have to subject children to split homes and step parents and siblings.

As far as why dads drop out of the picture: the system creates dads who do this because the system uses "the best interests of the children" to justify havind dad's go broke for kids they never get to see. Many finally give up trying and are driven off to try and restart a life elsewhere and with someone new.

It's sad, but that's the reality and why father's rights groups exist. Kid's need dads and the system should be there to protect the kid's rights to have both parents involved in their lives.

Saying that someone would do it for the kids is not a copout. It was the only motive I had to try. Having them out of my life has been very painful.

I would otherwise have divorced and moved away to live near family and happily moved on to a woman with morals and who actually understood that the vows were "till death do us part" and not "till I'm not happy anymore".

Oh wow, I hear you there. And I think you are right, at least as far as my situation and maybe some others go. I love my H still very, very much, but I think this would be much easier on me if we didn't have a child together and one on the way. It would just be easier if we didn't have one on the way. I think it would be easier for me to handle since I'm not the one who is losing the children, he is.

This is exactly why I started this thread...very well put. That's why I stated the numbers in my original post (although guesses)...it just seems to me that a lot of people state "Id NEVER forgive my spouse for adultery", but then they try to...I think the same thing could be said for people that say "I'd leave if not for the kids"...I think they would still try to recover without kids. JMO

I do not.

I TOTALLY disagree and I think it was lousy of her to make such a comparison.

Charlotte

Intro,

Hmm....what are your reasons??

You married for life, you married for better or worse, through good times and bad......

Personally, I don't think you have to "justify" anything to anybody.........

not2fun

ps...I have kids, so I can't really comment to much one way or the other since this was my sitch.... ....

If Dr. Laura and my son's pet hamster were drowning...now THERE'S a tough decision.

My "step" children weighed heavily on me throughout this ordeal. Only we don't use the word "step."

I would have tried to work it out for them because I didn't want them to have to go through the whole divorce ordeal again. Back THEN, I would have. Not now.

They understand that I won't be divorcing THEM, though, and that's what's important.

Charlotte

LMAO!!!!



Charlotte

I lied...the hamster is liked by at least one person in this world, plus, he weighs less.

My step child already has 2 Dads, and I am the primary father figure right now. If this divorce goes through, he will shuffled to three different homes on the weekend, with the possibility of have 2 more 'Mom' figures as well as another Dad. As well he is somewhat introverted and does show his feelings as clearly as the others.

Divorce will be tough on all, but he will most likely have the roughest time.

LOL!

As a parent, I see the long-term welfare of my children as being the most important responsibility I will ever have.

My own personal security and happiness is important, but it has to be balanced against the best interests of my children.

Infidelity is a sign that something is unhealthy in the marriage, but that doesn't mean that the marriage will always be unhealthy. For the sake of the children, it seems worth giving the relationship a chance to heal and grow, don't you think? Which is likely to take longer than a weekend.

I believe a child's emotional security is best served by growing up with its two biological parents, for all the reasons given by TryingToLetItGo. There are happy stepfamilies, but from personal observation I'd say many blended families have a similar level of dysfunction to a troubled 'primary' partnership. I think a marriage has to be DEEPLY flawed and unhealthy before separation becomes a better choice for the children. And if the marriage is THAT unhealthy, then both of the parents have contributed to that situation and will probably take the same dysfunctional relationship skills into their next marriages. That's not a great prospect for the kids, is it? If the same unpleasant events happen in the stepfamily, it's even worse to go through it with a household of people who aren't biologically related to you, who don't much reason to care about your welfare and who probably subliminally resent your existence.

For a child to see that a parent has messed up, but that both parents try hard to fix the mess and grow from the experience, seems much more constructive to me than being given the impression that the first response to a partner's failure should be to kick them to the kerb.

It seems to me that making a herculean effort to mend the marriage - not by being a doormat, but by growing character muscles, being searingly honest with yourself, and disciplining yourself to follow a plan - is the least a parent can do. The fact that you're not the parent who screwed up is just one of the many hardships that are involved in the task of being a parent.

TA

My wife's first affair was when my children were much younger (elementary / jr high). I don't know if my decision to reconcile would have changed if they hadn't been in the picture, but I do know that the first thought that crossed my mind every time I contemplated divorce was "what about my girls?"

I literally felt a pit in my stomach every time I thought about having to tell them we would be divorcing.

So, I guess they were a primary driver in my decision to reconcile the first time around, but I also weighed the circumstances around the affair and decided there was a future in the marriage.

I was wrong.

Even though my children were older following my wife's second affair, they played a much larger factor in my continued efforts to restore our marriage. When we finally told my eldest daughter about her mother's affairs she cried horribly. Thinking about spending only half of holidays with her and having to "split" time with the grandchildren (when they arrive in the future) hurt me deeply.

My daughter said two things that stuck with me, "I always thought it was cool that MY parents were still together when many of my other friends' parents were divorced." and "You guys can't quit -- you're not quitters."

Would I have divorced my wife if we didn't have children -- YES.

No cop out, no "maybe". After her second affair I would have kicked her to the curb with the trash.

But it was my kids that kept me hanging in there.

This fall they'll both be in college. Affair number three will result in a swift and final dissolution of the marriage.

Introvert - you left out "do it for God as God did it for me."


"the "I'm doing it for the kids" should go the way of the dodo bird...imho."

You left out "doing it because someone other than ME is "god" of my life." Self-centeredness and sin are what lead to divorce.

Confession, repentance, forgiveness, submission are what lead to recovery and reconciliation, but "leave God out" of the equation and the "changeable feelings" of the individual remain, along with their perception that they, themselves, are "lord" of their life and can do whatever they feel like doing.


"I just think that in today's day in age, and the fact that there are so many "success" stories for children of divorce, that the "I'm doing it for the kids" should go the way of the dodo bird...imho."

"Today's day," there's a lot in that thought that could be discussed.

"So many "success" stories for children of divorce," there are a lot of stories about the BAD effects of divorce on children too. You seem to drawing a "wrong conclusion" through leaning on incomplete facts and extrapolating them to "prove the point you want to make."


jmho.

I get the gist of your post, but we can do whatever we feel like doing, because of so-called "free will".

That's not to say there won't be a price to pay at some point, though.

Staying married after adultery ONLY for the kids is a pretty bad reason IMO. I fail to see how the kids can be taught good life lessons if they are held as the reason for everybody enduring loathing and misery.

However when you HAVE kids, they are a pretty hefty consideration in the decision to recover or NOT IME.

While there was a chance that I might be able to recover a happy family environment for them with their natural parents I stayed my hand from divorcing. That way the kids get the best of a bad deal IMO. Worked out pretty decently so far for all concerned.

Without children I am pretty certain I would have divorced immediately, but clearly I can't be sure. I used to say I'd definitely divorce if I was ever cheated on, and look what happened eventually

Dr H advises divorce for young folks without kids after adultery.

I agree 100%.

I only wish my dad had kicked my sad sack excuse for a mom to the curb...I guarantee we would have had a better childhood had he not stayed for the kids. I know he would have been happier too.

1 Cor 10:23

The trouble is, simply by having kids, it isn't ONLY the kids, but all the other issues become more serious.

- Legalities are way more expensive, time consuming and draining (custody issues, child support). Childless couples merely have possessions to fight about.

- As a parent you want to protect your children from pain. You see that pain on their faces every day, even through your own. It affects your thinking.

- Finances are far more critical. You may be able to survive in a one room basement apartment living on KD and hotdogs but could you bring a child in there even for a weekend? Adds to legalities above.

- Fears of missing, even losing your children if those custody battles and your resulting living arrangements don't work out.

- Fears of the OP taking your place with your children as well as with your WS. You can get real possessive

These fears and realities are very motivating. There are lots more and they vary with the situation. But when you add them all up, it's not hard to imagine some people thinking like "I can live with WS as a roommate easier than I can do all of the above" and try to make the best of it and possibly even making it work.

Look, I already stated that this thread wasn't about starting a big debate on the issue...all I did was ask a question. In now way am I trying to state "facts" about any of it...once again, it's just me asking a question. I'm not sure why you had to get nasty in this thread...there is no reason to...it's just a discussion, and I have absolutely no interest in listening to someone put words in my mouth.

You claim that I'm using "incomplete facts" to "prove the point that I want to make", and I'm drawing the "wrong conclusion"? What are you talking about? I didn't claim anything I have stated in this thread as "fact"...I don't have any motive in this thread to justify "proving a point that I want to make"...and, what exactly is the "conclusion" you speak of? I fail to see where I drew a "conclusion". The only one here that is doing that is you by throwing your belief system into the fray and stating your "beliefs" as facts. Look, I attend worship on Sunday, just like you...but, what I "believe" isn't neccesarily a "fact"...you need to realize that.

Excuse me? You stated a conclusion you reached "in your humble opinion" and invited a Discussion ("Discuss?").

Now you throw a "tantrum" because I "engaged you" in that requested discussion?



No, Introvert, you didn't "just ask a question." You framed your "observation" and "drew your conclusion" from it, then presented it as your "humble opinion." Only after doing that did you "invite" discussion. But you "didn't like" my "2 cents," and off you go on a rant over MY opinion, as if ONLY your opinion is "valid."




Sorry, Introvert, but I didn't "get nasty." I put NO words in your mouth, you stated your opinion very clearly, "go the way of the Dodo bird," as if the children are NO reason for parents remaining married. They ARE "a" reason, and certainly not the "only" reason.




Okay, then one more time, here is the conclusion that you drew and that you stated: " I just think that in today's day in age, and the fact that there are so many "success" stories for children of divorce, that the "I'm doing it for the kids" should go the way of the dodo bird...imho."




And it is precisely WHAT you believe that is the issue. For the record, Introvert, "attendance" at church saves no one.

The "issue," in my humble opinion, is that a lot of people want Jesus Christ as "Savior," but not as "Lord." The "issue" is that God has revealed HIS "opinion" to us and we are HIS servants, not the other way around.

As for "throwing my belief system in to the fray," YOU opened the door and DID NOT say, "Christian beliefs are excluded from my offer to 'Discuss'." There is, and was, no "fray," other than your perspective that was tossed out as "Fact" in your opinion, while using "success stories" of children whose parents divorced to bolster your opinion. Equally as "valid" are "disaster stories" of children whose parents divorced to suggest that divorce IS damaging to children.

What you are doing, in MY opinion, is supporting the misguided "notion" of Wayward Spouses that "the children will be all right." I think you are wrong in asserting that there won't be negative outcomes for children. That some children are able to "overcome" the disaster of adults (adultery and divorce) does NOT make "not staying together for the children" an INVALID reason to undertake Recovery following adultery.

I do not believe in saving marriage at all costs, but when one has children, there is much more to consider than just one's own PERSONAL "happiness." Children are severely psychologically impacted by divorce, so a responsible parent will also take their best interests into account. Its not "all about us" when we have kids.

lol. I cannot believe what I just read. Are you for real? Do you really not see the true undertone of your posts? I don't need to be preached to, nor does anyone else. If you don't think that people should get divorced in the face of infidelity, because of children, then just say so...that's fine. But, your opinion on "God this...and God that", and saying that "people want Jesus Christ as their savour and not Lord" is just YOU doing the exact same thing that you are claiming I'm doing. Do you not see the hypocrisy of your statements? You are blaming me for drawing conclusions on misguided facts...but you are preaching religion...WHICH ISN'T FACT !!!!

You will have to excuse me if I get a little bit perturbed when someone uses religion as a crutch for every single subject, every single time.

In short...you have yet to state a fact. If you want to preach to me on not doing so...time for you to follow it up with some of your own. Otherwise, you are just the pot calling the kettle black.

So no, I don't believe its a COP OUT to "stay together for the kids." I think its a moral responsibility to TRY and stay together for the kids if the marriage can be saved. I can't think of a better reason to stay together and try to save the marriage than that. Kids are not disposable commodities to be kicked aside in pursuit of our own "happiness." We are also responsible for their happiness.

introvert, are Christians banned from this discussion? What gives with your assault on FH?

Introvert, I'm just curious as to whether you found any of the many other posts helpful to your understanding of why some parents do stay together for the kids?

That's understandable. But, I guess what I'm wondering is...who is the governing authority on whether the parents are causing more psychological problems by trying to work on the marriage or not. There are also some very damaging households with parents "staying together for the children"...how can that not be damaging to a child psychologically. I remember 2 friends of mine in school (brother and sister) who had parents that were using the "we're just together until the kids leave home" deal going on...(who here hasn't heard that one used). They really messed the kids up by using, what i would describe as a "copout", to basically justify putting their marriage problems on the back burner and using the kids as an excuse to do so. Could you imagine being a child living in a broken home (feuding parents in the same home is still a broken home) and having the burden of thinking that "you" are the reason that the parents will not move on with their lives and be happy?

I know it's a very touchy subject...AND I AM NOT DRAWING CONCLUSIONS...just to make that clear to "some" people. If I already had come to a conclusion, I wouldn't be talking about the subject...there would be no need.

Thanks for the response

I am not an authority on who can post or not, and I hardly see an "assault". All I'm saying is that the same thing FH is preaching to me to not do....FH is doing. I am Christian, btw. Are we now ignoring the fact that someone entered a thread and tried to say that my intentions are negative, when they obviously were not...because THEY are Christian? I sure hope not.

introvert, actually studies show that children from bad, chaotic homes [excepting abuse, of course] do much better than children from BROKEN homes. It has long been known that children suffer psychological damage from divorce. If a home is bad, then the answer is to make it GOOD, not to get divorced.


I would know that my parents loved me and put my best interest first. This is supposed to be a bad thing? :eek: Kids don't give a DAMN about their PARENTS "happiness;" they care about THEIR OWN HAPPINESS, which comes from having both of their parents in a secure home.

I can speak from a males point of view that the thought of not living under the same roof as my daughter provides incredible motivation for me to forgive me WS and work on the marriage. Some would probably say that is selfish and it probably is but the 'system' is set up so that even though my W had an affair if I divorce her she will get custody and I will become a weekend dad. I think the 'system' is a big part of the problem. My W made a choice to go outside the M. Granted, we had issues in the M or we wouldn't be where we are but she is the one that decided to go outside the M. Our 'system' doesn't hold her accountable at all for that decision. So, I am left with the choice of divorcing her and basically losing a huge amount of my time spent with my daughter or sticking it out, working on the M so that I can be with my daughter on a full-time basis. Many will say this is the wrong decision but as long as we are working towards a healthy reconcillation in the process and not subjecting my daughter to an unhealthy household (as much as possible) then I see nothing wrong with this decision. If it wasn't for my daughter I would already be gone. It's not a copout....it's as real as it gets.....

Mindshare

No doubt about it. You're going to find success or failure (dependent on which you are looking for) in every senario.

If I had time I would give you a laundry list of concerns I had when srtuggling with "stay and work on the M" or "throw in the towel on the M".

There was no wrong answer.

I can only speculate, leaving would have been much easier on me.

If you stay and DO NOT work on the M, the kids will suffer.

No, I do not believe any of my three children would ever say "I'm glad mom and Dad divorced".

Why does the solution have to be to GET DIVORCED if there is marital discord? Wouldn't the more logical answer be to SOLVE THE DISCORD?


just trying to think outside of the box here....

Yes, some were helpful. But, I guess it's really a subject that I'm not going to ever get completely cut and dry conclusion on. I think it was best summed up when someone (to lazy yo go back and look) said that unless people who say "I'm staying for the kids" actually had gone through this without kids....they themselves don't even really know if their reason for staying is true...given the fact that so many of us said "no way I'd deal with infidelity" and we are still here dealing with it. JMO

Taking this on a tangent a little bit if I may...Is there such a thing as getting a divorce for the sake of the kids? My wife has told me several times that she doesn't want our kids to grow up with parents that fight all the time, it's better for them if we were divorced.

This really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but can anyone else see this line of thinking? I understand if the parents are unwilling to make changes or truly believe they are not at fault, then perhaps a divorce is better. But if both parties recognize there faults and agree that they need to be fixed, why is divorce better?

That's cool. I'd like to see the studies on it...I'll check it out online. I do however fail to see how parents feuding in the home would make the home secure, though. My friends from school are a prime example of that. I think that in a situation like theirs (and many other homes) causes more damage than a divorce or seperation would do.

I disagree with this 100%. I have a 12 year old that would also say this is wrong. I KNOW that I would have been better off being raised by just my dad. There are quite a few situations where a child would be better being FROM a broken home than living IN a broken home.

huh? That makes no sense. Many people DO STAY and try to work it out because there are KIDS who might not have made that choice if there WEREN'T.

Why in the world would that reason "NOT BE TRUE??" Are you saying that staying for the children is not a LEGITIMATE reason and staying for my OWN PERSONAL HAPPINESS IS?

I hope that is not what you are saying.

Very honest answer...thank you.

There are situations D for the sake of the kids is true. Any type of abuse included.

But, I suspectmore often than not. That statement is a copout for "I'm not willing to do the work".

yep

Because, sometimes divorce is the only answer. Even Dr. Harley attests to that.

FH preaching...never.

As a kid who is from a BROKEN HOME, i can tell you, and studies affirm this, that kids don't give a DAMN about their parents happiness. They are self centered by nature and are focused on THEIR OWN happiness. The fueding in my own family was a bother, sure, but when my parents divorced, everything CHANGED. I was a broken CHILD when that happened.

That being said, we are talking in generalities here about very subjective situations, and some homes are so destructive that divorce IS an improvement. It just depends on the situation.

And oftentimes, resolving the MARITAL DISCORD is the answer.

Mel, what study shows kids don't care about their parents happiness? I have seen the broken home studies...but would love to read the study that somehow shows kids don't care about their parents happiness.

BTW...Hi.

I don't have kids and don't claim to be an expert...but, from past experiences with friends in this type of situation, Id say that parents do have the opportunity (as much as anyone else) to get divorced, move on with their lives, meet new people, and start "healthy" relationships. How could their children not benefit from their parents being in 2 healthy relationships over an unhealthy 1? Life doesn't stop after divorce.

You state that "if both parties recognize there faults and agree that they need to be fixed, why is divorce better?"...it wouldn't be better in this case, JMO. I wonder more about parents who don't recognize their faults, and don't try to fix things.

I used to say the same thing when I was younger. Now that I've grown, the understanding of what the promises we made years ago really mean is more clear. It may be easier to leave in the absence of kids but the meaning isn't any less. Two people made promises to each other which they failed to hold themselves to. Yes people change, we all know that. How many of us can say that if we had been armed with the same knowledge at 22 or 32 yrs old, would we be in the same situation we are now? I know for a fact I wouldn't be. Staying for the kids is admirable, but unwise unless improving the marriage is the goal. Any kind of emotional stress is unhealthy for kids but prolonged distress from an unhealthy marriage is just as bad or worse than a divorce, IMO. My WW used that statement to justify her staying with me for the last 5 yrs or so, fog? I don't know, I hope so. But if we save our marriage, her "staying for the kids" would be a factor in our staying married wouldn't it? That would make it worth it right? Just some food for thought. Staying married is different than saving a marriage.

Hey there!

I have never heard of a study that said kids don't care about their parents happiness. What psychologists have said is that children are, by nature, concerned with their OWN happiness and very self centered. Children do not have altrustic tendencies and tend to be self centered, not other centered.

I agree...IF both parties are willing and able to fix the issues and thus have a happy home, children would be better off in an intact family. If not, they would be better off in a divorce situation. I lived it...my son lived it (and I know he is better off with his mom not being a constant disruption to our happy home) and I know lots of others that live it too.

That is not to say the ideal is not an intact and healthy family...make no mistake...it is.

Mel...I was basing the question on this..


perhaps I misunderstood what you were referencing.

I guess I kinda screwed that statement up. No...that's not what I'm saying. Guess I think that some people who use the children as a reason for recovery could possibly be just an easy thing to say to themselves...and others, rather than say "I love my spouse and want to forgive him/her". People are a lot more receptive to "I'm staying for the children" then any other reason for trying to reconcile...imo. You almost never hear anyone say "that's a bad idea" when someone says "I'm staying for the kids". I guess I'm wondering why people quite usually say "that's good" rather than looking deeper into the home situation, and whether it is actually better for the children.

Oh, I gotcha! No, I am referring to the broken home study but see how it came across to you: "As a kid who is from a BROKEN HOME, i can tell you, and studies affirm this, that kids don't give a DAMN about their parents happiness."

See, I disagree because it is much more admirable to try to resolve the marital discord FOR THE CHILDREN. It is ADMIRABLE to learn to love one's spouse and forgive him/her FOR THE CHILDREN. THAT IS what a responsible parent does IF POSSIBLE. A PARENT is supposed to place the best interest of their CHILDREN before themselves.

And sometimes the responsible action *IS* divorce. But when one chooses divorce and has children, the BEST INTEREST of the children should have equal to GREATER WEIGHT than one's own self interest. When you have children, you have a responsibility to them too.

Here's an interesting read, which includes the following about kids of divorce:

So true.

And speaking from experience, I'll never forgive my father for choosing lust over his kids.

Thanks. It is the truth. So, my intitial decision to stay together is so that my daughter and I can both benefit from the amount of time we can still spend together. That's not to say that I won't put my full effort into marital recovery because I will. I'm just stating that the major reason for deciding to work on recover vs. divorce is my own selfish need to be with my daughter as much as possible. I'll bet there are alot of BH's our there that feel this way. If the 'system' would award me full custody and I could spend most of my time with my daughter then I may have made a different choice.

The problem I have with this is that I don't think it's accurate to assume that the marriage is doomed to be unhealthy in many cases. And I don't think it's at all accurate to assume that parents will have healty relationships that the kids can participate in.

For one thing, kids complicate relationships. If I end up single again, it will be rather difficult for me to trust another woman with my children, and I'm cautious about asking my kids to accept another woman as some sort of parental figure. In my specific case one of my children is not mine biologically, so he is going to be shuffled around between 3 homes, and I'll have no legal rights whatsoever. For my wife, she will have very little time for anything while raising 3 kids, and although she is beautiful and a great catch, I think most men would be hesitant to get in a relationship with a woman who has 3 children from two different Dads.

As for the kids themselves, they are likely to wonder what their part in everything is, why things aren't whole. My father never divorced my mom, but he left several times and I always wondered why he didn't love me enough to want to stay. And my worst fear is that my kids will learn from my example and end up in divorce and broken relationships when they are adults. I'd like to break the cycle now.

I agree. I do not think BS choose divorce in most cases though. It was thrust upon them by the actions of the WS. And while it is important to give greater weight to the needs of the children...that does not mean that the needs of the BS are ignored.

wow, is that an understatement or what! As a child coming from a broken home, I worried about getting FOOD, about being dumped off at the mean babysitters every morning, about not having clean clothes, about being sexually molested by boyfriends and stepfathers, about only having KIDNEY BEANS to eat for supper because we were broke, about our filthy home because my mother had to work full time to support us. Summer

It is a little more than worrying about allowance and summer camp.

An Exploration of the Ramifications...nia State University College of Medicine

• Divorce is an intensely stressful experience for all children, regardless of age or developmental level; many children are inadequately prepared for the impending divorce by their parents. A study in 1980 found that less than 10% of children had support from adults other than relatives during the acute phase of the divorce.

• The pain experienced by children at the beginning of a divorce is composed of: a sense of vulnerability as the family disintegrates, a grief reaction to the loss of the intact family (many children do not realize their parents’ marriage is troubled), loss of the non-custodial parent, a feeling of intense anger as the disruption of the family, and strong feelings of powerlessness.

• Unlike bereavement or other stressful events, it is almost unique to divorcing families that as children experience the onset of this life change, usual and customary support systems tend to dissolve, though the ignorance or unwillingness of adults to actively seek out this support for children.

• Early latency (ages 6½-8): These children will often openly grieve for the departed parent. There is a noted preoccupation with fantasies that distinguishes the reactions of this age group. Children have replacement fantasies, or fantasies that their parents will happily reunite in the not-so-distant future. Children in this developmental stage have an especially difficult time with the concept of the permanence of the divorce.

• Late latency (ages 8-11): Anger and a feeling of powerlessness are the predominate emotional response in this age group. Like the other developmental stages, these children experience a grief reaction to the loss of their previously intact family. There is a greater tendency to label a ‘good’ parent and a ‘bad’ parent and these children are very susceptible to attempting to take care of a parent at the expense of their own needs.

• Adolescence (ages 12-18): Adolescents are prone to responding to their parent’s divorce with acute depression, suicidal ideation, and sometimes violent acting out episodes. These children tend to focus on the moral issues surrounding divorce and will often judge their parents’ decisions and actions. Many adolescents become anxious and fearful about their own future love and marital relationships. However, this age group has the capability to perceive integrity in the post-divorce relationship of their parents and to show compassion for their parents without neglecting their own needs.

Conclusions
• Divorce and its ensuing ramifications can have a significant and life-altering impact on the well being and subsequent development of children and adolescents.

• The consequences of divorce impact almost all aspects of a child’s life, including the parent-child relationship, emotions and behavior, psychological development, and coping skills.

• There is a significant need for child mental health professionals, along with other child specialists, to be cognizant of the broad spectrum of possible fall-out from a divorce and then to provide sufficient support for children of divorced parents in all the necessary psychosocial aspects of the child’s life.

[u][i][b]Abuse Risk Seen Worse As Families Change[/b][/i][/u]

- Children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological
parents, according to a study of Missouri abuse reports published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2005.


- Children living in stepfamilies or with single parents are at higher risk of physical or sexual assault than children living with two biological or adoptive parents, according to several studies co-authored by David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center.

- Girls whose parents divorce are at significantly higher risk of sexual assault, whether they live with their mother or their father, according to research by Robin Wilson, a family law professor at Washington and Lee University. . . .

- The previous version of the study, released in 1996, concluded that children of single parents had a 77 percent greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse than children living with both parents. But the new version will delve much deeper into the specifics of family structure and cohabitation, according to project director Andrea Sedlak.

Agree. And you and I both know of cases where if the BS did stay, it would have resulted in severe psychological problems, such as a nervous breakdown. And the nervous breakdown of a parent is NEVER in a child's best interest.

Interesting read(s)...thanks.

FYI I did get divorced without kids and it was really too easy IMO. I was selfish and did what I wanted and never looked back. I was on the verge of doing that for second time, but reality hit me and I faced the fact that I could not walk away and never look back. I now had a child who wanted her parents to be together.

So my point is that there are people who have been divorced without kids and then in a second marriage decided to stay and fight for the marriage because now there was a lot more at stake.

I respect both your decision to divorce, and your decision to stay in recovery the second time around. The big question for me (and I am getting some good insight on this) is exactly what you say in your last sentence..."decided to stay and fight for the marriage because now there was a lot more at stake"...what is at stake?...and, who has the most to lose with your decision? (you or the kids)...and why? Not picking on you, and the articles that were just posted are very informative. I just realize now that very single saituation is different, and opinions will vary in every single one of those situations.

I would hope that parents who truely have their kids best interest at heart and "stay for the kids" also put a great deal of effort into recovering their marriage. While my kid was a motivating factor in deciding to try to recover my marriage I would not be with my H today if I did not "love him and forgive him". I think you are confused in saying these as two separate things.

Why am I confused? Just because you link these two things together in your situation, doesn't mean that the rest of the world is. You are confused in thinking that every married couple out there with kids "have their best interest at heart"...if they did...they wouldn't have had affairs. You state yourself that "I would not be with my H today if I did not "love him and forgive"...this is a perfect example of how they are two different things.

"What is at stake?" My kids future was at stake, not just my own. I had to think of my kids and how this affected them. When getting divorced without kids all I had to think about was myself and my spouse and I was young and selfish, so all I thought about was me. Not proud of that, just the way it was.

"who has the most to lose with your decision? (you or the kids)...and why?" We all had a great deal to lose, me, my H, and my daughter. If H and I divorced then we all would lose our family. I'm not saying that just a H & W are not a family. But family really took on a whole new meaning for me once we had a kid.

Getting divorced without kids and looking toward the future I saw endless possiblities to be "happy". Thinking about divorce with a kid involved and looking toward the future I saw endless heartache for my kid.

I would never have given myself the opportunity to love him and forgive him if I did not have the motivation of staying together for our kid. I hope that makes it more clear what I am trying to say.

I guess, because I don't have kids, I don't really see how trying to love and/or forgive a spouse by using an outside reason to try to fall back in love, is a good thing. I fell in love with my W when we had nothing. I don't really look at it any differently than owning a home together, or finances or owning the dog together. My decision to try to recover had absolutely nothing to do with the house, finances or the dog...and everything to do with the fact that I love my W...and, if we had children I would not use them as a reason any more than I would use the other examples of things that we are attached by...because we never had any of those things either when we fell in love...they are outside attachments...not a reason to love or forgive. JMO, but to each his own.

I don't think children fall into this category at all. Children are direct products (bad term) of the marriage. We literally create these children with our spouse and they are our flesh and blood.

If you truly believe this, I hope that you choose never to have kids of your own.

I think once you do have kids you will understand what I am saying.

My daughter has opened my heart in ways I never knew possible before I was a mom. My daughter is not an outside reason, she is a very intergral part of our family love.

I am wondering why you want so badly to believe that this is a copout. Are people giving you are hard time for wanting to stay with your W?

I also take huge offense to anyone putting my precious daughter in the same category as a house or dog. This is just another example of how people without kids just are not able to understand how being a parent feels.

I accept your opinion, but don't ever judge me, ba...I'm not judging you, although it would be pretty easy to go around here doing so...you're out of line.

You are looking for a reason to be offended. Where did I compare your daughter to a dog? "This is just another example of how people without kids just are not able to understand how being a parent feels"....hogwash!!!! You have no idea how disrespectful it is for people (certain parents) are for saying such things...you don't know this...it is opinionated. People have different emotional levels of attachment to all sorts of things...children, pets, cars, material goods, etc....you (nobody is) in any position to judge how anyone else places their own emotional attachment on anything....parent or not. Jusy an ignorant thing for you to say....hogwash.

You called kids an "outside reason" just like a house or dog. Did you not mean to call them that?

I meant nothing negative when I said "People without kids just are not able to understand how being a parent feels." I to was once a person without without a kid, so I do know how it feels to not have kids and to have kids.

You sound very defensive today. What is going on with you?

I didn't judge you but I will if I damn well feel like it.

I just think your comparison of children to the dog or finances or whatever outside baggage that you didn't come into the marriage with is ludicrous.

*edit* (That's a judgement)

I just read your edited response and now that you feel it is appropriate to call me names "ingorant" I will stop posting to you on this topic.

I really was just trying to help you understand how people could really say they stayed together for the kids and that it is not a copout, but a truth for them. But it is now clear that you did not want to understand this, but wanted to dispute it so that you could feel better about your decision to stay without kids.

What is wrong with me is that you keep taking what I say, distorting it, then throwing it back at me with insulating intentions...it isn't right. The point that I was getting at (and, you would realize this if you read the post again without getting "defensive" as you would say) is that you didn't have kids before when you fell in love, why do you have to use the kid as a reason to do it again? That's my point...not the point that you made up "comparing my daughter to a dog". It bugs the hell out of me when people take a statement, manipulate it to seem offensive, then roll with what they manipulated it to be...sorry, just bothers me.

That's nice....thanks for joining in with your impressive intellect.....goodbye now.....

LOL, you are doing exactly what you are accusing everyone else od doing. You put in quotations "comparing my daughter to a dog" I never said that. I said you put them in the same category and you did!

"putting my precious daughter in the same category as a house or dog."

There...there is your exact quote....which I NEVER did...I fyou don't like me, or have an issue with this thread, then go away. It was pretty informative until you decided to distort it to whatever you wanted to see.

I have no desire to argue with you about this subject. You took what I posted, distorted it to be an insult about your daughter...then ran with it. It wasn't meant to be insulting to you or your daughter...if you took it that way then I'm sorry you did. Let's move on please.

LOL....of course you did.


Right here....


Lumping them as "reasons" and lumping them together.

committed

Sorry introvert but I took what you posted in the same way as the others here with kids.

When I was younger and without kids I was in a long term (6 yr) relationship that was easy to walk way from because there was only stuff.

But once there are children involved they are not stuff to be fought over or shuffled around. You will understand that once you have kids.

I can tell you just being at my daughters swim meet last night made everything I am going through with my wife worth it. Could I of attended if we were divorced maybe, maybe not. Until every chance of fixing things is exhausted you work for the sake of the kids.

You are taking it out of context. Look at what I wrote, then the reason I wrote it THAT I HAVE REPEATEDLY EXPLAINED !!!!!!

Sorry, I forgot that you are all high and mighty "VETS" and I shouldn't be speaking with you guys, cause I'm not on the same level anyway.....I'll bug out back down to my little cellar while you experts twist and turn and disect everyone elses comments to death...all the while getting COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL AND SELFISH REASONS !!!!!

Thanks for the T/J.....VETS

Introvert, I have a child and I have no problem with what you said or how you said it.

A friendly reminder to keep this thread respectful please.

Please note that if it continues down the road of disrespect, it will be locked.

introvet,

That is a childish diversionary tactic in order to not have to take responsibility for YOUR words.

It has nothing to do with being a Vet of anything.

I am not considered a vet...why would you toss that dog in this fight?

A diversion from the REAL issue is that answer.

Own it...what is so hard about that?

committed

Well Introvert, I think I understand your POV as it relates to those similarly situated to yourself. Perhaps you feel an undercurrent exists which implies that you have an easier choice and more options than those w/ children. Maybe you’re also construing that notion as diminishing the import of your struggle. After infidelity, we all find ourselves on rocky shores and the presence of children and concern for their welfare does not insure any particular outcome.

It is true that the dissolution process is usually more complicated when children are involved and while that fact alone may inhibit divorce it doesn’t tell us whether a family will be happy. Studies can be cited which tend to show that children of divorce fair poorly while other studies show that severe marital conflict is worse for children than divorce. Who is really to say which is correct when each case is extremely personal to a particular individual?

That said--it's only natural that at some point in the process staying for the children is a palliative. There's nothing wrong w/ that b/c it's an overwhelming issue and if it helps a person deal w/ what they're facing so be it. Eventually a spouse and/or couple have to address whether the marriage and family unit is bringing some sort of joy to its participants. The elements of good parenting (IMO) involve being responsible and loving. Those traits should be present whether a parent is married or divorced. Similarly, couples without children should also ask one another whether they are acting responsibly and loving. The presence or lack of children is not a bright line that divides marriages in crisis b/c of infidelity (IMO).

I think we have a group of people with intense emotions, so things are bound to get crazy at some point. Perhaps, agreeing to disagree would be better?

BTW, I didn't take offense to what you said, but I could see how others might. It's that intense emotions thing...it happens. I see what you are trying to say and what they are trying to say, things are just getting crosswired.

For the record I am not a "vet". I have fewer posts than you. As for taking things out of context and disecting comments to death you have done the exact same thing on this thread. So hy are you calling names when others do the same to you?

Can you make your point without calling names?

In real life do you call names and throw tantrums when the discussion does not result in you proving your point or getting your way?

Please do not dismiss this as me being ignorant, these are meant as real questions.

O.K. back to the topic at hand.

I initially ONLY stayed in my marriage because I wanted to be with my kids. If I was certain that I could have gotten full-time custody I would have divorced. I don't think I would have gotten custody, so I stayed. And that was not altruistic, I stayed for a personally matter, I valued my time with my children more than I valued a happy marriage.

But, so what? It was the right thing to do. I made promises when I married. I broke many of them. I was determined to try to keep the "till death do you part" part. And I am glad I did. I still have my family. My wife and I are mostly, I think, reconciled.

So, I guess I don't see why it matters why someone initially makes the decision to stay. The initial motivation may have been the catalyst to make changes that will make a happy marriage possible. There are a lot of reasons to stay in am marriage after infidelity: financial, love, children, duty, a promise made. . .

Surprise, Introvert! Even I "attest" to this. There ARE legitimate reasons for a divorce.




MEDC, if "mentioning God" is "preaching," I'll stand convicted.

Not sure what's been going on in your life lately, MEDC, but you do seem to be advocating divorce on an increasingly frequent basis of late.




And interesting statement, Introvert. Just what about Christ is NOT "fact" to you, who also claim to be a Christian?

For the record, I NEVER "preach religion," I stand for Christians submitting their lives TO Christ in humble obedience as their LORD as well as their Savior. What about that is not "Right" with you, as a believer in Christ?

Where does "being a Christian" allow for "conforming yourself" to the world or to the culture you live in?

Children are a gift from God and are not to be "abused" so that the adults can do whatever they feel like doing. Do you object to that also?

Where does forgiveness and reconciliation "fit" within your "dodo bird" reasoning if considering the children is NOT to be part of the "recovery equation?"

Thank you

TryingToLetGo....let it go. Get it?

I would like to ask anyone with a child, who is in the situation of "I'm doing it for the kid(s)" (don't take my quote out of context, please)...do you consider your child to be part of your marital union, of sorts?... edit : and, the child is part of your recovery process with your spouse?

introvert I have no problem with the original post at all ... you were seeking out something and well it got twisted and wadded up like a piece of paper. Anyways, I just wanted to let you know

When me and H were on the verge of Divorce I never once thought about staying together for the children. Some have just for the childrens sake but in the long run why? Besides not having kids come from "broken" homes? My H and I were from broken homes. WE stayed together not because of the kids but because we worked and are working on our M. I personally will not stay together just for the children. I believe you have to look at everything as a whole and what will benfit everyone.

[quote=introvert]I would like to ask anyone with a child, who is in the situation of "I'm doing it for the kid(s)" (don't take my quote out of context, please)...do you consider your child to be part of your marital union, of sorts?... /quote]

To quote one of my children "well duh!"

Yes I see my children as part of my marriage, without the marriage there would have been no children. Without the children I would no longer be married.

I came back to the marriage because of the children. They are a large part of the reason that I am still in the marriage. But they are not the only reason of course. I'm there now because I want a stable family . . . and I love my wife. I don't know if I could stay married for another 15 years just for the kids . . . if I felt no love for my spouse I don't think I could stay that long.

My life is great FH...as I told you recently when you brought up the same thing. I wouldn't trade my life for anything.

I call them as I see them...I have zero doubt that we will frequently agree on things. Based on outcomes, I would say that my impressions are accurate the vast majority of the time when it comes to how to deal with a particular WS.

As for your posts FH, you do what you do...I happen to think that you stand the chance of having people tune you out (and perhaps be turned off to Christianity) because of the tone of your posts. Just my opinion.

Then, to yourself and others that answer yes to my question.

If the children are part of the marital union, and are part of your recovery process...I would assume that you have already told them that THEY are the reason that you are still mariied to their mom/dad?...using the MB priniple of honesty and openess? If you have disclosed this to them, then kudos...if you haven't disclosed this to the child...why not? (obviously the child being an infant is a reason)

Okay so you choose to ignore my questions and move on, no problem. I only asked the questions to try to get you to look at your discussion style and maybe see that it needs a bit of help.

As for children being part of the marital union. My H and I and our daughter are a family which would not be without our marital union. So while our daughter was not born when our marital union began she was born from our marital union and in my eyes is an integral part of it.

Neither would I.

Yes, I have told my D17 this, after particularly stressful occasions. I have told her that I believe that my H, who wants nothing more than to spend every waking moment with me and her, would make our lives a living hell if I were to leave before she moves out. And that I prefer to work on my marriage so that it will be the best possible family for her to grow up in as I can make it.

you lost me on this one Introvert. CHILDREN are not due radical honesty. That is between the husband and wife. And there is NO WAY a child should be burdened with that guilt.

I do not see the point in discussing that stuff any longer...we will agree to disagree. I hope you see my next question, and can answer it though.

I would never put that pressure on the shoulders of a child. It it the parents responsibility to shoulder the adult aspects of a marriage.

I'm shaking my head. Did you really just ask that question? Yep I read it again and you did.

Once again you are proving my point that until you are a parent you will not understand.

I said that I view children as part of the marriage, I didn't say they were part of the marital union.

AS Dr. Harley explains Radical Honesty is a concept to be used between spouses. My wife knows why I stayed. She stayed too for the same reason. If you asked her now, I'm sure she would say there is more to our marriage than the children. At one time that was all there was, but it was enough. And we survived.

I take it you are "shaking your head" at catperson's honest approach to children, as well? Is catperson not understanding?

The point being that just because someone disagrees with you does not give you the right to call them name and shift the blame and ignore.

I did answer your question. But it appears to me that you really do not want to hear what I am saying and are just looking for a way to prove that staying together for the kids is a copout.

medc, in most cases you are right. In my situation, it was my D17 wanting to move out, and me choosing, for her, that we would stay and I would use MB to see how I can improve my half of our M, because the alternative would be worse. With younger children, they should not be privy to marital discussions. But with a 16 year old who was totally conflicted and confused, I felt it was appropriate. And as it turns out, she is learning from me that you have to work on a M to get good results, so I feel she's benefiting from knowing.

I think this is a HUGE mistake on her part.

So, it's a bad idea to practice Radical Honesty with your children?

I'm happy things worked out for you and your wife, btw. Nice to see that.

I stand by my assessment

I'm pretty sure that if you have kids some day, you will understand how silly the comparison to 'money, house and dog' really is.

yes, IMHO...it is. And again, the POLICY of radical honesty was developed for H & W... not parents and children.

Ignore

Dont get me wrong I love my kids and they are a part of the marrage. Without them I would be lost. But if the marriage has failed that bad then why stay for ONLY the kids? Does make me wonder when ppl say they are still married only for the children

Can you explain why you feel this way? I thought honesty was the best policy? Who would you be hurting by telling the child...the child...or yourself?

Because it's easier justification...in some cases. (not saying all...just to clarify...before the twisting starts)

The CHILD. Clearly the child would feel burdened to know that absent their existence, a parent would be free to find happiness and not remain in a difficult marriage.

yes, introvert, imho, children are a part of the recovery process because adultery also affects them, as does repentence, forgiveness, and reconciliation.

Children are not "immune" to the self-centeredness that is inherent in adultery. The "problem" is the the adults, not with the children. However, forgiveness and reconciliation, of "regrowing" love between husband and wife also teaches children a LOT about handling even the severest of marital problems.

For the record, I had/have 4 children and they have been affected both by the affair and by our recovery.

Because I can't think of a BETTER reason to try to fix a broken marriage than to provide a stable intact-household from which to raise children. Without the kids I think that many here would have just quit . . . because this stuff sucks and it no fun at all. And trying to put a broken marriage back together is one of the most emotionally draining things one can do.

I think that trying to fix a marriage because there are children involved is just as valid as staying because you love your spouse. They are both fantastic reasons to try to repair your marriage.

But, this is under the assumption that the child is completely clueless to what is happening in the household. I think people need to start giving children a little more credit than that. My folks were pretty normal ,and I'd consider my childhood and upbringing pretty normal as well...and, I could see tension in my home a mile away, even when the folks thought they were hiding their problems from me. The kids know.

Children have an uncanny ability to blame themselves for their parents failures. Add to this additional burdens and the child will surely suffer.

Respectfully Introvert...and I have understood you on this thread...you really don't know what you don't know about raising children yet. That is not a criticism...it is an observation based on personal experience. You can't be expected to have this set of knowledge yet. Hopefully one day you will. Until then, I think it is fine to ask about parenting issues...but I am not sure you are in a position to speak with authority as to how things should be handled.

Thanks for starting this thread though. It is an interesting topic that I actually feel mostly aligned with your position.

Poor attempts to hide problems and actively telloing a child that THEY are the reason for mom or dad not seeking out their own happiness are apples and oranges.

Would you share with your child a sexual dysfunction between you and your wife?

With radical honesty in mind?

I'm with Catperson regarding older children. My DS just turned 19 when we separated. He was not living at home (at college) but the news that we were splitting up upset him terribly. And yes, he immediately blamed himself. Just like me, a BS, he NEEDED the truth in order to remove some of the guilt he was feeling. I say "some" because I still believe there is a bit of guilt there though he knows everything that happened. Later-teens know enough about the world to understand adultery, and it's in their nature to attempt to be 'adult-like' and actively participate in repairing the damage. But they are still naive and haven't learned that real life is not Disney or Hollywood and happy endings don't always happen. How are they supposed to deal with all this if they don't know the truth?

This is the exact response I was looking for. How is a third party going to help aide in fixing a broken marriage when only 2 people caused the problems in the marriage?

Didn't realize I was....certainly not intentionally doing so.

And many Betrayed Spouses who are trying to recover their marriages also said at one point that their "position" was, "if you ever cheat on me, I am out of here and will divorce."

But then reality hit. Just like it does when you have children who are far more important than all the "tangible THINGS" you cited.

You might be surprised to find that children, unlike houses, money, or even animals, ARE affected by adultery and how the "adults" handle it, and the message that is sent to them about how much THEY are "valued" by the adults.

Motivation?

MC's are 'third parties'.

I'm assuming that I would not be trying to use the child to get over the sexual dysfunction.....so no.

...and are only helpful if you are honest with them.

No, I don't think this is the reason you are looking for. The children aren't going to help fix a broken marriage. The children are going to give one/both parents more reason to try to fix it than they would if they were childless.

Point taken...thanks

Maybe this is also why you reacted so negatively to the mere mention of THE "third party" to a marriage? How do you think God would "aide" in fixing a marriage broken by one or both of the marital partners?

The children are NOT the cause of adultery, but they they are affected by it. The children do not "aide" in fixing a broken marriage, they are one of the motivating factors OUTSIDE of the relationship between husband and wife that gives impetus to "trying." Actions have consequences. That's the point.

This is a point that I understand completely. I just don't see how the parents are going to fall in love and stay in love by the aide of a child. Will they always have the bond of the child together...of course. Will the child make them love each other enough to stay and recover into a healthy loving marriage?...this is what I question. If that were the case, then why the marital problems in the first place?

So if you stayed with your wife because of the children, you would tell them of the sexual dysfunction? Keep in mind there is no adultery here, just a sexual dysfunction.

I can agree with this.

...and are only helpful if you are honest with them. [/quote]

And that is your opinion. And from someone w/o children. As medc said, that's not a critism, just a fact.

I said no...I'm not using the children as a means to get over my dysfunction...they would not be affected in any way shape or form because of my problem getting it up. It's apples and oranges.

That is hardly the same thing. A broken or damaged marriage affects children directly and is their business as much as yours. Sexual dysfunction doesn't and isn't.

...and are only helpful if you are honest with them. [/quote]

And that is your opinion. And from someone w/o children. As medc said, that's not a critism, just a fact. [/quote]

So.........you disagree? Elaborate.

So sexual dysfunction couldn't cause one spouse to want to end a marriage? Just wondering . . .

To answer your original question introvert...Yes I think you are just being bitter. But hell, I can't blame you! I've tasted bitterness over the last two years of recovery as well.

lol...no offence, but you are really reaching on this one lol.

lol...I can respect that.

Many have divorced over sexual dysfunction. If your spouse had a sexual dysfunction and you decided to stay 'for the kids' would you tell them?

Easy there, Woody Allen!


Radical honesty and kids have never gone together. That's why we have Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the Stork, "mommy and daddy were wrestling", etc.

Radical honesty only belongs in marriage in my opinion. True radical honesty, if applied to every situation, would destroy our entire society.

Boss: "Why weren't you at work on Saturday?"

Employee: "Because I can barely tolerate being here for 40 hours a week. I didn't f_cking feel like it!"

otoh, telling a child (who is old enough to understand) that, because of him/her, the parent is not running away from responsibilities but trying to own their half and learn and grow, not only shows the child their importance to the parent, but also gives a good role model for not hiding from your problems through strength, humility and perseverance.

jeez, can't keep up with this thread!

Many have divorced over sexual dysfunction. If your spouse had a sexual dysfunction and you decided to stay 'for the kids' would you tell them? [/quote]

If I was using them as a reason to base my decision to try recover....then yes, I would.

No offence taken, but it was a serious question. And it wasn't directed to you, but you certainly welcome to your opinion.

I think that perhaps sexual dysfunction could lead to one spouse not being particularly happy in a marriage, especially if SF was a very high need. But this is off topic.

Back to why children are a cop-out and shouldn't be considered when pondering reconciliation.

That's exactly what I am attempting to argue with this example.

I hate Woody Allen.

People divorce because of sexual dysfunction. That's a fact.

If you would follow the example fully introvert I believe you cannot make the 'radical honesty' exclude you from telling your child based on your earlier comment about radical honesty.

Father to son " Son I'm staying married to mommy for you even though she can't have sex with me for medical reasons"

Not something a child should know.

I can understand sexual dysfunction as a step leading to other issues that could lead to divorce. But if there is a jack@$$ out there that would actually divorce for this reason alone, then the real reason for the divorce is that daddy is a jack@$$! Honestly, there are ways to achieve sexual fulfillment despite a variety of medical dysfunctions if that is a particularly important EN.

When I hear something like this, I am reminded of history. Until the last couple centuries, arranged marriages were more common than not. One did not always expect happiness in a marriage. One expected companionship, even friendship, and working together toward a common goal. Many times, they did grow to love one another as they spent enough time together to see the other person's strengths. But they did not commonly expect to walk away from that marriage just because they didn't get prince charming or Lady Godiva.

What's the difference today? Entitlement. This new phenomenon that we are entitled to happiness, like it's due to us, or something. Ask any manager of 20-somethings who they want to work for them, and they'll tell you anyone over the age of 30 to 40. Why? Because this generation has grown up with the notion that they are supposed to get what they want. That somehow, society owes it to them. That, if they don't get promoted within 2 years, they'll quit.

More and more, people are learning to abrogate their responsibilities and seek out their own happiness at the expense of others; and it's showing up in the marriages and the children, as people walk away from marriages that could have been saved, if the two weren't expecting so much for so little work.

I don't disagree with you but it happens.

Although, I wouldn't word it the same way you did, I would tell the child. Not because of the reasoning of the sexual dysfunction, but becasue the child has a right to know that they are the reason for trying to recover. You keep trying to base this on sexual dysfunction...the reason for the marital problems is a moot point to the child...the child being used for recovery is not a moot point to them.

Sure, the H may be a jerk . . . but no more so than a wife that leaves her husband only because he refuses to work . . . or gambles all the money away . . . or doesn't bathe, or won't ever talk to her . . or is controlling . . . or . . .

People get to define what needs are important to them. To some SF is the be-all end-all. Others it is conversation or financial support.

Actually the reason for the marital problems is critical to the child. Children tend to blame themselves. They need to know they are not responsible for what it happening to them. The only way to truly understand this is to know what exactly IS responsible for it.

As far as being "used" for recovery, I don't think that's actually how the dynamic works. A couple may attempt recovery BECAUSE of the children, but I don't see how they would USE the child to achieve recovery. Children do know their parents are together only because of them - whether you tell them or not. It's not an ideal situation but what broken/damaged home is? I agree with whoever said that it does demonstrate to them how important they are to their parents(think it was Melodylane but not sure). Even younger children will still wish their parents back together regardless of how bad family life was before the breakup. They will appreciate this.

I agree completely. But you wouldn't hesitate to tell your child you are leaving because of mom/dad's gambling or unemployment either and that was the point of discussion.

I believe it is referred to as Generation X, born between 1965 and 1980.

They are all about "me".

Next group coming up is even worse. Generation Y.

Born between 1980 and 1994. This group is the "why" group. Why can't I have everything I want at the expense of everyone BUT me?


I truly believe that if BOTH parents continue in the marriage for the sake of the children, they will make it work because they are working toward a common goal.

If only one of them stays for the children it is going to fall flat.

When only one parent behaves as they should and is "committed" to the marriage, it screams dysfuntion. The kids will surely pick up on this.

The woman that stays for the children, while her H drinks irresponsibly, is financially irresponsible, and whores around town, is giving the impression that these are normal things.

Daughters don't need to be a witness to this because they will choose these types of men for their own husbands.

Sons do not need to witness it because they will grow up thinking that is proper behavior for a man.

These kids will NEVER be marriage material for anyone else, and the cycle continues with them.

You can reverse it and talk of the man that stays for the children while his Wife behaves in that manner.

It isn't a question that can be answered in black and white.

committed

now this is the most ridiculous comment yet on this thread. Comparing a medical condition (and divorcing someone for that) to a bum or degenerate gambler is off the charts stupid.

I appreciate your honesty. As a father, I completely disagree with you. But, that's why there called opinions.

I disagree with the thought that they are being 'used'. They are a result of the marriage. They should be 'considered' when the marriage faces disolution. As medc said, children have this habit of taking blame. Putting them in that position is unfair and devoid of love.

No, the point of the discussion was radical honesty including children.

Edit - And a T/J at that. Sorry I brought that example.

Me too.

I don't think the use of word 'use' is appropriate either.

Unless, the WS "uses" the children as a way to guilt the BS into staying in a marriage where infidelity is running rampant.

They don't want to do their part...they just want someone else to do the heavy lifting..but it's all for the kids dontcha know.

committed

I disagree with your assesment of what "devoid of love" to someone is.

Children more often than not know what is going on...more than adults like to think they do. It is very naive and irresponsible of an adult to think that they can be in an unhappy marriage and hide it from children. Like I've said before...children are not idiots...they know when their parents are not happy in marriage. And trying to dupe them, and hiding the fact of the matter is going to make them think they are responsible (and blame themselves) more than if you were honest with them...that is devoid of love....imho.

edit:

honesty is NEVER a bad policy...even with children. I don't have to be a parent to know this....I was a child once.

Introvert:

You waded into some deep water here.

When I read your (paraphased) quote about "Kids, Houses and dogs" I had the same reaction as some of the others.

I've buried three dogs in the backyard. I wouldn't be able to stand in the funeral home for my son.....

TWO totally different things.

To your original point: "Should you stay for your children?"

Whatever it takes to recover your M if it should be. If "staying for the children" works, then so be it. Each M is different and each recovey and reasons for it as well. But "staying for the children" is a very significant factor. But NOT the only one. Fake it till you make it, I say.

For example, Flamingo was going to stay until DS gradded from HS and then she was GONE. She even had plans to deliver the Plan D papers at the actual graduation. Why then? Because she felt that the hardest part of raising children was over. And having a somewhat stable, safe enviornment for her child until then was more important long term then subjecting our son to the drama/trauma of Divorce.

And like C_N states, I stayed because I DID want as much time as possible with my son. Was I shortchanging him as well, earlier in my M? Certainly. But I wanted as much time as possible, and staying in the M for my child was how I was going to get it.

Flamingo and I have a significantly better M now. My DS HAS A better home life now. He recognizes the differences in tone, manner and stress in the house.

As Mel stated, FIXING the DISCORD helped, not ending the M.

And about "sharing" with your children? If you had a child, you would never bring up a "sexual dysfuction" to your child.

Nor ever state to the children that you were staying together "because of them" Most children would internalize that to mean that there was something WRONG with them.

I'm here for my Son. I'm here for my W. But I would NEVER talk to my son about marital issues that had no relationship to him. I.E. a sexual dysfunction. I would however, discuss with him WHY we might be splitting up or divorcing. Or, if I was going to have surgery to "fix a sexual dysfuntion". That has a bearing on his life, and he needs to know in a age appropriate manner.

JMHO

LG

Yes, honesty is best. But not radical honesty. My teens knew my wife and I were in trouble. They now know we are well into recovery. They know we see an counselor weekly. They will never know the details. They don't care to. All they care is that mom & dad are home together loving them and eachother.

And having been a child, with a childs mind, does not give you ANY insight to parenthood.

I have another very close to home example I could bring up but after the last one I'm hesitant.

I did not stay in an unhappy marriage for my child. I decided to do the hardest thing I have ever done and work to improve my marriage so that my child could live in an intact home with a happy mom and dad who love each other.

I would not advocate staying married for the kids and being miserable. I did not realize earlier that that was your line of thinking.

When I said my daughter was my motivation to stay married, I should have also said that she is my motivation every day to be the best wife and mom, so that my family can be whole and so that my whole family can be happy.

Staying together for the kids does not mean staying miserable and doing nothing to improve yourself and your marriage.

Very well put, and I couldn't agree more. We've agreed on something today !! Quick...someone call someone !!!! lol j/k


edit: There may be some underlying issues concerning children...from my POV. I will hit on it a bit in my "recovery" thread as to not dwell on it here. Maybe you can help me out over there?

Quick alert the media we agreed...LOL

lol...Larry King here we come.


I've updated my recovery thread...maybe you can have a look and lend your insight. Between this thread, and nosing around the "resentment" thread.....I had a revelation about something and could use some advice over there.

Anyone else with some insight I'd love to hear from you as well.

Thanks.

Are you gonna make me read another 18 page thread !

lol. Sumthin' tells me I ain't gunna make you do anythin' iam....lol.

I know this is long overdue (I have read this thread for the first time this morning) but I need to say this:

The above quote was very shocking and sad for me to read… I can’t imagine how a person can view a precious child on the same level (or same category) as a pet, house or finances…as an “outside attachment” or “third party”… unbelievable… I child is a GIFT and MIRACLE from God and if the child is biological, it’s the spouses own FLESH and BLOOD and a God-given “product” of the marital union. It’s a gift to both the parents and to the marriage and therefore an integral part of the parents and the marriage. It’s what parent do or fail to do after they have received this precious gift, that will determine how things will develop.

Introvert, I’m not yet a parent myself but a will be in 7 month’s time (after almost 12 years of infertility in our marriage). This is the MOST precious gift we’ve ever received, but with it will also come huge responsibility (and I’m thoroughly aware of that). A child need to be taken care of in so many ways…physically, emotionally, spiritually, mentally etc…and it will NEVER be on the same level as responsibilities for a house, pet or whatever. Therefore the decision to divorce or not (as ANY other big decisions for that matter) must be taken in a much more serious light because those decisions will have a direct and life-altering impact on the child/children as well…and God will always keep us responsible for those children and the effect our choices/behavior have on them.

IMO divorce must be the last option e.g. after everything has been done to try and reconcile the parents and recover the M. Decisions must always be taken with the best interest of the children at heart and not for any other self-serving reasons. Obviously it’s in children’s best interest if the parents can reconcile/recover and grow up in a happy/recovered M with parents who love and respect each other, but if it’s not possible for whatever reason, a divorce might be the last resort in the children's best interest (depending on the situation). Sometimes one parent is totally dysfunctional and unwilling to change/seek help, and then separation/divorce might be the last resort in the children’s best interest. However, this is a decision that should always be the last resort and never taken lightly.

JMHO

This is a topic best explored on surviving divorce board as there are many people here thrust in to a divorce situation with children that they do not desire at this time....

and it's very painful here

I am no advocate for saving every marriage...

but I am also no advocate for dishonesty about the effects of divorce....

your line about knowing plenty of people who have divorced and remarried with children are just fine...is all part of the package that the divorce advocates want us to believe....

just google the effects of divorce on children...

and see the clinical studies that statistically show differently...
children of a divorce are much much statistically higher for lots of not so good things...

and if you wonder why the divorce rate is so hight...is because generationally divorce begets divorce begets divorce...it is a legacy being passed on and on...


fatal errors that are made is lots of support DURING the divorce...then nothing post divorce...

fatal errors we make are applying adult thought processes to children completely denying the natural stages of human developement....

fatal errors.... that happy parents make happy children...

also imagine telling an adult who is attempting to date/marry a divorced person that to have a relationship with their new found 'love'...they can only see them every wednesday night and every other weekend...oh yeah every other holiday

see how acceptable those restrictions would be to a grown up to establish and maintain a deep relationship with a partner...

yet we do it to children alllll the time..
go figure we just tie it up with a pretty bow and call them resilient....

my most favorite judgement in a divorce settlement from a wise judge..

children got the home...
parents got to split living there....
pretty good for the kids in maintaining all their known surroundings...

for the factual statistic effects of divorce ..just hit the google button...

ark

I am not comparing a child to a dog or house. I admit that the post sems that way, and I am guilty of wording it wrong, and probably leading people to believe that is what I meant, but as I have repeatedly stated...that was not my intention. Why do people here ignore the fact that I have repeatedly stated that my intention was not to make a comparison in the way you are claiming? I have stated it over and over...but nobody reads those posts...just the one in question. Why is that? It's like people have this uncanny ability to ignore my posts that repeatedly state this.....why?

To sum up what my intent in the original post...

It was meant to mean that I don't believe children should be the reason for wanting to stay in a marriage, because of the fact that a marriage is a bond between 2 people. And, IMO, ANY "thing" or "person" outside of those very 2 people should not be used (for the lack of a better word) in aiding those 2 people love each other and be happy again. This is exactly why people in an unhappy marriage shoud NOT have children...because it doesn't fix the problem. If saying "I'm just staying for the kids" was the be all end all of fixing marriages, then childless couples everywhere could just have kids to create a "bond", then presto....problem solved. Doesn't work that way.

If staying in it for the children eventually aides in solving your marriage problems, then kudos to you for making that work...and, I now know of some examples of that happening from people here. But, those seem like people that have their plans in action and goals of reconciling in mind. I think it's likely that the couples with children who made the decision to work on their marital problems...and succeeded, most likely would have succeeded even if they had not had children. I think it is just as likely that someone who says "I'm in it for the kids" is probably someone who does not have a plan of action to solve the marital problems, other than the "bond" that they feel the child has created with their spouse for them, and is most likely not going to succeed. JMO.

funny you say this. <y experience has been the complete opposite. The fact that my dad stayed with such a horrible person and did NOT divorce her has certainly contributed to the divorce plague touching 100% of their children. Nothing in my life would have meant more than to have my dad send that woman packing...BUT...he stayed for the kids sake.

Obviously children do best in a HAPPY home with both parents. Absent a happy home, they would be better off dealing with the divorce.

As for the statistics, there are an equal number of studies that say for the most part, divorced kids fare almost as well as not. And I strongly believe (and there is really no way to prove or disprove this) that it isn't the divorce that causes these kids problems...it is the carnage they had to witness BEFORE the proper decision to divorce was made. See, even if my dad had divorced my "mother"...the years of poor treatment by her still would have left their mark. And blindly any problems we had later on in life could be twisted/manipulated to have arisen as a result of the divorce...when it would have been the divorce that saved us from FURTHER problems.

In most cases, the people in the marriage ARE happy when they decide to have children. It's when they become unhappy later, like when one is having an affair, that the M falls apart.

There is a better word than "use". Nobody uses their children to recover their marriage. However, the existance of these children is a HUGE factor in the decision to attempt recovery. Responsibility and love for your children are motivation enough to die for. Many parents will choose to stay in a situation that is toxic to them but beneficial to their children - for their children's sake.

Once you have made the decision to stay, then it only makes sense to make the best of it. Perhaps it's the first step of "fake it til you make it". Or perhaps it's just a coping mechanism when you realize how many years you need to stay for your children's benefit. Either way, even if you absolutely HATE your WS, you will do everything you can to create a loving environment for your children. And since it's rarely that clear, chances are you do have an underlying desire to truly reconcile.

I have never said that divorces aren't hard on children. Why are you insinuating that I'm saying that? I have done research on divorce effects on children...I have "hit the google button" (thanks for the sincere advice...lol). Divorce sucks for everyone involved...you think I'm saying otherwise?

You've stated that you're not advocating saving every marriage...well so am I. That's one thing we can agree on, and why this thread was sarted. At no time did I ever say that divorce is the best option for all marriages...but it is for some...children or not. You just said it yourself.

Thanks for the google hint.

I would like to give my take on this statement. I don't think that it is as simple as "divorce begets divorce begets divorce etc...

Divorce is the "product" of an unhealthy marriage. The consideration of divorce is something that in essence people contimplate when they find themselves married to someone who they deem to be unhealthy for them. Divorce does not beget divorce.....making unwise choices to marry people that are wrong for you is something that happens inherently...that is what gets passed on. Children from all over from every generation will see there mother's married to a drunken, abusive father...but, then 10 years later marry a drunken abusive husband (just an example). That, I believe, is the legacy that needs to be broken. And, in that situation...and many, many others, "staying for the kids" is just doing all you can do to ensure that the kid will follow the same path of destruction.

yes, yes, yes...and frequently this is because of what is modeled at home...when the parents stay together for the kids.

I am ll for parents WORKING THROUGH their problems and staying together. BUT, if they find themselves unable to have a happy home...I say give the kids a break and get a divorce. BUT...put forth a BEST effort first.

medc that's definitely sad...

most likely if your dad had left....he would not have gotten custody of you so sending her packing back in those days..usually meant legally that the kids went with her as well...

his leaving may have put you guys on the front line of her

who knows...certainly not me...

lets face it there are those that take the effects of divorce on children lightly...

those most likely are not "here' on this site...

there are those that treat children like adults....
especially active WS who just believe the whole world revolves around them and their happiness....


I believe if you choose to stay till the kids are eighteen....ie staying for the kids.....
then you better not be staying with a crappy spouse...and better come up with a plan to make it a 'good' as it can be...
Or
realize you are staying because the alternative of exposing the kids one on one to a crappy spouse is much more dangerous than that of divorce.....

I don't see those things as copouts but as great acts of sacrifice....not to be taken a second longer once the kids are adults....

Also I am not sure that happiness in the most important factor...
it might be but I'm not sure about that..

I have know some happy drug addict raising kids...and the kids don't want them happy they want an adult in the home to guide them

I think the happiness issue....some of that's societial....

look at this fact ameirican women will state on surveys that they ....
married love like admire whatever the word you want to use in the survey....that they
value their spouses ability to make them laugh....

to some countries....
the ability to make one laugh is a very very foreign thought to be applied to a trait in a spouse.....
and is valueless......

that's a very American value....

so children being raised in a happy home...may not be as valueable as being raised in a stable consistant home...

with concrete rules, expectations, and consequences....children use boundaries to learn.....
and when those boundaries are not present or cloudy based on which parent they are with at the time..it does effect them..

chaos is the biggest detriment to children..

and you being in law have seen chaos in homes I am sure that make you want to weep.....

if you can minimize the chaos more importantly than inserting happy people ....
the outcome for the children is more favorable....perhaps...

I don't have the answers...,

I wish the laws were more favorable for what right for the children..........
stabiltiy wise.

ark

This is true but only partially. It is also a product of breaking your vows - for better or for worse and til death do us part. In cultures where divorce isn't allowed, couples are forced to figure out a solution to their problems. I'm not saying this is right either - there are circumstances where divorce IS the best solution - but I believe people do divorce more now because they have learned that this is how to solve marital problems. In essence, divorce does beget divorce.

Ark...I can say without any doubt...if he had divorced, we would have been with him. My mom would certainly have given up the custody for her freedom. That is why, after my dad passed four years ago that 3 out her 4 children no longer speak to her.

I agree with much of the rest of your post. I just thinkt hat along with every other "statistic" out there...both sides of this debate can make it appear any way they choose. I KNOW for me and mine, that we would have been better off being raised by a single dad than living in an unhealthy and unhappy enviroment. Divorce would have helped by removing the cancer at an earlier stage.


Me too!

No, they're not. While divorce may not be permitted...working together and finding solutions is not mandated. People live in fear, anguish, unhappiness year after year in these cases. There is no way to force a couple to find a resolution to their problems....even while you are forcing them to remain together. It would be great if they were forced to do this...but it just isn't possible.

Agree 100%

medc..

the studies that I do have faith in are the objective longitudal ones...\


most come from the bigger medical universities/children hospitals....
that have the resources and the laws of governing to do objective studies....

I have worked inpatient acute pscyh care for peds and adolescents.....
and have no doubt that their information gathering techniques are done to figure out how to best meet the needs of children and decrease the need for acute care....in the present and future

and best meet the needs of children in all settings....

it's my experience....

and you and I both know that while it is without a doubt a significant factor as to why this site exists...
people do very very bad choices in spouses in the first place...
ands then compound it by having children.....


but that horse is way way out of the barn by the time they get here.....

ark

This is EXACTLY why I was motivated to try to work things out with WW. THIS was my reason to be willing to forgive her and save our marriage.

I'm living the aftermath of not working it out and exactly what Mindshare is describing.

I spend a fraction of the time with my kids that I could spend if I had been able to make things work with exww. The kids themselves strongly desire and express their desire to have mom and dad together at their big events. My daughter last night wanted mom to join us at dad's birthday party for her brothers. Her 6 year old mind doesn't understand that there have been serious consequences to the divorce and that not all is well with the people she loves the deepest.

Seeing this is heartbreaking because her innocense is showing. Her mind says, "Why can't mommy come to my party at daddy's house? Why can't daddy hang out at mommy's house with grandma and grandpa?"

Kids are innocent and don't understand the reality grown ups live in. It's sad to see that innocense smack face first into the reality. Seeing those broken hearts in the people you love most in this world is motivation enough to endure any personal unhappiness for their sake.

I feel for you pom. It can't be fun to go through any of that. Sorry dude. And, please forgive my questions...they are asked without malice...I swear.

I will ask the question though...why can't their mom be involved in the party at your house? And, do you hold the divorce responsible for not being able to co-exist with xww?

Your last sentence seems a little strange to me though...I'm not sure how you enduring personal unhappiness would help for the their sake...would they not see you are unhappy whether their mom was home or not?

I won't claim to be an expert at the causes of a child's broken heart, but how have you come to the conclusion that their hearts would be better served if the divorce didn't happen?...and I ask this with complete sincerity....I literally don't know, and would like your input. Thanks.

I think "staying for the kids" is a cop-out if the spouses involved continue with unhealthy patterns of behavior while using their "bad M" as excuse not to have to change on an individual level. Also,staying for the kids becomes a cop-out in situations of co-dependency. The co-dependent spouse will tolerate physical, emotional, or even SA and say it's "for the kids" instead of getting self and kids away from a horrible, destructive situation.


For the many dads who are willing to stay, I think they believe it's a safety issue for their kids. I mean, if a mom can diss her M and go off with another man,how does he as a father ever feel safe that she'll make good choices where men are concerned and not bring a man that would harm his kids into their lives? Plus, there's a financial aspect, if he's busy working to support his children in 2 different households (dad's plus mom's) to keep them out of poverty,then he won't get to spend time with his kids. It's easier for him as a father to have his wee ones under his roof. And in many states, that means staying with a WW to do so because the *mom* is given preferential treatment. This is what many guys I know who've stayed have said.

Questions like why can't mom come to dad's for a party and whether enduring personal unhappiness is best for a child are only relevent to specific situations. Pomdbd3 has his answer in his situation. But they are all different. I am divorcing because my Wstbx is filing. I was never asked, nor given an option - I was just told. (it was my choice to abandon plan A and not to pursue recovery but it was never my choice to divorce) I could have all the purest intentions in the world but the decision to divorce does not have to be agreed upon by both parties. If WstbxH and OW have a party for DS at their house, I am not welcome. My DS is old enough to understand but not everyone's child is. They have already done this to OWH with his DD.

Regarding personal unhappiness, events leading to the prospect divorce are going to or have already caused serious damage to the child. A parent may endure personal unhappines as a form of damage control. No, it's not ideal but in some cases it is better for the children. Not all, but some. Each situation is different.

well put tabby...

these ponderings here on "this" site...are very painful to many,,.

people and divorce on this site are usually NOT born of two grownups making decisions with peoples/children best interest in mind...but made on selfish whims involving third party interlopers....

what BS wouldn't give their soul to have the opportunity to make informed choices about their lives and childrens long before an affair partner/betrayal is also thrown in to the mix

people who say I am staying for the kids have a thousand reasons for doing so...each one personal...

and each one painful

the choice to force one childrens in to a false visiting relationship with the "new" mom or dad...all in the name of parents happiness....vs staying put for the kids...e

the belief that children will embrace the affair partner...etc etc etc.

the direct selfish acts of the affair prior to discovery that hinge on abuse....

and the thrust to force those children in to integrating their lives with the very person that put their emotional and financial well being at great risk...

uggghhhhhh

I don't think the idea of staying for the kids even when the mantra that one wouldn't stay if children weren't involved is so very black and white....and an idea to be out like that of the do-do bird....

ark